3DOP

2nd thoughts. No comments yet.

Agree. No business judging others. But charity takes account of others' "weakness" as St Paul calls it. I am thinking of the passage about why one might avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols. To avoid scandalizing those who are not well-informed about Christian liberty for instance.

A similar figure appears to Zechariah and has a lot in common with the description of Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:18. Similar figures may be seen in the Queen Mary Psalter and the Holkham Bible Picture Book (both 14th century), a Norwich Cathedral roof boss (Image 331) (15th century), and in stained glass in the south transept of York Minster. Now we come to Blake’s famous engraving from his 1794 book Europe: a Prophecy This work is normally titled Ancient of Days but is in fact untitled. Blake said that the image appeared to him. He called the figure Urizen and saw the act of delineating the creation as the chaining of the imagination by reason. In this view, the whole creation was a mistake, and we were better off as unembodied spirits. There are resonances with the Freemasons (whose symbol includes a pair of dividers). Blake’s work has transcended his own negative interpretation, and now stands as a potent symbol of creation. The naming of the work as the Ancient of Days is an interesting one. In the West, this term is now understood to mean God The Father (following Aquinas), but in the Eastern rite he is identified as God The Son. As John said, in the Beginning was The Word, the creative Word of God, and through him all things were made. All manifestations of God on earth (including The Ancient of Days) are manifestations of God The Son, for no-one has seen the Father except the Son. Comment Pages About Archives July 2018 November 2017 February 2015 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 December 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 September 2008 August 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 December 2007 September 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 Categories anatomy ancient Egypt buddhism craniosacral therapy film Jung moon music poetry sacred geometry samurai science spirituality Sufism taiji taoism Uncategorized zen Meta Register Log in Entries feed Comments feed WordPress.com Blog at WordPress.com.Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information Thank you. There is no need to deny that the universe was created by a great architect. That seems like something that I, as a Catholic can affirm, nay, must affirm. Nobody is wrong about everything. That the universe was made by a thoughtful planner, an architect? I happily support the Freemasons on that one.

One of our great old members! Unseen, at least by me, for a decade? Maybe a little less. We're already almost 1/4 of a century into the one we're in. Anyway, thanks Doc for the thumbs up. Be good. God be with you.

You answered my question, thanks. Our Lord will always be human. That is the beauty of the Ascension for us! That God has a human body and it resides with the Father in some place we call heaven. There is a lot that is unrevealed about Him preparing a place for us, and His Father's house of many mansions. It is revealed that The Word became flesh. That means that God is embodied, and being both divine and human He is the mediator between God and man, making it possible for man to be His brother, and call upon our Father. Transcendence was made flesh, and could not be more immanent. Christ invites us to eat his flesh and drink His blood. If you could believe it, that would kind of immanent. Food is by nature immanent. But this heavenly food is extraordinary. Ordinarily the food we eat becomes in a sense, us. It is transformed into our own bodies, pretty immanent. But in holy communion, it is revealed that what we eat does the opposite, we become like the food, taking on the nature of the God-man, which is transcendent as well as immanent. I would also agree that man is alone ennobled among all the material creation to have elements that are already in place for possible transcendence. How else could we be deified? In what religion is it revealed that any other animal besides man, can become God? I think we have a lot more common ground than most might imagine. Each camp resolves the Immanence and Transcendence differently. It is good to not give up on having both. We agree that we will have our cake, and eat it too. God is not stingy, He tells us to open our mouths wide, and He will fill it (Ps. 79:11). We need a great faith that is not ashamed to believe in the love of God that desires to elevate human creatures into an enjoyment of the life that is eternal in the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Cal, hi. The bishop is emphasizing the superiority, as he sees it, of Christian charity. Philanthropy, love of our fellow human beings, our brothers, is what Christ calls us to. I would suggest that without a Christian civilization to illustrate and teach universal Brotherhood, the Marxists, Masons, and the French enlightenment would not have happened. Those movements extract a good thing, brotherhood, extending to many or all, from Christianity. I agree that we should not be critical of philanthropic fraternity, or even liberty, and equality! These are Christian ideals. They are more elevated when they are not divorced from the religion which revealed them. It is needful that we appreciate what these movements have that is true. Nobody is wrong about everything.

I think you would find no Catholic who "believes everything the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches" who is in favor of outright recognition of Freemasonry. From Leo XIII in the 19th Century to Francis I in the 21st Century, there is no deviation from the idea that a Catholic cannot join the lodge, nor can a lodge member join the Catholic Church. From the article that you linked at the first: "And last November, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed that stance, quoting the 1983 document (from the same office) that 'active membership in Freemasonry by a member of the faithful is prohibited, because of the irreconcilability between Catholic doctrine and Freemasonry.'” Quick question about this: "But in describing why Catholicism is incompatible with Masonry, he also, I would say, shows incompatibility with LDS doctrine." Did you mean Masonic incompatibility with LDS doctrine or Catholic incompatibility?

Thanks Tacenda. It could have been a lot worse downstairs. It didn't get on any of the sewing equipment. My wife took it well and thanked me for the cleanup.

I thought it would have been for his inflammatory and unacceptable remarks in that sermon. But maybe it is for something else? In that event, we at least know that he can say he was wrong about something. I remember having an argument with a good friend long, long ago. It was at our Independent Baptist college that we were attending. I can't remember what we are discussing, but I made a point, and he said, "You are right, I am wrong." I loved that. Not because he said I was right, but that he could acknowledge that he was wrong. It has shaped my life. I have told my children about it, and I hope I have emulated my dear friend, who I will never forget. Admitting wrong is in my opinion, when sincere, from heaven. I was moved to want to forgive this man under discussion, with whom I could identify, because it seemed similar to what another independent Baptist friend said to me.

Hey Go Celtics. How far back do you go? Do you remember when the Celtics drafted Mel Counts in the first round after he won Olympic gold and set the Pac-8 record for career rebounds? Probably not. My first memory of the Celts. He came from Oregon State. And I got to know him in his 70's. He went to our church! I think of Bailey Howell, Sam Jones, Tom Sanders, Larry Siegfried, plus all the even bigger names. Its okay if you only came on board with Dave Cowens, or even Larry Legend. You're from Boston. Good for you! Dad loved the Sox too. A friend took him to Fenway in this century before he passed. Anyway that's why way out in Washington State, and now in Kansas, I still follow 'em, long after Dad has been gone. PS: But not the Patriots. We were '49ers all the way. Sorry. Heh. Welcome to the board!

I was an Independent Baptist preacher until 1989. I hardly remember who I was, but that could have been me. He apologized and asked forgiveness. No forgiveness? He said he was wrong. We still need to hate him? C'mon. Please. Nobody is wrong about everything. These people are emotional and loud and voice themselves in extreme ways. But you and I agree with him about mere modesty...and he is backing off of his original statement that he knows is unacceptable. Give him thirty or forty years to wise up...or maybe even one year. Its 2024. He said it in 2023. These men don't get a good formation. I didn't. You yell and scream to a crowd that says "Amen" because you and they are outraged at immodesty, or smoking, or drinking, or whatever vice. I don't want to be back in that place of high pitched emotion where you are expected to get people into a fever. Thankfully I never said anything like that that I can recall. But I understand how that could come out of a mouth of a person that in retrospect has regrets, will never say it (or believe it) again, and who could be a very good neighbor.

Thank you Mark...much appreciated. I had hoped to have a follow up tonight. But instead I had a refrigerator disaster. My good wife is out of town and bachelor boy had just got of the shower and realized that the lever that makes the refrigerator supply drinking water, which had stopped working, had begun to work. Good news that. But only to a point. It is supposed to turn off when the person holding a container releases the lever. Now, instead of never working, it always "works". I finally got it stopped. But not until it had leaked through the floor boards into my wife's craft room downstairs. Ugh. Anyway, thanks again for your kind words. Rory

Hi Mark, Nobody is wrong about everything. The Catholic Church agrees with those words you cited by Bisi: "Bisi said “each man is brother to the other” and the “bond of brotherhood is independent of faith." This bond of brotherhood with all mankind, even to the independence of faith is deeply rooted in the incarnation of Christ, the second Adam, and the first-born of all creatures. Because the Son of God was born as a man, He is the the King and the Head of the human race, for the purpose of uniting all humanity in Him. Note what the noted 19th Century theologian, Fr. Matthias Scheeben carefully says about it: "...faith and baptism do not establish the simple union of the body with Christ; rather they presuppose its existence. If faith makes this union a living union, some material, lifeless union must already be present as that which is to be vitalized. The Spirit of the head cannot flow into us unless we already pertain to His body in some respect; and on our part we cannot lay hold of Christ our head and clasp Him firmly unless He is already our head in a true sense, and unless we are already joined to Him in some way." ---The Mysteries of Christianity, by Fr. Matthias Scheeben, 1946, B. Herder Book Co., p. 375 This corresponds with the much discussed and often misunderstood truth elaborated by the Second Vatican Council where we read: "Human nature...has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare. For by his incarnation, he, the son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man." -Gaudium et Spes, 22 There is much to say about this beautiful truth. Many of the Fathers waxed much more eloquent than I can be about the implications of this truth for all mankind that far exceeds the indifference to all religions that the Freemason would join to that true brotherhood which belongs to all men through Christ incarnate, even before faith. It makes the thoughtful Christian love and long for his brothers in Freemasonry to realize their full potential in Christ their head to make a living union through which the life of God made man, makes men God. We would not start an edifying dialogue about that which separates us, but of the beautiful implications of this brotherhood in which we both believe. St. Peter Faber (1506-1546) was the first follower of St. Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits. He gives some healthy ideas on how to reach those who are not visibly attached to the Catholic Church. He is mainly thinking of heretics. The Freemason is not a heretic, but one might start a dialogue in the same way. It seems to me to have informed the logic of the Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium ch. 2, Nostra Aetate 1, Gaudium et Spes, 1 and 2) where it emphasizes that we ought to take a similar approach with all of our neighbors with whom we are brothers "in a certain way": "First of all, it is essential that whoever desires to be useful to heretics in our day should both nourish in himself a great affection for them and show it in action, removing from his own mind those unfavourable imaginations which make us think less well of them. The next thing is, to win their goodwill and inclinations to such an extent that they may reciprocate our kind feelings and think well of us. This may easily be done by speaking to them affectionately, and dwelling in familiar conversations on those points only on which they agree with us, avoiding everything like a dispute, in which one side always assumes an air of superiority, and shows contempt of the other. Those subjects should be first chosen in which there is a sympathy and union of wills, rather than those which tend to disunite them by opposition of opinion." ---The Life of Blessed Peter Faber, https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfTheBlessedPeterFavre/page/n7/mode/1up?view=theater

The only Catholics who would be dissatisfied or confused would be those who jump to conclusions based on suspicion and distrust without reading the document about blessings. I found it informative and edifying. Everyone is confused and dissatisfied? Maybe everyone who won't take fifteen minutes to read the document that explains this Catholic gesture towards gay people, should disqualify themselves from having an opinion on what the Catholic Church teaches about the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony as well as the Catholic teaching about blessings. Dogs, cars, and human sinners of all sorts can receive blessings from priests that are believed to benefit the sinners just as much or more than the dogs and cars and their owners. If on Judgment Day, it is revealed that one soul is saved because of the grace of a blessing given by a priest to a sinner seeking help from God, according to the guidelines clearly outlined in Fiducia Supplicans, no one will complain that everyone was once confused and dissatisfied in December of the year of our Lord 2023. May you have a blessed and Merry Christmas, The Nehor (May I say that without endorsing everything that you say or do? Of course. Catholic Tradition has always taught that the faithful should want everyone without exception to be blessed.) Rory

All Catholics were called by Smiley, and that is the main reason I am making a post simply to say that I concur with St. B. About journalists, about progressives, about the far-right, about the guardrails, that it seems Christ-like, and I also am concerned that it will be exploited. The pope is the vicar of Christ, and Christ is the living Head of the Church, and it is my place to try to understand what the Head of the Church and His Vicar on earth have proposed in its best light. I am also on the Traditional side of the Catholic spectrum. It is Traditional to try one's best to reconcile doctrinal and disciplinary decisions of those in authority with the perennial teaching of the Church. Or better yet, it may be remembered that Tradition does not even require that the faithful must always wrestle with every apparently disturbing issue that comes up! It is okay to rest peacefully in the Bark of Peter, without paying so much attention to the waves. Great post St. B!

I am glad to see that you "do strongly believe in Jesus". Me too. I am Christian before I am Catholic, philosophically and chronologically. 3DOP

Hi BD, I am confident that my fellow Catholics here will be able to explain this if they see it before we arrive back home from vacation this weekend. I can say for now that it stems from our interpretation of Romans 1. But I would like to quote what the Council says about it too. But I am on my phone now, and away from my books. God bless, Rory

If the light of reason reflecting on nature gives no evidence of a Creator, when one loses evidence for a Creator in the light of faith, why would that person pursue a new religion? I think that the author of the Catholic World Report article did not appreciate how many LDS hold that belief in God cannot be reached apart from faith. Their is agreement with atheism already that all arguments for the existence of God fail. This is in stark contrast to the Catholic teaching, defined at Vatican Council I, that the existence of a Creator God is evident according to the light of reason reflecting on the creation. I am happy to be corrected about my assertion above about what "many LDS hold". But if I am correct about this, which comes from my limited experience on the internet, it might partly explain why LDS are already uninclined to look for another religion if a faith crisis should arise.

Mark, we may never fully agree here below. But I acknowledge that you have influenced my thinking, especially in regard to the imprecision of language.

At Hyles-Anderson, the emphasis was heavily utilitarian. It was more of a vocational training on how to build or maintain an independent Baptist church, than a seminary, which I presume would be more theological. So my answer would be that in my opinion, you are not wrong about your intuition regarding a great many of those who identify as Fundamental Baptist. Regards, Rory

Calm, hey! Maybe the "JR" was intended? Could the intent have have been RFK JR?

The quote is not me. I don't know how to fix things like this, How does it make it seem like that was me, but Benjamin McGuire, to whom I want to address said: Benjamin "I am not arguing that progressive theology is bad or wrong. I am just going to say that no Israelite at the time of Moses (including Moses himself) would have understood the early Christian interpretation of the text let alone an LDS interpretation of the text. This idea of ex nihilo creation was just as foreign to early Israel. And the idea of a spirit creation would have been just as foreign. So in the long run, I may think that the translation is poor - which is my answer to that first question. I may argue that the interpretations we give are interpretations provided within our current contexts (this is roughly what LDS scriptures refer to as likening the text unto ourselves). This idea - that we reinterpret the text to match our doctrine is at least a little unpalatable for many LDS. It is even less palatable, I think, for many Catholics. But both of us have a much greater tolerance for this sort of thing over conservative Evangelicals." Rory I am satisfied with admitting to the possibility that "no Israelite at the time of Moses would have understood..." what we in this time of greater revelation have received whether we be LDS, Catholic, or other Bible believers. Think of the Emmaeus Road, when the disciples hearts burned while Jesus opened to them the Scriptures. Surely those same disciples had heard or read those same Scriptures, but did not understand, until Jesus explained to them how they were about Him. Likewise, we have our Lord verbally affirming that those who said they believed in Moses, should also believe in Him. Why? It isn't something that one could expect a faithful "Israelite at the time of Moses" to understand: "Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me." ---Jn. 5:34 "Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom you trust. For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"---Jn. 5:45-47 Thank you again for your attention to my proposals...now a few weeks ago. I am suggesting now that what the "Israelite at the time of Moses" understood the Scripture, attributed to Moses, was valuable, but incomplete according to the Son of God. Not that the Israelite received no truth. But there was more. And according to Jesus Christ, Moses testified of Jesus, who the Israelites at the time of Moses will never be blamed for failing to understand in its full meaning. Sorry to be so late. Anyway, Mr. McGuire, thank you for your prompt and articulate reply. But I think that it is plausible that the Christian is warranted for going beyond what the "Israelite at the time of Moses", could understand from the Pentateuch. Likewise that same Israelite is excused from his limited understanding. 3DOP

Hey my friend, I heeded your advice, and then only just now sent up an Ave for you. Jesse...What has brought me around is reading Cardinal and Pope Ratzinger on the liturgy. Yes, the New Mass is a "banal, on the spot product". Cardinal Ratzinger wrote those words in the 80's in the preface to Msgr. Klaus Gamber's work on the New Mass, which is also critical in all of the ways that I still am. I had thought that maybe he Pope Benedict/Cardinal Ratzinger might have regretted the way traditionalists were able to exploit his criticism in the 80's. But then it appears again in his work, The Spirit of the Liturgy, where he uses the same language. I now hope that I understand better what he was trying to do with Summorum Pontificum. I am sure he knew that the New Mass needed some elevation of spirit from the Old, while holding that the Old Mass could not and should not stand absolutely still, as though perfection for all times and places was achieved in 1962. I was at the early Mass last Friday for the Feast of Our Lady's Nativity, 2nd Class...oops...company. if get a chance I'll continue! B. McGuire...if you see this...I haven't forgotten your posts on the thread I started!

Mr. McGuire, you have read Cardinal Muller! I am impressed. I haven't finished one book by him yet. Hopefully this week. I would be keenly interested in any thoughts you might have about Benedict and Francis, but do not feel pressed, especially when I have yet to respond to your explanations of how you and your Church seem to see the things I brought up. Also, hopefully this week. Thank you for the time you took to explain your positions.