Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[Thomas_White]

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?

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?

No, I am not reliant on the concept of Platonic forms for an understanding of the teaching of the Trinity. The question was what, specifically, does the number three signify with reference to the Trinity? Would you please tell us?

 

[Thomas_White]

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?

Brendan, we all know very well that in his remarks concerning fundamentalism that Pope Francis said nothing remotely like that.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan, we all know very well that in his remarks concerning fundamentalism that Pope Francis said nothing remotely like that.

Both you and Longing claimed that it was so, that the Pope criticized all those who make claims to know absolute truth,

So what, exactly did I misstate in your position?

 

[Brendan]

I will offer as evidence

Longing in 395

Thomas, I think Brendan knows quite well that the Popes statement was a direct criticism of the belief in possession of absolute truth. It’s very clear.

And your reply to her in post 399

Originally Posted by LongingSoul View Post
Thomas, I think Brendan knows quite well that the Popes statement was a direct criticism of the belief in possession of absolute truth. It’s very clear.

Yes, it is very clear, and it is time for me to let it go

 

[LongingSoul]

Both you and Longing claimed that it was so, that the Pope criticized all those who make claims to know absolute truth,

So what, exactly did I misstate in your position?

Brendan, you’re being petulant and extreme in my opinion. Pope Francis said ‘those who believe they possess absolute Truth’, have a problem. He is referencing a phenomenon which gives a person a sense of being God. Being able to judge, condemn, destroy and even in some cases, kill others who don’t measure up to their concept of absolute truth.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan, you’re being petulant and extreme in my opinion. Pope Francis said ‘those who believe they possess absolute Truth’, have a problem. He is referencing a phenomenon which gives a person a sense of being God. Being able to judge, condemn, destroy and even in some cases, kill others who don’t measure up to their concept of absolute truth.

That was precisely that point that I made earlier, on why the Pope had a logical AND in there. That it was insufficient just to claim to know an absolute truth, but you had to do evil with it.

A point, I might you object to.

Here is my post on the subject in 391

Note the logical connector ‘and’ in the Pope’s statement. That requires both clauses to be true for the statement to be true.

Thus the people being criticized are only the ones for who both is true.

Those who claim to possess absolute truth, yet do not “go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation” are thus not the subject of the criticism.

Do you agree with the item in italics?

If so, your reply did not include the modifying clause

Thomas, I think Brendan knows quite well that the Popes statement was a direct criticism of the belief in possession of absolute truth. It’s very clear.

If your intent was to agree with me, I apologize.

 

[Thomas_White]

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?

Both you and Longing claimed that it was so, that the Pope criticized all those who make claims to know absolute truth,

So what, exactly did I misstate in your position?

Brendan, you original comment, quoted above, speaks for itself. Pope Francis said nothing whatsoever concerning the teaching of the Trinity is his remarks concerning fundamentalism.

 

[LongingSoul]

That was precisely that point that I made earlier, on why the Pope had a logical AND in there. That it was insufficient just to claim to know an absolute truth, but you had to do evil with it.

A point, I might you object to.

Here is my post on the subject in 391

Note the logical connector ‘and’ in the Pope’s statement. That requires both clauses to be true for the statement to be true.

Your interpretation simply doesn’t make sense and I believe you are straining all credulity to make the Popes words fit with you. When you read the sentence “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.”… how can you honestly think he is not criticising the belief in possessing the absolute truth? Why would he even mention belief in possessing the absolute truth if that was meant to be the default Catholic approach for all.

No, he is absolutely criticising a specific disposition in the adherent ie believing one possesses a thing that is beyond the human grasp.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan, you original comment, quoted above, speaks for itself. Pope Francis said nothing whatsoever concerning the teaching of the Trinity is his remarks concerning fundamentalism.

And you know that was simply an example of an absolute truth. One that I claim to possess

 

[Brendan]

Your interpretation simply doesn’t make sense and I believe you are straining all credulity to make the Popes words fit with you. When you read the sentence “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.”… how can you honestly think he is not criticising the belief in possessing the absolute truth? Why would he even mention belief in possessing the absolute truth if that was meant to be the default Catholic approach for all.

No, he is absolutely criticising a specific disposition in the adherent ie believing one possesses a thing that is beyond the human grasp.

Your reply seems unclear. So I will ask, Does the singular act of claiming the possessing an absolute truth be sufficient for the claimant to be subject of the Pope’s criticism, or does the claimant also use that absolute truth in a malicious way to be subject of the Pope’s criticism.

 

[Thomas_White]

And you know that was simply an example of an absolute truth. One that I claim to possess

Yes, I know, and I have said several times it is your prerogative to believe you possess an “absolute truth”. But I do not believe a person can hold this belief and avoid Pope Francis’ criticism concerning fundamentalism, whether by rationalization or otherwise. And what Pope Francis has said concerning those who believe they possess “absolute truth” is far more critical (and serious) than what I have said in my comments.

 

[JimG]

Yes, I know, and I have said several times it is your prerogative to believe you possess an “absolute truth”. But I do not believe a person can hold this belief and avoid Pope Francis’ criticism concerning fundamentalism, whether by rationalization or otherwise. And what Pope Francis has said concerning those who believe they possess “absolute truth” is far more critical (and serious) than what I have said in my comments.

Was the pope condemning all those Catholics who actually accept the doctrine of the Trinity as proclaimed by the Catholic Church? I find it rather nonsensical for Catholics to proclaim that there is no divinely revealed doctrine. The Church can know nothing and teach nothing: is that the new teaching of the Church?
No, it is not.

 

[Thomas_White]

Was the pope condemning all those Catholics who actually accept the doctrine of the Trinity as proclaimed by the Catholic Church? I find it rather nonsensical for Catholics to proclaim that there is no divinely revealed doctrine. The Church can know nothing and teach nothing: is that the new teaching of the Church?
No, it is not.

No, I don’t believe Pope Francis was at all critical of all the Catholics who accept the doctrine of the Trinity as proclaimed by the Catholic Church (e.g., CCC 251). The pope was critical of only those who believe they possess the absolute truth.

 

[JimG]

No, I don’t believe Pope Francis was at all critical of all the Catholics who accept the doctrine of the Trinity as proclaimed by the Catholic Church (e.g., CCC 251). The pope was critical of only those who believe they possess the absolute truth.

The Church has proclaimed the doctrine of the Trinity for a very long time. It has proclaimed the doctrine that there are three divine persons in one God. That God is one in being and three in person. The doctrine is quite clear. I think that the Pope believes this doctrine, and all Catholics are expected to believe it. It is not a conditional teaching but a dogma of the Church. It was not invented by man but revealed by God. That is why the Church proclaims it as true.

 

[Brendan]

Yes, I know, and I have said several times it is your prerogative to believe you possess an “absolute truth”. But I do not believe a person can hold this belief and avoid Pope Francis’ criticism concerning fundamentalism, whether by rationalization or otherwise. And what Pope Francis has said concerning those who believe they possess “absolute truth” is far more critical (and serious) than what I have said in my comments.

So we are back to this then

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?

 

[Thomas_White]

So we are back to this then

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?

No, Brendan, we are not back to your comment. As you very well know, this is what Pope Francis said:

“Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions. We Catholics have some–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.”

I think maybe you ought to explain what the “finite absolute truth” you say you possess, namely the number 3, signifies. A finite infinity is a curious thing.

 

[Brendan]

No, Brendan, we are not back to your comment.

So which part are you not in agreement with?

As you very well know, this is what Pope Francis said:

“Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions. We Catholics have some–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.”

yes, including the logical AND, which was missing from your statement

Yes, I know, and I have said several times it is your prerogative to believe you possess an “absolute truth”. But I do not believe a person can hold this belief and avoid Pope Francis’ criticism

Thus, once again, you misrepresented Church teaching. His criticism is not against those who claim to hold an absolute truth, but for those who do, AND “go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, and doing evil”

I think maybe you ought to explain what the “finite absolute truth” you say you possess, namely the number 3, signifies.

I answered that in an early post, but I will restate

It is a Cardinal number, equal in value to 1+1+1

I am surprised at any attempt to claim that the human mind is incapable of successfully understanding the number Three.

A finite infinity is a curious thing.

I am sure it would be, but no one is making a claim to one, least of all me

 

[JimG]

Here again is the essential doctrine of the Trinity:
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/GODA22A.HTM

A supernatural mystery is a truth which we cannot fully understand, but which we firmly believe because we have God’s word for it. God has revealed Himself to man. He is not opaque to us. If he were entirely opaque to the human mind, we could never enjoy the Beatific Vision in heaven, because God would be like a black box, wholly impenetrable. Supernatural grace enables us to enjoy the beatific vision. And God grants us supernatural grace even here on earth, through the sacraments.

A supernatural mystery is not like an infinite museum full of treasures which we can never see because the door is permanently boarded up and we can never get in.

It is rather like an infinite museum full of precious exhibits and treasures which
never end. We can go through its hallways learning more and more without end. We will never learn all of it because it is infinite. But we will continually learn more and more.

A mystery is not a doctrine about which nothing can be known. It is a doctrine about which not everything can ever be known. There is a huge difference. And that is Catholic doctrine.

 

[I_trust]

Does one need to completely understand “something” in order to possess it?
Whether that “something” is infinite or finite?
If so, then can anyone ever possess anything?

For example, lets say I possess a dog.
I do not know every thought process a dog has.
I do not know how the dog perceives the world around it.
I do not know the complete molecular make up of the dog.
But I can still possess the dog, right?
If not, then can say that I am able to possess anything, since with my finite mind I can not completely understand any entity or reality?

So, if I can possess a finite entity or reality without completely understanding it…
Can I also possess in some way an infinite reality or entity without completely understanding it?

Possession or non-possession of a reality/entity does not seem to hinge on the completeness of the possessor’s understanding of the reality/entity.

Perhaps we can possess an infinite truth without completely understanding it.
The existence of the “truth” (and it’s infinite nature) does not hinge on our understanding of it. And our possession of the infinite truth may limited, but still real.

 

[Thomas_White]

So which part are you not in agreement with?

yes, including the logical AND, which was missing from your statement

Thus, once again, you misrepresented Church teaching. His criticism is not against those who claim to hold an absolute truth, but for those who do, AND “go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, and doing evil”

I answered that in an early post, but I will restate

It is a Cardinal number, equal in value to 1+1+1

I am surprised at any attempt to claim that the human mind is incapable of successfully understanding the number Three.

I am sure it would be, but no one is making a claim to one, least of all me

The question was:

“What is it that the supposedly “finite absolute truth” that is the number 3 signifies?”