Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[JimG]

That is the point. It is not that there is no absolute truth but that man does not yet know the absolute truth. To say that there are three distinct persons in one person defies reason. It just does–three distinct persons who are one person is not a logical possibility. To claim to understand the Trininity, as knowledge, is what is not believable. The Trinity is a mystery, and Catholics accept that it is a mystery as a matter of faith. This is the point.

To say there are three “divine persons” is fine and a way to point toward an understanding, but it tells us nothing of the incomprehensible nature of divinity.

While Catholic teaching is that Christ is present, body and blood, in the Eucharist, I assure you that Catholic teaching is not that the Host is physically the body and blood of Christ. This too is a mystery. And, again, to proclaim that one understands this mystery, as knowledge of the intellect rather than faith, is not believable. it also should be realized this is not a challenge to doctrine. As you say, “we can develop in our understanding”.

It is not Catholic doctrine that “there are three distinct persons in one person.” That has never been Catholic teaching. The doctrine of the Trinity is that that there are three divine Persons each wholly possessing the ONE divine nature. There is one God (divine nature), three Persons.

Catholic teaching on the Eucharist does not say that Christ is “physically” present. It does say that he is “corporeally” present. He is present in his entirety: his whole body with all its parts, his soul and divinity, his blood, all of Him. “Physically” refers to something that is apparent to the senses–in other words, the appearances. The appearances of the bread and wine remain. The underlying reality has changed into Jesus. He is present in his entirety, not just in some ‘spiritual’ manner.

 

[friardchips]

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium.html

*‘Relying on Revelation, Not Reason’

1. And so we must approach this mystery in particular with humility and reverence, not relying on human reasoning, which ought to hold its peace, but rather adhering firmly to divine Revelation.
2. St. John Chrysostom who, as you know, dealt with the Mystery of the Eucharist in such eloquent language and with such insight born of devotion, had these most fitting words to offer on one occasion when he was instructing his faithful about this mystery: “Let us submit to God in all things and not contradict Him, even if what He says seems to contradict our reason and intellect; let His word prevail over our reason and intellect. Let us act in this way with regard to the Eucharistic mysteries, and not limit our attention just to what can be perceived by the senses, but instead hold fast to His words. For His word cannot deceive.” (5)
3. The scholastic Doctors made similar statements on more than one occasion. As St. Thomas says, the fact that the true body and the true blood of Christ are present in this Sacrament "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith, which rests upon divine authority…
4. Hence the Christian people often follow the lead of St. Thomas and sing the words: “Sight, touch and taste in Thee are each deceived; The ear alone most safely is believed. I believe all the Son of God has spoken;…”…
5. And St. Bonaventure declares: "There is no difficulty over Christ’s being present in the sacrament as in a sign; the great difficulty is in the fact that He is really in the sacrament, as He is in heaven. And so believing this is especially meritorious. " (7)’*

 

[clem456]

I live with a 34 year old progressive, my son, and a good friend of mine is a staunch fundamentalist, Trust me, I have the experience with both flavors.

Jim

Great then, it is good you treat them and address them as ordinary Catholics. Gives us good example to follow.

I don’t know anyone personally I would categorize as a fundamentalist.
Specifically: an attribute of fundamentalism that it seems Francis was incorporating in his remarks is:
a willingness to resort to violence to enforce the “letter” of belief, or punish those who don’t accept the letter.

So, I am fortunate not to know anyone like that.
I do have a close friend who is a baptist minister, and many would call him fundamentalist because he subscribes to biblical literalism, but he is nothing like the fundamentalists disturbing the peace around the world.

I know many of what might be called progressives, and love many of them. I know lot’s of what might be called traditional Catholics, although I don’t know anyone who fits the commonly accepted attributes of traditionalism on CAF.

Ironically, on a personal note,
In my own parish, if you can believe it… I have been “accused” of being heterodox in my beliefs, by proposing to the RCIA class that God’s mercy can drown any sin.
and
I have also been accused of wanting to “go back”, right in a parish council meeting. I made a suggestion to the staff that the parish ought to at least consider supporting the music director with stations, and was “accused” of wanting to “go back”.

I have a good lifetime friend who is a pastor at a UCC, and on this forum he would be classified as a hair-flaming liberal. Religiously indifferent to the core.
But he is a good lover (HEYO!!).
He is easy to love. We disagree wildly, but we respect one another and can have a conversation about divergent things, and we never call each other labels, because it serves absolutely no purpose. I am not a label, neither is he. We are persons made in the image of God. Of course, he and I are face to face, if he was on the internet I would probably jab him hard, cause I forget there’s a person on the other end of the post.

It is good to defy labels and categories. In my opinion it is an attempt to conform to Christ, who is not contained by any label or philosophy.

 

[Thomas_White]

It is not Catholic doctrine that “there are three distinct persons in one person.” That has never been Catholic teaching. The doctrine of the Trinity is that that there are three divine Persons each wholly possessing the ONE divine nature. There is one God (divine nature), three Persons.

"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)

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

Catholic teaching on the Eucharist does not say that Christ is “physically” present. It does say that he is “corporeally” present. He is present in his entirety: his whole body with all its parts, his soul and divinity, his blood, all of Him. “Physically” refers to something that is apparent to the senses–in other words, the appearances. The appearances of the bread and wine remain. The underlying reality has changed into Jesus. He is present in his entirety, not just in some ‘spiritual’ manner.

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?

 

[friardchips]

Great then, it is good you treat them and address them as ordinary Catholics. Gives us good example to follow.

I don’t know anyone personally I would categorize as a fundamentalist.
Specifically: an attribute of fundamentalism that it seems Francis was incorporating in his remarks is:
a willingness to resort to violence to enforce the “letter” of belief, or punish those who don’t accept the letter.

So, I am fortunate not to know anyone like that.
I do have a close friend who is a baptist minister, and many would call him fundamentalist because he subscribes to biblical literalism, but he is nothing like the fundamentalists disturbing the peace around the world.

I know many of what might be called progressives, and love many of them. I know lot’s of what might be called traditional Catholics, although I don’t know anyone who fits the commonly accepted attributes of traditionalism on CAF.

Ironically, on a personal note,
In my own parish, if you can believe it… I have been “accused” of being heterodox in my beliefs, by proposing to the RCIA class that God’s mercy can drown any sin.
and
I have also been accused of wanting to “go back”, right in a parish council meeting. I made a suggestion to the staff that the parish ought to at least consider supporting the music director with stations, and was “accused” of wanting to “go back”.

I have a good lifetime friend who is a pastor at a UCC, and on this forum he would be classified as a hair-flaming liberal. Religiously indifferent to the core.
But he is a good lover (HEYO!!).
He is easy to love. We disagree wildly, but we respect one another and can have a conversation about divergent things, and we never call each other labels, because it serves absolutely no purpose. I am not a label, neither is he. We are persons made in the image of God. **Of course, he and I are face to face, if he was on the internet I would probably jab him hard, cause I forget there’s a person on the other end of the post.

It is good to defy labels and categories. In my opinion it is an attempt to conform to Christ, who is not contained by any label or philosophy**.

So true.

So true.

Those who love to stick labels on others are the ones who normally live by them. We can all and all do so at times categorise others - to some degree it is natural though can be disciplined - but not good to make a habit of it and is something to be avoided. That said, some do this by extreme means and so need prayers not rubbishing although I’d say that it is okay to be angry with certain views if it is righteous and for the sake of the Gospel. St. Peter and St. Paul argued and this was for the greater good. Label-makers are for those who argue with themselves too much. But even now we’re doing it. This thread is doing it - these people are fundamentalists etc… yet there is a distinct difference between discerning what is good and what isn’t and acting upon it and/or verbalising it, and being hateful of opposition in a destructive way.

 

[JimG]

"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)

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

Of course the Church uses the human intellect and philosophy to study the truths of theology. Philosophy is the handmaid of theology. (One of the tragedies of our own time is the decline in the study of philosophy.) All the mysteries of the Faith are infinite in so far as they pertain to God, and thus beyond human understanding. That does not mean that they contradict reason. We can certainly study what has been revealed, and develop our understanding of the truths of the Faith. Faith and intellect are not opposed to each other. Just because God is infinite does not mean that theology is not possible. Of course it is possible, but it requires precision of language lest we misstate revealed truth.

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?

Both. We know that Christ is in the Eucharist in his entirety both as a matter of revealed truth, and by the study of that doctrine by the human intellect. There is no contradiction there.

 

[clem456]

"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)

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

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?

Why can’t the Church simply teach us, and we listen?
Do you envy Jim because he has a good grasp of what the Church teaches and is not timid about spreading it?

Sure:
there are mysteries
but
the church also proposes things for our belief, ultimately the Church proposes a person for our belief. We are not called to throw up our hands as a default response.

Why can’t we just listen to what the Church says instead of parsing everything?

 

[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)

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

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?

I believe that the Holy Spirit is a Person.

The Trinity certainly is a mystery ( defined as a truth of which have certitude), but not complete understanding)

As as such, it is an absolute Truth that the Godhead is made of three distinct Persons.

Exactly as I claimed.

 

[edwest2]

Well, perhaps they weren’t progressives, but just ordinary Catholics who lived in the days before Vatican II and do not want to return which many fundamentalist push for ?

Often, fundamentalists will label people liberals, for merely having a different opinion and who also back their opinions with facts.

Jim

Labeling is divisive. The Church is the Body of Christ on earth. This sounds more like politics than anything the Church teaches. All are welcome in Church.

Ed

 

[clem456]

Because God loves, he gives, or reveals, his very self.
By analogy, spouses come to know one another. They reveal themselves to each other out of love. They make themselves available to one another. This entails vulnerability (see the cross, the naked Christ fully revealed in his gift of self). We can choose to reject what is revealed to us, or be ambivalent, or to accept.

There is mystery involved for sure. (mysterion/sacramentum )
Consider, you can never fully know a human person in their essence, or their being. How much more “ineffable” is God.

Yet at the same time, because we are called to love, we are called to accept God as he reveals himself, in reciprocation. We enter a relationship where God knows us fully and intimately, and we are asked to know him in return, to know as we are known.

It is not fundamentalist to orient one’s life on this truth, proclaim this goodness and do it boldly, to speak what the Church speaks.
It is awesomely good that God reveals himself and desires us to know him.

 

[LongingSoul]

I live with a 34 year old progressive, my son, and a good friend of mine is a staunch fundamentalist, Trust me, I have the experience with both flavors.

Jim

I live with one of those as well, but as yet still cooking at 23 years old. The basis of his adopted principles is relativism. These young breed of progressive can be very rigid about what should be but not by referencing a source of absolute truth… but rather by claiming that there is no absolute truth and everyone has their own truth. Their sense of morality is based on transient factors like cultural attitudes and new agism.

And I think that most people with common sense can identify fundamentalism. We see stark models of them in every religion as Pope Francis said. They hold holy writings in one hand to justify hate, violence, division, exclusion.

 

[pianistclare]

No, fundamentalists demand that you “reject,” what they reject.

In Catholicism, reject the Novus Ordo in the vernacular.

Reject, guitars at Mass.

Reject holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer.

Reject books on Catholicism written by anyone other than a Catholic priest.

Progressives, don’t reject these, nor do they reject the TLM, Gregorian Chant, or other issues that a traditionalist embraces. They just accept all and allow everyone to chose what they like.

However, many progressives demand that you “accept,” women priests, gay marriage, etc.

Jim

Good post. Thanks.

 

[pianistclare]

I live with one of those as well, but as yet still cooking at 23 years old. The basis of his adopted principles is relativism. These young breed of progressive can be very rigid about what should be but not by referencing a source of absolute truth… but rather by claiming that there is no absolute truth and everyone has their own truth. Their sense of morality is based on transient factors like cultural attitudes and new agism.

And I think that most people with common sense can identify fundamentalism. We see stark models of them in every religion as Pope Francis said. They hold holy writings in one hand to justify hate, violence, division, exclusion.

 

[Thomas_White]

I believe that the Holy Spirit is a Person.

The Trinity certainly is a mystery ( defined as a truth of which have certitude), but not complete understanding)

As as such, it is an absolute Truth that the Godhead is made of three distinct Persons.

Exactly as I claimed.

I do not think that having certitude but not complete understanding is to know the absolute Truth, nor that mystery can properly be defined “as a truth of which have certitude”, whatever that might mean. A mystery “infinitely beyond human understanding” cannot be solved or understood by either logic of illogic.

CCC 251 is Catholic teaching.

 

[Thomas_White]

Why can’t the Church simply teach us, and we listen?
Do you envy Jim because he has a good grasp of what the Church teaches and is not timid about spreading it?

Um…it is my belief that what I quoted from the CCC is Church teaching.

Do I envy Jim? I can quote Church doctrine as well as anyone. It is easy, but understanding it is not always so simple, and in fact, as CCC 251 teaches, it can be “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”. It does seem that when a person asserts they do understand what is beyond human understanding and the assertion is then questioned, the response is sometimes of the ad hominem sort as we see here by asking me if I “envy Jim”. Not when the Church teaches that the question “is infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand” I surely don’t.

Sure:
there are mysteries
but
the church also proposes things for our belief, ultimately the Church proposes a person for our belief. We are not called to throw up our hands as a default response.

Why can’t we just listen to what the Church says instead of parsing everything?

I do not know what “ultimately the Church proposes a person for our belief” might mean, or what “throw up our hands as a default response might mean either”. But I do not think quoting CCC 251 is throwing up our hands as a default response.

 

[Brendan]

I do not think that having certitude but not complete understanding is to know the absolute Truth, nor that mystery can properly be defined “as a truth of which have certitude”, whatever that might mean. A mystery “infinitely beyond human understanding” cannot be solved or understood by either logic of illogic.

CCC 251 is Catholic teaching.

As is the term ‘Person’ to describe any moral actor, including the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

It IS an absolute Truth that the Godhead is composed of Three (no more, no less), Divine (not created), Persons (entities capable of moral action)

Are you claiming that those truths are unknown? Or that the truth of the statement is contingent?

 

[Thomas_White]

As is the term ‘Person’ to describe any moral actor, including the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

It IS an absolute Truth that the Godhead is composed of Three (no more, no less), Divine (not created), Persons (entities capable of moral action)

Are you claiming that those truths are unknown? Or that the truth of the statement is contingent?

I have provided what I believe, which is that, in accordance with CCC 251, the dogma of the Trinity is an ineffable mystery and “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”.

Is this what you question? It certainly seems you are at least implying you understand what the Church teaches is an absolute truth “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”.

 

[clem456]

I have provided what I believe, which is that, in accordance with CCC 251, the dogma of the Trinity is an ineffable mystery and “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”.

Is this what you question? It certainly seems you are at least implying you understand what the Church teaches is an absolute truth “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”.

Yes, but…
Let’s discuss in good faith. We didn’t set out to show your quote from the CCC isn’t a good one, That’s a red herring and completely irrelevant to the topic.
Here’s the line of questioning in case anyone is wondering what in the heck this is about:
You were at least implying that those who were posting Church teaching are fundamentalists. Let’s not obfuscate any longer.

The absolute truth is absolute. Catholic teaching, however, is that the understanding of Apostolic teaching advances through the centuries, and the fullness of divine revelation will not be known until the end of time. Fundamentalism is the erroneous belief that one already knows the absolute truth, a truth known only to Christ.

One scarcely knows where to begin with such literal certainty. Do you really believe the Trinity is literally three distinct persons in one Godhead and that the Host is literally the material body and blood of Christ?

Before you make some unfounded accusation about my particular Catholic belief, I would suggest you might not have a sufficient understanding of these teachings.

Yes, of course. The point is that the Personhood construct is exegesis, as is the trefoil (the three-leaf clover). The historial Jesus was a human being and a person, but is the Holy Spirit? It is not that simple, is it?

Yes, it is, and it is rather presumptuous to believe one knows the absolute truth. That is fundamentalism. I don’t believe it is even possible to describe God in the limited human languages. It is not at all uncommon on these threads that when one attempts to explain the complexity of issues like this that there are those who in reply challenge it and conclude it is somehow a rejection of Catholic teaching. This is also fundamentalism.

 

[Brendan]

Is this what you question? It certainly seems you are at least implying you understand what the Church teaches is an absolute truth [q/utoe]

What I stated IS an absolute Truth, one that the Church teaches.

[qutoe]“infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”.

Yes, but that does not contradict my statement. What I stated IS an absolute truth.

Which do you deny, that the statement is true, or that the statement has absolute truth, or that the Church does not teach what I claim.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, but…
Let’s discuss in good faith. We didn’t set out to show your quote from the CCC isn’t a good one, That’s a red herring and completely irrelevant to the topic.
Here’s the line of questioning in case anyone is wondering what in the heck this is about:
You were at least implying that those who were posting Church teaching are fundamentalists. Let’s not obfuscate any longer.

clem456, I am trying to discuss it in good faith. CCC 251 is not a “red herring”. It states that the dogma of the Trinity is “infinitely beyond all we can understand”, and I believe it.

Specifically, CCC 251 states that “certain notions of philosophical origin”, including the word “person”, were given a new and unprecedented meaning which would be used to signify an ineffable mystery “infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand”. The word “person” is thus a term used only to signify something we cannot understand, and certainly the word cannot be understood literally with respect to the Trinity. That was the original question: “Do you really believe the Trinity is literally three distinct persons…”

For my part, the question is ‘can we as humans know the absolute truth of the dogma of the Trinity’? I do not see in the teaching that this is at all possible, not when it is infinitely beyond human understanding, and neither can I see how it can be understood by simply reading the literal words of a document.

And I also do not understand why you say CCC 251 is “completely irrelevant to the topic”.