3DOP

Hey Jesse. It ain't 1980 anymore. These new priests are okay. I want to be a part of it. I am at my parish church a mile away. The Fraternity is 10 miles. The Immaculata is a half mile. I like the old Mass better. But the New Mass is not intrinsically irreverent. And I want to support the new priests. Ad orientam. Kyrie. Sanctus. Agnus Dei. Sometimes. Not always. They appreciate the old people who were young in 1980 who aren't used to it and a little uncomfortable. Slow, patient change. I think we are a happy parish. A surprising number of former Society folk. They are trickling this way. Kneelers for communion. Sunday Vespers. 24/7 Eucharistic adoration. No unnecessary extraordinary ministers trying to make eye contact. Phasing out the altar girls. Music is still mediocre, but moving the right way.

Hey webbles. I just had a thought. The SSPX are good competition for you guys as to the best theory for the Great Apostasy. They are your fellow restorationists!

I need to remember that. Thank you.

Hi webbles. SSPX priests have no jurisdiction from their bishop to witness marriages. For a Catholic Marriage to be sacramentally valid requires at least tacit permission from the bishop of the place. When a priest enters a diocese other than his own, it is routine to obtain permission from the local bishop to witness the marriage of a family member, to say Mass, or to hear confessions. The SSPX bypass this ancient law of the Church which recognizes the jurisdictional authority of local bishops. Priests are not to minister the sacraments independently of a bishop. The state would recognize the couple as married, but the Church would not. Technically, the Church could not recognize the first marriage and so the couple would need to "remarry" according to church law. An invalid confession would mean that the priest could not grant absolution because of the absence of any connection with the bishop. When I left the SSPX, I did my best to remember the most serious sins that I had confessed invalidly in the SSPX. Absolution refers to the words and gestures of the priest in his office of forgiving sins. Anyone can baptize with the right form (words), matter (water) and the very broad intention (to do what the Church does). The Eucharist is valid but to receive communion from someone who does not recognize episcopal authority is inappropriate. Communion is literally a sign of union with all who receive. We are not in union with those who are not in the right relationship to our bishops and should not ordinarily receive communion with them, nor I suppose, they with us. Most of these possible occasions would be when visiting for weddings and funerals. I still go to the SSPX to show my interest in a big event for my grandchildren like their First Communion, but don't receive communion. When one of my daughters was married while I was in the SSPX I went to the wedding, of course, but didn't receive communion. The only way for a priest to lawfully exercise faculties without jurisdiction from a local bishop would be in the case of an emergency. Hearing the confessions of people who are in danger of death, with no time to see a priest associated with the bishop. The SSPX admit that they have no jurisdiction. Neither their priests, nor their bishops. They argue that there is an emergency in the Church which gives them authority to bypass the local bishops where they are ministering. I appreciate your interest. Good questions. 3DOP

Question one: Yes. But it should be remembered that the schismatic act itself, even if it was done in secret, would bring the same result. Nobody except the willing participants experience the automatic condemnation. Question two: No. I don't believe that many of those laypeople affiliated with the Society fully understand what is happening. Or the bishops and priests either. There are good hearts and good will mixed with scandal and misplaced blame. There will be a continued trickle of souls seeing the light. We can hope for the souls of the excommunicated. Not all ignorance of truth is culpable. Our God is just, good, and loving. Let God judge. Question Three: I would answer in the negative. There is one SSPX chapel between where I live in Kansas and the next priory in Idaho. It seems omnipresent almost here in St Marys, KS. But most Catholics have never even heard of the SSPX. Rightly so. The Church is moving on. There are not even a million lay people associated with the Society. There are very encouraging signs that true tradition is once more gaining traction in the Church which is obedient to the successor of St. Peter. My opinions only...

“The ‘modernist church’ is a desert that kills everything that it touches,” Goldade said at a service after the ordinations. (from CNN) The Society makes sweeping statements like Bp. Goldade above. The New Mass characterized as "fatal poison" is another one of them. The Society admits that there is nothing heretical in the New Mass. Certain truths that they say are missing are why it is not heretical, and is valid, but still poison. We know that many truths about the Eucharist developed over centuries and were probably missing from the earliest liturgies. I suspect that if the same standards were applied to the First Mass of Christ on Holy Thursday and the first liturgies of the Apostles, that they too, might be poisonous. Are we sure that these early liturgies listed all the articles of sacramental theology needed to avoid turning a valid Eucharist into deadly poison? What about all the other valid liturgies of the East that have never been scrutinized by the Society? Can we be sure that they are not poison?

My post was almost finished when I must have been behaving like a robot because I had to prove that I was not. When I came back, my reply was gone. So disheartening. Short answer. Yes. I believe and hope that is correct. Maybe later I can try to recover my thoughts.

Amazing. I don't follow Anthony. I get him on my feed now and then. But I agree with what he points out that is wrong. I will try to answer tomorrow. You have to go to work? Maybe you are a Euro or Australio? I always worked crazy American hours. Retired now. I like sleeping in the dark. I like being awake in the daytime. I might have worked as much in the dark as I did in the light. For years, I used to yearn for the sun to come up. I still get angry when Congress throws night workers like I was an extra unnatural hour of dark every March. The sun was gradually coming back at an increasing pace after winter. How cool. I love the sun. I have missed you. Good to see you. American Congress says: Oh let's just send them back to January...abruptly...never mind how it screws them up and the cows on the dairy...it saves 💰 🤑 💸.

I might just read him what you wrote and try to make him feel bad for never popping in!

Zealously Striving??? This is great, a Latter-day Saint with an interest AND some knowledge about contemporary Catholic issues. Thank you for your reply to my thoughts about whether or not this event today presents a "troubling scenario", presumably to Catholics. I had a little concern that the subject might fail to meet the bar of qualification for General Discussions, because I expected about zero interest from non-Catholics. Question 1) I try, without always succeeding, to not to tell people my thoughts until I am asked. If the SSPX asked me, I could truthfully say that in my opinion "the traditionalist dioceses and orders...are experiencing the most growth and ordaining the most new clerics." But I would know ahead of time that this would not be acknowledged by the SSPX. These same dioceses and religious orders that are thriving would not be acceptable as being traditional by the SSPX. The reason is that these traditionalists, as you and I would label them are infected with errors of Vatican II, and teach that one may fulfill their obligations for Sunday worship at a liturgy that is described as "fatal poison." Question 2) I did not anticipate anyone here objecting to my comments above as implying that I might disapprove of being "stuck in the past". In the interest of brevity, I focussed only on the Society's resistance to legitimate progress in the Church in the form of an Ecumenical Council. I am happy to say that the Church and her members must always be "stuck in the past". Tradition means to pass on what we have received. It is never permissible to dismiss once defined dogma in the interest of progress alone. Pope Benedict XVI used the expression, "hermeneutic of continuity", to describe the relationship that exists between the past and the future. The Church may only be said to have taught corruption, if she claims to have discovered new insights, without a demonstration of how this claim of a new insight has a firm footing in the past. We cannot change what has been taught before, but we can and must have proper developmental insight into the mysteries of our faith. This is how Church doctrine has always advanced through the centuries beginning with the Second Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325 AD. ------ I am delighted to see a Latter-day Saint who has apparent sympathy with the situation of the Society of St. Pius X like I do. No one is perfect, but they are mostly wonderful people who enjoy a beautifully celebrated liturgy by priests who are wise in the ways of Catholic Tradition except for one thing. It is not Catholic Tradition to resist the teaching of an Ecumenical Council that six consecutive popes have approved. They could do so much more good for the Church if they were not so obstinate. They deplore practices that more and more Catholics are starting to deplore. The weapon against ugly churches, removal of beautiful statuary, guitar Masses, and other abuses is ironically, the instructions given in Vatican II on rules about beauty and truth in the Sanctuary. The weapon against "ecumaniacal" craziness, where Catholic representatives behave and act like all religions are equal is found in the teaching of Vatican II on our relations with other churches. I was glad to see your questions, ZS. I hope I have managed to shared a little more enthusiasm in this post for remaining rooted in the past while also moving forward through time. Time, past and present, provide the tension through which good and positive progress is made in developing the deposit of the faith. Do not hesitate to ask if you have any further questions. It seems important to me that friendly non-Catholics might understand a little of what has been happening in the Catholic Church for the last 60 years. Regards, Rory

Damien! How are you? I was associated with the Society for 18 years until I became convinced they were mistaken about their interpretation of events in the Church that followed the Second Vatican Council. So for personal reasons, I greatly regret that it appears there will be an extension of the schism. I have family, friends, and priests here in America who I've known and love that are affected by it. That in turn affects me. As time goes on, it will have to be recognized that Archbishop LeFebvre's vision 38 years ago when he consecrated four bishops was short-sighted. He always had faith that Rome would soon come to its senses so to speak, renouncing the Council and abrogating the New Mass. He didn't understand that God was moving the Church forward. The Church is not merely universal geographically, but also chronologically. She will always be growing and developing until her time is up. Her movement is ordinarily so slow that in a lifetime, it is barely observable. Our era is experiencing growing pains. But the phenomenon itself should not be troubling to any faithful Catholic. This morning I heard a podcast where a British theologian explained the problem with "archaeologism". This is the idea that the Church can be static, never changing after a certain point. I doubt that LeFebvre would have accepted the label, but it seems apt to me. The aged Archbishop always justified his illicit actions by pointing out that that he was merely doing what he had always done, only before the Church commended him, and in his later years condemned him. I hope you are doing well Damien. It is good to hear from you. God bless you, Rory

It seems that according to Dr. Peterson, the words of the Council can be understood in a way that is compatible with LDS teaching. You quoted and bolded what Eusebius explained as the ideas that the Council intended to convey by the word homoousion as "nothing else is intended, than that the Son of God has no similitude with created beings, but resembles in all things the Father only, by whom he was begotten, and that he is of no other substance or essence than that of the Father." The Council held that the Father is uncreated and that the Son received the uncreated nature of the Father. It would make sense that this was the "project it [the council] represents", since its purpose was to oppose an heresy which had arisen which taught that the Son of the Father's divine nature was created. Euesebius' description isn't concerned with the nature of the Son after the Incarnation. But that question will be raised later. Nicea was in 325 AD. After another century and a quarter the Council of Chalcedon will speak of Christ's created human nature at the Incarnation. Incidentally, that council uses that same word of infamy, homoousion, to describe how Christ has the same one being, or substance as any other human being. First came attacks on the one divine nature followed by attacks on the one human nature of Christ. "...with one accord we confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in human nature, truly God and truly the same with a rational soul and a body truly man, consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, consubstantial with us according to human nature..." ---The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Thirtieth Edition, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, Mo., (1957), p.60, (The Council of Chalcedon, 451 A.D.) I am sure we will find an impasse at some point. But I believe that we can move beyond homoousion and both of these councils.

Calm. Hi. I tried to reply to this yesterday. Oh Calm, I would have thought that the process would be natural as you describe. I see I gave the opposite impression. Allow me to retract the "inch closer" clause which seemed to be the culprit. Until I read your second paragraph I was beginning to believe that there is nothing in the Standard Works which would prevent an LDS in good standing from professing faith in the Trinity, properly understood, of the Council of Nicea. Since becoming Catholic I have not studied much that is either pro-LDS or anti-LDS. You probably remember our friend David Waltz from years ago. He is still reading your stuff. He called me up Saturday and wanted to talk about some new book about the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Was it written by the actor who played MacGyver on TV years ago? Anyway, I talked about this thread to Dave. He still maintains that LDS could subscribe to the Nicene Creed, compatibly with Latter-day Revelation. I will take your word for it calm that this would be impossible. I am ever hopeful and optimistic, but accept your word of caution. I tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to get him to take a peek at the thread, hoping that he might repeat his claims from years ago. I would not know where to begin. God bless you. 3DOP

Hi Go, You are right. LDS have a current belief that only ordained priests may carry out baptisms. My church goes the opposite direction. However, am thinking that it wasn't until at least the 4th Century before my church hashed it out! Don't we need to allow for time to similarly grow and development in such a young church as the LDS? But we are moving a little far from the fruitful discussion subject. I find it encouraging that there are LDS here who are recognizing that reliance on canonical revelation exclusively allows them to inch closer to classical theology as regards the Godhead. Through your thread I learn how extra canonical data is perhaps the primary source for the huge gap that seemed to have existed between us. The gap now narrows. To rephrase my original question slightly since you are non-LDS: As a non-LDS, can you see how they can get away from the King Follett Discourse? I mentioned how I was pleased to discover that the Latter-day Saints have more freedom than I had supposed. They can back away from rigidity regarding what have been unofficial "teachings", mere speculations, on the Godhead. But what do you see from the outside as a non-LDS? -------off topic: Out of curiosity, since you bring it up, in what century did your church begin to believe that the minister of baptism need not be ordained?

Hi GoCeltics. So look at the way the thread has gone. As an LDS can you see that you can get away from the King Follett Discourse? Think about how the Restoration is still less than 200 years old. You seem to see some problems at General Conference with how LDS leadership still misunderstands that which they seem obliged to oppose. Not necessarily GoCeltics. LDS have more freedom to think it all over. I have been here for a long time as a Catholic. I only knew what LDS said they believed about the Godhead. I have proceded as though these beliefs found significant support in the LDS Standard Works. But if most of this stuff about God as a more evolved human comes from non-canonical sources, it seems from the outside like a game changer. Going with your canon apart from a King Follet Discourse, it seems like you could not be excluded from the Christian family! My church would have to accept your baptisms. I would be happy for that to be so. But what do you see from the inside, as a Latter-day Saint?

So...without immediately interacting with the latest remarks, I have been wondering what you think @GoCeltics since you started this whole thread. I don't want to discourage you from being LDS unless you are veering off on a course to Rome(!), which seems premature. You are still okay as LDS? I am thinking of another thread that might interest you. Unless you are still watching here. Let us know where you are on this. What are your thoughts?

As an LDS, I could handle a blip in history where LDS acted like the King Follett Discourse is canonical. My problem comes if because of a non-canonical exhortation, the Restored Church claims evidence of apostasy in the early church because, without the KFD (!), the early church developed beliefs about the Godhead which are close to what early LDS believed before the KFD. There might be other apostasy arguments to be examined. But if LDS are allowed to hold to beliefs in their early days that seem close to Nicene theology, then how could Nicea be used against the early church as evidence of apostasy? There are still questions about priesthood authority and the need for Apostles. But could we maybe stop worrying about over hellenized Christians who met at Nicea missing digits and eyeballs because they were tortured for their faith in Plato? LDS should respect and honor them for their sacrifices for Jesus even with doubt about their precise teachings. In any event, the Restored Church will eventually end up closer to Nicea than that sketchy funeral oration. LDS have been inferring to me for almost thirty years that bad and corrupt bishops who met at Nicea suffered horrendous tortures in the Diocletian persecution in the hope of undermining Christ's Gospel for Greek philosophy at some future they could not have foreseen. I can't believe that. Eventually that false history is going to be laid to rest by the LDS too. In less than two centuries I should think.

Longview, hello. Thumbs up. So much of the Old Testament is gradual mitigation (your word). We don't have to defend everything in it as Christians. Nor should we advocate everything in it. I submit that knowledge of revelation is still not fully understood. But you are LDS. Your own tradition calls for continuing revelation. There is parallel. Mine calls for continuing understanding. Some of these so called liberals read the Scriptures like Fundamentalists! Everything is literal. No contextual ideas about gradual light. We can't go from midnight to noon. And because of the liberal/fundamentalist approach to revelation they end up in unbelief. There is a middle way. Maybe, and even probably, I am being over optimistic about my interpretation about how we agree. My apologies if so. I am an agreeable fellow wherever I can see hope for agreement. For that matter, one like us (or me) cannot object to liberal objections to apparent slavery and genocide. We are on their side on the issue. But their fundamentalist understanding of Scripture makes them reject it. They are too simplistic.

Being non denomination sola scriptura, do you arrive at support for polygamy now? Or like virtually every Christian, do you acknowledge its toleration only in ancient times, the "times of ignorance which God winked at." You will have a hard time sharing a husband with your fellow wives with any Christians anywhere except the tiniest Sola Scriptura community today rosenotes. You might find some sick pud who welcomes you on the side without telling his wife. I hope you wouldn't want that kind of "husband".

Truth as being? Would that be that truth is what is, whether created or uncreated? I think your idea might differ from an axiom I have held as a definition of truth: "Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality." Would you maybe prefer this: "Enlightenment is the conformity of the mind to reality." In my axiom, truth seems to depend on a mind. But if truth is being, or reality, or what is, then what? "What is" is "out there" with or without a conforming mind. Am I understanding you?

The problem of "attributing things like genocide or slavery to God", by Christian commentators is the wrong solution to the biblical record. In my ever-developing opinion, a strong argument might be made in allowing for a view of God's revelation to man, in a methodical and gradual manner over the centuries. Jesus could have come and preached the Sermon on the Mount to Moses, but for reasons only to be guessed at, that revelation was many centuries away. In the meantime, God's people were sometimes acting in good conscience, while acting in ways that would be strictly prohibited by a Christian conscience today. The Holy Spirit (Ghost), continues to lead God's people into all truth. I doubt that this work is finished, but we see gradual acceptance of the implications of Christ's teachings, until today when many of the ethical actions of both Christians and ancient Israel might be considered forbidden today. We must make these judgments of exterior acts in the case of our distant fathers in the faith without judging their interior dispositions. We cannot expect ancient people to follow revelations and development of revelations that were only in their futures. With the development of God's fullest revelation to man, we must hold firm to believing in God's love for all of those created in His image. Only at the final judgment will we see and praise God for His wisdom and goodness when slain and slayer, slave and slaveholder, may in a glorious irony, embrace as one in God's heavenly kingdom forever. (I think I should perhaps start a thread on this concept of the Divine Pedagogy. That is, the way God has chosen to enlighten His people through the centuries.) 3DOP

Great! But please dissuade them by all possible means, for the child's sake to avoid naming the next one 3DOP. Hehe. Congratulations Tacenda and thanks for letting me know. I will say a little prayer for little Rory. God bless you too.

Very interesting Teancum. Do you think it is impossible that at a future time that the LDS could return to its primitive roots? The LDS Church is not 200 years old. The LDS correctly point out that creedal orthodoxy in the early church didn't arrive until Nicea. Few LDS even understand Nicene thought. It isn't so remotely different, nor certainly as ridiculous as many LDS have believed. The only major problem I would see, is that to return to its roots, the LDS would lose one of its arguments against the early church. Where would be the big Apostasy? Can you think of any other reasons why, like the early church, the LDS could not return to its earliest sources after, say, 300 years of existence? They could still plead a necessity of Apostles. Thanks, 3DOP

See you soon! Thanks InCognitus.

I am current! I didn't try my name. Thanks MorningStar...I am impatient and backwards about these things.