Jump to content

Why is the trinity so important?


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is correct, though I'm not sure why you say it would be to the chagrin of the Catholics here..? This has been discussed before and I have posted a link to one diocese's list of churches that perform valid baptism. I've also posted a link to the official Vatican answer why LDS baptism is not valid. Validity requires proper matter, form, and intent. For baptism, matter is water. Form is the invocation of the Trinity during the baptism. The Catholic Church finds the LDS disbelief in the Trinity problematic enough to invalidate LDS baptisms. Also problematic is the intent of the person performing the LDS baptism, as that intent will be quite different from what the Catholic Church would intend.

Here is the link to the official document about LDS baptism: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html

 

Well said! You say it much better than I did. I made the chagrin comment because in general I believe the resident Catholics here not to be too pleased with the post-Vatican II church as it has morphed. It wasn't a negative comment, just a reflection of what I think I read in posts.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

@Eph2,8

You've mentioned truth a couple of times. I don't know how much you were lurking before you started posting, but I'm telling ya you better brush up on your Richard Rorty because I see mfbukowski is recently browsing this thread... ;) 

Hahahahahah I've talked with him once before! On this specific thread the truth I was referring to was historical fact. I think (I'm really not sure) that mfbukowski is interested in a different kind of truth. 

Nice to meet you!

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Chum said:

This sounds juicy. Wadda you got in the Reject This Today And You'll Be Tortured Forever dept?

I got the rejection of the atonement. And in the tortured forever dept., having to be on this forum at least six hours a day for eternity! Eee gads! Give me the lake of fire!

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I made the chagrin comment because in general I believe the resident Catholics here not to be too pleased with the post-Vatican II church as it has morphed.

You are right that the Catholics here are traditionalists of varying degree and find problems with the post-Vatican II church, but the acceptance of protestant baptism was not a post-Vatican II thing, however the news (and progressive Catholics) want to sometimes spin it. There have been ecumenical councils since the early days of the Church that have dealt with the validity of sacraments performed by heretics. However, it is infallibly stated in the Council of Trent (which was convened to deal with protestant heresies) that protestant baptism is valid. Here is Canon 4:

Quote

If anyone says that the baptism which is given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema

The Council of Trent concluded in 1563, 400 years before Vatican II.

So no chagrin to us traditionalists :) 

Link to comment
On 9/2/2021 at 7:48 PM, Fether said:

I was using the traditional Christian definition of it. Yes, many (if not most) believe you will burn for all eternity if you do not accept the concept of the trinity

Even in LDS theology, no one can be saved in even the lowest kingdom of heavenly glory until they come unto a Christ and acknowledge to God the Father that Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord.

109 But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore;
110 And heard the voice of the Lord saying: These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall CONFESS * to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever; (D&C 76)

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2)

and…

57 I beheld that the faithful elders of this dispensation, when they depart from mortal life, continue their labors in the preaching of the gospel of repentance and redemption, through the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of God, among those who are in darkness (the spirit prison) and under the bondage of sin in the great world of the spirits of the dead.
58 The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God,
59 Add after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions (a clear reference to the wicked who are thrust into hell at death to suffer for their sins in the spirit prison until the last resurrection), and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation. (D&C 138)

The prophets in Bible and the Book of Mormon speak the truth when they testify that the only way anyone can be saved is through belief in Jesus Christ. This is why Doctrine and Covenants 76 testifies that the inheritors of the telestial kingdom of glory will dwell in the presence of the Holy Ghost, whose primary mission is to testify of God the Father and his atoning Son.

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Eph2,8 said:

You're right, I agree absolutely that people will always disagree on whether something written is fact or fiction.

I suppose in this particular instance when I say true I mean a historical fact that Jesus said something. I brought up Matthew 19:7-9 in a discussion and another user questioned whether or not Jesus actually said what was contained in Matthew 19. So, when I say "true" in this context, I mean is it a historical fact that Jesus actually said something. Yes, in the interpretive world of the text we will undoubtedly approach, infer, and conclude differently (whether or not that is ideal). However, that wasn't what was being discussed. If we cannot even agree if Matthew 19 is real and true (historically), how can we adequately and accurately discuss the implications of it?

Can we discuss the implications of parables?

Of course.

Or perhaps we should eliminate anything scriptural which cannot be proven factual, from the scriptures?

That's all of it.

None of it would be admissible in court!  It's hearsay at BEST, we don't even know who the authors are or if those people who are named even existed 

Time to put off childish beliefs, and grow up!

It stands on it's own as great advice for humanity regardless of source.

Look at it as philosophy not history

Look at Kant and the Categorical Imperative! It is the golden rule derived from reason alone, not history 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Eph2,8 said:

Why, in your opinion, should anyone read the Bible? Honest question. If it is possibly riddled with falsities, what is the point?

So that individuals and a community can have a shared text in which to wrestle with and seek inspiration.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Can we discuss the implications of parables?

Of course.

Or perhaps we should eliminate anything scriptural which cannot be proven factual, from the scriptures?

That's all of it.

None of it would be admissible in court!  It's hearsay at BEST, we don't even know who the authors are or if those people who are named even existed 

Time to put off childish beliefs, and grow up!

It stands on it's own as great advice for humanity regardless of source.

Look at it as philosophy not history

Look at Kant and the Categorical Imperative! It is the golden rule derived from reason alone, not history 

I mean... we can discuss anything we want. If you're referring to scriptural parables then of course we can discuss those as scripture. I never implied that the content of the parable had to actually happen; my original conversation was about whether we can trust that the words printed in Matthew 19 were actually said/meant. Also, a parable is a lot different than a historical implication that changes accepted Biblical History. You seem to be extrapolating my original conversation about Matthew 19 into things I never meant, using premises' that I never asserted. 

Things in scripture absolutely can and have been proven factual: Babylonian/Egyptian captivities, King Cyrus, etc. I would claim that we do in fact know that Caesar Augustus, King Herod, David, Abraham, etc. do exist. 

I'm not sure if you're referring to me as childish, but that seems fairly Ad Hominem and counter productive to a conversation. Just because I think differently does not make me a child.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, the narrator said:

So that individuals and a community can have a shared text in which to wrestle with and seek inspiration.

A shared text that can't be trusted as inspiration from God? I'm asking honestly because I want to know your view. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is correct, though I'm not sure why you say it would be to the chagrin of the Catholics here..? This has been discussed before and I have posted a link to one diocese's list of churches that perform valid baptism. I've also posted a link to the official Vatican answer why LDS baptism is not valid. Validity requires proper matter, form, and intent. For baptism, matter is water. Form is the invocation of the Trinity during the baptism. The Catholic Church finds the LDS disbelief in the Trinity problematic enough to invalidate LDS baptisms. Also problematic is the intent of the person performing the LDS baptism, as that intent will be quite different from what the Catholic Church would intend.

Here is the link to the official document about LDS baptism: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html

 

Miserere...

With regards to intent, I think the Church is as broad as can be, and I accept the breadth. But sometimes I think her pastors have failed to appreciate how anti-Catholic Protestant baptisms are sometimes. Can fundamental Baptist ministers who believe that the pope is the Antichrist and the Church is the Whore of Babylon intend to to do what the Catholic Church does in baptism? I am glad my wife and I received conditional baptism from a SSPX priest. My sister, hopefully baptized by one who thought he hated the Catholic faith, was assured by her SSPX priest that she was baptized. I know and am glad for baptism of desire. I have confidence my sister is okay, because of desire. I cannot say I am so sure she has received Sacramental baptism. I sometimes think that Catholics, including Traditionalist priests, are not quite familiar with how difficult it is for formerly fundamentalist Christians to believe that virulently anti-Catholic ministers of baptism can administer the Sacrament. Most atheists and Jews are only passively anti-Catholic. I more easily believe they can administer baptism, than these fundamentalist ministers like I once was. I was actively anti-Catholic when I baptized. I hope the baptisms were Catholic and valid, but I don't know.

The Church never investigated what our fundamental pastor who baptized my sister and I believed about the Trinity. Very easily, he may have been as messed up about the Trinity from a Catholic perspective as the LDS. It seems to me that we need to examine on a case by case basis. I cannot simply believe that all LDS baptisms are non-Catholic, and all fundamental Baptist baptisms are Catholic. I think the Church makes a misstep in judging that ALL LDS need baptism, (LDS are not for orthodoxy but orthopraxy. There is a wide range of beliefs, acceptable to being a faithful LDS, and some that are not far from what Catholics believe about the Trinity), some of which are potentially administered with the correct intent. I also think the Church makes a misstep if she judges that ALL converts from Baptist fundamentalism are certainly baptised sacramentally. I can't accept that document from 2001. I understand why most, but not EVERY LDS baptism might be concluded to be invalid, from a Catholic perspective. But do we know in each case?  Why do we have to proclaim universal certainty? Let us baptize everybody who wants to eb Catholic conditionally.

There is nothing hard about conditional baptism. Why should we have to proclaim certainty about who is or is not baptized? I believe in doubt, in this area. I have no faith in certainty. I heartily advocate for lots of conditional baptisms.

Rory

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment

I should add that the questions I raise above are the basis of what is only my opinion. I am open to the idea that the modern Catholic Church is correct in judging no LDS baptism to ever be valid. I will try to explain my problem a little bit more. I am afraid that Catholics, being creedal, fail to appreciate what it might mean when Protestants (and LDS), take Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion and hold that the Bible alone is their sole authority for belief. The early reformers did not do this. One could know what Presbyterians, Anglicans, or Lutherans believed and more accurately understand the beliefs that potential converts had learned and experienced from the creeds of their churches. Even early Baptist groups made creeds. This is not so much attended to anymore. I remember being anti-creedal when I was a minister. "My only creed is in my hand, the Word of God." I therefore think that things have changed in our times, and that the Catholic Church might be slow to recognize that it is probably not good enough to assume that all Baptists, for instance, believe the same things. And I make a case below for why the Catholic Church should perhaps not judge the validity of every LDS baptism in consideration of what might be believed by any LDS father who is baptizing one of his children.  

----------

So, getting back to why the Trinity is so important. This exercise could lead me to accept the Catholic Church's proclamation against LDS baptism. Part of my doubt about the invalidity of all LDS baptisms is a hunch that I have about the importance of the Trinity according to LDS. I have believed for a long time that there is a wide range of doctrinal variance which can co-exist in a religion that is more concerned with practice than with dogma. In all of my discussions over the years with Latter-day Saints about the so-called Great Apostasy, one of the signs of apostasy is the making of creeds, of canonizing a doctrinal formula. It is not so much the content of a creed, but of declaring creeds to be irreformable that is the primary objection, if I correctly understand.

With that in mind, could an orthoprax Latter-day Saint remain in good standing with the Church, if he or she quietly believed in the Trinity as propounded at the Council of Nicea? Could such an one baptize? If the answer is yes, an orthoprax Latter-day Saint is not prohibited from believing in what might be called by most LDS, an "alternative view of the persons of the Trinity", such as would be compatible with Catholics and many Protestants. This would lead me to appreciate why, from an LDS perspective, that non-LDS overemphasize the importance of the Trinity. If the answer is in the negative, it seems to me that getting the Trinity wrong, is just as important to LDS as it is to everybody else. It would mean uniformity of an irreformable doctrine that must always be condemned. 

And to return to what I wrote last night regarding LDS baptism, if the question I asked above can be answered in the affirmative, as I am suspecting, that would explain why I am not comfortable at this time, with declaring all LDS baptisms to be certainly invalid. If the answer is no, that might make it a little easier for me to be comfortable with the Catholic declaration that every LDS baptism is certainly invalid.

3DOP  

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Eph2,8 said:

Things in scripture absolutely can and have been proven factual: Babylonian/Egyptian captivities, King Cyrus, etc. I would claim that we do in fact know that Caesar Augustus, King Herod, David, Abraham, etc. do exist. 

Because some  events in scripture can be shown to have been historical, that does not imply that scriptural doctrines must derive from historical events.

Surely you see that that is an invalid  syllogism 

I think we are just talking past each other and maybe there is no communication possible here.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

With that in mind, could an orthoprax Latter-day Saint remain in good standing with the Church, if he or she quietly believed in the Trinity as propounded at the Council of Nicea? Could such an one baptize? 

I believe the answer to both questions would be 'yes.'

So long as one doesn't preach, teach, or expound the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, I don't know how it would be possible for anyone - save God - to know what the individual truly believes.

I think this gets back to what you were saying about other churches. For example, I have sat in the pew of a Baptist church and listened to their minister preach modalism from the pulpit. Would any of his baptisms be considered valid? Based on the explanation offered by then-Cardinal Ratzinger regarding LDS baptisms I would think not. In which case, what is the good of accepting denominationally approved baptisms from denominations which do not require orthodoxy themselves?

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think we are just talking past each other and maybe there is no communication possible here.

Yes, I think we've departed from the original convo about Matthew 19. Let's just leave the convo here. 

Link to comment
On 9/1/2021 at 1:30 PM, Fether said:

I have heard the notion that we (latter-day Saints) worship the wrong Jesus many times in my life. As I push that comment further, I have always found that it is entirely because we believe in the God head and not the trinity. I then follow up with the question “so salvation is not found in accepting Christ, or by his grace and mercy, or in the blood of Christ? But rather salvation is found through theological study of God and his nature and coming to a correct conclusion?”

To which I haven’t heard anything convincing or really all that informative.

So what is so important about believing in the trinity for traditional Christians? Many will say that if you don’t believe in the trinitarian nature, you are not only wrong, but at risk of damnation

Nope.  It doesn't matter.  Luckily, the Gospel of Jesus Christ does not rest on fine theological distinctions, and Jesus himself had no time for such nonsense.

Link to comment
On 9/3/2021 at 3:53 PM, Eph2,8 said:

Hahahahahah I've talked with him once before! On this specific thread the truth I was referring to was historical fact. I think (I'm really not sure) that mfbukowski is interested in a different kind of truth. 

Nice to meet you!

Not quite.  I didn't even see this because it was not addressed to me.

"History' is just "his story." 

Do you actually want to say that history is NOT the cultural accounts of what human beings believe about others?

Do you have a video camera time machine to capture what "really happened"?   No you have accounts of what humans THINK "really happened".  Even that would be merely an account filtered through a human brain.   Is a wooden chair solid or is it a swarm of atoms with more space between them than "solid matter"?  Depends 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 9/3/2021 at 3:49 PM, MiserereNobis said:

@Eph2,8

You've mentioned truth a couple of times. I don't know how much you were lurking before you started posting, but I'm telling ya you better brush up on your Richard Rorty because I see mfbukowski is recently browsing this thread... ;) 

I was mistake on this reply- Eph2,8 was not the person to whom I replied in this post about Kant.   Instead of erasing the post, I am keeping it up to keep the story consistent.  The rest of this post is an error. 

I've tried- no communication possible.   He even mentioned Kant, and I told him that Mr. K was one of the founders of - surprisingly- postmodernism but he did not believe me.

Like I said, no communication.  🤨

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 9/3/2021 at 4:04 PM, Chum said:

That's pretty much swimming in the Gulf of Mexico.

Louisiana after the hurricane and attempted cleanup:  105 degrees fahrenheit.

Those poor folks!  Gosh what a mess!

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Louisiana after the hurricane and attempted cleanup:  105 degrees fahrenheit.

Those poor folks!  Gosh what a mess!

It was like that after Irma. Doing recovery on Marco Island, we were getting wiped out after an hour or so. Kept having to rest.

Of course we got to go back to our air conditioned homes after a day or two. Not at all like living thru it, like LA is getting to do.

Edited by Chum
Link to comment
12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"History' is just "his story." 

Do you actually want to say that history is NOT the cultural accounts of what human beings believe about others?

Do you have a video camera time machine to capture what "really happened"?   No you have accounts of what humans THINK "really happened".  Even that would be merely an account filtered through a human brain.   Is a wooden chair solid or is it a swarm of atoms with more space between them than "solid matter"?  Depends 

I want to understand your views better, and I seem to see a common thread. Are you saying that all history is subjective? Or, in other words, that history is simply a conglomerate of human adaptations/interpretations of events? I would definitely agree with that for written history - I think it's a pretty well accepted that victors glorify their victory and whatnot. 

Here's where I think we disagree. I would say that there is an objective history - things that actually happened, "I ate a doughnut this morning" - and then a written history - or oral or something similar. The written and the objective might possibly disagree quite a bit, but that does not change the objective. We might not always know or understand it, but it exists. When we corroborate, cross reference, and examine multiple different sources from different perspective we can grow closer and closer to objective history. 

I struggle to let go of the objective because then we risk losing our "anchor". If everything is only ultimately tied to the perceptions of the humans at the time, then we have no authority outside of ourselves. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I've tried- no communication possible.   He even mentioned Kant, and I told him that Mr. K was one of the founders of - surprisingly- postmodernism but he did not believe me.

Like I said, no communication.  🤨

I do not remember ever mentioning Kant. I even searched through all of my comments - admittedly that is not very much - and I have never posted anything relating to Kant (not even the name) on this discussion board. I also never found the phrase "postmodern" or any form of it in any of my comments. Perhaps you have me mixed up with the wrong person?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...