ChatterBank4 mins ago
Credo Quia Absurdum
14 Answers
Credo quia absurdum is a Latin phrase that means "I believe because it is absurd."
Crucifixus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;
et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.
— (De Carne Christi V, 4)
"The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible."
The phrase does not express the Catholic Faith, as explained by Pope Benedict XVI: "The Catholic Tradition, from the outset, rejected the so-called “fideism”, which is the desire to believe against reason. Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd) is not a formula that interprets the Catholic faith."
The phrase is thus sometimes associated with the doctrine of fideism, that is, "a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority."(Catholic Encyclopedia). It has also been used, though often in different interpretations, by some existentialists.
The phrase is often incorrectly used as an example of the irrationality of religious faith. But in the larger context of Tertullian's overall argument, which is that highly improbable stories are actually unlikely to be fabrications, he is clearly not advocating an irrational approach to faith.
wiki.
It has also been quoted, not as a basis of, but in relation to, Zen
Crucifixus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;
et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.
— (De Carne Christi V, 4)
"The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible."
The phrase does not express the Catholic Faith, as explained by Pope Benedict XVI: "The Catholic Tradition, from the outset, rejected the so-called “fideism”, which is the desire to believe against reason. Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd) is not a formula that interprets the Catholic faith."
The phrase is thus sometimes associated with the doctrine of fideism, that is, "a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority."(Catholic Encyclopedia). It has also been used, though often in different interpretations, by some existentialists.
The phrase is often incorrectly used as an example of the irrationality of religious faith. But in the larger context of Tertullian's overall argument, which is that highly improbable stories are actually unlikely to be fabrications, he is clearly not advocating an irrational approach to faith.
wiki.
It has also been quoted, not as a basis of, but in relation to, Zen
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes, because this is a false "quotation". Tertullian never said this phrase. The phrase Tertullian used was "certum est, quia impossibile" (it is certain, because it is impossible). How this became "I believe because it is absurd" is not known. Furthermore, the translation of the false phrase itself is incorrect. The words "I believe because it is absurd" should, in Latin, be translated as "credo quia absurdum est". The exact translation of this would be "I believe because it is an absurdity". (noun) However, as Tertullian never said the words, this is a moot point.
well on first reading - I thought it was a misquote
Tertullian, the Roman theologian in the second century A.D. said, “Credo quia incredibilis est”, which translates to “I believe because it is incredible”.
but there is also "credo quia absurdum"
yeah mistranslation -
quia pudendum est - because it must be shameful
( gerund + esse = compulsion. as in "Carthago delenda est" - final words of every speech of Cato )
sola fidei is deffo NOT RC doctrine - lots on this under "Justification" - there is a bit more to it
but heavens ( coela!) it is a bit late at night for this innit
Tertullian, the Roman theologian in the second century A.D. said, “Credo quia incredibilis est”, which translates to “I believe because it is incredible”.
but there is also "credo quia absurdum"
yeah mistranslation -
quia pudendum est - because it must be shameful
( gerund + esse = compulsion. as in "Carthago delenda est" - final words of every speech of Cato )
sola fidei is deffo NOT RC doctrine - lots on this under "Justification" - there is a bit more to it
but heavens ( coela!) it is a bit late at night for this innit
// The difficulty as I see it, is that the Scriptures were written in a variety of ancient languages, including Aramaic, and then were translated into Ancient Greek, before being translated again in Latin. //
no mikey = erm First Tertullian is a Roman theologican and er wrote in Latin. This is a commentary - not part of the Bible
Whatever the OT was written in, the Alexandrian Jews commissioned a greek translation of the OT - called the septuagint, 336 BC but this was hellenistic greek and not ancient. We know the NT was written in the then courant form of Greek - Koine and was NOT a translation of an aramaic original.
Altho the jehovahs witnesses will take you to their bazoomz as they believe there is a lost ( as in completely lost or er non-existent and never existed ) aramaic original. For reasons I dont understand.
Blimey I have summed up Metzger's 300 pages on Where did the bible come from and where is it going to - in five lines! well done me! good night
no mikey = erm First Tertullian is a Roman theologican and er wrote in Latin. This is a commentary - not part of the Bible
Whatever the OT was written in, the Alexandrian Jews commissioned a greek translation of the OT - called the septuagint, 336 BC but this was hellenistic greek and not ancient. We know the NT was written in the then courant form of Greek - Koine and was NOT a translation of an aramaic original.
Altho the jehovahs witnesses will take you to their bazoomz as they believe there is a lost ( as in completely lost or er non-existent and never existed ) aramaic original. For reasons I dont understand.
Blimey I have summed up Metzger's 300 pages on Where did the bible come from and where is it going to - in five lines! well done me! good night
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
ChatterBank34 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.