Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[Brendan]

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

Where, in this entire thread, did anyone state that the Trinity is simply the number three.

** I don’t think the number three can be interpreted in a literal way**

 

[Brendan]

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

The Popes quote did not seem to specifiy a particular number

If you mean any claim to the absolute truth that is the essence of God, I will heartily agree

If the claim is in if is regards to absolute truths in general, or that revealed truths about God are cannot be absolute, I will ( and have ) disagreed.

I would say, If anything, EVERY truth revealed by God about Himself is absolute.

 

[Thomas_White]

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

Is not a set of numbers something other than the natural number ‘3’? In this instance, the cardinal number ‘3’ signifies something other than “its own reality”.

The number three is an adjective when used in the phrase “three persons”. ‘Three’ modifies the noun ‘persons’. In the teaching of the Trinity, what the noun “person” refers to is an “ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”. As such, what is signified by the number three cannot be defined by limited human language for it signifies what is ineffable. Thus, the earlier question: Three what? What is it that the adjective ‘three’ truly signifies? If we cannot answer that question, how could we know, as objective knowledge, that ‘three’ is the “absolute truth”? To be sure, we can believe it is a true belief, but we cannot know it as the “absolute truth”. This is the essential disagreement.

From my perspective, this makes little practical difference, but to a person who believes they possess the “absolute truth” the difference is apparently quite significant. Why I believe it makes little practical difference (to me at least) is because I think what a person believes is the “absolute truth”, at least in this instance, is in fact belief. However, when this belief is that one possesses the “absolute truth”, it becomes fundamentalism. There are then the negative aspects mentioned by Pope Francis.

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.

Brendan, “absolute” does not mean “finite”. ‘Limited’ and ‘unlimited’ are a contridiction when used together to describe the same thing, as would be the case in “limited unlimited truth”.

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.

What is a subset of absolute truths? I do not know what it might mean–particularly what it might mean in reference to the Trinity–but from what has been said it sounds like taking a limited (finite) amount from an unlimited amount (absolute).

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

I admit it. I did! And ‘absolute’ means something other than “limited”. It means “unlimited”.

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?

Well, it was the Merriam-Webster dictionary, actually, and it traces its linage to Noah Webster himself!

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

I would if it defined ‘absolute’ as ‘finite’.

Brendan:

Are they unacceptable for our discussion?

I think ‘limited’ and ‘unlimited’ are appropriate. It is how the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the two words, and simplicity of definition is helpful in a discussion. To be honest, however, I see no point in continuing this discussion. With all due respect, the concept of a “finite absolute truth” makes no sense whatever to me, and I readily admit I do not and cannot know the “absolute truth” of the Trinity. And it really is of little or no practical importance for me since I consider the effort to know its “absolute truth” as futile. I think it would be a good thing if you reread the section in the catechism concerning the Trinity, beginning with CCC 251, and then gave some thought on what it is you are attempting to prove. I say this with intended charity.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan, “absolute” does not mean “finite”. ‘Limited’ and ‘unlimited’ are a contridiction when used together to describe the same thing, as would be the case in “limited unlimited truth”.

That would be true if we were using your made up definition

I admit it. I did! And ‘absolute’ means something other than “limited”. It means “unlimited”.

Only if you are using your made up definition. The authoritative ones do NOT define it as as synonym of ‘infinite’

Well, it was the Merriam-Webster dictionary, actually, and it traces its linage to Noah Webster himself!

Really?

Highlight the part where it states that it is ‘infintie’

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

Why does the very first one not apply, that the truth is free from imperfection?

Or number 2, a characteristic of a ruler?

Edit

**OH WAIT!! I Checked their website, you are using the definition from the Webster’s CHILDRENS Dictionary

REALLY??**

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolute

Why are you not willing to discuss it using the adult terminology, the FULL definition?

 

[Brendan]

IsAs such, what is signified by the number three cannot be defined by limited human language for it signifies what is ineffable…

No, the reality that ‘three’ points to is no greater than itself. It is not ineffable, the number is quite describable and fully intelligible to humans, heck even elementary school students.

Once again, I would ask you to define what you mean by ‘signify’ (preferably from an adult definition )

I have offered mine, that to signifiy means to point to a greater reality.

I take my definition from the Modern Catholic Dictionary

SIGN. Something that leads to something else. It may be an arbitrary or conventional sign that has a connection with what is signified only by agreement among people, as a flag symbolizes a nation. Or it may be a pure sign that leads to the knowledge of something without itself being first known, as our ideas lead to the knowledge of real objects. Instrumental signs give meaning or understanding, as words lead to the knowledge of things and of mental status. Manifestative signs show the existence of something else, as a person’s external behavior indicates his or her personality and training.

Each of these types of signs may be either natural or supernatural depending on whether its basis is founded on natural reason or divine revelation

What is the greater reality that a number points to, other than itself?

 

[Brendan]

Thus, the earlier question: Three what? What is it that the adjective ‘three’ truly signifies

It was in the answer to that in which I emphasized the role of three as a Cardinal number. As you noted, when used to describe sets, the number is Cardinal.

 

[graciew]

The Popes quote did not seem to specifiy a particular number

If you mean any claim to the absolute truth that is the essence of God, I will heartily agree

If the claim is in if is regards to absolute truths in general, or that revealed truths about God are cannot be absolute, I will ( and have ) disagreed.

I would say, If anything, EVERY truth revealed by God about Himself is absolute.

The Pope was not referring to any number nor a theological reality. At least not in my understanding.
Fundamentalism deals with ideas ,not with reality.
We aspire to what is good and true and beautiful.
I posted it earlier.
I cannot answer fully now ,my daughter has had surgery. I will later on.
Fundamentalism is nit in touch with unity ,nor brotherhood nor friendship .It is not even religious.
We believe in the Trinity and we pray the Crede.
Yrs ,it is three as has best been described. Not to say we fully understand what we are saying …
I am referring to the Nature of God ,your first option.
The Pope wasn t but describing religious fundamentism using an expression we commonly use to describe an attitude which is closed ,intransigent and we say a person believes himself/ hetself to have/ to be the owner/ with the absolute truth.
And whatever truth is an idea , an ideology which persons take/ hold and act out against others violently. It grows into tragedy ,evil. It sometimes starts by a cruel comment but it does.not stop there.
Thomas and you are not far from each other. And with much respect and appreciation to both , youbremind me if my husband , an engineer and me ,humanist talking…
Listen to each other defenselessly … God bless you both…!

 

[LongingSoul]

No, the reality that ‘three’ points to is no greater than itself. It is not ineffable, the number is quite describable and fully intelligible to humans, heck even elementary school students.

But Catholic teaching is that three is also one. God is three and God is one. Lots of intelligent people can’t accept the Trinity because they can’t make that fit with logic.

 

[Brendan]

But Catholic teaching is that three is also one. God is three and God is one. Lots of intelligent people can’t accept the Trinity because they can’t make that fit with logic.

Longing, we are referring to the number itself. What is the reality of the number three?

And the Church does not simply state “3=1”, it states, that there are Three Persons in One Godhead.

It is a reference to the number of distinctions and the number of the natures.

 

[Brendan]

The Pope was not referring to any number nor a theological reality. At least not in my understanding.
Fundamentalism deals with ideas ,not with reality.
We aspire to what is good and true and beautiful.
I posted it earlier.
I cannot answer fully now ,my daughter has had surgery. I will later on.
Fundamentalism is nit in touch with unity ,nor brotherhood nor friendship .It is not even religious.
We believe in the Trinity and we pray the Crede.
Yrs ,it is three as has best been described. Not to say we fully understand what we are saying …
I am referring to the Nature of God ,your first option.

I agree, which is why I disagree with any assertion that a claim to knowledge of absolute truths is NOT the same fundamenalistism, nor is it the subject of the criticism.

As I mentioned earlier in the threat, my ‘take’ on the Pope’s criticism are those that use the truths that we known in uncharible ways.

The example that I gave was

Person 1. Knows the absolute truth that the Trinity is three persons in one Godhead, and then uses that knowledge to scream “HERETIC” at JW’s

Person 2. Makes the same claim about the Trinity, but uses that knowledge to pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten the JW

My ‘take’ on the Pope’s statement is that Person 1 is the subject of the criticism, while Person 2 was not.

Thomas (and Longing) have expressed disagreement with that.

The Pope wasn t but describing religious fundamentism using an expression we commonly use to describe an attitude which is closed ,intransigent and we say a person believes himself/ hetself to have/ to be the owner/ with the absolute truth.
And whatever truth is an idea , an ideology which persons take/ hold and act out against others violently. It grows into tragedy ,evil. It sometimes starts by a cruel comment but it does.not stop there.

I agree, my disagreement with Thomas is around if ANY claim to absolute truth is grounds for criticism from the Pope.

I would claim that it is not. Thomas has indicated his disagreement.

 Thomas and you are not far from each other. And with much respect and appreciation to both , youbremind me if my husband , an engineer and me ,humanist talking...

Listen to each other defenselessly … God bless you both…!

Oh, I agree, that is why I am enjoying this so well. Iron sharpens Iron

 

[JimG]

But Catholic teaching is that three is also one. God is three and God is one. Lots of intelligent people can’t accept the Trinity because they can’t make that fit with logic.

Catholic teaching is not that three is one. Catholic teaching is that there are three Persons in One Divine Nature. We are monotheists. We proclaim one God. Nature answers the question “what is it?” The answer here to the ‘what’ question is God, and there is one divine nature. Person answers the question “who is it?” The answer here is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We do not say that there is more than one divine nature. Person and nature are not the same thing.

For any Catholic struggling with the doctrine I recommend Frank Sheed’s book, “Theology for Beginners.” Sheed is certainly no fundamentalist.

The doctrine is a mystery. It is not chaotic. Three persons in one God. It will not develop to assert more than one God, nor will it develop to assert more or less than three divine Persons, because that has been divinely revealed. It will not develop to change the meaning of person or nature. The terms have been in use in philosophy for a very long time.

 

[Brendan]

. It will not develop to change the meaning of person or nature. The terms have been in use in philosophy for a very long time.

I would phrase it differently, their most certainly will be some miniscule changes in meaning for Person and Nature, but not to the extent where there will ever be more than one Nature in the Godhead, nor more (or less) than three Persons.

It will ‘fine tuning’ at this point.

 

[LongingSoul]

Longing, we are referring to the number itself. What is the reality of the number three?

And the Church does not simply state “3=1”, it states, that there are Three Persons in One Godhead.

It is a reference to the number of distinctions and the number of the natures.

I don’t intend to get into the debate about what the number three is. I did a semester of philosophy and though I respect the subject as a necessary part of life, it just seemed to me that too many men had too much time on their hands.

I can say though that the Trinity is enough of a mystery to enough clever people that it is still called a mystery to the Church.

 

[LongingSoul]

Catholic teaching is not that three is one. Catholic teaching is that there are three Persons in One Divine Nature. We are monotheists. We proclaim one God. Nature answers the question “what is it?” The answer here to the ‘what’ question is God, and there is one divine nature. Person answers the question “who is it?” The answer here is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We do not say that there is more than one divine nature. Person and nature are not the same thing.

For any Catholic struggling with the doctrine I recommend Frank Sheed’s book, “Theology for Beginners.” Sheed is certainly no fundamentalist.

The doctrine is a mystery. It is not chaotic. Three persons in one God. It will not develop to assert more than one God, nor will it develop to assert more or less than three divine Persons, because that has been divinely revealed. It will not develop to change the meaning of person or nature. The terms have been in use in philosophy for a very long time.

I’ve always understood that a mystery was something that cannot be fully known and must be accepted by faith. You say that if I read Frank Sheeds book I can fully know the absolute truth by my intellect alone. Gee the Church has changed so much while I was asleep.

 

[Thomas_White]

That would be true if we were using your made up definition

From the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Thesaurus: absolute - syn ideal, transcendent, transcendental, boundless, eternal, infinite.

Only if you are using your made up definition. The authoritative ones do NOT define it as as synonym of ‘infinite’

The authoritative thesaurus that I noted above certainly does. “Finite”, however, is not a synonym of “absolute”. Latin: absolutus - complete; total. The number 3 is not the complete, total truth of the Trinity.

The definition I used is appropriate once one begins discussing Cardinal numbers and set theory. A Venn diagram, for example, does not illustrate the nature of the Trinity, which is described as three discrete subsets of an infinite nature in a separate set of the same infinite nature. How then is a subset discrete? Is your “finite absolute number” a transfinite or discrete number? Or both? Or neither? Is the Supreme Being other than the three discrete but also infinite subsets? The teaching is that there is one Supreme Being, not three discrete beings. This is simply not comprehensible by the limited human understanding and cannot be described in limited human language.

“The Absolute Infinite is mathematician George Cantor’s concept of an “infinity” that transcends the transfinite numbers. Cantor linked the Absolute Infinite with God. He held that the Absolute Infinite had various mathematical properties, including the reflection principle, which says that every property of the Absolute Infinite is also held by some smaller object.” --Wikipedia

I trust you are aware of the significance of the above quote relative to an understanding of set theory. I think it has potential in our discussion if that smaller object is a subset.

Really?

Highlight the part where it states that it is ‘infintie’.

It is the nature of the Trinity that is infinite and so are each of the three theoretical subsets of the one infinite Being.

Why does the very first one not apply, that the truth is free from imperfection?

Or number 2, a characteristic of a ruler?

I do not think that either is a proper definition of the infinite nature of the Supreme Being.

Edit

**OH WAIT!! I Checked their website, you are using the definition from the Webster’s CHILDRENS **Dictionary

REALLY??

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolute

Why are you not willing to discuss it using the adult terminology, the FULL definition?

I used the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It is an App on my iPad. In any event, ageism is just no longer politically correct.

 

[JimG]

I’ve always understood that a mystery was something that cannot be fully known and must be accepted by faith. You say that if I read Frank Sheeds book I can fully know the absolute truth by my intellect alone. Gee the Church has changed so much while I was asleep.

You are right that we only have the doctrine of the Trinity because it was revealed by God, not by philosophy. The fact that it is a mystery means that it can never be fully understood. It can certainly be known, because it has been revealed. And although it is a mystery it is not contradictory to human reason, which reflects reality, and God created reality, and created us in his image.

While human beings have no experience of one nature being expressed in more than one person, that does not make it impossible. The purpose of philosophy, which is the handmaid of theology, is to apply reason to realty, and theology does the same for revealed truths. It is not the case that nothing whatever can be said of God or the Trinity; it is the case that He can never be fully explained by the human intellect. But He would reveal nothing of himself if he were totally opaque to the human intellect. Philosophy and theology are far from useless.

 

[LongingSoul]

You are right that we only have the doctrine of the Trinity because it was revealed by God, not by philosophy. The fact that it is a mystery means that it can never be fully understood. It can certainly be known, because it has been revealed. And although it is a mystery it is not contradictory to human reason, which reflects reality, and God created reality, and created us in his image.

While human beings have no experience of one nature being expressed in more than one person, that does not make it impossible. The purpose of philosophy, which is the handmaid of theology, is to apply reason to realty, and theology does the same for revealed truths. It is not the case that nothing whatever can be said of God or the Trinity; it is the case that He can never be fully explained by the human intellect. But He would reveal nothing of himself if he were totally opaque to the human intellect. Philosophy and theology are far from useless.

I didn’t say they were useless, I said that to me philosophy seems like a lot of needless painful thought work, however I respect that it is necessary to life. And I didn’t say that nothing whatever can be said of God or the Trinity, I said it can never be fully understood by humans no matter how much study they do.

It is an interesting case study that the most educated men of the Temple in Jerusalem… men who had studied the scriptures and Jewish law for a very long time… were among those unable to recognise the Messiah when He did come. They obviously felt so confident in their knowledge of what the Messiah scriptures meant that they felt impelled to destroy this character presenting Himself as from God. These are men that obviously felt that they possessed the absolute truth revealed by the scriptures and weren’t able to accept a person who didn’t speak according to that truth.

To believe you possess absolute truth is a real thing. It is toxic and conspires with evil to destroy what doesn’t fit with their confident intellectual image. The truth will always remain a mystery and believed by faith. That means that sometimes even little children and uneducated people are able to know the things of God without having ‘read the book’.

 

[JimG]

I didn’t say they were useless, I said that to me philosophy seems like a lot of needless painful thought work, however I respect that it is necessary to life. And I didn’t say that nothing whatever can be said of God or the Trinity, I said it can never be fully understood by humans no matter how much study they do.

It is an interesting case study that the most educated men of the Temple in Jerusalem… men who had studied the scriptures and Jewish law for a very long time… were among those unable to recognise the Messiah when He did come. They obviously felt so confident in their knowledge of what the Messiah scriptures meant that they felt impelled to destroy this character presenting Himself as from God. These are men that obviously felt that they possessed the absolute truth revealed by the scriptures and weren’t able to accept a person who didn’t speak according to that truth.

To believe you possess absolute truth is a real thing. It is toxic and conspires with evil to destroy what doesn’t fit with their confident intellectual image. The truth will always remain a mystery and believed by faith. That means that sometimes even little children and uneducated people are able to know the things of God without having ‘read the book’.

I agree with everything you say here. I don’t know what is meant by absolute truth, but I do believe what the Catholic Church teaches because it is handed down from Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit. But I would add that nothing in the Faith is inherently contrary to reason, since God is the author of reason.

I do agree that children and unsophisticated people often have more common sense including theological common sense than the highly educated. My late wife had no interest in philosophy or theology whatever but she had a firm grasp of the Faith, better than mine or Frank Sheed’s. I often told her that she was the best theologian I knew, which made her laugh.

 

[Brendan]

From the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Thesaurus: absolute - syn ideal, transcendent, transcendental, boundless, eternal, infinite.

OK, so when a physcisist refers to “Absolute Zero” , which one is that?

The authoritative thesaurus that I noted above certainly does. “Finite”, however, is not a synonym of “absolute”. Latin: absolutus - complete; total. The number 3 is not the complete, total truth of the Trinity.

Sheesh, Thomas, you are having problems following a logical discussion.

The discussion was in regards to your claim that finite absolute truth was a contradiction.

The definition I used is appropriate once one begins discussing Cardinal numbers and set theory. A Venn diagram, for example, does not illustrate the nature of the Trinity, which is described as three discrete subsets of an infinite nature in a separate set of the same infinite nature. How then is a subset discrete? Is your “finite absolute number” a **

In regards to Persons, the discreet number three is correct because we are refereeing the number of Divine persons. Is it your claim that because the Esessence of God is infinite, that there must exist an infinite number of Persons?

That is an interesting claim. Do you feel that CCC 251 supports a claim to

transfinite

or discrete number? Or both? Or neither?

Is the Supreme Being other than the three discrete but also infinite subsets? The teaching is that there is one Supreme Being, not three discrete beings.
One Discreet Being ( one Natute) and Three Discreet Persons.

This is simply not comprehensible by the limited human understanding and cannot be described in limited human language.

Not true, I did so above

“The Absolute Infinite is mathematician George Cantor’s concept of an “infinity” that transcends the transfinite numbers. Cantor linked the Absolute Infinite with God. He held that the Absolute Infinite had various mathematical properties, including the reflection principle, which says that every property of the Absolute Infinite is also held by some smaller object.” --Wikipedia

Yes, God’s Nature is Infinite. There is no disagreement. And it is there is One Divine Nature.

I trust you are aware of the significance of the above quote relative to an understanding of set theory. I think it has potential in our discussion if that smaller object is a subset.

Yes, which is why that I know that there are three persons and one Godhead

It is the nature of the Trinity that is infinite and so are each of the three theoretical subsets of the one infinite Being.

We were discussing why a finite absolute truth was a contradiction. Given the FULL Webster definition, please explain why a finite absolute truth is a contradiction.

I do not think that either is a proper definition of the infinite nature of the Supreme Being.

I thought we were discussing the definition of an absolute Truth. Please try and stay on topic

I used the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It is an App on my iPad. In any event, ageism is just no longer politically correct.

Would you claim that the Pope has a childish definition, or that he was addressing his comment to children?

 

[Brendan]

But Catholic teaching is that three is also one. God is three and God is one. Lots of intelligent people can’t accept the Trinity because they can’t make that fit with logic.

No here one has claimed that the Trinity is NOT a mystery

Read the article that Gracie posted a few pages back, it confirms that just because God is a mystery, God is not beyond knowledge of.