Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[Thomas_White]

I understand that, but is it wrong to discuss the Pope’s statement in light of how the Church defines things.

Maybe so, but I did not raise the issue of the Trinity with respect to what Pope Francis said about fundamentalism and absolute truth.

I think what LongingSoul quoted from Aquinas in comment #448 provides the deeper understanding of the question.

 

[Brendan]

Here is Longings post again

The philosophers did not know the mystery of the trinity of the divine persons by its proper attributes, such as paternity, filiation, and procession, according to the Apostle’s words, “We speak the wisdom of God which none of the princes of the world”–i.e. the philosophers–“knew” (1 Corinthians 2:6). Nevertheless, they knew some of the essential attributes appropriated to the persons, as power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, goodness to the Holy Ghost; as will later on appear. So, when Aristotle said, “By this number,” etc., we must not take it as if he affirmed a threefold number in God, but that he wished to say that the ancients used the threefold number in their sacrifices and prayers on account of some perfection residing in the number three.

Yes, I know that neither Socrates and Aristotle were not able to deduce the Triune nature of God.

I specifically mentioned that it in post 530, along with the Church’s definition of what a Mystery is.

Aquinas simply is confirming what I already posted.

So what, exactly was your point in this?

Are you trying to claim that Aquinas was wrong and Aristotle really DID have knowledge of the Trinity

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

Maybe the Pope was trying to say that truth must be accompanied by charity, and that one cannot go without the other? So called “Fundamentalists” in my opinion do no believe in charity and compassion, whether or not what they are advocating is in fact the truth.

 

[Brendan]

Maybe the Pope was trying to say that truth must be accompanied by charity, and that one cannot go without the other? So called “Fundamentalists” in my opinion do no believe in charity and compassion, whether or not what they are advocating is in fact the truth.

That is what I have been trying to say all along

 

[Thomas_White]

Here is Longings post again

Yes, I know that neither Socrates and Aristotle were not able to deduce the Triune nature of God.

I specifically mentioned that it in post 530, along with the Church’s definition of what a Mystery is.

Aquinas simply is confirming what I already posted.

Now Saint Thomas Aquinas is confirming what Brendan posted? :juggle:

Brendan:

So what, exactly was your point in this?

This was your quote in comment #530:

“MYSTERY. A divinely revealed truth whose very possibility cannot be rationally conceived before it is revealed and, after revelation, whose inner essence cannot be fully understood by the finite [limited] mind. The incomprehensibity of revealed mysteries derives from the fact that they are manifestations of God, who is infinite [unlimited; absolute] and therefore beyond the complete grasp of a created [limited] intellect.”

Brendan:

Are you trying to claim that Aquinas was wrong and Aristotle really DID have knowledge of the Trinity

No. “The incomprehensibility of revealed mysteries…” Are you trying to claim you comprehend the incomprehensible revealed mystery of the Trinity?

 

[LongingSoul]

Longing, to save time, could you review the definitions of ‘absolute’ that have been posted, and let me know which one you are using.

That would help me address your points better

Thanks

It doesn’t help me to review its meaning as a noun because I’ve always understood it as the adjective necessary to the noun Truth and to be taken as a concept that expresses the inexpressible. The adjective means…

absolute (adj.)

late 14c., “unrestricted; complete, perfect;” also “not relative to something else” (mid-15c.), from Middle French absolut (14c., Old French asolu, Modern French absolu), from Latin absolutus, past participle of absolvere “to set free, make separate” (see absolve).

Most of the current senses also were in the Latin word. Sense evolution was “detached, disengaged,” thus “perfect, pure.” Meaning “despotic” (1610s) is from notion of “absolute in position.” Absolute monarchy is recorded from 1735 (absolute king is recorded from 1610s); scientific absolute magnitude (1902), absolute value (1907) are from early 20c. In metaphysics, the absolute “that which is absolute” is from 1809.

So for example ‘absolute monarch’ wouldn’t describe the reigning monarch him or herself, but it describes the authority behind the role. The reigning monarch represents the absolute authority which warrants the role, but he himself is not the ‘absolute monarch’. You couldn’t have said this king is the ‘absolute monarch’ and then the next ruling king is also the ‘absolute monarch’.

Same with absolute truth. Absolute Truth is the source of authority of Church teachings but the teachings themselves aren’t ‘absolute truth’. We submit to them wholly as teachings but they themselves aren’t the voice of God. They are the Churchs interpretation of the word of God. An example of how that might pan out in real life would be Joan of Arc. The heresies that she was executed for were to do with her obedience to the voices of the Saints she was hearing telling her to fight and live a certain way which went against Church teaching. Her charge read

“‘she does not submit herself to the judgment of the Church Militant, or to that of living men, but to God alone,’ whom, [the University of Paris] said, she claimed to know through her diabolical voices.”

That is an example of the fundamentalism of the time. The Church Militant believed that they possessed absolute truth and that no other voices could represent the word of God. However, it had to be conceded by them finally after her death unfortunately, that Joan was indeed hearing from God through private prophecy. Church teachings are teachings and while they reflect absolute truth, they are not absolute truth in and of themselves.

 

[Brendan]

It doesn’t help me to review its meaning as a noun because I’ve always understood it as the adjective necessary to the noun Truth and to be taken as a concept that expresses the inexpressible. The adjective means…

absolute (adj.)

late 14c., “unrestricted; complete, perfect;” also “not relative to something else” (mid-15c.), from Middle French absolut (14c., Old French asolu, Modern French absolu), from Latin absolutus, past participle of absolvere “to set free, make separate” (see absolve).

Most of the current senses also were in the Latin word. Sense evolution was “detached, disengaged,” thus “perfect, pure.” Meaning “despotic” (1610s) is from notion of “absolute in position.” Absolute monarchy is recorded from 1735 (absolute king is recorded from 1610s); scientific absolute magnitude (1902), absolute value (1907) are from early 20c. In metaphysics, the absolute “that which is absolute” is from 1809.

So for example ‘absolute monarch’ wouldn’t describe the reigning monarch him or herself, but it describes the authority behind the role. The reigning monarch represents the absolute authority which warrants the role, but he himself is not the ‘absolute monarch’. You couldn’t have said this king is the ‘absolute monarch’ and then the next ruling king is also the ‘absolute monarch’.

Same with absolute truth. Absolute Truth is the source of authority of Church teachings but the teachings themselves aren’t ‘absolute truth’. We submit to them wholly as teachings but they themselves aren’t the voice of God. They are the Churchs interpretation of the word of God. An example of how that might pan out in real life would be Joan of Arc. The heresies that she was executed for were to do with her obedience to the voices of the Saints she was hearing telling her to fight and live a certain way which went against Church teaching. Her charge read

“‘she does not submit herself to the judgment of the Church Militant, or to that of living men, but to God alone,’ whom, [the University of Paris] said, she claimed to know through her diabolical voices.”

That is an example of the fundamentalism of the time. The Church Militant believed that they possessed absolute truth and that no other voices could represent the word of God. However, it had to be conceded by them finally after her death unfortunately, that Joan was indeed hearing from God through private prophecy. Church teachings are teachings and while they reflect absolute truth, they are not absolute truth in and of themselves.

Your definition does not follow your logic.

If it did it would imply that the Church’s teachings would not be completely true, in that they contain falsehood.

And what of the revealed truths, they, by definition ARE the voice of God. Are they not perfectly true?

In fact, those revelations are what give the Church the authority that you speak of, the absolute truths. So in that, we agree.

 

[Brendan]

Now Saint Thomas Aquinas is confirming what Brendan posted? :juggle:

More specifically, I had posted that the truth of the Trinity could not be determined from Reason alone. Aquinas agreed ( Longing post came from ST

The incomprehensibity of revealed mysteries derives from the fact that they are manifestations of God, who is infinite [unlimited; absolute] and therefore beyond the complete grasp of a created [limited] intellect."

I noticed that you only selectively quoted me, and forgot this part

Nevertheless, though incomprehensible, mysteries are intelligible

What does that statement mean to you? What does it mean for something to be intelligible?

No. “The incomprehensibility of revealed mysteries…” Are you trying to claim you comprehend the incomprehensible revealed mystery of the Trinity?

Yes, they could not be determined by Reason alone, which was the Summa question from which these were taken

Here is the actually question

Objection 1. It would seem that the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason. For philosophers came to the knowledge of God not otherwise than by natural reason. Now we find that they said many things about the trinity of persons, for Aristotle says (De Coelo et Mundo i, 2): “Through this number”–namely, three–“we bring ourselves to acknowledge the greatness of one God, surpassing all things created.” And Augustine says (Confess. vii, 9): “I have read in their works, not in so many words, but enforced by many and various reasons, that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” and so on; in which passage the distinction of persons is laid down. We read, moreover, in a gloss on Romans 1 and Exodus 8 that the magicians of Pharaoh failed in the third sign–that is, as regards knowledge of a third person–i.e. of the Holy Ghost --and thus it is clear that they knew at least two persons. Likewise Trismegistus says: “The monad begot a monad, and reflected upon itself its own heat.” By which words the generation of the Son and procession of the Holy Ghost seem to be indicated. Therefore knowledge of the divine persons can be obtained by natural reason.

And St. Thomas’ full response

Reply to Objection 1. The philosophers did not know the mystery of the trinity of the divine persons by its proper attributes, such as paternity, filiation, and procession, according to the Apostle’s words, “We speak the wisdom of God which none of the princes of the world”–i.e. the philosophers–“knew” (1 Corinthians 2:6). Nevertheless, they knew some of the essential attributes appropriated to the persons, as power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, goodness to the Holy Ghost; as will later on appear. So, when Aristotle said, “By this number,” etc., we must not take it as if he affirmed a threefold number in God, but that he wished to say that the ancients used the threefold number in their sacrifices and prayers on account of some perfection residing in the number three. In the Platonic books also we find, “In the beginning was the word,” not as meaning the Person begotten in God, but as meaning the ideal type whereby God made all things, and which is appropriated to the Son. And although they knew these were appropriated to the three persons, yet they are said to have failed in the third sign–that is, in the knowledge of the third person, because they deviated from the goodness appropriated to the Holy Ghost, in that knowing God “they did not glorify Him as God” (Romans 1); or, because the Platonists asserted the existence of one Primal Being whom they also declared to be the father of the universe, they consequently maintained the existence of another substance beneath him, which they called “mind” or the “paternal intellect,” containing the idea of all things, as Macrobius relates (Som. Scip. iv). They did not, however, assert the existence of a third separate substance which might correspond to the Holy Ghost. So also we do not assert that the Father and the Son differ in substance, which was the error of Origen and Arius, who in this followed the Platonists. When Trismegistus says, “Monad begot monad,” etc., this does not refer to the generation of the Son, or to the procession of the Holy Ghost, but to the production of the world. For one God produced one world by reason of His love for Himself.

BTW, not that even the pagan philosophers were able to deduce a number of the attributes appropriate to the Triune God.

We know of one as well, the Triune Nature. That was revealed to us.

It is a truth that is universally valid, thus an absolute truth.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Brendan]

“MYSTERY. A divinely revealed truth whose very possibility cannot be rationally conceived before it is revealed and, after revelation, whose inner essence cannot be fully understood by the finite [limited] mind. The incomprehensibity of revealed mysteries derives from the fact that they are manifestations of God, who is infinite [unlimited; absolute] and therefore beyond the complete grasp of a created [limited] intellect.”

Interesting additions, BTW.

Are you still trying to claim that Pope Francis’ understanding of the term ‘absolute’ is at the grade school level

I, for one, am fully willing to grant to him at least Collegiate level understanding of the term

 

[Brendan]

And here are a couple of defintions, both the Stdent and Collegiate Websters

Simple Definition of intelligible

1
: able to be understood; especially : clear enough to be heard, read, etc.

Full Definition of intelligible
1
: apprehensible by the intellect only

2
: capable of being understood or comprehended

So when the Church says that the Mysteries are Intelligible, what does She mean?

 

[LongingSoul]

Your definition does not follow your logic.

If it did it would imply that the Church’s teachings would not be completely true, in that they contain falsehood.

And what of the revealed truths, they, by definition ARE the voice of God. Are they not perfectly true?

In fact, those revelations are what give the Church the authority that you speak of, the absolute truths. So in that, we agree.

Lets take an example that was actually the first discussion that I began contributing to here many years back… that of the death penalty and the Church’s changing teaching.

It was an eye opener to me because as an Australian and from a state that abolished the death penalty nearly a century ago, I find no contradiction in the teaching whatsoever. However there was a very strong viewpoint that Pope StJPII’s teaching as contained in CCC2267, was not actually doctrine because the doctrine had been defined centuries ago by other Father theologians of the Church. The words contained in 2267 were being argued as something separate from doctrine. As prudential judgements of a current Pope outside of the deposit of faith. Something to be ignored depending on your personal reading of the competency/authenticity of the current Pope and his authority to teach.

The argument went that it contradicted doctrine and doctrine can’t change. The charge was constantly if that is the doctrine now was the doctrine in the past wrong? The whole idea that doctrine is God, instead of that it is an interpretation of scripture for human teaching purposes, causes so many skewed ideas of God. The word doctrine itself means ‘teaching’ not ‘truth’. It is an interpretation of truth for the purpose of teaching.

 

[Brendan]

Lets take an example that was actually the first discussion that I began contributing to here many years back… that of the death penalty and the Church’s changing teaching.

It was an eye opener to me because as an Australian and from a state that abolished the death penalty nearly a century ago, I find no contradiction in the teaching whatsoever. However there was a very strong viewpoint that Pope StJPII’s teaching as contained in CCC2267, was not actually doctrine because the doctrine had been defined centuries ago by other Father theologians of the Church. The words contained in 2267 were being argued as something separate from doctrine. As prudential judgements of a current Pope outside of the deposit of faith. Something to be ignored depending on your personal reading of the competency/authenticity of the current Pope and his authority to teach.

The argument went that it contradicted doctrine and doctrine can’t change. The charge was constantly if that is the doctrine now was the doctrine in the past wrong? The whole idea that doctrine is God, instead of that it is an interpretation of scripture for human teaching purposes, causes so many skewed ideas of God. The word doctrine itself means ‘teaching’ not ‘truth’. It is an interpretation of truth for the purpose of teaching.

I agree with (on multiple fronts), and I agree that teachings derived by reason are not absolute

But what about the revealed words of Christ? You mentioned the absolute truth, the Source of Authority itself being absolute truth, that would be Divine Revelation, so every direct teaching revealed by God is absolute truth.

Correct?

 

[LongingSoul]

I agree with (on multiple fronts), and I agree that teachings derived by reason are not absolute

But what about the revealed words of Christ? You mentioned the absolute truth, the Source of Authority itself being absolute truth, that would be Divine Revelation, so every direct teaching revealed by God is absolute truth.

Correct?

So are you suggesting that ‘absolute truth’ as taught by the Council of Trent concerning the death penalty can change and now be the new ‘absolute truth’ as taught by the Catechism post Vatican II. Absolute Truth can change so to speak?

 

[Brendan]

So are you suggesting that ‘absolute truth’ as taught by the Council of Trent concerning the death penalty can change and now be the new ‘absolute truth’ as taught by the Catechism post Vatican II. Absolute Truth can change so to speak?

I don’t see how the teachings of Trent have changed, but that is for another thread.

 

[Thomas_White]

Now Saint Thomas Aquinas is confirming what Brendan posted? :juggle:

This was your quote in comment #530:

“MYSTERY. A divinely revealed truth whose very possibility cannot be rationally conceived before it is revealed and, after revelation, whose inner essence cannot be fully understood by the finite [limited] mind. The incomprehensibity of revealed mysteries derives from the fact that they are manifestations of God, who is infinite [unlimited; absolute] and therefore beyond the complete grasp of a created [limited] intellect.”

No. “The incomprehensibility of revealed mysteries…” Are you trying to claim you comprehend the incomprehensible revealed mystery of the Trinity?

I do not know what it means that what is an incomprehensible mystery is intelligible. I would say it is an attempt to convey what is beyond the limits of language and would itself present a mystery. However, I believe a literal understanding of the word “intelligible” would be an error in view of what follows in the quotation:

“One of the primary duties of believers is, through prayer, study and experience, to grow in faith, i.e., to develop an understanding of what has been revealed.” This follows the teaching of the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation, Dei Verbum.

Belief is thus essential.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t see how the teachings of Trent have changed, but that is for another thread.

I don’t either. I’m just saying that’s what the fundamentalists argue.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t see how the teachings of Trent have changed, but that is for another thread.

But the question remains how do you explain calling something ‘absolute’ which needs to be reformulated from age to age.

 

[Brendan]

I do not know what it means that what is an incomprehensible mystery is intelligible. I would say it is an attempt to convey what is beyond the limits of language and would itself present a mystery. However, I believe a literal understanding of the word “intelligible” would be an error in view of what follows in the quotation:

A dictionary that does not state literal meanings?

to develop an understanding of what has been revealed

Perhaps if it is a lack of understanding, then the onus would be on you to learn more about how the Church views Mysteries.

Note that there is the assumption that an understanding can be had, for we are called to develop such an understanding.

 

[Brendan]

But the question remains how do you explain calling something ‘absolute’ which needs to be reformulated from age to age.

reformulated or restated?

And, as I mentioned in previous posts, the absolute character of the truth is with the direct revelation, not with the logical derivatives. Hence Aquinas characterization of an absolute truth as one that is not contingent on any other truth.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t either. I’m just saying that’s what the fundamentalists argue.

Yes, there are some who claim that the DP is an intrinsic evil. That would be an error.