My Friendly Friday Questions

[mfbukowski]

On 2/13/2023 at 12:27 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

A lighter topic for a question....

I've learned that some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints observe Lent, and even though it isn't obligatory.

For anyone who plans to observe Lent, what do you plan to do?

 

 

Many also observe a sort of Advent, probably more than Lent.

Lent for us: I think just a time to start thinking about what Christ did for us.

Didn't Catholicism make some changes recently about "fish on Fridays" ?

[pogi]

On 2/13/2023 at 1:27 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

A lighter topic for a question....

I've learned that some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints observe Lent, and even though it isn't obligatory.

For anyone who plans to observe Lent, what do you plan to do?

I am afraid that answering a merry Monday question in a friendly Friday thread might be too much of a derail for me. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by pogi

[Saint Bonaventure]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Many also observe a sort of Advent, probably more than Lent.

Lent for us: I think just a time to start thinking about what Christ did for us.

Didn't Catholicism make some changes recently about "fish on Fridays" ?

No meat on Fridays, except fish, is still a 'thing.' I think it's making a comeback.

You can be certain that, starting next week, McDonald's restaurants will have specials on fillet of fish sandwiches. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

No meat on Fridays, except fish, is still a 'thing.' I think it's making a comeback.

You can be certain that, starting next week, McDonald's restaurants will have specials on fillet of fish sandwiches. 

Now THAT was my real reason to ask!

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

I am afraid that answering a merry Monday question in a friendly Friday thread might be too much of a derail for me. 

See the problem IS the break between reality, and language which show ithe continuing ambiguity.......🤔🧐

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

I am afraid that answering a merry Monday question in a friendly Friday thread might be too much of a derail for me. 

I think that Lent is based on the idea that sacrificing one's personal comfort is meritorious?

I recall my elementary school teachers- all dressed in religious habits from various orders as I moved from school to school- all taught us to "offer it up" when things went wrong, or were injured, or any sacrifice we had to endure, which it was said may decrease our time in Putgatory.

Any act of self discipline was ok as long as we "offered it up"

Isn't that kind of what Lent is? 

To prohibit oneself things of comfort, to ultimately follow Christ, sacrifice in a tiny way to help ourselves become closer to Him?

[Smiley McGee]

On 2/13/2023 at 1:27 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

A lighter topic for a question....

I've learned that some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints observe Lent, and even though it isn't obligatory.

For anyone who plans to observe Lent, what do you plan to do?

 

 

Water only…but I reserve the right to drink sparkling water as well. 
 

You?

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

For anyone who plans to observe Lent, what do you plan to do?

A little self-flagellation.  Nothing too heavy. I'm skipping the barbs this year.  

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Smiley McGee]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

A little self-flagellation.  Nothing too heavy. I'm skipping the barbs this year.  

 

Ha, whoops, I see where that’s confusing. Will drink only water; still going to eat food.

[Saint Bonaventure]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

A little self-flagellation.  Nothing too heavy. I'm skipping the barbs this year.  

 

Maybe you could be a Latter-day Saint woman for Lent?

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Maybe you could be a Latter-day Saint woman for Lent?

Love it!

But just can't "like" it!

My wife is a total women's "libber"  but never had a problem with anything the church has done- she believes that women ARE different from men, and being "liberated" is about being what she wants to be, a "traditional" woman.

"Happy wife, happy life" seems to work pretty well around here ! We celebrate the differences between the two halves of humanity.

Proving contraries, dialectical thinking, yin and yang works just fine for us

 

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

14 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

Water only…but I reserve the right to drink sparkling water as well. 
 

You?

If only I did something flashy, like watch a Mel Gibson movie every day as penance. Alas, I do a traditional combination of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

If only I did something flashy, like watch a Mel Gibson movie every day as penance. Alas, I do a traditional combination of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. 

Oh yeah, that too.

Many of us give an alm and leg.

Another similarity! 😇

[Saint Bonaventure]

Related to the SEC story:

How does someone know the authoritative strength of a teaching in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 

The way you all describe what is 'doctrine,' or 'required belief' is puzzling.

In the Catholic Church there are ways of being more authoritative, all the way up to the rarely used infallible teaching in the area of faith and morals. For example, while traditional Catholics are vexed by Pope Francis' restrictions of the Traditional Latin Mass, there are many ways for those restrictions to be overcome in the long run. In fact, I daresay that those restrictions will be overcome. 

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Related to the SEC story:

How does someone know the authoritative strength of a teaching in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 

The way you all describe what is 'doctrine,' or 'required belief' is puzzling.

In the Catholic Church there are ways of being more authoritative, all the way up to the rarely used infallible teaching in the area of faith and morals. For example, while traditional Catholics are vexed by Pope Francis' restrictions of the Traditional Latin Mass, there are many ways for those restrictions to be overcome in the long run. In fact, I daresay that those restrictions will be overcome. 

"Doctrine" and "required belief" are two different things, in my opinion.   Briefly for "Doctrine":   "What God teaches is called doctrine. God supplies doctrine for His children by way of commandments and instructions that will bless them and bring them happiness. Just as He did in Old Testament times, God continues to reveal doctrine through prophet."   I consider God's "doctrine" to be his precepts and principles that lead us to eternal life.

But "required belief" might anything that God says to us that is essential for our well being right at the moment.  For example, God telling Noah to build an ark and for people to get on the ark so that they can be saved from the flood is a good example of a "required belief" that may not be "doctrine".  The same could be said for some of the things God told Jeremiah to say to the people related to their preservation just before the Babylonians took over Jerusalem.  Those things might be "required" at a particular point in time, but are not really the same as "doctrine".

In 2007, the Church published this guide for news reporters on "Approaching Mormon Doctrine".  In it, they said:

Quote

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

There is also this 2013 Ensign article titled "How Doctrine is Established" that summarizes from an April 2012 Conference talk by Elder D. Todd Christofferson:

Quote

Revelation of doctrine comes from Jesus Christ

When revelation is doctrine for the whole Church, it comes to only the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see Amos 3:7; D&C 1:38; 28:2).

Revelation may come by …

His own person:  God appeared to Moses and showed him the workmanship of His hands (see Moses 1:1–9; see also Joseph Smith—History 1:15–20).

His own voice:  The Lord spoke to Nephi and commanded him to build a ship to bring his family to the Americas (see 1 Nephi 17:7–8).

The voice of the Holy Ghost:   This type of revelation is communicated Spirit to spirit. The New Testament Apostles received a confirmation through the Holy Ghost that they should not require new converts to keep the law of Moses (see Acts 15:5–29).

Messenger:  The messengers Moses, Elias, and Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and each committed the keys of his dispensation to the Prophet (see D&C 110:11–16).

Revelation may come to …

The President of the Church Individually:  The prophet and President of the Church can receive revelation individually that becomes doctrine when it is sustained by the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see Acts 10; Official Declaration 2).

Prophets Acting in Council:  The disciples in the Americas prayed to know what they should name the Church. Christ appeared to them and answered, “Whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name” (3 Nephi 27:7).

There is also this article from the FAIR website:  "What is 'Official' LDS Doctrine", which is "official" enough that it is linked from this  Church website. 

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

How does someone know the authoritative strength of a teaching in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 

The way you all describe what is 'doctrine,' or 'required belief' is puzzling.

I understand the problem- as a convert.

The bottom line actually is that Joseph himself eschewed "doctrine" and so --- from a Catholic point of view -- we have none except about correct behavior and very little "correct belief"   Testimony is prime.

That's why we work so easily with relativism, but nobody has noticed that yet. 

But the pragmatic truth is that in order to reach the Celestial Kingdom, the "most" you need is to be as righteous as you can be- emulate Christ AND be able to answer all the temple recommends questions , honestly and before God and angels as witnesses in a manner acceptable to the church, with your bishop and one member of the Stake presidency  as the final human judge of your answers.

It's kind of like Catholic "confession"- I forgot the new name- but the "confessor" asks you the questions before God this time instead, and God is your final judge if you lie to the confessor.   It is not a good idea to do that. 

Quote

 

Temple Recommend Questions

The interview questions are made public so members of all ages can better understand the requirements for temple worship and prepare to enter the temple.

The interview questions for temple recommends are below. Verbiage in 11 questions has been modified. Questions 12 and 13 are omitted when youth are interviewed for a limited-use recommend.

Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost?
 

Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of His role as your Savior and Redeemer?
 

Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
 

Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?

Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local leaders of the Church?
 

The Lord has said that all things are to be “done in cleanliness” before Him (Doctrine and Covenants 42:41).

Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior?

Do you obey the law of chastity?
 

Do you follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ in your private and public behavior with members of your family and others?
 

Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
 

Do you strive to keep the Sabbath day holy, both at home and at church; attend your meetings; prepare for and worthily partake of the sacrament; and live your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?
 

Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?
 

Are you a full-tithe payer?

For new members seeking a limited-use recommend: Are you willing to obey the commandment to pay tithing?
 

Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?
 

Do you have any financial or other obligations to a former spouse or to children?

If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?
 

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment?
 

Are there serious sins in your life that need to be resolved with priesthood authorities as part of your repentance?
 

Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances?

 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-temple-recommend

As far as "doctrine" - it PRACTICALLY is irrelevant EXCEPT if your beliefs are NOT in line with these questions.

If you are within the bounds of the questions, honestly before God and angels as witnesses, that is all you need.

Edited February 24, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Benjamin McGuire]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The bottom line actually is that Joseph himself eschewed "doctrine" and so --- from a Catholic point of view -- we have none except about correct behavior and very little "correct belief"   Testimony is prime.

Let's not forget also, that even though Mormonism built itself (at least in part) by both adopting and rejecting traditional views, it is still a young movement in comparison to Catholicism. As a young church/religious movement, the LDS church hasn't yet really formalized the process of creating its own doctrinal infrastructure. We even still consider our canon to be open (although we haven't added anything in a long time). Give us another 300 years, and I suspect our doctrine (and the process of identifying doctrine) will be more clearly defined. We are still in that stage where we define things most rigorously by identifying heresy.

[Calm]

I have a Friday question that occurred to me when looking at a Catholic Relief and our church’s combined effort…

Catholic Relief does massive amount of work and I know nothing else about them. I read a bit on their US page, but wasn’t clear…are they run by the Catholic Church or are they Catholic volunteers who coordinate with the local Bishop in getting services to their areas?  Is Catholic Relief different from Caritas and if so, how?

Is there a comparable department to LDS Philanthropies for the RCC or do they have multiple independent humanitarian departments?  I found this on the recently created Dicastery and am wondering if this is the Catholic version.  The other option I was thinking was Caritas Internationalis, with the variation of it being the combined local efforts (because each Catholic diocese is its own legally independent organization, correct?).

https://www.humandevelopment.va/en/il-dicastero.html

Also how is the RCC set up organizationallywise?  All dioceses have spiritual allegiance to the Vatican, I am assuming, but is there a legal connection?  

Are a percentage of tithes/offerings (donations to the Church) sent to Rome or are they all kept locally?  If so, how is this decided?  Everything goes?  After local expenses are paid?  A set percentage?

[Saint Bonaventure]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

I have a Friday question that occurred to me when looking at a Catholic Relief and our church’s combined effort…

Catholic Relief does massive amount of work and I know nothing else about them. I read a bit on their US page, but wasn’t clear…are they run by the Catholic Church or are they Catholic volunteers who coordinate with the local Bishop in getting services to their areas?  Is Catholic Relief different from Caritas and if so, how?

Thanks for the questions. I'll see what I can untangle....

There are networks within networks.

Catholic Charities is a national/regional social services non-profit network, that is itself affiliated with Caritas, the international non-profit network headquartered in Vatican City. The network within a network structure reminds me of the old guild system, where there were chapter houses, and established relationships between chapter houses, and the guild itself can draw on and deploy resources in a way that a solitary chapter house cannot.

The relationship between CC and a diocese (a regional authoritative structure headed up by a Bishop) is like the relationship between a trade guild and a regional lord in the Middle Ages. There's always a relationship there, but the regional lord can't just command the guild. 

On a practical level, CC always has a glossy in the mailings I receive from the diocese, but if the relationship there weren't good, the diocese could limit CC's access to parishioners through official channels. 

CC is a fantastic charity, by the way. 85-90% of donations go directly to addressing needs/disaster relief/recovery efforts and a Dominican nun is the current president.  She's probably one of the most influential Catholics in the U.S.

 

20 hours ago, Calm said:

Is there a comparable department to LDS Philanthropies for the RCC or do they have multiple independent humanitarian departments?  I found this on the recently created Dicastery and am wondering if this is the Catholic version.  The other option I was thinking was Caritas Internationalis, with the variation of it being the combined local efforts (because each Catholic diocese is its own legally independent organization, correct?).

There are high-level connections between CC and the USCCB (The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops). I'm not super-knowledgeable on all the committees and subgroups of the USCCB, but that's the level where CC has high-level interconnection with the bishops. That would be the closest structure that would resemble a department and where high-level coordination could occur between LDS Philanthropies and CC.

This is one of those interesting situations where, at the street level, there can be name calling and posturing, but at the higher levels LDS philanthropies officials probably know CC people and USCCB people by name and everybody coordinates regularly and respectfully.  

20 hours ago, Calm said:

https://www.humandevelopment.va/en/il-dicastero.html

Also how is the RCC set up organizationallywise?  All dioceses have spiritual allegiance to the Vatican, I am assuming, but is there a legal connection?  

Are a percentage of tithes/offerings (donations to the Church) sent to Rome or are they all kept locally?  If so, how is this decided?  Everything goes?  After local expenses are paid?  A set percentage?

Regarding offerings, what is given at the collection stays with the local parish. There is a special collection taken for the diocese, and that funding could be made available to struggling parishes, etc. Groups like Catholic Charities take up their own donations. Catholics often give to the local parish, but then give separately to Catholic Charities, the Knights of Columbus, the local Catholic schools and hospitals, etc. I'll say more on this in another post, if anybody's interested. 

Ecclesiastically, there are three holy orders/offices/clerical groupings, of those ordained/commissioned/consecrated to the priesthood. Members of these orders act in persona Christi, that is, they represent Christ. The three holy orders are:

• Deacons
• Priests
• Bishops 

Fundamentally there is also the laity, who are the members of the common priesthood.  

On the local level, there are parishes comprised of laity (similar to LDS wards), which are led by priests and/or deacons.

On the regional level, bishops oversee dozens of parishes and schools. Technically, bishops are priests who have been appointed as bishops, but bishops hold the fullness of the priesthood bestowed by the apostles and have responsibilities for governance and teaching that priests and deacons do not.

Confusion enters the picture not so much because of the holy orders--there are only three--but because of appointments and titles. Here are some of the most known appointments and titles:

• Monsignor is a title given when a member of the clergy is given a specific honor by the Pope.
• Archbishop is an appointment to a particularly large/influential/important/populated diocese (an archdiocese). Archbishops are just big bishops.
• Cardinals are bishops or archbishops who have been appointed by the Pope. They work in dicasteries, which have international responsibility for the collective missions of the church. 
• Pope is the title of the Bishop of Rome. He's the first among equals as a bishop, but is just a bishop.

 Alongside the three holy orders are religious orders (aka orders of religious). These are the groupings of nuns, sisters, friars, monks, etc. who have varying vocations (callings or purposes) in the body of Christ, and who have taken solemn vows to that effect. Many of these religious orders have a form of spiritual discipline and participation for the laity and for priests and deacons, so you can encounter a lay Catholic who is, for example, observing Ignatian spirituality, or Dominican spirituality, etc.

The religious orders deserve their own post....

 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[MiserereNobis]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

Are a percentage of tithes/offerings (donations to the Church) sent to Rome or are they all kept locally?  If so, how is this decided?  Everything goes?  After local expenses are paid?  A set percentage?

All donations are kept locally. There is a once-a-year collection called "Peter's Pence" that is sent to the Vatican.

The Catholic Church is much less centralized than the LDS church, at least how it appears to me. There are fewer "levels" of priesthood hierarchy, as St. Bonaventure pointed out. A cardinal doesn't have a "higher" priesthood than a bishop. A cardinal cannot simply tell a bishop what to do. A bishop has full jurisdiction in his diocese -- the cardinal doesn't outrank him so to speak. The pope, however, has universal jurisdiction -- he can tell anyone anywhere what to do.

I'm trying to avoid too much Catholic-speak to make it easier to understand  

[Saint Bonaventure]

I'm not necessarily expecting an official, doctrinal position on this matter, but as an individual Latter-day Saint, do you make a distinction between man being created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26) and Christ who is the image of God (Col. 1:!5)?

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm not necessarily expecting an official, doctrinal position on this matter, but as an individual Latter-day Saint, do you make a distinction between man being created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26) and Christ who is the image of God (Col. 1:!5)?

 

 

 

I would say no difference 

Translation differences? Same words?

I think there is no difference in English, regardless

Edited March 17, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would say no difference 

Translation differences? Same words?

I think there is no difference in English, regardless

I thought you might come at these verses in this fashion. After reading through the mind scramble that is the Joseph Smith and Adam thread, and realizing that LDS tradition and/or scriptures can take thought in directions I hadn't anticipated, I started thinking of Gen. 1:26, Col. 1:15, etc.

One contemporary theologian I enjoy, Scott Hahn, thinks that there is an important distinction between man is created in the image of God and Christ is the image of God:

Quote

 

Christ makes visible the life and love of the invisible God (Jn 1:18; Rom 5:8). His humanity is thus the sacrament that brings the Father into view (Jn 14:9). Although man was created in God’s image, something more is said of Christ, who is that image in the most perfect sense (2 Cor 4:4; Heb 1:3). ● The hymn may allude to the creation of Adam, the first man to bear the image of God (Gen 1:26) and pass it along to his progeny (Gen 5:3). Because the image Adam bequeathed to the human family was damaged and disfigured by sin, Christ comes to reverse what Adam did by reshaping our image in the likeness of his own (Col 3:10; Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49). ● Christ is the image because he is of one substance with the Father. He comes from the Father, and not the Father from him, since the nature of an image is to copy the original and to be named after it (St. Gregory Nazianzen, Orations 30).

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 366.

 

When I looked up Col. 1:15 in St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on Colossians, I found an entire lecture on it:

Quote

 

LECTURE 4

Creation through Christ (1:15–17)

29. After Paul recalled for us the universal and special benefits of grace, he now commends the author of this grace, that is, Christ. And he does this,
first, in his relation to God;
second, in relation to all of creation, at the firstborn;
and third, in relation to the Church, at and he is the head (Col 1:18).

30. As to the first, we should note that God is said to be invisible because he exceeds the capacity of vision of any created intellect, so that no created intellect, by its natural knowledge, can attain his essence: behold, God is great, and we know him not (Job 36:26); he dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim 6:16). And therefore, he is seen by the blessed by means of grace, and not by reason of their natural capacity.
Dionysius gives the reason for this: all knowledge terminates at something which exists, that is, at some nature that participates in the act of existence; but God is the very act of existence, not participating in the act of existence, but participated in; and thus he is not known. It is of this invisible God that the Son is the image.

31. Let us now see in what way the Son is called the image of God, and why he is said to be invisible.
The notion of an image includes three things. First, an image must be a likeness; second, it must be derived or drawn from the thing of which it is a likeness; and third, it must be derived with respect to something that pertains to the species or to a sign of the species. For if two things are alike, but neither is derived from the other, then neither one is the image of the other; thus one egg is not said to be the image of another. And so something is called an image because it imitates.
Further, if there is a likeness between two things, but not according to species or a sign of the species, we do not speak of an image. Thus, a man has many accidents, such as color, size and so on; but they are not the reason for calling something an image of a man. But if something has the shape or figure of a man, then it can be called an image, because this shape is a sign of the species. Now the Son is like the Father, and the Father is like the Son. But because the Son has this likeness from the Father, and not the Father from the Son, we, properly speaking, say that the Son is the image of the Father, and not conversely: for this likeness is drawn and derived from the Father.
Further, this likeness is according to species, because in divine matters the Son is somehow, although faintly, represented by our mental word. We have a mental word when we actually conceive the form of the thing of which we have knowledge; and then we signify this mental word by an external word. And this mental word we have conceived is a certain likeness, in our mind, of the thing, and it is like it in species. And so the Word of God is called the image of God.

32. As to our second question, we should note that the Arians misunderstood the text: for they thought about the image of God as they did of the images they made of their ancestors, so they could see in these images the loved ones no longer with them (just as we make images of the saints to see in these images those whom we cannot see in reality). And so they said that to be invisible was unique to the Father, and that the first visible reality was the Son, who manifested the goodness of the Father. They were saying that the Father was truly invisible, but the Son was visible, and thus their natures would be different. But the Apostle refutes this when he says: he reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power (Heb 1:3). And thus the Son is not only the image of the invisible God, but he himself is invisible like the Father: who is the image of the invisible God.

33. Then when he says, the firstborn of every creature, he commends Christ in relation to creatures.
First he does so; and second, he amplifies it, at for in him.

34. We should note, about the first point, that the Arians understood this to mean that Christ is called the first-born because he is the first creature. But this is not the meaning, as will be clear. So we have to understand two things: how this image is generated, and in what way it is the first-born of creatures.
In regard to the first, we should note that things generate in various ways depending on their nature and manner of existence, for men generate in one way, and plants in another, and so on for other things. But the nature of God is his existence and his act of understanding and so it is necessary that his generating or intellectual conceiving is the generating or conceiving of his nature. (In us, however, our intellectual conceiving is not the conceiving of our nature, because our nature is not the same as our act of understanding). Therefore, since this image is a word and concept of an intellect, it is necessary to say that it is the offspring of the nature, so that the one receiving the nature from the other is generated by necessity.

35. Second, we have to understand in what way the Son is called the first-born. God does not know himself and creatures through two different sources; he knows all things in his own essence, as in the first efficient cause. The Son, however, is the intellectual concept or representation of God insofar as he knows himself, and as a consequence, every creature. Therefore, inasmuch as the Son is begotten, he is seen as a word representing every creature, and he is the principle of every creature. For if he were not begotten in that way, the Word of the Father would be the first-born of the Father only, and not of creatures: I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the first-born before every creature (Sir 24:5).

36. Then when he says, for in him were all things created, he explains what he has just said, that is, that the Son is the first-born because he was generated as the principle of creatures; and this with respect to three things.
First, with respect to the creation of things;
in the second place, with respect to their distinction, in heaven and on earth;
and third, with respect to their preservation in existence, and by him all things consist.

37. He says that the Son is the firstborn of every creature because he is generated or begotten as the principle of every creature. And so he says, for in him were all things created.
With respect to this, we should note that the Platonists affirmed the existence of Ideas, and said that each thing came to be by participating in an Idea, like the Idea of man, or an Idea of some other kind. Instead of all these we have one, that is, the Son, the Word of God. For an artisan makes an artifact by making it participate in the form he has conceived within himself, enveloping it, so to say, with external matter; for we say that the artisan makes a house through the form of the thing which he has conceived within himself. This is the way God is said to make all things in his wisdom, because the wisdom of God is related to his created works just as the art of the builder is to the house he has made. Now this form and wisdom is the Word; and thus in him all things were created, as in an exemplar: he spoke and they were made (Gen 1), because he created all things to come into existence in his eternal Word.

38. With respect to the differences among things, we should note that some, like the Manicheans, were mistaken in thinking that earthly bodies, since they are corruptible, were made by an evil god, while the heavenly bodies, because they are incorruptible, were made by the good God, that is, by the Father of Christ. This was an error, because both types of bodies were created in the same. And so he says, in heaven and on earth.
This difference is based on the different parts of corporeal nature. In the beginning, that is, in the Son, God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1).

39. The Platonists also said that God created invisible creatures, that is, the angels, by himself, but created bodily natures by the angels. But this is refuted here, because Paul says, visible and invisible. As to the first he says: by faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God; that from invisible things visible things might be made (Heb 11:3). About the second we read: we have seen but few of his works. For the Lord has made all things, and to the godly he has granted wisdom (Sir 43:32–33).
This difference in things is based on the nature of created things.

40. The third difference is concerned with the order and degrees found in invisible realities, when he says, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers. The Platonists were mistaken in this matter for they said that there are different perfections found in things, and attributed each of these to its own first principle. And they said there was an order of principles according to the orders of these perfections. Thus they affirmed a first being, from whom all things participate in existence; and another principle, distinct from this, a first intellect, from which all things participate in intelligence, and then another principle, life, from which all things participate in life.
But we do not agree with this, for all the perfections found in things are from one principle. Thus he says, whether thrones, or dominations and so on. As if to say: they do not depend on an array of principles, but on the one unique Word of God.

41. Why does Paul say in his letter to the Ephesians: he has made him the head over all the Church? (Eph 1:22). For he does not seem to be saying the same thing there as here.
I reply that here Paul is giving a descending list of such beings, because he is showing the procession of creatures from God; but in Ephesians he gives an ascending list, because he is showing that the Son of God, as man, is above all creatures. In Ephesians, the principalities are placed under the authorities (or powers), and the virtues are between the dominions and authorities; but here in our text, the principalities are placed above the authorities, and between the dominions and the authorities. This is the way the teaching of Gregory differs from that of Dionysius. For Dionysius arranges the spiritual beings as they are in Ephesians, because he puts the dominions, the virtues and authorities in the second hierarchy. But Gregory arranges them as Paul does here, because he puts the dominions, principalities and authorities in the second hierarchy; and the virtues, archangels and the angels in the third hierarchy.
We should note, as Gregory and Dionysius say, that the spiritual gifts from which these different orders receive their names are common to all of them; yet some orders receive their name from certain of these gifts, and others receive their name from different gifts. The reason for this can be seen from the teachings of the Platonists: whatever belongs to something belongs to it in one of three ways: essentially, or by participation, or causally. A thing belongs essentially to another if it belongs to it according to a certain proportion to its nature; this is the way to be rational belongs to man. A thing belongs by participation to another if it surpasses the nature of the thing which has it, although the thing participates to a certain extent in it, although imperfectly; thus man is intellectual by participation, while to be intellectual, which is superior to being rational, is in the angels essentially. One thing belongs to another causally if it accrues to it, as artifacts belong to a person; for they do not exist in him as in matter, but exist in his artistic power. Now a thing is named only from what belongs to it essentially; thus we do not define man as an intellectual or artistic being, but as rational.
In regard to the gifts present in the angels, those which belong to the higher angels essentially, belong to the lower ones by participation; and those which belong to the lower ones essentially, are present in the higher angels causally. Consequently, the higher angels receive their names from the higher gifts.
But the highest thing in a spiritual creature is that it attain to God and somehow participate in him; and therefore the higher angels receive their name because they attain God: seraphim, as being fervent or on fire with God; the cherubim, as knowing God; and the thrones, as having God seated in them.

42. For one thing can participate in another in three ways: first, it can receive what is proper to the nature of what it is participating in; second, it can receive a thing insofar as it knows it; and third, it can somehow serve the power of a thing. For example, a doctor participates in the art of medicine either because he possesses in himself the art of medicine, or because he has received a knowledge of the art, or because he serves or devotes himself to the medical art. The first way of participating is greater than the second, and the second way is greater than the third.
In Sacred Scripture, what is divine is signified by fire: the Lord your God is a devouring fire (Deut 4:24). And so the highest order of angels is called the seraphim, as though on fire with God and having a divine property. The second order is the cherubim, who attain God by knowledge. And the third are the thrones, who serve or are devoted to his power. The other orders are not given their names because they attain God, but because of some activity of God. Some angels direct or command, and these are the dominions. Others accomplish and carry out what is commanded, the principal angels who do this are the principalities: princes went before, joined with singers (Ps 68:27). Among the others who carry out commands, some act over spiritual creatures, such as the authorities (powers), who restrain the evil spirits. If some act over natural things, they are called virtues, and these perform miracles. If they act over human beings, they are called archangels if they are concerned with great matters, and angels if concerned with lesser things.
And so Paul concludes, all things were created through him, as by an efficient cause, and in him, as in an exemplary cause: all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made (John 1:3).

43. Since someone might ask: are all things eternal? the Apostle says in answer: no! He is before all, i.e., that is, before all times and other things: the Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything from the beginning (Prov 8:22). Or, he is before all in dignity: who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord? (Ps 89:6).

44. As relating to the conservation of things he says, and by him all things consist, that is, they are conserved. For God is to things as the sun is to the moon, which loses its light when the sun leaves. And so, if God took his power away from us, all things would immediately cease to exist: upholding the universe by his word of power (Heb 1:3).

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Letters of Saint Paul to the Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, trans. Fabian R. Larcher, vol. 40, Latin/English Edition of the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas: Latin Text (Steubenville, OH; Green Bay, WI: Emmaus Academic; Aquinas Institute, 2018), 86–91.

 

I don't think that dropping a couple of quotes and comments will persuade you by any means. I do find it interesting how St. Thomas makes significant use of Sirach in his thinking, which I don't believe LDS include in their bibles. I'm also more than a little amazed, and very curious, to witness how Latter-day Saints draw on their scriptures and tradition as they understand concepts such as the Imago Dei.

I'm very interested in what any LDS folks have to say on this topic.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I thought you might come at these verses in this fashion. After reading through the mind scramble that is the Joseph Smith and Adam thread, and realizing that LDS tradition and/or scriptures can take thought in directions I hadn't anticipated, I started thinking of Gen. 1:26, Col. 1:15, etc.

One contemporary theologian I enjoy, Scott Hahn, thinks that there is an important distinction between man is created in the image of God and Christ is the image of God:

When I looked up Col. 1:15 in St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on Colossians, I found an entire lecture on it:

I don't think that dropping a couple of quotes and comments will persuade you by any means. I do find it interesting how St. Thomas makes significant use of Sirach in his thinking, which I don't believe LDS include in their bibles. I'm also more than a little amazed, and very curious, to witness how Latter-day Saints draw on their scriptures and tradition as they understand concepts such as the Imago Dei.

I'm very interested in what any LDS folks have to say on this topic.

Very interesting, thanks!

The quick answer is that our paradigm avoids the whole topic by eliminating the idea that Father is "invisible" because Joseph saw Him, and apparently the Savior as well, appearing as virtually identical twins.  There are other accounts through Christian (Protestant) history of theophanies as well.

Secondly, we do not accept original sin.

It is believed that Aquinas was too immersed in Greek philosophy to be relevant on matters such as this, and no, Sirach is not canonical for us.

Joseph also said that Christ was the explicit image of his Father iirc

But it's a great topic, give me some time to think about it more!!

[mfbukowski]

On 3/11/2023 at 9:10 AM, MiserereNobis said:

There are fewer "levels" of priesthood hierarchy, as St. Bonaventure pointed out. A cardinal doesn't have a "higher" priesthood than a bishop. A cardinal cannot simply tell a bishop what to do.

For us as well there really are not "levels" in the priesthood. I will have to get back to you on that as well.

The administrative functions of who presides are simply... administrative 

Area authorities for example have the same priesthood as a humble missionary, though they might preside administratively over, say an area as large as the "Western United States".

Both of those individuals are correctly called "elders" while one is 19 and the other 70 years old with 50 years of leadership experience