Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[LongingSoul]

Brendan;13516478:

Brendan, how would I know?

The number ‘3’ is not an “absolute truth”. It is a finite number. In formulating the teaching of the Trinity, it is said there are three persons in one God. CCC 251 provides that this is an attempt to express in human language what is an “ineffable mystery” (i.e., what is inexpressible in limited human language). I accept this teaching.

The “absolute truth” of the Trinity is “infinitely beyond all of our human understanding”. It is the belief that the number three “signifies” a relationship that cannot be expressed and is said to be “relative” (i.e., not absolute). This does not seem comprehensible (i.e., it remains a mystery) but the CCC teaches that this is Catholic belief.

There is no claim that it is the “absolute truth”. This is very clear in the teaching.

It is Catholic dogma that Apostolic preaching advances through the centuries until its full revelation at the end of time. In this way, the number three cannot yet be said to be the “absolute truth”. While this is Catholic belief, it cannot even be said what it signifies. I do not know how the understanding of the Trinity will advance to the revelation of its “absolute truth”.

The number three is a concept, an idea of human understanding and not an “absolute truth”. I know this is not easily grasped, but I think it is far easier to grasp than would be knowledge of the infinite Being of God. It is difficult to put into words, but I believe the infinite Being of God could only be experienced and is beyond human understanding.

Yes, as per Aquinas…

Because our intellect is not eternal, neither is the truth of enunciable propositions which are formed by us, eternal, but it had a beginning in time. Now before such truth existed, it was not true to say that such a truth did exist, except by reason of the divine intellect, wherein alone truth is eternal. But it is true now to say that that truth did not then exist: and this is true only by reason of the truth that is now in our intellect; and not by reason of any truth in the things. For this is truth concerning not-being; and not-being has not truth of itself, but only so far as our intellect apprehends it. Hence it is true to say that truth did not exist, in so far as we apprehend its not-being as preceding its being.

newadvent.org/summa/1016.htm#article7

 

[Brendan]

Brendan;13516478:

Brendan, how would I know?

The number ‘3’ is not an “absolute truth”. It is a finite number.

Why are would that be mutually exclusive

In formulating the teaching of the Trinity, it is said there are three persons in one God. CCC 251 provides that this is an attempt to express in human language what is an “ineffable mystery” (i.e., what is inexpressible in limited human language). I accept this teaching.

And, once again, is the number of persons dependant on any human understanding of personhood? If we develop a greater understanding of what ‘person’ means, will that alter the number?

The “absolute truth” of the Trinity is “infinitely beyond all of our human understanding”. It is the belief that the number three “signifies” a relationship that cannot be expressed and is said to be “relative” (i.e., not absolute). This does not seem comprehensible (i.e., it remains a mystery) but the CCC teaches that this is Catholic belief.

There is no claim that it is the “absolute truth”. This is very clear in the teaching.

Once again, you are using the wrong indefinite article. I stated “AN” absolute truth in regards to the Trinity, not THE absolute Truth of the essence of the Trinity. Different question.

It is Catholic dogma that Apostolic preaching advances through the centuries until its full revelation at the end of time. In this way, the number three cannot yet be said to be the “absolute truth”. While this is Catholic belief, it cannot even be said what it signifies

. I do not know how the understanding of the Trinity will advance to the revelation of its “absolute truth”.

Is it your claim then, that the dogma of the Trinty will change, or could change, so that the number of persons will be anything other than three?

You really do seem to be avoiding answering that question.

The number three is a concept, an idea of human understanding and not an “absolute truth”. I know this is not easily grasped, but I think it is far easier to grasp than would be knowledge of the infinite Being of God. It is difficult to put into words, but I believe the infinite Being of God could only be experienced

and is beyond human understanding.

I an referring not to a Platonic ‘Threeness’, but the answer to a very specific doctrinal point, the answer of which is a numeric value. That is a separate question.

I claim that the truth of that answer, is immutable, objective and absolute truth.

Do you claim otherwise?

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas White;13516714:

Why are would that be mutually exclusive

And, once again, is the number of persons dependant on any human understanding of personhood? If we develop a greater understanding of what ‘person’ means, will that alter the number?
Brendan;13516738:

Thomas White;13516714:

Why are would that be mutually exclusive

And, once again, is the number of persons dependant on any human understanding of personhood? If we develop a greater understanding of what ‘person’ means, will that alter the number?

Once again, you are using the wrong indefinite article. I stated “AN” absolute truth in regards to the Trinity, not THE absolute Truth of the essence of the Trinity. Different question.

Is it your claim then, that the dogma of the Trinty will change, or could change, so that the number of persons will be anything other than three?

You really do seem to be avoiding answering that question.

I an referring not to a Platonic ‘Threeness’, but the answer to a very specific doctrinal point, the answer of which is a numeric value. That is a separate question.

I claim that the truth of that answer, is immutable, objective and absolute truth.

Do you claim otherwise?

Yes, of course. Our understanding of the Trinity, an ineffable mystery expressed in limited human language, is not the “absolute truth”.

Once again, you are using the wrong indefinite article. I stated “AN” absolute truth in regards to the Trinity, not THE absolute Truth of the essence of the Trinity. Different question.

Is it your claim then, that the dogma of the Trinty will change, or could change, so that the number of persons will be anything other than three?

You really do seem to be avoiding answering that question.

I an referring not to a Platonic ‘Threeness’, but the answer to a very specific doctrinal point, the answer of which is a numeric value. That is a separate question.

I claim that the truth of that answer, is immutable, objective and absolute truth.

Do you claim otherwise?

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas White;13516714:

Why are would that be mutually exclusive

And, once again, is the number of persons dependant on any human understanding of personhood? If we develop a greater understanding of what ‘person’ means, will that alter the number?

Once again, you are using the wrong indefinite article. I stated “AN” absolute truth in regards to the Trinity, not THE absolute Truth of the essence of the Trinity. Different question.

Is it your claim then, that the dogma of the Trinty will change, or could change, so that the number of persons will be anything other than three?

You really do seem to be avoiding answering that question.

I an referring not to a Platonic ‘Threeness’, but the answer to a very specific doctrinal point, the answer of which is a numeric value. That is a separate question.

I claim that the truth of that answer, is immutable, objective and absolute truth.

Do you claim otherwise?

Yes, of course. Our understanding of the Trinity, an ineffable mystery expressed in limited human language, is not the “absolute truth”, and I do not pretend to know the “absolute truth”.

 

[LongingSoul]

Brendan;13516738:

Yes, of course. Our understanding of the Trinity, an ineffable mystery expressed in limited human language, is not the “absolute truth”, and I do not pretend to know the “absolute truth”.

Again, from Aquinas confirming this…

The philosophers did not know the mystery of the trinity of the divine persons by its proper attributes, such as paternity, filiation, and procession, according to the Apostle’s words, “We speak the wisdom of God which none of the princes of the world”–i.e. the philosophers–“knew” (1 Corinthians 2:6). Nevertheless, they knew some of the essential attributes appropriated to the persons, as power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, goodness to the Holy Ghost; as will later on appear. So, when Aristotle said, “By this number,” etc., we must not take it as if he affirmed a threefold number in God, but that he wished to say that the ancients used the threefold number in their sacrifices and prayers on account of some perfection residing in the number three.

newadvent.org/summa/1032.htm#article1

 

[JimG]

I am rather astonished that this thread is coming close to denying a dogma of the Catholic Church. A divine mystery is not a revealed truth about which we can know nothing. It is a revealed truth about which we cannot know everything.

The purpose of divine revelation, in this case, the revelation of God as a Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit, is to reveal something about God which we would not otherwise know. The knowledge of God as three Persons in one Divine Nature is known only because it is divinely revealed. We have no authority to change God’s description of himself.

Here are some links that may help.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/GODA22.htm

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/GODA22A.HTM

Q&A

 

[Thomas_White]

I am rather astonished that this thread is coming close to denying a dogma of the Catholic Church. A divine mystery is not a revealed truth about which we can know nothing. It is a revealed truth about which we cannot know everything.

The purpose of divine revelation, in this case, the revelation of God as a Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit, is to reveal something about God which we would not otherwise know. The knowledge of God as three Persons in one Divine Nature is known only because it is divinely revealed. We have no authority to change God’s description of himself.

Here are some links that may help.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/GODA22.htm

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/GODA22A.HTM

Q&A

There are a number of statements in each of these documents that qualifies them, and the essence of each (as the second link provides) is that “to understand these things fully, a finite mind would have to comprehend the infinite”.

It is in this way that the “absolute truth” of the Trinity cannot be known by man for it is beyond man’s finite understanding. This statement is hardly to deny a dogma of the Catholic Church. It affirms the clear teaching of the Church.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan;13516738:

Yes, of course. Our understanding of the Trinity, an ineffable mystery expressed in limited human language, is not the “absolute truth”, and I do not pretend to know the “absolute truth”.

So is the number of person is the Trinity not absolute then?

On what is it contingent?

How does it vary?

 

[Brendan]

Thomas White;13516814:

Again, from Aquinas confirming this…

The philosophers did not know the mystery of the trinity of the divine persons by its proper attributes, such as paternity, filiation, and procession, according to the Apostle’s words, “We speak the wisdom of God which none of the princes of the world”–i.e. the philosophers–“knew” (1 Corinthians 2:6). Nevertheless, they knew some of the essential attributes appropriated to the persons, as power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, goodness to the Holy Ghost; as will later on appear. So, when Aristotle said, “By this number,” etc., we must not take it as if he affirmed a threefold number in God, but that he wished to say that the ancients used the threefold number in their sacrifices and prayers on account of some perfection residing in the number three.

newadvent.org/summa/1032.htm#article1

It seems that I am not the only one who occasionally has issues with formatting

Per Aquinas

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

ST I, Q16,a1 - “What is Truth”

Hence why I am asking on if the number of persons in the Trinity is dependent on human intellect, or the Divine intellect.

I would claim that it is dependent on Divine Intellect, in that I claim that the number of persons does not change as the human intellect develops it’s definition of what ‘Person’ entails. No change in human intellect will change the number of persons to anything other than 3.

The truth is revealed, and not dependant on human intellect (changes in human intellect do not change the truth)

Thus, per Aquinas, it IS absolute.

So Longing, would you claim that I an incorrect, that that the number of persons in the Trinity is dependent on human understanding, that this number will change as human understanding changes?

Or would you claim that this truth is not revealed, or that it does not originate in the Divine Intellect?

 

[LongingSoul]

It seems that I am not the only one who occasionally has issues with formatting

Just to clarify… the only reason everyone elses formatting is off is in trying to quote from your originally flawed posts. I’ve just given up trying to correct them that’s all.

 

[Brendan]

Just to clarify… the only reason everyone elses formatting is off is in trying to quote from your originally flawed posts. I’ve just given up trying to correct them that’s all.

Thanks, now can you answer the questions.

Aquinas took the time to define how a truth can be known to be absolute. Let’s see if it applies to the case presented.

In what way is the truth of the number of persons dependent on human intellect. If the human intellect changes, can or does that change the number of persons?

 

[LongingSoul]

Thanks, now can you answer the questions.

Aquinas took the time to define how a truth can be known to be absolute. Let’s see if it applies to the case presented.

In what way is the truth of the number of persons dependent on human intellect. If the human intellect changes, can or does that change the number of persons?

To look at St Thomas’ quote more fully…

Now a thing understood may be in relation to an intellect either essentially or accidentally. It is related essentially to an intellect on which it depends as regards its essence; but accidentally to an intellect by which it is knowable; even as we may say that a house is related essentially to the intellect of the architect, but accidentally to the intellect upon which it does not depend.

Now we do not judge of a thing by what is in it accidentally, but by what is in it essentially. Hence, everything is said to be true absolutely, in so far as it is related to the intellect from which it depends; and thus it is that artificial things are said to be true a being related to our intellect. For a house is said to be true that expresses the likeness of the form in the architect’s mind; and words are said to be true so far as they are the signs of truth in the intellect. In the same way natural things are said to be true in so far as they express the likeness of the species that are in the divine mind. For a stone is called true, which possesses the nature proper to a stone, according to the preconception in the divine intellect.

A thing is absolutely true as it relates to the intellect of God. (Essentially) It is true but not in an eternal way, as it relates to the intellect of creatures. (Accidentally)

Now further down in that section, Aquinas poses the question “Whether Created Truth is eternal”…

On the contrary, God alone is eternal, as laid down before (10, 3).

I answer that, The truth of enunciations is no other than the truth of the intellect. For an enunciation resides in the intellect, and in speech. Now according as it is in the intellect it has truth of itself: but according as it is in speech, it is called enunciable truth, according as it signifies some truth of the intellect, not on account of any truth residing in the enunciation, as though in a subject. Thus urine is called healthy, not from any health within it but from the health of an animal which it indicates. In like manner it has been already said that things are called true from the truth of the intellect. Hence, if no intellect were eternal, no truth would be eternal. Now because only the divine intellect is eternal, in it alone truth has eternity. Nor does it follow from this that anything else but God is eternal; since the truth of the divine intellect is God Himself, as shown already (5).

So to your question regarding numbers. For example the doctrine of Original Sin at one time regarded Adam and Eve ‘one’ man and ‘one’ woman. In more recent times with our increased knowledge of the origins of man, we can now confidently know that ‘one’ is a more symbolic enunciation of the truth than it previously had been. Who knows how time and theological advancement could enrich our understanding of ‘God is Three and God is One’.

newadvent.org/summa/1016.htm#article7

 

[Thomas_White]

So is the number of person is the Trinity not absolute then?

On what is it contingent?

How does it vary?

Not presuming to know the “absolute truth”, I cannot answer the question. In your comments, as was previously noted, you have consistently confused “absolute truth” with the philosophical term “necessary truth”. A truth is necessary if its denial would entail a contradiction; a contingent truth is true but could have been false. These are terms used in logic, but neither represents “absolute truth”. A necessary truth is eminently deniable by simply stating its contradiction.

It has been noted over and over again that the word “person” only signifies what is inexpressible in human language and is beyond human understanding. It required many centuries for the current teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity to develop, and that its understanding could further develop is Catholic dogma. In the second link provided in comment #449, it is stated that “in heaven there will be a fuller understanding of these mysteries, but never an infinite comprehension of them”.

You seem fixated in your comments on the number three, apparently believing it is an “absolute truth” of which you are in possession. To be sure, it is Catholic belief that there are three persons in one God. The point is that while you believe you possess an “absolute truth”, you cannot know that this belief is an absolute fact (or even that it could be a fact as the term is commonly understood–an “absolute truth” is more likely transcendent of even the dichotomy of true/false). This is where we disagree, and what I have said is not a denial of the Trinity or of Catholic teaching or belief. While I accept that I cannot know the “absolute truth” of the Trinity, this does not mean that the teaching is rejected.

If a person recognizes that the human intellect cannot possess the “infinite comprehension” of the Trintity and accepts its human teaching as a matter of faith and belief, what then follows in the teaching of the catechism becomes comprehensible. There is no denial of an “absolute truth”.

 

[Brendan]

To look at St Thomas’ quote more fully…

Now a thing understood may be in relation to an intellect either essentially or accidentally. It is related essentially to an intellect on which it depends as regards its essence; but accidentally to an intellect by which it is knowable; even as we may say that a house is related essentially to the intellect of the architect, but accidentally to the intellect upon which it does not depend.

Now we do not judge of a thing by what is in it accidentally, but by what is in it essentially. Hence, everything is said to be true absolutely, in so far as it is related to the intellect from which it depends; and thus it is that artificial things are said to be true a being related to our intellect. For a house is said to be true that expresses the likeness of the form in the architect’s mind; and words are said to be true so far as they are the signs of truth in the intellect. In the same way natural things are said to be true in so far as they express the likeness of the species that are in the divine mind. For a stone is called true, which possesses the nature proper to a stone, according to the preconception in the divine intellect.

A thing is absolutely true as it relates to the intellect of God. (Essentially) It is true but not in an eternal way, as it relates to the intellect of creatures. (Accidentally)

Now further down in that section, Aquinas poses the question “Whether Created Truth is eternal”…

On the contrary, God alone is eternal, as laid down before (10, 3).

I answer that, The truth of enunciations is no other than the truth of the intellect. For an enunciation resides in the intellect, and in speech. Now according as it is in the intellect it has truth of itself: but according as it is in speech, it is called enunciable truth, according as it signifies some truth of the intellect, not on account of any truth residing in the enunciation, as though in a subject. Thus urine is called healthy, not from any health within it but from the health of an animal which it indicates. In like manner it has been already said that things are called true from the truth of the intellect. Hence, if no intellect were eternal, no truth would be eternal. Now because only the divine intellect is eternal, in it alone truth has eternity. Nor does it follow from this that anything else but God is eternal; since the truth of the divine intellect is God Himself, as shown already (5).

So to your question regarding numbers. For example the doctrine of Original Sin at one time regarded Adam and Eve ‘one’ man and ‘one’ woman. In more recent times with our increased knowledge of the origins of man, we can now confidently know that ‘one’ is a more symbolic enunciation of the truth than it previously had been. Who knows how time and theological advancement could enrich our understanding of ‘God is Three and God is One’.
newadvent.org/summa/1016.htm#article7

First, note that the judgment of the truth is dependent on the intellect on which it depends, and only accidently on the intellect on which it does not depend.

Hence, my question on if the truth is dependent on the human intellect. I claim that it is not.

 

[Brendan]

Not presuming to know the “absolute truth”, I cannot answer the question. In your comments, as was previously noted, you have consistently confused “absolute truth” with the philosophical term “necessary truth”. A truth is necessary if its denial would entail a contradiction; a contingent truth is true but could have been false. These are terms used in logic, but neither represents “absolute truth”. A necessary truth is eminently deniable by simply stating its contradiction.

No, I am not confusing the two. You are correct in your assessment of what a necessary truth is.

But what I am referring to is contingency. If the truth is dependent on another truth. In the case of the number of persons in the Trinity, I claim that such a truth is not dependent on human understanding of Person. No change in a human understanding of the concept of person will change the truth. It is therefore Absolute.

If a person recognizes that the human intellect cannot possess the “infinite comprehension” of the Trintity and accepts its human teaching as a matter of faith and belief, what then follows in the teaching of the catechism becomes comprehensible. There is no denial of an “absolute truth”.

My claim is not the comprehension of EVERY truth in regards to the Trinity, the comprehension of the totality of these truths most certainly IS beyond human comprehension.

Rather, my claim is in regards to certain, specific truths. They are knowable. Those that are Divine in origin, and not dependent on other truths, by definition are knowable. They example that I gave is one of these.

 

[Thomas_White]

No, I am not confusing the two. You are correct in your assessment of what a necessary truth is.

But what I am referring to is contingency. If the truth is dependent on another truth. In the case of the number of persons in the Trinity, I claim that such a truth is not dependent on human understanding of Person. No change in a human understanding of the concept of person will change the truth. It is therefore Absolute.

As is “person”, the number three is also a concept of the limited human intellect and language.

My claim is not the comprehension of EVERY truth in regards to the Trinity, the comprehension of the totality of these truths most certainly IS beyond human comprehension.

Rather, my claim is in regards to certain, specific truths. They are knowable. Those that are Divine in origin, and not dependent on other truths, by definition are knowable. They example that I gave is one of these.

Is this specific, certain truth that is knowable and not dependent on another truth the number three? Three what, Brendan? Can you tell us what the number three signifies in itself, or other than itself, if nothing follows?

 

[LongingSoul]

As is “person”, the number three is also a concept of the limited human intellect and language.

Is this specific, certain truth that is knowable and not dependent on another truth the number three? Three what, Brendan? Can you tell us what the number three signifies in itself, or other than itself, if nothing follows?

That God is three was also never meant to be a stand alone fact. It is God is Three and God is One. That’s the fullness of the doctrine and we believe it but we’ll never really fully get what the phrase means.

 

[Brendan]

That God is three was also never meant to be a stand alone fact. It is God is Three and God is One. That’s the fullness of the doctrine and we believe it but we’ll never really fully get what the phrase means.

So then, you are not denying that it a truth, but really, that it is not ‘known’ to us?

 

[Brendan]

…the number three is also a concept of the limited human intellect and language.

Why?

Does God count differently that we do. Does His intellect comprehend more persons than a human intellect does, and thus the number of persons counted varies by intellect?

Is this specific, certain truth that is knowable and not dependent on another truth the number three? Three what, Brendan? Can you tell us what the number three signifies in itself, or other than itself, if nothing follows?

It is a Cardinal number equal to 1+1+1.

Is your question then, that the human mind cannot understand the concept of ‘Three’ , therefor my premise is incorrect. Are you reliant on the concept of Platonic Forms?

 

[Brendan]

So for those lurking, I would like to see if I can summarize your position,

It is that Pope Francis criticized as fundamentalists, those who hold that it is an absolute truth that the Trinity is made up of Three Divine Persons in One Godhead.

The reason you believe that Pope Francis criticized such a believe, among other things, is that the human mind cannot fully comprehend the number Three

Is that your position?