Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[clem456]

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”.

Hey, we’ll take what we have.

Good to see you opening that CCC.
(and no, I won’t call you a fundamentalist for quoting, with some degree of certitude on your part, a teaching of the Catholic Church from the CCC)

Fair enough?

Have a blessed Advent everyone.

 

[Brendan]

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…”.

Correct, and the term the Church developed ( with the aid of Aquinas) was a moral actor. That was a new and unprecedented definition.

While it is true that the actions of God cannot completely be understood, the term is fully and truthfully applied to God.

Is it your claim then, that a ‘mystery’ cannot have any absolute truths known about it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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

Then write to Pope Francis and tell him to stop labeling “fundamentalists.”

Jim

 

[Thomas_White]

Hey, we’ll take what we have.

Good to see you opening that CCC.
(and no, I won’t call you a fundamentalist for quoting, with some degree of certitude on your part, a teaching of the Catholic Church from the CCC)

Fair enough?

Have a blessed Advent everyone.

Fair enough, but really, I first opened the catechism in 1951.

 

[Thomas_White]

Correct, and the term the Church developed ( with the aid of Aquinas) was a moral actor. That was a new and unprecedented definition.

While it is true that the actions of God cannot completely be understood, the term is fully and truthfully applied to God.

Is it your claim then, that a ‘mystery’ cannot have any absolute truths known about it.

What term? ‘Person’, you mean? Terms like ‘person’ and even ‘absolute truth’, as used here, are concepts, or ideas. They are attempts to signify what is ineffable, just like ‘God’ is ineffable, or beyond the limits of the human intellect and language.

As I noted, it is fine to use the term ‘person’ in an attempt to understand the Trinity, but only if it is also understood that what this signifies is “infinitely beyond all we can understand”. However, if we believe we understand what the word literally signifies, we err greatly. It is the error of fundamentalism.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

For me, understanding the trinity is simple.

We are made in God’s image.

We are are body, soul and spirit.

So God would also be,

Father = Soul

Body = Jesus

Spirit = Holy Spirit

One God just as we are one being.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

What term? ‘Person’, you mean? Terms like ‘person’ and even ‘absolute truth’, as used here, are concepts, or ideas. They are attempts to signify what is ineffable, just like ‘God’ is ineffable, or beyond the limits of the human intellect and language.

As I noted, it is fine to use the term ‘person’ in an attempt to understand the Trinity, but only if it is also understood that what this signifies is "infinitely beyond all we can understand.

No the term ‘Person’ indicates an reality that CAN fully be understood, a moral actor, one who actions occur with the moral sphere.

That includes humans, the angelic hosts, and yes, the Trinity.

". However, if we believe we understand what the word literally signifies, we err greatly. It is the error of fundamentalism

As noted prior, the term ‘Person’ does have a definitive reality. We CAN know what entities are members of the genus ‘Person’.

So my point remains unrefuted, the Trinity is One Godhead composed of Three Divine Persons.

(and yes, numbers concepts and ideas as well, so would it be your claim that even the number of God(s) is even beyond human reckoning?

 

[friardchips]

For me, understanding the trinity is simple.

We are made in God’s image.

We are are body, soul and spirit.

So God would also be,

Father = Soul

Body = Jesus

Spirit = Holy Spirit

One God just as we are one being.

Jim

The Three Persons of the Holy Trinity were present before the Word became flesh. So can He be described as ‘body’, as such. Yet, He is the embodiment, of the Father’s Love. So maybe. The Word is Eternal Wisdom. But He was there, distinct, in the Beginning. Another way to describe with human thinking is to say that the Father is the lovingly Just Will, the Second Person is Mercy, the Spirit is the creative Love, the self-giving substance, which bonds them all.

But He cannot be contained in a description. Our descriptions would still be off-centre because a mystery cannot be contained. Though we can know with the fullness of faith that the Mystery is true. Another description is that the Father is the Will, the Son is the Word, and the Third Person is the Breath through which the Word was spoken. But all are distinct Persons in one. So can we really say that the Father is the Soul, the Son is the body and the Holy Spirit is the…Holy Spirit (this we can!). But we are members of The Son’s Body as all Creation came to be through Him. I think we can use the word ‘body’ to describe the Second Person only if we know that body does not mean body in the physical sense that we understand body to be because He is distinct as a Person of the Trinity. But can we describe the Father as the Soul? Well, we can think of the mind as the soul, so…?! The Holy Spirit could be the self-giving love, the perfect relationship, between the mind and the heart of the Creator…?

 

[Thomas_White]

No the term ‘Person’ indicates an reality that CAN fully be understood, a moral actor, one who actions occur with the moral sphere.

That includes humans, the angelic hosts, and yes, the Trinity.

As noted prior, the term ‘Person’ does have a definitive reality. We CAN know what entities are members of the genus ‘Person’.

So my point remains unrefuted, the Trinity is One Godhead composed of Three Divine Persons.

(and yes, numbers concepts and ideas as well, so would it be your claim that even the number of God(s) is even beyond human reckoning?

What I think is that, in accordance with CCC 251, the Trinity is “infinitely beyond all we can understand”, and to persist in “submitting the faith to human wisdom” by attempting to demonstrate that one does understand this is futile.

 

[ProVobis]

For me, understanding the trinity is simple.

We are made in God’s image.

We are are body, soul and spirit.

So God would also be,

Father = Soul

Body = Jesus

Spirit = Holy Spirit

One God just as we are one being.

Jim

I had a coloring book that made theological principles even simpler but thanks for the lesson.

 

[ProVobis]

Then write to Pope Francis and tell him to stop labeling “fundamentalists.”

Are you saying he does this (labeling)?

 

[JimG]

What I think is that, in accordance with CCC 251, the Trinity is “infinitely beyond all we can understand”, and to persist in “submitting the faith to human wisdom” by attempting to demonstrate that one does understand this is futile.

And yet the Catechism uses words to explicate the Trinity in paragraphs 249 through 267. The fact that theology can not and never will explain the divine nature fully does not mean that we can know nothing whatever of God. We can know, because God has revealed it. Because he has revealed something of himself to us, he wants us to know this doctrine.

There are three Persons in the One Divine Nature. This will not change. Future development will not recognize a fourth person or demote one of the three, or decide that the Persons are something other than Persons. We can be certain of the doctrine. Just as I can be certain that the sun is in the sky even though I may not fully understand its inner workings.

Was it futile for Thomas Aquinas to spend his life using his intellect to elucidate the nature of God? At the end of his life, he experienced a vision of God speaking to him, saying, “Thomas, you have written well of me.” He didn’t tell him that his life’s work was pointless.

Theology, if done well, is not a pointless profession. Some things can be known of God, though not everything. Otherwise, the catechism would not even be written. And doctrines are not infinitely flexible, because they must always conform to truth.

 

[Thomas_White]

I had a coloring book that made theological principles even simpler but thanks for the lesson.

I seem to recall the soul is made in the image of a glass milk bottle.

 

[ProVobis]

And yet the Catechism uses words to explicate the Trinity in paragraphs 249 through 267. The fact that theology can not and never will explain the divine nature fully does not mean that we can know nothing whatever of God.

I believe you are correct. It seems that it was Paschal (as in Paschal’s Wager) who started (or at least continued) the mindset of probabilities rather than certainties in this regard.

 

[ProVobis]

I seem to recall the soul is made in the image of a glass milk bottle.

Now you speak my language.

 

[Thomas_White]

And yet the Catechism uses words to explicate the Trinity in paragraphs 249 through 267. The fact that theology can not and never will explain the divine nature fully does not mean that we can know nothing whatever of God. We can know, because God has revealed it. Because he has revealed something of himself to us, he wants us to know this doctrine.

There are three Persons in the One Divine Nature. This will not change. Future development will not recognize a fourth person or demote one of the three, or decide that the Persons are something other than Persons. We can be certain of the doctrine. Just as I can be certain that the sun is in the sky even though I may not fully understand its inner workings.

Was it futile for Thomas Aquinas to spend his life using his intellect to elucidate the nature of God? At the end of his life, he experienced a vision of God speaking to him, saying, “Thomas, you have written well of me.” He didn’t tell him that his life’s work was pointless.

Theology, if done well, is not a pointless profession. Some things can be known of God, though not everything. Otherwise, the catechism would not even be written. And doctrines are not infinitely flexible, because they must always conform to truth.

Yes, and none of this is disputed. But the point I tried to make is found in CCC 251, and I would think a Catholic ought to at least acknowledge it is there. The teaching is that the word “person” cannot be understood literally and that what it signifies is “infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand”.

 

[Brendan]

The teaching is that the word “person” cannot be understood literally ".

What do you consider the literal definition of ‘Person’ to be?

 

[friardchips]

What I think is that, in accordance with CCC 251, the Trinity is “infinitely beyond all we can understand”, and to persist in “submitting the faith to human wisdom” by attempting to demonstrate that one does understand this is futile.

*'http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

250 During the first centuries the Church sought to clarify her Trinitarian faith, both to deepen her own understanding of the faith and to defend it against the errors that were deforming it. This clarification was the work of the early councils, aided by the theological work of the Church Fathers and sustained by the Christian people’s sense of the faith…’

(Note the word ‘sustained’ not the words ‘created by’)

'…251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her 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 unprecedented meaning to these terms**, which from then on would be used to signify…

an ineffable mystery,…“infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand”.82’

(Hence, the ‘mystery’ part of the title: ‘Mystery of the Holy Spirit.’ and possibly what you are trying to communicate?)…

'252 The Church uses (I) the term “substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity, (II)…

…the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them,

…and (III) the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.’*

…

 

[friardchips]

*vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

'The dogma of the Holy Trinity

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity"…

83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire:

"The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215),…

…"Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85’…

(‘Supreme reality’ not ‘fiction’.)

‘…254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another’…

(Again, that word ‘really’ i.e:- real, true etc…)

'"God is one but not solitary…

‘"86 "Father", “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being,…’

!

'….for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.

"87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin:

…"It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.

"88 The divine Unity is Triune.

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."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 “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.”*

I would also say that because the Persons share divinity they are one in relation but because they are Divine as a whole in the one substance in relation to one another, they are still each divine wholly as separate Persons in one. We are the body of, and in, the Second Person, and He is our Head - the ‘beatific vision’. He is the groom and we are the bride. The Father is still the Father.

So, although The Son is Begotten maybe the word ‘body’ as a summary is not allowing each Person their separate distinction as fully Divine in completely unified relation to one another; otherwise, it would be One Person is One Creator yet the truth is not this. And He is not three separate creators. He is fully divine in each of the three distinct Persons in One, each Person in perfect relationship to the other.

 

[lynnvinc]

During an inflight press conference on the way back to Rome at the end of his three-country tour of Africa, Pope Francis criticised “fundamentalists” within the Church.

“Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions,” said the Pontiff, according to the National Catholic Reporter. “We Catholics have some — and not some, many — who believe in the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, and doing evil. They do evil. I say this because it is my Church.”

He said that “religious fundamentalism isn’t religion, it’s idolatry,” adding that ideas and false certainties take the place of faith, love of God and love of others.

“You cannot cancel a whole religion because there is a group or many groups of fundamentalists at certain moments of history,” the Pope said.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/11/30/pope-francis-says-he-is-not-losing-any-sleep-over-vatican-leaks-trial/

Fundamentalism is a problem in nearly all major religions. Fundamentalism is not “the ole time religion,” but an attempt to address the disgusting things of modernization. There are lots of ugly things about modernization (including many going away from religion altogether and debauchery not only as the world has always had and condemned it, but as celebrated and extolled). However, using fundamentalism (whether Hindu, Jewish, Islamic, Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist) as a way to address these problems generates its own problems and extremism, which then sometimes becomes worse than the original problems associated with modernization.

The Pope is very right – we need to be vigilant not to slip into this harmful and ugly form of religion that fundamentalisms are, which (let’s face it) inspires unchristian sentiments and behavior on the part of fundamentalist Christians and of those of fundamentalist branches of other religions.

I guess the problem is … as with many other solutions to problems … going to the opposite extreme, which can be even more harmful to one’s soul and the world.

It’s really great that we have such an intelligent Holy Father to help and guide us. Too bad for the people of those religions that do not have such leaders.

Here’s a parable for our time: Thurber’s “The Bear who Let It Alone” at newsun.com/TheBear.html (I think in the original story he beat his wife and children both as a drunk and as a reformed “convert”)