Truth: is it relative or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter philophoser
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay great! Now we are getting somewhere. So the Catholic response is that God absolves sins, but the priest acts as his representative in confession, as described in John 19?
(And yeah, I didn’t remember that verse when I said a Protestant would say that was erroneous. I apologize.)
 
@philophoser

There is technically a distinction between “forgiveness” and “absolution”, although sometimes in vernacular speech people use them interchangeably.

When a person makes an act of perfect contrition, they are immediately forgiven and put back into God’s grace. This happens purely through the will of God, who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. When a person confesses their sins to a priest, he absolves them of their sins. This means that if they were conscious of mortal sin, they can again receive Communion freely.

There are entire books to be said about Reconciliation, but I would say this: God desires for his people to act in a community, and that is why all of the sacraments at least involve a priest, and the other sacraments are often done in a community setting.
 
Last edited:
Okay that takes care of question 2. What about question 1? Gregory taught three sacraments c. 600, but the Council of Trent held there to be seven. Was Gregory wrong to think there were only three? Why is it acceptable to create new sacraments?
 
@philophoser

We can look at a sacrament or a Sacrament. A sacrament is any outward sign of an inner grace. St Ephrem, for example, described the act of Creation itself as a sacrament. The Latin word in the time of ancient Rome was used when a soldier was making an oath of allegiance. So the word “sacrament” took on a broader meaning and Pope St Gregory the Great would not have been familiar with the term “the Seven Sacraments”.

As far as the Council of Trent, the Church was pressed into providing a firmer definition of the sacraments because of various ideas being spread around chaotically by protestant preachers, who argued with each other just as often as they argued with the Catholic Church. So in response, the Council defined the Seven Sacraments. This was so that people couldn’t start taking away sacraments or adding to the number of the sacraments.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so the claim is that Gregory believed in all of the seven sacraments in his time, but that they were only properly understood as Sacraments (capital S) at a later date to sort of define the non-negotiable aspects of the true church?
 
philophoser said:
Years 33-1000 AD - God absolves people of their sins.
Years 1001-2020 - Priests absolve people of their sins.
Which of these competing and separate views is true?
Click to expand...
God forgives people of their sins, the Church absolves them. Both have always occured at confession. The Church decides the formula.
 
@philophoser

Yes, although it was earlier than Trent that Catholics understood the seven sacraments (St Thomas Aquinas knew the seven sacraments centuries earlier). It was just at the Council that it was declared dogmatically and dissension was anathema.

Normally, when a crisis arises, the Church is pressed to hold a Council in order to clarify teachings. At the Council of Nicea-Constantinople it was largely about the divinity of Christ because of Arian beliefs spreading throughout the ancient world. At the Council of Trent it was largely about the role and function of the Church because of various protestant preachers that were opposed to the authority of the Church.
 
Last edited:
philophoser said:
40.png
TK421:
The Church has the ability to decide the exact formula for celebrating Reconciliation.
Click to expand...
Again, I’m not talking about the “formula”.
(This is a historical simplification, but roughly conforms to the history of belief in the church.)
Years 33-1000 AD - God absolves people of their sins.
Years 1001-2020 - Priests absolve people of their sins.
Which of these competing and separate views is true? Or does belief by the Church MAKE the view true (i.e. truth is relative?)

Does that clarify what I’m asking? Is Truth a fixed thing to be continually aimed for? And a church could be moving closer or farther away from the target? Or is truth a target that the church always hits just BECAUSE it’s the one true church?
Click to expand...
The priest does not absolve the sinner. Jesus does through the priest. The Priest is acting in the person of Christ.

And Peter was specifically given the power to forgive sins through the power of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
“Gregory taught three sacraments”

I’ve already shown you that this statement is false.
 
I don’t see where you did. Maybe I missed it somewhere. I mean he is specifically quoted as saying “The sacraments are Baptism, Chrism, and the Body and Blood of Christ.”
Regardless, Tk421’s explanation that he believed the other things but didn’t list them as sacraments seems perfectly fine to me.

NOTE TO ALL: I reached my limit of posts a new user can post for one day just as we were getting to the good part. Thank you for all your help here. Hopefully we can pick up where we left off later today or tomorrow. Thank you!
 
Last edited:
philophoser said:
NOTE TO ALL: I reached my limit of posts a new user can post for one day just as we were getting to the good part. Thank you for all your help here. Hopefully we can pick up where we left off later today or tomorrow. Thank you!
Click to expand...
Peace 🙂
 
philophoser said:
Does that clarify what I’m asking? Is Truth a fixed thing to be continually aimed for? And a church could be moving closer or farther away from the target? Or is truth a target that the church always hits just BECAUSE it’s the one true church?
Click to expand...
The first thing to be grasped is:
The truth is not a concept in Christianity. In Christianity the Truth is a person.
And to grasp the truth is to do more than gain intellectual certainty about various concepts, statements, moral principles. To grasp the truth is to adhere to a person, Christ, and to be docile to what is revealed in the Church, which is Christ’s mystical body united to Him.

It’s probably apparent, that one who wants to find doubts in a spirit of skepticism has no trouble doing so.
The docility of faith brings the clarity of reason, and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
Christ’s promise to bestow the Holy Spirit, who “will guide you into all truth”, constantly sustains the Church on her way. Thus, in the course of her history, certain truths have been defined as having been acquired though the Holy Spirit’s assistance and are therefore perceptible stages in the realization of the original promise. Other truths, however, have to be understood still more deeply before full possession can be attained of what God, in his mystery of love, wished to reveal to men for their salvation.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei. 1998
Click to expand...
This doctrinal commentary gives a very brief history of formulas that express our Catholic faith. It also gives examples of doctrines that we adhere to either because of their expression of our faith in Christ, or because of their logical or historical connection to our faith. It is not a complete, perfect commentary on truth, but it should help clarify some questions you may have about what we believe and how we came to believe in them. (It could also obscure other things but I hope you will find it helpful.)

I suppose the most important message is that truth and the formulas that express it are two different things. Not explicitly stated here, it has been taught in the Church with many complications and qualifications that we probably do not need to go into right now. I offer this to help you formulate your questions.
 
philophoser said:
Is Truth a fixed thing to be continually aimed for?
Click to expand...
It seem as though “truth” means a “simplification which roughly conforms to” facts, no?
philophoser said:
This is a historical simplification, but roughly conforms to the history
Click to expand...
You’re presenting what follows that statement as true, i.e. that there is “competing” views in Church, yet admit its a mere “simplification” that “roughly conforms” to facts.
 
philophoser said:
What does that mean in relation to Pope Gregory? Isn’t the church committed to a view that if he said there were three sacraments
Click to expand...
If he said there are three sacraments and there are seven then he still said the truth.
philophoser said:
“May God have mercy on you and forgive you your sins.” … “I absolve you from your sins.” Which of these is true?
Click to expand...
The priest is persona Christi in administrating the sacrament.
philophoser said:
This (mis)translation is where Aquinas bases his view that sacrament is a penance …
Click to expand...
Please provide citation from Aquinas.
 
I found an english translation of Isidore’s etymologies. #6; chapter 19; no. 39 says: A ‘sacrament’ takes place in a particular liturgical rite when an action is performed in such a way that it is understood to signify something that ought to be received in a holy way. Sacraments, then, are baptism, unction, and the Body and Blood (of the Lord).

There is no indication that this is a quote from anybody.
 
o_mlly:
I’m sorry, I meant to write “that penance is a sacrament”, not the reverse.

JM3:
newadvent.org cross-references Isodore’s Etymologies. What Aquinas actually says is “For Gregory says…” and lists three sacraments. newadvent.org also links the word “Gregory” to Pope Gregory, which is why I took it to be him speaking. Perhaps he is speaking of another Gregory. I don’t know. Regardless, I think we’ve moved on from that topic.

Dovekin:
That is an excellent source summing up the Catholic position on these matters. I appreciate that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top