Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[Thomas_White]

If one goes to the Catholic Answers website and does a search sfor the term “Trinity,” one is presented with pages upon pages of documents about the Trinity. I’m pretty sure that the authors of these documents, from Church Fathers to theologians, are not fundamentalists or judgmentalists. I think we can have confidence in their writings.

It should be noted in passing that everything said or written in human language symbolizes some other reality. That’s the purpose of language. It’s purpose is to present reality in human language. Some realities, such as God, are greater than language can fully signify, to be sure. But even then, there can be true things stated about God, and false things, and there is a difference.

I don’t think that the authors of the Catechism of the Catholic Church are considering inserting before the table of contents a disclaimer page stating “Nothing in this book is to be taken as certain objective truth.” At least I hope there is not such a movement. For it would defeat the purpose of theology and even of divine revelation itself. It would say to God, “You cannot communicate with man, because man cannot understand you, so don’t even try.”

The question concerns the nature of the Trinity, and this teaching is provided in CCC 251.

 

[Brendan]

That would be true if and only if the word “Person” were given its literal meaning. CCC 251 specifically provides otherwise, and the correct teaching has been provided a number of times on this thread.

My question still stands though, I would claim that no matter how further our understanding of what is meant by “Person” develops, the answer would still remain the same, that there are 3.

That truth is not contingent on a human understanding of “Person”

Do you claim otherwise? Do you claim that the number is a variable, and there can be more or fewer as our understanding advances?

 

[JimG]

The question concerns the nature of the Trinity, and this teaching is provided in CCC 251.

Only in CCC 251? I suppose then, that we can discard all those other writings from the Fathers and teachers and theologians, and also discard CCC paragraphs 238 through 267, except for #251. Perhaps the next revision of the Catechism might consider eliminating all those other paragraphs, but I doubt it.

 

[Thomas_White]

My question still stands though, I would claim that no matter how further our understanding of what is meant by “Person” develops, the answer would still remain the same, that there are 3.

That truth is not contingent on a human understanding of “Person”

Do you claim otherwise? Do you claim that the number is a variable, and there can be more or fewer as our understanding advances?

If you are asking if I know the “absolute truth”, the answer is no. Simply stated, that 3=1 is beyond my comprehension.

Once again, it is noted that CCC 251 states the following:

"In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop its own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person” or “hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unpresedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand” (emphasis added).

As the teaching states, the Trinity is "an ineffable mystery, a question of faith the Church did not submit to “human wisdom”. While I can have faith the Trinity is “absolute truth”, I cannot articulate the meaning of “three Persons in one God”. That three is one is not a valid proposition, and this incomprehensible mystery cannot be solved by logic and reason. I do not believe that even the meaning of “three” can be articulated for, as CCC 42 provides, “Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God”. This does not mean a person can have no understanding but that this understanding is uncertain and not the “absolute truth”.

To say that “truth is not contingent on a human understanding of Person” is not disputed, but what is important is that what the word signifies is an “ineffable mystery”. I think what should be understood is that it is not me who is disputing the teachings of the Church by insisting that the “absolute truth” of the mystery of the Trinity can be known by man.

 

[Brendan]

If you are asking if I know the “absolute truth”, the answer is no. Simply stated, that 3=1 is beyond my comprehension.

.

3=1 is a logical impossibility, 3 IN 1, however is not.

But again, that was not my question.

To say that “truth is not contingent on a human understanding of Person” is not disputed, but what is important is that what the word signifies is an "ineffable mystery". I think what should be understood is that it is not me who is disputing the teachings of the Church by insisting that the “absolute truth” of the mystery of the Trinity can be known by man.

And once again, can any greater understanding of this mystery of Personhood into a number different from 3?

Or is that number alterable?

The only item of truth in debate here is the definition of “Person”.

And I am not "insisting that the “absolute truth” of the mystery of the Trinity "

but rather AN absolute truth can be known.

Do you not see the difference between the statements?

 

[Thomas_White]

Only in CCC 251? I suppose then, that we can discard all those other writings from the Fathers and teachers and theologians, and also discard CCC paragraphs 238 through 267, except for #251. Perhaps the next revision of the Catechism might consider eliminating all those other paragraphs, but I doubt it.

“Now this is the Catholic faith. We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without ever confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son’s is another, the Holy Spirit’s another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal” (CCC 267).

This teaching is not disputed, but as CCC 251 explains, the Trinity is an “ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”. A literal reading of 267 would be that there are three Persons who are God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and also one Godhead of the three Persons. That is four. But I do not believe this is the meaning of what is an “ineffable mystery”, for the “absolute truth” of the Trinity is beyond human comprehension.

Let us say that 1+1+1+1=3 is the “absolute truth” and that this is beyond our comprehension.

 

[JimG]

A literal reading of 267 would be that there are three Persons who are God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and also one Godhead of the three Persons. That is four. But I do not believe this is the meaning of what is an “ineffable mystery”, for the “absolute truth” of the Trinity is beyond human comprehension.

Let us say that 1+1+1+1=3 is the “absolute truth” and that this is beyond our comprehension.

No, that is a misreading of the doctrine and of the statement. One Godhead refers to God’s essence, which is One. We can refer to God’s nature, essence, or being. All the terms mean that there is only one divine nature, one God. The Persons are not distinct natures, for each Person possesses wholly the one divine nature, not a different divine nature. The Persons are distinct, the divine nature is One.

In the same way, I am one human person with one human nature. That does not make me two entities, but one. I am only one entity, although I have a human nature and I am a human person. That is why the Church is so careful about the theological language to describe the Trinity. As G.K. Chesterton noted in his book “Orthodoxy,” there are many ways to go wrong, but only one way to go right.

 

[Thomas_White]

3=1 is a logical impossibility, 3 IN 1, however is not.

But again, that was not my question.

And once again, can any greater understanding of this mystery of Personhood into a number different from 3?

Or is that number alterable?

The only item of truth in debate here is the definition of “Person”.

And I am not "insisting that the “absolute truth” of the mystery of the Trinity "

but rather AN absolute truth can be known.

Do you not see the difference between the statements?

No, not if the Trinity is.three Persons in One Godhead". The discussion concerns the nature of the Trinity and not the indefinable meaning of “Person”. It is that the teaching in its entirety is beyond human understanding and that includes the number “three”, and I do not believe that this or any other “part” of the Trinity is comprehensible separate from the whole. See comment #417.

Brendan, if you believe you possess “absolute truth”, then that is your prerogative. But I am not going go to attempt to explain what the Church teaches (and which I believe) is the “ineffable mystery” of the Trinity that is “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”. As I see it, you are asking me to do something in which I have no belief.

 

[pullitr]

Fundamentalism typically denys Mercy, forgiveness, etc. It is typically based on personal/heretical understanding of scripture, doctrine, dogma, etc.

Fundamentalism is also typically a kind of idolatry where the individual or group places too much focus on one part of the religion and misconstrues or ignores the rest of the teachings.

Fundamentalism leads to Islamic Terrorists, Westboro Baptist Church, etc.

Fundamentalism often condones or commits violence and/or hateful language/acts against non-believers.

A few examples of potential Catholic Fundamentalists would be:
– Catholics who hate all Protestant and/or Orthodox Christians
– Catholics who claim Vatican II is not a valid council
– Catholics who claim all non-Catholics are automatically going to Hell
– Catholics who claim all baptised Catholics are automatically going to Heaven
– Catholics who refuse to socially interact or allow their children to interact with non-Catholics
– Catholics who believe Jews should be eliminated
– Catholics who believe the Holocaust is a lie.

Fundamentalism also leads some to take weird or nonsensical positions as well. Like people who refuse legitimate medical treatments out of religious objections to all medicine.

In regards to the Catholic Church, any one who is truly faithful to the Church is NOT a “fundamentalist”

I pray this is helpful.

God Bless

I really appreciate what was written here by Phil and I think it bears truth! Fundamentalism is one of those dicey words that can often be misconstrued. Which in this case tends to draw out a bit of backlash. Yet, I think even though translation may not help the issue, the Pope bringing the issue into discussion is the more essential point.

So often, we get used to such scripted and precise language that we loose the sense of discussion that needs to take place. I actually perpetuate this as well by being afraid to post here on CAF because I may say something imprecise, the same is true at work when I lead Bible Study etc. It is no doubt important to discuss, be corrected, refined, and enter into relationship in that way. Of course the obvious point being, all the while the intention is not to mislead but to bring others to a greater awareness of truth.

The Holy Father isn’t a robot who can only spit out precise theological language at all times, to some degree he must be accessible, real, and part of that is loosing some precision. That is true in my case as well while serving in ministry. Inculturating the Gospel is tough work, especially reaching out to those who look dimly at religion in general, and especially if your audience is the world! For what it’s worth, it takes a special kind of communicator, talent wise, to be Pope and I think Francis does an excellent job (not to mention Grace which is assumed as a big part of Pope Francis’ strength).

I guess what bears reflection is, as Francis has challenged all of us, insiders can more or less easily use precise language all day long. But when it comes to reaching out, not everyone is in the same club or uses the same language or is from the same culture. Catholics can’t afford to be xenophobic, either on a spiritual level or a cultural level. What I mean to say is that our salvation depends upon Jesus Christ who gave us a mission when he Ascended to heaven. It wasn’t lurk at home and hang out with those who understand everything I handed on to you, It was to “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mat. 28:19). Part of that is opening the doors of mercy, being imprecise, being messy, entering into dialogue, etc. and if you say to yourself ‘thats not the Pope’s Job’ I’d argue that it is very much so, as it is the Pedogogy of God to example by action everything he wishes of his people. I think it’s key.

I think it’s a false dichotomy to place relationship vs. truth at opposite sides of the spectrum. The frank reality is that God’s nature is so far beyond our own, it takes years for someone to come to even the smallest respect and understanding for truth. There is no way to bring someone into the fold without having a real, human, relationship. It is something that takes place over time, in the same way as God took his people from Egypt to Canaan and then from Canaan to Babylon then from Babylon back again who still didn’t perceive what was to come. At Jesus’ Crucifixion the Apostles, though having spent the most amount of time with the exact flesh and blood of Jesus walking the earth still fled at the sight of the temple guards. It wasn’t until Pentecost when they ‘got it’. I think both truth and relationship are essential and thus this business of fundamentalism, we cant use God’s law to break peoples legs so that they come into the Church. It takes relationship, mercy, charity along with truth. Indifferent-ism is no longer a viable option, it never was, discipleship is and always was what we are all called to take part in.

 

[Brendan]

No, not if the Trinity is.three Persons in One Godhead". The discussion concerns the nature of the Trinity and not the indefinable meaning of “Person”. It is that the teaching in its entirety is beyond human understanding and that includes the number “three”, and I do not believe that this or any other “part” of the Trinity is comprehensible separate from the whole. See comment #417.

Yes, I read #417, nowhere in it do you show why a truth about the Trinity cannot be known. I have agreed that the full object of knowledge is beyond human comprehension, but you have not shown how that preclude humans from knowing, by revelation, that the NUMBER of Persons is 3.

My claim, once again, and it is fully in accord with Church teaching, that the Number of Persons in the Holy Trinity is Three. No more, no less. It is an objective reality, and an absolute truth.

You have shown NOTHING to prove to the contrary.

Brendan, if you believe you possess “absolute truth”, then that is your prerogative. But I am not going go to attempt to explain what the Church teaches (and which I believe) is the “ineffable mystery” of the Trinity that is “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”. As I see it, you are asking me to do something in which I have no belief.

You have misrepresented what is meant by 'ineffable mystery" quite a lot in this thread, but your misstatements do not prove your point.

 

[LongingSoul]

I really appreciate what was written here by Phil and I think it bears truth! Fundamentalism is one of those dicey words that can often be misconstrued. Which in this case tends to draw out a bit of backlash. Yet, I think even though translation may not help the issue, the Pope bringing the issue into discussion is the more essential point.

So often, we get used to such scripted and precise language that we loose the sense of discussion that needs to take place. I actually perpetuate this as well by being afraid to post here on CAF because I may say something imprecise, the same is true at work when I lead Bible Study etc. It is no doubt important to discuss, be corrected, refined, and enter into relationship in that way. Of course the obvious point being, all the while the intention is not to mislead but to bring others to a greater awareness of truth.

The Holy Father isn’t a robot who can only spit out precise theological language at all times, to some degree he must be accessible, real, and part of that is loosing some precision. That is true in my case as well while serving in ministry. Inculturating the Gospel is tough work, especially reaching out to those who look dimly at religion in general, and especially if your audience is the world! For what it’s worth, it takes a special kind of communicator, talent wise, to be Pope and I think Francis does an excellent job (not to mention Grace which is assumed as a big part of Pope Francis’ strength).

I guess what bears reflection is, as Francis has challenged all of us, insiders can more or less easily use precise language all day long. But when it comes to reaching out, not everyone is in the same club or uses the same language or is from the same culture. Catholics can’t afford to be xenophobic, either on a spiritual level or a cultural level. What I mean to say is that our salvation depends upon Jesus Christ who gave us a mission when he Ascended to heaven. It wasn’t lurk at home and hang out with those who understand everything I handed on to you, It was to “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mat. 28:19). Part of that is opening the doors of mercy, being imprecise, being messy, entering into dialogue, etc. and if you say to yourself ‘thats not the Pope’s Job’ I’d argue that it is very much so, as it is the Pedogogy of God to example by action everything he wishes of his people. I think it’s key.

I think it’s a false dichotomy to place relationship vs. truth at opposite sides of the spectrum. The frank reality is that God’s nature is so far beyond our own, it takes years for someone to come to even the smallest respect and understanding for truth. There is no way to bring someone into the fold without having a real, human, relationship. It is something that takes place over time, in the same way as God took his people from Egypt to Canaan and then from Canaan to Babylon then from Babylon back again who still didn’t perceive what was to come. At Jesus’ Crucifixion the Apostles, though having spent the most amount of time with the exact flesh and blood of Jesus walking the earth still fled at the sight of the temple guards. It wasn’t until Pentecost when they ‘got it’. I think both truth and relationship are essential and thus this business of fundamentalism, we cant use God’s law to break peoples legs so that they come into the Church. It takes relationship, mercy, charity along with truth. Indifferent-ism is no longer a viable option, it never was, discipleship is and always was what we are all called to take part in.

I certainly agree with you about the role of dialogue in the context of relationships with others. There’s a wonderful starting point in listening to the other express what God is to them and allow that to be rather than go off saying ‘no that’s not God. This is God’ (pulling out my bible or Catechism like Crocodile Dundee).

It’s impossible for one human being, even the Pope, to know the absolute Truth. The closest we come to that knowledge is in listening to the wisdom of others speaking of their experience of God and having a dialogue about our own experiences formed by family and the Church. We learn and grow from listening without judgement. Pope Francis is demonstrating that way so fearlessly. I love it. I used to feel that I was obliged to reiterate the letter of the law when someone expressed an experience of God that I didn’t think reflected Church teaching, but it did always feel like I’d wacked them on the head with a Catholic gavel. It’s actually coming quite comfortably to me to reflect what I do see as godly in another persons experience rather than to ‘Letter of the Law’ them by default.

It is a new way and we have to endure the accusations of ‘liberal progressive’ that will inevitably come with it but that presents another opportunity to show mercy to someone who may be acting out of misguided zeal.

 

[Thomas_White]

My claim, once again, and it is fully in accord with Church teaching, that the Number of Persons in the Holy Trinity is Three. No more, no less. It is an objective reality, and an absolute truth.

"In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop its own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person” or “hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unpresedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand” (CCC 251). (emphasis added)

I do not think that what is “infinitely beyond all what we can humanly understand”, and that would include the word “person” in your phrase “that the number of persons in the Holy Trinity is Three”, can be known as “an objective reality and an absolute truth”. But as I have said, if you believe you possess the “absolute truth” about the nature of the Trinity, that is your prerogative. But you must admit this is not Catholic teaching.

Is it your position that you understand what the CCC teaches is “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”?

No, of course not. The teaching is that this is beyond human understanding. It is why I said I cannot explain the nature of the Trinity.

We know this, of course. Are you saying you know Christ in the Eucharist in his entirety, not as a matter of faith and mystery, but by what your intellect has learned from Church doctrine?

No, I certainly have not said this (as you surely know) and I do not understand why you ask the question. See CCC #42.

You have shown NOTHING to prove to the contrary.

I have no idea what this means.

You have misrepresented what is meant by 'ineffable mystery" quite a lot in this thread, but your misstatements do not prove your point.

I have no idea why this is said, but it is not surprising. The words “ineffable mystery” would be rather difficult to misrepresent.

 

[Brendan]

"In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop its own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person” or “hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unpresedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand” (CCC 251). (emphasis added)

As I have agreed, the full nature of the Trinity is unknowable to a finite intellect. But it being a mystery does not preclude truths being known.

I do not think that what is “infinitely beyond all what we can humanly understand”, and that would include the word “person” in your phrase “that the number of persons in the Holy Trinity is Three”, can be known as “an objective reality and an absolute truth”. But as I have said, if you believe you possess the “absolute truth” about the nature of the Trinity, that is your prerogative. But you must admit this is not Catholic teaching.

Once again, I will ask you, will any deeper understanding of the term "person’ change the number of persons.

No, of course not. The teaching is that this is beyond human understanding. It is why I said I cannot explain the nature of the Trinity.

At what point did I request you to explain the full nature of the Trinity? What I asked was in regards to the number of persons. The number of persons is not the full nature of the Trinity. It can be (and is) a revealed truth, an objective truth, and an absolute one.

I have no idea what this means.

That your quotation of the Catechism does not

I have no idea why this is said, but it is not surprising. The words “ineffable mystery” would be rather difficult to misrepresent.

You misrepresent the Church teaching that the Trinity is an ineffable mystery to mean that we cannot know absolute truths about it.

The two are logically distinct. Thus the misrepresentation.

 

[Brendan]

It’s impossible for one human being, even the Pope, to know the absolute Truth.

It is possible for a person to know AN absolute truth.

The number of persons in the Trinity.

That is an absolute Truth. It is Divinely Revealed. It is unchanging, it is immutable.

No deeper understanding of what it means to be a “Divine Person” will ever change that number to be anything other than 3.

It is enternally an absolute truth, one that we know.

 

[Brendan]

Thomas,

I will put it succinctly.

Your claim seems to revolve around an ineffable mystery being counter to a knowable absolute truth. That an ineffable mystery cannot contain a finite absolute truth(s)

Please explain to me why this must be logically so.

 

[Thomas_White]

"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. 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…" (CCC 237) (emphasis added).

"The Divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the one unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another. ‘In the relational names of the persons, the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance’ " (CCC 255) (emphasis added).

To simply say the number of persons in the Trinity is an absolute truth is what is misleading. “The Divine persons are relative to one another” and “this does not divide the one unity”. “The real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in their relationships which relate them one to another.” It is in this way (and not literally) that “three persons” should be understood, for the “absolute truth” of this teaching, as well as what the word “person” signifies, is beyond human understanding. It is in this way that “the Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense.”

In my response to your replies, I have only attempted to provide my understanding of this teaching. While it is fine to disagree, I don’t really understand why I am repeatedly accused of misrepresenting this or that and being untruthful. My only charitable reply to that would again be to say if you wish to believe you possess the “absolute truth”, it is your prerogative.

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas,

I will put it succinctly.

Your claim seems to revolve around an ineffable mystery being counter to a knowable absolute truth. That an ineffable mystery cannot contain a finite absolute truth(s)

Please explain to me why this must be logically so.

It is not possible that an “ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”, could be known, and that would include “a knowable finite absolute truth” (whatever that might mean). What is beyond all we can humanly understand is simply not knowable by us, “a finite absolute truth” not withstanding.

 

[Brendan]

It is not possible that an “ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”, could be known, and that would include “a knowable finite absolute truth” (whatever that might mean). What is beyond all we can humanly understand is simply not knowable by us, “a finite absolute truth” not withstanding.

Simply restating the your premise is not proof.

WHY is a finite absolute truth, such as the number, not possible.

 

[Brendan]

"*"The Divine persons are relative to one another.* Because it does not divide the one unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another. ‘In the relational names of the persons, the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance’ " (CCC 255) (emphasis added).QUOTE]

Will any further understanding of that relationship or the substance either increase or decrease that number?

Will that relationship or substance change in essence to the extent that the number will change?

Or will it always remain three?

 

[Thomas_White]

"*"The Divine persons are relative to one another.*

Because it does not divide the one unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another. ‘In the relational names of the persons, the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance’ " (CCC 255) (emphasis added).QUOTE]

Will any further understanding of that relationship or the substance either increase or decrease that number?

Will that relationship or substance change in essence to the extent that the number will change?

Or will it always remain three?

Brendan, how would I know?

The number ‘3’ is not an “absolute truth”. It is a finite number. In formulating the teaching of the Trinity, it is said there are three persons in one God. CCC 251 provides that this is an attempt to express in human language what is an “ineffable mystery” (i.e., what is inexpressible in limited human language). I accept this teaching.

The “absolute truth” of the Trinity is “infinitely beyond all of our human understanding”. It is the belief that the number three “signifies” a relationship that cannot be expressed and is said to be “relative” (i.e., not absolute). This does not seem comprehensible (i.e., it remains a mystery) but the CCC teaches that this is Catholic belief. There is no claim that it is the “absolute truth”. This is very clear in the teaching.

It is Catholic dogma that Apostolic preaching advances through the centuries until its full revelation at the end of time. In this way, the number three cannot yet be said to be the “absolute truth”. While this is Catholic belief, it cannot even be said what it signifies. I do not know how the understanding of the Trinity will advance to the revelation of its “absolute truth”.

The number three is a concept, an idea of human understanding and not an “absolute truth”. I know this is not easily grasped, but I think it is far easier to grasp than would be knowledge of the infinite Being of God. It is difficult to put into words, but I believe the infinite Being of God could only be experienced and is beyond human understanding.