Deep study in the Catholic and LDS religion


Recommended Posts

We've had this discussion before Steve. It's really tedious having to go back to it again. And no, the springboard comment is because I understand BOTH Catholic and LDS, whereas you only understand Catholic.

Okay, I found one thing I wrote before on here. There's a bunch more I just can't find it anymore.

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/44192-doctrines-surrounding-creation-5.html#post644533

This one too: http://www.lds.net/forums/learn-about-mormon-church/29985-trinity-11.html#post474886 but you have to read up to the previous posts to see the context of the linked post.

That's just an example of how if you focus on the differences then yes, it gives the impression of the big divide. But, if you ferret out the missing doctrine then the springboard makes a whole lot of sense and LDS doctrine becomes understandable from a Catholic standpoint. Of course, it is not necessary to believe in the missing doctrine to understand where the LDS is coming from in light of 2,000 years of Catholicism. But, there are people like PrisonChaplain, an evangelist, who sees the springboard from the similarities to understand LDS doctrine and then there's SteveVH who, because of his fierce devotion to the Catholic faith, refuses to see it. Sometimes I wonder if there's really any other reason he is here other than to proselyte his Catholic faith...

I read your prior post and think, over all, that you did a good job in presenting the Catholic view, though there are some fine points that would be worth discussing between Catholics.

My purpose here is not to proselytize. I have a very personal reason for wanting to understand Mormon doctrine. Someone for which I cared very much left the Catholic Church for the LDS Church. It was at that time that I decided to learn about the Mormon faith. I wanted to know what attracted her. I guess I needed to understand that what she was doing made some sense. She was a student of mine when I was the Youth Minister for our Church and I had never experienced this in 15 years of teaching. When I spoke with her she could not tell me why and seemed to have a very shallow understanding of Mormon doctrine. That puzzled me all the more. I then had a discussion with her Mormon bishop. She was supposed to attend the meeting but they didn't allow her to come. We discussed the "Great Apostasy". When I asked him to provide any historical evidence in support of the "Great Apostasy" his answer was that he didn't have to provide any historic evidence, nor did he even need to study history, he had the word of Joseph Smith. I almost fell out of my chair and the two missionaries who accompanied him just stared at the table. I had not ever heard such a lame response, especially coming from a "bishop". Believing that there had to be more than this I became very interested in how a group of people could arrive at the theological conclusions that make up Mormon doctrine. The only way I know to truly understand is to ask questions and compare them to my beliefs. I cannot do that if I do not state my beliefs. I have no illusions of converting anyone to Catholicism nor is that my purpose in being here. By the way, it turned out that she had fallen in love with a Mormon boy (which she had not admitted to me) and this was the only way they could stay together. While that mystery was finally solved, my curiosity has not waned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I read your prior post and think, over all, that you did a good job in presenting the Catholic view, though there are some fine points that would be worth discussing between Catholics.

My purpose here is not to proselytize. I have a very personal reason for wanting to understand Mormon doctrine. Someone for which I cared very much left the Catholic Church for the LDS Church. It was at that time that I decided to learn about the Mormon faith. I wanted to know what attracted her. I guess I needed to understand that what she was doing made some sense. She was a student of mine when I was the Youth Minister for our Church and I had never experienced this in 15 years of teaching. When I spoke with her she could not tell me why and seemed to have a very shallow understanding of Mormon doctrine. That puzzled me all the more. I then had a discussion with her Mormon bishop. She was supposed to attend the meeting but they didn't allow her to come. We discussed the "Great Apostasy". When I asked him to provide any historical evidence in support of the "Great Apostasy" his answer was that he didn't have to provide any historic evidence, nor did he even need to study history, he had the word of Joseph Smith. I almost fell out of my chair and the two missionaries who accompanied him just stared at the table. I had not ever heard such a lame response, especially coming from a "bishop". Believing that there had to be more than this I became very interested in how a group of people could arrive at the theological conclusions that make up Mormon doctrine. The only way I know to truly understand is to ask questions and compare them to my beliefs. I cannot do that if I do not state my beliefs. I have no illusions of converting anyone to Catholicism nor is that my purpose in being here. By the way, it turned out that she had fallen in love with a Mormon boy (which she had not admitted to me) and this was the only way they could stay together. While that mystery was finally solved, my curiosity has not waned.

Interesting - I have a very good friend that left the LDS for the Catholic faith. Having had many personal conversation I came to the conclusion that the reason was not doctrinal.

Strange as it may seem - I have found many seem to think that it is doctrine that separates believers in G-d. I do not believe that to be the case at all. Doctrine may be the excuse but I do not believe it is ever the reason. We can discuss doctrine - especially between Mormons and Catholics - but what separates us is not really doctrine.

In this same way many Catholics misunderstand that the LDS view concerning the Great Apostasy not being a result of problems over doctrine as much as other things that define a saint. For example (and this is not just about Catholics) Did you know that it was over 1600 years after Jesus before any Christian society that had power to control and enact laws; before a law was passed forbidding the murder (killing) or confiscation of personal property of someone that did not believe the predominant religious doctrines?

But something else you may not know - When the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith was murdered and the Mormons were driven from their homes in Nauvoo (resulting in 1 of every 5 Mormons dying) the Catholic Church was the only religious organization to come to our aid?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting - I have a very good friend that left the LDS for the Catholic faith. Having had many personal conversation I came to the conclusion that the reason was not doctrinal.

I agree. There are a variety of reasons that people leave one faith for another. My wife and I were discussing this just this morning. Isn't it kind of strange that people with pretty much the same intelligence can arrive at completley different conclusions when it comes to religion. This shows that we truly are free beings, but remains a mystery to me anyway. I can't understand why you don't see my point and you don't understand why I can't see yours. By the way, thanks for putting up with me thus far.

Strange as it may seem - I have found many seem to think that it is doctrine that separates believers in G-d. I do not believe that to be the case at all. Doctrine may be the excuse but I do not believe it is ever the reason. We can discuss doctrine - especially between Mormons and Catholics - but what separates us is not really doctrine.

Hmmm. The only separation I feel we have is in doctrine. I think we agree on nearly every social issue and that together we can be a great force for good in the world. I truly love Mormon people and feel no separation at all other than in specific doctrine.

Did you know that it was over 1600 years after Jesus before any Christian society that had power to control and enact laws; before a law was passed forbidding the murder (killing) or confiscation of personal property of someone that did not believe the predominant religious doctrines?

What is your source for this information?

But something else you may not know - When the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith was murdered and the Mormons were driven from their homes in Nauvoo (resulting in 1 of every 5 Mormons dying) the Catholic Church was the only religious organization to come to our aid?

As it should have. No one should be persecuted for their beliefs expecially in this country. There is no doubt that Mormons suffered unjustly throughout most of their history. Catholics did not fair well in this country for a long time either so I think there is probably a lot of empathy there. But, like Christ said, "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also". My hope is that we will stand together against the persecution that is being thrust upon us by the current administration. If we loose the freedom to practice our beliefs; to act in accord with our conscience, then we are really in trouble.

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell you what, Loudmouth, why don't you let me tell you what I believe instead of you telling me what I believe.

Abraham Lincoln once asked "If you call a dog's tale a leg, how many legs does a dog have? It still has only four." Just because we use the same words does not mean that we have the same beliefs.

I would hope that no Latter-day Saint believes that we have the same beliefs, otherwise there would be no point in what we believe to be the restoration of the fulness of true Christianity.

Trinity vs. Godhead

You are implying that since Mormons profess to believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit then we have that in common. We believe in three divine persons united in one divine being, the Holy Trinity. You believe in three seperate and distinct beings united only in purpose and authority. The fact that you believe they are three distinct and separate beings means we are talking about three gods who happen to agree with each other. That is miles away and in complete contradiction to the Catholic understanding and belief.

When discussing the Trinity vs Godhead doctrines, it is important to be precise as far as words go. When Trinitarians define their Trinity doctrine, it is important for all to realize that they are using the words "Person" and "Being" (or Essence/Nature/Substance) to mean specific things that are not interchangeable. Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Persons that are one Being/Essence/Substance. It would be incorrect for this to be defined as Three Beings, because Being is referring to something different from Person.

In contrast, Latter-day Saints use "Person" and "Being" interchangeably, as most do in everyday English language. So, it would be fine for a Latter-day Saint to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three distinct Persons, or three distinct Beings, because both words are being used in the same way. We don't use it in the way that Trinitarians are using it (and this is where many of the problems come when discussing these beliefs), so it would not be correct to say something like "I believe the three are one Being, you believe they are three Beings, so you're wrong" (not that I'm necessarily saying that you say that).

Also, when it comes to the issue of monotheism, I am also intrigued to see how it is explained that having three distinct, divine Persons, who are not each other, is more monotheistic than the Latter-day Saint Godhead doctrine. Meaning, what does it mean to have three distinct divine Persons be "one Being"? What does that mean? I think this is also the hangup that most Jews have when reading about the Trinity doctrine and whether it actually maintains monotheism. If "Being" is referring to "nature", then this doesn't really maintain monotheism, anymore than having three distinct humans with the same nature makes them one human in the way implied by the word "monotheism" as related to the divine Persons. So, what does it mean to have three distinct, divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who are not each other, be "one Being", or "consubstantial"?

To further understand the Latter-day Saint perspective on this, I like the article "The Oneness and Unity of God" as a start. You'll see that it isn't merely just that they "happen to agree with each other".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baptism

We believe in a baptism that sanctifies us and removes all sin, and infuses supernatural life within us. We believe it is a sacrament; a gift from God and a unilateral action on behalf of God. It is much more than a public statement of belief. It actually has an effect on our souls. You tell me if that is the Mormon understanding. If it is not, then we disagree once more.

Latter-day Saints differ from many Protestant churches in that we believe that the sacraments, what we call "ordinances", actually "do" something. They also have covenants associated with them. Each ordinance involves a covenant, or simply, a two-way promise. Baptism is done for the remission of sins. Latter-day Saints believe that the Sacrament (what is commonly called Communion or Eucharist) renews that covenant (i.e. we are cleansed from sin), and invites the Spirit within us. Confirmation confers the Holy Ghost. Etc Etc. Yes, baptism is a public statement of belief, as I am sure you would agree, however it also does something, hence why we believe that it is necessary for salvation.

So please show me again what we have in common theologically? I would venture very little, if anything at all. From the Catholic view, one leaving the Catholic faith (assuming one understands the Catholic faith and is not "Catholic" in name only) is leaving the truth for a lie, so this is a profound decision the OP is making and it should not be made lightly. The Mormon view may be the same in this regard and we might, after all, have that in common, just at different ends of the spectrum.

Yes, Latter-day Saints believe that those who leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are leaving the fulness of truth for less than the fulness of truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. There are a variety of reasons that people leave one faith for another. My wife and I were discussing this just this morning. Isn't it kind of strange that people with pretty much the same intelligence can arrive at completley different conclusions when it comes to religion. This shows that we truly are free beings, but remains a mystery to me anyway. I can't understand why you don't see my point and you don't understand why I can't see yours. By the way, thanks for putting up with me thus far.

I do not think so - During the Vietnam era I served in a military intelligence unit - long story how I ended up there. I learned first hand about propaganda methods used to create "opinions". It is from this experience that I learned that the process by which a person approaches what they think they believe is far more important than the solution that they arrive at. I try to ask questions that forces a person to think about the process rather than the conclusion. But most are so worried about loosing their moorings that they will sacrifice intellectual freedom for security. The truth is - we are not as free as we like to think. It is surprising what can be done when one has control of certain parameters over others.

Hmmm. The only separation I feel we have is in doctrine. I think we agree on nearly every social issue and that together we can be a great force for good in the world. I truly love Mormon people and feel no separation at all other than in specific doctrine.

Social issues are more important than doctrine - where a person "feels" safe and where they belong. Doctrine can be reconciled with any number of excuses. I also believe that it is important to generate friends concerning issues - I find it rather interesting that a devout Catholic and a Devout Mormon are running together for the highest office in this country.

What is your source for this information?

I lived in St Marys County Maryland while consulting with the Defense Department (anti submarine warfare). Since history is a hobby - I found the history of St Marys County very interesting. You may want to Google "Toleration Act of 1649". If you know of the passage of a similar law previous to this date - I would be very interested. This may in part explain why Catholics in America are more tolerant of other religions.

As it should have. No one should be persecuted for their beliefs expecially in this country. There is no doubt that Mormons suffered unjustly throughout most of their history. Catholics did not fair well in this country for a long time either so I think there is probably a lot of empathy there. But, like Christ said, "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also". My hope is that we will stand together against the persecution that is being thrust upon us by the current administration. If we loose the freedom to practice our beliefs; to act in accord with our conscience, then we are really in trouble.

It is my personal belief that it is far more important to protect the right of others to practice their beliefs than it is to protect our own. The danger (or exception) is when others claim a public belief that they do not live or intend to live in private.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read your prior post and think, over all, that you did a good job in presenting the Catholic view, though there are some fine points that would be worth discussing between Catholics.

My purpose here is not to proselytize. I have a very personal reason for wanting to understand Mormon doctrine. Someone for which I cared very much left the Catholic Church for the LDS Church. It was at that time that I decided to learn about the Mormon faith. I wanted to know what attracted her. I guess I needed to understand that what she was doing made some sense. She was a student of mine when I was the Youth Minister for our Church and I had never experienced this in 15 years of teaching. When I spoke with her she could not tell me why and seemed to have a very shallow understanding of Mormon doctrine. That puzzled me all the more. I then had a discussion with her Mormon bishop. She was supposed to attend the meeting but they didn't allow her to come. We discussed the "Great Apostasy". When I asked him to provide any historical evidence in support of the "Great Apostasy" his answer was that he didn't have to provide any historic evidence, nor did he even need to study history, he had the word of Joseph Smith. I almost fell out of my chair and the two missionaries who accompanied him just stared at the table. I had not ever heard such a lame response, especially coming from a "bishop". Believing that there had to be more than this I became very interested in how a group of people could arrive at the theological conclusions that make up Mormon doctrine. The only way I know to truly understand is to ask questions and compare them to my beliefs. I cannot do that if I do not state my beliefs. I have no illusions of converting anyone to Catholicism nor is that my purpose in being here. By the way, it turned out that she had fallen in love with a Mormon boy (which she had not admitted to me) and this was the only way they could stay together. While that mystery was finally solved, my curiosity has not waned.

I think you've mentioned this before. It sounds familiar.

I can imagine the bishop with the two missionaries meeting with you. And I can completely understand why the bishop approached the matter in such a way. Of course, this is jut my personal interpretation of the occurrence and may possibly not be what exactly happened: You might notice that LDS clergy and even missionaries, when acting in the capacity of their priesthood office, rarely engage in doctrinal debate. I can imagine that in that meeting, especially since you used the words "provide evidence", the bishop already knew it was going down the route of debate, therefore, instead of engaging you in a doctrinal discussion, he bore his testimony of Joseph Smith.

The first principle of the gospel is first and foremost - Faith. This is so important that it is written in the 13 Articles of Faith of the LDS Church. Everything else stems from it. There is NOT A SINGLE WAY that anyone can convince anybody that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God unless one invites the other to exercise Faith. As a bishop wielding the power of the priesthood, his invitation was for Faith, and not debate. Because, The Great Apostasy - the line in the sand between Catholic and Mormonism - follows once you receive spiritual confirmation that Joseph Smith is a prophet. If he is a prophet, then the Book of Mormon is true. If the Book of Mormon is true, then the Great Apostasy occurred. If the Great Apostasy occured, Catholicism does not hold priesthood authority, LDS does. And thus runs the rabbit in the rabbit hole. Once that becomes a possibility in people's minds, then the simple act of reading the Bible starts to glean a different interpretation as the heart is open to Spiritual inspiration. Nobody - and I truly believe this - gains Faith through debate. Debates are usually devoid of the Holy Spirit of promise. So, I can see how the bishop sees this and simply avoided it in favor of Faith - the first principle.

Okay, as far as your curiousity is concerned, it just seems like you prefer to put as many barriers to understanding as you can possibly make. In my opinion, when one is truly sincere in their desire to understand Mormons (or Catholics if the tables were turned) then one would be more cognizant of the similarities that can make it easier to bridge the gap in understanding caused by the differences. I do not think that dismissing the similarities as non-existent would be helpful, rather, it just makes the differences more confusing.

In my journey from Catholicism to Mormonism, I found that the truths that the Holy Spirit testified to me as a Catholic did not become false. If that was the case, there was no way I would even consider the possibility that the LDS Church may have some truth to it. My experience was that my Catholic understanding was enhanced. Therefore, I am very aware of the similarities between the two that led to the fork on the road. This is really the only way I see that a devout, well-catechized, faithful Catholic can gain a testimony of the restored gospel enough to "convert". I believe this is the exact same experience Jason_J went through. And, if your dear friend did not go through this same experience, then I'm not sure how solid her testimony is when she was Catholic or after she became LDS... or maybe even both.

As a curiosity, without entertaining the possibility of conversion, debates are great - unless, of course, ones intent is simply to prove the other guy wrong, then it just becomes contention. There's got to be that intention to reach an "A-ha!" moment where one starts to see why the other guy believes the way he does even when one does not agree with it.

Peace be with you.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When discussing the Trinity vs Godhead doctrines, it is important to be precise as far as words go. When Trinitarians define their Trinity doctrine, it is important for all to realize that they are using the words "Person" and "Being" (or Essence/Nature/Substance) to mean specific things that are not interchangeable. Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Persons that are one Being/Essence/Substance. It would be incorrect for this to be defined as Three Beings, because Being is referring to something different from Person.

In contrast, Latter-day Saints use "Person" and "Being" interchangeably, as most do in everyday English language. So, it would be fine for a Latter-day Saint to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three distinct Persons, or three distinct Beings, because both words are being used in the same way. We don't use it in the way that Trinitarians are using it (and this is where many of the problems come when discussing these beliefs), so it would not be correct to say something like "I believe the three are one Being, you believe they are three Beings, so you're wrong" (not that I'm necessarily saying that you say that).

Also, when it comes to the issue of monotheism, I am also intrigued to see how it is explained that having three distinct, divine Persons, who are not each other, is more monotheistic than the Latter-day Saint Godhead doctrine. Meaning, what does it mean to have three distinct divine Persons be "one Being"? What does that mean? I think this is also the hangup that most Jews have when reading about the Trinity doctrine and whether it actually maintains monotheism. If "Being" is referring to "nature", then this doesn't really maintain monotheism, anymore than having three distinct humans with the same nature makes them one human in the way implied by the word "monotheism" as related to the divine Persons. So, what does it mean to have three distinct, divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who are not each other, be "one Being", or "consubstantial"?

You ask some very good questions. Let me begin by saying that the distinction between "being and "person" is not easy to perceive without explanation. In fact, the Pharisees would not have made a distinction between "being" and "person" when talking about Jesus Christ or about God. They would not have known what a "person", as opposed to a "being" was, because it is a uniquely Christian idea originating in the Church rather than in Israel or even in Greece. But you don't need to understand the definition of "person" to accept the doctrine of the Trinity by faith. The distinction between "being" and "person" is a developed, formal articulation of a doctrine taught in scripture materially, not formally. "Material" doctrine is the raw data of scripture taken in itself without significant interpretation. "Formal" doctrine is the expression of scriptural teaching as understood by the Church. The formal doctrine is a further development, implicit, however, in the material doctrine, that Christians attain to as they grow to maturity.

Christ taught the Pharisees three doctrines that taken together "materially" constitute the doctrine that is today known "formally" as the doctrine of the Trinity:

1. Oneness of God: God is one and his nature is expressed in the name I AM.

2. Distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: the three persons are not interchangeable, and they relate to each other as individuals, speak to each other, have personal names, etc.

3. Equality of persons: all are the One God in the same sense and with no difference in degree; this does not exclude a subordination of Jesus as a man; although as God, "in the form of God," he is equal to the Father he "becomes obedient" in taking on flesh and dying, notwithstanding his inherent equality. (Phil 2)

We don't just look to what Jesus said to the Pharisees to establish these doctrines, and so do not make his teaching to the Pharisees a sole standard for determining what he taught about himself and his Father. Yet to limit ourselves for the sake of discussion to just the discourses with Pharisees, all three doctrines can be found there. In fact, you can find the Pharisees being offended by each of the second two and the third in particular.

The clearest evidence of the equality of persons is that Jesus teaches that the Father and the son are both Yahweh. Most famous are the I AM statements in John. I believe that Mormons accept this, but what did the Pharisees think? It must be emphasized that the Pharisees knew of no higher God than Yahweh. There is no separate, higher being called Elohim for them, because they think Elohim and Yahweh are identical. One very representative example of Rabbinical thinking about Yahweh's identity comes up in the Letter to the Hebrews, when Paul explains that the reason God swore to Abraham by his own name is that there was none higher to swear by. (Heb 6:13) Since Yahweh is the covenant name that God uses in making all his oaths and promises, this means Yahweh is the Most High God, the same as Elohim, El Elyon, El Shadday, etc. To be Yahweh is to be subordinate to no one; the form of all Old Testament covenant oaths is designed to make exactly that point, and Pharisees schooled in the same milieu as Paul understood it in that way.

That the Father is Yahweh is abundantly proven in Scripture, but Jesus teaches it to the Pharisees in particular Matt 22:44, when he interprets Psalm 110 as a discourse of the Father to the Son: "The Lord (Yahweh) said unto my Lord (Adonay), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Everybody knows whose right hands Jesus sits on, and here we are told it is Yahweh.

In working to a material account of the Trinity, we should note that there is a convergence in the doctrine of the Father and Son's personal equality and the unity of God, because the divine name Yahweh is the focal point of both teachings. The name, which simply means "I AM" makes reference to being, and identifies God precisely as he is in the order of being. The same name represents his unqualified sovereignty with none higher than him, not just from our perspective, but from his, since he has no one higher to swear by.

I applaud you for using the term "distinct" rather than "separate". This is a common (if understandable) error when speaking of the Persons of the Trinity. For the benefit of those who may be viewing this post, "Separate persons" is a formal heresy, identified by the Fathers of the fourth century with Arianism because "separation" entails a plurality of beings. When the Athanasian Creed says "Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance" is excludes any doctrine of separation. The faith of the Church, therefore, is that the persons are "distinct", not "separate." If God were a material being, this would be contradictory, since you can't have a plurality of distinct physical persons except by material division, that is, separation and this would be a definite problem is one accepts the Mormon view of the nature of God as basically an exalted human being with physical attributes. Being immaterial and infinite, as understood within the Catholic view, however, God exists as persons by a different mode of distinction than separation; by internal procession, which is entirely contained within his being but results in a real distinction of three.

When Jesus talks to the Father, it is natural to assume that two beings are involved if you disregard all the other teachings that show otherwise. The Trinity is not proven from any single text or type of proof text, because it is a synthesis of a variety of revealed information which must all be accepted simultaneously. The Father and Son's unity in being is not a principle opposed to their distinction. It is the necessary context in which their distinction as persons is intelligible. The carnal reasoning that presupposes philosophically that God's infinite personhood is bound by the same conditions as finite, human personhood is totally crushed by the revelation of Christ, that Yahweh talks to Yahweh, but isn't talking to himself. Whether they could parse it out technically or not, that is the truth that Christ's prayer confronted the Pharisees with, and which they rejected, accusing him of blasphemy.

I realize that there is a lot here to deal with, but there simply is no abbreviated way to explain it and do it justice and there is no real example in creation because we are dealing with a divine being Who is infinitely above creation. For instance, one simple formula that is used is the example of water. Liquid water, ice and steam all have different forms yet exist as the same substance; water. This example falls short, however, because the only thing it is good for is the logical point that "one and three" is not automatically contradictory. But as an account of how the persons in the Trinity are actually distinct it is totally wrong. There are not three forms of God, because God's form is the same as his being. The same is true of a three leaf clover and any other physical comparison we could make.

This post is way to lengthy, but I hope I have answered your question and that this helps to understand the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity whether you agree or disagree.

God bless.

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You ask some very good questions. Let me begin...

Thank you for response. You'll find that I (and a few others) are quite familiar with what you posted, as I was a very active and believing Catholic most of my life (I even used to post against Latter-day Saints over on CAF and Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board back in the day, and was very into Catholic apologetics ;) ).

When you say that the distinction between "person" and "being" is a uniquely Christian idea originating in the [Catholic] Church, I find that interesting, and think that Latter-day Saints would agree that it did originate there (though we of course would take that differently than Catholics would). I also think that there are components of that understanding found quite clearly in Greek/Hellenic philosophy as well ("hypostasis", "ousia', etc).

When Jesus talks to the Father, it is natural to assume that two beings are involved if you disregard all the other teachings that show otherwise.

Naturally you would say that it is two Persons involved, but not two Beings, right? If so, what would be the difference between two Persons involved and two Beings? That brings me to the heart of the matter that I don't think was addressed in your post (which is fine), which I'll bring up at the end of my post.

There are not three forms of God, because God's form is the same as his being. The same is true of a three leaf clover and any other physical comparison we could make.

I'm sure you know that the three leaf clover is not a good analogy (and I believe you stated you recognize that all analogies fall short of the Trinity doctrine), because the Trinity doctrine says that the three Persons are distinct, are one Being, and are each fully God (i.e., the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God). So, for the three leaf clover, it would have to say that each leaf is fully the clover right? If you say that it means that each leaf is fully a leaf, then you still have three leaves, right?

If God were a material being, this would be contradictory, since you can't have a plurality of distinct physical persons except by material division, that is, separation and this would be a definite problem is one accepts the Mormon view of the nature of God as basically an exalted human being with physical attributes. Being immaterial and infinite, as understood within the Catholic view, however, God exists as persons by a different mode of distinction than separation; by internal procession, which is entirely contained within his being but results in a real distinction of three.

What is "internal procession" referring to as related to the distinction of Persons? What does that mean, and what does it mean for it to be contained within his being?

Also, do you believe there is some material distinction within the Trinity, since the Person of the Son now has a body due to His Incarnation and bodily resurrection and ascension?

Finally, as I mentioned above, I don't think the heart of the matter was addressed by your post, at least directly. I will try to post it as a few questions so that it is readily apparent:

1) What does it mean to have three distinct divine Persons be "one Being"? What is "Being" referring to (noting that "Being" is sometimes interchanged with "Substance", "Essence")? What do those words mean?

2) How is monotheism maintained when you have three distinct, divine Persons, who are not each other? Perhaps the answer to #1 will be helpful here.

3) It is frequently stated by traditional Christians that because of Christ's Incarnation, He became "consubstantial" with us (CCC 467, quoting the Council of Chalcedon, says this as well). Now, if He is consubstantial with us, what does that mean as to the relationship between the Father and the Son if the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and that is how they are "one", as they are one in "substance" (or "being")? Is there a difference between the consubstantiality of the Son with humanity, and the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father?

4) What would be the difference between saying three Persons are one Being, and three Persons are three Beings? How would that difference look as related to the Trinity, and how is one more monotheistic than the other?

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say that the distinction between "person" and "being" is a uniquely Christian idea originating in the [Catholic] Church, I find that interesting, and think that Latter-day Saints would agree that it did originate there (though we of course would take that differently than Catholics would). I also think that there are components of that understanding found quite clearly in Greek/Hellenic philosophy as well ("hypostasis", "ousia', etc).

There is nothing strange or suspicious in the fact that the distinction between "Person" and "Being" is a uniquely Christian idea. It came about due to divine revelation of the Trinity, thus Jews and Greeks who were not Christian would not have given birth to the idea. Because the Trinity is unique to Christianity so then are the terms we use to express our understanding of this mystery. The words "hypostasis" and "ousia" are Greek words, but neither the Trinity nor the relation of the "hypostasis" (Person) with the "ousia"(Being) are Greek ideas.

Naturally you would say that it is two Persons involved, but not two Beings, right? If so, what would be the difference between two Persons involved and two Beings? That brings me to the heart of the matter that I don't think was addressed in your post (which is fine), which I'll bring up at the end of my post.

Ok. I'll wait till then to answer you.

I'm sure you know that the three leaf clover is not a good analogy (and I believe you stated you recognize that all analogies fall short of the Trinity doctrine), because the Trinity doctrine says that the three Persons are distinct, are one Being, and are each fully God (i.e., the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God). So, for the three leaf clover, it would have to say that each leaf is fully the clover right? If you say that it means that each leaf is fully a leaf, then you still have three leaves, right?

No, you would not say that each leaf of the three leaf clover is the clover. You would say that its substance is "clover". The "substance" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is "divine". The "substance" of mankind is "human". But you are right. It doesn't work when speaking of the Trinity for reasons I explained, or should I say it falls way short.

What is "internal procession" referring to as related to the distinction of Persons? What does that mean, and what does it mean for it to be contained within his being?

Probably the best way I could described "internal procession" is this. When you love someone that love eminates or proceeds from you. The Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son. Light "proceeds" from a candle. We are left with human words to describe a divine mystery and we will always fall short. The distinction of the Persons of the Trintiy is one of relationship, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and this relationship is contained entirely within the divine Being, a total giving of Father to Son and Son to Father, and the love between them which is the Holy Spirit. While it is really impossible for us to grasp the nature of God in its entirety, it is made even more difficult when one views it from the perspective of physical, separate beings.

Also, do you believe there is some material distinction within the Trinity, since the Person of the Son now has a body due to His Incarnation and bodily resurrection and ascension?

No, there is no material distinction because that would translate into separation. There is only relational distinction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yes, Jesus has a body, but a glorified spiritual body. Remember, he walked through walls. At the same time he ate and the food didn't fall onto the floor but went into his stomach. God has some pretty incredible things planned for us. We will have a glorified body just like Jesus.

1) What does it mean to have three distinct divine Persons be "one Being"? What is "Being" referring to (noting that "Being" is sometimes interchanged with "Substance", "Essence")? What do those words mean?

We believe that God's nature is divine and that divinity is unique only to God. This divine "substance" or "essence" comprises the divine Being, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So where the Father is, there also are the Son and the Holy Spirit. Where the Son is there also are the Father and the Holy Spirit. Where the Holy Spirit is, there also are the Father and the Son; one almighty God.

2) How is monotheism maintained when you have three distinct, divine Persons, who are not each other? Perhaps the answer to #1 will be helpful here.

I think this question is even more relevant to Mormons. How is monotheism maintaned when you have three, not only distinct but separate beings? We proclaim that God is truly one, not three. I don't think you can make that claim. To say that they are one in purpose and authority makes them one only in purpose and authority and in no other way.

3) It is frequently stated by traditional Christians that because of Christ's Incarnation, He became "consubstantial" with us (CCC 467, quoting the Council of Chalcedon, says this as well). Now, if He is consubstantial with us, what does that mean as to the relationship between the Father and the Son if the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and that is how they are "one", as they are one in "substance" (or "being")? Is there a difference between the consubstantiality of the Son with humanity, and the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father?

Christ is consubstantial with the Father in his divinity. Christ is consubstantial with us in his humanity. In other words, Christ shares the same human "substance" with us and the same divine "substance" with the Father. This is a major difference in our two faith traditions. Mormons believe that we are of the same substance as the Father. We do not. We will share in God's divine substance but we do not possess it naturally.

4) What would be the difference between saying three Persons are one Being, and three Persons are three Beings? How would that difference look as related to the Trinity, and how is one more monotheistic than the other?

To have three Beings requires separation. In one Being there can be no separation. One divine Being is monotheistic. Three divine beings is polytheistic.

I appreciate your questions Jason.

Thanks and God bless.

Steve

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Jason_J

2) How is monotheism maintained when you have three distinct, divine Persons, who are not each other? Perhaps the answer to #1 will be helpful here.

Originally Posted by Jason_J

4) What would be the difference between saying three Persons are one Being, and three Persons are three Beings? How would that difference look as related to the Trinity, and how is one more monotheistic than the other?

For me one of the big distinctions is that God, when speaking to man, always speaks of Himself in the singular,( "I", "Me", "My", etc.) never "We" or "Us" or "Our".

When speaking to each other then "Us" "Our". A plurality of Persons within the Godhead yet a singular God to man. No Biblical writer ever refers to God in a plural form.(they, them, gods)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire discussion about Trinity versus Godhead can be summed up as follows:

In the Trinitarian understanding the BEING (substance, ousia) that we call GOD is material. It is distinctly different from the material of the BEING that we call MAN. What this material called God is can only be defined by its metaphysical characteristics (omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.) and not its actual physical characteristic. The metaphysical characteristic is clearly defined, the actual physical material is not known (hence the use of the word Mystery). It is ONE GOD because it is one physical material. There are 3 Persons in that material - how that happens to be is also part of the Mystery. One of the Persons - Jesus Christ - has multiple material manifestations - he had the same material as Man while remaining a material that is God. Jesus Christ showed by His resurrection that the Man material transcends death and transforms into a Spirit Body that is deemed Perfected.

In the Godhead understanding, GOD is a STATE of being. The metaphysical characteristics of Godhood is the exact same thing as the Trinitarian understanding (omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.). The physical material of each person that is in that state of Godhood is the same material that is Man. It is ONE GOD because there is only ONE State of Being that is GOD because a being that is in this state is one in thought, deeds, purpose, and will with every other person in that state and no other claim of Godhood (Baal, Moleth, etc. etc.) is valid as it fails that Oneness. Hence, Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are 3 distinct persons in one God just like what the Trinitarians believe. The physical characteristics of these 3 persons in the Godhead as well as Man (as they have the same material) is generally known through Man's experiences as well as Jesus Christ's resurrection where He showed the potential of a perfected Spirit Body, but there are certain characteristics that we do not yet understand completely simply because we just haven't progressed that far.

As you can see - the Trinity and the Godhead is similar except for that fork in the road - and that is the difference that Trinitarians believe what makes a God is the physical material whereas Mormons believe what makes a God is the state of being.

If you bounce the Mormon concept of God against anything in the Bible, it is consistent just like Trinitarian is consistent. But, that difference in understanding gives a different shade of interpretation of everything written on the Bible about God.

So, we can debate all day long about Trinity versus Godhead pointing Bible passages left and right and we will never agree on it - because BOTH are consistent with the Bible if interpreted with the Trinitarian or the Mormon lens. But what makes one believe in one versus the other is nothing more than a simple act of Faith.

And as a personal note, this is another one of my testimonies - that my Catholic testimony was not "false"... it was merely lacking. Because, as is evident in my journey from Trinity to Godhead, what was lacking was the answer to the Mystery. And I say these things in the name of our beloved Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Trinitarian understanding the BEING (substance, ousia) that we call GOD is material. It is distinctly different from the material of the BEING that we call MAN. What this material called God is can only be defined by its metaphysical characteristics (omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.) and not its actual physical characteristic. The metaphysical characteristic is clearly defined, the actual physical material is not known (hence the use of the word Mystery). It is ONE GOD because it is one physical material. There are 3 Persons in that material - how that happens to be is also part of the Mystery. One of the Persons - Jesus Christ - has multiple material manifestations - he had the same material as Man while remaining a material that is God. Jesus Christ showed by His resurrection that the Man material transcends death and transforms into a Spirit Body that is deemed Perfected.

This is, for the most part, accurate, but your last statement that "the Man material transcends death and transforms into a Spirit Body that is deemed Perfected" hits upon an important difference between Mormon and traditional Christianity (especially Catholicism). It is important to point out that Catholics do not believe that the human being possesses within himself the capability of transcending death.

The Mormon postition (exaltation), as I understand it, claims that man is a self-existent being, possessing the divine nature independent of it being created or otherwise caused by God, although God is needed to perfect man in the attributes proper to divinity. The Catholic position (theosis) teaches that man is created for a supernatural end, that is, man lacks divinity by nature, so God becomes man so as to fill humanity with the divine supernature it otherwise lacks - not divine attributes, but divine nature itself. This means that the divine nature is created in man by God, who is therefore "Gods of gods" and yet absolutely unique as the first and uncaused God. I am not trying to imply that you are ignorant of this principle but I thought it important to make clear.

The physical material of each person that is in that state of Godhood is the same material that is Man.

Can you please explain the basis for this belief; where it originated? Thanks

As you can see - the Trinity and the Godhead is similar except for that fork in the road - and that is the difference that Trinitarians believe what makes a God is the physical material whereas Mormons believe what makes a God is the state of being.

This may be a matter of symantics, however we do not believe "divinity" to be "physical material", but rather a "nature". Even human nature cannot be said to be purely "physical material" as we possess a spiritual nature (soul, will, intellect) as well as a physical nature (flesh). We believe God is pure "divine" Spirit and that is why Jesus had to volunarily empty himself, taking ""the form of a slave" in order to take on flesh and become incarnate. He had to humble himself to take on flesh because his nature was "divine", not human. When he became man he possessed two natures, both human and divine. For this reason we can truly refer to Jesus as the God-man. This distinguishes Christ from any other human on the planet.

If you bounce the Mormon concept of God against anything in the Bible, it is consistent just like Trinitarian is consistent. But, that difference in understanding gives a different shade of interpretation of everything written on the Bible about God.

I agree that that the difference is in "understanding". It is not reasonable to conclude that two opposing positions can simultaneously be consistent with one divine truth. It is only possible that both positions are wrong, or only one position is right. It is interpretation of the text in which the truth is present that is different.

So, we can debate all day long about Trinity versus Godhead pointing Bible passages left and right and we will never agree on it - because BOTH are consistent with the Bible if interpreted with the Trinitarian or the Mormon lens. But what makes one believe in one versus the other is nothing more than a simple act of Faith.

I would have to include "reason" along with faith. Great post, by the way.

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me one of the big distinctions is that God, when speaking to man, always speaks of Himself in the singular,( "I", "Me", "My", etc.) never "We" or "Us" or "Our".

When speaking to each other then "Us" "Our". A plurality of Persons within the Godhead yet a singular God to man. No Biblical writer ever refers to God in a plural form.(they, them, gods)

Yes, and when we baptize we baptize in the "name" of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, not in the "names" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is, for the most part, accurate, but your last statement that "the Man material transcends death and transforms into a Spirit Body that is deemed Perfected" hits upon an important difference between Mormon and traditional Christianity (especially Catholicism). It is important to point out that Catholics do not believe that the human being possesses within himself the capability of transcending death.

The Mormon postition (exaltation), as I understand it, claims that man is a self-existent being, possessing the divine nature independent of it being created or otherwise caused by God although God is needed to perfect man in the attributes proper to divinity.

The Catholic position (theosis) teaches that man is created for a supernatural end, that is, man lacks divinity by nature, so God becomes man so as to fill humanity with the divine supernature it otherwise lacks - not divine attributes, but divine nature itself. This means that the divine nature is created in man by God, who is therefore "Gods of gods" and yet absolutely unique as the first and uncaused God. I am not trying to imply that you are ignorant of this principle but I thought it important to make clear.

The priniciples of theosis (Catholic schools don't usually use that word - they use Divinization instead, at least I've never heard that word used in school) as stated in Catechism is so full of flowery words and "magical" concepts that going through elementary school, it just goes woosh over your head. I mean - just reading the last paragraph above reminds me of this and the days of my badgering the nuns.

And that is necessary because of the missing doctrine that makes God a "mystery". It makes it necessary to twist stuff into a convluted pretzel just so you can reconcile God and Man in Jesus Christ. No such thing in LDS doctrine. Jesus Christ is fully Man and fully God without having to pretzelize his nature.

Here - good reading this: LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - The Dual Nature of Man

As you can see explained in this lesson by David O. McKay, Divine Nature is not self-existent in Man. It is only present in Man coming from God.

This may be a matter of symantics, however we do not believe "divinity" to be "physical material", but rather a "nature". Even human nature cannot be said to be purely "physical material" as we possess a spiritual nature (soul, will, intellect) as well as a physical nature (flesh). We believe God is pure "divine" Spirit and that is why Jesus had to volunarily empty himself, taking ""the form of a slave" in order to take on flesh and become incarnate. He had to humble himself to take on flesh because his nature was "divine", not human. When he became man he possessed two natures, both human and divine. For this reason we can truly refer to Jesus as the God-man. This distinguishes Christ from any other human on the planet.

No semantics about it. Neither Catholics nor LDS believe "divinity" to be "physical material". My only point with "physical material" is that - In Catholic belief - that's what makes God God and Man not God, so that when you hear in catechism - ye shall be gods - you have to pretzelize that because the physical material prevents it from being a direct interpretation.

I agree that that the difference is in "understanding". It is not reasonable to conclude that two opposing positions can simultaneously be consistent with one divine truth. It is only possible that both positions are wrong, or only one position is right. It is interpretation of the text in which the truth is present that is different.

But see, Steve. This has always been the problem between us. You always think that LDS is an opposition of Catholicism. LDS do not believe so. LDS believe that the restored gospel is a correction of mis-interpretation caused by truths missing from Catholic doctrine.

I would have to include "reason" along with faith.

If we're talking Catholic and LDS, reason is a given. They're both reasonable, therefore, the only thing you can go by is Faith. Okay, so I understand you don't see LDS as reasonable. But, it is not a lack in the LDS teachings, it is merely that you haven't quite understood it yet.

Great post, by the way.

Thanks. It is exhausting switching my brain back and forth between LDS and Catholic. And that, in itself, is a declaration of how much I like talking to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and when we baptize we baptize in the "name" of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, not in the "names" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Who do you think baptizes in the "names" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who do you think baptizes in the "names" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

I wasn't making a comparison, such as we do and you don't. I am aware that Mormons baptize in the name, I just don't know how one can baptize in the name when one believes they are three separate beings. I was only using this as another example of the Christian belief in the Trinity. The formula doesn't make sense when believing in mulitple divine beings.

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The priniciples of theosis (Catholic schools don't usually use that word - they use Divinization instead, at least I've never heard that word used in school) as stated in Catechism is so full of flowery words and "magical" concepts that going through elementary school, it just goes woosh over your head. I mean - just reading the last paragraph above reminds me of this and the days of my badgering the nuns.

Well I am not aware of elementary school students being taught about concepts such as theosis or divinization. They are taught that through God's grace we will share in God's divine life. That is about as far as one can go in elementary school. But I take a little offense that you describe the Catholic explanation as full of "flowery words and 'magical' concepts". The difference in the concepts is not hard to describe on a simple level. We believe that we do not possess divinity as part of our human nature and therefore are dependent upon God who gives us this nature. The LDS position is that we possess the same divinity as God, naturally. That's pretty much it. Nothing "flowery" or "magical" about that.

But see, Steve. This has always been the problem between us. You always think that LDS is an opposition of Catholicism. LDS do not believe so. LDS believe that the restored gospel is a correction of mis-interpretation caused by truths missing from Catholic doctrine.

If we're talking Catholic and LDS, reason is a given. They're both reasonable, therefore, the only thing you can go by is Faith. Okay, so I understand you don't see LDS as reasonable. But, it is not a lack in the LDS teachings, it is merely that you haven't quite understood it yet.

Yes, but this is based solely on a claim, not upon any actual evidence. As I have said to another person on another thread, it always seems to come down to this. "If you don't agree with me it is because you don't understand." Sorry, I do not accept this as a valid argument since it is one that any person could make regarding their beliefs, no matter how bizarre their beliefs may be.

Thanks. It is exhausting switching my brain back and forth between LDS and Catholic. And that, in itself, is a declaration of how much I like talking to you.

I really appreciate that, anatess. Thank you.

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I am not aware of elementary school students being taught about concepts such as theosis or divinization. They are taught that through God's grace we will share in God's divine life. That is about as far as one can go in elementary school. But I take a little offense that you describe the Catholic explanation as full of "flowery words and 'magical' concepts". The difference in the concepts is not hard to describe on a simple level. We believe that we do not possess divinity as part of our human nature and therefore are dependent upon God who gives us this nature. The LDS position is that we possess the same divinity as God, naturally. That's pretty much it. Nothing "flowery" or "magical" about that.

Yes, but this is based solely on a claim, not upon any actual evidence. As I have said to another person on another thread, it always seems to come down to this. "If you don't agree with me it is because you don't understand." Sorry, I do not accept this as a valid argument since it is one that any person could make regarding their beliefs, no matter how bizarre their beliefs may be.

I really appreciate that, anatess. Thank you.

I may be of some help in understanding with we think he is three instead of one. Jesus in the New Testement keeps sayings "your father in heaven" "The lord thy God" "Your father which is in heaven"

Now let me pose a question. Why would Jesus speak to himself in 3rd person?

Also in Matthew 3:16-17 (after Jesus is baptized) God spoke to him and said "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased" Again, I don't think Jesus would speak of himself in third person nor be in two places at once. Down on earth and in heaven. God spoke to Jesus from heaven telling him "THIS IS MY BELOVED SON" not "THIS IS I" but SON. I can probably find more but at the moment I am only in the first few chapters of Matthew and I two, but the other way around questioned "the Trinity and being 3"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be of some help in understanding with we think he is three instead of one. Jesus in the New Testement keeps sayings "your father in heaven" "The lord thy God" "Your father which is in heaven"

Now let me pose a question. Why would Jesus speak to himself in 3rd person?

You do not properly understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus does not speak to himself, but to the Father who is a distinct Person of the Trinity. There are three, distinct (but not separate) Persons in one divine Being. I understand that this is a difficult concept for any human being to grasp because it is completley outside of our human experience. Three persons in one being is not possible in our physical existence, therefore one might assume that it is not possible at all, expecially if one believes that God's nature is like us. The Mormon view that we are basically the same as God, other than our level of progression, makes this even more difficult and we would consider that view to be an absoulute theological error. From the Catholic viewpoint, however, God is eternally above mankind in his nature, his power, his glory and his majesty. In fact, in any and every way we can imagine. To even speak of God in human terms can only diminish his glory. Just want to give you the correct perspective here.

Jesus teaches that the Father and the son are both Yahweh. Most famous are the I AM statements in John. That the Father is Yahweh (I AM) is abundantly proven in Scripture and something I think we can both agree upon. Jesus, in Matt 22:44, interprets Psalm 110as a discourse of the Father to the Son: "The Lord (Yahweh) said unto my Lord (Adonay), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Everybody knows whose right hands Jesus sits on, and here we are told it is Yahweh. Jesus is also Yahweh.

There are three important principles here in order to understand (I didn't say agree with) the doctrine of the Trinity:

1. Oneness of God: God is one and his nature is expressed in the name I AM.

2. Distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: the three persons are not interchangeable, and they relate to each other as individuals, speak to each other, have personal names, etc.

3. Equality of persons: all are the One God in the same sense and with no difference in degree; this does not exclude a subordination of Jesus as a man; although as God, "in the form of God," he is equal to the Father he "becomes obedient" in taking on flesh and dying, notwithstanding his inherent equality. (Phil 2)

I don't expect you to agree, but I want you to understand.

Thanks and God bless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Good afternoon,

I never post here,(well, not never, but infrequently) but I love to read the discussions. I could never come close to the profound understanding everyone here has of theology. However, I would like to ask; can three persons in one being be compared to an individual (like myself) being mother, daughter and sister? I take on a subordinate role when with my parents, and an authoritative/creator role with my children and an advocacy role with my sister, for instance?

In the Person of the Son, Jesus speaks as subordinate to the Father. In the Person of the Father He is the authority and creator, and as the Holy Spirit He is counselor and giver of gifts?

I feel totally stupid asking, so go easy on my when you correct my errors!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good afternoon,

I never post here,(well, not never, but infrequently) but I love to read the discussions. I could never come close to the profound understanding everyone here has of theology. However, I would like to ask; can three persons in one being be compared to an individual (like myself) being mother, daughter and sister? I take on a subordinate role when with my parents, and an authoritative/creator role with my children and an advocacy role with my sister, for instance?

In the Person of the Son, Jesus speaks as subordinate to the Father. In the Person of the Father He is the authority and creator, and as the Holy Spirit He is counselor and giver of gifts?

I feel totally stupid asking, so go easy on my when you correct my errors!

Don't worry, it is a very complex thing to attempt to understand.

No, that would not be a good analogy, because you are only one person. The Trinity is three distinct Persons (who are not each other). What you describe is more akin to Modalism, which, essentially, is that God is one Person that has different "masks" or "roles", depending on the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good afternoon,

I never post here,(well, not never, but infrequently) but I love to read the discussions. I could never come close to the profound understanding everyone here has of theology. However, I would like to ask; can three persons in one being be compared to an individual (like myself) being mother, daughter and sister? I take on a subordinate role when with my parents, and an authoritative/creator role with my children and an advocacy role with my sister, for instance?

In the Person of the Son, Jesus speaks as subordinate to the Father. In the Person of the Father He is the authority and creator, and as the Holy Spirit He is counselor and giver of gifts?

I feel totally stupid asking, so go easy on my when you correct my errors!

Jason is correct on all levels, including the fact that it is hard to understand. I would go further and say that it is not just hard, but beyond beyond human comprehension. The difficulty in discussing this coherently, between a Catholic and a Mormon, lies in our perception and belief concerning God's nature. So I think that it is very important to make that distinction.

My understanding of the Mormon view is that God is an exalted man. God's nature, therefore, is no different than mankind. In the Catholic view, Gods nature is infinitely above human nature. He is the only eternal Being and the source of everything that exists. We believe God has a divine nature as opposed to a human nature. Jesus possesses both the divine nature and glorified human nature.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)

The point is that it is difficult for us to imagine the Trinity because there is nothing in our existence to which we can compare. All of the imagery (water, ice and steam; the three leaf clover, etc.) people have used falls completely short of the reality. It is a reality that we have not experienced in the physical world and therefore one beyond our ability to know, but not beyond our ability to believe as a revealed truth.

I would think that it would be impossible to accept the doctrine of the Trinty with the Mormon view of the nature of God. If he does have a body of flesh and bone, like us, then he cannot be three persons in one being.

With the Catholic view of God's nature the Trinity is much easier to accept. He is not like us (in his divinity) therefore we can accept that his nature is not subject to human limitations. He can very well exist as three Persons in one Being. We only know this because it has been revealed to us, but our acceptance is made easier by our view of God's nature, in my opinion. I only say this because if I held the Mormon view of God's nature I could not believe in the Trinity.

I would agree with Jason that your analogy doesn't work for the reasons he gave, however one aspect that does work is that the distinction between the Persons of the Trinity is a familial distinction; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They, however are real, distinct Persons, rather than descriptions of various relational hats one wears. Even creation follows this "image" of God, especially the human family. We believe that the family is the greatest sign of being made in the image and likeness of God. Two become one, resulting in a third. The Holy Spirit proceeds forth from the love between the Father and the Son. God, in his essence is a family; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yet one divine Being. That is why we call it a mystery, a reality beyond our ability to grasp.

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share