Catholicism and the Nature of God


Recommended Posts

First and foremost, this is a developing thought process for me, so I am trying to hammer out what I actually think :) 

My main issue is that our thinking on God, as I now understand it, doesn't make him the unmoved mover, the necessary being, or the source of everything.

 I have always struggled with the seemingly nebulous definition we have for him (I say that in the sense that we say things, but if there is any pushback or push for real clarification, we acknowledge we don't really know).  Glorified man, the Snow couplet, and literally our father.  I understand these things, but it leads to other issues.  Infinite regression is one usual issue that comes up with this line of thinking, but I just had a thought that there isn't necessarily a problem with it.  Really if there are more than 3 people at the station of God (which is how I understand him), they are all eternal, all "one" and all exist apart from the existence we have, this eternal realm they exist in, THAT is the "necessary being" or the source from which we spring. This helps, and makes it a little more understandable.

That being said, the euthyphro dilemma begins to come into play (Basically put, is something good because God wills it, or is it good and THEREFORE God wills it).  That basic question of is God good, or is good God.  Does goodness exist apart from God?  If it does, then there's more going on out there than all of our existence coming from God.  If good exists apart from God, what made it good, and the whole question of where do we come from shifts up a level.  If, on the other hand, it's good because God wills it/God posses it/God IS it, then good becomes arbitrary, it isn't good because it's good, it's good because it's God's will, and then ANYTHING could have been good.

So, if, as we seem to believe, good exists apart from God, that is, he is bound by good.  Then he isn't the source of everything.  He is a product of another existence.  I know we can't fully understand his nature, but this logic train is causing me issues to the point that I am doubting the Church.  Do we really believe the Snow couplet as presently considered?  If there was a time that the father wasn't God, then he isn't the source of all, he is the product of something else bigger, and that poses a problem for me.

I hope this isn't too much rambling, I'm just trying to settle this in my heart and mind (hopefully) once and for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it a problem if our God is actually the source of most things rather than every thing?  Why is it a problem if there are other (law-abiding) beings who existed before He did?

The fact that there are people who are older and wealthier than my own dad, and the fact that he went to university rather than being self-taught, doesn’t change the nature of our unique relationship.  (Though I admit, there was a time in grade school when I had a deep-seated need to believe that my dad could beat up the dad of every other kid in school, I eventually outgrew that need as I came to understand and (mostly) trust my safety in the broader social system in which I and my father existed.)

It seems to me that much of Christendom worship God’s superlative attributes (primarily His power and eternal nature), and then only secondarily embrace and appreciate His character and goodness and the relationship he offers with us.  In the Church, we almost do the opposite—we start with His character, build a relationship with Him based on that and the healing He assures us He can provide, and only later (or sometimes, not at all) star worrying about whether He is reeally, worlds without end, the absolute toughest Guy in the room.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the relationship with your father doesn't explain the nature of existence itself.  I understand that sliding the question one level up IS a valid thought process, but while we believe we know why we're here, we know why we're here at the expense of know why HERE is here.  I get that in the end that there are some questions we can't grasp, but I would think the explanation of where existence comes from would be one we should be able to at least understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And ironically the thought comes to mind, that "This is life eternal, to know thee the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent" and "It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to get right."

So in my mind, the question is, if God is obedient to law, then where did that law come from?  I don't think that's a bad question to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:


So in my mind, the question is, if God is obedient to law, then where did that law come from?  I don't think that's a bad question to ask.

I recommend you do a search of thirdhour.org using the phrase "Why God does what He does." I think the responses you will find to that question might usefully inform your consideration of your question.https://thirdhour.org/forums/search/?q="Why God does what He does"

I don't believe that God is the source of everything. I think there is some support for the idea that there are what I call "externally imposed requirements" (that others might call law) that God is subject to. I think that some of the support for this idea is that the process by which god in his mortal form became God was more likely to be determined by law rather than as a result of some sort lof random set of circumstances, and of course, any such law must have pre-dated the existence of God in His current form. Additional support for the idea that God is subject to law is the Atonement. I cannot think of any reason why a loving Father would require such suffering from His Son other than to satisfy the demands of an internally imposed requirement. Surely God is not so cruel as to impose such immense suffering on His own beloved Son unless there was a compelling reason to do so, rather than a mere whim. 

I do think that as far as you and I and all of God's children are concerned, He is our source of everything. By that, I mean that all the law we are subject to either comes directly from Him, or it comes from somewhere or someone else, and is administered by Him. In either case, the result is the same, no matter where the law comes from - we are bound by it.

I think the question of good or not good can be a little misleading because it tends to pose the arguement in moral terms. Perhaps a more utilitarian approach might help. I think it might be more helpful to think in terms of what is required and what is not required. Perhaps it is the case that the determining factor of whether or not any particular act is considered to good is whether or not that act contributes to, or is required for, our salvation, and the extent to which it is consistent with law. The degree of goodness of any particular act might be determined by the extent to which it contribute to our salvation. If an act contributes to our salvation because it is required to meet the demands of law, regardless of whether or not that law comes from God, or is imposed from elsewhere, we could consider that act to be good. If an act does not contribute to our salvation, or is not required, or if it detracts from another person's pursuit of salvation, then we could say that that act is not good. As to who or what it is that determines whether an act is required for our salvation, as noted above, it may be that some of those requirements come from God, and some of them come through God from elsewhere or elsewhen. 

A possibility that I have occasionally considered about the source of law, and for which I have not found any scriptural support, is that at least one source, or some of the law to which we are subject to, might have arisen as a result of an agreement between God and the raw, undeveloped intelligences that we all once were. I can imagine the intelligences saying to God, we give our consent for you to impose Your will on us, and do with us as you wish, subject to certain parameters, and those parameters then becoming one of the bases for law.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't really seem to be specifically about Catholicism, more just about general Creedal theological philosophy (that is am much bigger umbrella than Catholicism specifically).   I'm going to start with this broad picture, and then move into more specifics.  

The idea of the "immovable mover" pre-dates Catholicism, the Creed's and even Christ's mortal ministry.  The founding philosophers on this question were the Ancient Greeks (Plato, Socrates, etc).  These philosophers rebelled against the very Pagan materialist pantheons around them (let's face it: Zeus is essentially a super-powered bratty teenager), and instead looked for larger meaning in non-material things.  Eventually they came to largely see anything with physical components as being lesser, and more interested in the essential essence of something.

History moved forward: after the pagan Greeks came the Pagan Romans and then the Christian romans and then the Early Church Fathers*, most notably Saint Augustine*.  (*I'm using caps / their traditional titles out of respect to those faiths, even they are not ours).   The earlier philosophical traditions influenced the later ones, some for good and lots for ill (this is part of the Great Apostasy). This idea that "physicality = lesser" heavily permeated Creedal understanding of God.  The humanity of Christ was greatly downplayed.  The humanity of the Father nigh erased.  Focus become of the "essence" of God, reflecting back on that Ancient Greek mentality.  

In this tradition, God could not be God unless this primordial God-essence predated everything else.  He had to be the one to be alone in the beginning.  To have good and evil be simply what He declared them to be.  Honestly I find, the deeper you look into it, the more nebulous it is and "because God said so and He's the prime mover".  God must be alone in the beginning else's He's not God. 

 

 

<<In contrast>>

The restored Gospel of Jesus Christ does not teach this.  We acknowledge a eternity that is MUCH more massive.  For example, in addition to the Father & Christ always existing, we acknowledge that each of us always existed.  That doesn't remotely make the Father any "lesser" -- He's still our Father after all!  We acknowledge that we each can become joint-heirs with Christ, becoming one with Him & the Father.  That likewise doesn't threaten the Father's or Christ's divinity, rather I think it is more marvelous over the "prime mover" view. We can become like God and perpetrate things forward, though we know very little details of what this actually looks like (use humans fail to grasp the tiniest iota of eternity).

As to what is right versus wrong: for LDS Christians, what is right is inherently right, and what is wrong is inherently wrong.  There's no reality where going around murdering random folks is not wrong-- it's just  inherently wrong and inherently bring misery.  God says "thou shalt not kill" because He doesn't want us to go down that miserable road.  He tells us to do other things (like being honest) because those inherently bring joy in the big picture.   These things just are.  Our Father in Heaven so deeply embodies the road to happiness / joy / glory / mercy / justice  that they are at the core of who He is as a person.  

Everything He/Christ/HS tells you to do is for your Good.  It embodies that Goodness.  God's mission is to bring about the glory & eternal life of man.  Not to be the "prime mover" the Ancient Greeks saught.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spoke of Catholicism as that is the other thought process I am considering.  After seeing the authority question answered in the church, I have problems with the just "do whatever" nature of the protestant denominations (and I know that isn't a super fair way of wording it, but it makes my point).  With that in mind the only other place I see as viable is Catholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

...With that in mind the only other place I see as viable is Catholic.

I remember reading the following quote on my mission and thinking the same thing. I don't know how true the quote is, but it rang true for me then. The following link is the first place I was able to find it.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_What_do_we_know_about_Orson_F._Whitney's_"Strength_of_the_Mormon_Position"_claim_regarding_a_Catholic_theologian%3F

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

I spoke of Catholicism as that is the other thought process I am considering.  After seeing the authority question answered in the church, I have problems with the just "do whatever" nature of the protestant denominations (and I know that isn't a super fair way of wording it, but it makes my point).  With that in mind the only other place I see as viable is Catholic.

The funny thing to me (and this is probably a really superficial take, but it’s rooted in my having served a mission in heavily-Catholic Latin America) is:  

—Catholics say works matter, but tend to live as though they don’t.  

—Protestants say works don’t matter, but tend to live as though they do.  (Even liberal social-justice-type Protestants seem, in practice, to be careful to avoid “sin”; they just redefine what type of activities are “sinful”).

I don’t get it; because I agree with you that the net effect of (what I know of) Catholic theology tends to strongly disincentivize sin, whereas (what I know of) most Protestant theology tends to look rather benignly at sin so long as the sinner can recite the proper soteriological and trinitarian shibboleths.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

So in my mind, the question is, if God is obedient to law, then where did that law come from?  I don't think that's a bad question to ask.

From what I've read I would say there is no official doctrine on this matter. Some Church leaders firmly believe the Exalted Man theory while others have stated that it just didn't feel right to think God wasn't always God. I too have wondered some of the same things. And while having an established doctrinal statement on the matter would be nice I fail to see why such knowledge should be pivotal to your faith in God and in the restored Church. Must you know everything to believe anything? Cannot the answers you do have be true without having every piece of the puzzle available to you at this point?

The questions you ask are valid questions but to make your willingness to believe contingent on having the answers to them is not how God wants us to approach Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

I spoke of Catholicism as that is the other thought process I am considering.  After seeing the authority question answered in the church, I have problems with the just "do whatever" nature of the protestant denominations (and I know that isn't a super fair way of wording it, but it makes my point).  With that in mind the only other place I see as viable is Catholic.

I totally get that.  though I would like ooh t out that the Orthodox churches do also claim that church authority matters through their lines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2022 at 12:14 PM, CommanderSouth said:

First and foremost, this is a developing thought process for me, so I am trying to hammer out what I actually think :) 

My main issue is that our thinking on God, as I now understand it, doesn't make him the unmoved mover, the necessary being, or the source of everything.

 I have always struggled with the seemingly nebulous definition we have for him (I say that in the sense that we say things, but if there is any pushback or push for real clarification, we acknowledge we don't really know).  Glorified man, the Snow couplet, and literally our father.  I understand these things, but it leads to other issues.  Infinite regression is one usual issue that comes up with this line of thinking, but I just had a thought that there isn't necessarily a problem with it.  Really if there are more than 3 people at the station of God (which is how I understand him), they are all eternal, all "one" and all exist apart from the existence we have, this eternal realm they exist in, THAT is the "necessary being" or the source from which we spring. This helps, and makes it a little more understandable.

That being said, the euthyphro dilemma begins to come into play (Basically put, is something good because God wills it, or is it good and THEREFORE God wills it).  That basic question of is God good, or is good God.  Does goodness exist apart from God?  If it does, then there's more going on out there than all of our existence coming from God.  If good exists apart from God, what made it good, and the whole question of where do we come from shifts up a level.  If, on the other hand, it's good because God wills it/God posses it/God IS it, then good becomes arbitrary, it isn't good because it's good, it's good because it's God's will, and then ANYTHING could have been good.

So, if, as we seem to believe, good exists apart from God, that is, he is bound by good.  Then he isn't the source of everything.  He is a product of another existence.  I know we can't fully understand his nature, but this logic train is causing me issues to the point that I am doubting the Church.  Do we really believe the Snow couplet as presently considered?  If there was a time that the father wasn't God, then he isn't the source of all, he is the product of something else bigger, and that poses a problem for me.

I hope this isn't too much rambling, I'm just trying to settle this in my heart and mind (hopefully) once and for all.

Assuming that God the Father advanced as we hope to only means that  we are all a part of something  greater than our co-eternal selves can experience alone. We are each at different stages of the eternal round, yet bound together as one in love. Thus, He is the immediate Source of our progress from the point on the round described in Abraham 3:22 onward, while at the same time enjoys what He has obtained from His similar prior experience.

He can be as bound by good (law) as we are, and at the same time the Source of good to us His spirit children, as we hope to one day be for ours. We see this play out to a degree in mortality as we become the source of life and law for those spirits we bring into the world, or those to whom we proselyte.

Most if not all spiritual laws do not translate well into STEM, so we have to go with our spiritual senses which by our observation and experience have neurochemical parallels in our mental states. What else do we have to go by?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2022 at 3:00 PM, CommanderSouth said:

Because the relationship with your father doesn't explain the nature of existence itself.  I understand that sliding the question one level up IS a valid thought process, but while we believe we know why we're here, we know why we're here at the expense of know why HERE is here.  I get that in the end that there are some questions we can't grasp, but I would think the explanation of where existence comes from would be one we should be able to at least understand.

HERE is here because that is all we have to go by: our experience. Existence comes from whatever we make or synthesize of our senses, physical and spiritual. Ultimately these senses have a co-eternal base. Someday we will remember or recall.

On 4/23/2022 at 3:05 PM, CommanderSouth said:

And ironically the thought comes to mind, that "This is life eternal, to know thee the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent" and "It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to get right."

So in my mind, the question is, if God is obedient to law, then where did that law come from?  I don't think that's a bad question to ask.

The law in one sense came from His father, and in another sense from His co-eternal experience. The combining of these senses offers a fuller law, which is revealed or bestowed upon us grace for grace as Christ our Exemplar demonstrated. 

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2022 at 4:35 AM, CommanderSouth said:

So in my mind, the question is, if God is obedient to law, then where did that law come from?  I don't think that's a bad question to ask.

I suspect that there are at least two primary sources of law. One source is what I will refer to as natural law and the other is what I will call created law.

As I see it the existence of natural law is independent of any Being or being, and all Beings, including our God and every other god, are subject to those laws. This natural law has existed for all eternity and it is just a description of how the universe operates. I have no clear idea as to its origins. I believe that the requirement for justice, or the need to maintain some sort of balance, which is closely related to the concept of justice, is the basis for one of these natural laws.

I believe that created law, in order to be sustainable and to endure over a long period of time-  ie. from the time we were intelligences until the time we enter our final condition in the eternal realm - must be consistent with, or operate within the boundaries imposed by, natural law. If any created law is not consistent with this over-arching natural law, it will either not be established, or it will fail. I believe that the only created law that is sustainable over a long period of time is 1) law that is consistent with the natural law, and 2) law that has been created with the involvement and consent of those who will be subject to it. For God to find some free thinking, autonomous, self-aware intelligences and to then seek to impose His will upon them by creating His own law by which these intelligences would be governed, and which would enable their progression, without their consent and involvement, would be unjust, no matter how well intentioned such law was. This injustice would therefore make God’s created law inconsistent with the over-arching natural laws, meaning that it could not endure.

If the above idea is true – that there is a close, causal connection between the longevity of a set of laws and the involvement of those subject to that law in its creation, then it follows that we and God, working together, are the source of the created law to which we are subject.

As to origins of the longer lasting, greater natural laws to which created law must be subject, I have no clear ideas. It may be that natural law doesn’t require a being or Being for its existence and operation in much the same way that gravity doesn’t.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading over this for the past few days and very much appreciate the insights.  One (among many) things that stood out to me was the comment that "It may be that natural law doesn’t require a being or Being for its existence and operation in much the same way that gravity doesn’t."  This thought is interesting as it shows the law of Gravity as a behavior, and a law.  It exists as a relationship between things, and makes me wonder if that is how the law of God is.  Not that it is right or wrong, but just how it IS.  I understand going down this road can make good arbitrary, but in a way so does accepting God as the source of good, through it being his essence.  In that way we are right by squaring ourselves up to reality and how things "really" are.  In that way perhaps we become more like God.  We end up with all the same reasons for worship, he is good, he is our father, and he deserves said worship. 

The thought comes to me that perhaps it is again a way of trying to keep God separated from us.  If he isn't like us, if he is the unmoved mover, he can stand alone.  Making us like him challenges that idea, and make him a part of something, and not the source of everything.  That still doesn't diminish his perfection, it just puts our relationship with him in a different focus.  While he may have brothers, or a father, or whatever, that is all sideways.  He is perfect, and we are his children, and through the lens of a family we can see our relationship with him.  

All of that is to also say that in either case, umoved mover, or one God of many (though they be one), we still have something unfathomable to deal with, an eternal realm, whether it is the essence of God, or where he lives, it is outside of us, and is something we can't comprehend.  We think of everything as causal, but to a being with no time, that logic falls apart.  So as long as we understand there is an eternal SOMETHING, we can have faith.

In fairness some of this is still percolating as I type, but I think that seems like a good thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CommanderSouth said:

All of that is to also say that in either case, umoved mover, or one God of many (though they be one), we still have something unfathomable to deal with, an eternal realm, whether it is the essence of God, or where he lives, it is outside of us, and is something we can't comprehend. 

I’ve always felt uncomfortable with the idea that God is unfathomable. I believe that He greatly desires to be known and understood by His children, and that He is willing to assist anybody to help know Him better if they go about it in the right way. This conclusion is supported by John 17:3 combined with 1 Nephi :7

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

 for I know that the Lord giveth no bcommandments unto the children of men, save he shall cprepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

There are also a great many verses of scripture where God promises to give knowledge and truth to those who seek it, and I believe those scriptures to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2022 at 12:34 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

The funny thing to me (and this is probably a really superficial take, but it’s rooted in my having served a mission in heavily-Catholic Latin America) is:  

—Catholics say works matter, but tend to live as though they don’t.  

—Protestants say works don’t matter, but tend to live as though they do.  (Even liberal social-justice-type Protestants seem, in practice, to be careful to avoid “sin”; they just redefine what type of activities are “sinful”).

I don’t get it; because I agree with you that the net effect of (what I know of) Catholic theology tends to strongly disincentivize sin, whereas (what I know of) most Protestant theology tends to look rather benignly at sin so long as the sinner can recite the proper soteriological and trinitarian shibboleths.

You must be referring to easter and Christmas catholics lol.  Seriously though Catholicism can definitely rival the LDS church with the amount of rules you have to follow (when I was looking at the LDS church I found it to have less rules than Catholicism)

I think the big difference, and this is just my perspective having attended both denominations, is the LDS faith seems very public where as the Catholic faith is very private. In the LDS church your salvation status is very much 'on view' to the rest of the members. If you don't take the sacrament or you can't speak in church you're obviously in some sort of trouble. A temple wedding and if you can even attend as a guest is another example or your salvation being 'on show'. Even the temple recommend itself I guess is too.

In the Catholic Church as long as you get to confession on Saturday you are good to have the Eucharist at Sunday Mass. And even if you don't go to communion, no one says or thinks anything about it. It's not 'clicky' like the LDS church, you're there to worship God not make friends, not to say that there aren't activities and study groups, there is, if you want to be involved.

There's also no 'callings' - I mean people volunteer for things but its not expected. I think the callings also create a 'status' type thing in the LDS church. I don't know how bishops find the time, its a huge sacrifice, to work full-time, be a husband and father and a bishop too. Hats off to them, its amazing.  A Catholic priest has a University degree in theology and nothing else to do except look after his parish.

I think protestants do believe in works they just don't want to admit it lol they like to think its 'I'm changed by grace and that's why I do good works' its just a different motivation for doing the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, marge said:

You must be referring to easter and Christmas catholics lol.  Seriously though Catholicism can definitely rival the LDS church with the amount of rules you have to follow (when I was looking at the LDS church I found it to have less rules than Catholicism)

I think the big difference, and this is just my perspective having attended both denominations, is the LDS faith seems very public where as the Catholic faith is very private. In the LDS church your salvation status is very much 'on view' to the rest of the members. If you don't take the sacrament or you can't speak in church you're obviously in some sort of trouble. A temple wedding and if you can even attend as a guest is another example or your salvation being 'on show'. Even the temple recommend itself I guess is too.

In the Catholic Church as long as you get to confession on Saturday you are good to have the Eucharist at Sunday Mass. And even if you don't go to communion, no one says or thinks anything about it. It's not 'clicky' like the LDS church, you're there to worship God not make friends, not to say that there aren't activities and study groups, there is, if you want to be involved.

There's also no 'callings' - I mean people volunteer for things but its not expected. I think the callings also create a 'status' type thing in the LDS church. I don't know how bishops find the time, its a huge sacrifice, to work full-time, be a husband and father and a bishop too. Hats off to them, its amazing.  A Catholic priest has a University degree in theology and nothing else to do except look after his parish.

I think protestants do believe in works they just don't want to admit it lol they like to think its 'I'm changed by grace and that's why I do good works' its just a different motivation for doing the same thing.

You’re certainly right that our theology emphasizes the role of community both as an end of salvation and as a means of salvation, though I might quibble about whether some of the examples you cite are really manifestations of this culture.  I imagine in both religions, people can see the way an adherent lives his life and note incongruities between what the adherent claims to believe versus what he actually does.

I guess the question is, in Catholicism, whether the institutional church and/or individual laypersons a) believe that such incongruities may actually cause a third party to lose their salvation, and b) the degree to which they believe that an individual’s losing their salvation represents a loss to the community as a whole, and the nature of any theological/moral obligation the community may have to try to minister to/bring back the wayward.

And perhaps I have over-generalized about Catholicism generally.  Frankly, I just don’t know what to think—it was Catholic culture, as I understand it, that gave us Carnival/Mardi Gras with their “go ahead and get all your sins out now” ethos; and it’s odd to me that (from my outsiders perspective) the Catholic hierarchy hasn’t formally condemned this mindset that I trust, per the actual theology, would be widely acknowledged as being spiritually toxic.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You’re certainly right that our theology emphasizes the role of community both as an end of salvation and as a means of salvation, though I might quibble about whether some of the examples you cite are really manifestations of this culture.  I imagine in both religions, people can see the way an adherent lives his life and note incongruities between what the adherent claims to believe versus what he actually does.

I guess the question is, in Catholicism, whether the institutional church and/or individual laypersons a) believe that such incongruities may actually cause a third party to lose their salvation, and b) the degree to which they believe that an individual’s losing their salvation represents a loss to the community as a whole, and the nature of any theological/moral obligation the community may have to try to minister to/bring back the wayward.

And perhaps I have over-generalized about Catholicism generally.  Frankly, I just don’t know what to think—it was Catholic culture, as I understand it, that gave us Carnival/Mardi Gras with their “go ahead and get all your sins out now” ethos; and it’s odd to me that (from my outsiders perspective) the Catholic hierarchy hasn’t formally condemned this mindset that I trust, per the actual theology, would be widely acknowledged as being spiritually toxic.

I don't know what Catholics are going with  “go ahead and get all your sins out now”, just because you go to confession and are forgiven, you still have to pay for it. Kinda like if Jonny's ball breaks the next door neighbours window, says sorry, apology is accepted - but the window is still broken and needs to be paid for to be fixed. That's a very basic description of purgatory. A state where you are purified so you can enter heaven. Every time a Catholic sins, they're racking up time in purgatory (like spiritual detention lol). You need to do penance here on earth and if its not enough (its never enough lol), purgatory. I'd say the  “go ahead and get all your sins out now” is more a protestant thing, they got rid of purgatory (and the scriptures that support it) so their theology is 'once saved always saved' no matter what you do, Catholics on the other hand pay eternally for their sins, you don't get away with anything lol.

Are you talking about Fat Tuesday lol? The original Mardi Gras before it was an LGBTQ+ event. Shrove Tuesday (also known as Fat Tuesday, which means Mardi Gras) is the day before Ash Wednesday, which is the start of the Lenten Season, a time of fasting and penance to grow closer to Christ in preparation for Easter. There's a lot of rules in Lent as to what you can and can't eat/do/etc so on Shove Tuesday you eat all the good things in the house because you can't eat them in Lent and people couldn't afford to waste food (well shouldn't eat them, and should follow lent rules). Back in the day the whole town used to get involved because it was almost impossible to eat all the food on your own, so it turned into a group event, a big feast, to make sure the food wasn't thrown out. Now we have freezers and supermarkets lol so it's basically turned into 'Pancake Tuesday'. Most catholics have pancakes and a really rich cake and fattening food, because we can't eat it again until Easter Sunday.  Some cultures still really party on Shrove Tuesday. But this day is certainly not an excuse to sin at all, and those who are using it to do that are acting against Catholic teaching.

I think the LDS church is better at keeping their members together and making sure they are following the rules, where as Catholics either follow them or they don't, its a personal choice.  I also think the LDS church is better at making sure members know all the rules, some Catholics don't even know their own faith let alone live it. But they are making choices that will cause them to lose their salvation. I know plenty of catholics who use contraception for example, massive mortal sin, straight to hell deal, but they do it and still go to church. But that's not my business and not my place to judge them. I'd never say anything to them about it (and some of them are really close friends of mine) No one openly talks about those who chose to leave or stay and not follow the rules, to be honest most of us wouldn't even know. Of course a loss of a member is sad, but all we can do is live our faith to be a good example and pray for them. Their salvation is their business. The Church does run a lot of apologetics and information sessions, retreats etc to deepen faith, bring back those who have fallen away BUT they have to want to go, it has to be their choice, we don't actively chase them up so to speak. There are Catholic ministries that do go door to door but they are very few.  There does need to be more. 

Both approaches have positives and negatives, but witnessing both cultures in action, I do think the LDS culture can be all consuming and overwhelming and it really does feel very 'public', I guess Catholicism puts more emphasis on the person choosing to do the right thing on their own, 'here's the deal, follow it or don't its up to you, you have free will, use it wisely' there is no one checking up on them and you wouldn't know looking in the pews as to who's doing the wrong thing. It's a very private faith.

Edited by marge
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