Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[LongingSoul]

The point of the passage is that the Trinity is known precisely because it has been revealed by God. It would not be known by reason, or by the hints in the OT. It is known because of the divine revelation given by Jesus. That is why there is a doctrine of the Trinity, and the doctrine is stated quite precisely. There are three Persons in One God. There are not three Gods, there are not three divine natures, not three essences of God, but three Persons in one divine nature.

The doctrine is a divine mystery. That does not mean that the doctrine cannot under any circumstances be formulated in human language. It has been so formulated as a doctrinal statement, and the doctrine is absolutely true.

If the doctrine were incapable of formulation, it would not be stated as a doctrine. Doctrines need to use words. And if nothing could be truly said of God because he is ineffable–which means unable to be spoken of in human language–then the Catechism could be reduced to one sentence.

And if doctrines are capable of formulation they are subject to reformulation also. That is because the absolute truth will never be fully grasped by human beings in a way that can be expressed in words for all time.

In relation to the topic being discussed by the thread ie. the Pope criticising those who believe they ‘possess’ absolute truth and act out of that belief…to say that ‘doctrine is absolutely true’ is a different thing to saying that ‘doctrine expresses Truths’.

That difference is revealed when a person says ‘doctrine can never change’ rather than ‘Truths are immutable’. The first statement rejects that any reformulation of the enunciation can be discussed even. A fundamentalist would defend the enunciation of the Truth over the spirit of the Truth which will always remain a mystery to the human intellect.

 

[JimG]

And if doctrines are capable of formulation they are subject to reformulation also. That is because the absolute truth will never be fully grasped by human beings in a way that can be expressed in words for all time.

In relation to the topic being discussed by the thread ie. the Pope criticising those who believe they ‘possess’ absolute truth and act out of that belief…to say that ‘doctrine is absolutely true’ is a different thing to saying that ‘doctrine expresses Truths’.

That difference is revealed when a person says ‘doctrine can never change’ rather than ‘Truths are immutable’. The first statement rejects that any reformulation of the enunciation can be discussed even. A fundamentalist would defend the enunciation of the Truth over the spirit of the Truth which will always remain a mystery to the human intellect.

That’s okay if by “reformulation” you mean “subject to a deeper understanding which can be expressed in words without contradicting the original doctrine.”

Frank Sheed can take a chapter to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, but that’s not reformulation, that’s explanation.

Doctrine will never be reformulated in a way that contradicts the original doctrine. Trinitarian doctrine will not be reformulated to admit of four persons, or of more than one divine nature, nor will it confuse the terms of person and nature.

In fact, theologically speaking, God is simple, not complex. He is simple because, being pure spirit, he has no parts, so it is hard to imagine in what way the doctrine could be reformulated. In heaven we will experience it, and thus understand him better, but that experience will likely not be able to be expressed in words. The experience of the Divine is ineffable, but while on earth, the human intellect uses words. But it must use them accurately.

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s okay if by “reformulation” you mean “subject to a deeper understanding which can be expressed in words without contradicting the original doctrine.”

Frank Sheed can take a chapter to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, but that’s not reformulation, that’s explanation.

Doctrine will never be reformulated in a way that contradicts the original doctrine. Trinitarian doctrine will not be reformulated to admit of four persons, or of more than one divine nature, nor will it confuse the terms of person and nature.

In fact, theologically speaking, God is simple, not complex. He is simple because, being pure spirit, he has no parts, so it is hard to imagine in what way the doctrine could be reformulated. In heaven we will experience it, and thus understand him better, but that experience will likely not be able to be expressed in words. The experience of the Divine is ineffable, but while on earth, the human intellect uses words. But it must use them accurately.

It happens that words expressing the Truth can *appear *to contradict previous words expressing the same immutable Truth… hence the extreme phenomenon of Feenyism and sedavacantism which today we can see in the human phenomenon of fundamentalism. My grasp of doctrine has to necessarily accept my human limits to know absolute Truth, even through doctrines expressed. I believe, not because I understand the truth of the Trinity, but because I trust in the Church to express that Truth nostra aetate, so to speak. (in our times) I believe that is the basic position that allows me to welcome the spirit of Vatican II into my faith. That is, to promote unity rather than reiterate division and to be fearless in promoting Gods mercy rather than His judgement. Things which are too contradictory for a fundamentalist to accept.

 

[Brendan]

CCC237 is fairly clear on the Trinity.

The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God,** which can never be known unless they are revealed by God**”.58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. **But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone **or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.

If you follow the thread, you will see that I agree that the revealed truths are absolute truths (and only the revealed truths are absolutes).

Such truths, such as the Divinity of the Holy Spirit ARE revealed by God.

Truths about God that are deduced, I have agreed are not absolute, in that they are contingent on other truths.

 

[Brendan]

In relation to the topic being discussed by the thread ie. the Pope criticising those who believe they ‘possess’ absolute truth and act out of that belief…to say that ‘doctrine is absolutely true’ is a different thing to saying that ‘doctrine expresses Truths’…

Note the logical connector ‘and’ in the Pope’s statement. That requires both clauses to be true for the statement to be true.

Thus the people being criticized are only the ones for who both is true.

Those who claim to possess absolute truth, yet do not “go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation” are thus not the subject of the criticism.

 

[LongingSoul]

Note the logical connector ‘and’ in the Pope’s statement. That requires both clauses to be true for the statement to be true.

Thus the people being criticized are only the ones for who both is true.

Those who claim to possess absolute truth, yet do not “go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation” are thus not the subject of the criticism.

If there was no trap in ‘possessing’ absolute truth there would be no need to mention that in the criticism. We could remain comfortable denouncing, calumny and the like in a general sense. By mentioning the first condition ie ‘possesion’, we’re called to examine more deeply than the final acts. This is a very Ignatian principle actually. The examen is different to the straight forward examination of conscience because it asks the spiritual directee to examine his/her effect on the relationship with Jesus here with us now, that feed our acts of sin… not just examine the sin itself or its effects on the others involved.

 

[Brendan]

If there was no trap in ‘possessing’ absolute truth there would be no need to mention that in the criticism. We could remain comfortable denouncing, calumny and the like in a general sense. By mentioning the first condition ie ‘possesion’, we’re called to examine more deeply than the final acts. This is a very Ignatian principle actually. The examen is different to the straight forward examination of conscience because it asks the spiritual directee to examine his/her effect on the relationship with Jesus here with us now, that feed our acts of sin… not just examine the sin itself or its effects on the others involved.

A person could accept the Divinely revealed, absolute truth that Christ is God. There is no wrong in that.

If the person then begins to scream “HERETIC” at Jehovah’s Witnesses, that is worthy of Papal criticism.

As you note, it is the final act that is to be deeply examined. The effect of the possession is the wrong, not the possession itself.

This would be distinct, for example, where the above person prays to Christ for the grace of conversion of the JW.

 

[Thomas_White]

A person could accept the Divinely revealed, absolute truth that Christ is God. There is no wrong in that.

The difficulty is not that the statement “Christ is God” is not true but in believing it is the absolute truth for “our words always fall short of the mystery of God” (CCC 42).

 

[LongingSoul]

Thomas, I think Brendan knows quite well that the Popes statement was a direct criticism of the belief in possession of absolute truth. It’s very clear.

“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 is very clear that Islamic fundamentalist and Christian cults and other fundamentalist types, are poisoned by prideful belief that they own the divine/Divine rather than serve it/Him within the human experience.

 

[Brendan]

Thomas, I think Brendan knows quite well that the Popes statement was a direct criticism of the belief in possession of absolute truth. It’s very clear…

I disagree, the Pope is a Jesuit, and fully understands what a logical ‘AND’ is.

 

[JimG]

Thomas, I think Brendan knows quite well that the Popes statement was a direct criticism of the belief in possession of absolute truth. It’s very clear.

“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 is very clear that Islamic fundamentalist and Christian cults and other fundamentalist types, are poisoned by prideful belief that they own the divine/Divine rather than serve it/Him within the human experience.

I realize that we have had several lengthy threads trying to explain that papal quote, but I still have no idea how the two halves of the sentence can fit together.

The Church has always, by its very magisterial teaching office, been bound to transmit the truths of the Faith through the ages. It does not purport to teach falsehood. It has no mandate to equivocate its teaching, saying that it might or might not be true.

How does accepting the truth of revelation from Jesus Christ to the Apostles handed down by the Church to the present age constitute “fundamentalism?” Have all the popes, bishops, and priests been engaged in a sinister endeavor? Should they have ignored the duty to hand down the teachings of Jesus?

To give just one example, Fulton Sheen taught as a Catholic bishop. What he taught was true. Did the fact that he taught truth mean that he was dirtying someone else with calumny, disinformation, and doing evil? How about Thomas Aquinas? Peter, Linus, Cletus, and Clement, the first four popes? Pope Pius XII? Leo XIII? They all taught Catholic doctrine. This is a puzzle to me.

Has the Church become no longer the font of truth but the font of ambiguity?

 

[Brendan]

The difficulty is not that the statement “Christ is God” is not true but in believing it is the absolute truth for “our words always fall short of the mystery of God” (CCC 42).

Ah, but those are the words of God, not ours. It’s truth is Divinely revealed using the words of God Himself.

That is how Christ described Himself.

And once again, you are claiming that there cannot be absolute truths known about a Mystery.

All Mysterion means is that there are SOME truths that are unknown. The word does not preclude other truths from being true as an absolute.

So there is no logical contradiction between an object of knowledge being a Mystery and absolute truths being known of it.

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas, I think Brendan knows quite well that the Popes statement was a direct criticism of the belief in possession of absolute truth. It’s very clear.

Yes, it is very clear, and it is time for me to let it go. “An ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand” cannot be revealed by logical argument, and the attempt is futile. Part of this is the belief that reason and the human intellect can grasp this ineffable mystery, and this is audacious pride. Faith and belief mean something.

“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 is very clear that Islamic fundamentalist and Christian cults and other fundamentalist types, are poisoned by prideful belief that they own the divine/Divine rather than serve it/Him within the human experience.

Yes, and of course it is also the root of judgmentalism.

 

[JimG]

Fundamentalism–a historically rather recent movement in Protestantism. But apparently the word has evolved into something quite different, with no notice. And even given the historical definition, those who identify as fundamentalists are not necessarily known as more judgmental than anyone else. Maybe some would think that the tract needs to be rewritten.

 

[clem456]

Interesting that in order to prove fundamentalism exists, some resort to an erroneous idea of mystery. Mystery derives from the Greek “mysterion”. Mysterion translates into the Latin “sacramentum” or “sacrament”. An outward sign of a deeper reality, that effects (makes real) what it signifies.

Christian mystery is an invitation to “come and see”, to look deeper, to seek, to acknowledge that great truths are revealed to us by God, to listen to those truths, adhere to Him in faith, to express and proclaim what one sees and hears. The current idea of Christian mystery you so often see is one devoid of this relationship with God. It sees mystery as the mere grappling with difficult concepts instead of coming to know God. Ironically, this point of view is the flip side of fundamentalism: it locks itself in literalism to rob the faith of relationship.
Pope Benedict said:

Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.

I wonder if Christ would recognize the modern notion of mystery we so often see. It is pagan and scary and idolatrous, better suited to a 50’s Dracula movie than to Christian faith. It causes people to cower in fear of an unapproachable God, because the notion is proposed that no assurance or certainty can be had of God’s mysteries. This notion is also called chaos, which is rampant in modern culture. It is a detachment from true relationship. Chaos leads to broken relationship. It is not God’s wish that we propose a vague, uncertain, and chaotic faith.

The ineffable-ness of God recognizes that God is ultimate “other”, and we are his creatures. We are not Him. We cannot know him in the essence of his being, but faith asks us to give our assent to him as revealed, and this faith is a relationship of knowing and being known.
What is faith? It is God’s work in me to which I respond. We do not respond with vagueness, with a throwing up of our hands at God’s ineffable-ness. We respond with commitment to seeking, knowing, and expressing, the truth, in love.

This is why Catholicism gives us the sacraments, to throw open the channel of grace to God’s mystery, so that we might approach God, and participate in these truths with our whole heart, whole mind, and whole soul. This is not fundamentalism.

Read through Paul’s epistles, and you will find a man who is certain of the truths he believes, gives his whole life to Christ, and is unashamed to proclaim the truth, as God has given him the vocation to do. I’m sure he would be derided as a fundamentalist today, given the boundary-less interpreters of the Pope’s words.

 

[Brendan]

Interesting that in order to prove fundamentalism exists, some resort to an erroneous idea of mystery. Mystery derives from the Greek “mysterion”. Mysterion translates into the Latin “sacramentum” or “sacrament”. An outward sign of a deeper reality, that effects (makes real) what it signifies.
.

In all fairness, there is a definition of what a Mystery that is used by the Church is. It is an object of knowledge of which some truths are unknown. This is distinct from being a Sacrament. As both Thomas and I agree, there are an infinite number of truths regarding the Persons of the Trinity. Hence, the Trinity is a Mystery.

Where Thomas fails in his understanding, in that very state of being a Mystery does not exclude the known truths about that object from being absolute.

His assumption that such an exclusion exists has no support in Church teaching.

 

[Thomas_White]

In all fairness, there is a definition of what a Mystery that is used by the Church is. It is an object of knowledge of which some truths are unknown. This is distinct from being a Sacrament. As both Thomas and I agree, there are an infinite number of truths regarding the Persons of the Trinity. Hence, the Trinity is a Mystery.

Where Thomas fails in his understanding, in that very state of being a Mystery does not exclude the known truths about that object from being absolute.

His assumption that such an exclusion exists has no support in Church teaching.

What I think is that what is “an ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all human understanding” (CCC 251) cannot be known by a person as objective knowledge.

“In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop its own terminology with the help of certain words of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person or hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this she did not subject the faith to human wisdom…” (CCC 251, emphasis added).

 

[Brendan]

What I think is that what is “an ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all human understanding” (CCC 251) cannot be known by a person as objective knowledge.

Given that there are, as well agreed, an infinite number of truths, I agree that there will be SOME truths are remain unknown, even in Heaven.

How does some thruths being unknown exclude other truths from being known?

You claim it as a thought of your, what is the reasons for such a though? Is it rooted in Church teaching? Are there rational arguments to support your conclusion? or a matter of personal opinion?

“In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop its own terminology with the help of certain words of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person or hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this she did not subject the faith to human wisdom…” (CCC 251, emphasis added).

Agreed, but “Holy” “Spirit” “Son” “Father” and “God” are not on that vey specific list. In fact, God has used those terms Himself in direct revelation to us, so they cannot be said to be terms developed by the Church.

So when the Church makes statements “God the Son is God” it is not using Church developed terms of philosophical origin, but rather terms God Himself has used.

 

[Thomas_White]

Given that there are, as well agreed, an infinite number of truths, I agree that there will be SOME truths are remain unknown, even in Heaven.

I have not agreed there are an infinite number of truths concerning the Trinity. I would certainly think the “absolute truth” is the whole truth and nothing less. I cannot conceive that a part of the Trinity could be the whole and “absolute truth” of it. The Trinity is what it IS: An Indivisable Oneness.

How does some thruths being unknown exclude other truths from being known?

You claim it as a thought of your, what is the reasons for such a though? Is it rooted in Church teaching? Are there rational arguments to support your conclusion? or a matter of personal opinion?

No, I have not claimed this at all. I have pointed out several times that CCC 251 provides that the dogma of the Trinity uses terminology that signifies what is “an ineffable mystery”. I don’t know how to make this any clearer than what CCC 251 provides.

Agreed, but “Holy” “Spirit” “Son” “Father” and “God” are not on that vey specific list. In fact, God has used those terms Himself in direct revelation to us, so they cannot be said to be terms developed by the Church.

So when the Church makes statements “God the Son is God” it is not using Church developed terms of philosophical origin, but rather terms God Himself has used.

It is said “God is the Son of God” but also that “The Son of God is God”. Is this not beyond human understanding? Or is it that Christ can be literally understood by man as both Father and Son of himself?

CCC 251 includes the words “and so on”. It is my belief that the word “God” signifies what is ineffable and infinitely beyond all human understanding. I do not think it possible to know, as objective knowledge, what is “an ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all human understanding”, for how could a person possibly know what is beyond all human understanding? This defies logic and reason. But to construe this to mean that one does not believe in God’s existence would be a complete misunderstanding. I think, there is, at least in part, a confusion of terminology.

The OP of the thread concerns Pope Francis’ comment that “We Catholics have some–not some, many–who believe they possess the absolute truth…” My understanding of the comment is that it is an error for a person to believe they possess the objective knowledge of an “ineffable mystery”. I further believe this is the error of both legalism and fundamentalism, and that what is missing in the error is faith and the experience of spirituality. In some instances, this could be merely a misunderstanding of terminology; in other instances it could be the insistence that one knows, as objective knowledge, the “absolute truth” of what is an ineffable mystery.

 

[LongingSoul]

Agreed, but “Holy” “Spirit” “Son” “Father” and “God” are not on that vey specific list. In fact, God has used those terms Himself in direct revelation to us, so they cannot be said to be terms developed by the Church.

So when the Church makes statements “God the Son is God” it is not using Church developed terms of philosophical origin, but rather terms God Himself has used.

God actually didn’t write the bible ‘in His own hand’. The words were given to men who translated according to their ability. So while the bible is the inspired word of God… it isn’t Gods actual words. That would imply we have God limited to our concept of Him as a person with a pen and maybe a dictionary. I mean Adam and Eve were our first parents. That is true… but it’s obvious to modern man that the world couldn’t possibly have originated from one man and one woman so the word Adam and the word Eve while still validly used, mean something really different, even contradictory to humans original concept of Adam and Eve. Of course, fundamentalists may reject any possibility that it could mean something larger and maintain that the Truth is that there was only one individual man and one individual woman as per the belief of the first Old Testament people.