"The Fulness of Truth"

[MindNight]

Hello brothers and sister in christ,

I have an issue about which seems to make me confused. I know, that the catholic church speaks itself as the “Fulness of truth”. Does this mean that other religions only have partial truth and that catholic faith has the primary authority on morality on earth? I know that Blessed JPII spoke a lot of the relationship between islam and christianity, or buddhism and christianity. If for example islam contradicts the basic creed in the trinity, why did he go ahead and kiss the koran? I am in no way accusing him of being evil or anything, I am simply wondering what the real intention was. Did he simply view bits of the koran that did not contradict with catholicism, and agreed with those parts only. Likewise with buddhism, I don’t understand why in the cathecism it says that buddhists “can reach an illumination of conscience” if the normative salvation is in the catholic church?

I would appreciate if any of you catholic experts would answer my concerns.

Thank you in advance

 

[Michael_Allen]

Hi MindNight

I would imagine Blessed JP-II was reflecting the view expressed in the Catechism that the Muslims adore the same merciful God as we do…

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Of course, not all thought JP-IIs actions were wise, but I see them as reaching out in charity and love to people who share many beliefs with Christians.

God bless +

Michael

 

[Gorgias]

Hi, MindNight!

Wow… that’s a lot of questions for one thread! Can we stick to just one or two of them, please?

I know, that the catholic church speaks itself as the “Fulness of truth”. Does this mean that other religions only have partial truth

On the face of it, that sounds pretty harsh, doesn’t it? After all, it makes it seem like the Church is sitting at the top of the mountain, sticking out its tongue at everyone, saying “I know ev-ry-thing! You know no-thing! Nyah, nyah!”

But, let’s look at things logically: if one denomination says, “Eucharist isn’t the Body and Blood of Christ” and another says “Jesus meant to allow divorce”, but the Catholic Church says “Eucharist isChrist” and “Jesus meant to forbid divorce”… well, then, somebody has to be right and someone wrong… right? So, then, who do you go with? The Church that has the unbroken chain of authority from Jesus to the apostles through the present day? The Church that has the promise of the Holy Spirit so that the gates of hell won’t prevail over it? Or a group of other Christians who cry “Lord, Lord”, but have stepped away from the Church Jesus founded?

It sounds harsh, but if two people make opposite statements, there must be at least one who’s wrong, no?

and that catholic faith has the primary authority on morality on earth?

Do you mean “authority to teach morality”? Yes.

If for example islam contradicts the basic creed in the trinity, why did he go ahead and kiss the koran? I am in no way accusing him of being evil or anything, I am simply wondering what the real intention was. Did he simply view bits of the koran that did not contradict with catholicism, and agreed with those parts only.

No. The way I’ve heard it explained, he did it as a sign of respect for a people who respect that book.

 

[Gorgias]

Likewise with buddhism, I don’t understand why in the cathecism it says that buddhists “can reach an illumination of conscience” if the normative salvation is in the catholic church?

Can you let us know which paragraph in the catechism you’re referring to? I’m guessing that you might be talking about these sections (but they don’t mention Buddhism by name):

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

Is this what you’re talking about?

In any case, the point here is that God wishes salvation to all; that means that He doesn’t just “throw away” those who have never been able to receive the Gospel message of Christ. So, for those who fit this description – for instance, for a Buddhist who is honestly seeking the truth, but who has never had the opportunity to fully hear and accept the message of the Church – there is hope for salvation.

Yes, the ‘normative’ means of receiving salvation is through Christ and the Church – baptism and the sacraments – but there is also the possibility that God, in His mercy, will see the honest attempt to find Him by those who do not know Him, and will provide salvation in a non-normative way.

Another way of thinking about this is that Jesus didn’t place restrictions on himself or on God the Father – by setting up the Church, Jesus didn’t say “well, now I’ve painted myself into a corner! Unless someone avails themselves of baptism, now they’re stuck! Oh no!”

However, this notion does not mean that Buddhism or any other religion is capable of getting people saved, on its own merits as a religion! They’re not! Instead, though, all salvation comes from Jesus.

One other point: this doesn’t mean that a Catholic, who grew up in the faith, learned it well, but later decided to become a Buddhist, might be saved through Buddhism. With great gifts come greater responsibilities: Catholics (since they know the Gospel message and have received the sacraments of the Church) are responsible to holding to the faith of the Church. If they should choose to look elsewhere, then they don’t fit the description of a person who has ‘never heard the Gospel message but is seeking truth where they are’, do they?

So, the Church isn’t saying “meh, it’s all the same… Christianity, Islam, Buddhism – take your pick!”…! Rather, the teaching is that, in the absence of the knowledge of Christ as savior, it is not the case that a person necessarily is damned. (Some Christian denominations teach this, btw, and that kind of misunderstanding of God’s word is just sad…)

 

[neophyte]

Hello brothers and sister in christ,

I have an issue about which seems to make me confused. I know, that the catholic church speaks itself as the “Fulness of truth”. Does this mean that other religions only have partial truth and that catholic faith has the primary authority on morality on earth?

Yes.

I know that Blessed JPII spoke a lot of the relationship between islam and christianity, or buddhism and christianity. If for example islam contradicts the basic creed in the trinity, why did he go ahead and kiss the koran? I am in no way accusing him of being evil or anything, I am simply wondering what the real intention was.

My understanding is that it was merely the culturally appropriate thing to do when receiving a gift from an honored host. It wasn’t at all intended as an affirmation of the tenets of Islam.

Did he simply view bits of the koran that did not contradict with catholicism, and agreed with those parts only. Likewise with buddhism, I don’t understand why in the cathecism it says that buddhists “can reach an illumination of conscience” if the normative salvation is in the catholic church?

The Church recognizes that there are elements of truth in other religions. All truth originates from God. It’s clear, then, that God illumines the minds and hearts of those of other religions, therefore it’s correct to say that all men can reach an illumination of conscience.

 

[MindNight]

On the face of it, that sounds pretty harsh, doesn’t it? After all, it makes it seem like the Church is sitting at the top of the mountain, sticking out its tongue at everyone, saying “I know ev-ry-thing! You know no-thing! Nyah, nyah!”

I am not in any way saying the roman catholic church is arrogant or anything. I think you’ve misunderstood my question. Indeed, I am eagerly looking for a definite unchangeable truth, and so far I’ve been able to find it only in the catholic church (at least from my research). When asking about the question of the fulness of truth, I was simply wondering what the apologists meant by that. A lot of the times the phrase is repeated, indicating that it is true. But at the same time, I noticed that a lot of the priests at the same time give credits to other religions (I know many practising catholics are themselves disturbed by it).

that’s a lot of questions for one thread!

Yeah I guess, but the questions are in a way interconnected so basically the issue is generally about the relationship/difference to non-catholic religions (in general) and how the church basically views them (as a collective group). Buddhism and Islam are popular specific examples, which were used by the two previous popes (JPII and B16). And like I’ve written in the title, my concern eventually boils down to the definiton of “fullness of truth”. Ok, let me rephrase the question is another way, if catholics believe that non-catholics can be saved, why be catholic at all? In other words, using the scenario of the popes, why not just be a buddhist in that case, if it is not necessarily required to be a catholic? I can’t seem to comprehend that. On one hand, JPII praised buddhism for its peacefulness, but on the other hand encouraged everyone to become catholic? Isn’t that eventually a contradiction (I apologise for my ignorance).

 

[1AugustSon7]

Hello brothers and sister in christ,

I have an issue about which seems to make me confused. I know, that the catholic church speaks itself as the “Fulness of truth”. Does this mean that other religions only have partial truth and that catholic faith has the primary authority on morality on earth? I know that Blessed JPII spoke a lot of the relationship between islam and christianity, or buddhism and christianity. If for example islam contradicts the basic creed in the trinity, why did he go ahead and kiss the koran? I am in no way accusing him of being evil or anything, I am simply wondering what the real intention was. Did he simply view bits of the koran that did not contradict with catholicism, and agreed with those parts only.

I wouldn’t read too much into a single photograph without knowing the context. Did the pope himself ever say anything about it that might help us understand his motivation? Otherwise I think we are just guessing/speculating.

Likewise with buddhism, I don’t understand why in the cathecism it says that buddhists “can reach an illumination of conscience” if the normative salvation is in the catholic church?

I think that was a document of Vatican II. Not sure if I ever read that in the Catechism itself. Buddhism is a very philosophial religion; you wouldn’t be shocked if someone said of philosophy that it can lead to an “illumination of conscience”: i.e., to a more enlightened conscience. It can and often does. We study the virtues in philosophy, for example, and Ethics is a branch of philosophy.

Salvation and conscience, moreover, are not the same thing. A person can have a superbly formed conscience and not necessarily inherit eternal life (perhaps he lacks faith). No doubt, however, that he is far more likely to come to salvation in Christ and seek out Christ.

God bless,
August.

 

[MindNight]

Thank You Guys. There are too many replies for me to thank each of you individually… still your explanations made me understand more or less what is going on. I did read each of your posts carefully, so yeah I understand it better now. Once again, thank you all for your efforts to explain these “cliché” repetitive questions to me

 

[1AugustSon7]

When asking about the question of the fulness of truth, I was simply wondering what the apologists meant by that.

It means we have Christ (or perhaps better Christ has us) complete and entire. Christ is the Truth (cf. Jn 14.6).

A lot of the times the phrase is repeated, indicating that it is true. But at the same time, I noticed that a lot of the priests at the same time give credits to other religions (I know many practising catholics are themselves disturbed by it).

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. 9 The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.

Notice that all things were made through and in Christ. Christ, then, is written (so to speak) all over -or better deep within- Creation itself and all created things. All things thus bear witness to Him or speak of Him though, of course, in a limited way; notwithstanding, they all point more or less to Christ. Anything at all true would thus be a testimony of Christ’s presence and reality. Any truth would point to Christ wherever it was, however imperfectly (by nature of its being a limited creature for example).

The fulness of truth means Christ and especially the knowledge of Him (or His “knowledge”: His knowing us and all things real or possible perfectly). It isn’t only the Revelation by which we can come increasingly to know and better understand Christ; it is Christ Himself.

 

[MindNight]

It means we have Christ (or perhaps better Christ has us) complete and entire. Christ is the Truth (cf. Jn 14.6).

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. 9 The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.

Notice that all things were made through and in Christ. Christ, then, is written (so to speak) all over -or better deep within- Creation itself and all created things. All things thus bear witness to Him or speak of Him though, of course, in a limited way; notwithstanding, they all point more or less to Christ. Anything at all true would thus be a testimony of Christ’s presence and reality. Any truth would point to Christ wherever it was, however imperfectly (by nature of its being a limited creature for example).

A ok, so you are saying essentially, that because each created being was created by god, the person who never heard of the catholic church would be saved because the knowledge of god is implemented in every human being? So that means, if a person stranded on an island, who was never taught religion, would still have the opportunity of salvation presicely because God created and thus dwells with him and so person’s knowledge of god is fixed in his soul? Makes more sense now

 

[Jon_S_1]

A ok, so you are saying essentially, that because each created being was created by god, the person who never heard of the catholic church would be saved because the knowledge of god is implemented in every human being? So that means, if a person stranded on an island, who was never taught religion, would still have the opportunity of salvation presicely because God created and thus dwells with him and so person’s knowledge of god is fixed in his soul? Makes more sense now

We don’t know if they “would be saved” as you wrote here. We “hope” that they will be. Jesus and the Bible are clear that there is one road to salvation in and through Jesus Christ. The Catholic Position is unequivocal about this. Even those of us who are Catholic, hope for our salvation and try to “persevere to the end”. So it is not like all religions are equal, or that you can get to heaven without knowing Jesus. But for those who have not heard the Good News, and are truly seeking God and following the moral laws written in their nature, and if they were ever offered baptism then we can “hope” for their salvation.

We will all find out someday!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Hello brothers and sister in christ,

I would appreciate if any of you catholic experts would answer my concerns.

Thank you in advance

Recently the media, erroneously interpreted Pope Francis’ homily regarding atheists, to say that even atheists will go to heaven. There were a lot of threads on that topic at that time. During that, I came across Fr. Rosica’s letter and response which has a lot of good information that I think will help you with your question. I will post both the link and portions of the response below. Fr Rosica is the Vatican’s english speaking “press secretary”.

zenit.org/en/articles/explanatory-note-on-the-meaning-of-salvation-in-francis-daily-homily-of-may-22

*171. What is the meaning of the affirmation “Outside the Church there is no salvation”?

This means that all salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church which is his body. Hence they cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, would refuse to enter her or remain in her. At the same time, thanks to Christ and to his Church, those who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ and his Church but sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, try to do his will as it is known through the dictates of conscience can attain eternal salvation.

1. The scriptures tell us expressly that God wants everyone to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4); the covenant of peace which God made with Noah after the flood has never been abrogated: on the contrary, the Son of God himself has sealed it with the authority of his self-sacrificing love embracing all people. Pope Francis warns Catholics not to demonize those who are not members of the church, and he specifically defended atheists, saying that building walls against non-Catholics leads to “killing in the name of God.
2. The great German Jesuit theolgian, Fr. Karl Rahner introduced the idea of “anonymous Christian” into theological reflection. Through this concept, offered to Christians, Rahner said that God desires all people to be saved, and cannot possibly consign all non-Christians to hell. Secondly, Jesus Christ is God’s only means of salvation. This must mean that the non-Christians who end up in heaven must have received the grace of Christ without their realising it. Hence the term – ‘anonymous Christian’.

What is meant by this thesis of the anonymous Christian is also taught in “Lumen Gentium,” the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Vatican II (no.16). According to this document those who have not yet received the gospel and this without any fault of their own are given the possibility of eternal salvation…God ‘in the unknown ways’ of his grace can give the faith without which there is no salvation even to those who have not yet heard the preaching of the gospel

Catholics do not adopt the attitude of religious relativism which regards all religions as on the whole equally justifiable, and the confusion and disorder among them as relatively unimportant. God truly and effectively wills all people to be saved. Catholics believe that it is only in Jesus Christ that this salvation is conferred, and through Christianity and the one Church that it must be mediated to all people.

1. There is always a risk in interreligious dialogue or dialogue with atheists and agnostics today that reduces all discussions to mere politeness and irrelevance. **Dialogue does not mean compromise. **There can and must be dialogue today: dialogue in genuine freedom and not merely in that ‘toleration’ and co-existence where one puts up with one’s opponent merely because one does not have the power to destroy him. This dialogue must of course be conducted with a loving attitude. The Christian knows that love alone is the highest light of knowledge and that what St Paul says about love must therefore be valid of dialogue.
2. A non-Christian may reject a Christian’s presentation of the gospel of Christ. That however, does not necessarily mean that the person has truly rejected Christ and God. Rejection of Christianity may not mean the rejection of Christ. For if a given individual rejects the Christianity brought to him through the Church’s preaching, even then we are still never in any position to decide whether this rejection as it exists in the concrete signifies a grave fault or an act of faithfulness to one’s own conscience. We can never say with ultimate certainty whether a non-Christian who has rejected Christianity and who, in spite of a certain encounter with Christianity, does not become a Christian, is still following the temporary path mapped out for his own salvation which is leading him to an encounter with God, or whether he has now entered upon the way of perdition.
3. The Scriptures teach that God regards the love shown to a neighbor as love shown to Himself. Therefore the loving relationship between a person and his or her neighbor indicates a loving relationship between that person and God. This is not to say that the non-Christian is able to perform these acts of neighborly love without the help of God. Rather these acts of love are in fact evidence of God’s activity in the person.
4. As Christians, we believe that God is always reaching out to humanity in love. This means that every man or woman, whatever their situation, can be saved. Even non-Christians can respond to this saving action of the Spirit. No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin; one can only lose their salvation through serious personal sin of their own account.

 

[Della]

A ok, so you are saying essentially, that because each created being was created by god, the person who never heard of the catholic church would be saved because the knowledge of god is implemented in every human being? So that means, if a person stranded on an island, who was never taught religion, would still have the opportunity of salvation presicely because God created and thus dwells with him and so person’s knowledge of god is fixed in his soul? Makes more sense now

The key to understanding how non-Christians may be saved is that they have had the grace of God extended to them through Christ’s redemptive act on the cross. Jesus redeemed the whole world by giving his life for all humanity. This is why he sent his Apostles into the “whole world” and not just to the Israelites. Because Jesus’ death and resurrection atoned all humanity, all of humanity may be saved by responding to God’s grace which has been poured out upon the world because of Christ’s one offering of himself to the Father.

So non-Christians MAY be saved, but it’s not easy for them since they, just as we do, have their fallen natures to contend with. We have the advantage of having been baptized into Christ, which gives us the aid of the Holy Spirit and the cleansing of the stain of original sin. We as believers are bound by the sacraments Christ gave his Church, but others who aren’t may be saved through God’s mercy as they cooperate with his grace. We cannot know who will be saved and who won’t, not even among our fellow Christians let alone anyone else. We evangelize all because all are in need of salvation and all the helps to salvation that God has provided for us.

 

[1AugustSon7]

A ok, so you are saying essentially, that because each created being was created by god, the person who never heard of the catholic church would be saved because the knowledge of god is implemented in every human being?

No I am not saying that and I’m not even sure how you drew that conclusion from what I acually wrote. Once again, knowledge is one thing; final salvation, another.

Now in a sene it could be argued that the knowledge of God is in every human being just because he is human; or because he is ordinarily consciously aware of so many created realities. In a sense, perhaps, simply because he is a creature he testifies to the need of the Creator and so does everything else. Not everyone, however, is going to reason this through or make this discovery or be absolutely certain in it. That’s what revelation is for. It comes, strenghtens, enlightens and confirms right-reason.

So that means, if a person stranded on an island, who was never taught religion, would still have the opportunity of salvation presicely because God created and thus dwells with him and so person’s knowledge of god is fixed in his soul? Makes more sense now

Umm. Sort of? The argument from Creation is just that of its nature Creation and created realities point to God. Our own natural awe and wonder before creation - before nature - is a starting point of religion and faith or belief in God’s existence or reality. The poor man stranded on an island who hitherto never formally learned or studied religion might, on seeing the pristine night sky and the dizzying masiveness and vastness of the glorious stars brimming and glittering in all their majestic gory in heaven, may -for the very first time in his life- be seriously and powerfully moved to truly believe that “there is a God.”

Further we have to believe that God offers everyone, somehow, the oppotunity to “be saved”. No one is actually irresistably fated to damnation; on account of Chist’s sacrifice for us his brethren, we believe that God somehow makes salvation a possibility for every single human being ever. No doubt, though, that their likelihood of embracing this reality and goodness of Christ is immensely and powerfully helped by the presence of the Church and the Gospel. Without that it would be vastly more difficult for most people, especially on account of the consequences of original and actual sin.

 

[Pitcharan]

U N B O U N D
I am like a hound
Left unbound.
I sniff all around
Till truth is found.
Lots of stuff, like truths do sound,
They’re everywhere, even underground.
Eureka I said, truth has been found,
But deception showed, as it unwound.
The shape of our world, takes me round and round
That makes many think, my mind is unsound.
Sooner or later, truth will surely be found
When all will agree, we are wiser unbound.
Truth sets you free,
In order to see.
But remains shadowy,
If you’re stuck like a tree.
- Pitcharan