Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[anthrogirl]

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/

I can see this. Too many times we hold so tightly to the rules that we end up failing at the mission. I remember telling a story in this forum about a priest who was a POW and while imprisoned in a dirt floored cell for years, he held mass everyday with nothing but scraps of bread and water. Saying mass everyday in this fashion was all he had. He credited his survival and the survival of others in nearby cells to these masses. This story was told during a first communion mass and the homilist extolled the commitment of this priest to the body and sacrifice of Christ. Beautiful story. This priest has been celebrated by fellow priests across the world. And yet after I told this story in this forum, I was informed that his masses did not include all the requisite components and therefore were not valid. I would argue that this priest’s masses were just as valid as any of the typical Sunday masses we hear in our parishes. A loving Christ would never hold this suffering and humble priest to such scrutiny because the actions of this priest were so alive in Christ, they were almost saintly. Sometimes breaking the rules is more in line with the mission than following the straight and narrow. Catholics are not unthinking, rule following robots. Our world is dynamic and ever changing and we need to be able to roll with whatever comes our way, whether it be POW cells or any other unexpected situation. We are extremely capable of analysis and decision making when it comes to the expression of our faith. When we determine that the rules interfere with or thwart the mission, then the mission should win. And fundamentalists just don’t get this.

 

[Thomas_White]

I thought that the question was whether one believed that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, and if so, is that a true belief, and is it absolutely true?

So… a belief, which may or may not be true?

How many Catholic beliefs will I need to doubt the truth of to avoid being a fundamentalist?

No one has said you needed to doubt the truth of any Catholic belief, and only that there is a difference between knowledge and belief. The question of whether one believes that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God very obviously concerns belief and not “absolute truth”.

You don’t seem to grasp that this does not mean that this belief is not a true belief or that it is not the “absolute truth”, but only that a person does not know this as knowledge since belief is not knowledge. I am sorry if this is even more confusing for you, but it has been understood for at least the past 2500 years that there is a basic difference between knowledge and belief.

 

[Thomas_White]

I thought that the question was whether one believed that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, and if so, is that a true belief, and is it absolutely true?

So… a belief, which may or may not be true?

How many Catholic beliefs will I need to doubt the truth of to avoid being a fundamentalist?

No one has said you needed to doubt the truth of any Catholic belief, and only that there is a difference between knowledge and belief. The question of whether one believes that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God very obviously concerns belief and not “absolute truth”.

You don’t seem to grasp that this does not mean that this belief is not a true belief but only that a person does not know this as knowledge since belief is not knowledge. I am sorry if this is even more confusing for you, but it has been understood for at least the past 2500 years that there is a basic difference between knowledge and belief.

 

[I_trust]

It seems the question cannot even be framed. Belief is the assumption or trust that something is true. An “absolute truth” is a universal that is an unalterable and permanent fact. It is not belief. Pope Francis has said fundamentalism is the belief that one is in possession of the “absolute truth”, and belief is by definition not “absolute truth”. The belief that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God cannot be known as an “absolute truth” as the result of belief, as the term is commonly understood. It is a belief.

So Thomas,
Please give us an example of an “absolute truth” untainted by belief.
How do you know this is an absolute truth? Or do you “believe” it is absolute truth.
You can see that you are setting up a case for Relativism…

Truth exists. We can know the truth. Otherwise all is Relativism.

The Truth is a person.

 

[Paganus]

“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/

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

Amen to that! I refuse to cancel the Catholic Church - in fact, I want to double my order! Dominus vobiscum!

 

[Thomas_White]

So Thomas,
Please give us an example of an “absolute truth” untainted by belief.
How do you know this is an absolute truth? Or do you “believe” it is absolute truth.
You can see that you are setting up a case for Relativism…

Truth exists. We can know the truth. Otherwise all is Relativism.

The Truth is a person.

Pope Francis has said, “We Catholics have some [fundamentalists]–and not some, many–who believe they possess the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, and doing evil. They do evil.”

Since you believe you possess the absolute truth, I think it would be only fitting that you provide an example of it.

 

[friardchips]

I can see this. Too many times we hold so tightly to the rules that we end up failing at the mission. I remember telling a story in this forum about a priest who was a POW and while imprisoned in a dirt floored cell for years, he held mass everyday with nothing but scraps of bread and water. Saying mass everyday in this fashion was all he had. He credited his survival and the survival of others in nearby cells to these masses. This story was told during a first communion mass and the homilist extolled the commitment of this priest to the body and sacrifice of Christ. Beautiful story. This priest has been celebrated by fellow priests across the world. And yet after I told this story in this forum, I was informed that his masses did not include all the requisite components and therefore were not valid. I would argue that this priest’s masses were just as valid as any of the typical Sunday masses we hear in our parishes. A loving Christ would never hold this suffering and humble priest to such scrutiny because the actions of this priest were so alive in Christ, they were almost saintly. Sometimes breaking the rules is more in line with the mission than following the straight and narrow. Catholics are not unthinking, rule following robots. Our world is dynamic and ever changing and we need to be able to roll with whatever comes our way, whether it be POW cells or any other unexpected situation. We are extremely capable of analysis and decision making when it comes to the expression of our faith. When we determine that the rules interfere with or thwart the mission, then the mission should win. And fundamentalists just don’t get this.

 

[Mac_Murchaidh]

I can see this. Too many times we hold so tightly to the rules that we end up failing at the mission. I remember telling a story in this forum about a priest who was a POW and while imprisoned in a dirt floored cell for years, he held mass everyday with nothing but scraps of bread and water. Saying mass everyday in this fashion was all he had. He credited his survival and the survival of others in nearby cells to these masses. This story was told during a first communion mass and the homilist extolled the commitment of this priest to the body and sacrifice of Christ. Beautiful story. This priest has been celebrated by fellow priests across the world. And yet after I told this story in this forum, I was informed that his masses did not include all the requisite components and therefore were not valid. I would argue that this priest’s masses were just as valid as any of the typical Sunday masses we hear in our parishes. A loving Christ would never hold this suffering and humble priest to such scrutiny because the actions of this priest were so alive in Christ, they were almost saintly. Sometimes breaking the rules is more in line with the mission than following the straight and narrow. Catholics are not unthinking, rule following robots. Our world is dynamic and ever changing and we need to be able to roll with whatever comes our way, whether it be POW cells or any other unexpected situation. We are extremely capable of analysis and decision making when it comes to the expression of our faith. When we determine that the rules interfere with or thwart the mission, then the mission should win. And fundamentalists just don’t get this.

I’m sorry but you simply can’t square a circle. The priest, at best, could have confected the Most Blessed Sacrament in the species of the bread. Unless he turned the water into wine, there was no Mass, and his action would have been gravely sacrilegious. It doesn’t matter how well placed someone’s intentions might be. It may diminish culpability - it doesn’t diminish the offense against the dignity of God. Nor does a nice feeling validate something which is simply impossible.

Unless the elements of bread and wine are both present and confected by a validly ordained priest then there is no Mass. Period.

No, this isn’t being unthinking. No, this isn’t being a robot. No, this isn’t being a nasty legalist or being scrupulous. And no this is not a matter of mere rules as if the necessity of bread and wine were a mere human construct. We’re talking about a divine mandate.

 

[Thomas_White]

I’m sorry but you simply can’t square a circle. The priest, at best, could have confected the Most Blessed Sacrament in the species of the bread. Unless he turned the water into wine, there was no Mass, and his action would have been gravely sacrilegious. It doesn’t matter how well placed someone’s intentions might be. It may diminish culpability - it doesn’t diminish the offense against the dignity of God. Nor does a nice feeling validate something which is simply impossible.

Unless the elements of bread and wine are both present and confected by a validly ordained priest then there is no Mass. Period.

No, this isn’t being unthinking. No, this isn’t being a robot. No, this isn’t being a nasty legalist or being scrupulous. And no this is not a matter of mere rules as if the necessity of bread and wine were a mere human construct. We’re talking about a divine mandate.

If there were no Mass, period, then how were the actions of the priest “gravely sacrilegious”?

 

[Mac_Murchaidh]

If there were no Mass, period, then how were the actions of the priest “gravely sacrilegious”?

Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of the Cross in an unbloody manner upon our altars. For the Holy Sacrifice, the Mass, to be validly celebrated, both species of bread and wine must be confected and offered in sacrifice. To only confect one of the species is a sacrilegious action. You can’t have the Holy Sacrifice without both bread and wine.

 

[Thomas_White]

Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of the Cross in an unbloody manner upon our altars. For the Holy Sacrifice, the Mass, to be validly celebrated, both species of bread and wine must be confected and offered in sacrifice. To only confect one of the species is a sacrilegious action. You can’t have the Holy Sacrifice without both bread and wine.

But did you not say “the priest, at best, could have confected the Most Blessed Sacrament in the species of the bread”? This would seem to mean you really don’t know. So, to say this was “a sacrilegious action” is not truly justified, is it? Or am I missing something?

 

[Mac_Murchaidh]

But did you not say “the priest, at best, could have confected the Most Blessed Sacrament in the species of the bread”? This would seem to mean you really don’t know. So, to say this was “a sacrilegious action” is not truly justified, is it? Or am I missing something?

I said at best because I’m assuming valid matter was present for the species of bread to be confected. But that’s still only half the sacrifice. It wouldn’t be sacrilegious if there wasn’t even valid matter for the bread because there would be no Transubstantiation at all. If the priest was offering a “dry Mass”, which is a pious custom, that would be one thing, but for someone to then represent that as a valid Mass would be wrong.

No, the actions of this priest, under either scenario, are not the same as what your priest does on a Sunday morning.

 

[Thomas_White]

I said at best because I’m assuming valid matter was present for the species of bread to be confected. But that’s still only half the sacrifice. It wouldn’t be sacrilegious if there wasn’t even valid matter for the bread because there would be no Transubstantiation at all. If the priest was offering a “dry Mass”, which is a pious custom, that would be one thing, but for someone to then represent that as a valid Mass would be wrong.

No, the actions of this priest, under either scenario, are not the same as what your priest does on a Sunday morning.

Okay, in good faith will accept your explanation.

(Your comment caught my eye since my ancestors were from County Galway.)

 

[Thomas_White]

I said at best because I’m assuming valid matter was present for the species of bread to be confected. But that’s still only half the sacrifice. It wouldn’t be sacrilegious if there wasn’t even valid matter for the bread because there would be no Transubstantiation at all. If the priest was offering a “dry Mass”, which is a pious custom, that would be one thing, but for someone to then represent that as a valid Mass would be wrong.

No, the actions of this priest, under either scenario, are not the same as what your priest does on a Sunday morning.

Okay, in good faith I accept your explanation.

(Your comment caught my eye since my ancestors were from County Galway.)

 

[Vouthon]

In terms of the debates concerning the issue of “absolute truth”, the Pope is not denying “absolute truth”. He is denying the ability of any individual to have the capacity to ever fully “grasp” it:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=anb9k3l4vNYC&pg=PA31&dq=absolute+truth+pope&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNgfvJ7NHJAhXCuhQKHc8cCp8Q6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=absolute%20truth%20pope&f=false

**Pawlowicz: But is it possible to believe in absolute truth and not to act as if I have the absolute truth?

Zieba: If it is the truth of faith we’re dealing with, the truth professed by the Church, then it is not only possible but given with the truth of faith as faith, so to speak. By its very nature this truth infinitely surpasses our capacity to have** or possess it. We can at the very best contemplate it and strive to live in its light.

St. Thomas Aquinas observed that a dogma is a statement which “contains the truth in that it strives for the truth”. A dogma is concerned with absolute truth and with revealing the truth to us; but it’s only a beginning, because the truth is infinitely deeper - which is why Merton could entitle one of his books about the Christian The Ascent to Truth. That’s also why every Catholic priest and increasing numbers of lay persons who pray the Breviary come upon the words in the Vespers prayer for Monday, “Lord, help those who are searching for truth to find it, and having found it never to cease searching for it”.

 

[Mac_Murchaidh]

Okay, in good faith I accept your explanation.

(Your comment caught my eye since my ancestors were from County Galway.)

Count your blessings that they had the good sense to leave Galway, the weather here is absolutely atrocious right now.

 

[Thomas_White]

In terms of the debates concerning the issue of “absolute truth”, the Pope is not denying “absolute truth”. He is denying the ability of any individual to have the capacity to ever fully “grasp” it:

This is an excellent comment: “By its very nature this truth infinitely surpasses our ability to have or possess it” (bold emphasis added).

This is the teaching of the church.

 

[Vouthon]

This is an excellent comment: “By its very nature this truth infinitely surpasses our ability to have or possess it” (bold emphasis added).

This is the teaching of the church.

 

[LongingSoul]

I said at best because I’m assuming valid matter was present for the species of bread to be confected. But that’s still only half the sacrifice. It wouldn’t be sacrilegious if there wasn’t even valid matter for the bread because there would be no Transubstantiation at all. If the priest was offering a “dry Mass”, which is a pious custom, that would be one thing, but for someone to then represent that as a valid Mass would be wrong.

No, the actions of this priest, under either scenario, are not the same as what your priest does on a Sunday morning.

One of the CAF teaching tracts offers some insight on the matter. It is a case of licitness and not validity since the Eastern Orthodox Churchs use leavened bread in their valid sacrament.

catholic.com/quickquestions/eastern-rite-catholics-use-leavened-bread-in-holy-communion-but-roman-rite-catholics-

 

[Mac_Murchaidh]

One of the CAF teaching tracts offers some insight on the matter. It is a case of licitness and not validity since the Eastern Orthodox Churchs use leavened bread in their valid sacrament.

catholic.com/quickquestions/eastern-rite-catholics-use-leavened-bread-in-holy-communion-but-roman-rite-catholics-

It is not a case of leavened versus unleavened bread. It’s whether or not the scrapings hoarded together by the POWs—regardless of whether the bread is leavened or not—could constitute valid matter. Say the priest attempts to celebrate such a Mass using bread and water. The water of course can’t be confected, and thus no Mass can be celebrated. But he can still confect the species of the bread. Say he does so, which is a grave abuse on its own, even if there is no ill will in his intend.

Say that bread has been laying under his pillow, with dirt having been mixed in with the crumbs. Say it’s deteriorated to literal grimy little crumbs held in the palm of his hand. And a storm blew in the night before and made the particles moist and damp.

I would have a hard time believing that the matter there can any longer be considered bread. We believe that when the accidents of the Most Holy Eucharist disappear, through digestion for instance, that the Real Presence ceases to be. If the contents in the priest’s hand has less resemblance to what 15 minutes in our digestive system does to the Most Holy Eurcharist, then I don’t think that he can validly confect the Eucharist in this scenario.