Luman Fidei encyclical letter

  • Thread starter Thread starter Norwich12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Here in the long Encyclical LUMEN FIDEI is the answer to what Pope Francis meant by “facile [easy] answers and solutions that block our progress…”​

  1. “It is impossible to believe on our own. Faith is not simply an individual decision which takes place in the depths of the believer’s heart, nor a completely private relationship between the “I” of the believer and the divine “Thou”, between an autonomous subject and God. By its very nature, faith is open to the “We” of the Church; it always takes place within her communion. We are reminded of this by the dialogical format of the creed used in the baptismal liturgy. Our belief is expressed in response to an invitation, to a word which must be heard and which is not my own; it exists as part of a dialogue and cannot be merely a profession originating in an individual. We can respond in the singular — “I believe” — only because we are part of a greater fellowship, only because we also say “We believe”. This openness to the ecclesial “We” reflects the openness of God’s own love, which is not only a relationship between the Father and the Son, between an “I” and a “Thou”, but is also, in the Spirit, a “We”, a communion of persons. Here we see why those who believe are never alone, and why faith tends to spread, as it invites others to share in its joy. Those who receive faith discover that their horizons expand as new and enriching relationships come to life. Tertullian puts this well when he describes the catechumens who, “after the cleansing which gives new birth” are welcomed into the house of their mother and, as part of a new family, pray the Our Father together with their brothers and sisters.”
What is meant my “fragmenting time” will come next in the comparison of the human brain (the machine of the human mind) to memory storage in a computer…
 
I would just like to make some minor comments on what Norwich 12 said above concerning Einstein p.4.; but I don’t want to detract from his post on this page.

Philosophers have obviously puzzled over the nature of time during the course of centuries. Primarily they have centred their concepts around that which is of the ‘before’ and that which is of the ‘after’. In technical speak - ‘the mode of succession’. The Scholastics have also had their thoughts published in this area and for them time is defined as the measure of movement according to an order of anteriority and posteriority (numerous motus secundum prius et posterius); thus once local movement is divided into parts by thought, all the elements of the concept of time are found therein.

Living as we do in the 21st Century, one might tentatively suggest that ours is the advantage, because, if nothing else, science itself has moved on this subject e.g. the accepted theory of relativity [parts of which Norwich 12 published above] touches upon this matter in no light fashion. Here, and for them, the principles of movement takes centre stage together with associated factors concerning mass - and especially time. It is significant that such theories and experiments include the primacy of ‘movement’ (known to them as speed). The higher the speed the greater amount time slows down relative to a lesser speed, and the slower the speed the greater amount time quickens relative to a higher speed; whilst – and this is of great importance – whilst ‘subjectivity’ remains constant, theoretical factuality changes

It would appear therefore that the principle of time in the sense of the ‘before’ and ‘after’ accords with right reason, and that - lets be fair - is mostly familiar to us here on earth. If we add Scholastic thought to this - we never perceive time apart from movement – we can readily understand I believe the connection between what is subjective and what is objective i.e. the movement of things outside oneself.

However, the ‘mode’ and ‘experience’ of what we experience in everyday life and that which we may experience in everyday life in Heaven will undoubtedly be different - which leaves that which I can only describe as a theological-concept open to speculation.

So, as for what occurs in Heaven – those who are adventurist enough could say, in a manner of speaking – that this is open season.

Provided of course that Catholic dogma is not compromised.

Paduard
 
THE HEART AND MIND OF THE MATTER

Being an educated Englishman (Sussex),
Paduard likes to “call the question” –

“However, the ‘mode’ and ‘experience’ of what we experience in everyday life and that which we may experience in everyday life in Heaven will undoubtedly be different - which leaves that which I can only describe as a theological-concept open to speculation.”
(from Paduard’s post #62)

Let me “speculate” condensing 4 decades of my ramblings to one paragraph:

There is a pattern to the universe in this world and the next.
The structure of the human skull and brain has definite similarities to the plans of the dome, floor, and crypts of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.
I can say as an Anglican that St. Peter’s is the primary church in all of Christendom.
The human head (of any race or faith) and St. Peter’s Basilica are both patterned after
the symbols of the New Jerusalem (the Heavenly City) described by St. John in the Book
of Revelation in the final two chapters of the Holy Bible.

This is my opinion.
 
*"So, as for what occurs in Heaven – those who are adventurist enough could say, in a manner of speaking – that this is open season.

Provided of course that Catholic dogma is not compromised."*

The Creed (Dogma) contains the following short sharp assertion:

"The Communion of Saints"

So, if Rome be the Head, let us ask members here in relation to my post above in italics - and also bearing in mind the science-initiative already provided earlier by Norwich 12’:-

Exactly how do the Saints communicate i.e. by what process???🙂

|Paduard
 
“There is a pattern to the universe in this world and the next.”

I took a little more notice of this item posted above by Norwich 12. Yes I think there is a pattern and perhaps following patterns so to speak may lead us on further.

Paduard
 
“There is a pattern to the universe in this world and the next.”

Further to the above and prior to considering the hereafter, perhaps we should start with our own physical patterns of speech - sound waves e.g. - also complicated by a different science for the deaf.

Paduard
 
Thank you Wise Paduard!
An appropriate place to start a discussion about Divine Communication
Would be the 1st chapters of Genesis and the Gospel of John:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 1:1-2
(New American Bible)

The Logos; the. Center of the physical and the spiritual Universe.
 
Norwich12 said:
Thank you Wise Paduard!
An appropriate place to start a discussion about Divine Communication
Would be the 1st chapters of Genesis and the Gospel of John:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 1:1-2
(New American Bible)

The Logos; the. Center of the physical and the spiritual Universe.
Click to expand...
Yes I suppose we could take that route [Genesis] in relation to communication.

Keeping to the science side so to speak, verbal communication - cannot say anything against that. Some might say communication from God could have been via ‘infused knowledge’ - personally am not against that idea except it would not be via the ears but via the intellect.

Genesis also deals with ‘Eden’ - dont want to stray too much from communiation - but that can be an interesting subject. For in my opinion ‘Eden’ could not possibly be equivalent to our 3/4 dimension reality for its space must have had an extra faculty enabling it to “bend”.

God Bless,
Paduard.
 
Thank you Paduard-- always deep subjects that you write about!

IMO there are at least 4 methods by which words are communicated in any language.
  1. Auditory -/ the most frequent method.
    Someone speaks and someone listens and sometimes understands.
  2. Visual -/ reading the printed or written word.
    This is the most reliable because accents are nullified and words we don’t understand
    may be looked up or googled.
Of course the first 2 methods can be combined as in church services
where the congregation gives responses either from verbal prompts,
reading a prayer book, or from memory.

Catholic services being more structured than in Protestant denominations
employ the latter method. Protestant services rely more on the personal
thoughts of the minister in the form of a sermon.
  1. Tactile -/ this is the least used method of communication of words.
    Examples would be a child “writing” letters in the palm of a friend to spell simple words.
    The most refined method of tactile communication would be a blind
    person using his/her dominant hand index finger to read a book or a sign with words represented by raised dots.
Note that methods 1,2,3 utilize the body’s sensory (name removed by moderator)ut system.
The cortex of the cerebral hemispheres translates the electro-chemical pulses into visual, auditory, or “felt” words.

The Rosary is an example of the fusion of these 3 methods.
That is why the Rosary is engaging and effective!

Now I need the expertise of Paduard to present or perhaps explain the most
Unique form of communication of words :
INFUSION.
 
Norwich 12.

I acknowledge your comprehensive list of means whereby verbal communications are made. Thank you.

As regards your query about infused knowledge etc. This is too complicated a subject to go into at any length at this stage. However in relation to verbal communications this is known in theological circles as “locutions”. In this respect I think it only efficient within this topic to set out below comments made by the Saints. I hope that will be sufficient for you, at least the time being:-

St. John of The Cross.

“Let us conclude then with this precaution necessary for the avoidance of any delusion or hindrance from these variously caused locutions: We should pay no heed to them, but be only interested in directing the will, with fortitude, toward God; we should carry out his law and holy counsels with perfection - for such is the wisdom of the saints…”

St. Teresa of Avila.

“It is not that we ought to omit such meditations, but we need to retain our misgivings about them and not to grow careless. In contemplation Our Blessed Lord Himself relieves us of this care, for He will not trust us to look after ourselves.”

Paduard
 
From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. A century old article about “Visions and Apparitions.”

This is the main paragraph that would speak to Paduard’s topic of locutions.​

Intellectual visions perceive the object without a sensible image. Intellectual visions in the natural order may apparently be admitted. Even when we hold with the Scholastics that every idea is derived form some image, it does not follow that the image cannot at a given time abandon the idea to itself. The intellectual vision is of the supernatural order when the object known exceeds the natural range of the understanding, e.g. the essence of the soul, certain existence of the state of grace in the subject of another, the intimate nature of God and the Trinity; when it is prolonged for a considerable time (St. Teresa says that it may last for more than a year). The intervention of God will be recognized especially by its effects, persistent light, Divine love, peace of soul, inclination towards the things of God, the constant fruits of sanctity.
 
Please re-read the last sentence above:
“… Persistent Light, Divine Love…”

Those key words bring us back to the Encyclical of Pope Francis, LUMEN FIDEI, the Light of Faith.

Please read paragraph 21 and those pargraphs that follow.
They are instructive about the topic of Infused Knowkedge.

I will copy - paste paragraph 21 of the Encyclical in my next post.
 
From the Encyclical of Pope Francis:
  1. We come to see the difference, then, which faith makes for us. Those who believe are transformed by the love to which they have opened their hearts in faith. By their openness to this offer of primordial love, their lives are enlarged and expanded. “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20). “May Christ dwell in your hearts through faith” (Eph 3:17). The self-awareness of the believer now expands because of the presence of another; it now lives in this other and thus, in love, life takes on a whole new breadth. Here we see the Holy Spirit at work. The Christian can see with the eyes of Jesus and share in his mind, his filial disposition, because he or she shares in his love, which is the Spirit. In the love of Jesus, we receive in a certain way his vision. Without being conformed to him in love, without the presence of the Spirit, it is impossible to confess him as Lord (cf. 1 Cor 12:3).
Without worrying about the veracity of various locutions that we might read on the Internet,
we can share in the general Infused Knowledge as stated above:

“IN THE LOVE OF JESUS, WE RECEIVE IN A CERTAIN WAY HIS VISION.”
 
Norwich12 said:
From the Encyclical of Pope Francis:
  1. We come to see the difference, then, which faith makes for us. Those who believe are transformed by the love to which they have opened their hearts in faith. By their openness to this offer of primordial love, their lives are enlarged and expanded. “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20). “May Christ dwell in your hearts through faith” (Eph 3:17). The self-awareness of the believer now expands because of the presence of another; it now lives in this other and thus, in love, life takes on a whole new breadth. Here we see the Holy Spirit at work. The Christian can see with the eyes of Jesus and share in his mind, his filial disposition, because he or she shares in his love, which is the Spirit. In the love of Jesus, we receive in a certain way his vision. Without being conformed to him in love, without the presence of the Spirit, it is impossible to confess him as Lord (cf. 1 Cor 12:3).
Without worrying about the veracity of various locutions that we might read on the Internet,
we can share in the general Infused Knowledge as stated above:

“IN THE LOVE OF JESUS, WE RECEIVE IN A CERTAIN WAY HIS VISION.”
Click to expand...
I think Norwich 12 has more or less wrapped up the dialogue concerning the physical (or otherwise) method of communication. The Light of Christ being the most efficacious example e.g. Therefore in keeping with remaining within the encyclical, I also quote from it thus:

“In the love of Jesus, we receive in a certain way his vision.”

Perhaps therefore it would be appropriate to direct our deliberations towards considering some of the basic underlying properties of communication i.e. the ‘material’ and the ‘corporeal’.

For both Heaven and Earth contain elements of each, albeit by some variation within each.

Shortly I hope to post something from Duns Scotis who touched somewhat upon these matters.

Paduard
 
Thank you Paduard,
The term “corporeal communication” is new to me.
I have tried to look it up but had trouble finding theological information.

May I ask if the Holy Eucharist is an example?
 
Norwich12 said:
Thank you Paduard,
The term “corporeal communication” is new to me.
I have tried to look it up but had trouble finding theological information.

May I ask if the Holy Eucharist is an example?
Click to expand...
Norwich 12.

Sorry I may have misled you somewhat. In theology the term ‘corporeal’ usually refers to something you can see, or allowed to see, e.g. the corporeal vision of Our Blessed Lady at Lourds or perhaps the vision of an Angel in corporeal form. Incorporeal is where you do not see with your own eyes.

Although this does not reflect directly on communications in the sense of what has been discussed, nevertheless I felt it necessary to introduce it at this stage as understanding such I hope will act as a lever to enhance the depth of what has been already been touched upon. Duns Scotis refers to Ontology [the nature of being] and in my opinion it will have to be referred to at some stage.

Paduard.
 
Paduard-- my shallow knowledge of the two types of communication explains the misunderstanding.

It occurred to me that “corporeal communication” could be the dividing line
between Catholic and Protestant understanding of Real Presence in the Eucharist.

I looked up “corporeal” and dictionaries said “bodily.”

That is the precise difference in the two interpretations.

Protestants believe in the Spiritual presence of Jesus in the Holy Communion service.

Catholics believe (in dogma form) in Bodily presence of the Risen Lord in the consecrated bread and wine in the Eucharist.
 
Norwich12 said:
Paduard-- my shallow knowledge of the two types of communication explains the misunderstanding.

It occurred to me that “corporeal communication” could be the dividing line
between Catholic and Protestant understanding of Real Presence in the Eucharist.

I looked up “corporeal” and dictionaries said “bodily.”

That is the precise difference in the two interpretations.

Protestants believe in the Spiritual presence of Jesus in the Holy Communion service.

Catholics believe (in dogma form) in Bodily presence of the Risen Lord in the consecrated bread and wine in the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
That is correct Norwich 12.

Although in England many Anglicans believe that their Ministers effect the Real Presence.

That as it may be but, apart from the earlier references made to transubstantiation, methinks that this theology is presently outside the examination of the Encyclical.

I will post the Duns Scotis extract very shortly now.

God Bless
Paduard
 
Thank you Paduard -/ I was using the word “Protestant” to include the largest USA denominations such as Baptists, independent Bible based churches, Methodists, and Presbyterians.

The more liturgical denominations (Episcopalians and Lutherans) whose Eucharistic services look similar to Roman Catholic masses have emphasis on Real Presence.

You are right that any serious discussion of Transubstantiation would be outside this thread.
 
Norwich12 said:
Thank you Paduard -/ I was using the word “Protestant” to include the largest USA denominations such as Baptists, independent Bible based churches, Methodists, and Presbyterians.

The more liturgical denominations (Episcopalians and Lutherans) whose Eucharistic services look similar to Roman Catholic masses have emphasis on Real Presence.

You are right that any serious discussion of Transubstantiation would be outside this thread.
Click to expand...
As referred to earlier, you might find the following passage of interest. It is from Blessed Duns Scotis; a Catholic theologian considered by many as ranking intellectually with the like of St Thomas:-

“God alone is absolutely immaterial, since He alone is absolute and perfect actuality, without any potentiality for becoming other than what He is. All creatures, angels and human souls included, are material, because they are changeable and may become the subject of accidents. But from this it does not follow that souls and angels are corporeal; on the contrary they are spiritual, physically simple, though material in the sense just explained. Since all created things, corporeal and spiritual, are composed of potentiality and actuality, the same materia prima is the foundation of all, and therefore all things have a common substratum, a common material basis. This materia, in itself quite indeterminate, may be determined to any sort of thing by a form–a spiritual form determines it to a spirit, a corporeal form to a material body”

However these are not opinions that everyone necessarily agrees with. But, for myself, I happen to think this particular one to be ‘reasonable’; although I must confess that I do not entirely understand the ‘length and depth’ of Duns Scotis’ dialogue.

Nevertheless this much surely can be said. That had he lived in the world of today and was familiar e.g. with the basics of modern particle physics, we may have been presented with a theory more aligned to our present knowledge, and that what appears to me as his somewhat loose connection with the immaterial and the corporeal could be advanced further.

This contribution therefore can be considered as in keeping within this topic i.e. inasmuch as the Encyclical emphasises that we should avoid "fragmenting time and changing it into space”.

It is of course up to forum members to articulate their own thoughts on the matter.

Paduard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top