Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[JimR-OCDS]

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…?

The Word became flesh, as St John’s Gospel says.

So, yes, the Christ existed from the beginning, but not Jesus. Jesus is the Christ, God incarnate.

Remember also that Jesus told the Apostles that Paraclete would not come until He ascended to the Father.

So, all one has to do is look at our own being which is created in the image of God, to understand the Trinity.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Are you saying he does this (labeling)?

Have you read the article in the OP which this thread is based on ?

Jim

 

[friardchips]

The Word became flesh, as St John’s Gospel says.

So, yes, the Christ existed from the beginning, but not Jesus. Jesus is the Christ, God incarnate.

Remember also that Jesus told the Apostles that Paraclete would not come until He ascended to the Father.

So, all one has to do is look at our own being which is created in the image of God, to understand the Trinity.

Jim

I’m not completely disagreeing with you. But it is more complicated because our being is not more than one person in itself. So our mind, body and soul is - when compared to the Trinity - in relation to family.

I understand that our Lord is The Christ before he was made flesh but what I meant was that he was still a distinct and wholly Divine Person before He, the Christ, was Spoken as The Word. Otherwise, we run the risk of saying that all creation that came to be through Him makes up His totality. Creation is IN Him but not Him, Himself.

Maybe this is going off the thread subject now but it is interesting.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I’m not completely disagreeing with you. But it is more complicated because our being is not more than one person in itself. So our mind, body and soul is - when compared to the Trinity - in relation to family.

I understand that our Lord is The Christ before he was made flesh but what I meant was that he was still a distinct and wholly Divine Person before He, the Christ, was Spoken as The Word. Otherwise, we run the risk of saying that all creation that came to be through Him makes up His totality. Creation is IN Him but not Him, Himself.

the use of the term, “person,” isn’t a separate being, but the function within that being.

There isn’t three separate beings in the one God, but three persons, or personalities if you will.

Jim

 

[friardchips]

the use of the term, “person,” isn’t a separate being, but the function within that being.

There isn’t three separate beings in the one God, but three persons, or personalities if you will.

Jim

Each Person is fully Divine though in relation to each other.

They are not one Person as one Creator with multiple personalities.

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

‘Personality’ might suggest a designated ‘modality’.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Each Person is fully Divine though in relation to each other.

They are not one Person as one Creator with multiple personalities.

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

‘Personality’ might suggest a designated ‘modality’.

Right, the same relationship as ourselves to our Body, soul and Spirit.

We are still one being.

Jim

 

[Darryl1958]

Christians have a strong tendency to aid a mea culpa to any of their criticisms against other religions.
The intent of Pope Francis was obviously to criticize the dangers of fundamentalism in Islam, which indeed is dangerous and does pose a global threat.

In true Christians form, he has to add, but “Me too!!!”

People who come up with examples of what this means inevitably fall back on Fred Phelps and the Wetboro Church to show how Christian fundamentalism is dangerous.

Fundamentalism, such as literal readings of a seven day creation into the Bible, are frustrating to Christian modernists, but they are hardly dangerous. A literal reading of the Bible on its many miracles is hardly dangerous.

What most people criticize Christianity and Catholicism for is our fundamental teachings on homosexuality, on marriage, on condoms and sexuality, on divorce and exclusivity of Eucharist serving, on hell and judgement, on sin and guilt.

All that anyone needs to do to be labeled a hater and a fundamentalist is to simply provide lip service to what the Church teaches on such things.

Well the pope, being the pope, is certainly in a position to level such criticisms against Catholics. I don’t feel I am in a position to do so though. Somehow it would just not feel right for me to wag my fingers at these kinds of Christians who have led more exemplary lives than I have.

 

[edwest2]

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”)

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

 

[friardchips]

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

Glad I’m not the only one who sees this.

 

[friardchips]

Right, the same relationship as ourselves to our Body, soul and Spirit.

We are still one being.

Jim

Hmmmm…this mystery will have to wait until later. Still not disagreeing (in totality! ).

 

[Thomas_White]

The literal definition of “person” is found in a dictionary.

The argument concerning the nature of the Trinity goes all the way back to the Nicene Council and Constantine in the 4th Century. It concerned the meaning of the Greek word for “being”, which translates to Latin as “consubstantialis”, which connotes both being and substance. If you recall, several years ago the wording of the Nicene Creed was modified to read “consubstantial with the Father” rather than “one in being with the Father”. It is noted this change occurred more than sixteen-hundred years after the Council of Nicea. It seems there is no word that can adequately describe the nature of the Trinity, and that includes the word “person”.

As the catechism states, the nature of the Trinity is beyond all human understanding. What is interesting is the claim that this understanding can be gained from a document. It sure looks like legalism.

 

[Thomas_White]

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

The literal definition of “person” is found in a dictionary.

The argument concerning the nature of the Trinity goes all the way back to the Nicene Council and Constantine in the 4th Century. At that time, it concerned the meaning of the Greek word for “being”, which translates to Latin as “consubstantialis”, which connotes both being and substance. If you recall, several years ago the wording of the Nicene Creed was modified to read “consubstantial with the Father” rather than “one in being with the Father”. It is noted this change occurred more than sixteen-hundred years after the Council of Nicea. It seems there is no word that can adequately describe the nature of the Trinity, and that includes the word “person”.

As the catechism states, the nature of the Trinity is beyond all human understanding. What is interesting is the claim that this understanding can be gained from a document. It sure looks like legalism.

 

[JimG]

The literal definition of “person” is found in a dictionary.

The argument concerning the nature of the Trinity goes all the way back to the Nicene Council and Constantine in the 4th Century. At that time, it concerned the meaning of the Greek word for “being”, which translates to Latin as “consubstantialis”, which connotes both being and substance. If you recall, several years ago the wording of the Nicene Creed was modified to read “consubstantial with the Father” rather than “one in being with the Father”. It is noted this change occurred more than sixteen-hundred years after the Council of Nicea. It seems there is no word that can adequately describe the nature of the Trinity, and that includes the word “person”.

As the catechism states, the nature of the Trinity is beyond all human understanding. What is interesting is the claim that this understanding can be gained from a document. It sure looks like legalism.

So…, if it’s written down, it’s legalism? Is the Apostles Creed legalism? The Nicene Creed? The documents of Vatican I? The documents of Vatican II? The Catechism of the Catholic Church? It’s all legalism because it attempts to put into words the ineffable reality of the divine?

I mentioned previously that Thomas Aquinas had a vision near the end of his life in which God appeared to him and said “you have written well of me.” That was a validation of his life’s work, but Aquinas afterward felt that all his writings were “straw,” because they fell short of expressing the full glory of God whom he had now personally experienced. But God didn’t tell him it was straw. God didn’t say, ‘well, you’ve written very well and accurately but of course it’s all legalism.’ No, he praised him for his work. Because he applied his intellect to the truths of theology and didn’t get it wrong.

“Consubstantial” means exactly the same thing as “one in being,” but it is the older and more traditional term. God’s being is one, God’s person is three. The three are one in being, or consubstantial. Yet they are distinct persons.

I don’t think that Aquinas was guilty of either legalism or fundamentalism.

 

[friardchips]

So…, if it’s written down, it’s legalism? Is the Apostles Creed legalism? The Nicene Creed? The documents of Vatican I? The documents of Vatican II? The Catechism of the Catholic Church? It’s all legalism because it attempts to put into words the ineffable reality of the divine?

I mentioned previously that Thomas Aquinas had a vision near the end of his life in which God appeared to him and said “you have written well of me.” That was a validation of his life’s work, but Aquinas afterward felt that all his writings were “straw,” because they fell short of expressing the full glory of God whom he had now personally experienced. But God didn’t tell him it was straw. God didn’t say, ‘well, you’ve written very well and accurately but of course it’s all legalism.’ No, he praised him for his work. Because he applied his intellect to the truths of theology and didn’t get it wrong.

“Consubstantial” means exactly the same thing as “one in being,” but it is the older and more traditional term. God’s being is one, God’s person is three. The three are one in being, or consubstantial. Yet they are distinct persons.

I don’t think that Aquinas was guilty of either legalism or fundamentalism.

Because it is more fun if we don’t completely concur I’ll point out the difference in our understanding!

You say that we are made in the image…(Agreed).

I don’t however believe this relation between body (which is outward, and discipline for the soul inwardly), Spirit (which is our lifeline), and soul (which is eternal and originally made “good”) is in itself enough to use as a general symbol for the Creator.

Because the Creator is three Distinct and Divine Persons though only in relation to each other. Meaning that the relationship is the aspect here. In the creation stories, we exist in relation to Creation and the creator (first and foremost). We ourselves are not divine. Our eternal happiness resides in relation to our Creator AND those around us. They are not separate.

So it might be more accurate to say that the family is the outward reflection of the Creator and our souls (inwardly and outwardly) are what “magnifies the Lord”. The body is only temporal. The soul “magnifies”.

It is within the soul that peace occurs in relation to the Holy Spirit. And in the two creation accounts both man and woman are given to each other in relation to their Creator and creation; IOW, this relation cannot be separated from the whole.

…because of relationship, peace and love is also outward though our Creator is from within.

 

[Thomas_White]

So…, if it’s written down, it’s legalism? Is the Apostles Creed legalism? The Nicene Creed? The documents of Vatican I? The documents of Vatican II? The Catechism of the Catholic Church? It’s all legalism because it attempts to put into words the ineffable reality of the divine?

No. I have provided CCC 251, and you must admit what it says to have a real discussion.

I mentioned previously that Thomas Aquinas had a vision near the end of his life in which God appeared to him and said “you have written well of me.” That was a validation of his life’s work, but Aquinas afterward felt that all his writings were “straw,” because they fell short of expressing the full glory of God whom he had now personally experienced. But God didn’t tell him it was straw. God didn’t say, ‘well, you’ve written very well and accurately but of course it’s all legalism.’ No, he praised him for his work. Because he applied his intellect to the truths of theology and didn’t get it wrong.

This says more than you perhaps realize. If Aquinas experienced the full glory of God, he of course knew he could not express it in words.

=JimG;13480458]“Consubstantial” means exactly the same thing as “one in being,” but it is the older and more traditional term. God’s being is one, God’s person is three. The three are one in being, or consubstantial. Yet they are distinct persons.

No. “Consubstantial” does not mean exactly the same thing as “one in being”. The Greek word “homoousios” translates as “same being”. Latin lacks a present participle of “to be”, and “homoousios” was translated to Latin as “consubstantialis”, which connotes both substance and being (as in “consubstantial with the Father”).

I don’t think that Aquinas was guilty of either legalism or fundamentalism.

Nobody is accusing Aquinas of anything. Actually, this discussion goes beyond legalism by the resistance to recognize the teaching of CCC 251.

 

[friardchips]

…so, although the Second Person (The Word) was begotten, from having been Spoken, eventually becoming J C, before creation began He was in the Father as The Christ, as the distinct Second Person. The Second person and the Third Person, before form began, existed in the Will of the Father, but still as Divine Persons in relation to each other. The Second and Third were always Eternal and Divine. To say the Second Person is the body, IMO, is inaccurate. Body was not given until He was spoken, when He was given, when He took, form. The Second Person was the Divine Wisdom of the First Person but without form until Divine Wisdom was Spoken. Then again, we could say that Divine Wisdom is the eternal reality, so…?!

 

[JimG]

Because it is more fun if we don’t completely concur I’ll point out the difference in our understanding!

You say that we are made in the image…(Agreed).

I don’t however believe this relation between body (which is outward, and discipline for the soul inwardly), Spirit (which is our lifeline), and soul (which is eternal and originally made “good”) is in itself enough to use as a general symbol for the Creator.

Because the Creator is three Distinct and Divine Persons though only in relation to each other. Meaning that the relationship is the aspect here. In the creation stories, we exist in relation to Creation and the creator (first and foremost). We ourselves are not divine. Our eternal happiness resides in relation to our Creator AND those around us. They are not separate.

So it might be more accurate to say that the family is the outward reflection of the Creator and our souls (inwardly and outwardly) are what “magnifies the Lord”. The body is only temporal. The soul “magnifies”.

It is within the soul that peace occurs in relation to the Holy Spirit. And in the two creation accounts both man and woman are given to each other in relation to their Creator and creation; IOW, this relation cannot be separated from the whole.

…because of relationship, peace and love is also outward though our Creator is from within.

I’m sorry, I didn’t follow your line of reasoning there and was unable to connect it to my own post.

I can agree that the family is a reflection of the Creator, at least in that it is a unity of persons, as is the Trinity. Human beings, of course, only have experience of one person being associated with one nature: Joe is a person whose nature is to be human. But God is three persons possessing one divine nature.

 

[Zeno11]

• " There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which NO ONE at all is saved. (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

" We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull, Unam Sanctum, 1302.)

" The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that NONE of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics [Protestants] and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, UNLESS before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, NO ONE, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).*

I’m utterly confused. Are these Popes ‘fundamentalists’ ? Are they not also infallible? How can the catholic church teach one thing then and another now? Who are we supposed to believe, the Popes of countless centuries past, or our modern, Qu’ran kissing popes??

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8)

 

[friardchips]

I’m sorry, I didn’t follow your line of reasoning there and was unable to connect it to my own post.

I can agree that the family is a reflection of the Creator, at least in that it is a unity of persons, as is the Trinity. Human beings, of course, only have experience of one person being associated with one nature: Joe is a person whose nature is to be human. But God is three persons possessing one divine nature.

Maybe it is that our souls are made in the image of the Creator. And are perfected via the Spirit. Our bodies on this earth are not perfect reflections. We are diseased and malformed though made good initially. Yet, before Original Sin, even then, our bodies were heavenly reflections of the Creator’s Wisdom. Would it not be more accurate to say that our souls are made in the image of the Creator. And that our souls contain memory, creativity (imagination) and present awareness. Combined with the Holy Spirit, our memory, present awareness and imagination are perfected. So the one Divine nature is the soul of the Creator, in perfect relationship, and the three Persons are uniquely divine Persons, within the one soul/Will. You see, bodily senses are only needed for temporal existence. I would imagine that communication happens after temporal existence via thought, not literal speech of mouth movements. Movement in the temporal sense of movement only occurs within time. So we do get given back our bodies without decay and yet these bodies are forms given due to the completion of Divine Wisdom that has taken place in our souls (entwined with the Spirit). Our Lady was assumed body and soul. This is because she was so filled with grace that her body was an eternal dwelling place. But is was the completion of the soul in grace that gave form to the Heavenly body.

I think to say The Father is this and the son is this and… does not really explain that the trinity is three distinct Persons as well as being one. It is not relational if so. And relationship is everything.

 

[commenter]

No. I have provided CCC 251, and you must admit what it says to have a real discussion.

The CCC teaches that some aspects of Christian faith go beyond the useful and revealed levels our understanding is capable of, and can grasp. A Math teacher may communicate to her Geometry students that Calculus exists. That doesn’t invalidate the dogmas of Geometry which they have already learned. It would be foolish to say that because we can never learn all about the atom, or Trinity, therefore our incomplete learning is just speculation.

This says more than you perhaps realize. If Aquinas experienced the full glory of God, he of course knew he could not express it in words.

A man may not be able to communicate the experienced full glory of his marriage in words. But his words about his experience are useful, as far as they go. Writing about a topic based on one’s experiences does not prevent one from intelligent discussion based on revealed dogmas of the Church.

Our knowledge of Theology (and other subjects) is always partial. That does not mean it must not contain absolute truths, based on what we do know. A fundamentalist is not one who claims to know some absolute truths. A fundamentalist is one who acts like he is superior to one who does not believe them.