The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent

[3DOP]

To come back to mystery, there are mysteries all around us. We know some things about creation, but do we have knowledge of everything? God's creation is mysterious, but everything about the Godhead is easily known and what's more, you can write it all down? Encyclopedias are huge incomplete efforts to catalogue human knowledge of the world around us including its history. Comprehensive knowledge in this world is so evasive. We learn something and find that we are not at an end. Something new is always appearing as a mystery to solve. How could there be comprehensive knowledge of the Creator when comprehensive knowledge of creation seems unattainable? Is it easier to have comprehensive knowledge of the Creator than His creation?

The Catholic faith assures us that a loving Creator God wants to reveal Himself to us, and to adopt us as His children. For now, while we live by faith, we see through a glass, as St. Paul says, "darkly". Faith, by definition, implies mystery, not comprehensive knowledge, and in this life God rewards those who live according to that limited, non-comprehensive knowledge, which is gained by the gift of faith. I certainly can not see what is scandalous or problematic about Catholics insisting that we can't have comprehensive knowledge of the Godhead. According to my Latter-day Saint friends here, how would that injure Catholic claims apologetically speaking?

 

[MiserereNobis]

Rory,

Thanks for so accurately articulating our Catholic faith in this thread.

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

The Catholic faith assures us that a loving Creator God wants to reveal Himself to us, and to adopt us as His children.

I just want to reassure our LDS friends that this is by no way just Rory's opinion or take on the matter. Here is the first paragraph in the Catechism:

Quote

I. The life of man - to know and love God

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by MiserereNobis

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Rory,

Thanks for so accurately articulating our Catholic faith in this thread.

I just want to reassure our LDS friends that this is by no way just Rory's opinion or take on the matter. Here is the first paragraph in the Catechism:

 

Well dang that is pretty close- we just believe that the "family" extends to all humanity

[longview]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

To come back to mystery, there are mysteries all around us. We know some things about creation, but do we have knowledge of everything?

Thank you for your thoughts.  My perspective is that there is no real mystery Jesus' own words for describing Himself and His Father and the relationship between members of the Godhead.  Jesus does make a distinction between the first and second comforters (alluding to Himself and the Holy Ghost).  Why not take His words at face value?

Are you planning a response to Teddy's last post?  I am looking forward to seeing it!

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Thank you for your thoughts.  My perspective is that there is no real mystery Jesus' own words for describing Himself and His Father and the relationship between members of the Godhead.  Jesus does make a distinction between the first and second comforters (alluding to Himself and the Holy Ghost).  Why not take His words at face value?

Are you planning a response to Teddy's last post?  I am looking forward to seeing it!

You are welcome longview. I fear we are not understanding each other when it comes to mystery. Mystery implies knowledge as well as ignorance. Mystery knows and mystery knows not. I don't know how many ways I can put it. I think we are suffering from colloquial ways of using words without much precision.

Why not take Jesus' words at face value? I have not seen myself as arguing for obscure ways of understanding the Gospel. I think I am okay with "face value", as I see it. I am really not sure at all where you think I am against what you call "face value". I explained why the Catholic will interpret several of your passages certain ways. In which of these did you find the Catholic Church was not taking Jesus' words at face value? Hmmmm.

How about this? Maybe this is what moves me away from you think of as "face value". "The Father is greater than I" in John 14 must be measured against Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" in Phil. 2:6. The skeptic might say that at "face value", these statements are contradictory. It would seem like a reasonable argument at "face value". Perhaps that is why you might perceive me to be less confident than you in "face value". The faithful Christian will believe both statements in order to understand, and find a way to make a reconciliation of two "face value" irreconcilables. 

I am of a school of thought that believes that doctrinal controversy is never resolved by Scripture alone (because of the obscurity of the meanings of Scripture). This drew me to the Catholic faith which denies that the Scriptures are easy to understand. Instead of Scripture alone, a second witness, Apostolic Tradition, is required to demonstrate that any particular teaching is truly Catholic. All Protestants, many Latter-day Saints, and sadly in our day, a few Catholics, seem to believe that the Scriptures alone are clear and easy to understand. I am convinced that this is a seriously mistaken way of approaching God's Holy Word.         

I am off work for a week for the first time since 2019 and would hope to speak to Teddy's latest sometime soon.

God bless,

Rory

Edited March 22, 2021 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

19 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Rory,

Thanks for so accurately articulating our Catholic faith in this thread.

I just want to reassure our LDS friends that this is by no way just Rory's opinion or take on the matter. Here is the first paragraph in the Catechism:

 

Thanks Jesse. The upvote is for the quote. And for pointing out that it is the very first lesson of the Catholic faith.

[3DOP]

21 hours ago, longview said:

Thank you for your thoughts.  My perspective is that there is no real mystery Jesus' own words for describing Himself and His Father and the relationship between members of the Godhead.  Jesus does make a distinction between the first and second comforters (alluding to Himself and the Holy Ghost).  Why not take His words at face value?

Are you planning a response to Teddy's last post?  I am looking forward to seeing it!

Hey longview, before moving on, do you think Catholics fail to distinguish any difference between Christ and the Holy Ghost? I was associating "face value" with something else yesterday. I am glad to be able to clear this one up, if, as it appears, you associate Catholics with what is usually identified as modalism, because we would be picturing the same one God the Father, behaving in different modes as the Son and Holy Ghost.

The Catholic Church has always opposed the kind of monotheism that is so rigorous that it would imply that the Father died on the Cross. As early as the 2nd Century heretical groups arose that confused Christ with the Father or Christ with the Holy Ghost. This perhaps begins with a laudable purpose of retaining an unmistakable monotheism that could avoid the kinds of remark Catholics might hear today from Muslims, or might have heard then from the Jewish community, who might reprove the Catholics for polytheism. I always reply to that accusation that I see no reason for concerned if we are not equally monotheistic with Muslims or Jews. They can have the title of "Most Rigorous Monotheists", and Catholics will believe whatever the Catholic Church teaches. I think it is fair to say that Catholics teach a softer monotheism than Muslims and Jews. For us God is One and God is Three, both in different ways. We cannot overemphasize one truth to the neglect of another.

Just as an aside longview, it was my study of the Restorationist claims of Islam and Mormonism, together with Catholicism, back in the early 90's, that was part of my intellectual journey to Rome. Muslims said Catholics overemphasize the Threeness of God. Mormons said Catholics overemphasize the Oneness of God. Both LDS and Islamic claims were important. Obviously, I came to believe that the charges of Apostasy from both sides was unfair and that often, the charges came out of a distorted perspective on what the Catholic Church truly teaches. I believe this misunderstanding of what is meant when Catholics say God is "incomprehensible" is one of those misunderstandings. If I only viewed Catholicism through such lenses, I could become confident of an apostate Catholic Church too.

Since it appears that you yourself might think that Catholics overemphasize the Oneness, I have pulled up part of an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which explains how some different heretical monotheists were almost ceaselessly trying to influence orthodoxy in the early centuries of the Church.

"Already St. Justin knew of Christians who taught the identity of the Father and the Son ("Apol.", I, 63; Dialogue with Trypho 128). In Hermas, as in Theodotus, the Son and the Holy Ghost are confused. But it was reserved for Noetus and his school to deny categorically that the unity of the Godhead is compatible with a distinction of Persons. They seem to have regarded the Logos as a mere name, or faculty, or attribute, and to have made the Son and the Holy Ghost merely aspects of modes of existence of the Father, thus emphatically identifying Christ with the one God. "What harm am I doing", was the reply made by Noetus to the presbyters who interrogated him, "in glorifying Christ?" They replied: "We too know in truth one God; we know Christ; we know that the Son suffered even as He suffered, and died even as He died, and rose again on the third day, and is at the right hand of the Father, and cometh to judge the living and the dead; and what we have learned we declare" (Hippol.; "Contra Noetum", 1). Thus they refuted Noetus with tradition - the Apostles' Creed is enough; for the Creed and the New Testament indeed make the distinction of Persons clear, and the traditional formulas and prayers were equally unmistakable." 

---https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10448a.htm

The underlining is for words that are also entries in the Encyclopedia. The bold is mine because I thought it illustrated what I meant yesterday about a second witness, Apostolic Tradition, being necessary to resolve doctrinal controversy. In addition to Scripture, note how the Catholics are said to have argued from the the Apostles Creed and Scripture and then by appealing to the already ancient liturgical practices which in this case, helped establish what the Catholic Church proposes for our faith. This is a big part of what I mean if I speak of Scripture being difficult by itself. Isolated from Tradition, with a Bible alone, I could believe almost every heresy that has ever been successful for a while. I do not think obstinate heretics are crazy. That is not their problem. Their problem is that they become immoderately attached to a well thought out false doctrine that is plausible from Scripture alone. So far it is okay. But then they begin to imagine this doctrine is not only plausible from Scripture alone, but clearly taught from the Scripture alone. At that point, they do not subject themselves to the authority of Apostolic Tradition, they lose the only sure way to resolve doctrinal controversy, and finally and sadly, they find themselves outside the Catholic Church. 

Edited March 22, 2021 by 3DOP

[Ahab]

On 3/20/2021 at 8:50 AM, 3DOP said:

The question is not about whether we think we know something about the Godhead. The question is about whether we think we know everything about the Godhead. Catholics are mistakenly portrayed above as declaring ignorance about the Godhead because of a misunderstanding of terms. It seems to me like it should be obvious now that the Catholics are not declaring total ignorance of the Godhead.  

I doubt if LDS should say that they have comprehensive knowledge of the Godhead. By accepting that there are truths that are currently unknown, you could if you would, agree with Catholics that there are hidden truths about the LDS God too. Catholics refer to this hidden truth as mystery.  

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Rory

What I don't like is how Catholics assert and continue to want to insist that God is and must forever be incomprehensible, as if we are not supposed to be able to understand him or them or the kind of being each of them is.  When the truth is we can.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

What I don't like is how Catholics assert and continue to want to insist that God is and must forever be incomprehensible,

The Catholic faith does not teach this.

In Heaven, we will know God as He is, see Him as He is, and understand Him as He is.

From the catechism:

Quote

1023 Those who die in God's grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they "see him as he is," face to face.

This state in Heaven is also called the "beatific vision." Again from the catechism:

Quote

1028 Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he himself opens up his mystery to man's immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. The Church calls this contemplation of God in his heavenly glory "the beatific vision"

We cannot know God fully unless He opens Himself to us, which is what happens in the beatific vision in heaven.

So, we cannot know God perfectly now (and 3DOP is giving great arguments why), but we can in the beatific vision in heaven.

Therefore, your statement that Catholicism insists that God is forever incomprehensible is false. One of 3DOP's major points in this thread is that people do not understand or misrepresent the Catholic position. This is an example of that.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Catholic faith does not teach this.

In Heaven, we will know God as He is, see Him as He is, and understand Him as He is.

From the catechism:

This state in Heaven is also called the "beatific vision." Again from the catechism:

We cannot know God fully unless He opens Himself to us, which is what happens in the beatific vision in heaven.

So, we cannot know God perfectly now (and 3DOP is giving great arguments why), but we can in the beatific vision in heaven.

Therefore, your statement that Catholicism insists that God is forever incomprehensible is false. One of 3DOP's major points in this thread is that people do not understand or misrepresent the Catholic position. This is an example of that.

Good to hear that you believe that, which I have never heard.  We believe that too, except that we don't believe we must wait until we get to heaven to understand God as he is.  We do need the Spirit to help us, though, whether by transfiguring us or showing us in a vision.  We don't use the word "beatific" as you have here, and I haven't heard that term from Catholics before.  I was just going off of what I have read from some of your council declarations, no body or parts or passions and always referred to as incomprehensible.

[3DOP]

On 3/20/2021 at 8:09 PM, teddyaware said:

Good stuff! But it’s important to realize that the Catholics (most Protestants too) don’t believe in Modalism, the idea that the Trinity is one person and therefore one God. But it needs to be seared into the mind of every Latter-Day saint that the Catholics believe Modalism (i.e. one person and one God) is a concept that they consider to be heresy. Rather, Catholics actually do believe the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost really are three separate and distinct personages, but then they go on further to say that in some mysterious, incomprehensible way the three separate personage are still one God due to the fact that they are of one common “divine substance.”

Personally, I believe the only major sticking point that separates the Catholics and the Latter-Day Saints on the nature of the Godhead is that that the Latter-Day Saints actually define what the supposedly “incomprehensible” unifying substance actually is, namely matter. To flesh out this idea further, we believe both the Father and the Son have tangible glorified bodies of flesh and bond, and that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost have spirit bodies (in the case of both the Father and the Son, spirit bodies enclosed within resurrected tabernacles of clay) and that the spirit bodies of all three are composed of a finer and purer form of matter called uncreated intelligence, or the Spirit of Truth and the Light of Truth.

The likely reason why the Catholics think the substance that unifies the Godhead is incomprehensible is because they believe that although the substance is real it’s somehow simultaneously immaterial. Meanwhile, we Latter-Day Saints believe spirit is matter, just a finer and purer form of matter than the kind we can see, observe, quantify and measure within the observable universe. And since the Catholics acknowledge they don’t know nor understand what the unifying immaterial substance might be, for for all they know, when the truth of the matter is finally demystified for them and revealed, they will be astounded to realize we Latter-Day Saints had it right all along.

Yes indeed, while it may shock the sensibilities of some Latter-Day Saints to learn that the separate personages of the Father and Son do actually share two forms of very real substance — tangible glorified gross matter and highly refined and most glorious spiritual matter — it is true nonetheless. In fact, the primary mechanism that will enable the sons and daughters of God to become fully like him is through receiving the outpouring of the very same divine Spirit that unifies the members of the Godhead. It’s by this means that the saints of God are enabled to become one with each other, and also become one with God in the same way that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one. 

 

Thanks Teddy,

You spotted longview's apparent belief in Catholic modalism before I did. I don't know that LDS minds must be seared with the knowledge that Catholics are anti-modalist. Heh. I would hope that is not a painful process.

So long as you accept the Catholic usage of the word, incomprehensible, as perfect and exhaustive knowledge of a subject, I think you show a good understanding of the Catholic position. I would tend to question one aspect of your analysis and will quote it below:

"The likely reason why the Catholics think the substance that unifies the Godhead is incomprehensible is because they believe that although the substance is real it’s somehow simultaneously immaterial.

I think the Godhead is incomprehensible to Catholics because God is greater than our puny minds can absorb and that would remain even if we were to understand His "substance" as material.

So let us suppose that we say that God is essentially matter. That doesn't tell us anymore about what God is like, than to say His substance is immaterial. When we say that God is love, justice, mercy, or wisdom, are we referring to material realities? If some of the things that are essential to a God with a material body are immaterial realities, and conceptual inventions of the mind, there is still mystery and incomprehensibility. 

But wait. Maybe God's love is made out of matter too? Is every idea made out of matter? I do not believe it of course. But for now, I don't want to argue the impossibility. But I argue that it would be mysterious and impossible to explain. I am suggesting that matter does not provide all of the answers about God and His interior self. Again I am not saying that LDS would be wrong if they think the substance of God or Wednesday is matter. Where is this matter that is Wednesday kept on the other days of the week? That is just one mystery. Matter needs space, right? Is some person organizing all material concepts and ideas and somehow...I am not trying to be mocking at all. I am only saying that material substance does not provide exhaustive information or eliminate mysteries in the Godhead.

 

    

[MiserereNobis]

35 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Good to hear that you believe that, which I have never heard.  We believe that too, except that we don't believe we must wait until we get to heaven to understand God as he is.  We do need the Spirit to help us, though, whether by transfiguring us or showing us in a vision.  We don't use the word "beatific" as you have here, and I haven't heard that term from Catholics before.  I was just going off of what I have read from some of your council declarations, no body or parts or passions and always referred to as incomprehensible.

Please read what 3DOP is writing in this very thread about the "mystery" and "incomprehensibility" of God so that you can understand what that means to Catholics.

Edited March 22, 2021 by MiserereNobis

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Please read what 3DOP is writing in this very thread about the "mystery" of God so that you can understand what that means to Catholics.

Okay.

 

On 3/21/2021 at 10:48 AM, 3DOP said:

To come back to mystery, there are mysteries all around us. We know some things about creation, but do we have knowledge of everything? God's creation is mysterious, but everything about the Godhead is easily known and what's more, you can write it all down? Encyclopedias are huge incomplete efforts to catalogue human knowledge of the world around us including its history. Comprehensive knowledge in this world is so evasive. We learn something and find that we are not at an end. Something new is always appearing as a mystery to solve. How could there be comprehensive knowledge of the Creator when comprehensive knowledge of creation seems unattainable? Is it easier to have comprehensive knowledge of the Creator than His creation?

The Catholic faith assures us that a loving Creator God wants to reveal Himself to us, and to adopt us as His children. For now, while we live by faith, we see through a glass, as St. Paul says, "darkly". Faith, by definition, implies mystery, not comprehensive knowledge, and in this life God rewards those who live according to that limited, non-comprehensive knowledge, which is gained by the gift of faith. I certainly can not see what is scandalous or problematic about Catholics insisting that we can't have comprehensive knowledge of the Godhead. According to my Latter-day Saint friends here, how would that injure Catholic claims apologetically speaking?

 

I think you're confusing "comprehending" something with "comprehending everything about" something.

Comprehend:  grasp mentally; understand.
"he couldn't comprehend her reasons for marrying Lovat"
Similar:
understand
grasp
take in
see
apprehend
follow
make sense of
fathom
make out
puzzle out
get to the bottom of
penetrate
realize
perceive
discern
divine
unravel
decipher
interpret
piece together
work out
figure out
make head or tail of
get one's head around
wrap one's mind around
take on board
get a fix on
get the hang of
get the drift of
catch onto
latch onto
tumble to
crack
dig
get
see the light
get the picture
twig
suss out
suss
savvy
2.
FORMAL
include, comprise, or encompass.
"a divine order comprehending all men"

 

I know that none of us in our mortal state knows everything about God but that doesn't mean none of us can comprehend God.  We can.  It's easy. 

All it takes is understanding what God tells us about himself and every other person like him, including us, to some extent.

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

What I don't like is how Catholics assert and continue to want to insist that God is and must forever be incomprehensible, as if we are not supposed to be able to understand him or them or the kind of being each of them is.  When the truth is we can.

What I don't like is how I get the impression that you continue to impose upon Catholics a definition of "incomprehensible" that is inapplicable to Catholic theology and is contrary to the dictionary definition. Catholics in the Beatific Vision would enjoy greater knowledge of an infinite and incomprehensible God, than LDS could enjoy of an easily understood, finite God. We all like what we like.

You err when you complain about eternal incomprehensibility, and in the same sentence talk as though incomprehensibility means total ignorance: "as if we are not supposed to be able to understand him or them or the kind of being each of them is.  When the truth is we can." Why would you say that Catholics think we are not supposed to understand God? Do you really think that? That is classic equivocation. I have repeatedly explained that incomprehensibility is compatible with great understanding and knowledge, and with unimaginable knowledge in the Beatific Vision. I have belabored that point in this thread. It means that we lack perfect, exhaustive knowledge. 

Do you say that there is a time when the LDS Godhead reaches an end of progress? Unless you do, there will always be eternal mysteries for LDS as well, and according to the way Catholics and the dictionary define incomprehensibility, this would apply to your Godhead.

 

 

 

[Ahab]

35 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

What I don't like is how I get the impression that you continue to impose upon Catholics a definition of "incomprehensible" that is inapplicable to Catholic theology and is contrary to the dictionary definition. Catholics in the Beatific Vision would enjoy greater knowledge of an infinite and incomprehensible God, than LDS could enjoy of an easily understood, finite God. We all like what we like.

You err when you complain about eternal incomprehensibility, and in the same sentence talk as though incomprehensibility means total ignorance: "as if we are not supposed to be able to understand him or them or the kind of being each of them is.  When the truth is we can." Why would you say that Catholics think we are not supposed to understand God? Do you really think that? That is classic equivocation. I have repeatedly explained that incomprehensibility is compatible with great understanding and knowledge, and with unimaginable knowledge in the Beatific Vision. I have belabored that point in this thread. It means that we lack perfect, exhaustive knowledge. 

Do you say that there is a time when the LDS Godhead reaches an end of progress? Unless you do, there will always be eternal mysteries for LDS as well, and according to the way Catholics and the dictionary define incomprehensibility, this would apply to your Godhead.

I'm not the one saying there will always be some sense in which we do not comprehend God, and yet you still seem to be saying you always will consider God to be incomprehensible in some sense.

I do believe it is possible to comprehend God while still not knowing everything about God, because even at that limited level of knowledge there would still be some things about God that we would understand.

How about this idea - are you willing to stop using the word "incomprehensible" altogether when talking about whether or not you or others can understand God?  I can't think of any good reason to think we can't comprehend God.

But then again to me to "comprehend" God doesn't equate to "comprehend everything there is to know about" God, as if there is something about him or them we are not supposed to be able to understand.

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Thanks Teddy,

You spotted longview's apparent belief in Catholic modalism before I did. I don't know that LDS minds must be seared with the knowledge that Catholics are anti-modalist. Heh. I would hope that is not a painful process.

So long as you accept the Catholic usage of the word, incomprehensible, as perfect and exhaustive knowledge of a subject, I think you show a good understanding of the Catholic position. I would tend to question one aspect of your analysis and will quote it below:

"The likely reason why the Catholics think the substance that unifies the Godhead is incomprehensible is because they believe that although the substance is real it’s somehow simultaneously immaterial.

I think the Godhead is incomprehensible to Catholics because God is greater than our puny minds can absorb and that would remain even if we were to understand His "substance" as material.

So let us suppose that we say that God is essentially matter. That doesn't tell us anymore about what God is like, than to say His substance is immaterial. When we say that God is love, justice, mercy, or wisdom, are we referring to material realities? If some of the things that are essential to a God with a material body are immaterial realities, and conceptual inventions of the mind, there is still mystery and incomprehensibility. 

But wait. Maybe God's love is made out of matter too? Is every idea made out of matter? I do not believe it of course. But for now, I don't want to argue the impossibility. But I argue that it would be mysterious and impossible to explain. I am suggesting that matter does not provide all of the answers about God and His interior self. Again I am not saying that LDS would be wrong if they think the substance of God or Wednesday is matter. Where is this matter that is Wednesday kept on the other days of the week? That is just one mystery. Matter needs space, right? Is some person organizing all material concepts and ideas and somehow...I am not trying to be mocking at all. I am only saying that material substance does not provide exhaustive information or eliminate mysteries in the Godhead.

More on this post of yours later. But I just want to let you know that I used the word ‘seared’ advisably. You see, it really annoys me when I hear uninformed Latter-Day Saints get up in Church and say how silly they think it is for anyone to believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one and the same person, usually said with the wisp a playful smirk on the face. 

Edited March 22, 2021 by teddyaware

[3DOP]

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm not the one saying there will always be some sense in which we do not comprehend God, and yet you still seem to be saying you always will consider God to be incomprehensible in some sense.

I do believe it is possible to comprehend God while still not knowing everything about God, because even at that limited level of knowledge there would still be some things about God that we would understand.

How about this idea - are you willing to stop using the word "incomprehensible" altogether when talking about whether or not you or others can understand God?  I can't think of any good reason to think we can't comprehend God.

But then again to me to "comprehend" God doesn't equate to "comprehend everything there is to know about" God, as if there is something about him or them we are not supposed to be able to understand.

Ahab. Hi. Great idea.

I am tired of typing incomprehensibility. You should realize it wasn't anyone Catholic though, that introduced that word in to the conversation. I am happy to steer clear of it, as long as everybody else is. I see no reason why I would ever need to talk about "incomprehensibility" here at the board as it is used in the dictionary and in Catholic theology, until someone else starts complaining that Catholic theologians disagree with me if I should say I comprehend God as a Catholic.  At that point I would need to back up and do this whole thing over again.

Better yet, you could explain to them what I mean! 😉

Take care,

Rory 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Ahab. Hi. Great idea.

I am tired of typing incomprehensibility. You should realize it wasn't anyone Catholic though, that introduced that word in to the conversation. I am happy to steer clear of it, as long as everybody else is. I see no reason why I would ever need to talk about "incomprehensibility" here at the board as it is used in the dictionary and in Catholic theology, until someone else starts complaining that Catholic theologians disagree with me if I should say I comprehend God as a Catholic.  At that point I would need to back up and do this whole thing over again.

Better yet, you could explain to them what I mean! 😉

Take care,

Rory 

Sounds like just some blowback from old Catholic teachings, based on my understanding of what you said about Catholic understanding today.  If only that guy or those guys had never used the word incomprehensible. You seem to know better today.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I think you're confusing "comprehending" something with "comprehending everything about" something.

How about you let us define how we use words in our faith and not tell us what we believe. Thanks!

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

How about you let us define how we use words in our faith and not tell us what we believe. Thanks!

Sure, and then I'll let you know what I understand from what you are saying and whether or not I agree with your comments.

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Sounds like just some blowback from old Catholic teachings, based on my understanding of what you said about Catholic understanding today.  If only that guy or those guys had never used the word incomprehensible. You seem to know better today.

Nope. I can find no better. I hold to Old Catholic teachings. They are all necessarily old. There is nothing wrong with the way they use incomprehensible. It is precise. It is clear. But you don't like it, so I express willingness to use your definition. Words are fluid, changing in meaning to hearers in different times and places. If I find that by accepting for sake of discussion, your definition of a word, that you apply it to those who never agreed to your terms, I will go right back and start insisting that you accept what they mean, without regard to what I agree to accept in this time and place, in the increasingly unlikely hope of communicating with you.

We want to communicate. We do not want to equivocate. You can define words for sake of discussion today, unless you then insist that it must be applied to the same sounds and letters used differently yesterday. 

 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Nope. I can find no better. I hold to Old Catholic teachings. They are all necessarily old. There is nothing wrong with the way they use incomprehensible. It is precise. It is clear. But you don't like it, so I express willingness to use your definition. Words are fluid, changing in meaning to hearers in different times and places. If I find that by accepting for sake of discussion, your definition of a word, that you apply it to those who never agreed to your terms, I will go right back and start insisting that you accept what they mean, without regard to what I agree to accept in this time and place, in the increasingly unlikely hope of communicating with you.

We want to communicate. We do not want to equivocate. You can define words for sake of discussion today, unless you then insist that it must be applied to the same sounds and letters used differently yesterday. 

 

I suggest that we do not let posts from Ahab derail this conversation.

[InCognitus]

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Nope. I can find no better. I hold to Old Catholic teachings. They are all necessarily old. There is nothing wrong with the way they use incomprehensible. It is precise. It is clear. But you don't like it, so I express willingness to use your definition. Words are fluid, changing in meaning to hearers in different times and places. If I find that by accepting for sake of discussion, your definition of a word, that you apply it to those who never agreed to your terms, I will go right back and start insisting that you accept what they mean, without regard to what I agree to accept in this time and place, in the increasingly unlikely hope of communicating with you.

We want to communicate. We do not want to equivocate. You can define words for sake of discussion today, unless you then insist that it must be applied to the same sounds and letters used differently yesterday. 

 

As long as they aren't using that word to mean can not be comprehended?  Hmm.  Okay.  I can agree with that.  As long as they are using the word incomprehensible to mean can be comprehended I have no problem with that definition of that word.

I might even go far as to say that to me that is an incomprehensible definition of the word incomprehensible for those who understand only the regular modern English definition of incomprehensible.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I think the Godhead is incomprehensible to Catholics because God is greater than our puny minds can absorb and that would remain even if we were to understand His "substance" as material.

Everything I have seen says the LDS Godhead Is not unified by substance but simply in purpose.

 They are a team working together to accomplish the immortality and eternal life of mankind.

Edited March 23, 2021 by mfbukowski