The uniqueness of the LDS Church

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

So... Peace?

 

Piece of what? 

Of course! Sorry about my gruff exterior, I am just a bit OCD about vague concepts, and I guess that puts some folks off.

 

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We believe the Godhead consists of three persons, all Gods, unified in their work and glory "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life" of humankind.  They are unified in love and purpose as any family might be working on a project together as One God(head), though each has their own position and assignment in the family 

THAT is canon.

No "consubstantiality" no fancy rhetoric necessary.  They are one in purpose.

Simple, direct and sensible.

I’ve always found it exceedingly difficult to understand why there are some members of the Church who fail to grasp the very simple and basic doctrinal concept of there being a “unity of the Spirit” that exists among each of the three members of the Godhead. In LDS theology, the uncreated Spirit of God is an shared material substance that dwells in infinite and eternal fulness within both the Father and the Son. Like it or not, this means that our theology embraces the concept that both the Father and the Son are filled to eternal fulness with a divine material substance that endows both the Father and the Son with limitless eternal intelligence and power. Just as the saints can enjoy a unity of the Spirit with God and each other by being filled with the same indwelling divine material substance called the Spirit of God, so too are the Father and the Son made perfectly one by the mutual indwelling of the same Spirit. This is basic Doctrine, for the scriptures repeatedly teach us that, on account of his humility and obedience, Christ received an eternal fulness of the same Spirit that dwells within his Father.

I’ve been perplexed for al long time why you seem to resist this idea when the scriptures repeatedly teach us that the only way anyone, including Christ himself, can become one with the Father is to receive a fulness of the spiritual substance that the scriptures call the Spirit of God? To say the Father and the Son are not filled to eternal fulness with the same actual divine substance called the Spirit of God is to deny one of the major tenets of gospel of Jesus Christ. The Lectures on Faith explain this doctrine beautifully, plainly revealing that the reason why the Father and the Son are one is because they are both filled with the same divine spiritual substance.

The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all—the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father—possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father—a Mediator for man—being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. (Lectures on Faith v)

Edited May 25, 2022 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I’ve always found it exceedingly difficult to understand why there are some members of the Church who fail to grasp the very simple and basic doctrinal concept of there being a “unity of the Spirit” that exists among each of the three members of the Godhead. In LDS theology, the uncreated Spirit of God is an shared material substance that dwells in infinite and eternal fulness within both the Father and the Son. Like it or not, this means that our theology embraces the concept that both the Father and the Son are filled to eternal fulness with a divine material substance that endows both the Father and the Son with limitless eternal intelligence and power. Just as the saints can enjoy a unity of the Spirit with God and each other by being filled with the same indwelling divine material substance called the Spirit of God, so too are the Father and the Son made perfectly one by the mutual indwelling of the same Spirit. This is basic Doctrine, for the scriptures repeatedly teach us that, on account of his humility and obedience, Christ received an eternal fulness of the same Spirit that dwells within his Father.

I’ve been perplexed for al long time why you seem to resist this idea when the scriptures repeatedly teach us that the only way anyone, including Christ himself, can become one with the Father is to receive a fulness of the spiritual substance that the scriptures call the Spirit of God? To say the Father and the Son are not filled to eternal fulness with the same actual divine substance called the Spirit of God is to deny one of the major tenets of gospel of Jesus Christ. The Lectures on Faith explain this doctrine beautifully, plainly revealing that the reason why the Father and the Son are one is because they are both filled with the same divine spiritual substance.

The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all—the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father—possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father—a Mediator for man—being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. (Lectures on Faith v)

But notice that nowhere in your quote does the word "substance" appear !  Same mind? Yes. Same spirit? Yes, sort of.

Remember the Lectures on Faith were removed from the Canon and are no longer scripture, for reasons like this.  And each being has his/her own spirit, or else one spirit could not be in spirit prison, and another in the Celestial Kingdom.  It is a figure of speech like "spirit of contention" does not mean that all contenders suddenly lose their individual spirits. It means a "FEELING" of contention, and they also have been given the constant PRESENCE of the Holy Spirit 

The notion of substance vs appearances is a Greek pagan notion going back to before Plato, and allows some to believe that bread can be the same "substance" as the flesh of Christ, In the Eucharist: TransSUBSTANTiation=Same substance, appearing differently.

The notion of CONSUBSTANTIALITY in the Trinity was a Platonic idea introduced in Catholicism hundreds of years after Christ.

Edited May 25, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I’ve always found it exceedingly difficult to understand why there are some members of the Church who fail to grasp the very simple and basic doctrinal concept of there being a “unity of the Spirit” that exists among each of the three members of the Godhead. In LDS theology, the uncreated Spirit of God is an shared material substance that dwells in infinite and eternal fulness within both the Father and the Son. Like it or not, this means that our theology embraces the concept that both the Father and the Son are filled to eternal fulness with a divine material substance that endows both the Father and the Son with limitless eternal intelligence and power. Just as the saints can enjoy a unity of the Spirit with God and each other by being filled with the same indwelling divine material substance called the Spirit of God, so too are the Father and the Son made perfectly one by the mutual indwelling of the same Spirit. This is basic Doctrine, for the scriptures repeatedly teach us that, on account of his humility and obedience, Christ received an eternal fulness of the same Spirit that dwells within his Father.

I’ve been perplexed for al long time why you seem to resist this idea when the scriptures repeatedly teach us that the only way anyone, including Christ himself, can become one with the Father is to receive a fulness of the spiritual substance that the scriptures call the Spirit of God? To say the Father and the Son are not filled to eternal fulness with the same actual divine substance called the Spirit of God is to deny one of the major tenets of gospel of Jesus Christ. The Lectures on Faith explain this doctrine beautifully, plainly revealing that the reason why the Father and the Son are one is because they are both filled with the same divine spiritual substance.

The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all—the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father—possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father—a Mediator for man—being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. (Lectures on Faith v)

See here, specifically on your point

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectures_on_Faith#:~:text="Lectures on Faith" is a,major branches of the faith.

[Pyreaux]

Because Jesus warned Joseph Smith about the unspecified "creeds" of other churches, in his area, so we get triggered by concepts that derive from anything calling itself a creed. The oneness doctrine of the Creeds seems to have little to do with anything the Bible ever said, and more to do with Platonic philosophy about God

Greek Philosophers had since abandoned their pantheon for a metaphysically perfect God they called The One, "Socrates and Plato held that (God is) the One, the single self-existent nature, the monadic, the real Being, the good: and all the variety of names points immediately to mind. God therefore is mind, a separate species, that is to say what is purely immaterial and unconnected with anything passable." (Plutarch, in Eusebias, Preparation for the Gospel 14:16).

The Christian Fathers used this language to further align their God with "the God of the philosophers." (Tertullian, Against Marcion 2:27)

Jesus never spoke like this, in fact there is an old joke, saying perhaps even He wouldn't have understood the Greek philosophical jargon if it had been said to Him in his own time.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Pyreaux

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Because Jesus warned Joseph Smith about the unspecified "creeds" of other churches, in his area, so we get triggered by concepts that derive from anything calling itself a creed. The oneness doctrine of the Creeds seems to have little to do with anything the Bible ever said, and more to do with Platonic philosophy about God

Greek Philosophers had since abandoned their pantheon for a metaphysically perfect God they called The One, "Socrates and Plato held that (God is) the One, the single self-existent nature, the monadic, the real Being, the good: and all the variety of names points immediately to mind. God therefore is mind, a separate species, that is to say what is purely immaterial and unconnected with anything passable." (Plutarch, in Eusebias, Preparation for the Gospel 14:16).

The Christian Fathers used this language to further align their God with "the God of the philosophers." (Tertullian, Against Marcion 2:27)

Jesus never spoke like this, in fact there is an old joke, saying perhaps even He wouldn't have understood the Greek philosophical jargon if it had been said to Him in his own time.

Oh, He would understand it just fine.

Actually Plato saw God as the pure Form or Idea of Goodness.

Bodies were seen as a vile substance of the lowest order. God could not possibly be embodied, to believe so would be something like blasphemy 

Edited May 26, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Pyreaux]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh, He would understand it just fine.

Actually Plato saw God as the pure Form or Idea of Goodness.

Bodies were seen as a vile substance of the lowest order. God could not possibly be embodied, to believe so would be something like blasphemy 

I'm sure, of course, an assumption on the basis of his innate brilliance, divine abilities and how much exposure to Greek culture he might have, but not evident in how he spoke, which might mean he simply had no interest in engaging in these foreign ideas. When he spoke about being "one" it was not about substance, form or being, but to overcome distinction and rivalry (John 10:3; 17:11, 21-22; Act 4:32).

Yeah, to the Greek philosophers, God would never associate Himself with any matter or flesh, Greeks thought all matter was by nature evil, which influenced Christian ideas about God. Its a matter of religious perspective as to whether it was for the better.

[InCognitus]

On 5/24/2022 at 2:39 PM, theplains said:

When I look at these sources, Jesus became a God (god) in the premortal existence and was
appointed to the Godhead.

And of course this is consistent with what is taught about Jesus in the scriptures and in early Christian teachings.

For example, Origen (185-254 AD) in his commentary on John 1:1, taught:

Quote

2. IN WHAT WAY THE LOGOS IS GOD. ERRORS TO BE AVOIDED ON THIS QUESTION.

 We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so "the Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

(Origen's Commentary on John, book 2 chapter 3, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume X, Allan Menzies, D.D., editor, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing, 1990 reprint) pp. 323-324.  See also:   Origen - Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book II))

Joseph Smith, by revelation, restored the original teachings about Jesus.

[3DOP]

On 5/25/2022 at 5:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

But notice that nowhere in your quote does the word "substance" appear !  Same mind? Yes. Same spirit? Yes, sort of.

Remember the Lectures on Faith were removed from the Canon and are no longer scripture, for reasons like this.  And each being has his/her own spirit, or else one spirit could not be in spirit prison, and another in the Celestial Kingdom.  It is a figure of speech like "spirit of contention" does not mean that all contenders suddenly lose their individual spirits. It means a "FEELING" of contention, and they also have been given the constant PRESENCE of the Holy Spirit 

The notion of substance vs appearances is a Greek pagan notion going back to before Plato, and allows some to believe that bread can be the same "substance" as the flesh of Christ, In the Eucharist: TransSUBSTANTiation=Same substance, appearing differently.

The notion of CONSUBSTANTIALITY in the Trinity was a Platonic idea introduced in Catholicism hundreds of years after Christ.

Substance/accident (not appearance). The distinction is important because both substance and accident "appear" in ordinary circumstances. A table (substance) appears to be a table. The color (accident) of the table also appears.

According to the Catholic faith, there is only one instance of transubstantiation for all eternity. This is because in that one instance, the substance never appears. This happens when bread and wine become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Only by faith can one look at the consecrated bread and wine, and think that there is something else. Substance and accident was a way of clarifying to Catholics who were familiar with Greek philosophy that while the Sacrament appears to be bread and wine, after the consecration it is essentially Jesus, who gives Himself to us in the most amazing and intimate way. The formula, or substance theology, as you call it, was never used for the first thousand years of the Church, and it seems to be falling out of favor in these days, and that is okay with me, especially if the language has become a stumbling block. 

Mark, I would be pleased for you to explain what Catholics believe about the Eucharistic mystery. We can use less precise words than philosophy provides.

Here is an example you could use: The Catholic faith holds that what appears to be bread and wine is something more, and that something more is Jesus. It is not bread and wine that also HAS Jesus in it. It is Jesus primarily, and bread and wine secondarily. For this reason, the Catholic kneels before what they believe to be Him, in the Blessed Sacrament. Perhaps that would be better, especially if inquirers are in any way put off by using hellenistic language.

That is what the Church believed for a thousand years before an heretical priest named Berengarius began to question that article of faith. It was thought prudent by some to further clarify how the faithful as well as inquirers might better understand the supernatural truth they are required to believe if they would profess the faith of the Catholic Church. It is understandable to me that any non-Catholic could not share this article of our beliefs. But in my opinion, it would be a grave error to try to link transubstantiation to Plato. Neither Plato nor any non-Catholic Platonist would ever have had any reason to propose that ANYTHING has ever been transubstantiated. The language of explanation was certainly developed over time for different reasons, but the article of faith has remained constant. The faith proposition does not succeed or fail because of the jargon that is used to explain it.

-------------

I saw perhaps a month ago, that you might be visiting the state where I live sometime. I have been following MD&DB a little for this period of time, but have been precluded from posting. I would welcome an opportunity to visit in person.

Regards,

Rory

Edited May 29, 2022 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

On 5/24/2022 at 10:11 PM, Pyreaux said:

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

On 5/24/2022 at 10:11 PM, Pyreaux said:

oly G

When I say things about other faiths, it is usually marked by something that indicates that I was open to being corrected, like I "think" and some such. I think that the Creeds say Jesus was;

• "conceived by the Holy Ghost" (Apostle's Creed)
• "was incarnate of the Holy Spirit" (Nicene Creed).

 

 

Hi Pyreaux,

To be precise, the Nicene Creed teaches that Christ was eternally begotten of the Father. The mysteries of His incarnation as Son of Mary can not change that. 

[Pyreaux]

23 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Pyreaux,

To be precise, the Nicene Creed teaches that Christ was eternally begotten of the Father. The mysteries of His incarnation as Son of Mary can not change that. 

I'll stand corrected. I don't know the affiliation or origins at this point of the attack that the Church is replying to. I do believe that there are people who interpret the creed as I say, that Jesus is the Son of the Holy Ghost and justify it on the basis that the Holy Ghost is God the Father. I think that is what this fellow in this link is saying, which is why he gets into the trinity.

https://apostles-creed.org/interpretation/who-was-conceived-by-the-holy-spirit-born-of-the-virgin-mary/

Edited May 29, 2022 by Pyreaux

[3DOP]

30 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I'll stand corrected. I don't know the affiliation or origins at this point of the attack that the Church is replying to. I do believe that there are people who interpret the creed as I say, that Jesus is the Son of the Holy Ghost and justify it on the basis that the Holy Ghost is God the Father. I think that is what this fellow in this link is saying, which is why he gets into the trinity.

https://apostles-creed.org/interpretation/who-was-conceived-by-the-holy-spirit-born-of-the-virgin-mary/

Pyreaux, hi again. Thank you for your reply and willingness to be corrected.

Jesus is the Son of the Holy Ghost because the Father is the Holy Ghost? If you ever find someone who would defend that, try to get them to come here!

3DOP

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Mark, I would be pleased for you to explain what Catholics believe about the Eucharistic mystery. We can use less precise words than philosophy provides.

 

Well first of all I am not "up" on the latest take on the Eucharist.  Some of your post was "news to me".  I have read Aquinas and noticed the obvious direct links to Aristotle and Plato.  I have seen articles showing the links between Aquinas, Plato and Aristotle, and have had college classes on medieval philosophy.   If we want to get esoteric, during the "dark ages" in Europe, there was quite a lot of great philosophy going on in the Arab countries which of course influenced what there was of Scholasticism in the West.  Avicenna is almost a legendary figure- probably one of the smartest people who ever lived.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna

I used the term "appearance" instead of "accidents" because that word in modern English implies perhaps two cars colliding, or a slip and fall etc, wich is certainly not what Aquinas meant by the word "accident".

Second that raises the point of philosophically "precise" wording- I find it impossible to communicate philosophical ideas without using philosophical language precisely because, like the word "accident" used to desribe how things appear to us, the philosophical context is what gives these words their proper meaning.  For example, philosophically the "accidents" of a table would include its height, weight, its location, the smell / flavor of the wood- (as a former guitar builder I love the taste of walnut sawdust wafting through the air, but find oak to be quite unpalatable)   - in other words, all of what we might observe about the particulars of the object.   Additionally I believe the "subtance" of the table would not be "Tableness" but it would be "wood".   And so the "substance" of the table is wood- the "accidents" would be location, height, length, width, smell, color etc.

So I think it really would be easier and more precise to use philosophical language than ordinary language,   IF  any of it amounted to a hill of beans, but I think at this juncture of time and space  that is not likely.

But thanks for the reply, and yes I have heard that your part of the world might be a good area for some business interests I have, and I would love to look you up and get together.   I hope the weather has been kind to you!   Also you have been missed- no clue as to why the mods are ticked off with you.

Let's keep in touch!

 

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well first of all I am not "up" on the latest take on the Eucharist.  Some of your post was "news to me".  I have read Aquinas and noticed the obvious direct links to Aristotle and Plato.  I have seen articles showing the links between Aquinas, Plato and Aristotle, and have had college classes on medieval philosophy.   If we want to get esoteric, during the "dark ages" in Europe, there was quite a lot of great philosophy going on in the Arab countries which of course influenced what there was of Scholasticism in the West.  Avicenna is almost a legendary figure- probably one of the smartest people who ever lived.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna

I used the term "appearance" instead of "accidents" because that word in modern English implies perhaps two cars colliding, or a slip and fall etc, wich is certainly not what Aquinas meant by the word "accident".

Second that raises the point of philosophically "precise" wording- I find it impossible to communicate philosophical ideas without using philosophical language precisely because, like the word "accident" used to desribe how things appear to us, the philosophical context is what gives these words their proper meaning.  For example, philosophically the "accidents" of a table would include its height, weight, its location, the smell / flavor of the wood- (as a former guitar builder I love the taste of walnut sawdust wafting through the air, but find oak to be quite unpalatable)   - in other words, all of what we might observe about the particulars of the object.   Additionally I believe the "subtance" of the table would not be "Tableness" but it would be "wood".   And so the "substance" of the table is wood- the "accidents" would be location, height, length, width, smell, color etc.

So I think it really would be easier and more precise to use philosophical language than ordinary language,   IF  any of it amounted to a hill of beans, but I think at this juncture of time and space  that is not likely.

But thanks for the reply, and yes I have heard that your part of the world might be a good area for some business interests I have, and I would love to look you up and get together.   I hope the weather has been kind to you!   Also you have been missed- no clue as to why the mods are ticked off with you.

Let's keep in touch!

 

Precluded? On reflection, I thought that could be misunderstood. No problem with the mods here. Only at Catholic Answers have I ever been "persecuted/precluded" (hehe) by mods. A long time ago now to my way of thinking. At least ten years, prolly more. That was and remains an honour to my mind. Precluded by any circumstance. Out of time while working. Out of wifi...while on vacation. Visiting children who are even more radically conspiritorial than their father who for the sake of my grandchildren have deliberately limited internet access at their homes. What good children. I am thankful.  

Mark...I don't care about HOW the Eucharist is described. Merely that it is faithful to the almost crazy and naturally unbelievable teaching of the Catholic Church. Think about those who "went away" from the hard saying in John 6. They left, uncorrected by our Lord, because of the unbelievableness of it in their minds. It is hard to believe, except as we Catholics think, for grace and faith! Real Presence? That sometimes works. But it sometimes doesn't. Because you are materialistic it works with you. But Lutherans and Presbyterians believe in immaterial reality. But in this case, the Catholic also insists on the material reality. I am seeing that our doctrine needs to seem nutty to everybody who is not Catholic. Heh. Pagan Rome kind of had a big part the idea...accusing us of being cannibals, eating human flesh...but that wasn't/isn't all. It is also the divine immaterial substance that Jesus received from His Father, which is communicated to us. Who knows how? Who knows what? You don't seem to mind mystery. Whatever is true and whoever is right, everything is not yet explained. I am sure we can agree about that at least. 

I'll be around Mark. God love us.

PS: The substance/accident of a table is not necessarily wood. That which is identifiable as a table can be made of different substances "accidentally". Wood, plastic, or metal can be substance or accident depending on what is being described. Oak or walnut is accidental to wood. Plastic or wood are accidental to a table. Accidents are real. Substance is real. If I am not mistaken, substance/accident are just a way to communicate ideas. Nowadays, when accidents are mostly associated with car wrecks and and worse disasters, perhaps it is time to use different words to communicate similar meanings to say what Catholics believe the Apostles taught regarding the Eucharist.

Rory

Edited May 29, 2022 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Precluded? On reflection, I thought that could be misunderstood. No problem with the mods here. Only at Catholic Answers have I ever been "persecuted/precluded" (hehe) by mods. A long time ago now to my way of thinking. At least ten years, prolly more. That was and remains an honour to my mind. Precluded by any circumstance. Out of time while working. Out of wifi...while on vacation. Visiting children who are even more radically conspiritorial than their father who for the sake of my grandchildren have deliberately limited internet access at their homes. What good children. I am thankful.  

Mark...I don't care about HOW the Eucharist is described. Merely that it is faithful to the almost crazy and naturally unbelievable teaching of the Catholic Church. Think about those who "went away" from the hard saying in John 6. They left, uncorrected by our Lord, because of the unbelievableness of it in their minds. It is hard to believe, except as we Catholics think, for grace and faith! Real Presence? That sometimes works. But it sometimes doesn't. Because you are materialistic it works with you. But Lutherans and Presbyterians believe in immaterial reality. But in this case, the Catholic also insists on the material reality. I am seeing that our doctrine needs to seem nutty to everybody who is not Catholic. Heh. Pagan Rome kind of had a big part the idea...accusing us of being cannibals, eating human flesh...but that wasn't/isn't all. It is also the divine immaterial substance that Jesus received from His Father, which is communicated to us. Who knows how? Who knows what? You don't seem to mind mystery. Whatever is true and whoever is right, everything is not yet explained. I am sure we can agree about that at least. 

I'll be around Mark. God love us.

PS: The substance/accident of a table is not necessarily wood. That which is identifiable as a table can be made of different substances "accidentally". Wood, plastic, or metal can be substance or accident depending on what is being described. Oak or walnut is accidental to wood. Plastic or wood are accidental to a table. Accidents are real. Substance is real. If I am not mistaken, substance/accident are just a way to communicate ideas. Nowadays, when accidents are mostly associated with car wrecks and and worse disasters, perhaps it is time to use different words to communicate similar meanings to say what Catholics believe the Apostles taught regarding the Eucharist.

Rory

Oh that's good- I used to be on that board like... 10 years ago and I was always in trouble!

I have no problem with mystery- the deal for me is- READ THE RORTY PIECE- is that EVERYTHING is a mystery- and it is all in our "heads" anyway.

The problem is trying to understand and pretend that there is a "reality" out there that we cannot know anything about which we pretend to describe with language.

So I have absolutely NO PROBLEM that you EXPERIENCE of the Eucharist AS "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity" of CHRIST

What Rorty is saying is essentially thatall we can know is what we experience- any attempt to EXPLAIN it using words like "substance" OR "accidents" or even "bread" or "Wine" CANNOT adequately describe the CAUSE of our experience.

We ordinarily think we are experiencing "realitiy" but our brains in a box of bone only receiving sensory impressions of the world out there.   We don't see what's out there- we see what our brain composes from sensory perceptions.

We speak to others and if our perceptions makes sense with their interpretations we say the statement is "true" and we agree.  The problem I have with "substance theology" is that it is only words (to me) which do not make much sense (to me).    Yes it is a hard teaching because of that.  People CALL it "cannibalism" because they don't know what to call it.  We define reality with words, and when we assign some words to some experience one believes that the thing IS the word, but the words are just mental  creations-  BUT it is all we have.

So I never attack religious experience AS the experiencer experiences it, but the words that they use for descriptions.   Everything we know is limited by human perceptions of what we CAN know- so we make up theories/paradigms about what reality IS.  The best theory that makes the most sense to us and matches our perceptions the best is the one we choose to give our lives meaning!

So the bottom line is that I like the LDS paradigm and descriptions better than the Catholic one.   It makes more sense to me, but I see very easily that others see it the other way around.    I used to be Catholic mysef of course so I "get it".   So for me there IS NO "material reality" that we can talk about - there are only theories and descriptions of how we experience what is CALLED "material reality" and we pick the best one that makes sense to us.

And science is the same thing.   We do experiments and everyone reads the whatso-meter and gets the same reading and so that sample "really is" Substance ABC.   But that is because 20 tousand brains over hundreds of years have come to the same conclusion of what Substance ABC really is, but all they have found is what works to predict the EXPERIENCE of what will happen mixing ABC with XYZ= BOOM!    But still it is all only human experiences strung together.

So no I don't have a problem with your paradigm of the Eucharist as you experience it- just as you describe it!

Hope that makes a little sense, it seldom does though I have found.   The first time I read that Rorty quote below it is as if a bomb went off in my head and I suddenly knew everything about everything.      But that never seems to happen around here.

These ideas are presently HUGE in contemporary philosophy but for people who are not used thinking this way usually do not "get it"

That alone convinces me that it is all a human creation by a Human God who created all through the WORD. 

Now that's a description I can get behind!

[Navidad]

On 5/24/2022 at 8:02 PM, Pyreaux said:

There are no canonized doctrines of the biophysics of miraculous conception, the spiritual birth, nor the exact nature of eternal increase.

Perchance if the conception was "miraculous" there is no need for biophysics because the conception was not natural, but supernatural!

[Navidad]

On 5/25/2022 at 10:22 AM, Pyreaux said:

While the creeds are not accepted, there is no canonized doctrine against all aspects about the trinity. The Godhead is "one" to the point that its deemed justifiable to refer to them as a singularity as it does in the canon, even if they are not. Then there is the social trinity. I under qualify my statements, now I over qualify my statements, I can't win.

Perhaps you can't win because you are prone to normalize and generalize about non-LDS Christians and their beliefs. This is the same thing that quite a few non-LDS Christians do to LDS Christians. It is both inaccurate and unfortunate.

My wife and I had visiting teachers come to our home once a month for several years from 2017 to Covid. Often, when I confidently declared to them what LDS Christians believe, one or the other would look at me and declare "Well, I don't believe that!" That was a good lesson for me. Of course, also being on this forum has taught me the wide diversity of beliefs within LDSdom. My participation in MHA has done the same thing. Now that is a group with a huge range of orthodoxy (LDS-wise)!

[Navidad]

On 5/25/2022 at 11:53 AM, Pyreaux said:

We may reject an Athanasian creedal trinity, but a God that is three but one in love and purpose is still a trinity, a social trinity. Trinity models, though not taught in the canon, can be justified in believing because one can still believe in things even when they are not in canon. I can be a member of the church and hold some trinity beliefs, all one has to do is say the Godhead is both three and one at the same time and that is a trinity. Anywhere that is in between an Arian (tritheism) and a Modelist (strict monothism) is a triune (three AND one) God. They criticize us for being tritheists, we criticize them for being modelists, but we are distorting our own theology in reaction to perceived 'errors' in their model. We are closer to these two extremes than the other, however we are both inside these lines. In the canon, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants continually refers to them as "one God", so the core of the Trinity doctrine is correct, God is three and yet one God, just no concept of a oneness that is in substance or essense.

I think the emphases on creedal and trinitarian differences are to a large degree simply sociological distancing mechanisms. They serve to separate, create distinctions, and to make us different from the "other." That serves a purpose that is greater in identity formation and differentiation than for any other purpose.  There are a goodly number of non-LDS Christians who are not trinitarian. One of the fast growing of all non-LDS groups, the Oneness Pentecostals are clearly non-trinitarians. They are sweeping Latin America.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

On 5/25/2022 at 3:25 PM, mfbukowski said:

Of course! Sorry about my gruff exterior, I am just a bit OCD about vague concepts, and I guess that puts some folks off.

My friend . . . . you are a master of understatement! 😃

Edited May 30, 2022 by Navidad

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 5/25/2022 at 6:42 PM, Pyreaux said:

Because Jesus warned Joseph Smith about the unspecified "creeds" of other churches, in his area, so we get triggered by concepts that derive from anything calling itself a creed. The oneness doctrine of the Creeds seems to have little to do with anything the Bible ever said, and more to do with Platonic philosophy about God

Greek Philosophers had since abandoned their pantheon for a metaphysically perfect God they called The One, "Socrates and Plato held that (God is) the One, the single self-existent nature, the monadic, the real Being, the good: and all the variety of names points immediately to mind. God therefore is mind, a separate species, that is to say what is purely immaterial and unconnected with anything passable." (Plutarch, in Eusebias, Preparation for the Gospel 14:16).

The Christian Fathers used this language to further align their God with "the God of the philosophers." (Tertullian, Against Marcion 2:27)

Jesus never spoke like this, in fact there is an old joke, saying perhaps even He wouldn't have understood the Greek philosophical jargon if it had been said to Him in his own time.

Just to petition for a little sympathy for the creeds, and specifically for the Nicene Creed....

The Arian heresy was very much about philosophical subtlety. It wanted to pop up in different places, with different terms, and for the same purposes, and has some similarity to the way the thoughts of Marx and Engles morph in the various terms and fashions on the political left. Moreover, the Scriptures had not been written for the purpose of refuting heretics of a philosophical bent. Precise language was needed so that all Arian ideas, no matter how subtle, would be excluded from the Church. The "one iota of difference" saved the Church, and even as many bishops were aware that they were putting unique meaning to a word with a murky history.

 An excellent starter book on Church Councils is Philip Hughes' The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils (2020).

[InCognitus]

On 5/29/2022 at 10:15 AM, 3DOP said:

To be precise, the Nicene Creed teaches that Christ was eternally begotten of the Father.

Are you referring to the language "born of the Father before all ages... begotten, not made" in the creed?    If so, how does that state that Christ was "eternally begotten of the Father"?

Also, the statement that Jesus was "incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man" does appear in the creed here.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Now that is a group with a huge range of orthodoxy (LDS

...Because we are all prophets in our tiny ways, and allowed to be so

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Just to petition for a little sympathy for the creeds, and specifically for the Nicene Creed....

The Arian heresy was very much about philosophical subtlety. It wanted to pop up in different places, with different terms, and for the same purposes, and has some similarity to the way the thoughts of Marx and Engles morph in the various terms and fashions on the political left. Moreover, the Scriptures had not been written for the purpose of refuting heretics of a philosophical bent. Precise language was needed so that all Arian ideas, no matter how subtle, would be excluded from the Church. The "one iota of difference" saved the Church, and even as many bishops were aware that they were putting unique meaning to a word with a murky history.

 An excellent starter book on Church Councils is Philip Hughes' The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils (2020).

And yet there was no apostasy and it all came out exactly as Jesus taught it.  A miracle in itself! Jesus was the greatest philosopher!

The comparison with Marx and Engels is very appropriate as we see different versions of their views "pop up" even here.

You have to watch those words with a "murky history" - ALL of them do!

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

My friend . . . . you are a master of understatement! 😃

It's not my fault that words are insufficient to capture the nature of the richness of experience , especially spiritual experience.

A mundane example from William James: 

Imagine going to a restaurant and seeing on the menu "New York Steak" as opposed to seeing it sizzling on your plate, the tenderness, the flavor, the sensation of chewing it, the ambiance of the restaurant, you loved one enjoying it all as you are, the EXPERIENCE is not captured by the menu!

Imagine SEEING GOD?

What words would you use?

How precise COULD you be when there literally are NO WORDS to describe it?

It pays, in philosophy to be as far as precise as words can take you, but there will always be the evil of INTERPRETATION anyway.

Words are confounded- take Babel literally or not!