Z
- Status
A
Allweather
Guest
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Prayer: ““An act of the virtue of religion which consists in asking proper gifts or graces from God. In a more general sense it is the application of the mind to Divine things, not merely to acquire a knowledge of them but to make use of such knowledge as a means of union with God. This may be done by acts of praise and thanksgiving, but petition is the principal act of prayer.””
I would invite you to read the entire, rather lengthy article, if I thought you’d actually do that. Aw, what the heck… here’s the link:
newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm
A
Allweather
Guest
And this, from Fr John Hardon’s abridged edition of Modern Catholic Dictionary, 1985 edition, now in tatters:
Prayer: “The voluntary response to the awareness of God’s presence. This response may be an acknowledgment of God’s greatness and of a person’s total dependence on him (adoration), or gratitude for his benefits to oneself and others (thanksgiving), or sorrow for sins committed and begging for mercy (expiation), or asking for graces needed (petition), or affection for God, who is all good (love).”
It appears to me that there are various types of prayer, ie adoration, thanksgiving, expiation, petition, and love.
NanS has earlier drawn attention to the tendency of Zerinus in all his manifestations to consider only one possible definition of a word, and suggested that he get out of this habit before entering college.
Now, as to “veneration” which is really what we’re talking about when we are so-called “worshipping” the saints, here it is from Fr. Hardon’s excellent, imprimatured dictionary:
Veneration of saints: “Honor paid to the saints who, by their intercession and example and in their possession of God, minister to human sanctification, helping the faithful grow in Christian virtue. Venerating the saints does not detract from the glory given to God, since whatever good they possess is a gift from His bounty. They reflect the divine perfections, and their supernatural qualities result from the graces Christ merited for them by the Cross. In the language of the Church’s liturgy, the saints are venerated as sanctuaries of the Trinity, as adopted children of the Father, brethren of Christ, faithful members of his Mystical Body, and temples of the Holy Spirit.”
A
Allweather
Guest
And this concerning worship, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm
""There are several degrees of this worship:
*if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry.
*When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.).
*As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728).""
Here is the link to the article that discusses dulia:
newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm
When the Zerinuses make statements like the one quoted above, they sound most like the Protestant ancestors who gave birth to their rebellion.
They must be bored, or else trying to change the subject.
C
Contarini
Guest
Zerinus,
Thanks for the quotes. I have a Book of Mormon but have only read bits of it.
Jesus is divine (we agree on this);
Jesus and the Father are two Persons and are not absolutely identical (we also agree on that); and
There is only one God (you say that you also agree with that).
The combination of these three statements necessitates the Trinity. If Jesus is distinct from the Father but is one God with the Father, then we are talking about two persons and one essence, whether you like that particular set of technical terms or not. (Of course we apply the same logic to the Holy Spirit, which gives us the Trinity.)
If you don’t like the traditional Christian formulation, then how do you reconcile these apparently conflicting statements?
Oh, and BTW Hindus could argue that they are not polytheists, because they believe that all their gods are manifestations of one divine reality. Arguably they are less polytheistic than you are. . . .
Edwin
Thanks for the quotes. I have a Book of Mormon but have only read bits of it.
Help me out here. You worship Jesus as God; you reject the Trinity; you believe that Jesus is “completely separate from God the Father”; and yet you are not polytheists? How can Jesus be completely separate from the Father and be God but not be a different God?
It is necessary in order to avoid denying things that are in the Bible. Here is the logic:
Jesus is divine (we agree on this);
Jesus and the Father are two Persons and are not absolutely identical (we also agree on that); and
There is only one God (you say that you also agree with that).
The combination of these three statements necessitates the Trinity. If Jesus is distinct from the Father but is one God with the Father, then we are talking about two persons and one essence, whether you like that particular set of technical terms or not. (Of course we apply the same logic to the Holy Spirit, which gives us the Trinity.)
If you don’t like the traditional Christian formulation, then how do you reconcile these apparently conflicting statements?
Oh, and BTW Hindus could argue that they are not polytheists, because they believe that all their gods are manifestations of one divine reality. Arguably they are less polytheistic than you are. . . .
Edwin
P
Pjs2ejs
Guest
Listen, if we voted for people based on the logic of their theological beliefs then we would have to vote for only Catholics. What’s the difference between the Mormon belief on the afterlife and the Protestant’s rejection of the Eucharist. Both are heretical and illogical according to Catholic interpretation.
Most people are religious due to how they were raised and can easily reason their beliefs through all sorts of things.
Mitt Romney is a good man and no more wants to make the U.S. all mormon than Kennedy did Catholic. I’ll take the moral foundation of the Mormon any day over the moral foundation of an Atheist or Agnostic.
Most people are religious due to how they were raised and can easily reason their beliefs through all sorts of things.
Mitt Romney is a good man and no more wants to make the U.S. all mormon than Kennedy did Catholic. I’ll take the moral foundation of the Mormon any day over the moral foundation of an Atheist or Agnostic.
Z
zerinus
Guest
If you look at it that way, you would be right. But that is not the only way to resolve that logical dilemma. There is another way. According to the ECFs, there is a hierarchy of gods; and some gods are subservient to other gods. I had already quoted this for Nan; but I will quote it again as it is relevant here:
. . . and they have received the title of “gods,” since they are destined to be enthroned with the other “gods” who are ranked next below the Saviour. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)
According to this passage, the structure of the gods is hierarchical. Jesus is God; but there are also other gods of lower rank than He who are subservient to Him. This is of course entirely biblical. Jesus tells us that the Father is greater than He (John 14:28). He goes so far as to call the Father His God (John 20:17). And even prays to Him (John 17:11). So we have here two gods, one of whom is clearly being subservient to the other. The Father never prayed to Jesus or call Him His God! Furthermore, in the OT we read that God made Moses a god to Pharaoh! Exodus 7:1 “And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” So now we have another hierarchy of gods. Moses is made a god to pharaoh, who is himself subservient to a higher God! If you add all of this together, it becomes clear that the structure of the gods in hierarchical. In one sense of the term, it is true, there are many gods. But in another sense of the term, there is only one God to whom all other gods are subservient and pay homage. This is what is being taught here:
Moses 1:
6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.
So ultimately there is only one God, who is the supreme God above all. But there is a hierarchy of gods who are directly below Him. There are other passage in the Bible that affirm all of this of course. For example, the Bible often describes God as the “God of gods and Lord of lords”. (See Deuteronomy 10:17; Joshua 22:22; Psalms 136:2-3; Daniel 2:47; 11:36; 1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 17:14; 19:16.) People often interpret these verses by saying that they refer to false gods or idols. But why should the God of heaven demean Himself by calling himself the God of idols? An Idol is nothing. It is just an image, and a figment of man’s imagination. The truth is of course that God is not the God of idols. He is a God of real gods and Lord of real lords.
No, it is not necessary. There are other possible explanations, as I have shown above.
That logic is flawed, it does not consider other possible explanations.
Than you for the question. I think I have already explained that!
zerinus
P
PaulDupre
Guest
So, if an anti-Catholic claims (erroneously) that Catholics worship Satan, then I am not allowed to point out (correctly) that Satanists worship Satan? Or that “lying for the Lord” and deceptive missionary tactics are integral parts of Mormonism?PaulDupre:
Given that this is exactly how anti-Catholics used to talk (and sometimes still do) about Catholics, and given that ex-anythings are usually bitter and unbalanced when speaking of their former religion, why should I listen to you?
Paul
C
Contarini
Guest
No one said that you weren’t allowed to. But if an ex-Satanist came on here and started telling us lurid things about Satanism, I’d take them with a pinch of salt. Obviously Satanists identify themselves with Satan in some sense, but exactly what they mean by that tends to vary. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they worship ultimate evil. To find out what Satanists mean by “worshipping Satan” (if I had some pressing reason to interest myself in such an unappealling topic) I would go either to current practitioners or to scholars who studied the matter with some attempt at fairness.
You are welcome to say this. But if it’s true, then someone who studies the matter without your particular agenda will confirm what you are saying. And/or there will be documents which, when studied in context, support what you are saying. Since I have neither the time nor the inclination nor any good reason to study Mormonism in detail (I haven’t even read more than snippets from the Book of Mormon that some missionaries gave me years ago), I would prefer to rely on reputable secondary sources.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
First of all, while I’m fond of old Clement (and am supposed to be working on an article about him right now, actually), he is hardly typical of the ECF’s. He was much closer to pagan philosophy in his ideas than most early Christians (I don’t think this was necessarily bad–in fact in the article I’m going to argue that he is a model for 21st-century Christians in many ways). Of course he will use this language–it came naturally to him because he was steeped in classical literature. It’s perfectly appropriate, depending on what we mean by “gods.” That there is a hierarchy of “gods” cannot be doubted. But these “gods” are not God and are not worthy of worship. That is clear from the Bible and from the early Christian writings. You are taking this text completely out of context (you don’t even say which work of Clement’s you are quoting, which makes your page number meaningless).
If the “gods” of which you speak are to be treated as God–i.e., to be worshipped–then this is simply polytheism. Do you really not know that most polytheistic religions believe in one supreme God? How are you any different? Clement was not saying that these “gods” are to be worshipped. Yes, his language and some other language of early Christians sounded polytheistic, but this created a tension because if there was one thing the early Christians were sure of, it was that there was only one God. So eventually this idea of Jesus as a “lesser god” had to be abandoned, because it led either to the idea that Jesus is just like an angel (the “gods” of which Clement was speaking) or to polytheism (many “gods” in the sense of objects of worship).
Frankly, I don’t care if you talk about a hierarchy of “gods” as long as you are clear that the One God is of a completely different nature than the “gods” and that only He is to receive latria–i.e., worship in the strict and proper sense. But if you make that division, then I have to ask on what side of the division Jesus stands. Is He one of the lesser “gods” or is he God in the same sense the Father is God?
So let me posit a new logical dilemma for you:
Either God the Father is essentially the same sort of being as the lesser “gods,” only superior to them in the hierarchy (which is polytheism);
Or Jesus is the greatest of the lesser gods, but still a completely different kind of being from God the Father (which means that you were misleading me when you implied earlier that Jesus was God in the strict and proper sense);
Or Jesus is God in the same sense as the Father and thus qualitatively different from the “gods” Clement was talking about (which is orthodox Christianity, or at least is getting close to it).
Which is it?
Either way, thanks for educating me further about Mormonism!
Edwin
C
Conjoe
Guest
[/INDENT]There is another way. According to the ECFs, there is a hierarchy of gods; and some gods are subservient to other gods. I had already quoted this for Nan; but I will quote it again as it is relevant here:
. . . and they have received the title of “gods,” since they are destined to be enthroned with the other “gods” who are ranked next below the Saviour. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)
In response to Zerinus of Mormon, you quoted the ECF Clement of Alexandria above to make your point about the hierarchy of gods. I assume you meant early church fathers, and while Clem of Alexandria may be considered one of the LDS early church fathers (although he lived in the 3rd century which I thought was after the Big Apostasy, of course you guys are always wishywashy on that) I think you might have meant Clement of Rome the first century Bishop of Rome. Catholics appreciate Clement of Alexandria but he aint no ECF. In any event both Clements were strict Trinitarians and Monothiests. It is quite disingenuous for you to cut and paste quotes out of an expansive philisophical dialogues to try and make your singular points since it had nothing to do with what Clement was referring to at all. You are employing trickery and you have no knowledge of the documents or the people that you are quoting.
. . . and they have received the title of “gods,” since they are destined to be enthroned with the other “gods” who are ranked next below the Saviour. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)
In response to Zerinus of Mormon, you quoted the ECF Clement of Alexandria above to make your point about the hierarchy of gods. I assume you meant early church fathers, and while Clem of Alexandria may be considered one of the LDS early church fathers (although he lived in the 3rd century which I thought was after the Big Apostasy, of course you guys are always wishywashy on that) I think you might have meant Clement of Rome the first century Bishop of Rome. Catholics appreciate Clement of Alexandria but he aint no ECF. In any event both Clements were strict Trinitarians and Monothiests. It is quite disingenuous for you to cut and paste quotes out of an expansive philisophical dialogues to try and make your singular points since it had nothing to do with what Clement was referring to at all. You are employing trickery and you have no knowledge of the documents or the people that you are quoting.
P
Pjs2ejs
Guest
At least Zerienus is being honest and admitting that Mormons believe in more than one God. Now, I tried to look up the text of Clement of “Alexandria” (not an ECF by the way). He quotes p.244. I have no idea of what p. 244 means. There is no context. For the sake of interest, Zerienus, do you have a source of the total text?
Z
zerinus
Guest
Okay, my mistake. Perhaps I had assumed too much. I had assumed that you had read my discussions with Nan about the widespread belief among the Early Christians about the deification of man, in the thread called The Apostle John, The Three Nephites and the “Great Apostasy”. These are the links to the relevant posts:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1912854&postcount=58
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1913098&postcount=62
Points to notice:
- Clement was not the odd one out in his belief in deification. It was very widespread among the early Christians. His teachings are not inconsistent with what the rest have taught. He is very typical of the ECFs as far as the deification is concerned. Therefore you are incorrect on that point.
- I never said that those “gods” are worthy of our worship. On the contrary, that is precisely the point that I was trying to make. We only worship the one true God—the “God of gods” and “Lord of lords”. But they are “gods” nevertheless (real gods). The Bible calls them “gods” and the ECFs were near unanimous in calling them “gods”.
- You will find the reference to Clement’s quote in the first link I have given above. Since I had given it once, I didn’t feel I needed to give it again.
Well, as I told you before, we don’t do that. We don’t worship them as God—and neither did the ECFs. But they are still gods, and they called them gods.
And neither do we. How many times do I have to say that?
I don’t believe that they were polytheistic, and neither are we. They worshipped the one true God, and so do we. But they still believed in multiple gods, and called them gods.
Now you com to the crux of the matter! You are admitting that the doctrine of the Godhead of Christendom has changed. What it believes now is not the same as what it believed in the earliest days of Christianity. I agree! But the question is, why did it need to be changed? Weren’t the earliest Christians Christian enough? Hadn’t they lived closest to the times of Jesus and His Apostles? Hadn’t they received the correct doctrine from them? It didn’t need to be changed! The original doctrine was the correct one.
zerinus
Continued . . . /
Z
zerinus
Guest
/. . . Continued
Hebrews 2:
10 For it became him {i.e. the Father}, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation {i.e. Jesus} perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth {i.e. Jesus} and they who are sanctified {i.e. us} are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
Compare that also with the following:
John 20:
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Note very carefully, that both these quotes are calculated to show that there is in fact no distinction between the “kind of being” that Jesus is and the “kind of being” that the rest of humanity are. They are both “of one” (i.e. the same kind of beings), and they are both “brethren”. Furthermore, if you analyze those verses carefully enough, you will find that it goes even further. They show that this “identity of beingness” extends even to the relationship between the Father and the rest of mankind—and there are other verses that could be brought to bear on that, starting with Genesis, where God made man “in His own image”.
zerinus
This is a two part statement. I agree 100% with the second part, but not necessarily with the first part. We don’t know enough about the “nature” of God (or man) to be able to say for sure if they are of the same “natures” or not. But I agree absolutely that the one true God is the only one who is worthy to receive our “worship in the strict and proper sense,” to use your own words.
He is a distinct and separate being from the Father, and is subordinate to the Father. But He is God as the Father is, and deserving of our worship.
I don’t see why that is polytheism. You have to define polytheism for me in that case.
No, Jesus is not “a completely different kind of being from God the Father”—and neither are we “completely different kinds of beings” from Jesus.
Jesus is God in the same sense that the Father is, but not necessarily “qualitatively different” from the gods that Clement was talking about. You have to define your terms here. I don’t know what you mean my “qualitatively different”. Perhaps a few scriptural verses might help clarify the issue:
Hebrews 2:
10 For it became him {i.e. the Father}, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation {i.e. Jesus} perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth {i.e. Jesus} and they who are sanctified {i.e. us} are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
Compare that also with the following:
John 20:
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Note very carefully, that both these quotes are calculated to show that there is in fact no distinction between the “kind of being” that Jesus is and the “kind of being” that the rest of humanity are. They are both “of one” (i.e. the same kind of beings), and they are both “brethren”. Furthermore, if you analyze those verses carefully enough, you will find that it goes even further. They show that this “identity of beingness” extends even to the relationship between the Father and the rest of mankind—and there are other verses that could be brought to bear on that, starting with Genesis, where God made man “in His own image”.
You judge! I hve given you the analysis as best I could.
And thank you for your intelligent and honest discussion!
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
S
siamesecat
Guest
While this probably isn’t the best argument for a religious forum, Romney is a politican. I doubt he even really believes Mormonism. Everything these guys do is to make them good candidates, down to religion. If they want to go somewhere, they avoid all scandals, marry correctly, have a correct number of kids, and attend services weekly. If Romney converted he’d be criticized for turning his back on his faith or using it to get ahead, if he keeps it he’s criticized for being a Mormon. I highly doubt that he’s all that devout or religious, but he has to have a clean religious identity to move forward in politics. It wouldn’t stop me from voting for him. I don’t think I would vote for someone who converted to Islam (although I don’t care if someone was born one) not because I’m against Islam but because I think if a politican actually becomes a Muslim, he’s into it enough to risk the career suicide that could result in in American politics, and he’s too into religion to focus on the political issues clearly. That person would seem a fanatic to me. I don’t think Romney’s any kid of fanatic.
P
Pjs2ejs
Guest
Zerienus, let me get this straight. I read all of your past posts with the obscure ancient church members. Do you believe people become Gods and those Gods can be worshipped? Didn’t God say there are no other Gods?
Now, I can’t tell what those writers you quoted meant but it may be that they are referring to us becoming the Body of Christ. But by no means are we Gods. Now, what if I quoted 50 other early church members at the same time as saying that you are wrong, which ones would you believe? Are you really convinced that Clement of Al. is the smoking gun?
By the way, someone mentioned it, but I thought Christianity was supposed to have been obliterated from Earth by the end of the 1st century. This is what your religion is founded on. Exactly when did the Great Apostacy occur?
Now, I can’t tell what those writers you quoted meant but it may be that they are referring to us becoming the Body of Christ. But by no means are we Gods. Now, what if I quoted 50 other early church members at the same time as saying that you are wrong, which ones would you believe? Are you really convinced that Clement of Al. is the smoking gun?
By the way, someone mentioned it, but I thought Christianity was supposed to have been obliterated from Earth by the end of the 1st century. This is what your religion is founded on. Exactly when did the Great Apostacy occur?
Z
zerinus
Guest
Those questions have all been comprehensively answered in my replies to Contarini. If you can’t be bothered to read my posts, why should I bother to answer your questions?
I don’t believe in answering hypothetical questions.
You are asking too many questions now. One thing at a time!
zerinus
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
Zerinus, your “link” states the same thing: page 244.
It does NOT give a source. What is your source, please?
A
AMDG1
Guest
Maybe I missed something - I thought this thread was about whether one would vote for Mitt despite him being Mormon?
- Status