Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[I_trust]

Thomas,
Where did your last post go?

I believe you said…

“The question is…
What is the reality that the number 3 signifies?”

 

[Thomas_White]

I deleted the comment. I thought the discussion was just going around in a circle. But here is the deleted comment:

"The question was:

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

It has no answer. What is first necessary is to understand the teaching of CCC 251: The Trinity is “an ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand”. That there are “three persons in one God” is symbolic exegesis, no more the “absolute truth” of the Trinity than the trefoil, the three-leaf clover of the legend of St. Patrick.

The confusion is that this is somehow a rejection or misrepresentation of Catholic teaching and belief. It is not.

 

[Brendan]

I deleted the comment. I thought the discussion was just going around in a circle. But here is the deleted comment:

"The question was:

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

It has no answer.

Yes it does, and I gave that answer.

For something to signify something, it means that it points to a greater reality that itself. The number three has no greater reality than itself.

It is a Cardinal number whose value is 1+1+1. No greater reality exists to point towards.

Thus the number three is fully intelligible.

What is first necessary is to understand the teaching of CCC 251: The Trinity is “an ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand”. That there are “three persons in one God” is symbolic exegesis,

Incorrect. It does not follow that any subsequent exegesis on what it means to be a person will alter that there are three of them.

To claim that to be so would mean that the number is alterable. and any insinuation that it could be so WOULD be a violation of Catholic Doctrine.

 

[clem456]

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.

Good post that distills Catholic teaching in an understandable, inviting, and accessible way.
Are you a Catechist? If you’re not maybe would be something to consider?

 

[Thomas_White]

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?

It is a good question. But in the context of what Pope Francis said about fundamentalism, I think what he meant by possess the “absolute” truth was to believe that one fully understands it. CCC 251 states that the Trinity is an “ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”. While it is reasonable to assume we can have a limited human understanding of the Trinity, I don’t believe this could be the “absolute truth”. CCC 251 clearly provides this is not possible for us.

There are other provisions in the CCC (e.g., 42 and 237) that make this clear. As a result, faith and belief become very important. I cannot comprehend how faith and belief could not be of essential importance to religion and spirituality.

 

[Brendan]

It is a good question. But in the context of what Pope Francis said about fundamentalism, I think what he meant by possess the “absolute” truth was to believe that one fully understands it. CCC 251 states that the Trinity is an “ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”. While it is reasonable to assume we can have a limited human understanding of the Trinity, I don’t believe this could be the “absolute truth”. CCC 251 clearly provides this is not possible for us…

I would claim that it does not what you can.

The “all we can humanly understand” refers to a limit of knowledge, not that individual truths cannot be absolutely known.

I fully agree that we can only every have a limited understanding of the full nature of the Trinity. The number of person in the Trinity is a finite truth, one that we can know the absolute truth of.

 

[Thomas_White]

I would claim that it does not what you can.

I do not understand what this might mean.

The “all we can humanly understand” refers to a limit of knowledge, not that individual truths cannot be absolutely known.[/1QUOTE]

This makes no sense for me. But it seems to say man can know the “absolute truth”.
Brendan;13518903:

I fully agree that we can only every have a limited understanding of the full nature of the Trinity. The number of person in the Trinity is a finite truth, one that we can know the absolute truth of.

It is your prerogative to believe that the number ‘3’ is an “absolute truth”, but I believe it is a matter of faith rather than any knowledge of an “absolute truth”. There is a difference between knowledge and belief, and I believe a person can come to a fuller understanding of the ineffable mystery of the Trinity through faith and belief. It is the insistence that an “ineffable mystery” can be objectively known that I reject. It is simply not Catholic teaching, and from my perspective the insistence that one can attain what is impossible for man is irrelevant, for to maintain that the number ‘3’ is in itself an “absolute truth” is a hinderance to one’s understanding and spiritual development. While there could be little practical difference, the insistence that one knows the “absolute truth” does lead to judgmentalism. To say the objection to the notion that the number ‘3’ is a “finite absolute truth” (a certain contradiction, for ‘finite’ means ‘having limits, having a limited nature’) is an “insinuation” that “violates” Catholic teaching would be a prime example of it.

There are many ways to explain this phenomenon. We live in an era where science and analysis are dominant, and the primacy of “objective truth” is the perspective of the cultural and epistomological paradigm described in Laudato Si. It is also the mantra of secularism and moral relativism, where Reason is the Providence of Man.

 

[Brendan]

I do not understand what this might mean.

The “all we can humanly understand” refers to a limit of knowledge, not that individual truths cannot be absolutely known.[/1QUOTE]

That there are limits to human understanding. The totality of that understand is “all we can humanly understand”

This makes no sense for me. But it seems to say man can know the “absolute truth”.

 

[graciew]

Though it still does not seem to me the Pope meant us to get into Thomistic stuff when he spoke,cause he said " God is missing" … ,it does seem to me that, following your line of thought ,Thomas and Brendan , this may concile what you are both saying . Hope so .
Ipsum esse subsistens.

aquinasonline.com/Topics/godtalk.html

 

[Thomas_White]

Brendan;13518903:

The “all we can humanly understand” refers to a limit of knowledge, not that individual truths cannot be absolutely known.

That there are limits to human understanding. The totality of that understand is “all we can humanly understand”

I cannot see how we can humanly understand what CCC 251 teaches is “an ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”. I certainly believe it is beyond my ability.

Of course, there is no contradiction.

Faith in what? Mathematics?

I have explained that the truth of the number 3 is intelligible to humans. What about the number three is beyond human understanding?

Could you tell us what the supposedly “finite absolute truth” of the number 3 signifies? It is in itself simply the number 3, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

Yes, I know what finite means, but for there to be a contradiction, there has to be contradicted. The term “finite absolute truth” contains no contradiction. If you believe so, describe why?

Is it your claim that all absolute truths, of whatever object, by definition, is infinite? Is so, upon what do you base that definition?

The definition of ‘absolute’ is “complete and total; not limited in any way”; the definition of ‘finite’ is “having limits; having a limited nature”. The term “finite absolute truth” is therefore a contradiction. I have to agree that you are acting petulant and extreme.

While I believe the teaching of the Trinity, I do not believe it is meant as the “absolute truth”. I further believe the catechism is very clear on this point. I see the number 3 not as the “absolute truth” but more of a starting point. To see the number 3 as static and fixed limits a person’s understanding. It stops right there. But Catholic dogma is that the understanding of Apostolic teaching continually advances through the centuries until the end of time. If a person is open through “contemplation and study” and “a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience”, then a “growth in the understanding of the realities of the words that have been handed down” is possible [8. *Dei Verbum.]

As I have said, it is your prerogative to believe you possess an “finite absolute truth”, but I am unwilling to limit my understanding of the Trinity is that way. Suffice it to say, I know better.

 

[Brendan]

I cannot see how we can humanly understand what CCC 251 teaches is “an ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”. I certainly believe it is beyond my ability.

Let’s look at CCC 251, the part under discussion

infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand

You asked me to define the bolded section. which I did.

Here, again is how I understood the bolded section

That there are limits to human understanding. The totality of that understand is “all we can humanly understand”

Could you tell us what the supposedly “finite absolute truth” of the number 3 signifies?

To signify means to point to a greater reality than itself. The reality of the number three is that of a Cardinal number whose value is 1+1+1. That is the greatest reality, and thus all that it signifies. All of which is intelligible to the human intellect.

The definition of ‘absolute’ is “complete and total; not limited in any way”; the definition of ‘finite’ is “having limits; having a limited nature”. The term “finite absolute truth” is therefore a contradiction.

Here is the Webster Definition of "Absolute’

1
a : free from imperfection : perfect <it is a most absolute and excellent horse — Shakespeare>

b : free or relatively free from mixture : pure

c : outright, unmitigated

2
: being, governed by, or characteristic of a ruler or authority completely free from constitutional or other restraint

3
a : standing apart from a normal or usual syntactical relation with other words or sentence elements <the absolute construction this being the case in the sentence “this being the case, let us go”>

b of an adjective or possessive pronoun : standing alone without a modified substantive <blind in “help the blind” and ours in “your work and ours” are absolute>

c of a verb : having no object in the particular construction under consideration though normally transitive <kill in “if looks could kill” is an absolute verb>

4
: having no restriction, exception, or qualification

5
: positive, unquestionable

6
a : independent of arbitrary standards of measurement

b : relating to or derived in the simplest manner from the fundamental units of length, mass, and time

c : relating to, measured on, or being a temperature scale based on absolute zero ; specifically : kelvin <10° absolute>

7
: fundamental, ultimate

The Oxford

ab·so·lute.
ˈabsəˌlo͞ot, ˌabsəˈlo͞ot]

ADJECTIVE
1.not qualified or diminished in any way; total:
“absolute secrecy” ·

2.viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative:
“absolute moral standards”

NOUN
1.
philosophy

a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things:
“good and evil are presented as absolutes”

here is the Oxford definition

ab·so·lute.

ˈabsəˌlo͞ot, ˌabsəˈlo͞ot]

ADJECTIVE
1.not qualified or diminished in any way; total:
“absolute secrecy” ·
[more]

2.viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative:
“absolute moral standards”

NOUN

philosophy

a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things:
“good and evil are presented as absolutes”

’

Which source did you use for your definition of absolute?

Under the two that I provided above, there is no contradiction evident, most especially in the philosophical sense offered by Oxford.

 

[Brendan]

Here is the Modern Catholic Dictionary’s Defintion of Absolute

ABSOLUTE. That which is independent or not related to anything else; or that which is total and complete in itself.

Applied to God, who is the Absolute, it is equivalent to the divine transcendence in two ways. He is absolutely independent of all creation for his own existence and perfections. They totally depend upon him but he is completely self-sufficient in himself, since his essence is his existence. He is the Being who cannot not be, whereas all others are contingent beings whose existence depends wholly on him who alone is necessary Being.

But God is also absolutely perfect. He is the infinite Being whose attributes are without limitation and whose perfections are without restriction. He is almighty and all good, omniscient and all holy. In a word he is the One in whom there is no potency that can be actualized and no possibility that can still be realized.

Applied to beings other than God,** a thing is said to be absolute when it is considered or conceived in itself and apart from its relation to something else**. Thus, absolutely speaking, sin is an unmitigated evil. But considered from the viewpoint of divine providence, sin can be the occasion of much good in the world.

So if we apply the bolded part to ‘Truth’

An absolute truth would be a truth that is conceived in itself and apart from the relation to another truth.

So where then, is the contradiction if a finite, absolute truth?

 

[Thomas_White]

Let’s look at CCC 251, the part under discussion

You asked me to define the bolded section. which I did.

Here, again is how I understood the bolded section

To signify means to point to a greater reality than itself. The reality of the number three is that of a Cardinal number whose value is 1+1+1. That is the greatest reality, and thus all that it signifies. All of which is intelligible to the human intellect.

A cardinal number is a generalization of a natural number and represents the cardinality, or size, of a given set of numbers. For example, the sets of (1,2,3) and (4,5,6) each have three numbers, and the cardinality (the size) of a finite set of numbers is a natural (or counting) number (1,2,3…). It this example, the size of each set is signified by the cardinal number 3.

It is not necessary to persist in attempting to prove you have knowledge of an “finite absolute number”. I accept that this is your belief. That is fine. But I have no inclination to add to what I have said is my belief. It is noted you have not provided what the number 3 might signify. That is fine too. It has no finite answer. We disagree, that’s all.

Here is the Webster Definition of "Absolute’

The Oxford

here is the Oxford definition

Which source did you use for your definition of absolute?

Under the two that I provided above, there is no contradiction evident, most especially in the philosophical sense offered by Oxford.

Um…Brendan, seriously? Maybe your Webster’s lacks a definition of “finite”? My Webster’s defines “finite” as “having limits; a limited nature”. As well I as can figure this out (though I must admit my understanding of this is less than infinite), “finite”, is not a synonym of “absolute”. I don’t think two definitions of “absolute” is going to enlighten anyone about this.

 

[graciew]

Here is the Modern Catholic Dictionary’s Defintion of Absolute

So if we apply the bolded part to ‘Truth’

An absolute truth would be a truth that is conceived in itself and apart from the relation to another truth.

So where then, is the contradiction if a finite, absolute truth?

Sounds like you can’t …
" I am the Way,and the Truth and the Life" John 14:6
This is Jesus and your bolded says “Applied to beings other than God…”

It is hard also to understand that 1+1+1 equals the Trinity and harder still to see the Oneness of God.

Not that I grasp it…but it seems we cannot make sense looking at it in bits.

 

[Brendan]

A cardinal number is a generalization of a natural number and represents the cardinality, or size, of a given set of numbers. For example, the sets of (1,2,3) and (4,5,6) each have three numbers, and the cardinality (the size) of a finite set of numbers is a natural (or counting) number (1,2,3…). It this example, the size of each set is signified by the cardinal number 3.

It is not necessary to persist in attempting to prove you have knowledge of an “finite absolute number”. I accept that this is your belief. That is fine. But I have no inclination to add to what I have said is my belief.** It is noted you have not provided what the number 3 might signify**. That is fine too. It has no answer. We disagree, that’s all.

I told you what it SIGNIFIED, a Cardinal number, whose value is 1+1+1

You are correct, it corresponds to items of a set ( such as the number of persons in the Trinity )

But what it SIGNIFIES is it’s own reality. There is no greater reality than itself

Perhaps, to better answer your question, can you tell me how you view the term ‘signify’
How do you define that term?

I have given my definition, I would like to hear yours

Um…Brendan, seriously? Maybe your Webster’s lacks a definition of “finite”? My Webster’s defines “finite” as “having limits; a limited nature”. As well I as can figure this out (though I must admit my understanding of this is less than infinite), “finite”, is not a synonym of “absolute”. I don’t think two definitions of “absolute” is going to enlighten anyone about this.

I agree with your definition of finite, my point was that there was nothing in any of the defintions that I posted ( and there were three total) that showed no contradiction.

And I never claimed that they were synomous, in fact the very phrase that I used, “finite absolute truth” indicated that they are not synomous, but used the term finite to identify a particular subset of absolute truths.

YOU claimed the terms were contradictory and offered a definition of what the term ‘absolute’ meant.

Your definition had the term “complete and total; not limited in any way”, which is why I asked for the source of your definition. That did not appear in any other definition I was able to find. Was that your source?

Do you disagree with any of the common sources (Websters and Oxford) that I provided, along with a Catholic definition.

Are they unacceptable for our discussion?

 

[Thomas_White]

Here is the Modern Catholic Dictionary’s Defintion of Absolute

So if we apply the bolded part to ‘Truth’

An absolute truth would be a truth that is conceived in itself and apart from the relation to another truth.

So where then, is the contradiction if a finite, absolute truth?

Could it be in the six words preceding the words in bold font? “Applied to beings other than God…”

 

[Brendan]

Could it be in the six words preceding the words in bold font? “Applied to beings other than God…”

Our discussion is in regard to absolute truths.

While God is an absolute truth, does it follow that absolute truths are God(s)?

 

[Brendan]

It is hard also to understand that 1+1+1 equals the Trinity and harder still to see the Oneness of God.

Not that I grasp it…but it seems we cannot make sense looking at it in bits.

The question Grace, is can we comprehend that the number of Persons in the single Godhead is Three?

I would claim that we can know that number, and that the truth of that number is an absolute

 

[Thomas_White]

Sounds like you can’t …
" I am the Way,and the Truth and the Life" John 14:6
This is Jesus and your bolded says “Applied to beings other than God…”

It is hard also to understand that 1+1+1 equals the Trinity and harder still to see the Oneness of God.

Not that I grasp it…but it seems we cannot make sense looking at it in bits.

I agree. Even in our limited human understanding, it is not difficult to see that the Trinity is more than the number three, or three persons if what is an “ineffable mystery” is presented in that way in what the catechism describes as limited human language. God is one Being, and I believe that the number 3 is a way to signify what is “infinitely beyond all human understanding”. “Infinitely” is a rather large word, and I don’t think the number three can be interpreted in a literal way. Simply stated, it is a concept of the limited human intellect and language, and as such I believe it is necessarily an error to interpret in as an “absolute truth”.

 

[graciew]

Our discussion is in regard to absolute truths.

While God is an absolute truth, does it follow that absolute truths are God?

THE absolute truth…if you are referring to the words the thread deals with…