Author Topic: Biblical Support for truth in all religions (Read 4025 times)

2Vermont · « **on:** October 22, 2013, 03:51:55 PM »

So, on another forum, I've a got a VII Catholic asserting that saying Muslims worship the same God or the Church does not deny the truth in all of the religions can be supported by Paul's witness in Athens when he quotes Greek poets/writers in a positive light. In other words, Paul evangelized by bringing up that these Greek pagans had some truth (even if they didn't know it).

How would you refute this? I thought, pre-Vatican II, the Church didn't teach there was any truth to any other religion; that the Catholic Faith was the only true religion. Am I wrong? I thought that this was one of the fallacies of Vatican II. When I read Mortalium Animos I see a much different reaction towards other religions. And yet this biblical support does make some sort of sense. But then why doesn't Church teaching pre-1960 teach this explicitly?

songbird · « **Reply #1 on:** October 22, 2013, 04:19:39 PM »

Your thinking is true. If I pour a glass of water, then add a drop of arsenic, is it water to drink? Our Lady said there would be confusion. The communist scheme is taking a sentence with truth and then adding a twist of lie or half truth which makes the sentence a lie.

This - what you are showing is a good example of the twisted half truths. To untwist them is important, because once you see how the magician did it, then it is no longer a mystery, and you see the truth behind the curtain.

So, Christ gave the command to all the apostles to teach. Whether they were Jew or whatever. You would think that a Jew at that time would come to understand and convert. St. Paul was given the challenge and he told them, "You may be pious and etc, but you are not in that position unless you are converted and baptized.

If all religions have some truth, are they saved? No. As St Paul would say, then Christ came and died and suffered in vain, if this be the case. I like that one sentence of St. Paul, because it can relate to alot of the confusion that we have today.

If all are saved, then Christ came in vain. The devil is so clever, a snake in the grass, that just blends right in to his surroundings. The devil can make things that are wrong look right. After over 2000 years are we just now getting it right as the New Order would like for us to think? For every change they make,does that not give us thinking that Christ True Church, is not so true and goes through changes and are always trying to get it right? Wasn't it right from the start?

If you are around New Order or those of it, it is best to get away from that language and familiarize yourself with the language of a true Church. The more you do, the better the understanding for you and you become better in defending The One True Catholic Church!

Luker · « **Reply #2 on:** October 22, 2013, 06:33:16 PM »

Hi 2Vermont.

I am sure someone here will come along that is better equipped to answer your question but I can add a couple of points.

1. I think the distinction they make with Muslims is false. We cannot worship the same God. Christians know through Divine revelation that God is triune, One God three divine persons, and the second person of the Blessed Trinity is God the Son. The Muslims not only deny this but they say it is impossible and a blasphemy that God could have a Son. I recently heard this distinction explained in a homily, I will try and paraphrase it.

Lets say you and I are talking one day about a certain Mr Smith. We are trying to determine if we know the same Mr Smith. We both agree he has certain attributes, say he has brown hair and blue eyes and is about 6' tall. Then I say, "Well the Mr Smith I know has a son". You say "No impossible, Mr Smith had an accident and is unable to have any children, he has no son". Obviously we would conclude that the Mr Smiths we know are different men since it is impossible that the same man could have a son and not have a son. It would be ridiculous to say something like we know the same man in a mystical/spiritual sense.

2. I don't think St Paul's discourse to the Athenians has any bearing on this question. St Thomas after all used the pagan philosopher Aristotle for his Summa Theologica. Nobody has been bothered by this. I think with non Catholic religions, the Catholic Church has always (until Vat II) made the distinction that any truths they happen to share with us are the inheritance of the Catholic Church by virtue of it being the one, true religion founded by Jesus Christ. The modern error is to say that because other religions have some (more or less) truth in them, they offer the possibility of salvation (inherent in the false religion itself). This notion the Church has always condemned as the heresy of pantheism or indifferentism.

Outside the Church there is no salvation.

Luke

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #3 on:** October 22, 2013, 06:47:14 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

So, on another forum, I've a got a VII Catholic asserting that saying Muslims worship the same God or the Church does not deny the truth in all of the religions can be supported by Paul's witness in Athens when he quotes Greek poets/writers in a positive light. In other words, Paul evangelized by bringing up that these Greek pagans had some truth (even if they didn't know it).

How would you refute this? I thought, pre-Vatican II, the Church didn't teach there was any truth to any other religion; that the Catholic Faith was the only true religion. Am I wrong? I thought that this was one of the fallacies of Vatican II. When I read Mortalium Animos I see a much different reaction towards other religions. And yet this biblical support does make some sort of sense. But then why doesn't Church teaching pre-1960 teach this explicitly?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Are there natural truths in every religion? Yes. But they are not unique to that religion-- E.g., a given false religion may believe in one God. That is true, there is only one God. Some false religions may hold to more truths than others. But these religions are not true. There is a difference between a false religion having "some truths" and a religion being true, i.e., possessing the truth.

But these are merely academic and philosophical points, the most significant point is that regardless of what these religions get right, they are not salvific. So even if Muslims believe in "one" God, or if protestants teach that abortion is wrong or that Episcopalians believe that people go to Hell, these are still false religions-- which means, if you die belonging to them, you are reprobate.

Luker · « **Reply #4 on:** October 22, 2013, 06:52:23 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

or that Episcopalians believe that people go to Hell

Episcopalians believing in Hell?!?! lol

But seriously, thanks Mith. You explained it better than I did.

Luke