Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[LongingSoul]

All truths, by definition are incorporeal. even those in the Mind of God.

What Aquinas refers to a phantasms are what we call images. A great example is the Holy Spirit. We have images of the Spirit as a Dove and as a tongue of flame. That is how our mind envisions the object, the Holy Spirit.

The truth of an object is a property of the Object, not actually the object itself. So while we might use the phantasm of a dove ( a corporeal object) to remote to the object of the Holy Spirit, that does not impede us from knowing truths about the Holy Spirit.

I don’t really understand what you mean but it sounds like you might not be a believer in this branch of philosophy. I mentioned before that I only did one semester of philosophy and of that, the most interesting lesson was one on phenomenology. The lecture was not recorded as all lectures are and the Lecturer mentioned something of the nature that there was some hostility from modern philosophy towards this subject. He said however it was an important subject for the future. This was a Catholic University.

Your example of the Holy Spirit and the dove is way off. Incorporeal things don’t have phantasms. The dove is a symbol of the Holy Spirit but not a phantasm. Phantasms are the sort of ‘spiritual’ properties of corporeal things. They are detected/abstracted by the senses at first and then dealt with by the mind to understand the fuller meaning of corporeal things than just what the matter conveys.

It’s a faculty has supported the advancement of civilization since the beginning but today we can see it ignored and rejected by those who promote gay marriage and the like.

 

[Thomas_White]

In the Thomisic sense, it would be revealed truth alone, as it is non-contingent.

In the philosophical sense ( which I think is what we are discussing here), a truth that is universally valid, then truths determined a priori would be possible.

An object in Aquinas’ view is in relation to an intellect either essentially or accidentally. It is related essentially to an intellect on which its essential nature depends and only accidentally to an intellect to which it is knowable but not dependent. The essential truths of all natural objects depend on the divine intellect and are only accidentally related to the human intellect which is capable of knowing them, but it knows them only accidentally. This accidental (i.e., not essential) truth consists of things that conform to the human intellect and are thus relativistic if not subjectivistic.

 

[Brendan]

An object in Aquinas’ view is in relation to an intellect either essentially or accidentally. It is related essentially to an intellect on which its essential nature depends and only accidentally to an intellect to which it is knowable but not dependent. The essential truths of all natural objects depend on the divine intellect and are only accidentally related to the human intellect which is capable of knowing them, but it knows them only accidentally. This accidental (i.e., not essential) truth consists of things that conform to the human intellect and are thus relativistic if not subjectivistic.

Yes, I agree, the example that Aquinas gave was that of a stone, we know it as stone in that it has a nature of ‘stone’ as God knows at stone to be.

That is how natural objects are understood and how a stone is said to be a true stone.

Next question, what is your point? Are we to discuss natural things now?

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, I agree, the example that Aquinas gave was that of a stone, we know it as stone in that it has a nature of ‘stone’ as God knows at stone to be.

That is how natural objects are understood and how a stone is said to be a true stone.

Next question, what is your point? Are we to discuss natural things now?

No, I don’t see that it is necessary, not when divine truth is a revelation of the real nature (essence) of an object before it has been subject to the limited human understanding. The view of Aquinas is asymetric, where the truth of the thing-in-itself is dependent on the truth of the intellect, but the truth of the intellect is not dependent on the truth of the thing-in-itself. This is subjective since the thing-in-itself, its essence, is not actually dependent on the intellect.

We have yet to see your explanation of how the “absolute truth” of what is “an ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond how we can humanly understand” can be known as “absolute truth”.

 

[Brendan]

We have yet to see your explanation of how the “absolute truth” of what is “an ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond how we can humanly understand” can be known as “absolute truth”.

Starting this again, I see.

The Trinity is Three Divine Persons in One Godhead.

That is an absolute truth. It is universally valid.

For it NOT to be an absolute truth would require that there be a circumstance where it NOT be true.

There will never be a circumstance where the number of persons is less or greater than Three, and the Divine Nature will never be divisible into more than one Nature.

How many Divine Natures do you claim exist? Or under what circumstances can the Divine Nature be divided?

Will any human understanding of what ‘Person’ means increase or decrease the number of Persons in the Divine Nature?

 

[Thomas_White]

Starting this again, I see.

The Trinity is Three Divine Persons in One Godhead.

That is an absolute truth. It is universally valid.

For it NOT to be an absolute truth would require that there be a circumstance where it NOT be true.

There will never be a circumstance where the number of persons is less or greater than Three, and the Divine Nature will never be divisible into more than one Nature.

How many Divine Natures do you claim exist? Or under what circumstances can the Divine Nature be divided?

Will any human understanding of what ‘Person’ means increase or decrease the number of Persons in the Divine Nature?

Only when an answer to the question of how a person could know the “absolute truth” of the Trinity, “an ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”, was the issue of the number of persons in the Trinity raised by citing a fantastic concept called a “finite absolute truth” (the number 3). This is not an answer to the question. No one has disputed the concept of the triune nature of the Trinity or suggested it could increase, decrease or otherwise change. This is only a question you have raised, and it has very little to do with what Pope Francis criticized in the OP, which was fundamentalism and the belief that a person possesses the “absolute truth”. You have attempted to demonstrate you possess the absolute truth and have presented an idiosyncratic but not logical understanding of what Pope Francis said.

However, there is the following from CCC 255:

"The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine 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 called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance." Indeed, “everything {in them} is one where there is no opposition of relationship” (CCC 255).

The persons are relative to each other and any distinction is real only insofar as it is relational. This reality is relative to the word “person”, which is used to signify what is beyond human understanding. The distinction between the “persons” is solely their (dynamic) relationship to one another as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

“Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son” (CCC 255).

In this formulation provided in CCC 251, the three “persons” are not really divided. They are called three persons, but the only real distinction among them is relative and what relates them to one another, as the second sentence of CCC 255 provides.

It would thus seem that the number 3 is not some sort of “finite absolute truth”.

 

[Kelly77]

I simply do not get it. Francis can meet and pray with protestants, muslims and jews but wont take part in a latin mass with “fundamentalist catholics”. Why isnt he ecumenical with them? I would love to understand!

 

[graciew]

I simply do not get it. Francis can meet and pray with protestants, muslims and jews but wont take part in a latin mass with “fundamentalist catholics”. Why isnt he ecumenical with them? I would love to understand!

It will be difficult.to understand…cause
he just did not say it.
And excuse me…but we are all Catholic ,no need to be ecumenical with ’ ourselves"when we are the Church. One Church.

 

[LongingSoul]

I simply do not get it. Francis can meet and pray with protestants, muslims and jews but wont take part in a latin mass with “fundamentalist catholics”. Why isnt he ecumenical with them? I would love to understand!

You’ll have to link to that story about his refusing to take part in the latin Mass. I haven’t heard of it. I’m not sure if you read the thread but fundamentalism is a bad thing.

 

[HeartnSoulMan]

Pope Francis is misquoted but I think he means to leave issues and statement open ended to instigate misquotes. I think he intends to revolutionize the church. I hope that is not the case. It is no secret that our church has been infiltrated by communists, militant gays and many other anti catholic organizations seeking to destroy the church from the inside.

Either pope Francis is allowing these misquotes to allow the evil minions at work in the church to believe they are supported by the Vatican in order to give them enough rope to hand themselves by allowing them to expose their bad intentions. Or he is one of the minions with bad intentions.

If we are to take St Malachi’s list of the pope until the second coming strictly then Pope Francis is the last pope. If that is true we don’t actually need the pope to be a good guy because enough of the hierarchy is in place to carry the true church through until Jesus returns.

In either case we are very likely to see the greatest division and schism in the church since the church was set on the shoulders of Peter. There may very well be a modernist church and a traditional church remain but which will be the larger group.

In my opinion many things that are now part of our liturgy are at best a heartache to the church. We should never have allowed communion in the hand or communion under both species. Many saints from the past fought to get rid of communion under both species and they succeeded. St Thomas Aquinas was against communion under both species because in the end normal catholic begin to believe that they are receiving the body of Christ under one species and the blood in the other. When both are the body blood soul and divinity and you gain nothing extra by reception of both species. To believe that somehow they are different or that one is the body and one the blood is heresy.

Now there is talk of communion to divorced remarried Catholics this is heresy to permit those people who intend to continue to commit adultery to receive holy communion. Any pope or Bishop who adopts such a stand is not really catholic and should not be followed or obeyed. The pope if he refuses to accept the dogmas of the church would himself become a heretic and not only no longer be pope but no longer be catholic suffering immediate excommunication. So if by fundamentalist they mean those who love and adhere to the unchangeable teachings of the church it is them in error.

There is an inroad being presented to us the there are people in the church in high positions who want to see that we promote homosexual rights and same sex marriage acceptance. This is probably just the lies of priest and bishops who are infiltrators speaking as if this was serious when it is mostly absurdity. No one should follow contribute to or obey any bishop or priest who holds such a position.

If a man is discovered to be gay they are not permitted to ordain them. This means that gay priest are a result of deceit in presenting themselves for ordination without revealing their known sexual perverse desires. This brings into site the actual ordination of such priests. If they were ignorant of the fact that we do not ordain homosexual men then their ordination is authentic. If they hid their orientation for the purpose of being ordained a gay man then I question the legitimacy of their ordination. If their ordination was invalid because they are infiltrators no Catholics in their parishes receive sacraments especially not holy communion or confession.

We are at war with principalities and powers. The devil according to Pope Leo was given 100 years and extra power over anyone who would serve him in his quest to destroy the Church. The last battle may soon be approaching we must make ourselves spiritually ready for combat.

 

[LongingSoul]

There is an inroad being presented to us the there are people in the church in high positions who want to see that we promote homosexual rights and same sex marriage acceptance. This is probably just the lies of priest and bishops who are infiltrators speaking as if this was serious when it is mostly absurdity. No one should follow contribute to or obey any bishop or priest who holds such a position.

If there’s one thing the bible gives timeless clarity on, it is that homosexual acts are some of the most grave and abominable sins man can commit. If there is one thing nature gives timeless clarity on, it is that homosexual acts have no accommodation whatsoever in biology and that sodomy defies all positive indications of nature in a number of ways.

The Church is never going to give blessing to lifestyle of such a behaviour so I don’t think any of us need to worry on that count. Look at it like a red herring. Ask yourself what does this red herring serve?

Pope Francis, privy to the battles of the last few Pope trying to enact the reforms of Vatican II, has a mission to clear the obstacles presented by people that oppose Vatican II. I think that is where we look to find the authors of this homosexual lobby’s agenda. The Pope is a savvy man and I for one trust him to lead the Church to a better place, prepared by Gods mercy to face the final coming.

 

[Thomas_White]

Now there is talk of communion to divorced remarried Catholics this is heresy to permit those people who intend to continue to commit adultery to receive holy communion. Any pope or Bishop who adopts such a stand is not really catholic and should not be followed or obeyed. The pope if he refuses to accept the dogmas of the church would himself become a heretic and not only no longer be pope but no longer be catholic suffering immediate excommunication. So if by fundamentalist they mean those who love and adhere to the unchangeable teachings of the church it is them in error.

The synod of bishops did not recommend that “divorced and remarried Catholics” should be permitted to receive communion. So why it is supposed that the pope or bishops would ever refuse to accept the dogmas of the Church? The dogmatic constitution on divine revelation, Dei Verbum is just that, Catholic dogma. Church teaching has always advanced and will continue to do so until the end of time.

In any event, baptism is a Sacrament. Even an excommunicated Catholic forever remains a Catholic.

 

[fred_conty]

Pope Francis is misquoted but I think he means to leave issues and statement open ended to instigate misquotes. I think he intends to revolutionize the church. I hope that is not the case. It is no secret that our church has been infiltrated by communists, militant gays and many other anti catholic organizations seeking to destroy the church from the inside.

Either pope Francis is allowing these misquotes to allow the evil minions at work in the church to believe they are supported by the Vatican in order to give them enough rope to hand themselves by allowing them to expose their bad intentions. Or he is one of the minions with bad intentions.

If we are to take St Malachi’s list of the pope until the second coming strictly then Pope Francis is the last pope. If that is true we don’t actually need the pope to be a good guy because enough of the hierarchy is in place to carry the true church through until Jesus returns.

In either case we are very likely to see the greatest division and schism in the church since the church was set on the shoulders of Peter. There may very well be a modernist church and a traditional church remain but which will be the larger group.

In my opinion many things that are now part of our liturgy are at best a heartache to the church. We should never have allowed communion in the hand or communion under both species. Many saints from the past fought to get rid of communion under both species and they succeeded. St Thomas Aquinas was against communion under both species because in the end normal catholic begin to believe that they are receiving the body of Christ under one species and the blood in the other. When both are the body blood soul and divinity and you gain nothing extra by reception of both species. To believe that somehow they are different or that one is the body and one the blood is heresy.

Now there is talk of communion to divorced remarried Catholics this is heresy to permit those people who intend to continue to commit adultery to receive holy communion. Any pope or Bishop who adopts such a stand is not really catholic and should not be followed or obeyed. The pope if he refuses to accept the dogmas of the church would himself become a heretic and not only no longer be pope but no longer be catholic suffering immediate excommunication. So if by fundamentalist they mean those who love and adhere to the unchangeable teachings of the church it is them in error.

There is an inroad being presented to us the there are people in the church in high positions who want to see that we promote homosexual rights and same sex marriage acceptance. This is probably just the lies of priest and bishops who are infiltrators speaking as if this was serious when it is mostly absurdity. No one should follow contribute to or obey any bishop or priest who holds such a position.

If a man is discovered to be gay they are not permitted to ordain them. This means that gay priest are a result of deceit in presenting themselves for ordination without revealing their known sexual perverse desires. This brings into site the actual ordination of such priests. If they were ignorant of the fact that we do not ordain homosexual men then their ordination is authentic. If they hid their orientation for the purpose of being ordained a gay man then I question the legitimacy of their ordination. If their ordination was invalid because they are infiltrators no Catholics in their parishes receive sacraments especially not holy communion or confession.

We are at war with principalities and powers. The devil according to Pope Leo was given 100 years and extra power over anyone who would serve him in his quest to destroy the Church. The last battle may soon be approaching we must make ourselves spiritually ready for combat.

Jesus, at the Last Supper, commemorated the Passover meal by giving his Apostles his body and his blood. The body and the blood is a sign of his death, the separation. He told them that it commemorated what he was about to do … to sacrifice his life and become the pure lamb of the true Passover. So the memorial is not just about the Passover meal but also the Passover sacrifice with is symbolized by his body and his blood. If this were not important to Jesus, he would not have done it. And later he says, “he who eats my body and drinks my blood lives in me and I in him.” So Jesus does deem his body and blood important to his reception…his sacrifice.

The reception of communion by those who are remarried outside the church would be limited to only those who know that there former marriage(s) were invalid, but the proof for this cannot be established because circumstances make this impossible. Yet the person would be granted by the church that their former marriage(s) would be null and void if facts could now be shown, but circumstantially cannot be. So then the person in question could receive.

But all the details for this to take place have not been worked out. But it certainly wouldn’t be a sweeping rule that any remarried person could receive.

 

[Convert_in_99]

I like your definition of Catholic “fundamentalism”. Having said that, I don’t think I have ever encountered a Catholic who would hold such views.

You haven’t been on CAF very long, have you.

 

[Convert_in_99]

sorry for ressurecting an old thread.

 

[Thomas_White]

You haven’t been on CAF very long, have you.

Amen.

 

[lynnvinc]

The Pope is very clearly talking about behavior. Behavior that is inspired by a false understanding of very clear teaching. Jesus told us to love our enemies.

biblehub.com/matthew/5-44.htm

The Bible also warned us of false teachers. I have watched evil marketed as a product over the last 40 years. It is not modernization but encouraging degradation of yourself, your neighbor and even your religion.

amazon.com/The-Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption/dp/1581824599

Ed

That’s actually one of the problems with modernization – the dehumanization of people. We get into the mode of treating people as things. We are so wrapped up in a materialistic culture we become detached from people and from nature. The anonymity and secularism (in its most negative senses) of urban and global living.

Fundamentalism tries to reestablish the ole time religion and the sense of community of yesteryear by insisting on a strict adherence to what it considers to be the faith and a rooting out of not only modernization’s evils but also all other religions that are not in lock-step with it, including the mainstream branches of its own religions. However, this is often against the main trust of the actual religion (which preaches love, peace, and tolerance, etc). And this is true for all or most fundamentalisms – Christian, Protestant, Catholics, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic, etc. It offers simple solutions to complex and fairly intransigent issues, which actually require a lot more thought and effort for more effective solution.

I understand the attraction to fundamentalism, but we need to forego the temptation to find simple answers to complex problems and do the hard work of fighting against various evils of modernization (and fundamentalisms) by continuously striving to be good (magnanimous, big-hearted, and loving) in a basically bad world.

 

[PTL]

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

Would you please let us know where you got those definitions above? Thanks.
And how do you know those are the definitions Pope Francis is talking about?

 

[Thomas_White]

That’s actually one of the problems with modernization – the dehumanization of people. We get into the mode of treating people as things. We are so wrapped up in a materialistic culture we become detached from people and from nature. The anonymity and secularism (in its most negative senses) of urban and global living.

Fundamentalism tries to reestablish the ole time religion and the sense of community of yesteryear by insisting on a strict adherence to what it considers to be the faith and a rooting out of not only modernization’s evils but also all other religions that are not in lock-step with it, including the mainstream branches of its own religions. However, this is often against the main trust of the actual religion (which preaches love, peace, and tolerance, etc). And this is true for all or most fundamentalisms – Christian, Protestant, Catholics, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic, etc. It offers simple solutions to complex and fairly intransigent issues, which actually require a lot more thought and effort for more effective solution.

I understand the attraction to fundamentalism, but we need to forego the temptation to find simple answers to complex problems and do the hard work of fighting against various evils of modernization (and fundamentalisms) by continuously striving to be good (magnanimous, big-hearted, and loving) in a basically bad world.

Well said.