3DOP

Hi Teddy. Hi calm, and thanks for checking with the Catechism. Pope St. John Paul II did a long series of public conferences which touch on the subject under discussion. The teachings he made during his weekly Wednesday audiences later came to called The Theology of the Body. They have been transcribed and made in to book form. In his General Audience for December 2, 1981 he begins with a quotation from the Gospel of St. Mark, which has been titled The Resurrection and Theological Anthropology: "When they rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage" (Mk 12:25). These words have a key meaning for the theology of the body. Christ uttered them after having affirmed, in the conversation with the Sadducees, that the resurrection is in conformity with the power of the living God. All three Synoptic Gospels report the same statement...Essential for them all is the fact that, in the future resurrection, human beings, after having reacquired their bodies in the fullness of the perfection characteristic of the image and likeness of God--after having reacquired them in their masculinity and femininity--"neither marry nor are given in marriage". ---Pope John Paul II, The Theology of the Body, (1997), Daughters of St. Paul, Boston, MA, p. 238 Teddy, you wrote of the belief of Catholics: "...that there is no continuance of heterosexual sexual marriage and family life after the resurrection due to the fact that heaven is a unisex neuter world where gender is rendered obsolete and meaningless — it can only mean that the anti-traditional family LGBTQ advocates are going to win in the end and that they’re correct in their belief that the concept of gender is nothing more than a human construct. In other words, the LGBTQ activists are simply ahead of their time." This is not true as can be seen from what I bolded in the quote given above. A unisex and neuter world is not the reason why there is no continuance of "heterosexual sexual marriage". God created man male and female from the beginning and that distinction will last forever. One reason why Catholics and lots of Protestants would deny a continuance of the marriage state in eternity would be our interpretation of the Scriptures on the subject. The Saduccees thought they had a clever way of disproving the Resurrection from Scripture, and going back to the Mosaic law, noted the obligation of brothers marrying the wives of deceased brothers. The hypothetical illustration they gave is a little extreme, but it still illustrates a difficulty, if indeed there was marriage and procreation for eternity. Our Lord told them that they were ignorant of the Scriptures and the power of God, if they deny the Resurrection because of this apparent difficulty. Most Christians think that Christ neatly side stepped the entire "problem" by teaching them and us that there is nobody married in the next age. That is how we see it. Presumably, you explain these passages in a way that satisfy your beliefs as well.

Heh, InCog. to your question Well that's great. Neither of us make sense to each other! Heh. I appreciate your patience in answering! I believe "the present distress" refers to our times, a time of trial and travail, not intermingled hopefully with some joys and consolations, but never without sorrows and anxieties. It is not normal. We aren't made for death, and are surrounded by it here, including the knowledge that we ourselves have to go that way. Anyway, if my belief doesn't work for you, it doesn't change my esteem for you. No worries there. Words are great. I love them. But alas, it seems like this world is the Tower of Babel. I have to get some things done and have already spent 40 minutes replying. It is so hard not to give wrong impressions. God bless, Rory

Hi InCognitus. What if St. Paul's advice IS for a short-term and special circumstance? One might reasonably infer that he is referring to this mortal life. If so, the "present distress" in the context of eternity is truly short, and it lasts until the Second Coming of Christ.

Thanks Orthodox Christian. No offense taken. I thought of deleting the post, and should have. Too late now. I don't think it would be worth the time to explain how your reading of my poorly conceived post is understandable, but off the mark. Please accept my apologies.

OC, Rome will leave you alone. Filioque? The Eastern churches in union don't have to say it. It is still true without acknowledging the Son. The Father as the Fount, I am okay with you guys empasizing that. So apparently has been Rome. The Assumption vs. Dormition? Not much difference. I am Roman and think that story about the Apostles at Mary's grave is unlikely. But look east for that story. St. John of anywhere in the West? NO. Damascus. But you don't care that we can't have an ecumenical council, according to people on both sides? More on yours. When I say we need you? It is for the wide world. For a clear visible Oneness. These LDS see us as different, separate. Maybe you agree? LDS like you better. What comfort is there in that? They think we disbelieve in deification and you do. That's no victory for the kingdom. We both have valid Sacraments. Right? How can a church with valid Sacraments be apostate? You don't deny we are part of the One Church. Do you? Are our Sacraments invalid? So what brings you here? We can't for long be hashing all this out on this site that most of our hosts cannot understand very well. Salt Lake Mormonism forced me away from Reformed Evangelicalism in the early 90's. Salt Lake LDS is the most formidable and consistent. What makes for your interest? But anyway...I wouldn't like you to think we are desperate for you. I guess I thought you should want to present together a One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church with diversity and unity to the wide world. No lung analogies. It's about NO APOSTASY. Not early. Not later. Not now. I am sorry but it seems to me like our Eastern brothers don't care about the rest of the world. That is how I see it through my limited vision of what you have said here and other Orthodox have said elsewhere. Please correct me. I will be very happy to be wrong, I promise you.

Yeah, I had heard. I miss him.

I made a boo-boo that you all should have caught. About perfection and defects being incompatible. But when it comes to us humans I said about human perfection needing to allow for defects. Good catch there 3DOP. Where is Bukowski? He would have seen it in a New York minute. What distinguishes an ordinary minute, from a minute that is New York? Just ask AI. It will know.

First of all, what I am about to say is not true...but it could be. What if some fertile Catholic couple had nineteen or so kids and named each one after a Council of the Church? Mom says pleadingly. "Lateran IV, finish your vegetables". Dad says threateningly, "Chalcedon, if you do that again I am going to land in the middle of your guts." (A favorite saying of my own dear father (R.I.P.)) The only kids that might not be bitter against the Councils would be Trent and Constance!

Thanks Dr. Steuss, To quote a Muslim folk singer, "Ooohh baby, baby it's a wild world". It's a journey. I hope you and yours are doing well too. But as you point out, troubles and even "defects" can be the will of God. I would certainly agree that for anyone born with physical or mental handicaps, and for those who care for them, it is the will of God. In the precise way I have been using the words using the words defect and perfect, nothing is both defective and perfect at the same time. But I would agree that congenital handicaps/defects can be a blessing. It has a purpose for that soul that someone of my faith would say is a mystery that can be revealed even here sometimes, but certainly God would show his wise providence on the Day of Judgment for allowing it. In the case of Christ, I think it would be theologically peculiar if the only soul that was ever conceived by an immaculate virgin mother and the overshadowing of the third Person of the Trinity, should appear with a random birth defect. The most perfect man who ever lived would indeed suffer every kind of affliction of body and soul. Perfectly like all of us, he was subject to defects and even death. The point is that He began as what we would call normal, as to His humanity. And I should say that this is speculation because I do not know think my church has judged that Jesus could not have had a congenital defect of the body. I think it is more fitting that he would have been humanly healthy in all ways when He was born, but subject to ordinary afflictions. I am confident that a majority of orthodox theologians would agree. But that doesn't make it dogma. If you disagree Steuss, you can still become Catholic! Good to see you Stu...I would urge you to "not be such a stranger" but I go months at a time now without participating myself. I am usually peeking in a few times a week to see if there is something of interest. I am retired now, with more time, but for me it seems less interesting than it used to in the old days. Anyway, be well, and know that you have prompted a prayer from me for a good old internet comrade. Rory

I know I am not qualified to answer that question on the basis of anything except authority. In my opinion, it is easier to identify the one true church than for a truck driver/factory hand like me to sort out the answer.to the canon. One doesn't usually decide what Church they think is true based on their belief about the canon. We believe the canon based on what we believe about the Church. I am not aware of any who make decisions about the canon independently of church affilliation.

The Nehor, hi. Do parents give their kids more cookies when they haven't eaten what they have in front of them? I am not saying that Catholics have eaten and digested all of our cookies. I am saying we have enough to keep us from running out until the Lord comes back. We aren't against continuing revelation so much as we know we haven't nearly exhausted what has been given.

So Paul the Apostle is a problem? Nobody should be celibate if they are able? You guys won't be believing that in 500 years. A few of you might even agree with the Apostle now and still have a temple recommend.

Hi Teddy. Hi The Nehor, So how do you two explain us "apostates" progressing until we get it right? You know that we now teach two ends in marriage, right? It took until 1870 for papal infallibility. 1965 or '66 gives us two ends in marriage. Will you guys have nailed everything perfectly before your first two millenia? We will have to wait to see I guess. Cut us a break, we are STILL a young church. Calling us apostates because of out first centuries? Sheesh. I'll take our early centuries over yours anytime anyway. Especially when it comes to orthopraxy but even orthodoxy too.

No worries OC. No offence. But I don't think his singular beliefs had such a long lasting effect. Us Latins rejected his babies burning for not being baptized more than a millennium ago. But we did hold on to a primary end of marriage that you mention for much longer. Did you guys have a secondary or co-primary end earlier, as we do now? I don't mind a bit if you are ahead of us. I want us back together, and that would show our holdouts that we needed you. Do you not think you need us? Not at all?

THANK augustine? It is obvious you know how to capitalize. So you guys don't venerate St. Augustine? Is it because of his views on sex? Has the Eastern Church always taught two principal ends of marriage?

Benjamin I think that there is something transcendent in the idea of a God who suffers our suffering, who shares our grief, who feels our pain - so that He can fully express the mercy that we need. And the theology here that He experiences it according to the flesh: not as a transcendent God, but as a mortal man. There is the repeated emphasis here that it is the man Jesus who must experience all of this. Rory Some LDS are uncomfortable with God's transcendence. My Catholic God is certainly "too transcendent". "If God is transcendent it means He does not hear your prayers." I have been told that here. I believe in a transcendent God, before I am Catholic or anything but a theist, with or without any hellenizing philosophy. As a Christian, before I am Catholic, He is close by. "In Him we live and move and have our being" (St. Paul in Athens) God is far off. Transcendent. And God is within. Immanent. Transcendent God made Himself, in the person of His Son, Emmanuel! God with us. Immanent. God claims to be both according to Catholic dogma. Perhaps not so clearly yet for LDS. But you appear to be free to think about it? Do we have to choose between one or the other? Must it be Transcendence or Immanence? Don't we want it all? God doesn't give His creatures desires that cannot be met. Higher animals like my beloved cat aren't worried about eternal life or transcendence or immanence. My Whitey is in bliss when I give her some extra stuff she likes called Temptations if she cleans up her bowl. But man is not so easily transported to heights of joy. We want the greatest God imaginable to comfort and care for us. Creaturely desire seems like a sign of something put into us from beyond us. Anyway, that is my hope.

Hi halconero. I like your new look in a jacket and tie! Probably not that new. I forget what you used to look like, and don't intend any criticism of what I can't remember. That is a lot to think about. You know about the Old Covenant a lot more than me. Anyway, I am pretty sure I like it. In any event...we agree that we don't have to think that Christ's suffering was only about penal justice? The idea I am promoting here is old, but somewhat new to me. I think that it makes God more approachable. Not that He is unapproachable if it is all about justice. But if it is to show HIs affection for us, and we get that He is doing EVERYTHING to make us meet His approach? I won't say He becomes irresistible although I want to say that. With free will we can always resist.

Philip Schaff compiled a three volume work called the The Creeds of Christendom. The third volume is titled as "The Creeds of the Protestant and Evangelical Churches". Between 1523 and 1932, I count around 60 separate creeds from the Table of Contents, which are mostly drawn up when communities split but sometimes when they reunite. There is no commentary which means that up to 1932 there are 960 pages of Protestant creeds contained in this book. I don't think this detracts much from your post, but I doubt that the LDS get there attitude toward creeds from the Protestants. When the Lord is said to have told Jos. Smith that "all their creeds are an abomination", Joseph was living in an area with very little Catholic presence. I tend to think he thought the Lord was talking about all of the Protestants who were in his immediate neighborhood. It seems to me then from what follows that paragraph, that from your point of view, the Latter-day Saint would be as free as a Catholic to consider the possibility that the afflictions of mind and body that our Lord endured in His Passion were more than what was necessary to satisfy God's justice. I mainly like to propose this idea because of how it has been a blessing to me to think, as Orthodox Christian says below (or I guess above after this posts), that it is all because our great God loves us and will do anything that is moral and that does not violate our free will, to unite Himself ever more to us, even to the point that Orthodox Christian made, of theosis. And He wants us not for His sake. God is not unhappy without us! But we are unhappy without Him, and He knows us better than we know ourselves. If we think our hearts are full of bliss and peace without Him, we do not know ourselves. We are made to desire what only God can give us. Himself. The Word became flesh because our "abstract hellenistic God" (Hi teddy.) wants and initiates an intimate relationship with each of us! No big deal about the creeds, Rory

Hi bluebell, I have at least three speculative reasons about why it was the will of God that the Son (whose will was the same) should make an Atonement for man that was "exceeding the debt (so to speak)." The first I will explain is the reason that I return to again and again. I have touched on this before at this website and I remembered an LDS participant who seemed to hate the idea that the Lord should suffer any more than the absolute minimum to gain the result of "equalling the debt", or "paying the price". I don't remember the nomenclature. But when, as I recall, no one else opined on the subject, I concluded that this was probably the common belief among LDS. I readily admit that such a small "sample" is inadequate to make any judgment on what is common among you. So all of the replies I have received for now seem to be in favor of the common belief among Catholic theologians, but with conclusions that can only be considered as free opinion. I will not make the mistake of thinking that silence is acquiescence this time. I welcome any LDS participants to offer any evidence for why this subject should not be in the area of free opinion. (Benjamin gives some interesting thoughts for why LDS would have problems with being too dogmatic about it.) Reason #1 The Incarnate Word is upon the earth in order to offer a Sacrifice, and the Sacrifice is begun to-day. The first shedding of the Blood of the Man-God was sufficient to the fulness and perfection of a Sacrifice; but he is come to win the heart of the sinner and that heart is so hard that all the streams of that Precious Blood, which flow from the Cross on Calvary, will scarcely make it yield. The drops that were shed to-day would have been enough to satisfy the justice of the Eternal Father, but not to cure man's miseries, and the Babe's Heart would not be satisfied to leave us uncured. He came for man's sake, and his love for man will go to what looks like excess--he will carry out the whole meaning of his dear name--he will be our 'Jesus,' our Saviour. ---The Liturgical Year, Dom Prosper Gueranger, Vol. 2, p. 384, Republished by St. Bonaventure Publications, July 2000, (entry for the Feast of the Circumcision) Our author did not cite the theological reason why one drop of blood was enough to satisfy justice. Most commentators hold that it was because Jesus was and is the Man-God. As man He was united to us. As God, He was united with the Father and the Spirit, and so any sacrifice had an infinite value because of this status. But again, theology like this isn't what Gueranger is aiming at. The point is that not one human soul is exempt from being greatly beloved beyond all of our imaginations by God who was willing to leave heaven to be circumcised. But that is not all. For our sakes, who are made to return unfathomable love in our creaturely way, and who cannot be satisfied with creaturely goods alone, God goes to further excess as our Divine Lover. In another place, we see Gueranger use the word reckless to describe God's demonstration of love which is intended to melt our icy hearts. Latter-day Saints in this forum have been very eloquent in showing that they have been touched by the passion and death of Christ through meditating in their mind's eye, on His suffering. I will close for now by suggesting that many LDS and Protestants clearly help themselves in this way to take steps to deepen their love, obedience, and devotion to their Lord Jesus. Highly commendable and not to be criticised. But there are Catholic Saints, who are not necessarily literate, who have still learned their faith through a "book". That book is the Cross of Calvary, with Christ suspended on it. Why must they be limited to using only their mind's eye of the events of our faith? The Catholic Church knows how difficult it is for Her children to meditate and sweetly contemplate upon all the mysteries of the faith, and so She encourages through art and music, visible and audible aids to our devotion. The rising sight and smell of sweet incense reminds us how our prayers of faith ascend heavenward when we unite with the Church's liturgy. Rather than through words alone, She gives us sensible signs of our faith adapted to our human condition. It isn't because we stupidly magnify an instrument of murder, as I have heard. That is truly ignorant rhetoric. LDS and Protestants mostly view the Saviour through their mind's eye, and are to be admired for so doing. But Catholics see no idolatry in putting before the faithful reverent, beautiful, and modest renderings of events for the eyes and ears of our human bodies to help us even more to contemplate in a concrete and human way, the mysteries of our faith, the center of which is the Holy Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross.

Very interesting CV. I like that idea of liberation and "the bank". I hope to return to the same idea when I would try to put forward three reasons why Christ would make superabundant atonement. (I would be surprised if there are only three) Thanks for your reply.

I think we can be relieved to see that CV75 misread Teddy's "...speculations that might be entertained..." as a different kind of entertainment than a careful reading would entertain! Heh.

Great...no wrath then but strictly justice...the wrath part might have been coming from my former evangelicalism. I don't think I have nearly exhausted the mystery about why God would want to exceed the debt. In fact, nothing in this would be original with me. But I return again and again to at least one idea that I will share later since you ask. Probably tomorrow after more remarks come through. It is going to in the 70's this afternoon, and I have to get out and do some winterizing this afternoon (ugh). And I was also reminded I need to vote (ugh. I used to vote by mail in Washington. But in Kansas you have to send in a request every time and I didn't think of it.)

In the thread which began as whether Christ in His humanity would have had a defective reproductive system, Benjamin McGuire wrote an incisive reply to one of my posts that deserves its own thread I think. Benjamin wrote: Mosiah 15 does it's best to differentiate between the two natures of Jesus and to point to the fact that it is the fully human nature of Jesus that allows for intercession to be made. To a God, there is no real suffering, there is no real temptation. To say that Jesus suffers in the capacity of His divine nature is to say that he suffered a trivial thing. And Mosiah 15 presents a view of atonement which I suspect is not all that different from @3DOP's, as well as a view of the nature of Jesus that isn't too far off (Mosiah 15 is quite similar in a way to Chalcedon's Statement of Faith). I would be pleased if Mosiah 15 is compatible with the view of @3DOP on the Atonement. From discussions that I have had in the past, most LDS here seem to take a position which I think mirrors Evangelical thought, that Christ had to suffer all that He did in order to appease God's wrath and to make reparation or atone for all of our sins. At the outset, I admit that this used to be my view of the matter. I was an Evangelical for almost twenty years and a minister for seven years. As a Catholic, I retained that view of the Atonement when I converted in 1995 to the Catholic faith. That idea of the Atonement is compatible with the Catholic faith. But so is the view, which is undefined for us, which I have come to adopt. I want to be clear that the view that I am going to suggest as being the most fitting is only one of at least two schools of thoughts that is permissible for the Catholic faithful if I understand the matter correctly. Anyway, I would be pleased as I said, to discover that among LDS also, different schools of thought might be considered permissible so that there might be more open-mindedness on the LDS side as I try to explain my position. I did not come to my conclusions from a systematic manual kind of study, but rather ascetical/devotional material that was trying to rouse in the reader a deeper love and affection for our Lord and Saviour. Manuals of systemic theology are good in their place. But we are also in need of something to make our hearts go pitter-pat. Summas Theologica are not written in such a way as to do that, in my opinion, for the ordinary Christian, who is just trying to be close to God and learn to pray. St. Thomas takes us to the land of pitter-pat with his beautiful hymns about the Eucharist. Shoot, I think I even heard the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing Panis Angelicus once! I am not dismissing the immense value that St. Thomas and others have given to the faithful in their systematic theologies. And to prove this point, I am going to use such a theological text to show that my more recently adopted view, that makes my heart glow more readily, might also be possible within both the LDS (Mosiah 15?) and Catholic faiths. When Holy Scripture designates Christ's precious blood, or the giving up of His life, as a ransom-price for our sins, the basic thought is that the atonement offered is of equal value to the guilt of the sins. Yes. I think many Catholics and LDS would agree. Then we read: Christ's Vicarious Atonement is superabundant, that is, the positive value of the expiation is greater than the negative value of the sin. (Sent. communis.) The bolded above is a bolded subheading in the treatise. The Latin words in the parenthesis has to do with the grade of certainty with which Catholics can at this time regard the teaching. It will mean that it is clearly not defined. There is room for discussion. it is explained here: Common teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally. I include one quote under the subheading that might explain how this "free opinion" can be understood: Pope Clement VI declared in the Jubilee Bull "Unigenitus Dei filius" of the year 1343, that Christ had shed His blood copiously, as it were, in streams, even though one little drop of blood, on account of the Hypostatic union with the Logos, would have sufficed for the Redemption of the whole human race. ---Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, 4th Edition May 1960, Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, IL, pp. 188, 189 (grade of certainty concept on p. 10) So instead of an assumption that many Catholics can correctly hold, that Christ was appeasing the wrath of His Almighty Father, Catholics may ponder why it could have been the will of the Father and the Son to exceed what was judicially adequate to redeem a fallen race through the Son's passion and death. My question for my LDS friends here is about whether like us Catholics, the Latter-day Saint faithful have the freedom to ponder this question? Or is the question settled by dogmatic LDS teaching? Thanks, 3DOP

Fair enough. In a mystical sense I would agree that Christ identified with all human suffering. But he did not experience all human suffering. I would draw that distinction. He never had to wait for hours trying to get through customs before missing a connecting flight at the airport. I rejoice that He is one of us. It makes me happy when I ponder it. (I regularly forget to ponder it.) I don't need for Him to have experienced sufferings that were not possible during the age in which He lived as a man.

Hi longview. We are getting a little bit away from the thread topic. But only a little. I am not trying to diminish the suffering Jesus endured on our behalf during His passion. Am I doing that when I say that Christ might not have had a kidney stone, and certainly didn't experience childbirth as some of us have had to do? But we who identify with Jesus on the Cross, are invited to "take up our crosses, and follow Him." Our "crosses" may involve being ignored or mocked. It might be having kidney stones. It might be childbirth, or being cut off in traffic and missing our exit because of no fault of our own. None of us will be given a Cross we are unable to bear just as Jesus bore His. Will we yield to anger, pity, or hatred when our crosses appear? When we obediently accept with patience the sufferings that God allows us to experience, we are taking up our crosses and following our good Lord. Jesus exercised all of the virtue without any of the vices that can be prompted by human suffering. Jesus was committed as man to be humbly obedient to God. Jesus was committed as Son to be humbly obedient to His Father. As men and women having the same humanity as Jesus Christ we carry our Crosses in the same fashion, for the same reasons. Jesus is trying to make us have courage to perform heroic acts of self-sacrifice for the sake of the love of the Father, who gave us His only Son, and who accepts us as His children. It seems important that Jesus suffered for us not only to pay a debt, but to give us an example to follow, every day. No day is without such an opportunity to deny ourselves as He denied Himself supremely, in our own often small ways. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteousness." (Romans 5:19, my emphasis)