Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Everything posted by MiserereNobis

  1. Tolkien explicitly said that The Lord of the Rings was a Catholic book. Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Middle-earth
  2. Since I've pontificated (hey, I'm Catholic, I have official permission to pontificate ) on LDS vs. Catholic revelation before, I'll add my thoughts. I think the issue is that the word "revelation" has some pretty heavy connotations: visions, speaking to Jesus face-to-face, etc. Perhaps the word "inspiration" should be used more often? When I pray and am answered, I call it inspiration. God has inspired me to do or not do something that I have asked about. I wouldn't call this a revelation because of the big connotations of that word. Would both sides of this debate be comfortable using the word inspiration to describe decisions that appear administrative rather than doctrinal? Is there a difference between inspiration and revelation?
  3. I like to point this out whenever I can. Catholics have "modern-day revelation" too, we just use different terms.
  4. When I teach Heart of Darkness. I use this clip to introduce the complexity of colonialism.
  5. I'll just toss out there that drinking and smoking isn't inherently evil. Good people drink and smoke, too. I would have loved to go to the Eagle and Child pub in Oxford and had a pint and a smoke with Tolkien and Lewis
  6. I don't want to spend eternity with responsibility and work. I'd rather have eternal rest and peace.
  7. Happy pascha to @Spammerand any other Orthodox here 😊
  8. Ahab has such a distinctive style. He sometimes starts over with a new account. I highly suspect Mark White is one of his new ones.
  9. I was suspicious after post #6 or so, but now that you're at #18, I just want to say, hi, Ahab, and welcome back!
  10. I'm not sure "basic math" applies when discussing these things I mean, we're talking about all sorts of things that are beyond the scope of science, so pulling in mathematical science doesn't seem to make much sense. Ya know what I mean? Also, this is bordering too much on the literal for me. As I said before, I accept the story as an allegory (which my Catholicism is perfectly fine with). As an allegory, a world without the fall works out fine. But more than that, I want to reiterate my point that I made earlier that from one point-of-view it looks like two plans (no fall, fall plus atonement), and yet from another point-of-view those are actually one plan, despite the apparent paradox/contradiction. Mysticism tends to show that things involving God are paradoxical and non-dualistic. I think that applies to this case, since we are talking about God's plan. Well, depends on the definition of heaven. If being in perfect harmony with God and in His presence is heaven, then Adam and Ever were in heaven already. I'll put resurrection underneath Jesus and agree with you that without the fall, there would have been no Jesus. Hence the Catholic belief in "felix culpa" as has been mentioned earlier. It was a happy fault, a fortunate fall, because it necessitated Christ Jesus and the atonement. His existence was necessary to allow for temptation and choice. Just because one doesn't choose the temptation doesn't mean the temptation wasn't necessary. See the temptations of Christ. Scripture is postlapsarian, so of course it's going to be written about the way things are after the fall. I think I've given as much as I can. To take things further, you'll probably need to find someone who is not a Catholic (I believe in the fortunate fall) and who takes the story literally instead of allegorically. I'm not sure about Mark White's ultimate position, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he's LDS and has posted here before under different names
  11. I did answer that: "I'll also answer your question directly. The course of man would have been to remain in the state of perfect harmony with God, with each other, and with nature."
  12. Remember, Orthodox communion is closed to Catholics. But you are welcome to communion at any Eastern Catholic Church (but yeah, study the liturgy beforehand not just so you know what to do, but so you can be edified by it, too).
  13. See my post to teddy above. I'll also answer your question directly. The course of man would have been to remain in the state of perfect harmony with God, with each other, and with nature. This could only happen with freedom to choose, so we have that freedom. He didn't want to create another animal without the choice to love and commune with Him. He created us "in his image," which to us does not mean we physically look like Him, but that we have some of His faculties: the ability to choose, the ability to give ourselves in love, the ability to know ourselves and others. All the things that differentiate us from the animals. But because He is omniscient, He knew that the devil would beguile Adam and Eve, even in their state of communion with God, so that redemption would be needed. That redemption would bring about an even great good: the atonement. I don't like to think about it as plan A and plan B, like the Garden was the first plan and the atonement is a back-up plan. That is linear temporal thinking. God knows all at once. I look at it as a bit of paradox (Star Trek temporal paradoxes anyone? Janeway?) The plan with the Garden and the plan with the atonement are from one point of view two plans, but from another point of view just one plan. That's why we can call the fall a sin, and also call it a "happy fault" or a "fortunate fall."
  14. Those dang protestants My post to teddy includes the paragraph from the catechism that quotes this. I think both our traditions align here, though we came from different starting points and go to different ending points, ha.
  15. Absolutely not. God is the creator, humans are the creature. Humans will always be inferior to God. Adam and Eve were innocent, not infallible. We should probably again clarify our terms here. The state of Adam and Eve in the Garden is referred to as "original justice." In original justice, they possessed the grace which kept them holy and free from sin (they were innocent) and death. They were not deprived of will nor were they unable to choose sin. God didn't create humans as automatons. He didn't want to commune with humans who couldn't willfully choose to love and commune with Him back. In the state of original justice, Adam and Eve were full of grace but also able to choose. Again, they were innocent, not infallible. They had the ability to fall. And here it is: the problem of evil. Why does God allow evil? I'm personally not 100% persuaded by any theodicy -- they all have problems. It boils ultimately down to an issue of faith. The Catholic Church has some good teachings on it, especially as pertains to the fall, but again, it ends up on faith. From the catechism: You ask why God would allow Satan to do what he did/does. The catechism responds like I do, that ultimately the answer is one of faith: We'll get to this again further down, but everything God takes and works with is made better. There must be freedom and there must be choice. I hope you don't mind my quoting the catechism frequently. I do so so that readers know that what I write is not just my opinion, but the official teaching of the Catholic Church. The "knowledge of good and evil" isn't the knowledge that some things are good and some things are evil. It is the knowledge of WHAT is good and WHAT is evil. As the catechism teaches, that is an insurmountable limit. Without God, we cannot know every what. Only He knows, and so we must trust Him and follow Him. Satan appealed to our envy and our desire to be free of God, our desire to be able to know for ourselves 100% WHAT is good and WHAT is evil, rather than relying upon God. Hence his temptation: eat the fruit and you will be like God (i.e. not dependent upon Him as His creature). Again, from the good ol' catechism: I like that end quote (from St. Maximus the Confessor). Adam and Eve wanted what God was offering them, but they didn't want it according to God's will. Isn't that what most sin is? We desire something and go about the wrong (disordered) way. I hope I have sufficiently explained why it's not plainly obvious. My goal is not to show that we are right and you are wrong, but instead to explain what we believe to an extent that you can understand it and not just dismiss it as "plainly" wrong. One point that I think we can agree on is that a great good came from the fall. Things would have been fine without it, but things are even better with it, because it necessitated the atonement, a most holy event. To return to your question as to why God would allow the fall: O felix culpa, o happy fault, o fortunate fall.
  16. Hi @teddyaware, @JLHPROF, and @InCognitus, My previous response to teddyaware also applies to others. I am pushing back against the caricature/straw man of the traditional Christian (Catholic) view that the Garden of Eden was just going to be just a bunch of naked toddlers running around. That's an easy position to make fun of, but it is a straw man, because that is not the Catholic position. I'd like you to consider that any sort of "gotcha!" or "how could you believe such nonsense!" when it comes to Catholicism should probably be tempered. We may certainly be wrong, but Catholic theology is not stupid. It's not a house of cards that will simply fall when poked at superficially. It's had 2000 years to develop and has been explored and believed by some of the best minds of Western Civilization. Again, we may certainly be wrong, but I don't think it's reasonable to think that some obvious silly mistake that ruins the whole thing has been overlooked all these years to suddenly be discovered now. I quoted the catechism above to show the actual Catholic position of what the Garden of Eden was like and what was the state of Adam and Eve. If you haven't read it, please do so to understand how why your caricature doesn't work (it's super short!). (I'll also add that I believe that the first couple chapters of Genesis are allegorical, and that my stance is perfectly allowable in Catholic theology) I find it interesting that "innocence" and the ability to procreate are opposed in your views. In our view, everything was in perfect harmony in the Garden. Adam and Eve with each other, Adam and Eve with God, Adam and Eve with nature. Everything was ordered (sin is a disorder). Sexual relations between a husband and wife are not disordered, are not disharmonious, and do not negate the "original state of holiness and justice." Could it be that some Puritanical/protestant thinking has influenced your thoughts on this matter? That the fall is necessary for sex? To me that belief would reveal a negative view of sex, that sex is somehow connected with sin. Teddy, I'll respond to your post separately.
  17. Who said that Adam and Ever were like toddlers? How is innocence a negative thing, as compared to guilt and sin? Why is being clothed somehow superior to being naked? I think you're taking your LDS views and injecting them into traditional Christian beliefs, thus turning the Christian beliefs into a caricature. Here is what the Catholic Church teaches about life before the fall. From the catechism. Take a very brief moment to read it so that you can understand what we believe and how your characterization of it is incorrect:
  18. Leaving underwear and yeast infections behind, how about an awesome slam poem about OCD and love?
  19. St. Augustine, easily the most influential and important Church Father of the early Church, argued that an allegorical reading of the Genesis creation was perfectly valid.
  20. I'm here for you, bro, if you ever need a punching bag 🤗
  21. "You just gotta poke around" Orthodox Lent has some pretty strict fasting, so this Ukranian Orthodox church in my town has a huge feast after Pascha (Easter, coming up in a few days for them I believe). My understanding is that it is no holds barred on the vodka during the feast, which starts around 1:30 AM. I know a guy who used to attend and he said he would just bring his VW bus and crash out in the parking lot after rather than driving home.
  22. There is a Ukrainian Orthodox chapel near my town. I've known the priest over many years. We live fairly close to each other and tend to end up at the same brewpub on Wednesday evenings (live old-timey music is the main draw). We've had some good discussions -- there's so much in common. He invited me to vespers once when his bishop was visiting. There was a dinner afterwards and me and my other Catholic friend got to sit next to the bishop as it turned out. It was very enjoyable conversation. I agree with Pope John Paul II that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the two lungs of (traditional) Christianity. I pray for the day that the schism is healed.
  23. Those exact confirmation ceremonies are also found in the Roman Catholic Church. Remember, the Catholic Church is made up of many churches. The largest and most well known is the Latin Church, which is what everyone thinks of when they say Catholic Church. But there are 23 Eastern Catholic Churches, too, that are very very similar to their corresponding Orthodox churches. The major difference is that an Eastern Catholic Church is in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church (pretty much meaning that they accept that the Pope has primacy and supremacy among bishops). The Coptic Orthodox Church in the article practices the Alexandrian Rite. The Coptic Catholic Church also practices the Alexandrian Rite. So, that confirmation is part of the Catholic Church
  • Create New...