What Exactly Did Jesus Christ Inherit?

[Flyonthewall]

Some non-LDS statements have got me wondering...

If Jesus Christ and the Father are "one" being, and have been so forever, what did Jesus Christ inherit?

Romans 8:17 states we can be joint heirs with Christ, what did He not have before that He had to inherit?

[altersteve]

For one thing, He inherited from His Father the ability to lay down His life and take it back up again.

[Flyonthewall]

For one thing, He inherited from His Father the ability to lay down His life and take it back up again.

I know that is from an LDS perspective, but what about non-LDS? Do they share the same belief?

[jo1952]

Some non-LDS statements have got me wondering...

If Jesus Christ and the Father are "one" being, and have been so forever, what did Jesus Christ inherit?

Romans 8:17 states we can be joint heirs with Christ, what did He not have before that He had to inherit?

I have asked the same thing of Trinitarians. So far, I haven't received any clear responses. I believe that many of these types of questions are ones which force a person to really see what their beliefs look like. It can be an unsettling experience. I think many times they are merely brushed aside as an attempt on our part to somehow trick them. Thus, they are more comfortable in continuing to see us as the ones who have been led by a false prophet rather than really spending time looking at the questions.

Regards,

jo

[longview]

Very good question. See also Hebrews 1 -

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his ^aSon, whom he hath ^bappointed ^cheir of all things, by whom also he ^dmade the ^eworlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his ^aglory, and the express image of his ^bperson, and upholding all things by the word of his ^cpower, when he had by himself ^dpurged our sins, sat down on the ^erighthand of the ^fMajesty on high;

And 1 Timothy 2 -

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

This relates to the question in a similar way, why would there be a need for a mediator if the Father and the Son were the same person?

Consider John 5 -

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

This is a direct implication that Jesus is His own person and has need to learn his duty from His Father. All things Jesus did, including creation of worlds, was at the direction of His Father . . .

[3DOP]

Catholics believe it to be revealed that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father. This would imply that regardless of the fact that it always has been so, the Son nevertheless inherits everything from the Source and Fount of Divinity, God the Father. In the same way as we are heirs of Adam's human nature, so the Son is heir of the Father's Divine Nature.

If we would, we have the option through adoption into God's family, of inheriting the Divine Nature ourselves through regeneration, or as it says in John 3, being born again. Since our first birth cannot impart the Divine Nature which is necessary for an ability to enjoy the blessed vision of God, we need rebirth, whereby we are assured that we may be deified as sons of God, and heirs with Jesus Christ.

[jo1952]

Catholics believe it to be revealed that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father. This would imply that regardless of the fact that it always has been so, the Son nevertheless inherits everything from the Source and Fount of Divinity, God the Father. In the same way as we are heirs of Adam's human nature, so the Son is heir of the Father's Divine Nature.

If we would, we have the option through adoption into God's family, of inheriting the Divine Nature ourselves through regeneration, or as it says in John 3, being born again. Since our first birth cannot impart the Divine Nature which is necessary for an ability to enjoy the blessed vision of God, we need rebirth, whereby we are assured that we may be deified as sons of God, and heirs with Jesus Christ.

I am stymied by the view which Orthodoxy has about the LDS belief that we have eternally existed and are already spirit sons and daughters of Father. They seem to take this as an offense. However, they are fine with Father regenerating man into a son or daughter -- both beliefs resulting in our being joint heirs. It basically looks like this: To already be a spirit son or daughter is unholy to Orthodoxy. However, taking a totally degenerate and offensive, undeserving individual and turning that person into a son or daughter is holy.

Regards,

jo

[Calm]

I am stymied by the view which Orthodoxy has about the LDS belief that we have eternally existed and are already spirit sons and daughters of Father. They seem to take this as an offense. However, they are fine with Father regenerating man into a son or daughter -- both beliefs resulting in our being joint heirs. It basically looks like this: To already be a spirit son or daughter is unholy to Orthodoxy. However, taking a totally degenerate and offensive, undeserving individual and turning that person into a son or daughter is holy.

Regards,

jo

That God would choose to be merciful to someone who so throughly doesn't deserve it just highlights the power of God's mercy, it seems to me.

My understanding of the offensiveness is in one sense by claiming we are his literal children we are stepping into God's territory and claiming much of it as our own by right or nature and ultimately lds believe we will have a claim to it all through God sharing all with us. This is significantly different than being invited in to share some of God's "territory", those things that are uniquely God's we cannot share if I understand the belief correctly, Rory can correct me if I am wrong.

[Calm]

Adding a note to above....

Personally I think we were simply invited into God's home one 'lifetime' earlier, at the beginning of our spiritual existence rather than at the end of our mortal existence.

The fundamental difference therefore in my view is we deny the gap between Creator and created, God is not unique for LDS in the same way he is for nonLDS Christians.

And I can totally understand why they see this as blasphemy.

Edited September 24, 2011 by calmoriah

[jo1952]

That God would choose to be merciful to someone who so throughly doesn't deserve it just highlights the power of God's mercy, it seems to me.

Indeed! Even though we understand the Plan of Salvation, I am always humbled by God's mercy. I do not think that Orthodoxy understands this aspect of our beliefs. Which, of course, is part of the problem in trying to teach them.

My understanding of the offensiveness is in one sense by claiming we are his literal children we are stepping into God's territory and claiming much of it as our own by right or nature and ultimately lds believe we will have a claim to it all through God sharing all with us. This is significantly different than being invited in to share some of God's "territory", those things that are uniquely God's we cannot share if I understand the belief correctly, Rory can correct me if I am wrong.

I bolded the part of your comment which, I believe, is only one of the lies which Satan has convinced much of mankind to hold to. It is the foundation upon which so many incorrect interpretations of doctrine found their source which causes blindness to our true relationship with Father; confusing man as to who man really is. In fact it this concept which founded such dogmas as the Trinity itself; which is the result of man (by not understanding who man is) to try to then understand who God is from a pov not founded in truth to begin with. IOW, if we begin with a false belief about who we are, then everything we build upon that foundation with respect to Father, is already tainted by falsehood. Only God knows us better than we do. If we don't know who we are, what chance do we have of really knowing anyone else (including God)?

Regards,

jo

Edited September 24, 2011 by jo1952

[Flyonthewall]

Very good question. See also Hebrews 1 -

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his ^aSon, whom he hath ^bappointed ^cheir of all things, by whom also he ^dmade the ^eworlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his ^aglory, and the express image of his ^bperson, and upholding all things by the word of his ^cpower, when he had by himself ^dpurged our sins, sat down on the ^erighthand of the ^fMajesty on high;

And 1 Timothy 2 -

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

This relates to the question in a similar way, why would there be a need for a mediator if the Father and the Son were the same person?

Consider John 5 -

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

This is a direct implication that Jesus is His own person and has need to learn his duty from His Father. All things Jesus did, including creation of worlds, was at the direction of His Father . . .

I am well aware that mainstream christianity believes Jesus to be a separate person from the Father.

The implication of Jesus inheriting something, is that He didn't have it before. Perhaps it is my understanding that comes to that conclusion, so I ask if Jesus was eternally God with the Father,and creator of all things, what did Jesus inherit?

[3DOP]

I am stymied by the view which Orthodoxy has about the LDS belief that we have eternally existed and are already spirit sons and daughters of Father. They seem to take this as an offense. However, they are fine with Father regenerating man into a son or daughter -- both beliefs resulting in our being joint heirs. It basically looks like this: To already be a spirit son or daughter is unholy to Orthodoxy. However, taking a totally degenerate and offensive, undeserving individual and turning that person into a son or daughter is holy.

Regards,

jo

Hi jo.

I know the Catholic Church is innocent of teaching that your belief is "unholy". If Latter-day revelation is true, how would it be unholy for the LDS God to help out those individuals who exist without Him for any reason? It isn't a question of holy or unholy, but of correct or incorrect. I should also deny that we believe that those who are regenerated are "totally degenerate and offensive".

3DOP

[Flyonthewall]

Catholics believe it to be revealed that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father. This would imply that regardless of the fact that it always has been so, the Son nevertheless inherits everything from the Source and Fount of Divinity, God the Father.

Perhaps there is more to my question than I asked...let me see if I can add to it for clairty...

When did Jesus inherit what He did? Was it before His incarnation? At His mortal birth? Upon His death? Upon His resurrection? or will He yet inherit something?

In the same way as we are heirs of Adam's human nature, so the Son is heir of the Father's Divine Nature. If we would, we have the option through adoption into God's family, of inheriting the Divine Nature ourselves through regeneration, or as it says in John 3, being born again. Since our first birth cannot impart the Divine Nature which is necessary for an ability to enjoy the blessed vision of God, we need rebirth, whereby we are assured that we may be deified as sons of God, and heirs with Jesus Christ.

Pardon me while I think on the screen...the something Jesus inherited was the Father's divine nature...? If I understand correctly, we inherited our human nature upon our mortal birth, because before that we did not exist. This does not seem like it would be the same way Jesus inherited His divine nature since He has always existed with the Father. Does this mean He inherited His divine nature upon His mortal birth?

More questions depending on your clarification...

[3DOP]

That God would choose to be merciful to someone who so throughly doesn't deserve it just highlights the power of God's mercy, it seems to me.

My understanding of the offensiveness is in one sense by claiming we are his literal children we are stepping into God's territory and claiming much of it as our own by right or nature and ultimately lds believe we will have a claim to it all through God sharing all with us. This is significantly different than being invited in to share some of God's "territory", those things that are uniquely God's we cannot share if I understand the belief correctly, Rory can correct me if I am wrong.

Hey cal,

It is often that you relieve me of the need to post. I sure appreciate it.

This time, I would say that we cannot dismiss LDS teaching on the basis of "unholiness". We cannot dismiss LDS teaching because it is "offensive".

If it is true, LDS teaching about our own existence has profound and far-reaching implications as regards how we worship, and how we think of ourselves before God. It raises the question of transcendence. Mormons, because of their beliefs can say that we are the same species as God. Catholics would never say such a thing.

If Catholics err, we do so by magnifying God too far above us. If Mormons err, you do so by reducing God to something too near to us. It is unfortunate to be wrong on either side. It doesn't mean that we can look at each view and deduce that one is "holy" and the other is "unholy". Such conclusions can only be reached by knowing which position is correct.

[3DOP]

Perhaps there is more to my question than I asked...let me see if I can add to it for clairty...

When did Jesus inherit what He did? Was it before His incarnation? At His mortal birth? Upon His death? Upon His resurrection? or will He yet inherit something?

Pardon me while I think on the screen...the something Jesus inherited was the Father's divine nature...? If I understand correctly, we inherited our human nature upon our mortal birth, because before that we did not exist. This does not seem like it would be the same way Jesus inherited His divine nature since He has always existed with the Father. Does this mean He inherited His divine nature upon His mortal birth?

More questions depending on your clarification...

Hey Fly,

We inherit the human nature from our first moment of existence. We have never known any kind of existence, except as humans. The same may be said for the Son's inheritance of Divine Nature. According to our belief, His eternal Begottenness means that The Son has never known any existence, except as God (including after He became man). So no, as to the question about whether He became an heir of His Father at the Incarnation. He was already God's Son.

[Nathair/|\]

Hey cal,

It is often that you relieve me of the need to post. I sure appreciate it.

This time, I would say that we cannot dismiss LDS teaching on the basis of "unholiness". We cannot dismiss LDS teaching because it is "offensive".

If it is true, LDS teaching about our own existence has profound and far-reaching implications as regards how we worship, and how we think of ourselves before God. It raises the question of transcendence. Mormons, because of their beliefs can say that we are the same species as God. Catholics would never say such a thing.

If Catholics err, we do so by magnifying God too far above us. If Mormons err, you do so by reducing God to something too near to us. It is unfortunate to be wrong on either side. It doesn't mean that we can look at each view and deduce that one is "holy" and the other is "unholy". Such conclusions can only be reached by knowing which position is correct.

Thank you for this. I mostly agree with you, except that I would say that if Mormons err, we do so by elevating humanity too close to God rather than "reducing God to something too near to us." I think I would make the same mistake though if I were in your shoes. Other than that, though .

[Flyonthewall]

Hey Fly,

We inherit the human nature from our first moment of existence. We have never known any kind of existence, except as humans. The same may be said for the Son's inheritance of Divine Nature. According to our belief, His eternal Begottenness means that The Son has never known any existence, except as God (including after He became man). So no, as to the question about whether He became an heir of His Father at the Incarnation. He was already God's Son.

Hmmm...perhaps "Heir" and "inherit" are terms that are throwing me for a loop. To me, they have the connotation of receiving something you didn't have before or receiving something from someone who preceded you. Either way, it doesn't seem to fit ... am I missing something?

[3DOP]

Hmmm...perhaps "Heir" and "inherit" are terms that are throwing me for a loop. To me, they have the connotation of receiving something you didn't have before or receiving something from someone who preceded you. Either way, it doesn't seem to fit ... am I missing something?

Ordinary language doesn't always adapt itself precisely to theology. That is why I am never scandalized that the Christians have found it necessary for sake of precision, to develop non-biblical theological language to express beliefs more precisely. "Inheritance" is a concept that is found outside of the Godhead, and for us it ordinarily means something that is received after the death of a patron, usually a father. Obviously, God the Father isn't going to die according to either of our faiths. According to my faith, Jesus possesses from the Father everything that makes Him like the Father. There is nothing of the Divine Nature that the Son lacks. He isn't waiting for more Divine Nature. I am suggesting that this is what it would have to mean for an eternal Son to inherit from an eternal Father.

PS: I am leaving shortly for a little party that will preclude any further participation until late tonight or tomorrow. I appreciate your continuing good faith efforts to try to understand us.

Edited September 24, 2011 by 3DOP

[Flyonthewall]

Ordinary language doesn't always adapt itself precisely to theology. That is why I am never scandalized that the Christians have found it necessary for sake of precision, to develop non-biblical theological language to express beliefs more precisely. "Inheritance" is a concept that is found outside of the Godhead, and for us it ordinarily means something that is received after the death of a patron, usually a father. Obviously, God the Father isn't going to die according to either of our faiths. According to my faith, Jesus possesses from the Father everything that makes Him like the Father. There is nothing of the Divine Nature that the Son lacks. He isn't waiting for more Divine Nature. I am suggesting that this is what it would have to mean for an eternal Son to inherit from an eternal Father.

PS: I am leaving shortly for a little party that will preclude any further participation until late tonight or tomorrow. I appreciate your continuing good faith efforts to try to understand us.

Thanks for your responses...I appreciate your willingness to share

[Calm]

Thank you for this. I mostly agree with you, except that I would say that if Mormons err, we do so by elevating humanity too close to God rather than "reducing God to something too near to us." I think I would make the same mistake though if I were in your shoes. Other than that, though .

Ordinary language doesn't always adapt itself precisely to theology. That is why I am never scandalized that the Christians have found it necessary for sake of precision, to develop non-biblical theological language to express beliefs more precisely. "Inheritance" is a concept that is found outside of the Godhead, and for us it ordinarily means something that is received after the death of a patron, usually a father. Obviously, God the Father isn't going to die according to either of our faiths. According to my faith, Jesus possesses from the Father everything that makes Him like the Father. There is nothing of the Divine Nature that the Son lacks. He isn't waiting for more Divine Nature. I am suggesting that this is what it would have to mean for an eternal Son to inherit from an eternal Father.

PS: I am leaving shortly for a little party that will preclude any further participation until late tonight or tomorrow. I appreciate your continuing good faith efforts to try to understand us.

It sounds like something along the lines of "begotten", used theologically to convey one of the connotations the term usually carries for mortal man, but not all of them.

[jo1952]

Hi jo.

I know the Catholic Church is innocent of teaching that your belief is "unholy". If Latter-day revelation is true, how would it be unholy for the LDS God to help out those individuals who exist without Him for any reason? It isn't a question of holy or unholy, but of correct or incorrect. I should also deny that we believe that those who are regenerated are "totally degenerate and offensive".

3DOP

Hi 3DOP!

Boy do I appreciate the tone of your comments! Thank you! THIS is how we can actually learn from one another! In comparison with the majority of posts I am used to encountering (especially on other boards), you seem to offer a different perspective from the view of Orthodoxy. Therefore, I am pleasantly surprised to learn that you do not believe such things as mankind is depraved, etc. While I do not have a lot of experience in having discussions with Catholics (it just seems like there aren't many different Catholics spending time on the various boards I post on), many of those I have shared posts with do not present the same beliefs you do....sigh.

So, now I am becoming confused about some of the things you HAVE said. It has been my understanding (and I have spent time on Catholic sites reading comments issued by the RCC in addition to being told by Catholics) wherein they do not believe that the LDS are Christian. Therefore, being a non-Christian I thought that unless I were to be baptized into the Catholic church and accept the Trinity, I cannot be saved. Now, although the word "orthodox" (Greek) means "correct thought", and in light of what the Catholic church teaches me about the current state of my soul as being unsaved, I would still interpret this as meaning I am unholy. I use the definition for unholy as being unconsecrated and not belonging to God. As such, while in an unsaved state, I cannot belong to God; nor be able to then be in His presence.

Enjoy your time at the party! I look forward to hearing more from you.

Best regards,

jo

[Storm Rider]

Jo, having spent some time on the Catholic board, I would say that 3DOP represents the silent majority of Catholics. The ones we find on the CBoard are some of the worst form of Catholics. Suffice it to say that on every religious internet board are found extreme positions. I refuse to participate on the C-Board for that reason...it muddies the mode of understanding among those who follow Jesus Christ. It is not difficult to find true brothers and sisters in Christ in our daily living. They come from all churches and they welcome one another.

[3DOP]

Thanks jo, for your kind words. It'll be okay to answer your questions I am sure. But I want to state that I don't want to derail the thread. If we intend to continue a discussion along the lines of the questions you asked, another thread would probably be advisable.

jo1952

So, now I am becoming confused about some of the things you HAVE said. It has been my understanding (and I have spent time on Catholic sites reading comments issued by the RCC in addition to being told by Catholics) wherein they do not believe that the LDS are Christian.

3DOP

Since we aleady derailed, I just have to give some acknowledgement to my favorite Jo of 1952. The voice of the Pied Pipers who had the hit recording, You Belong to Me, somewhere around 1952, Jo Stafford! Jo in 1952? If she is your namesake, your parents did pretty good work in my view! You guys who don't know her don't know what you're missing. Check this out you rockers, bluesers, and bluegrassers...this is music with soul, style, skill, and sweetness.

One can be Christian and go to h***. One can be Catholic and go to h***. One can be pagan and go to Heaven. If we die in a state of grace, we go to Heaven whatever our beliefs. It isn't very important to me to exclude Mormons from qualifying to the title, Christian. I would rather get past such questions since it doesn't bear on whether one is saved, and it tends to make people angry on both sides. I understand how my fellow Catholics could disqualify Mormons from being Christian because LDS baptisms are not considered valid, but from a practical point of view, I don't see much advantage to being a non-Catholic Protestant Christian over being a non-Catholic Moslem or Mormon. There is the advantage of a valid baptism, but who gets to adulthood without needing the next sacrament anyway? Very few.

In another important sense, your beliefs are taken from the same inspired literature as that which animates the faith and theology of Catholics and Protestants. Just like Protestants, you believe that the Catholic Church is false, has apostasized and can be safely ignored. You believe in Jesus, the Son of God, as you interpret the Gospel. Since Jesus was Christ, it seems to me that that makes you every bit as much of a Christian as a Protestant who seems unable to really take his anti-Catholicism to the logical conclusion. In my view, Restoration is much more plausible than mere Reformation. Of course, I share more beliefs with Protestants than I do with Mormons. But if the Catholic Church went belly-up early on, why wouldn't I expect that they went WAY wrong as, Mormons say, instead of a little wrong like Protestants say? That is a simplification, but in general, that is why I find more consistency in a Restorationist view, than in a Reformation view. I think you are no more wrong in your attempts to follow Christ than poor Protestants who have been deceived too. Mormonism to me, is the Protestant Reformation taken to its logical conclusion. I don't want anyone to think I tend to be LDS. I am 100% Catholic. But I am loathe to assign the title Christian, to those who are inconsistent in identifying the Catholic Church as false, while withholding the title from those who are at least consistent in their mistake of identifying the Catholic Church as false. With that qualification, I would say that Mormons are Christian.

jo1952

Therefore, being a non-Christian I thought that unless I were to be baptized into the Catholic church and accept the Trinity, I cannot be saved.

3DOP

That is ordinarily the case. But we live in confusing times and God will have mercy on those of good will who through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Church. When we say that there is no salvation outside the Church, we understand that those, who if they were properly informed, would accept the true faith, are given the grace of "baptism of desire". That is why I said what I did about pagans. I am not going to say I have "good hope" for those who die estranged from the one true church. But I can't agree that I could know that anyone is unsaved merely because they were never formally baptized into the Catholic Church. It has nothing to do with however someone categorizes those who qualify to be Christian.

jo1952

Now, although the word "orthodox" (Greek) means "correct thought", and in light of what the Catholic church teaches me about the current state of my soul as being unsaved, I would still interpret this as meaning I am unholy. I use the definition for unholy as being unconsecrated and not belonging to God. As such, while in an unsaved state, I cannot belong to God; nor be able to then be in His presence.

3DOP

jo, I already emphasized the fact that we do not consider humans to be totally depraved or offensive. The mistake some Protestants make in our view, is in misunderstanding the gulf that exists between those in a state of grace, and those not in a state of grace. The state of grace is extra-natural. We cannot enjoy the vision of God in Heaven unless we attain to a nature that is literally beyond human nature. We have to be supernatural. Physical miracles are supernatural. Raising somebody from the dead or drying up the Red Sea are supernatural. But they don't save souls. We think of the physical too often when we think of supernatural. Or spooky stuff. According to the Catholic Church there are three supernatural virtues. The following are moral miracles:

1) Faith---With God's grace, we can believe what was been revealed about God that could never be known by the light of nature.

2) Hope---With God's grace, we can believe that sinners like ourselves can be saved because of God's love and mercy.

3) Charity---With God's grace, we can unselfishly love God and our neighbors, even our enemies.

Just as no one can raise the dead without God's help, so no one can truly believe, hope, or love without God's help. That is why Catholics insist that we believe in salvation by grace alone (not merely faith alone, the Reformers only had one-third of the equation). Sinners love those who love them, said the Saviour. That's not unholy. Its good to love loving children or loving parents or others who love us. But it is in the natural order. On the other hand, it is a miracle, it is supernatural, it is beyond nature to love those who don't love us. Jesus was our "prototype" if you will, loving to the end, those who put Him on the Cross, including you and me. St. Peter tells us that "charity covereth a multitude of sins". Nothing else will do. If we die without charity, our sins will be uncovered. Thus, the need to die in a "state of grace".

All that to say that to be "unholy" only means that you aren't supernatural, from a Catholic point of view. Calvinists think that to be unsaved, you have to be totally depraved. Some pile of stink. But most of us know that we have managed to be honest, have courage, love our parents, and other good things. We instinctively reject that we are completely depraved, and rightly so! But that can give us a false sense of security too. The Catholic Church teaches that to be deprived of heaven, you have to be merely natural. There are natural virtues that are good, but do not elevate one to the divine nature. That is why, trying to tie this in with the thread, one must be a co-heir of God's Son, partaking of His Divine Nature, by grace. Grace, or supernature, according to Catholic theology, builds on nature. We can't reject good nature. But we can't overemphasize good nature either. It is insufficient to unite one to God. We must have grace, or supernatural virtues, miraculous morality, if we would hope to see God.

jo1952

Enjoy your time at the party! I look forward to hearing more from you.

3DOP

Thanks again jo. Our hosts were in their 80's, we are in our 50's, and the youngest guest was our good young pastor, a newly ordained priest, less than 30 years old, Fr. _____. A young seminarian, less than 20 years old would have attended but for a horrible cold. Only a common zeal for an ideal, like believing on one true faith could unite people of such disparate ages and backgrounds. I don't suppose that our party proved the Catholic faith to be true, but we sure do qualify to obliterate any so-called generation gap. Heh.

I have a pretty certain feeling I was a little too verbose above. Take it for what it is worth. I know it won't be entirely satisfactory.

God bless,

3DOP

Edited September 25, 2011 by 3DOP

[Calm]

I have a pretty certain feeling I was a little too verbose above. Take it for what it is worth. I know it won't be entirely satisfactory.

God bless,

3DOP

Never, wouldn't change a letter of it.

[3DOP]

Jo, having spent some time on the Catholic board, I would say that 3DOP represents the silent majority of Catholics. The ones we find on the CBoard are some of the worst form of Catholics. Suffice it to say that on every religious internet board are found extreme positions. I refuse to participate on the C-Board for that reason...it muddies the mode of understanding among those who follow Jesus Christ. It is not difficult to find true brothers and sisters in Christ in our daily living. They come from all churches and they welcome one another.

Storm Rider,

Thanks. The C-Board is Catholic Answers? I am there under a different name treading lightly so as to avoid supension. I have incurred sanctions already. The problem with professional apologetics is that the apologist's income is tied to pleasing a certain crowd. I am not saying Catholic Answers doesn't believe what they say. I am saying that they would have to get other jobs if they decided that they needed to modify their positions. They went on record with Isaiah Bennett and his story. It sells. I am unimpressed. In my view, they seem way too authoritarian. The pope says so, shut up. I don't think they understand Vatican I on papal infallibility. In my view, which isn't accepted by Catholic Answers, the correct way of understanding Vatican I, is that it teaches that most of the time the pope is fallible!