Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[Brendan]

Since the posts seemed to be getting mixed, and some discussions are getting intermixed

(like the discussion of what an absolute truth is, or the (supposed) contradiction in the statement ‘finte absolute truth’

Here is my use of the word ‘absolute’, from the Oxford Dictionary in relation to absolute truths

Absolute

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”

Since I presume all of us are viewing this as a philosophical discussion, I felt it was the most valid use.

So in that the term finite absolute truth could be rephrased as

“finite, universally valid, truth”

Hence I see no contradiction.

In the Thomistic sense, St. Thomas uses ‘absolute’ to mean not contingent. Thus to Aquinas, every revealed truth was an Absolute one

( hence the Pope’s comment would apply to just about every member of the Dominican Order , and thus one more reason why I highly doubt that this was his intent )

Thoughts or comments?

 

[Brendan]

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

Yep, get that

I’ve got a Windows search bar add on. You can set your dictionary provider. For Websters, there is a choice for “Full” or “Simple”. The “Full” one corresponds to their Collegiate Dictionary. The “Simple” one is the Student dictionary. That one is for grade school and jr high. I have mine set to “Full”

I don’t have their App on my iPhone, haven’t had a need. My tablet is a work provided Surface 3, so I have a Windows add on instead.

Cheers!

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

Your wife sounds like someone who would be very missed, Jim.

 

[LongingSoul]

Since the posts seemed to be getting mixed, and some discussions are getting intermixed

(like the discussion of what an absolute truth is, or the (supposed) contradiction in the statement ‘finte absolute truth’

Here is my use of the word ‘absolute’, from the Oxford Dictionary in relation to absolute truths

Absolute

Since I presume all of us are viewing this as a philosophical discussion, I felt it was the most valid use.

So in that the term finite absolute truth could be rephrased as

Hence I see no contradiction.

In the Thomistic sense, St. Thomas uses ‘absolute’ to mean not contingent. Thus to Aquinas, every revealed truth was an Absolute one

( hence the Pope’s comment would apply to just about every member of the Dominican Order , and thus one more reason why I highly doubt that this was his intent )

Thoughts or comments?

I can’t take part in an academic discussion of the concepts because I don’t have enough formal education in it. All I can contribute is my understanding of absolute truth prior to this discussion.

Absolute truth indicates a single, universal, source of truth by which good and evil are defined and moral meaning arises. We call that God.

We can never know Absolute truth because we can never know God. Even what is revealed to us comes imparted through a veil which we interpret through our human experience the Church having the gift to infallibly interpret revelation.

When you say there are ‘many absolute truths’ that we can know… it doesn’t compute for me. There are many doctrines and dogmas that we can trust as reliable interpretations of facets of the Absolute truth, but they themselves are not absolute truth.

For example 2000 years ago it might be dogma that fire is necessary to cook meat. Because fire is the only known or conceived of source of transforming unsafe raw meat into safe cooked meat… fire may seem to be a divine truth in and of itself. Today there are other sources for transforming unsafe raw meat into safe cooked meat like electricity and microwaves. Time has shown that while fire contained a property that facilitated an important role, it it more like a servant of a divine property which we could now call ‘heat’. Perhaps in the future the cooking process may happen without heat but with some as yet hidden property in heat responsible for the transformation of the meat from raw to cooked.

If someone were to cling rigidly to the belief that fire is divine and only fire should be used regardless of advancements of understanding and science… that would describe a fundamentalist. Someone who isn’t open to development of our understanding of absolute truth as interpreted by men but feels that what we knew 2000 years ago as absolute truth must be absolute truth now.

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

The difficulty is not in believing but in understanding how three separate “distinctions” are the same identical infinite (“one”) nature, the Supreme Being. This is a mystery.

The teaching is that “there are three Persons in One Divine Nature”. While this teaching can certainly be believed, this is not the same thing as understanding it. And this is the disagreement. We can understand the words “three Persons in One Divine Nature”, but they do not reveal the “absolute truth” of the Trinity.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

We can never know Absolute truth because we can never know God. Even what is revealed to us comes imparted through a veil which we interpret through our human experience the Church having the gift to infallibly interpret revelation.

The Church infallibly interpreting revelation sounds pretty absolute to me.

 

[Brendan]

The difficulty is not in believing but in understanding how three separate “distinctions” are the same identical infinite (“one”) nature, the Supreme Being. This is a mystery.

The teaching is that “there are three Persons in One Divine Nature”. While this teaching can certainly be believed, this is not the same thing as understanding it. And this is the disagreement. We can understand the words “three Persons in One Divine Nature”, but they do not reveal the “absolute truth” of the Trinity.

Thomas, I would encourage you to go back and re-read the article that Grace posted in #491

What you are describing is understanding the essence of the Trinity, which is distinct from understanding that it exists.

That is the core definition of what Truth is, and Grace’s article shows quite clearly that the Truth of a subject is the understanding that it has existence, not an understanding of it’s essence.

The article that Grace posted relied very heavlity on Aquinas De Veritatas

Consequently, truth or the true has been defined in three ways. First of all, it is defined according to that which precedes truth and is the basis of truth. This is why Augustine writes: “The true is that which is”; and Avicenna: “The truth of each thing is a property of the act of being which has been established for it.” Still others say: “The true is the undividedness of the act of existence from that which is.” Truth is also defined in another way—according to that in which its intelligible determination is formally completed. Thus, Isaac writes: “Truth is the conformity of thing and intellect”; and Anselm: “Truth is a rectitude perceptible only by the mind.” This rectitude, of course, is said to be based on some conformity. The Philosopher says that in defining truth we say that truth is had when one affirms that “to be which is, and that not to be which is not.”

The very act of knowing (conformity of the intellect) that the Trinity is Three Persons in One God is the truth of it. It does not require us understand the Essence of God to have that truth.

As far as being an absolute truth. It is, by both the Philosophical definition from Oxford ( that which is universally so) and the Thomistic definition of being not contingent on any other truth.

I am sure that we can all agree that the there is no place or time on which God is NOT Triune, so the Oxford definition is met. Likewise, God is self contingent, so any revealed truth ( ones that were not the product of Reasoned deduction, like the doctrine of Eucharistic concomitance) are absolute in the Thomistic sense.

 

[Brendan]

As far as being a Mystery, that is certain.

Here is the definition as the Church uses the term ( Modern Catholic Dictionary)

MYSTERY. A divinely revealed truth whose very possibility cannot be rationally conceived before it is revealed and, after revelation, whose inner essence cannot be fully understood by the finite mind. The incomprehensibility of revealed mysteries derives from the fact that they are manifestations of God, who is infinite and therefore beyond the complete grasp of a created intellect. Nevertheless, though incomprehensible, mysteries are intelligible. One of the primary duties of a believer is, through prayer, study, and experience, to grow in faith, i.e., to develop an understanding of what God has revealed

One of the key factors is that it is a truth ( which can be absolute, in the philosophical or thomistic senses), but could not be known without revelation.

The Trinity itself is a classic example. Human CAN know of the existence of God ( and hence the Truth of God) by Reason alone.

Socrates did that very thing. He deduced that there must be one omnipotent god who created the universe, who was the uncreated creator.

that was the ‘crime’ for which he was executed, denying the gods of Athens in favor of this singular God.

Aristotle expanded on Socrates proof, as did Aquinas. But it was all traced to Socrates.

But while the existence of God is no Mystery, in the Church sense, that God was Triune required revelation. There is no logical proof for the existence of a Triune God. God had to tell us about it himself.

And thus, why it is a mystery.

But note that that the Church recognizes that while the fullness of a Mystery is unavailable to us, the Mystery itself is intelligible, We CAN know it’s existence.

And that knowledge, the knowledge that the God exists as Three Persons, is the Truth. And since is it universally true, and not contingent on any other truth, it is an Absolute Truth in the philosophical and thomsic senses of the word ‘Absolute’

 

[Brendan]

We can never know Absolute truth because we can never know God. Even what is revealed to us comes imparted through a veil which we interpret through our human experience the Church having the gift to infallibly interpret revelation.

When you say there are ‘many absolute truths’ that we can know… it doesn’t compute for me. There are many doctrines and dogmas that we can trust as reliable interpretations of facets of the Absolute truth, but they themselves are not absolute truth…

Longing, to save time, could you review the definitions of ‘absolute’ that have been posted, and let me know which one you are using.

That would help me address your points better

Thanks

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas, I would encourage you to go back and re-read the article that Grace posted in #491

What you are describing is understanding the essence of the Trinity, which is distinct from understanding that it exists.

That is the core definition of what Truth is, and Grace’s article shows quite clearly that the Truth of a subject is the understanding that it has existence, not an understanding of it’s essence.

The article that Grace posted relied very heavlity on Aquinas De Veritatas

I would not agree that the neo-Aristotelian philosophy of Aquinas is existentialism. It was Augustine that first attempted to conceptualize an Asiastic religion in terms the Western World could understand. Much that follows should be understood in that context, and that certainly includes the Scholasticism of Aquinas. It is helpful to recall the teaching that human language is limited.

The very act of knowing (conformity of the intellect) that the Trinity is Three Persons in One God is the truth of it. It does not require us understand the Essence of God to have that truth.

As far as being an absolute truth. It is, by both the Philosophical definition from Oxford ( that which is universally so) and the Thomistic definition of being not contingent on any other truth.

It is not the “absolute truth” of the essence (nature) of the Trinity, and that is the question. That the “Trinity is Three Persons in One God” is a definition in human language of what the catechism says is an “ineffable mystery”. The word are qualified in CCC 251 by the further teaching that the Trinity is a mystery “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”. “Infinitely” is the critical word, and I do not believe what is infinite is or could be revealed by six words. You are attempting to prove that a literal reading of those six words is the “absolute truth” of the Trinity, and this is simply not Catholic teaching.

I am sure that we can all agree that the there is no place or time on which God is NOT Triune, so the Oxford definition is met. Likewise, God is self contingent, so any revealed truth ( ones that were not the product of Reasoned deduction, like the doctrine of Eucharistic concomitance) are absolute in the Thomistic sense.

“In the Thomistic sense…” This is a qualification based on the limited human language of Aquinas and the intellect. It is noted that the philosophy of Aquinas is neither scripture nor Apostolic preaching.

 

[graciew]

So here is St Augustine then.
It took him several years to write his books on the Trinity

.
vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20020924_agostino-trinity_en.html

 

[Brendan]

I"In the Thomistic sense…" This is a qualification based on the limited human language of Aquinas and the intellect. It is noted that the philosophy of Aquinas is neither scripture nor Apostolic preaching.

I understand that, but is it wrong to discuss the Pope’s statement in light of how the Church defines things.

Is there any indication than when the Pope mentioned "absolute truth’, that he was not speaking as the Church speaks? The Church has labels Aquinas as a Doctor of the Church, a very strong title. The purpose of such a declaration is for the Church, as a whole to learn from his teachings.

If you need to put yourself in opposition to Aquinas to make your point, that is, in effect, a claim of greater knowledge of the topic than the Angelic doctor. That would be a claim that most of the Church would have difficulty accepting. I would place great confidence in the Pope that he to would reject your claim.

 

[Brendan]

I
It is not the “absolute truth” of the essence (nature) of the Trinity, and that is the question. That the “Trinity is Three Persons in One God” is a definition in human language of what the catechism says is an “ineffable mystery”. The word are qualified in CCC 251 by the further teaching that the Trinity is a mystery “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”. “Infinitely” is the critical word, and I do not believe what is infinite is or could be revealed by six words. You are attempting to prove that a literal reading of those six words is the “absolute truth” of the Trinity, and this is simply not Catholic teaching…

Yes, it is a mystery, but an intelligible one. Does the statement “That God is Three Persons in One Divine Godhead” require understanding of the completeness of the mystery? Aquinas does not. Neither does the Church’s definition of what a Mystery is.

I have yet to see a Magisterial authority that makes the claim that you are trying to make, certainly not CCC 251.

 

[JimG]

So here is St Augustine then.
It took him several years to write his books on the Trinity

.
vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20020924_agostino-trinity_en.html

Indeed, and it is divided into fifteen books. One could only wish that Augustine believed more in the use of paragraphs. But what is the intent of linking to this particular quote? In perusing some of these books, it seems that Augustine is intent on defending the Trinity as the definitive truth about God in three persons.

newadvent.org/fathers/130101.htm

 

[Brendan]

So here is St Augustine then.
It took him several years to write his books on the Trinity

.
vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20020924_agostino-trinity_en.html

Great stuff,

Thanks

 

[graciew]

I would not agree that the neo-Aristotelian philosophy of Aquinas is existentialism. It was Augustine that first attempted to conceptualize an Asiastic religion in terms the Western World could understand. Much that follows should be understood in that context, and that certainly includes the Scholasticism of Aquinas. It is helpful to recall the teaching that human language is limited.

It is not the “absolute truth” of the essence (nature) of the Trinity, and that is the question. That the “Trinity is Three Persons in One God” is a definition in human language of what the catechism says is an “ineffable mystery”. The word are qualified in CCC 251 by the further teaching that the Trinity is a mystery “infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”. “Infinitely” is the critical word, and I do not believe what is infinite is or could be revealed by six words. You are attempting to prove that a literal reading of those six words is the “absolute truth” of the Trinity, and this is simply not Catholic teaching.

“In the Thomistic sense…” This is a qualification based on the limited human language of Aquinas and the intellect. It is noted that the philosophy of Aquinas is neither scripture nor Apostolic preaching.

Thomas , Truth as an absolute ( in God). …
This " absolute truth" has been a sort of no brainer from the very start and not because I am smart precisely…but cause Truth and the Absolute and God is nothing to do with the " absolute truth" .God is Truth . What does " the absolute truth have to do with the Trinity still leaves me puzzled reading this thread…
I would love to understand why you keep using it in relation to the Trinity.

 

[Brendan]

Thomas , Truth as an absolute ( in God). …
This " absolute truth" has been a sort of no brainer from the very start and not because I am smart but cause Truth and the Absolute and God is nothing to do with the " absolute truth" .God is Truth . What does " the absolute truth have to do with the Trinity still leaves me puzzled reading this thread…
I would love to understand why you keep using it in relation to the Trinity.

Grace, the term “absolute truth” was used by Pope Francis in the article this thread references.

We are discussing the concept of 'absolute truth" , of which I proposed the statement " God is Three Divine Persons in One Godhead" as an example of an absolute truth.

Of course there are many, but that is the particular example is the one we are discussing.

 

[Brendan]

Thomas,

For a better understanding of the role of the Aquinas in the Church, I would direct you towards

Studiorum Ducem
ewtn.com/library/encyc/p11studi.htm

After this slight sketch of the great virtues of Thomas, it is easy to understand the preeminence of his doctrine and the marvelous authority it enjoys in the Church. Our Predecessors, indeed, have always unanimously extolled it. Even during the lifetime of the saint, Alexander IV had no hesitation in addressing him in these terms: “To Our beloved son, Thomas Aquinas, distinguished alike for nobility of blood and integrity of character, who has acquired by the grace of God the treasure of divine and human learning.” After his death, again, John XXII seemed to consecrate both his virtues and his doctrine when, addressing the Cardinals, he uttered in full Consistory the memorable sentence: “He alone enlightened the Church more than all other doctors; a man can derive more profit in a year from his books than from pondering all his life the teaching of others.”

We so heartily approve the magnificent tribute of praise bestowed upon this most divine genius that We consider that Thomas should be called not only the Angelic, but also the Common or Universal Doctor of the Church; for the Church has adopted his philosophy for her own, as innumerable documents of every kind attest. It would be an endless task to explain here all the reasons which moved Our Predecessors in this respect, and it will be sufficient perhaps to point out that Thomas wrote under the inspiration of the supernatural spirit which animated his life and that his writings, which contain the principles of, and the laws governing, all sacred studies, must be said to possess a universal character.

here are a few more
thomasaquinas.edu/a-liberating-education/popes-st-thomas

And if you doubt the high esteem that Pope Francis holds the Angelic Doctor, simply look to the footnotes of Evangeli Gaudium. The only Saint that is referenced more Joften is ohn Paul II. So clearly, the Pope himself considers the theology of Aquinas to be very relevant to our times

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas , Truth as an absolute ( in God). …
This " absolute truth" has been a sort of no brainer from the very start and not because I am smart precisely…but cause Truth and the Absolute and God is nothing to do with the " absolute truth" .God is Truth . What does " the absolute truth have to do with the Trinity still leaves me puzzled reading this thread…
I would love to understand why you keep using it in relation to the Trinity.

“Truth as an absolute (in God)…” Just that. Grace, as I understand the term “absolute truth”’, and as I have used the term, it is to say the same thing.

 

[Brendan]

“Truth as an absolute (in God)…” Just that. Grace, as I understand the term “absolute truth”’, and as I have used the term, it is to say the same thing.

Which is why Aquinas considered every truth revealed by God to be an absolute truth.

Hence, everything is said to be true absolutely, in so far as it is related to the intellect from which it depends

ST I, Q16, a1

This is also how a Dominican would consider any Divine Revelation to be an absolute truth, universally true and non contingent.

Hence my claim that the Pope’s statement cannot be construed to be a condemnation of the Domincan Order, as they would claim to hold absolute truths, and teach their members as such.