Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Revelation on Heavenly Mother


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

In general, Catholics are not usually inconvenienced by any one bible verse. It's kind of a superpower. Some Catholics just have a ton of confidence in the centuries of scholarship and enjoy the richness of it all. Then there are Catholics who don't know too much, but enjoy the homily and know that if they have any questions they can ask their priest or check online sources. And the priest, for his part, can get out on the diocesan list serve and inquire of the couple hundred other priests, religious sisters and brothers, the occasional professor, and online sources if he encounters a challenging idea.

Not buying into sola scriptura, and also having the magisterium and tradition, just depressurizes the whole thing.

So like in the case of Genesis 1:26, a Catholic could think, "that could be the royal 'We' or it could be the Trinity." And if a little more advanced, could get into the fact that the very next verse presents God with a singular pronoun or could go to all the verses that present God as a single being (I'll spare you those). A Catholic could also just think, "tradition and the Church Fathers teach such and such, or the dogma is such and such, or the Bible's a Catholic book," and everything's good.

My LDS friends seem to have an entirely different superpower. It's the "Bible translated correctly" superpower. I haven't experienced it in terms of translation much, but if "translation" is taken to mean "interpretation," then my LDS friends run things through the filter of the Book of Mormon, or another LDS scripture, or what an LDS Church authority says, or what apologists or BYU professors are saying and it's all good. 

We all need a little shelter.

To redirect, though, do LDS consider Genesis 1:26 as evidence of a Heavenly Mother at creation? 

I consider it one evidence of Heavenly Mother, or to be more precise, I consider it to be evidence that there are women among the Gods.  (LDS only worship the Godhead but we acknowledge the existence of other Gods).
And while I can understand explaining the plural Eloheim as the trinity I don't see that that would account for the statement that the Eloheim created male and female in their image.

But I appreciate your concept of using our filters and viewpoints to remove inconvenience.  I think that's true of all points of view.
 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I consider it one evidence of Heavenly Mother, or to be more precise, I consider it to be evidence that there are women among the Gods.  (LDS only worship the Godhead but we acknowledge the existence of other Gods).
And while I can understand explaining the plural Eloheim as the trinity I don't see that that would account for the statement that the Eloheim created male and female in their image.

But I appreciate your concept of using our filters and viewpoints to remove inconvenience.  I think that's true of all points of view.
 

Thanks for your informative comments and observations.

With regard to the Eloheim issue, I'd clarify a few aspects. Specifically, in Genesis 1:27 the single, masculine pronoun "his" is used:

Quote

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Additionally, from a Catholic perspective LDS folks seem to take the "created man in his own image" aspect to mean "looks like" or "has the appearance of." There's room for confusion here, and these are the paragraphs from the catechism:

 

Quote

 

355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

I. "IN THE IMAGE OF GOD"

356 Of all visible creatures only man is "able to know and love his creator".219 He is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake",220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

 

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221

357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.

 

The quote within the quote is from St. Catherine of Siena.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Specifically, in Genesis 1:27 the single, masculine pronoun "his" is used:

But does the original Hebrew contain the pronoun or is it just necessary for English?

Saints can have it either way though…God the Father is in charge of the creation and it is under his authority and power, thus “him”, but he is addressing his Council, which in our view can contain women (though I don’t think you will find references to any but men being part of it until relatively recently, would love to see inclusion of women from further back if it is there).

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Additionally, from a Catholic perspective LDS folks seem to take the "created man in his own image" aspect to mean "looks like" or "has the appearance of." There's room for confusion here, and these are the paragraphs from the catechism:

Quote

355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

I. "IN THE IMAGE OF GOD"

356 Of all visible creatures only man is "able to know and love his creator".219 He is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake",220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221

357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.

The quote within the quote is from St. Catherine of Siena.

It looks like the catechism is conflating the term "image" with terms "able to know" or "knowledge" or "capable of self-knowledge" and a whole lot of circular reasoning.

Definition from the Google:  im·age  /ˈimij/   Biblical  Rhetoric noun

1.  a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art.

"her work juxtaposed images from serious and popular art"

Similar:  likeness  resemblance  depiction  portrayal  representation  statue  statuette  sculpture  bust  effigy  figure  figurine  doll  carving  painting  picture  portrait  drawing  sketch  artist's impression

Note that the Genesis account doubles down by using both words:  image and likeness.  Which directly relate to the APPEARANCE of GOD:  chapter one verse 26:  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.  When I do a scan of the Bible for the word image, the results pretty much have to do with mainly the appearances or representations and NOT primarily having or gaining knowledge.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, longview said:

It looks like the catechism is conflating the term "image" with terms "able to know" or "knowledge" or "capable of self-knowledge" and a whole lot of circular reasoning.

Definition from the Google:  im·age  /ˈimij/   Biblical  Rhetoric noun

1.  a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art.

"her work juxtaposed images from serious and popular art"

Similar:  likeness  resemblance  depiction  portrayal  representation  statue  statuette  sculpture  bust  effigy  figure  figurine  doll  carving  painting  picture  portrait  drawing  sketch  artist's impression

Note that the Genesis account doubles down by using both words:  image and likeness.  Which directly relate to the APPEARANCE of GOD:  chapter one verse 26:  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.  When I do a scan of the Bible for the word image, the results pretty much have to do with mainly the appearances or representations and NOT primarily having or gaining knowledge.

I appreciate you sharing your perspective. I think you're completely misunderstanding, but there's no harm in that. This article offers some perspective that might be helpful, in particular, this passage:

Quote

 

By the way, in the official Catholic resources we examined, there is no distinction between “image” and “likeness” in Gen. 1:26-27. While these words have different meanings in the Bible when used separately, in Genesis 1:26-27 they are used in tandem for the emphasis of a single concept, together signifying a truth about man in relation to God. This kind of construction is known as a “parallelism,” a literary device common in Hebrew literature. As Catholic and Protestant scholars agree, “The Hebrews would often emphasize something by stating the same thing in two different ways.” Because “image and likeness” is a parallelism, the Church sometimes uses “shorthand” subheadlines like “In the Image of God” and “Man: the Image of God” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Catechism), since the words are synonymous in Genesis 1:26-27.


 

Here's the full article: Being Made in God's Image (catholicexchange.com)

Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Link to comment
On 4/22/2022 at 3:51 PM, Calm said:

But does the original Hebrew contain the pronoun or is it just necessary for English?

Saints can have it either way though…God the Father is in charge of the creation and it is under his authority and power, thus “him”, but he is addressing his Council, which in our view can contain women (though I don’t think you will find references to any but men being part of it until relatively recently, would love to see inclusion of women from further back if it is there).

A great question, and one that is way over my head. If I were fluent in Hebrew and trained in translation, I'd enjoy that discussion. As it is, I rely on the goodwill and accuracy of the wealth of translations that include the pronoun and, apparently, without controversy. I routinely use an RSV and NRSV, and have been pulling out a KJV more since participating on this site.

I've encountered an idea of a heavenly council before, but I take it that you are referring to more than choirs of angels, saints in proximity to God, the Church Triumphant, etc. 

This conversation does have me thinking about Bible passages that describe God with feminine qualities, and of course, I think anyone interested in notions of a mother in heaven could be enriched by Marian doctrines, and even in the spirit of ecumenical understanding or for the sake of curiosity. A Book of Mormon passage I've marked and have discussed with my LDS family is the one that describes Mary as a virgin and who is "a precious and chosen vessel."

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

This conversation does have me thinking about Bible passages that describe God with feminine qualities, and of course, I think anyone interested in notions of a mother in heaven could be enriched by Marian doctrines, and even in the spirit of ecumenical understanding or for the sake of curiosity. A Book of Mormon passage I've marked and have discussed with my LDS family is the one that describes Mary as a virgin and who is "a precious and chosen vessel."

And of course the many many references to "Mary, the Mother of God" since of course she was the mother of Jesus.

Of course the prayer called the "Hail Mary" is one very prominent reference.

She herself it is believed was conceived without the sin of Adam and Eve, aka "original sin", certainly a divine trait, and a privilege given to no other.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception#:~:text=The Immaculate Conception is a,the moment of her conception

My personal opinion is that the characteristics applied to Mary were originally applied to Heavenly Mother, and became scrambled in early Christendom as part of the apostasy

Of course we do not believe in "original sin" so of course Heavenly Mother, as an exalted human would also, like all humans, be conceived without it

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I appreciate you sharing your perspective. I think you're completely misunderstanding, but there's no harm in that.

Thanks.  We have very different perspectives.  It comes down to interpretation of scriptures.  And receiving revelation from God.

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I read it.  It is reiterating what you quoted in your previous post.  I get the feeling that this description is based firmly on Catholic teaching of the Trinity.  It can not allow for a God that can have an "appearance" or "form" of an anthropomorphic being.  I have had discussions on this board with @MiserereNobis and @3DOP about the Trinity.

I am a lifelong reader of the KJV.  I know that there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of verses that declare the distinct personhood and image of members in the Godhead.  @MiserereNobis agrees that the Catholic Trinity is NOT explained in the Bible but was derived externally.  Some by a committee put together by Constantine in the council at Nice and including "thinkers" from the previous century.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I've encountered an idea of a heavenly council before, but I take it that you are referring to more than choirs of angels, saints in proximity to God, the Church Triumphant, etc. 

We believe it is referred in psalm 82 as well as elsewhere:

Quote

God has taken his place in the divine council;
    in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

For the Latter-day Saint view:  https://www.pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/the-divine-council/

Also:  https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-divine-council-in-the-hebrew-bible-and-the-book-of-mormon/

Micheal Heiser is a nonMormon scholar who has written extensively about it.  I see him referred to quite a bit. 
 

https://www.thedivinecouncil.com

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
13 hours ago, longview said:

Thanks.  We have very different perspectives.  It comes down to interpretation of scriptures.  And receiving revelation from God.

I read it.  It is reiterating what you quoted in your previous post.  I get the feeling that this description is based firmly on Catholic teaching of the Trinity.  It can not allow for a God that can have an "appearance" or "form" of an anthropomorphic being.  I have had discussions on this board with @MiserereNobis and @3DOP about the Trinity.

I am a lifelong reader of the KJV.  I know that there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of verses that declare the distinct personhood and image of members in the Godhead.  @MiserereNobis agrees that the Catholic Trinity is NOT explained in the Bible but was derived externally.  Some by a committee put together by Constantine in the council at Nice and including "thinkers" from the previous century.

I would affirm what you attribute to Miserere Nobis. As I have said many, many times over the years here: "The Scriptures alone are never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy." That is another way of saying that "the Catholic Trinity is NOT explained in the Bible but was derived externally." From Scripture alone, I affirm the plausibility of LDS teaching on the Godhead. For resolution, we need to go externally from the 66 books of the  Scriptural canon that both LDS and Catholics accept. You are the ones who say we need Latter-day and continuing revelation. Sure. The 66 Books don't do the trick! Anyway, we are agreed that the 66 books are not enough, longview. You look to Latter=day Revelation. Catholics look to Apostolic Tradition. This is another reason I hang around here. We have so many strange ways of agreeing!

----

For Navidad. Forgive me, this was a short and easy post. I am still summoning up the energy to repost what I wrote last week about one baptism for you. Maybe next Saturday.

Still heartbroken (not really...it can't be that important),

Your friend in Christ, and longview's,

3DOP

 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, longview said:

@MiserereNobis agrees that the Catholic Trinity is NOT explained in the Bible but was derived externally.  Some by a committee put together by Constantine in the council at Nice and including "thinkers" from the previous century.

I would not put it this way. I would say that the Trinity was taught by the Apostles, was retained in Apostolic Tradition, and was formalized in the Council of Nicaea.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I would not put it this way. I would say that the Trinity was taught by the Apostles, was retained in Apostolic Tradition, and was formalized in the Council of Nicaea.

I think most Latter-day Saints would view your statement above as problematic, since the distinction that we see between the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Godhead is in a specific Trinitarian definition and interpretation of how the Father and Son are "one" (homoousios, "consubstantial") that wasn't taught by the Apostles and isn't found in scripture, and is even scant in the assume "Apostolic Tradition" prior to the First Council of Nicaea .  

Certainly the scriptures and apostles and apostolic tradition teach of the divinity of Jesus, and of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and if that was all there was to the modern doctrine of the Trinity we would all agree and be happy about it.  :) 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I would not put it this way. I would say that the Trinity was taught by the Apostles, was retained in Apostolic Tradition, and was formalized in the Council of Nicaea.

All the Apostles were witnesses to the bodily resurrection of the Lord.  Of which resurrection Jesus was the firstfruits.  We likewise will follow after Him in obtaining the resurrection of our bodies in a permanent and glorified state. Acts 4:33  And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

Stephen the martyr gave his testimony:  "And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."  Both the Father and His Son Jesus are in bodily form, living and breathing and personable.  Numerous other scriptures testify to the physical reality of the resurrection of bodily form and the distinct personages of both God the Father and His Son.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I would not put it this way. I would say that the Trinity was taught by the Apostles, was retained in Apostolic Tradition, and was formalized in the Council of Nicaea.

Is it correct to say that this teaching as taught/retained and formalized is that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate manifestations of the same Individual ("Individual" may be the wrong  term, but maybe "Essence", indescribable except for how people describe their experience the various manifestations -- e.g., Jesus is loving, kind, powerful; the feelings we get from Creation, the gifts of the Spirit, etc.)?

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
7 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I would affirm what you attribute to Miserere Nobis. As I have said many, many times over the years here: "The Scriptures alone are never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy." That is another way of saying that "the Catholic Trinity is NOT explained in the Bible but was derived externally." From Scripture alone, I affirm the plausibility of LDS teaching on the Godhead. For resolution, we need to go externally from the 66 books of the  Scriptural canon that both LDS and Catholics accept. You are the ones who say we need Latter-day and continuing revelation. Sure. The 66 Books don't do the trick! Anyway, we are agreed that the 66 books are not enough, longview. You look to Latter=day Revelation. Catholics look to Apostolic Tradition. This is another reason I hang around here. We have so many strange ways of agreeing!

----

For Navidad. Forgive me, this was a short and easy post. I am still summoning up the energy to repost what I wrote last week about one baptism for you. Maybe next Saturday.

Still heartbroken (not really...it can't be that important),

Your friend in Christ, and longview's,

3DOP

 

I am confused

Are the 66 books "The Bible"? I never counted them, and besides you guys accept more books than we do.  And yet we have to go "externally" to get the 66 books?

You affirm the LDS view from "scripture", yet the 66 books "don't do the trick".  But then the implication is that "latter day revelation" is NOT the 66 books.

Please just define the following terms as you are using them above:

66 books

Scripture

Bible 

Latter day revelation 

Just trying to keep up with the logic of the argument  :)

 

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I would not put it this way. I would say that the Trinity was taught by the Apostles, was retained in Apostolic Tradition, and was formalized in the Council of Nicaea.

Is "Apostolic Tradition" written in one or several places, or are we talking about verbal tradition?

Does "Apostolic tradition" include the notion of consubstantiality? Is there a text somewhere using that idea dating to apostolic times, and not invented by say, Plotinus, some 200 years after Jesus' death?

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am confused

Are the 66 books "The Bible"? I never counted them, and besides you guys accept more books than we do.  And yet we have to go "externally" to get the 66 books?

You affirm the LDS view from "scripture", yet the 66 books "don't do the trick".  But then the implication is that "latter day revelation" is NOT the 66 books.

Please just define the following terms as you are using them above:

66 books

Scripture

Bible 

Latter day revelation 

Just trying to keep up with the logic of the argument  :)

 

 

Sure Mark. The 66 Books are the limited canon that Protestants, LDS, and Catholics accept. 39 Old Testament plus 27 New Testament. I was saying that those 66 are inadequate to resolve doctrinal controversy. Latter-day revelation might resolve some controversies as might the larger Catholic canon, but I doubt it. Catholics have 73 books. It seems like your "Quad" is thick. More words, but fewer "books"?

Scripture is authoritative, inspired, written literature. Catholics and LDS claim some that Protestants don't.

Bible? I don't think I used that word. If I did, I retract it. I thought I learned once that literally, "Bible" means books...more than one. I could have "learned" that wrongly. For most Christians, I think it means canon of Scripture. But I don't even know what I think it means at all times to everybody! Heh.

Latter-day Revelation...that would be LDS specific. Not trying to pull a fast one on you with Lourdes or Fatima! Your full and complete canon to this point.

I hope that helps.

Rory

Link to comment
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Is "Apostolic Tradition" written in one or several places, or are we talking about verbal tradition?

Does "Apostolic tradition" include the notion of consubstantiality? Is there a text somewhere using that idea dating to apostolic times, and not invented by say, Plotinus, some 200 years after Jesus' death?

I know this was for Miserere. But here goes again. I probably haven't tried this here since I moved to Kansas over three years ago.

You guys are the same species as God, according to your doctrine. You are "AFTER HIS KIND"...meaning your Father in heaven. According to the way we use the word, you are "consubstantial" with God the Father. The Council of Chalcedon says that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, as God. In the end It isn't that weird or spooky. It merely means that whatever kind of thing begot you, that is what you are. So we Catholics think God is of a higher nature than us and Jesus His Son is "consubstantial" with His Father, without claiming to have exhaustive knowledge of everything about God. And we Catholics also think, according to the way Chalcedon used the word, that Jesus is of a lower nature, if you will, being born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, being consubstantial with us. Really, it is only what is observed in every instance of biological reproduction...Anyway...that is the only way I understand the way the Church used the word at Chalcedon. And who could argue with it? Well...I know you will object somehow. That's okay. God love us. In a few weeks we Catholics will celebrate the Feast of the Ascenscion, when our Lord and our God ascended to Heaven in His human nature, opening wide the gates of heaven to His beloved brothers and sisters here below. 

I have heard your objection many times here. Consubstantial doesn't tell us anything about the "nature" of a man or God. Nor does it unlock the mysteries of the sparrow! It is just a way of trying to communicate without exhausting every mystery. In theology, it only means that a Son of Man is from man and a Son of God is from God. Not that deep. But yeah. I agree with your objection about the lack of info. Along with the halibuts and horses we are all a lot of mysteries that make for a wonderful, mysterious world. But what would you have? A Jesus who is man that is a man that is NOT consubstantial with the rest of humanity. No. None of us would support that! Would we? Nor is it supportable that according to the way Catholics use the word, and it IS our word, none of us, not LDS, nor Protestant, nor Catholic, should deny that Jesus is consubstantial with His Father in heaven. 

If you know that Plotinus used that word first, that's fine. Do we need to explore the etymology of every word to know if the concept presented represents something that can be shared? I suspect there are words that all of us accept that find their origins elsewhere than we might like, if we were committed to an idea that words have to come from certain sources and not others to have any worth. Anyway, the first chapters of Genesis! Moses predates Plotinus. Moses is completely compatible with any idea Plotinus had of having the same essence, substance, or nature...which is to say. consubstantial.

Okay...the work week looms. Got to run. May you and I live long enough to be both retired and have our wits to be arguing at the same time! My wife turns 65 on May 19, 2025. That is the date I am done. (Medicare and health insurance you know). It seems coming faster and faster...

God bless you Mark.

Rory

 

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I have heard your objection many times here. Consubstantial doesn't tell us anything about the "nature" of a man or God. Nor does it unlock the mysteries of the sparrow! It is just a way of trying to communicate without exhausting every mystery. In theology, It only means that a Son of Man is from man and a Son of God is from God. Not that deep. But yeah. I agree with your objection about the lack of info. Along with the halibuts and horses we are all a lot of mysteries that make for a wonderful, mysterious world. But what would you have? A Jesus who is man that is a man that is NOT consubstantial with the rest of humanity. No. None of us would support that! Would we? Nor is it supportable that according to the way Catholics use the word, and it IS our word, none of us, not LDS, nor Protestant, nor Catholic, should deny that Jesus is consubstantial with His Father in heaven. 

I've wondered about this.  If the Father and Christ are one God and Christ is consubstantial with humanity, then shouldn't the Father and/or God also be consubstantial with humanity?  Or is Christ's consubstantiality (is that a word?) with humanity somehow separate from His oneness with the Father and/or God?  Or am I misunderstanding the terminoligy?

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, webbles said:

I've wondered about this.  If the Father and Christ are one God and Christ is consubstantial with humanity, then shouldn't the Father and/or God also be consubstantial with humanity?  Or is Christ's consubstantiality (is that a word?) with humanity somehow separate from His oneness with the Father and/or God?  Or am I misunderstanding the terminoligy?

Webbles, hi....You are doing okay with the terminology. Thanks for the good question. I will leave it to my brethren for now, except to say that yes, Christ's consubstantiality with man is "somehow separate from His oneness with the Father and/or God" according to Catholic thought. Mark will jump all over me for this. But it is where we might say that transcendence and immanence meet. Even if LDS cannot think it were true, you could give us credit for lofty aspirations!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

You guys are the same species as God, according to your doctrine. You are "AFTER HIS KIND"...meaning your Father in heaven. According to the way we use the word, you are "consubstantial" with God the Father. The Council of Chalcedon says that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, as God. In the end It isn't that weird or spooky. It merely means that whatever kind of thing begot you, that is what you are.

I wish the rest of Christianity would explain "consubstantial" the same way you did here.  But then of course, in our view, we would all be consubstantial (since all of us are the offspring of God - Acts 17:28-29).  Even so, we would still distinguish Jesus as being divine, compared to the rest of us, in a unique way. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I know this was for Miserere. But here goes again. I probably haven't tried this here since I moved to Kansas over three years ago.

You guys are the same species as God, according to your doctrine. You are "AFTER HIS KIND"...meaning your Father in heaven. According to the way we use the word, you are "consubstantial" with God the Father. The Council of Chalcedon says that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, as God. In the end It isn't that weird or spooky. It merely means that whatever kind of thing begot you, that is what you are. So we Catholics think God is of a higher nature than us and Jesus His Son is "consubstantial" with His Father, without claiming to have exhaustive knowledge of everything about God. And we Catholics also think, according to the way Chalcedon used the word, that Jesus is of a lower nature, if you will, being born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, being consubstantial with us. Really, it is only what is observed in every instance of biological reproduction...Anyway...that is the only way I understand the way the Church used the word at Chalcedon. And who could argue with it? Well...I know you will object somehow. That's okay. God love us. In a few weeks we Catholics will celebrate the Feast of the Ascenscion, when our Lord and our God ascended to Heaven in His human nature, opening wide the gates of heaven to His beloved brothers and sisters here below. 

I have heard your objection many times here. Consubstantial doesn't tell us anything about the "nature" of a man or God. Nor does it unlock the mysteries of the sparrow! It is just a way of trying to communicate without exhausting every mystery. In theology, it only means that a Son of Man is from man and a Son of God is from God. Not that deep. But yeah. I agree with your objection about the lack of info. Along with the halibuts and horses we are all a lot of mysteries that make for a wonderful, mysterious world. But what would you have? A Jesus who is man that is a man that is NOT consubstantial with the rest of humanity. No. None of us would support that! Would we? Nor is it supportable that according to the way Catholics use the word, and it IS our word, none of us, not LDS, nor Protestant, nor Catholic, should deny that Jesus is consubstantial with His Father in heaven. 

If you know that Plotinus used that word first, that's fine. Do we need to explore the etymology of every word to know if the concept presented represents something that can be shared? I suspect there are words that all of us accept that find their origins elsewhere than we might like, if we were committed to an idea that words have to come from certain sources and not others to have any worth. Anyway, the first chapters of Genesis! Moses predates Plotinus. Moses is completely compatible with any idea Plotinus had of having the same essence, substance, or nature...which is to say. consubstantial.

Okay...the work week looms. Got to run. May you and I live long enough to be both retired and have our wits to be arguing at the same time! My wife turns 65 on May 19, 2025. That is the date I am done. (Medicare and health insurance you know). It seems coming faster and faster...

God bless you Mark.

Rory

 

Thanks for the reply Rory!

Yes I know the roots of "consubstantiality"' coming from Greek philosophy - Plato- then Aristotle, and in Neoplatonism, then through Plotinus, and then Aquinas.

These notions of substance of course became important in transubstantiation as a Doctrine 

I do not see it as a coherent philosophical view, but religion is seldom seen as "rational", and I certainly also know that faith is the cornerstone of all religion.  I studied Catholicism seriously from my Augustinian teachers in high school and afterwords in college, as I tried to establish a coherent way of interpreting Biblical scripture. I found their answers unsatisfying.

Thanks for your help!  I can find no evidence whatsoever that "consubstantiality" is a Biblical concept, or can be shown to come from the Apostles, but the links to Greek philosophy are clear as a bell.

But faith is faith! ;)

 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I would not put it this way. I would say that the Trinity was taught by the Apostles, was retained in Apostolic Tradition, and was formalized in the Council of Nicaea.

I would love to see evidence that it was "taught by the Apostles".

Where and when?

Link to comment
5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I know this was for Miserere. But here goes again. I probably haven't tried this here since I moved to Kansas over three years ago.

You guys are the same species as God, according to your doctrine. You are "AFTER HIS KIND"...meaning your Father in heaven. According to the way we use the word, you are "consubstantial" with God the Father. The Council of Chalcedon says that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, as God. In the end It isn't that weird or spooky. It merely means that whatever kind of thing begot you, that is what you are. So we Catholics think God is of a higher nature than us and Jesus His Son is "consubstantial" with His Father, without claiming to have exhaustive knowledge of everything about God. And we Catholics also think, according to the way Chalcedon used the word, that Jesus is of a lower nature, if you will, being born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, being consubstantial with us. Really, it is only what is observed in every instance of biological reproduction...Anyway...that is the only way I understand the way the Church used the word at Chalcedon. And who could argue with it? Well...I know you will object somehow. That's okay. God love us. In a few weeks we Catholics will celebrate the Feast of the Ascenscion, when our Lord and our God ascended to Heaven in His human nature, opening wide the gates of heaven to His beloved brothers and sisters here below. 

I have heard your objection many times here. Consubstantial doesn't tell us anything about the "nature" of a man or God. Nor does it unlock the mysteries of the sparrow! It is just a way of trying to communicate without exhausting every mystery. In theology, it only means that a Son of Man is from man and a Son of God is from God. Not that deep. But yeah. I agree with your objection about the lack of info. Along with the halibuts and horses we are all a lot of mysteries that make for a wonderful, mysterious world. But what would you have? A Jesus who is man that is a man that is NOT consubstantial with the rest of humanity. No. None of us would support that! Would we? Nor is it supportable that according to the way Catholics use the word, and it IS our word, none of us, not LDS, nor Protestant, nor Catholic, should deny that Jesus is consubstantial with His Father in heaven. 

If you know that Plotinus used that word first, that's fine. Do we need to explore the etymology of every word to know if the concept presented represents something that can be shared? I suspect there are words that all of us accept that find their origins elsewhere than we might like, if we were committed to an idea that words have to come from certain sources and not others to have any worth. Anyway, the first chapters of Genesis! Moses predates Plotinus. Moses is completely compatible with any idea Plotinus had of having the same essence, substance, or nature...which is to say. consubstantial.

Okay...the work week looms. Got to run. May you and I live long enough to be both retired and have our wits to be arguing at the same time! My wife turns 65 on May 19, 2025. That is the date I am done. (Medicare and health insurance you know). It seems coming faster and faster...

God bless you Mark.

Rory

 

I think there are a few contradictions here, and I underlined them,  but as I said, we take our religious beliefs on faith, and many are called "mysteries" for a reason. :)

I think that consubstantiality implies that the two entities would be the of the same nature, but perhaps of different appearance, as the Eucharistic wine BEING the body, blood soul and divinity of Christ.

If two beings are consubstantial, then one cannot be "of a lower nature" than the other, but that's fine.

All of these are really mysteries anyway!

I don't want to debate it with you mi amigo, but I do have to defend the LDS view.

We believe different things, that's not a newsflash!

We may end up spending some time in Kansas, on business, maybe we can connect and chat!

Talk atcha later! ;)

God bless you too my friend!

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
19 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I would not put it this way. I would say that the Trinity was taught by the Apostles, was retained in Apostolic Tradition, and was formalized in the Council of Nicaea.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm

New Advent, aka the "Catholic Encyclopedia", in my opinion, correctly seems to imply that the origin of the idea of "substance" stems from Aristotle, not the Apostles.  In this article, it never even alludes to it being from Apostolic times.

Technically all of Aristotle's philosophy is a modification of Plato's philosophy, to put it crudely one might say that Aristotle removed much of the rather "supernatural" aspects of Platonic philosophy and brought it more into the "real world"- whatever that means- ;), in a sense he used the idea of "substance" to replace Plato's realm of Forms.

(If we have any Platonic or Aristotelian scholars hereabouts- and if I am wrong, I would love to hear about it)

But it seems that even the "Catholic Encyclopedia" does not find a need to ascribe the idea of substance to an apostolic source, and I have seen nothing to correct me.

I think what happens is that one can look backward and INTERPRET any text AS IF it originated in another philosopy, as perhaps I do with Rorty at times.

One becomes schooled in a philosophy and ends up SEEING it everywhere, even in sources that really have no relation to the original idea.

I notice in my own life, perhaps that I go car shopping and discover a car model that I had never seen before- the "XYZ Zip" model SUV- to create an imaginary example.

AFTER one sees the Zip, suddenly it becomes part of your awareness and you see Zips everywhere!!   

Perhaps that is what is happening here- please correct me if I am wrong.  Once one becomes aware of the idea of "substance" one sees it everywhere, even in texts that predate the "real origin" of the idea of substance, here represented as being from Aristotle.

So at least for now, I am convinced that one CAN "read into" the gospels the idea of "substance" and actually see the world in those terms and wonder why others don't see it-- I know I do that with Rorty, but I do not harbor the illusion that Rorty was the origin of ideas that came hundreds or thousands of years before he was even born, and claim for example that Rorty was the source of the ideas of the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus- because in my universe both Heraclitus and Rorty are preaching the same "doctrine".

Please prove me wrong on this one- I would love to see a good argument for why I am wrong on this- it could shift my entire present opinion of Catholic theology.

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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