Catholics have the fullness of truth. Protestants have part of the truth! What does this mean?

[Pretty_Wings]

I heard Catholics say this before and I don’t understand the saying. What exactly do this mean? I think Protestants believe they have the full truth because we have the Bible, God’s words.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I heard Catholics say this before and I don’t understand the saying. What exactly do this mean? I think Protestants believe they have the full truth because we have the Bible, God’s words.

Ah, but that is only part of the “fullness”. Catholics have the Bible too, plus Tradition, plus Apostolic Succession. Of course, Protestants shared in the tradition and the Apostolic Succession for 1500 years, and the traditions derived from early Christianity and the church fathers are still there for all. I have read writings by various Protestant scholars and theologians who use extensively the thoughts of the church fathers. It seems that it is what each side does with those ideas, and how they interpret them, that is important.

Some non-Catholic faiths (Orthodox, Anglicans?) also claim a connection with the first Apostles, but they are missing something the Catholic church has cornered the market on: The Pope and his direct descent from Peter as chief Apostle.

I can understand how one could think that the Word of God should be enough, for what could any mere human say or do that could trump that? But for Catholics the “fullness of truth” is a three tiered concept, with the Word as just one part of the “whole” deposit of truth. But when one looks carefully at what Protestants believe (for example the same creed is shared by almost all Christians) it can be claimed that they too have a strong reliance on tradition and the teachings of the early Church fathers. Their faith is not based only and entirely on the Bible either.

So in the final distillation it seems to come down to the Pope.

 

[losh14]

I heard Catholics say this before and I don’t understand the saying. What exactly do this mean? I think Protestants believe they have the full truth because we have the Bible, God’s words.

I appreciate your honest question.
Is all within the Bible true? Yes, absolutely and without question. But clearly there are differences in understanding among Christians - even the most scholarly and well-intended and prayerful - on how to understand the Bible and on what the words mean. Does this mean that one group of Christians has the truth while the other does not? Certainly not - but if one is correct where another is in error, who has the more full understanding of the truth?

By the same token, your church may say “Those Catholics, they have the Bible but they don’t read all of it the right way.” This is essentially the same as your question.

Let’s go back to your statement:
“Catholics have the fullness of truth. Protestants have part of the truth.”

On the face, this shouldn’t be a surprising statement for a Catholic source to make, and I’ve heard non-Catholic sources (Christian and otherwise) make similar statements. It’s essentially:

1. God, who reveals Himself and His Truth to humanity, would not withhold truth because He is not capricious.
2. Not all who seek to follow Him do so in exactly the same ways. Some hold to a Covenantal theology, others to one that is unbound; some believe that Grace comes non-uniquely through Sacraments, others that Sacraments are useless mental constructs.
3. One church - one group of faithful - must be more correct than others. Where there is common ground between this one group and the others, the other groups also share in the Truth. Where there is difference, the other groups lack understanding of this particular regard of the Truth. The Bible is one area of common ground - Baptism of all as necessity for salvation is not held in common among all Christians.

I hope this helps.

 

[Robintrinket]

Protestants have part of the truth because they believe some of what the Catholic Church teaches, but not all of it. They reject some of the teachings, replacing them with the false teachings they follow. The Catholic Church is the Church which Christ gave authority to teach. All the other churches broke away at some point, disagreeing about the doctrine that the Catholic Church taught and replacing it with their own, although they had no authority to do so. When they left, they kept some Christian doctrine.

Protestants have the Bible, but so do Catholics. In fact, when the Bible was put together, there were no Protestants yet. The Bible is God’s word, but there are many contradictory interpretations of it. It is impossible for all of these interpretations to be correct. That is why Jesus established a Church to teach and guide His people, and didn’t just leave them a book to interpret any way they wish. Of course, Protestants believe that their religion is the true one, or they wouldn’t believe it.

 

[Gem]

Yes, the pope and the bishops (the teaching authority of Jesus), but also the sacraments, which were given to the Church by Jesus as instruments of grace, are part of the “fullness” that the Catholic Church speaks of.

For example, all churches except Catholic and Orthodox, lack the scarament of Communion in the sense that is is the real Body and Blood of Jesus (John 6).

Yes, other churches are Christian - they worship Jesus Christ as Lord - as we do. But there are other gifts Jesus gave his Church which were shared for 1500 years before some discarded them. These people meant well and saw themselves as reformers of excesses. But, in the process, they threw away some very precious means of grace.

Gem

 

[St_Francis]

What is baptism and what role does it play in a person’s life and when should it be administered?

Among Protestants, who rely kn the Bible, iirc there are seven different answers. which is correct?

The Catholic Chirch has the answer which is in line with what Christ taught, which has been carried down to us through Tradition and clarified through the teaching authority of the Church.

How does a Protestant determine which interpretation of the Bible is correct? There is no way to do so if the only reference is Scripture, is there? Each interpretation is backed up by the Bible.

Obviously something is missing. Christ said I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. One way, one truth. So He would have ensured that we had a way to know that truth, and that way is through the Catholic Church.

 

[Barbkw]

When Fr. Martin Luther was excommunicated by the Church during the Reformation he was no longer able to preside over the Sacraments.

The Catholic Church has seven Sacraments in the New Covenant that were prefigured in the Old Testament:

Baptism
Reconciliation
Eucharist
Confirmation
Marriage
Holy Orders
Sick

In the Catholic Church we take a literal interpretation concerning Jesus’ words at the Last Supper (Holy Thursday).

We believe that Jesus becomes the bread and the wine. We receive Him into our bodies. He is the Fullness of Truth.

 

[Pretty_Wings]

Ah, but that is only part of the “fullness”. Catholics have the Bible too, plus Tradition, plus Apostolic Succession. Of course, Protestants shared in the tradition and the Apostolic Succession for 1500 years, and the traditions derived from early Christianity and the church fathers are still there for all. I have read writings by various Protestant scholars and theologians who use extensively the thoughts of the church fathers. It seems that it is what each side does with those ideas, and how they interpret them, that is important.

Some non-Catholic faiths (Orthodox, Anglicans?) also claim a connection with the first Apostles, but they are missing something the Catholic church has cornered the market on: The Pope and his direct descent from Peter as chief Apostle.

I can understand how one could think that the Word of God should be enough, for what could any mere human say or do that could trump that? But for Catholics the “fullness of truth” is a three tiered concept, with the Word as just one part of the “whole” deposit of truth. But when one looks carefully at what Protestants believe (for example the same creed is shared by almost all Christians) it can be claimed that they too have a strong reliance on tradition and the teachings of the early Church fathers. Their faith is not based only and entirely on the Bible either.
**
So in the final distillation it seems to come down to the Pope.**

I think it does. Where I’m from the Bible is all we need. We don’t see why the Pope is necessary. If we don’t understand something in the Bible than we just pray to God.

 

[Pretty_Wings]

What is baptism and what role does it play in a person’s life and when should it be administered?

Among Protestants, who rely kn the Bible, iirc there are seven different answers. which is correct?

The Catholic Chirch has the answer which is in line with what Christ taught, which has been carried down to us through Tradition and clarified through the teaching authority of the Church.

How does a Protestant determine which interpretation of the Bible is correct? There is no way to do so if the only reference is Scripture, is there? Each interpretation is backed up by the Bible.

Obviously something is missing. Christ said I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. One way, one truth. So He would have ensured that we had a way to know that truth, and that way is through the Catholic Church.

We believe that Christ is the way, the truth and the life. We just don’t believe the Catholic Church(or any church) is where we should go to get all the answers. We believe that God though the Holy Ghost will give you the wisdom and knowledge to interpreted the Bible.

 

[nodito]

I think it does. Where I’m from the Bible is all we need. We don’t see why the Pope is necessary. If we don’t understand something in the Bible than we just pray to God.

Prayer is essential, of course. But let’s say there’s an honest disagreement among two people about whether or not something is morally wrong. Abortion or contraception or homosexuality or divorce, for example. Is it not possible for two people to pray to God and get two different answers? To interpret the bible in two different ways? How can this be? If there is absolute truth, if something is morally wrong, wouldn’t God give the same answer to everybody?

This is why God established the Catholic Church, to help interpret the Bible and guide his people to the Truth, Jesus Christ. The Bible is the Word of God, but it is not the only guidance that God left for us.

 

[Robintrinket]

We believe that God though the Holy Ghost will give you the wisdom and knowledge to interpreted the Bible.

It sounds like you kind of believe in the concept of the Pope, you just believe that everyone is a Pope. The Holy Spirit obviously does not give everyone the wisdom and knowledge to correctly interpret the Bible, because there are so many different interpretations. They cannot all be true.

 

[ajpirc]

If the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, then why don’t we evangelize Protestants?

 

[Poco]

We believe that Christ is the way, the truth and the life. We just don’t believe the Catholic Church(or any church) is where we should go to get all the answers. We believe that God though the Holy Ghost will give you the wisdom and knowledge to interpreted the Bible.

If the church is not necessary, then why did Jesus establish it?

Gospel of St. Matthew 16:13
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Douay-Rheims version

You must realize, it was “the Church” that gave us the Bible, not the other way around!

 

[Link0126]

You have the word of God, but even the Protestant Bible is missing seven OT books compared to the Catholic Bible

 

[GaryTaylor]

Ah, but that is only part of the “fullness”. Catholics have the Bible too, plus Tradition, plus Apostolic Succession. Of course, Protestants shared in the tradition and the Apostolic Succession for 1500 years, and the traditions derived from early Christianity and the church fathers are still there for all. I have read writings by various Protestant scholars and theologians who use extensively the thoughts of the church fathers. It seems that it is what each side does with those ideas, and how they interpret them, that is important.

Some non-Catholic faiths (Orthodox, Anglicans?) also claim a connection with the first Apostles, but they are missing something the Catholic church has cornered the market on: The Pope and his direct descent from Peter as chief Apostle.

I can understand how one could think that the Word of God should be enough, for what could any mere human say or do that could trump that? But for Catholics the “fullness of truth” is a three tiered concept, with the Word as just one part of the “whole” deposit of truth. But when one looks carefully at what Protestants believe (for example the same creed is shared by almost all Christians) it can be claimed that they too have a strong reliance on tradition and the teachings of the early Church fathers. Their faith is not based only and entirely on the Bible either.

So in the final distillation it seems to come down to the Pope.

Well yes this a great part of it. But there also been 21 Ecumenical Councils which has taken Chirtainity into this new era. When we look at Orthodox/Protestant we have some who uphold the 7th, but thats as high as they go. Some also fall away at the forth? So we have close beliefs and a kinda belief. And we have those who believe only what they chose to believe and proclaim it as Truth.

So we have a whole lot of people who would like to claim they have the “real” truth. But who in the world speaks for Christianity? The Pope is the “proto” as defined at the Council of Nicaea. There’s no debating by any of the Partriarchs of the Orthodox Church or the Protestant Church. This is the way it is. When you are not in communion with Rome you a cell living outside the body. That doesn’t mean their are not valid churchs. They are simply not part of the whole body.

We Catholic know where the church is, they do not know where it is not.

God Bless, gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

If the church is not necessary, then why did Jesus establish it?

Gospel of St. Matthew 16:13
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Douay-Rheims version

You must realize, it was “the Church” that gave us the Bible, not the other way around!

Exactly and this happened by the Apostles and the direct students of theirs. And that was the Catholic Church as defined by Ignatius of Antioch in 104-AD

 

[Nicea325]

Protestants have part of the truth because they believe some of what the Catholic Church teaches, but not all of it. They reject some of the teachings, replacing them with the false teachings they follow. The Catholic Church is the Church which Christ gave authority to teach. All the other churches broke away at some point, disagreeing about the doctrine that the Catholic Church taught and replacing it with their own, although they had no authority to do so. When they left, they kept some Christian doctrine.

Protestants have the Bible, but so do Catholics. In fact, when the Bible was put together, there were no Protestants yet. The Bible is God’s word, but there are many contradictory interpretations of it. It is impossible for all of these interpretations to be correct. That is why Jesus established a Church to teach and guide His people, and didn’t just leave them a book to interpret any way they wish. Of course, Protestants believe that their religion is the true one, or they wouldn’t believe it.

The highlighted words beg the question: Which non-Catholic church out of thousands is truly the ‘true’ one?

 

[Bev17243]

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is **the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. **
Here is a common question from my Protestant friends"Where is that in the Bible?"
My answer is" Where does that say in the Bible that “everything must be in the Bible?”
Well, jokes aside, its a historical fact that church was there before the Bible, not the other way around. This verse from Timothy clearly states that Church is the “pillar and ground of truth”. And the reason he says that is because there was no Bible until several hundred years later. So “Bible only” teaching is not Biblical for that reason since teachings were passed down orally until then. Even when Bible was finally compliled, you couldn’t just go to the store and get one. Most people in those days were illeterate so they relied on the Church to teach the truth. Not until Reformation, when Martin Luther declared that Bible was the only thing needed, it became a popular concept. However, since he came with it, by following the “Bible only”, you are following a man made law. This is what led me from Protestanism to RC. And of course, how can you interpret the Bible if there is noone to guide you? You can ask 5 people what certain passage means and get 5 different asnwers. That’s why the Church is the “ground of truth”

 

[Nicea325]

I heard Catholics say this before and I don’t understand the saying. What exactly do this mean? I think Protestants believe they have the full truth because we have the Bible, God’s words.

But Jesus did not found a book-only faith. Christianity is the religion of the person: Jesus Christ,not only the Bible.Second, Jesus founded His Church and promised the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. Never said a word about the Bible containing everything we need for salvation.

 

[Nicea325]

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is **the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. **
Here is a common question from my Protestant friends"Where is that in the Bible?"
My answer is" Where does that say in the Bible that “everything must be in the Bible?”
Well, jokes aside, its a historical fact that church was there before the Bible, not the other way around. This verse from Timothy clearly states that Church is the “pillar and ground of truth”. And the reason he says that is because there was no Bible until several hundred years later. So “Bible only” teaching is not Biblical for that reason since teachings were passed down orally until then. Even when Bible was finally compliled, you couldn’t just go to the store and get one. Most people in those days were illeterate so they relied on the Church to teach the truth. Not until Reformation, when Martin Luther declared that Bible was the only thing needed, it became a popular concept. However, since he came with it, by following the “Bible only”, you are following a man made law. This is what led me from Protestanism to RC. And of course, how can you interpret the Bible if there is noone to guide you? You can ask 5 people what certain passage means and get 5 different asnwers. That’s why the Church is the “ground of truth”

Precisely why Jesus founded His Church and gave His 12 apostles the authority and they to their successors. If Jesus intended the Bible-Only to be “the” authority, I think he would have made that very clear. Not a word or notion in the Bible about such a belief.