Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[Brendan]

That is the point. The full meaning is the “absolute truth”.

That is not true. Reason can deduce certain truths, and the full meaning of those truths can be known, but they are not absolute truths.

Here is the definition that Aquinas uses

Now we do not judge of a thing by what is in it accidentally, but by what is in it essentially. Hence, that is said to be true absolutely, in so far as it is related to the intellect from which it depends

ST I, Q16,a1

The intellect on which divinely revealed truths depend is the intellect of God. That is what (or more precisely WHO) they originate and take their being.

Thus when the Church stated that the Holy Spirit is God, that is a revealed truth, the truth of which is not dependent on human reason.

 

[Brendan]

But does knowing just some equal absolute ?

Jim

No, some truths are contingent, in that they are deduced from other truths. Absolutle truths are those who are non contingent, not relative.

Both can be know as immutable.

 

[Thomas_White]

Where does CCC 251 make this statement that you implied that it does

namely, where does the Church define an ‘absolute truth’ to be that which is “beyond human understanding”

I believe CCC 39-43 provides the relevant teaching. It is quoted in full in comment #356.

The instant question concerned the nature of the Trinity. CCC 251 provides the following:

"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)

I believe this provides the teaching concerning the “absolute truth” of the Trinity. It is “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”.

All of this information has already been provided on the thread. It is what the church teaches and what I believe. However, if a person believes they possess the absolute truth, then so be it. It is their prerogative. As Pope Francis has said, “We Catholics have some–and not some, many–who believe they possess the absolute truth…” I would see it as largely futile to attempt to persuade a person with this perspective otherwise and would rather leave it at that.

 

[Brendan]

I believe this provides the teaching concerning the “absolute truth” of the Trinity. It is “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”.

That does not answer my question

How do you define ‘absolute truth’ and what Church documents can you site to support it.

Your reference, once again, is a claim about the Mystery of the Trintiy, which is NOT a definition. In fact, the CCC you site does not even MENTION the term ‘absolute truth’ Neither does CCC 39-43. The term ‘absolute truth’ is not mentioned their either.

How do you define the term, and what teachings of the Church do you offer to support it?

 

[friardchips]

I disagree. After hearing his closing Synod remarks, I think he’s also talking about some people–Catholics–who work very closely with him.

.

Hi, DaddyGirl! I don’t know about those “who work very closely with him” but I certainly think he meant to include people in the Church and furthermore I think that to deny this is to be in denial of a subtle reprimand as it’s often easier to judge the other than inspect ourselves first - the ‘plank/splinter’ Bible passage comes to mind.

 

[Thomas_White]

That does not answer my question

How do you define ‘absolute truth’ and what Church documents can you site to support it.

“Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so” (CCC 40).

I do not think the ‘absolute truth’ is limited. What I believe is the ‘absolute truth’ is beyond the conceptualizations of the human intellect. There is the duality of true/false, and I think the ‘absolute truth’ transcends this duality. In this way, it is ineffable and incapable of being expressed in words. I do not not believe you will find an authoritative Church document that says otherwise about either God or the Trinity.

To request a Church document to support a definition of ‘absolute truth’ is interesting. It contains its own truth.

Your reference, once again, is a claim about the Mystery of the Trintiy, which is NOT a definition. In fact, the CCC you site does not even MENTION the term ‘absolute truth’ Neither does CCC 39-43. The term ‘absolute truth’ is not mentioned their either.

CCC 251 states that terms used to articulate the dogma of the Trinity were given a “new and unprecedented meaning” to signify “an ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”. Again, what is ‘ineffable’ is incapable of being expressed in words. You are asking me to prove a negative.
13504710:

How do you define the term, and what teachings of the Church do you offer to support it?

I do not believe a true definition of ‘absolute truth’ is possible for it is ineffable. That there even is an ‘absolute truth’ is a matter of faith and belief, and to insist that questions of faith must have documentation is to greatly diminish spirituality. I realize this is not readily understood by one and all.

What is the meaning of the term ‘the Catholic faith’? Are we not to believe in God and the Trinity lest we have verifiable proof of their existence in a document when the Church (at least as I understand it) has explained this is not possible? The serious misconception here is that of the mindset that seems to believe that if a person questions what is in essence ‘legalism’, that it is to dispute the Catholic faith. It is in a sense the idolatry of one side of the Reason/Belief dichotomy, and from there it is but short steps to literalism to judgmentalism to fundamentalism. I say this with all due respect, for it is a very common error.

 

[Brendan]

I do not think the ‘absolute truth’ is limited…

… I do not believe a true definition of ‘absolute truth’ is possible for it is ineffable. …

.

Interesting, you are claiming that the Church cannot possess something, and you cannot define what it is that it cannot have.

If you are making such a claim, would it not be wise to have a definition of what it is that is being discussed?

Your singular attempt to define it is as ‘ineffiable’. What Church teaching do you offer to support your characterization of absolute truth as ineffiable? Is it simply your own opinion, or do rely on a Church teaching to make that claim?

I for one, trust Aquinas’ definition (and his attempt to define it)

What can you offer, so that your premise can be properly evaluated?

 

[Brendan]

Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that not apparent

Aquinas S.T. II-II, Q1, a1

 

[Thomas_White]

Interesting, you are claiming that the Church cannot possess something, and you cannot define what it is that it cannot have.

If you are making such a claim, would it not be wise to have a definition of what it is that is being discussed?

Your singular attempt to define it is as ‘ineffiable’. What Church teaching do you offer to support your characterization of absolute truth as ineffiable? Is it simply your own opinion, or do rely on a Church teaching to make that claim?

I for one, trust Aquinas’ definition (and his attempt to define it)

What can you offer, so that your premise can be properly evaluated?

“God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God–the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable–with our human represenations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God” (CCC 42) (emphasis added).

This is the teaching of the Church, and either it is understood or it is not. As I have suggested (and with all due respect), there are those I believe of a mindset unwilling or unable to accept this teaching. When this is the case, I believe it is futile to attempt to render the teaching comprehensible, for it is as though it is veiled from the understanding. Perhaps it is that a person cannot understand the teaching before he is prepared to accept it.

If a person wishes to believe he is in possession of the ‘absolute truth’, then so be it. I am not interested in an endless discussion concerning a Church teaching that is clear at least for me.

 

[Brendan]

“God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God–the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable–with our human represenations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God” (CCC 42) (emphasis added).

This is the teaching of the Church, and either it is understood or it is not.

I have already agreed that we will not, nor cannot, know all of the truths that encompass God.

I fully accept the teaching, but I reject your misrepresentation of it. Especially since you have been shown to apply definitions of truth that are personal in nature and are not supported by Church teaching.

When this is the case, I believe it is futile to attempt to render the teaching

[/QUOTE]

 

[LongingSoul]

"God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited

, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God–the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable–with our human represenations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God" (CCC 42) (emphasis added).

This is the teaching of the Church, and either it is understood or it is not.

I have already agreed that we will not, nor cannot, know all of the truths that encompass God.

But your quote does not show that there cannot exist Truths, especially those revealed by God, that cannot be fully known.

No where does CCC 42 state that every one of the infinite number of truths about God cannot be fully known.

I fully accept the teaching, but I reject your misrepresentation of it. Especially since you have been shown to apply definitions of truth that are personal in nature and are not supported by Church teaching.

When this is the case, I believe it is futile to attempt to render the teaching

(Brendan, when you split up a post to reply, you need to put a forward slash in front of the end quote command. It’s always so hard to reply to your posts.)

What do you think Pope Francis meant when he criticised those who believed they possess absolute truth, causing them to act in a hateful way towards others?

 

[Brendan]

What do you think Pope Francis meant when he criticised those who believed they possess absolute truth, causing them to act in a hateful way towards others?

That the wrong is using it to act hatefully.

The right act would be to teach such truth in charity.

There is no wrong, per se, in knowing absolute truth, since God has entrusted such to His Church,

.(Brendan, when you split up a post to reply, you need to put a forward slash in front of the end quote command. It’s always so hard to reply to your posts.)

Sorry, sometimes I am posting via my phone and editing mistakes more easily made

 

[Brendan]

Oh yea,

And one other set of those would be rightly subject such criticism would be those sedevanctists who falsely claim absolute truth that can only rightly belong to the Church to hold and teach.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yeah the self-righteous always teach others with charity.

Jim

 

[Thomas_White]

"God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited

, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God–the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable–with our human represenations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God" (CCC 42) (emphasis added).

This is the teaching of the Church, and either it is understood or it is not.

I have already agreed that we will not, nor cannot, know all of the truths that encompass God.

But your quote does not show that there cannot exist Truths, especially those revealed by God, that cannot be fully known.

No where does CCC 42 state that every one of the infinite number of truths about God cannot be fully known.

I fully accept the teaching, but I reject your misrepresentation of it. Especially since you have been shown to apply definitions of truth that are personal in nature and are not supported by Church teaching.

When this is the case, I believe it is futile to attempt to render the teaching

[Note: Brendan, it would be helpful if you could correctly format your replies to comments.]

The dogmatic constitution on divine revelation, Die Verbum, provides that the understanding of Apostolic preaching continues to advance through the centuries until the end of time.

If we cannot know all of the truths that encompass God, how could every one of the infinite number of truths about God be fully known? An infinite number is not a finite number and has no limit.

What misrepresentation? I quoted CCC #42. I would say that to know the “inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable” is to know the absolute truth. However, to know what is incomprehensible is a contradiction, and I would not agree this is “not supported by Church teaching”. Church teaching is that man’s understanding of the truth of Apostolic preaching advances through the ages.

 

[Brendan]

If we cannot know all of the truths that encompass God, how could every one of the infinite number of truths about God be fully known? An infinite number is not a finite number and has no limit.

And I agree with you. However there exist truths that CAN be know, and are know absolutely.

What misrepresentation? I quoted CCC #42. I would say that to know the “inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable” is to know the absolute truth. However, to know what is incomprehensible is a contradiction, and I would not agree this is “not supported by Church teaching”. Church teaching is that man’s understanding of the truth of Apostolic preaching advances through the ages.

Your misrepresentation is that you claim that ALL of the Truths regarding the Trinity cannot be absolute. See above.

That claim does not exist ANYWHERE in CCC 42.

As I have stated, there most certainly will be NEW truths that become known, but that does not affect the absoluteness of the truths that we do know.

CCC 42 makes no claim like that, but you do, and such a claim is unsupported by any Church teaching.

That the Holy Spirit is God is an absolute teaching. That truth is immutable and contingent on no other truth.

We will certainly learn new truths in regards to the Spirit, that such truths will not change the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. That is an absolute, immutable truth.

[Note: Brendan, it would be helpful if you could correctly format your replies to comments.]

It would be helpful if you read any previous posts where I did, in fact, note and apologize for that.

 

[Thomas_White]

And I agree with you. However there exist truths that CAN be know, and are know absolutely.

Your misrepresentation is that you claim that ALL of the Truths regarding the Trinity cannot be absolute. See above.

That claim does not exist ANYWHERE in CCC 42.

As I have stated, there most certainly will be NEW truths that become known, but that does not affect the absoluteness of the truths that we do know.

CCC 42 makes no claim like that, but you do, and such a claim is unsupported by any Church teaching.

That the Holy Spirit is God is an absolute teaching. That truth is immutable and contingent on no other truth.

We will certainly learn new truths in regards to the Spirit, that such truths will not change the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. That is an absolute, immutable truth.

It would be helpful if you read any previous posts where I did, in fact, note and apologize for that.

Brendan, I do not think we are on the same page. What is your definition of “absolute truth”?

CCC 251 explains that words such as “the Holy Spirit is God” signify what is beyond “our human representation”. They are therefore not the “absolute truth”. You seem to believe that my saying this is somehow a misrepresentation, and you say it in what appears a righteous manner as though I were offending Catholic belief. But what you are insisting is possible would be to limit God, the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity in such a way that you could know the “absolute truth” through human language. You are mistaken in your belief that this is possible, and CCC 251 cautions against this very error.

You have said that I have misrepresented Catholic teaching, have “personal” definitions of truth, and have said things that are not true. Since you believe you possess the “absolute truth”, I would like your response to what Pope Francis has said:

“We Catholics have some–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.”

christianpost.com/news/pope-francis-slams-fundamentalist-catholics-who-believe-in-absolute-truth-151350/

 

[Brendan]

Brendan, I do not think we are on the same page. What is your definition of “absolute truth”?

The same as Aquinas. A truth that is not contingent on another truth.

CCC 251 explains that words such as “the Holy Spirit is God” signify

 

[LongingSoul]

No CCC 251 does NOT make that claim. It makes the claim that the Church had to develop words to express certain truths, but it makes no claim that EVERY truth in regards to the Trintiy requires such expression.

Nor does CCC 251 make the claim that all of the truths of a mystery cannot be fully expressed.

Hence why I consider you to misrepresenting Church teaching in this matter

CCC237 is fairly clear on the Trinity.

The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God,** which can never be known unless they are revealed by God**”.58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. **But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone **or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JimG]

CCC237 is fairly clear on the Trinity.

The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God,** which can never be known unless they are revealed by God**”.58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. **But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone **or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spiri.

The point of the passage is that the Trinity is known precisely because it has been revealed by God. It would not be known by reason, or by the hints in the OT. It is known because of the divine revelation given by Jesus. That is why there is a doctrine of the Trinity, and the doctrine is stated quite precisely. There are three Persons in One God. There are not three Gods, there are not three divine natures, not three essences of God, but three Persons in one divine nature.

The doctrine is a divine mystery. That does not mean that the doctrine cannot under any circumstances be formulated in human language. It has been so formulated as a doctrinal statement, and the doctrine is absolutely true.

If the doctrine were incapable of formulation, it would not be stated as a doctrine. Doctrines need to use words. And if nothing could be truly said of God because he is ineffable–which means unable to be spoken of in human language–then the Catechism could be reduced to one sentence.