What's Your Analogy Of The Trinity

[mfbukowski]

Mola, Mark, others. Thanks for not wanting to be insulting. I believe you and accept any apologies offered. 

 

But I need to say that it isn't because my feelings are hurt that I get frustrated when words like absurd, crazy, or ridiculous get thrown around. It is because someone is supposing that I understand and propose as comprehensively logical something that I deny to understand as comprehensively logical. It is more about being misunderstood than personally insulted. 

 

The Catholic faith proposes to the mind of the faithful that there are many revealed truths that we cannot fully comprehend. This is why we think St. Paul spoke of faith as "seeing through a glass darkly." Faith is of a higher order of knowledge than reason as regards subject matter. Faith is of a lower order of knowledge than reason as regards intelligibility. This is why we use a word which was often used in Scripture when it refers to the mysteries. I can think of several reasons why it is appropriate that God would leave us in this mortal life with an intellect not capable of grasping totally the highest truths that He proposes for our faith. Not the least of these reasons is that it makes us an object of ridicule and that is good for us. It is a healthy humiliation when we cannot lord it over those who oppose us with flights of intellectual genius that solves every difficulty. Yup, I might even quit griping about it. (Don't count on it though) Its better for anybody to be humiliated than praised. Heh. For those who "frustrate" me sometimes, God love you, you'll be my salvation before someone who praises me and gives me my beloved rep points (of which I am far too solicitous).    

 

I mentioned that I am reading this book about mysteries. In the first chapter the author points out that even in everyday life, we never have complete knowledge of anything. Not the universe. Not the atom. Not anything else in between. If we can't comprehend what God made, why should we expect to comprehend God Himself?

 

The author of this book isolates the revealed mysteries (he divides the book into parts dealing with ten different mysteries) from the other truths of Christianity (which are more intelligible, sometimes so intelligible that they are truths of human reason as well as faith). He gives the purpose for doing this as follows: "This we undertake in the hope of being able to show that precisely those doctrines which appear to the proud mind as horrible wraiths, as senseless, impossible enigmas, infinitely surpass in beauty and clarity all that reason in its loftiest flights can achieve."   

 

It kills me when people see what I adore to be a "horrible wraith, as senseless, an impossible enigma". Nobody likes that. The human intellect cannot fail to want to try to comprehend what has been proposed to it. But do I want a faith that I must understand before I will believe? Or do I want a faith that I will believe in order to understand? I have chosen the latter. I wouldn't make the mistake of telling you MY analogy of the Trinity. None of them work. Not for one moment was I tempted to try to satisfy the skeptical mind that way. There is in my opinion, only one way to the Catholic Trinity, and that is the way of an intellectually humbled faith that bows before the majesty of God and admits its own incapacity to explain how a revealed mystery is true. I understand why some would see this as a cop out. But that is part of the lure of it. I find this way compelling in that the greater and more difficult the truth, the the less intelligent it makes us appear. Consubstantiality is child's play. The reason I know it is child's play is because I understand it very well. Its just a tool that helped maintain a Mystery. Consubstantiality is nothing beside the mystery of the Blessed Trinity.

 

Anyway...I have a little time to peruse the rest of the thread and that's what I'll do now but before going further, I especially wanted to kind of explain that I am not offended and really, its queer, but I should be thankful if you really were mocking me, and you weren't. I am a proud boy. Anyway, God love you all.

 

3DOP

 

PS: Lord willing, tomorrow I want to talk about what Mormons would be saying about it if the Arians had prevailed, and those affirming consubstantiality had failed. If you think Athanasius was hellenized, and thought God and man were incompatible, you ain't seen nothin' until you consider theology under an Arian umbrella. Until then.

Look, I agree with you.

But if faith takes precedence over reason- which I agree it does- why all this talk about faith being logical? Why bother with theology?

 

That's why I prefer simple explanations.  I am convinced actually that NEITHER of us is "right" about God, I just prefer an explanation I can understand over one I cannot understand.

 

I think God reveals himself in simple terms.  It's like when a small small child asks where he came from- and you gulp and do the birds and bees, and at the end he says disinterestedly- "Oh I was just wondering because Bobby came from Chicago."

 

He DID come from Chicago, and the very words get in the way of what the "truth" is since we cannot comprehend it anyway.  All we can do is come up with the best words to describe the way we think it might be.

 

And we happen to believe that we would be in the exact same place if the Arians prevailed because we really DO believe we are the correct Restoration.  An Arian apostasy for us, is no different than a Neoplatonist apostasy- one is just as useless as the other.

 

Quite probably I will bow out of this thread since all it is doing is causing ill will and more misunderstanding and as usual, going nowhere.   But of course if I think something is being misrepresented, I am sure my ornery little self will not be able to keep his mouth shut.  But i shall try.

Edited January 29, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Can't figure out how to link YouTube on my iPad..

Do a you tube search on "you say potato" "secret policeman's ball".....for the skit....

The problem is not linking to it- it's making the video appear here inside a post.  It used to be that just linking to it would make it pop up in the post, but now it doesn't.  But I still see others doing it, so I know it can be done.

[mfbukowski]

Can't figure out how to link YouTube on my iPad..

Do a you tube search on "you say potato" "secret policeman's ball".....for the skit....

Watch this one for fun:

http://iheartjimmy.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/potato-potahto/

Hilarious and could not be better for this thread- we have the "a-one and a-two" and the bubbles for Lawrence Welk- just a perfect pick!!

[Calm]

The problem is not linking to it- it's making the video appear here inside a post.  It used to be that just linking to it would make it pop up in the post, but now it doesn't.  But I still see others doing it, so I know it can be done.

I think there is a media icon that allows you to paste the address into it, but with the simplified iPad format in the reply box I can't tell for sure....

[mfbukowski]

I think there is a media icon that allows you to paste the address into it, but with the simplified iPad format in the reply box I can't tell for sure....

Yes there is but that does not do it.  It just pastes the link

[Calm]

Yes there is but that does not do it.  It just pastes the link

Quoting a post with a video in it shows nothing but the usual link.

Maybe there is an enable switch?

[teddyaware]

Uh you were going great there until the last part. 

 

I'd like to see some scripture containing the word "homoousis" please. 

 

They are one in purpose, not in "substance".  You will find no Mormon doctrinal references anywhere to them being one in "substance".

The Lectures on Faith makes it clear that the Father and the Son have the same Mind, which is only made possible by the fact that each is in possession of the fullness of the Holy Spirit. In Mormonism there is no such thing as an immaterial substance, so the Holy Spirit that the Father and the Son possess and share in eternal fullness is what enables them to be perfectly united in one mind and therefore be and act as one God.

 

Though Latter-day Saints don't use the nomenclature of the Trinitarians (homoousis) in referring to the one common substance that the Father and the Son possess and share equally (i.e. the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father), the fact is that the Holy Spirit is a substance and it is the active agent that enables both the Father and the Son to think, feel and act as God. Without the substance of the Holy Spirit being possessed and shared by the members of the Godhead, in eternal fullness, they could not be God, for the Holy Spirit is verily the active agent of the Mind, intelligence and power of God. The Holy Spirit is this same indwelling substance that enables men to become like God and eventually become one with Him as well.

 

Trinitarian doctrine fails to define what the substance is that causes the Godhead to remain as three separate and distinct persons yet one God, Mormons go beyond the mystery of the Catholic and Protestant Trinity by actually defining what the common, uniting substance is, and it is none other than the uncreated divine light and intelligence the Scriptures call the Spirit of Truth, or the Holy Spirit.

 

All I've done here is attempt to find a way to bridge what has for many years been the seemingly impassable doctrinal divide existing between the Latter-day Saint and the non-LDS Christian understanding of the Godhead.

Edited January 29, 2014 by teddyaware

[Vance]

Vance. The problem lies in my opinion lies where I said before, about whether God identified Himself as "I am" or "I am becoming".

And the difference appears to be in the eye of the translator. Which we can get into if you like. But I already commented on Mark's "I am" thread.

 

But I like what you say here because it was the Arians who were saying that God and man are incompatible. That is why they were uncomfortable with the doctrine of the deity of Christ and tried to edge away from it. Catholic doctrine insists that it is revealed that God and Man ARE compatible and it also insists that we don't know how.

John 17:3 and 1 John 20 seem to indicate that we need to know how. At least that is the way I see it.

 

You guys know how. Okay with me. Makes sense to me. But we think God said "I am", and the implications of that are drastically different than how you understand it.

That is fair.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola, Mark, others. Thanks for not wanting to be insulting. I believe you and accept any apologies offered. 

 

 

The Catholic faith proposes to the mind of the faithful that there are many revealed truths that we cannot fully comprehend. This is why we think St. Paul spoke of faith as "seeing through a glass darkly." Faith is of a higher order of knowledge than reason as regards subject matter. Faith is of a lower order of knowledge than reason as regards intelligibility. This is why we use a word which was often used in Scripture when it refers to the mysteries. I can think of several reasons why it is appropriate that God would leave us in this mortal life with an intellect not capable of grasping totally the highest truths that He proposes for our faith. Not the least of these reasons is that it makes us an object of ridicule and that is good for us. It is a healthy humiliation when we cannot lord it over those who oppose us with flights of intellectual genius that solves every difficulty. Yup, I might even quit griping about it. (Don't count on it though) Its better for anybody to be humiliated than praised. Heh. For those who "frustrate" me sometimes, God love you, you'll be my salvation before someone who praises me and gives me my beloved rep points (of which I am far too solicitous).    

 

 

3DOP

 

PS: Lord willing, tomorrow I want to talk about what Mormons would be saying about it if the Arians had prevailed, and those affirming consubstantiality had failed. If you think Athanasius was hellenized, and thought God and man were incompatible, you ain't seen nothin' until you consider theology under an Arian umbrella. Until then.

Ok I understand this and can have respect for your beliefs. And in the same vien I think I agree with you more than I disagree with you. There are certain things in my own faith that I can't fully explain. And I am willing to admit that if this is really the best way then I think I agree with you. Somethings are not meant to be understood right now. I think we only disagree on what some of those things are. And of crouse the guy you were quoting has many valid points that we can't comprehened every thing fully right now anyway. I must conceed that point. I think he is right on. I think we do comprehend a great deal of many things but the word "Fully" is the key. Any way I always enjoy your comments I think you should post when ever you feel like it.

[PtolemyGlenn]

Coming in late on this thread and haven't read many of the responses, but In Mormonism the trinity is not a mystery and for that reason an analogy is unnecessary. In the LDS faith the Godhead is composed of three perfectly united individuals (three separate and distinct men), each of whom is infinitely and eternally perfect in holiness, love, faith, hope, knowledge, wisdom, action, emotion and every other divine attribute. The one shared substance (homoousios) that unites these three personages as one God is the Spirit of Truth, all three members of the Godhead possessing the Spirit of Truth in eternal fullness.

You said God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all men.

Are you talking flesh and blood man as I dont think anyone would agree that the Holy Spirit was ever physically a man of flesh and blood. The same with God.

[teddyaware]

You said God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all men.

Are you talking flesh and blood man as I dont think anyone would agree that the Holy Spirit was ever physically a man of flesh and blood. The same with God.

The Latter-day Saints believe God the Father and Jesus Christ are men of perfect holiness who have glorified human bodies of flesh, bone and Spirit, but not blood. The LDS believe the Holy Ghost is a separate and distinct personage of spirit but has no body of glorified flesh, bone and Spirit, as do the Father and the Son.

I understand the non-LDS Christian world believes God the Father has not a body of flesh and bone, but the Latter-day Saints do believe this. This is why Paul said the Son is in "the express image of His (the Father's) person."

[Ahab]

Uh you were going great there until the last part.

I'd like to see some scripture containing the word "homoousis" please.

They are one in purpose, not in "substance". You will find no Mormon doctrinal references anywhere to them being one in "substance".

If you'll look for the meaning a word is meant to convey you'll find what you are asking for.

They are one in substance in the sense that their substance is essentially what they are as a kind of being. Think of it as the God substance, or what it is that makes them each God. Like their DNA, or something like that. And don't just toss out the whole idea I am intending to convey now. Work with it. Think about it. And talk to our Father about it. The main reason many people don't accept this idea is because they just don't believe it even though the truth is right in front of their face.

[ERayR]

Sorry if this has already been said.

 

Three people working in perfect harmony.

[mfbukowski]

The Lectures on Faith makes it clear that the Father and the Son have the same Mind, which is only made possible by the fact that each is in possession of the fullness of the Holy Spirit. In Mormonism there is no such thing as an immaterial substance, so the Holy Spirit that the Father and the Son possess and share in eternal fullness is what enables them to be perfectly united in one mind and therefore be and act as one God.

 

Though Latter-day Saints don't use the nomenclature of the Trinitarians (homoousis) in referring to the one common substance that the Father and the Son possess and share equally (i.e. the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father), the fact is that the Holy Spirit is a substance and it is the active agent that enables both the Father and the Son to think, feel and act as God. Without the substance of the Holy Spirit being possessed and shared by the members of the Godhead, in eternal fullness, they could not be God, for the Holy Spirit is verily the active agent of the Mind, intelligence and power of God. The Holy Spirit is this same indwelling substance that enables men to become like God and eventually become one with Him as well.

 

Trinitarian doctrine fails to define what the substance is that causes the Godhead to remain as three separate and distinct persons yet one God, Mormons go beyond the mystery of the Catholic and Protestant Trinity by actually defining what the common, uniting substance is, and it is none other than the uncreated divine light and intelligence the Scriptures call the Spirit of Truth, or the Holy Spirit.

 

All I've done here is attempt to find a way to bridge what has for many years been the seemingly impassable doctrinal divide existing between the Latter-day Saint and the non-LDS Christian understanding of the Godhead.

An interesting view, but I prefer a clean break with what is still a very Greek way of understanding the problem.  It uses sectarian logic to solve the problem without, in my opinion, seeing the root cause of the issue.

 

It uses the same mechanism with a new part inserted.  I prefer taking out the reason for the mechanism and making the "car"  run with a new engine.

 

We don't need a new fangled carburetor, we need an electric motor that eliminates the need for a carburetor in the first place.

 

What is needed is a paradigm shift, not a patched mechanism

Edited January 29, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Sorry if this has already been said.

 

Three people working in perfect harmony.

It's exactly that simple!

 

We don't need unverifiable mechanisms!

[teddyaware]

An interesting view, but I prefer a clean break with what is still a very Greek way of understanding the problem.  It uses sectarian logic to solve the problem without, in my opinion, seeing the root cause of the issue.

 

It uses the same mechanism with a new part inserted.  I prefer taking out the reason for the mechanism and making the "car"  run with a new engine.

 

We don't need a new fangled carburetor, we need an electric motor that eliminates the need for a carburetor in the first place.

 

What is needed is a paradigm shift, not a patched mechanism

It think you've totally missed the point, but that's OK.

[mfbukowski]

It think you've totally missed the point, but that's OK.

Well I think the point was to appease the sectarians?  I actually think they got it wrong, and indeed I think that substance theology is long dead.  I think that a Social Trinity- a concept that many Christians are moving towards- is the way to go.

 

I suspect you don't want to discuss it further, but if you do, I would like to see what I missed.  The church has always taught that the unity of the Godhead is their "purpose" and not the Holy Ghost as some kind of spirit matter "substance". 

 

Being unified in purpose certainly means they are of "one mind" already.  Certainly they are in perfect communication, but what unifies them is their purpose, not a "substance".

 

I fail to see how the Holy Ghost can be a person of spirit AND be a "substance" which makes the Godhead of "one mind".  I would think the Light of Christ might somehow suffice for your substance model, but I don't know how the HG can be a person AND a "substance" at the same time.

 

But it really is a creative solution and I think I understand why you would be drawn to it.  It is a way we could communicate with EV's right away without twisting theologies too much.   I just don't think it is the best long term solution.

 

Long term I think we should just stick to our guns and tell it like it is doctrinally speaking, and keep it simple.  But perhaps your solution would be a good tactical intermediate phase.

Edited January 30, 2014 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

And the difference appears to be in the eye of the translator. Which we can get into if you like. But I already commented on Mark's "I am" thread.

 

John 17:3 and 1 John 20 seem to indicate that we need to know how. At least that is the way I see it.

 

That is fair.

 

Vance. No. NO. NO. I don't have any wish to discuss translations. I am content to point out that if it would seem that we are in error, it is not because of failure to accept what we assumed was revealed, but because we failed to follow closely enough the academic scholarship of only very recent times which suggests that the translations accepted, (even up until the founding of the Latter-day Restoration), were reliable in regards to "I am".

 

I Jn 2:20? It says that the one with the unction from the Holy One knows "all things". But no one claims omniscience. I could not interpret that in such a way as to deny mystery. I would suggest something along the lines of, all things that are revealed, or all things necessary to salvation, or perfection, or exaltation. I could not insist that the gift of the Holy Ghost gives full and comprehensive knowledge of literally everything. I would argue pretty confidently for hidden knowledge. The apostles themselves are not dispensers of all knowledge, but mysteries. Things revealed as "mysteries" imply that some knowledge remains to be known.

 

"Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God." (I Cor. 4:1)

 

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate and value your judgment that what I said, though you disagree, was "fair". Thanks much.

 

Regards,

 

Rory

Edited January 30, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Look, I agree with you.

But if faith takes precedence over reason- which I agree it does- why all this talk about faith being logical? Why bother with theology?

 

That's why I prefer simple explanations.  I am convinced actually that NEITHER of us is "right" about God, I just prefer an explanation I can understand over one I cannot understand.

 

I think God reveals himself in simple terms.  It's like when a small small child asks where he came from- and you gulp and do the birds and bees, and at the end he says disinterestedly- "Oh I was just wondering because Bobby came from Chicago."

 

He DID come from Chicago, and the very words get in the way of what the "truth" is since we cannot comprehend it anyway.  All we can do is come up with the best words to describe the way we think it might be.

 

And we happen to believe that we would be in the exact same place if the Arians prevailed because we really DO believe we are the correct Restoration.  An Arian apostasy for us, is no different than a Neoplatonist apostasy- one is just as useless as the other.

 

Quite probably I will bow out of this thread since all it is doing is causing ill will and more misunderstanding and as usual, going nowhere.   But of course if I think something is being misrepresented, I am sure my ornery little self will not be able to keep his mouth shut.  But i shall try.

 

I want to highlight the Arians. Yes, you would be in the exact same place. Further, I contend you would have had scholars like Nibley discovering that there were these stubborn guys who disagreed with the apostate church. These losers (who insisted on a theme important to Latter-day Saints) attempted to try retain the true belief in literal Sonship with a coined word...homoousious...which could be translated consubstantial...which meant that however messed up they were about what God was like, there was still this lingering truth that God and man were compatible. The Arians wouldn't allow it. In the next "Restoration", Islam wouldn't allow it. The God who was One and Simple could never have a true begotten Son (according to those who prevailed) and their philosophy. But Athanasius and Hilary, in spite of their hellenistic blinders, denied their philosophy and believed the revelation, (implying that philosophy was limited), insisting that Jesus Christ was a true and not adopted Son of God, subordinate as to obedience, but the ontological equal of his Heavenly Father.

 

If only we had lost with the Arians, the belief we proclaimed would be an imperfect, but big winner with you guys.

Edited January 30, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

If faith trumps reason (as I insist with my mystery argument), why bother with theology? (from mfbukowski) Too much for tonight. What a great question to ponder.

 

Later,

 

Rory

 

PS: Thanks cal for the SNL skit. Love Jimmy Fallon and Christopher Walken. They are the best. Walken as "The Continental". Also loved this skit where he was one of those weirdos on late night TV claiming to be able to help you on the psychic hotline. He offered to make house calls. Nobody was calling and he was lamenting that if you would only call...it would be great...we could have already been in your driveway...Like anybody would want this creep in their house!!!!

[mfbukowski]

Yep I always liked those Arians.

 

Close, but no cigar.

[3DOP]

Ok I understand this and can have respect for your beliefs. And in the same vien I think I agree with you more than I disagree with you. There are certain things in my own faith that I can't fully explain. And I am willing to admit that if this is really the best way then I think I agree with you. Somethings are not meant to be understood right now. I think we only disagree on what some of those things are. And of crouse the guy you were quoting has many valid points that we can't comprehened every thing fully right now anyway. I must conceed that point. I think he is right on. I think we do comprehend a great deal of many things but the word "Fully" is the key. Any way I always enjoy your comments I think you should post when ever you feel like it.

 

Thanks Mola Ram Suda Ram. Thank you very much. In spite of the expressed skepticism of a few about whether we can benefit from another one of those Trinity threads, I think we have. Let me tell you what I have perceived/learned.

 

I need to allow you guys to let off steam regarding those Trinitarians who think that only those who accept the Nicene Trinity qualify as Christian. (Shoot, this would eliminate ante-Nicene saints and Church Fathers!) I am in agreement with you that the Nicene Trinity can not be the standard to determine who can be considered to be trying to follow Christ. I hold that you are a Christian sect, for whatever that is worth. (I don't believe all Christians are saved like so many others. I am a Christian. I know this. But I could easily still go to Hell.) I am NOT admitting that I think its okay just to be "good" where you are.

 

When any of you guys throw off on the Trinity, it is because you have correctly perceived that its truth is not demonstrable from Scripture alone and it is impossible to conceive how such a phenomenon can exist by way of reason. I should applaud you for arriving at that place. 99% of the Trinitarians you deal with today are going to assume that Scripture clearly teaches the Trinity and that it can be demonstrated logically. When they accuse you of not being Christian for denying their dubious claims, I need to have some understanding about why you might want to vent a little.

 

I am hoping that this thread has succeeded in showing that there is only one way to defend the Catholic doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. I don't know how much documentation it would take to establish to many people's satisfaction that the Catholic Church insists upon denying what "99% of the Trinitarians you deal with today are going to assume". But I'll get to work on it. By claiming or implying that reason and Scripture alone establishes a Trinity, Trinitarians have done a grave injustice to the LDS community. I want to distance myself from that bunch. I want to work at establishing that this mystery theology is not "Roryism" but is the true and documentable Catholic faith. I don't promise to be able to do it in a day or week or even a month or year. I don't expect to try to start a thread. But I know it will be on my mind as the occasion lends itself. 

 

My apologies for failing to appreciate why good Mormons might occasionally feel the need to take the liberty to poke fun at The Trinity. Or I should say, the Trinity as it has been proposed by modern Trinitarians, people who are often really just looking for a convenient reason to exclude you guys from the category of Christian. 

 

Rory 

Edited January 30, 2014 by 3DOP

[saemo]

I don't view the LDS rejection of the Trinity as convenient. There is not even a heresy in LDS teaching but something *other*. Which I perceive LDS take great pride in, so the discussion has no point.

[3DOP]

I don't view the LDS rejection of the Trinity as convenient. There is not even a heresy in LDS teaching but something *other*. Which I perceive LDS take great pride in, so the discussion has no point.

 

Dear saemo,

 

I am sure I do not understand your apparent objection. Convenient? No heresy? Something "other" is probably heresy. I would say there are deficiencies as well as "something other". But does that mean I don't try to clarify my beliefs, especially when I can see they are imperfectly understood? I can't help what they believe, but I can help them to understand that something else that is out there might not be as implausible as they have assumed.

 

I outlined what I have learned. It has been valuable to me. As for my "instruction"...Some water, some plow, God gives the increase. We don't know who might be watching without posting. We don't know whose grandmother is praying down graces that will be more important in dispelling pride than the feeble arguments I offer, if they would ever bear fruit. 

 

Ultimately, I find it enjoyable. I couldn't have done it so long unless I loved it. Its fun. But it IS serious because of the subject matter. While I think I do take it very seriously because of the subject matter, it is a hobby too. At worst, what I do here seems at least as harmless as model trains. Maybe I am just being foolishly optimistic, but I am thinking that if not today or ten years from now, maybe some time after I am dead, someone will be just a little softer hearted towards the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church because of what they read so long ago at that long gone website. And when that person is visited by a living Catholic saint, the ground will be less rocky, and the good seed will have a better chance.

 

Oh what a moment...to see somebody you never saw in your mortal life make it into the heavenly kingdom because of a chance word you spoke on that 21st Century internet. Maybe my immortal eyes will never meet another's in that way. But God helping me, it won't be for lack of trying.   

 

Regards,

 

3DOP

Edited January 30, 2014 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

Dear saemo,

 

I am sure I do not understand your apparent objection. Convenient? No heresy? Something "other" is probably heresy. I would say there are deficiencies as well as "something other". But does that mean I don't try to clarify my beliefs, especially when I can see they are imperfectly understood? I can't help what they believe, but I can help them to understand that something else that is out there might not be as implausible as they have assumed.

 

I outlined what I have learned. It has been valuable to me. As for my "instruction"...Some water, some plow, God gives the increase. We don't know who might be watching without posting. We don't know whose grandmother is praying down graces that will be more important in dispelling pride than the feeble arguments I offer, if they would ever bear fruit. 

 

Ultimately, I find it enjoyable. I couldn't have done it so long unless I loved it. Its fun. But it IS serious because of the subject matter. While I think I do take it very seriously because of the subject matter, it is a hobby too. At worst, what I do here seems at least as harmless as model trains. Maybe I am just being foolishly optimistic, but I am thinking that if not today or ten years from now, maybe some time after I am dead, someone will be just a little softer hearted towards the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church because of what they read so long ago at that long gone website. And when that person is visited by a living Catholic saint, the ground will be less rocky, and the seed will have a chance.

 

Oh what a moment...to see somebody you never saw in your mortal life make it into the heavenly kingdom because of a chance word you spoke on that 21st Century internet. Maybe my immortal eyes will never meet another's in that way. But God helping me, it won't be for lack of trying.   

 

Regards,

 

3DOP

Great post!!