C
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Yes, the Profession of Faith. Why stop the quotation with the beginning of the second sentence of CCC 249 when CCC 251 (which promptly follows) provides a teaching essential to its understanding?
What is it you seek to prove in this way?
What is it you seek to prove in this way?
B
Brendan
Guest
An absolute truth is one that is not contingent on another. That God the Father is God is not continent on any other truth.Perhaps the difficulty is in understanding the meaning of the words “absolute truth”. CCC 251 states that certain terms are used “to signify an ineffable mystery” and that this mystery (which is the Trinity) is “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”. Terms like “Father”, “Son” and “person” are used to signify something that is infinitely beyond human understanding, and it is thus an error to give these words a literal meaning.
Simply stated, it is the teaching of CCC 251 that what these words signify is infinitely beyond human understanding. And that means a person does not know the “absolute truth” of this mystery, either in part or in whole.
Are you claiming that it is continent upon another truth, what truth is it contingent upon? Upon what other Truth does the Divinity of God depend?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
You’re talking about absolute truth in the abstract whereas Thomas is talking about our expressions of it to each other. We can’t talk about absolute truth as though we know it absolutely.An absolute truth is one that is not contingent on another. That God the Father is God is not continent on any other truth.
Are you claiming that it is continent upon another truth, what truth is it contingent upon? Upon what other Truth does the Divinity of God depend?
B
Brendan
Guest
To what extent do we know that the Holy Spirit is God?You’re talking about absolute truth in the abstract whereas Thomas is talking about our expressions of it to each other. We can’t talk about absolute truth as though we know it absolutely.
Thomas mentioned that Dogma may change, will the Holy Spirit be declared NOT to be Divine?
Absolute Truth is one that is unchanging and not dependant upon another truth.
A truth derived at by deduction is not absolute, but, as JimR noted, some are revealed, and thus not dependent upon Reason. Those are not dependent, not the question becomes, are they changeable?
So will the Holy Spirit, under some circumstance, cease to be Divine?
Now, I agree that there may, at some future point, some ASPECT of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit might become known to us, but that does not alter the absolute truth fo the Spirit’s Divinity.
If it is unchanging, and not dependent, it is, by definition, an absolute truth.
B
Brendan
Guest
And Longing,
Would you claim that a Catholic who holds that the Divinity of the Holy Spirit is an unconditional, unchanging Truth is a ‘fundamentalist’, and thus the ones that the Pope is criticizing?
Would you claim that a Catholic who holds that the Divinity of the Holy Spirit is an unconditional, unchanging Truth is a ‘fundamentalist’, and thus the ones that the Pope is criticizing?
V
Vouthon
Guest
Development of doctrine is not the same as “rupture”. This was the Vatican II misinterpretation that Benedict XVI so warned against with his hermeneutic of continuity.To what extent do we know that the Holy Spirit is God?
Thomas mentioned that Dogma may change, will the Holy Spirit be declared NOT to be Divine?
Absolute Truth is one that is unchanging and not dependant upon another truth.
A truth derived at by deduction is not absolute, but, as JimR noted, some are revealed, and thus not dependent upon Reason. Those are not dependent, not the question becomes, are they changeable?
So will the Holy Spirit, under some circumstance, cease to be Divine?
If it is unchanging, and not dependent, it is, by definition, an absolute truth.
A simple analogy is the acorn developing in the fullness of time into an oak tree. The acorn cannot became a pine tree, that would be “rupture”.
But still, it really is a dramatic change to go from acorn to oak but the “species” remains constant.
It is the same with doctrinal development.
So no, the Holy Spirit can never be declared “not divine”. That’s rupture.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
If we were to work backwards from what Pope Francis said…And Longing,
Would you claim that a Catholic who holds that the Divinity of the Holy Spirit is an unconditional, unchanging Truth is a ‘fundamentalist’, and thus the ones that the Pope is criticizing?
*“We Catholics have some — and not some, many — who believe they possess the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, and doing evil. They do evil. I say this because it is my Church,” *’’’
It seems that fundamentalism is defined by the mistaken belief that one can possess absolute truth permitting them to define others as evil and expendable or in need of conversion to their religion.
So one person could believe that the Holy Spirit is a divine person of the Trinity, yet not feel completely confident that they can define the Holy Spirit as present or absent in others. And another person could believe that the Holy Spirit is a divine person of the Trinity but feel very confident that others are devoid of the Spirit needing either extermination or coercion to convert.
The Church is now teaching us to evangelise through our acts and attitudes rather than proselytise using words defining division.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I am claiming nothing beyond what CCC 251 teaches. The words you use to claim knowledge of “absolute truth” only signify what is ineffable and “infinitely beyond all human understanding”. The distinction between necessary and contingent truth has a long history in philosophy, and you are confusing the term “necessary truth” with “absolute truth”–that is, with what is “infinitely beyond human understanding”.An absolute truth is one that is not contingent on another. That God the Father is God is not continent on any other truth.
Are you claiming that it is continent upon another truth, what truth is it contingent upon? Upon what other Truth does the Divinity of God depend?
Though I am sure you do not want to hear it, the statement that “God the Father is God” is not an “absolute truth” when the word “Father” is used to signify what is “infinitely beyond all human understanding”. This teaching is apparently difficult for some (perhaps for ‘many’) to accept, but it would include the erroneous belief that one knows what it is that the word “Father” signifies, a word that signifies what CCC 251 teaches “is beyond all human understanding”.
Perhaps it would help to realize that the belief that one is in possession of the “absolute truth” is, in this instance, to vastly limit the nature of the Trinity as well as to assert that one knows what is infinite–what IS. It is to stray into troubled waters, but if a person wishes to believe they possess the absolute truth, they of course have every right to their belief.
J
JimG
Guest
Jesus used the word “Father” so the Church follows his revelation in using the word. Development of doctrine will not some day come to conclude that what he had in mind was more like “uncle,” or “grandfather” or “great ground of being.”
Or is it that no true statement can ever be made about the Trinity?
Can any true statement be made about any of the truths of the Faith?
Are any of the statements in the Catechism true?
Or, even aside from the truths of revelation, can any true statement be made about anything?
Can I truly state that I exist? That outside reality exists? That anything is knowable?
God created us with intellect as a faculty of the soul in order that we may know.
I sincerely do not believe that it is the Church’s position that nothing is knowable, or that revelation is unknowable, or that true statements can never be made about God or man.
Or is it that no true statement can ever be made about the Trinity?
Can any true statement be made about any of the truths of the Faith?
Are any of the statements in the Catechism true?
Or, even aside from the truths of revelation, can any true statement be made about anything?
Can I truly state that I exist? That outside reality exists? That anything is knowable?
God created us with intellect as a faculty of the soul in order that we may know.
I sincerely do not believe that it is the Church’s position that nothing is knowable, or that revelation is unknowable, or that true statements can never be made about God or man.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I think that you seem to be thinking only in extremes and not acknowledging any middle ground as far as our capacity to know God/absolute truth. From the CCC…Jesus used the word “Father” so the Church follows his revelation in using the word. Development of doctrine will not some day come to conclude that what he had in mind was more like “uncle,” or “grandfather” or “great ground of being.”
Or is it that no true statement can ever be made about the Trinity?
Can any true statement be made about any of the truths of the Faith?
Are any of the statements in the Catechism true?
Or, even aside from the truths of revelation, can any true statement be made about anything?
Can I truly state that I exist? That outside reality exists? That anything is knowable?
God created us with intellect as a faculty of the soul in order that we may know.
I sincerely do not believe that it is the Church’s position that nothing is knowable, or that revelation is unknowable, or that true statements can never be made about God or man.
IV. HOW CAN WE SPEAK ABOUT GOD?
39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.
40 Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.
41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, “for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator”.15
**42 **God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God–“the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable”–with our human representations.16 Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.
43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that “between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude”;17 and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."18
Fundamentalists as Pope Francis described, believe they have a greater capacity to know absolute truth than is warranted by our humanness and so their zeal positions them as intrinsically good against others as intrinsically evil. Since Vatican II the Church has put greater emphasis on the presence of God in others even those not baptised, and asks us to examine our own consciences more thoroughly in the light of the Gospel rather than as a measure of Catholicness.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
“Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am” (John, 8:58).Jesus used the word “Father” so the Church follows his revelation in using the word. Development of doctrine will not some day come to conclude that what he had in mind was more like “uncle,” or “grandfather” or “great ground of being.”
Or is it that no true statement can ever be made about the Trinity?
Can any true statement be made about any of the truths of the Faith?
Are any of the statements in the Catechism true?
Or, even aside from the truths of revelation, can any true statement be made about anything?
Can I truly state that I exist? That outside reality exists? That anything is knowable?
God created us with intellect as a faculty of the soul in order that we may know.
I sincerely do not believe that it is the Church’s position that nothing is knowable, or that revelation is unknowable, or that true statements can never be made about God or man.
These words are transcendent. What they signify is beyond the understanding of the intellect and the limits of language.
J
JimG
Guest
“Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am” (John, 8:58).
And yet Jesus spoke them, using human language, and he spoke truth. He did not speak idly. He intended to convey something. “I AM” was the name God used of himself when Moses asked for his name. So Jesus words can be taken both as a claim to divinity as well as a claim to eternity.These words are transcendent. What they signify is beyond the understanding of the intellect and the limits of language.
A great deal has been written on this passage. One does not just write it off because the nature of God is infinite. If it was useless to use human language, Jesus would not have used it.
J
JimG
Guest
I’m not speaking in extremes. What would be extreme would be to say that nothing can be said of God. In that case, the Catechism would not have been written, as it would be an exercise in futility. As for you last paragraph, I don’t see how it follows from anything said in the Catechism.I think that you seem to be thinking only in extremes and not acknowledging any middle ground as far as our capacity to know God/absolute truth. From the CCC…
IV. HOW CAN WE SPEAK ABOUT GOD?
39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.
40 Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.
41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, “for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator”.15
**42 **God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God–“the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable”–with our human representations.16 Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.
43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that “between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude”;17 and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."18
Fundamentalists as Pope Francis described, believe they have a greater capacity to know absolute truth than is warranted by our humanness and so their zeal positions them as intrinsically good against others as intrinsically evil. Since Vatican II the Church has put greater emphasis on the presence of God in others even those not baptised, and asks us to examine our own consciences more thoroughly in the light of the Gospel rather than as a measure of Catholicness.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
But our understanding of “God, I AM” is minimal.And yet Jesus spoke them, using human language, and he spoke truth. He did not speak idly. He intended to convey something. “I AM” was the name God used of himself when Moses asked for his name. So Jesus words can be taken both as a claim to divinity as well as a claim to eternity.
A great deal has been written on this passage. One does not just write it off because the nature of God is infinite. If it was useless to use human language, Jesus would not have used it.
Jim
J
JimG
Guest
If by minimal you mean that our human intellect can not enter into the full meaning of infinity, I quite agree. But we know more than nothing, because God has revealed it and wishes us to know it.But our understanding of “God, I AM” is minimal.
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
But does knowing just some equal absolute ?If by minimal you mean that our human intellect can not enter into the full meaning of infinity, I quite agree. But we know more than nothing, because God has revealed it and wishes us to know it.
Jim
J
JimG
Guest
If one knows something, and it is true, then it is absolute, but not total. Absolute just means that what is known does not admit of doubt. It does not mean that one knows everything about a subject. The Church posits that we can know of God’s existence through human reason apart from revelation. That knowledge is absolute and true, but quite limited.But does knowing just some equal absolute ?
Jim
T
Thomas_White
Guest
That is the point. The full meaning is the “absolute truth”.If by minimal you mean that our human intellect can not enter into the full meaning of infinity, I quite agree. But we know more than nothing, because God has revealed it and wishes us to know it.
B
Brendan
Guest
Where does CCC 251 make this statement that you implied that it doesI am claiming nothing beyond what CCC 251 teaches. The words you use to claim knowledge of “absolute truth” only signify what is ineffable and “infinitely beyond all human understanding”. The distinction between necessary and contingent truth has a long history in philosophy, and you are confusing the term “necessary truth” with “absolute truth”–that is, with what is “infinitely beyond human understanding”. f.
namely, where does the Church define an ‘absolute truth’ to be that which is “beyond human understanding”absolute truth"–that is, with what is "infinitely beyond human
- Status
- Not open for further replies.