I'm not contradictory to your statement. Or your explanation hasn't touch my potential flaw if exists. Let me put in this way:
There is at least some "thing" that can not be proved without cause inconsistency. To avoid the inconsistency to prove the "thing" which become true we need to create a high order system in which then the "thing" is truth but also cause the same dilemma in the new bigger system that new "thing" will show up that need another high order system. So it's correct that no system can contain all truth while keeping consistent. This is the point you want to express in your statement, right? (Actually it's Godel theorem in plain English itself)
What I try to say is: if its not provable in current system so it can not be called true within current system. I could be wrong at this part but not what you tried to explain which I already agree.
There is at least some "thing" that can not be proved without cause inconsistency. To avoid the inconsistency to prove the "thing" which become true we need to create a high order system in which then the "thing" is truth but also cause the same dilemma in the new bigger system that new "thing" will show up that need another high order system. So it's correct that no system can contain all truth while keeping consistent. This is the point you want to express in your statement, right? (Actually it's Godel theorem in plain English itself)
What I try to say is: if its not provable in current system so it can not be called true within current system. I could be wrong at this part but not what you tried to explain which I already agree.