Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[LongingSoul]

reformulated or restated?

And, as I mentioned in previous posts, the absolute character of the truth is with the direct revelation, not with the logical derivatives. Hence Aquinas characterization of an absolute truth as one that is not contingent on any other truth.

This is why I think that false claims of absolute truth cause division among men and should not be applied to individual doctrines. It reminded me of the recent cult of ‘Je suis Charlie’ which grew up around the attack on Charlie Hebdo in France. I was instantly repelled by the thought of identifying with the ‘Charlie Hebdo in all of us’. It doesn’t speak of a universal truth to me. I’m not Charlie Hebdo. I reject that kind of offensive, provocative taunting of other religions and countries. Yes there is something that I can universally identify with concerning the dignity of man and the unconditional right to life… but that’s not represented to me by the philosophy of a provocative magazine.

Likewise, the Trinity is a truth revealed to the early Church to express the nature of God but the notion of triune deities is not new. It’s been a fairly significant aspect of important ancient cultures. I’m reading a book at the moment recommended to me by my uncle who is a very orthodox old Priest, called Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. I haven’t got far in yet but one of the things the author addresses is the idea of triune Deity already anticipated in Jewish tradition.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity
marianland.com/stjoseph1006/jewishrootseucharist.html

The truth of a triune God has already been revealed to mankind in a primitive form well before Christs coming yet we look back on those revelations as incomplete truths… how do we justify in our time owning absolute truth? Isn’t it the way of life that truths while detectable as truth, will always be of incomplete status to humankind?

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, there are some who claim that the DP is an intrinsic evil. That would be an error.

The ones I have been arguing with assert that it is a divine and therefore immutable command.

 

[Thomas_White]

A dictionary that does not state literal meanings?

I think a dictionary would suffice for an understanding that what is incomprehensible is unintelligible.

Perhaps if it is a lack of understanding, then the onus would be on you to learn more about how the Church views Mysteries.

That is precisely why I am unwilling to accept that “three persons in one God” is some fantastic “finite absolute truth” (a contradictory term) and do not believe the intellect can reveal the mystery of the Trinity (nor does the catechism). I am not concerned with definitions of “mystery”. It is irrelevant.

Note that there is the assumption that an understanding can be had, for we are called to develop such an understanding.

I believe the understanding can deepen through faith and contemplation but that Immanence, in the sense of knowing God as the objective truth, is not possible. This concept disappeared from philosophy at the end of the Scholastic period with Descartes and the beginning of the era of modern philosophy. Classical philosophy and metaphysics came to a dead end by the early 20th Century when it conclusively failed to bridge the concept of dualism. It is my belief that the supposed “absolute truth” of the Supreme Being transcends the dualistic concepts of the intellect (e.g., true/false) and as such cannot possibly be known by reason and the human intellect.

 

[JimG]

“Pope Benedict is famous for his statement that the modern world is characterized by the “dictatorship of relativism.” This relativism even afflicts the Church because of a lack of authentic philosophy. If one thinks that by reason one cannot arrive at universal, objective truth, it is absurd to maintain that such truths are taught in religion. It is a heresy to maintain that faith and reason can teach contradictory truths with both being correct because they both have their origin in God.”

From a Q&A in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review

But the Church does teach truths. They are not mere speculations.

 

[Brendan]

I think a dictionary would suffice for an understanding that what is incomprehensible is unintelligible.

And for what is intelligible?

The intellect that REVEALS the mystery is God’s the intellect that is called to understand it is ours.

I believe the understanding can deepen through faith and contemplation but that Immanence, in the sense of knowing God as the objective truth, is not possible. This concept disappeared from philosophy at the end of the Scholastic period with Descartes and the beginning of the era of modern philosophy. Classical philosophy and metaphysics came to a dead end by the early 20th Century when it conclusively failed to bridge the concept of dualism. It is my belief that the supposed “absolute truth” of the Supreme Being transcends the dualistic concepts of the intellect (e.g., true/false) and as such cannot possibly be known by reason and the human intellect.

Hmmm, that is interesting, because the quotes that I provided about Aquinas are from a 20th century encyclical

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11STUDI.HTM

And this as well

St. Pius X said that “all who teach philosophy in Catholic schools throughout the world should take care never to depart from the path and method of Aquinas, and to insist upon that procedure more vigorously every day…We warn teachers to keep this religiously in mind, especially in metaphysics, that to disregard Aquinas cannot be done without suffering great harm.”

If a 20th Century Pope saw no conflict, why should we? Has there been another encyclical that removed Aquinas as a Doctor of the Church?

I understand that you have rejected this philosophy, but when has the Church? I think we can all agree that it is the Church’s mindset on this issue that we are examining, not any of ours.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Brendan]

I would also like to point out that Pope John Paul II referred to Aquinas

This is why the Church has been justified in consistently proposing Saint Thomas as a master of thought and a model of the right way to do theology

Fides et Ratio 43

So the Church’s view on Aquinas does not seemed to have followed the secular philosophers of the Enlightenment and 20th Century modernism. And rightfully so.

Based on your involvement in this thread, I know you are a big proponent of using the statements of the Popes as a guide to one’s life. Is that statement on Aquinas any different?

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas White;13524307:

I think a dictionary would suffice for an understanding that what is incomprehensible is unintelligible.

And for what is intelligible?

I do not understand what this might mean.

The intellect that REVEALS the mystery is God’s the intellect that is called to understand it is ours.

How could the intellect understand what CCC 251 teaches is an “ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all we can humanly understand”? How do you explain this? It is Catholic teaching, and it will not do here to simply ignore it.

Hmmm, that is interesting, because the quotes that I provided about Aquinas are from a 20th century encyclical

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11STUDI.HTM

And this as well

This should be understood in the context of the rejection of modernism. I don’t think it means there can be no advance in understanding after Aquinas, who died in 1274.

If a 20th Century Pope saw no conflict, why should we? Has there been another encyclical that removed Aquinas as a Doctor of the Church?

What conflict? I do not know what it is that you are trying to say. I have said the quotation from Aquinas quoted in a comment (which I am unable to locate right now) provided the deeper understanding of the question concerning the Trinity.

I understand that you have rejected this philosophy, but when has the Church? I think we can all agree that it is the Church’s mindset on this issue that we are examining, not any of ours.

Where did I say I have rejected “this philosophy”? There is a great deal to learn in the philosophy of Aquinas, but I have never thought that what was written during the 1200’s was the last word in philosophy. Is it that theology and philosophy ended during the Middle Ages? What sort of an argument is that? It is tending toward legalism.

 

[LongingSoul]

“Pope Benedict is famous for his statement that the modern world is characterized by the “dictatorship of relativism.” This relativism even afflicts the Church because of a lack of authentic philosophy. If one thinks that by reason one cannot arrive at universal, objective truth, it is absurd to maintain that such truths are taught in religion. It is a heresy to maintain that faith and reason can teach contradictory truths with both being correct because they both have their origin in God.”

From a Q&A in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review

But the Church does teach truths. They are not mere speculations.

But that’s firing past the target on this discussion which is about avoiding the trap of fundamentalism, not relativism. If a doctrine/teaching of the Church is regarded by a person to be the absolute immutable truth in itself… there is no room for the natural development of doctrine to reflect the absolute truth from age to age.

Then you have a case where the doctrine of Original Sin states that it came into the world through the first man and first woman, Adam and Eve. There is no room to accept the reality that the human race could not have begun with only one man and one woman hence you have attitudes like Creationists who see the development as heresy and relativism.

You have the situation where Capital Punishment plays an authorised role in punishment as an act of supreme obedience to Gods gift of dignity to man. There is no room for its abolishment as a 'cruel, unworthy and unnecessary punishment only employed as an extreme answer to rare cases.

Then you have the situation in the recent synod where the issue of divorced remarried Catholics is begging for more clarity in teaching, invited by Pope Francis himself, but fundamentalists need to silence any examination at all.

These things are not signs of relativism. They are all within the work of the Magisterium.

 

[JimG]

But that’s firing past the target on this discussion which is about avoiding the trap of fundamentalism, not relativism. If a doctrine/teaching of the Church is regarded by a person to be the absolute immutable truth in itself… there is no room for the natural development of doctrine to reflect the absolute truth from age to age.

Then you have a case where the doctrine of Original Sin states that it came into the world through the first man and first woman, Adam and Eve. There is no room to accept the reality that the human race could not have begun with only one man and one woman hence you have attitudes like Creationists who see the development as heresy and relativism.

You have the situation where Capital Punishment plays an authorised role in punishment as an act of supreme obedience to Gods gift of dignity to man. There is no room for its abolishment as a 'cruel, unworthy and unnecessary punishment only employed as an extreme answer to rare cases.

Then you have the situation in the recent synod where the issue of divorced remarried Catholics is begging for more clarity in teaching, invited by Pope Francis himself, but fundamentalists need to silence any examination at all.

These things are not signs of relativism. They are all within the work of the Magisterium.

But development of doctrine is simply clarification of already established truth. The teaching on capital punishment, for example, did not overturn previous doctrine. It simply asserted that there is seldom a need for capital punishment in developed nations, (which is in itself a judgment about the capacity of developed nations to protect themselves, not a new doctrine. And the Church never asserted that capital punishment must be imposed, only that it could licitly be imposed by the state. There is always room for mercy, mitigation, or leniency.

Fundamentalism and relativism are two extremes of the pendulum. And when it has been revealed by the coming of the Messiah that Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct persons in the one divine nature, there is little room for development. One can explore the inner workings of the divine nature as it has been revealed, but we cannot overturn what has been revealed: three persons in one nature.

If one too readily invokes development there is a risk of the actual doctrine being undermined. That is how many heresies have developed, and they have always required additional clarification from the Church to preserve the doctrine from going off the track of orthodoxy.

 

[graciew]

A dictionary that does not state literal meanings?

Perhaps if it is a lack of understanding, then the onus would be on you to learn more about how the Church views Mysteries.

Note that there is the assumption that an understanding can be had, for we are called to develop such an understanding.

This goes in relation to your post and Thomas’.to which you answered.
It does seem a distinction needs to be made.

Theologians distinguish two classes of supernatural mysteries: the absolute (or theological) and the relative. An absolute mystery is a truth whose existence or possibility could not be discovered by a creature, and whose essence (inner substantial being) can be expressed by the finite mind only in terms of analogy, e.g., the Trinity. A relative mystery is a truth whose innermost nature alone (e.g., many of the Divine attributes), or whose existence alone (e.g., the positive ceremonial precepts of the Old Law), exceeds the natural knowing power of the creature.

( this is New Advent Encyclopedia)
newadvent.org/cathen/10662a.htm

 

[Thomas_White]

I would also like to point out that Pope John Paul II referred to Aquinas

Fides et Ratio 43

So the Church’s view on Aquinas does not seemed to have followed the secular philosophers of the Enlightenment and 20th Century modernism. And rightfully so.

Based on your involvement in this thread, I know you are a big proponent of using the statements of the Popes as a guide to one’s life. Is that statement on Aquinas any different?

Actually, modernism in philosophy began during the 1500’s, and no one has suggested that the Church should “follow the secular philosophers of the Enlightenment and 20th Century modernism”. The Church firmly rejected modernity during the 19th Century, and Vatican II was in part an attempt to reconcile the Church to modernism. These are not the same thing.

Romano Guardini is an example of a 20th Century theologian who influenced each of the last three popes. His writing was influenced by the dialectics of Hegel as well as by Phenomenology (the subject of Karol Wojtyla’s doctoral dissertation) and Existentialism. Guardini’s influence is quite evident in the encyclical Laudato Si. It will just not do to dismiss all of philosophy and theology since Aquinas. I would suggest you have a look at the following link:

crisismagazine.com/2014/romano-guardini-father-of-the-new-evangelization

I believe it a static perspective that does not permit a growth in understanding that leads to legalism and fundamentalism and evolves into ideology.

 

[LongingSoul]

But development of doctrine is simply clarification of already established truth. The teaching on capital punishment, for example, did not overturn previous doctrine. It simply asserted that there is seldom a need for capital punishment in developed nations, (which is in itself a judgment about the capacity of developed nations to protect themselves, not a new doctrine. And the Church never asserted that capital punishment must be imposed, only that it could licitly be imposed by the state. There is always room for mercy, mitigation, or leniency.

Fundamentalism and relativism are two extremes of the pendulum. And when it has been revealed by the coming of the Messiah that Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct persons in the one divine nature, there is little room for development. One can explore the inner workings of the divine nature as it has been revealed, but we cannot overturn what has been revealed: three persons in one nature.

If one too readily invokes development there is a risk of the actual doctrine being undermined. That is how many heresies have developed, and they have always required additional clarification from the Church to preserve the doctrine from going off the track of orthodoxy.

But that’s not why I wrote the last post. I was demonstrating actual examples of how some people hold so rigidly to a teaching as it is conceived of in one era that they can’t allow for a fuller more rounded expression of it to serve another era. These are actual situations where people have said there is contradiction. That’s what happens when people believe they possess absolute truth. They are disturbed by development. Even during the last Synod we have a situation where Pope Francis invited a number of questions to the table for examination. He invited some of the most prominent theologians and their creative thoughts and told them not to hold back. To speak freely and contribute your thoughts to a synodal process. And yet… you must remember that there were some who wanted to stop talk altogether. They believe that there is no room for development and keep citing contradiction and heresy. They even made subtle rejections of the Popes authenticity at times.

This is what we are talking about. The same types of people who wanted to silence the synod questions… wanted to silence Pope StJPII and his calls for abolition of the death penalty. The same types also called the new understanding of Adam and Eve, modernist and heretical. You are viewing those two issues through retrospect and not considering how fundamentalism works at the time of the actual development. It goes right back to Jesus’ time. I often ask myself if I would have recognised Jesus as the Messiah if my husband was a scribe or elder and we were faithful orthodox Jews of the time. It’s easy to say of course I would with the benefit of retrospect… but when something seems so radical and contradictory to what you have always believed to be absolute truth… that is what leads to rejection of the Holy Spirit.

 

[graciew]

But development of doctrine is simply clarification of already established truth. The teaching on capital punishment, for example, did not overturn previous doctrine. It simply asserted that there is seldom a need for capital punishment in developed nations, (which is in itself a judgment about the capacity of developed nations to protect themselves, not a new doctrine. And the Church never asserted that capital punishment must be imposed, only that it could licitly be imposed by the state. There is always room for mercy, mitigation, or leniency.

Fundamentalism and relativism are two extremes of the pendulum. And when it has been revealed by the coming of the Messiah that Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct persons in the one divine nature, there is little room for development. One can explore the inner workings of the divine nature as it has been revealed, but we cannot overturn what has been revealed: three persons in one nature.

If one too readily invokes development there is a risk of the actual doctrine being undermined. That is how many heresies have developed, and they have always required additional clarification from the Church to preserve the doctrine from going off the track of orthodoxy.

Trinity is dogma.
Revealed truth and we are to safeguard it.
Insight into the message and finding language that carefully fits the message does not mean replacing the message or develop it into something new. And even then precise and decisive language is necessary. The Church keeps it safe. And true development keeps and guards what came before.
Dogmas are revealed truth.

 

[graciew]

Actually, modernism in philosophy began during the 1500’s, and no one has suggested that the Church should “follow the secular philosophers of the Enlightenment and 20th Century modernism”. The Church firmly rejected modernity during the 19th Century, and Vatican II was in part an attempt to reconcile the Church to modernism. These are not the same thing.

Romano Guardini is an example of a 20th Century theologian who influenced each of the last three popes. His writing was influenced by the dialectics of Hegel as well as by Phenomenology (the subject of Karol Wojtyla’s doctoral dissertation) and Existentialism. Guardini’s influence is quite evident in the encyclical Laudato Si. It will just not do to dismiss all of philosophy and theology since Aquinas. I would suggest you have a look at the following link:

crisismagazine.com/2014/romano-guardini-father-of-the-new-evangelization

I believe it a static perspective that does not permit a growth in understanding that leads to legalism and fundamentalism and evolves into ideology.

Loved the article.
And Guardini , basically The Lord which is amazing ,and Max Scheller ( so so…) though mainly his touch of sensitivity . ( Die Stellung des Menschen im Kosmos , i do not know the name in English).
So far so good.
Most persons here part from Scholastics and it is fine.
Questions as to if Trinity can become Four Persons or a Dogma become relative are valid and have not been subject to question by Guardini.
So let us bring some peace here.
After reading The Lord several years ago what struck me the most was how somebody could have such deep access into the reality of Jesus. So it was that grasp of a ‘living dogma’ that made it beautiful.

And the Trinity remained 3 and God still God.
And neither St.Thomas nor Augustine nor Guardini make any of us a fundamentalist.or any label.
Through our Church and its saints and theologians or our rosaries we can grow in that loving relationship.

  You may find very interesting this about Paradosis.  Because you are dealing with a dogma of the Trinity. Evangelization is also explained.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretazione-dogmi_en.html

. In the words of Pope Paul VI, “Evangelizing means to bring the Good News into all the strata of humanity, and through its influence transforming humanity from within and making it new, ‘Now I am making the whole of creation new’ (Revelation 21:5). But there is no new humanity if there are not first of all new persons renewed by baptism, and by lives lived according to the Gospel” (Evangelii Nuntiandi, 18). Evangelization, therefore, includes three distinctive elements: 1. interior conversion to Christ and his Church; 2. affecting not only the individual person but the whole culture; and 3. as a result, changing this culture and its institutions to make them Christian and Catholic."

Fundamentally , a loving mission,so old and so new.An invitation…

God bless you !

 

[Brendan]

Actually, modernism in philosophy began during the 1500’s, and no one has suggested that the Church should “follow the secular philosophers of the Enlightenment and 20th Century modernism”. The Church firmly rejected modernity during the 19th Century, and Vatican II was in part an attempt to reconcile the Church to modernism. These are not the same thing.

Romano Guardini is an example of a 20th Century theologian who influenced each of the last three popes. His writing was influenced by the dialectics of Hegel as well as by Phenomenology (the subject of Karol Wojtyla’s doctoral dissertation) and Existentialism. Guardini’s influence is quite evident in the encyclical Laudato Si. It will just not do to dismiss all of philosophy and theology since Aquinas. I would suggest you have a look at the following link:

crisismagazine.com/2014/romano-guardini-father-of-the-new-evangelization

I believe it a static perspective that does not permit a growth in understanding that leads to legalism and fundamentalism and evolves into ideology.

Great article, and I look forward to reading Guardinin

I would like to clarify that I desire no dismissal of all Philosophy and Thelogy since Aquinas, my point was that the Church still uses these terms, and rightly so. So if we desire to understand the Pope’s statement in light of how the Church sees and describes things, we do no wrong in using Thomistic terms.

 

[Brendan]

Personally, I would have like to have focused more on the Pope’s actual statement

Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions,” said the Pontiff. “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

Imagine, for a moment, if the Pope was using the same statement to decry another wrong

Thievery is a sickness that is in all religions,” said the Pontiff. “We Catholics have some — and not some, many — who eat in restaurants and leave without paying the bill

Would we really have had a 500+ post thread on the biological functions of eating, and the legal distinctions between running a restaurant, and hosting a potluck dinner?

I doubt it!, we would have looked at the statement and have seen two key items

( eat in restaurants) and (leave without paying the bill)

We would have seen that both had to be true. NO ONE would be making the claim that the Pope was referring to people who eat in restaurants as thieves. There was the second clause that needed to be true as well (leave without paying the bill).

If it was the Pope’s intent to refer to people who eat in restaurants as thieves, the statement would have used OR

Thievery is a sickness that is in all religions,” said the Pontiff. “We Catholics have some — and not some, many — who eat in restaurants OR leave without paying the bill

The two statements are not the same, they make different claims about who is, (and thus who is not), a thief.

Now lets go look at the Popes actual statement

Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions,” said the Pontiff. “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)

Why would the Pope use ‘and’ instead of ‘or’?

 

[graciew]

Personally, I would have like to have focused more on the Pope’s actual statement

Imagine, for a moment, if the Pope was using the same statement to decry another wrong

Would we really have had a 500+ post thread on the biological functions of eating, and the legal distinctions between running a restaurant, and hosting a potluck dinner?

I doubt it!, we would have looked at the statement and have seen two key items

( eat in restaurants) and (leave without paying the bill)

We would have seen that both had to be true. NO ONE would be making the claim that the Pope was referring to people who eat in restaurants as thieves. There was the second clause that needed to be true as well (leave without paying the bill).

If it was the Pope’s intent to refer to people who eat in restaurants as thieves, the statement would have used OR

The two statements are not the same, they make different claims about who is, (and thus who is not), a thief.

Now lets go look at the Popes actual statement

Why would the Pope use ‘and’ instead of ‘or’?

Have some fun but I will tell you how I feel.
It is as if you said " It ’ s a no brainer " and we had a ;Spanish CAF and I started " Hey ! They said that the Church has banned synapsis !"
" No ! No brainer means that it is a sin to use the brain " …
" No !He is referring to Faith and Reason ! "

 That is how all this sounds to me ! :) And it may well be I just translated into Spanish in my mind .

And I just think he said something simple…hahaha

 

[graciew]

But the question remains how do you explain calling something ‘absolute’ which needs to be reformulated from age to age.

People grasp truth as from their culture and history.

The word " absolute" could very well be put to one sidenfor a while if it excludes a relationship and it is meant.as static. Not because everything is relative.
But because the Truth is God ’ s love for us and we express as from where we are at and it is alive and dynamic.
I do understand that this may soundnas if we were sitting on a chair with no back to lean on ,but I see it as walking from.an origin to.a destination with Jesus.

 

[clem456]

People grasp truth as from their culture and history.
The word " absolute" could very well be put to one sidenfor a while if it excludes a relationship and it is meant.as static. Not because everything is relative.
But because the Truth is God ’ s love for us and we express as from where we are at and it is alive and dynamic.
I do understand that this may soundnas if we were sitting on a chair with no back to lean on ,but I see it as walking from.an origin to.a destination with Jesus.

Christ is the personification of truth.
He objectively is the truth. It exists in him, regardless of how it is expressed or understood.
If the word “absolute” offends sensibilities, perhaps the word “objective” is better suited.

We cannot have a relationship with Christ while denying his objective and absolute “otherness”. He is not us. He becomes one with us, but at the same time God is ultimately “other”. He is subject to no one and no thing.

However, I think these fine distinctions do not resonate in our modern culture, when so many desire to subject truth to their own understanding and expression. What is objective for all people cannot be made subject to the individual. That is simply idolatry.
This might seem like an academic and somewhat moot point, but evil depends on subjectivity to operate. If individuals can subject the objective to themselves, all sorts of evil is justified.

For instance: Is the following statement objectively true:?
“A black person is a full human person created by God.”
I hope all of us would answer, “yes, that is objectively and absolutely true”.
In the past, our culture has subjected this objective truth to other false “truths”, namely that blacks are less than human. If I can subject the objective to my self, my evil is self justified. I become “like god”.

Another current common example of this is the following:
“Is it objectively true that only the union of a man and a woman can create a child?”
Read these fora, and you will see that not even this simple objective observation can generate a consensus.

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie

From the start, Adam and Eve attempted to subject the objective truth to their own persons. AKA “selfishness and pride”.

 

[LongingSoul]

Now lets go look at the Popes actual statement

Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions,” said the Pontiff. “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)

Because it is the conjunction that links the motive to the action. eg. Some kings believe they have a divine right to rule and go about torturing their subjects… Or some prison guards believe they are the law and abuse the dignity of prisoners.

It’s a conjuction that links a god complex with the abuse of others which is the inevitable result.