Your Holiness, Does the Catholic Church Alone Contain the Fullness of Truth?

Photo ~ Those who took part in the March for Life in Washington, who received a Papal tweet of support, presumably believe that the sanctity of human life is a moral absolute and that the suggestion that abortion is in any situation a good action is simply not a valid position.

'Engaging in dialogue does not mean renouncing our own ideas and traditions, but the claim that they alone are valid or absolute.'
~ His Holiness Pope Francis, on the Feast of St Francis de Sales

Herein lies the Francis enigma, that the Successor of St Peter gives the impression that the Catholic Church does not necessarily contain the fullness of truth and inerrancy in Her teaching. Is this not precisely what the Devil, through his agents, and his whisperings, proposes to mankind in this century, as in previous centuries, that there can exist no absolute truths which can be trusted - not even those insisted upon by the Bride of Christ? Why is Pope Francis reticent to proclaim that the Church has the fullness of truth or that such a thing as 'Absolute Truth' exists?

If I, as a Catholic, maintain that my own opinion holds that badgers are the sweetest of all the animals, then my opinion hold no weight. Yet, if I appeal to the Authority of the Catholic Church in recognizing that a particular moral action or doctrine is right or wrong, then I am appealing to the Authority of Christ Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. A 'Culture of Encounter' would appear to involve a measure of denial, obfuscation or apostasy in the public proclamation of Catholic doctrine in the public arena or in private discussions.

Link
Dr Bobus
We tend to think of Revelation as merely supernatural, but generically, it's God revealing Himself. And that can be naturally, through the creation (Rom 1:20) or supernaturally, with, e.g., inspiration of the prophets and NT authors, or through Christ Himself.
Of course, the method of St Thomas is dialogic, and the Summa Theologiae, with its use of the Quaestio, is a great example. Public debate …More
We tend to think of Revelation as merely supernatural, but generically, it's God revealing Himself. And that can be naturally, through the creation (Rom 1:20) or supernaturally, with, e.g., inspiration of the prophets and NT authors, or through Christ Himself.

Of course, the method of St Thomas is dialogic, and the Summa Theologiae, with its use of the Quaestio, is a great example. Public debate was simply part of the life of a Medieval theologian (thus the Quaestiones Disputatae and Quaestiones Quodlibetales). Sadly, this notion has been lost, and not just recently. The Ecclesiocentric theology of the Counter Reformation tended to consider it as the ideology of the Church. When I was still in Rome, the Gregoriana invited Gustavo Guiterrez to speak, but it was nixed by the Congregation of Education. IMHO, the invitation should not have revoked, but rather the event should have been turned into a public debate between GG and another theologian who disagreed with him.

The notion of human discourse has been lost. Now it's just people taking turns at expressing opinions.

Keep in mind that this pope is a Jesuit, and the favorite color of the Jesuits is plaid. They are a complicated lot, having almost no concept of theological synthesis. That is why it is often said of Jesuits that they almost never reveal what they're really thinking.

It is also apparent that, like no pope in hundreds of years, this man is in OJT. Cardinal Ratzinger didn't want to be pope, but he came into office knowing what he wanted the next pope to accomplish. In a certain sense the same was true of Cardinal Wojtyla, with Communism and Moral doctrine. Papa Bergoglio took over by asking others, What is my mission? And so he makes unfortunate remarks about Rosaries offered and those who have laid it on the line in the abortion wars. Then he follows with uninformed platitudes about economics in Evangelii Gaudium and Davos.
Prof. Leonard Wessell
@Dr Bobus, thank you for the thoughtful reply. I am not aware of anything in Thomas A. which would let me think that Buddhism or the Maya religion received "revelation". I was taught that it only the Jews who had received "supernatural" revelation, not Cicero. But that is all secondary. Why?
In approaching Pope Francis I am not without presuppostions based upon previous statements man by the man. …More
@Dr Bobus, thank you for the thoughtful reply. I am not aware of anything in Thomas A. which would let me think that Buddhism or the Maya religion received "revelation". I was taught that it only the Jews who had received "supernatural" revelation, not Cicero. But that is all secondary. Why?

In approaching Pope Francis I am not without presuppostions based upon previous statements man by the man. My discussion below focused solely upon the papal words quoted re having a dialogue. If a dialogue seeks an exchange of information, than all is well. But then neither truth nor validity claims play any role in such a "dialogue". The exclusion of claims of truth set the parameters of a non-confrontational discussion or dialoque. But, when truth is involved, that is another matter.

As a former prof. I enjoyed confrontational "dialoques" with this or that student or prof., never too many people involved. Confrontational? Yes, a dialogic situation is one in which my presentation of my views claims "truth". On the other side, my partner in dialoque holds my views, at least as a congruent whole, for false. That I, according to my dialoque partner, find truth in theses 2, 3, 63, 89 and 99 out of 100 theses means that he holds I have erred in all others. If I think I got all 100 correct, than I have the "fullness" of truth. Furthermore, if, as I do, argue for what Prof. Hösle of Fordam Uni. has called "objective idealism", I come into conflict with most realists (until I have shown then that, without my idealism, their realism entails a contradiction and is, therefore, absolutely false). Of course the partner can contradict me with a counter argument. Essentially Thomas Aquinas in his Summa used this dialogical method of sic et non illuminating his theses.

I will not go further along the above line. I have sought, just inchaotely, to show that a DIALOGUE can, indeed, on the part of both sides presuppose that the truth assertions of one or the other side are ALONE true and valid. At that point true tolerance comes into play. If any dialogue that I carry out must presuppose necessarily that I hold my truths for not alone true and valid, then I have entered into a dialoque whose rules are those of relativism. No ABSOLUTES allowed. If Pope Francis & Co enters a dialogue under the guise of his quoted statement given at the beginning of the article, then I see myself forced to conclude that the Pope is, at best, inclined to an uncertain belief, such that he is not willing to defend them as alone or fully true. If my interpretation is correct, then I am worried. Pope Francis has on more than one occasion mocked a bit the integretity of previous traditional Catholic theology.
Dr Bobus
Prof Wessell,
That is not what has been was said above.
The question is whether it is possible to assent to a proposition taught by the faith but also possibly known by reason, e.g., moral precepts, the existence of God and the rational soul, and the incorruptibility of that soul, without having the fullness of truth. I say yes, that these are sometimes known as fides mixta—and their possibility …More
Prof Wessell,

That is not what has been was said above.

The question is whether it is possible to assent to a proposition taught by the faith but also possibly known by reason, e.g., moral precepts, the existence of God and the rational soul, and the incorruptibility of that soul, without having the fullness of truth. I say yes, that these are sometimes known as fides mixta—and their possibility is affirmed in Romans (and cited by Vat I), To say otherwise approaches fideism.

To affirm the existence of God or the incorruptibility of the rational soul is simply that. Both come from the speculative intellect. To add the question of “validity”, IMHO, attempts to turn them into practical propositions, which they certainly are not. Thus, it is not necessary that they be part of a larger agenda of salvation, the Beatific Vision, or the question of potentia obedientialis. At best, that confuses them with argumenta ex convenientia.

You raise the subject of St Thomas. I have little use for Thomism, which in the past was often distorted in an attempt at a synthesis with the likes of Kant (among whom, the Jesuit Joseph Maréchal). Although Thomist can include names like Pieper, Grabmann, Gilson, and Maritain, it also takes in the likes of Maréchal and Lonerga.

BTW, if memory serves, St Thomas says that non Christian religions can also have revelation, but it is not the fullness of Revelation.

I have no doubt that there exist Catholics, incl clergy, who doubt or deny that all salvation is through Christ. Cardinal Kasper would seem to qualify. I also know that there is more than one Doctor Equivocus (cf Karl Rahner) who does not exclude such an approach.

On the other hand, I don't pretend to be able to read the pope's mind, even though there are certain things he has said I don't really like. To me, it seems a regression to the policy of forgetting about the flock in order to pursue lost sheep.
Prof. Leonard Wessell
Once upon a time Catholic priests studied logic and philosophy as part of their education resulting in sharp thinking. Take the term "valid". As a symbol of salvation Christ on the Cross, Buddha meditating, Mohammed bowing, the American Indian chief dancing a prayer, etc., etc., all constitute valid examples of salvational schemas. The material truth of such schemes are not being considered. No …More
Once upon a time Catholic priests studied logic and philosophy as part of their education resulting in sharp thinking. Take the term "valid". As a symbol of salvation Christ on the Cross, Buddha meditating, Mohammed bowing, the American Indian chief dancing a prayer, etc., etc., all constitute valid examples of salvational schemas. The material truth of such schemes are not being considered. No big deal. To claim, on the other hand, that it is through Christ alone that salvation comes is valid, to be sure, but valid as a revealed "truth", i.e., it is true. To be "true" is something different from being "valid". The "Fullness" of Truth indicates a complex integration of various truths into an overall picture called a theology (e.g., Thomism). That there cannot be two or more religions that claim differing Fullnesses is a valid thesis because it is true. Truth >> validity (there is much Neo-Kantian philosophy entailed in the term "validity" that no discussion is possible here).

If one maiintains that condidate A for truth is true and not true in the same sense one comes upon a disjunctive situation, such that the two prongs are "cut off" from each other, viz., the twain shall never meet. If A is true, A being not true is logically "cut off" from claims of truth and validity. "Cut off" is the base meaning of "ab-solute". Any truth claim, the rejection of which entails a contradiction, is an "absolute" truth. There cannot be validly more than one religion claiming "Fullness of Truth", qualitatively and quantitatively, and this is absolutely so. If religion A claims fullness of truth, there can never be, i.e., absolutely so, another religion validly possessing such fullness. It is not valid to limit the implications of such a claim in order to make room for the validity of other clamant truths, i.e., unless one is does not really believe or doubts that full truth can be predictated to the claimant religion A.

My thesis is that such doubt is quite likely found in the spectrum of religious truths entertained by Pope Francis & Co. If other religions possess validity in their claims re fullness of truth, there exists an absolute contradiction. Such a problematic is avoided if the "dictatorship of relativism" dictates the thoughts of the Pope. Then the use of "alone" is valid (and revealing). I am afraid that things might be so.

A true dialogue, one interest in more than sharing information, is one of mutual tolerance by claimants of absolutely true claims. To exclude such a marvelous interchange from "dialogue" bespeaks a thinker under the dictates of relativism.

✍️ 😲 😇
Dr Bobus
I don't see the problem.
If a Pagan Religion teaches that there is life after death, isn't that True?
That, however, doesn't mean that there is the fullness of Truth in that religion or even in that teaching.More
I don't see the problem.

If a Pagan Religion teaches that there is life after death, isn't that True?

That, however, doesn't mean that there is the fullness of Truth in that religion or even in that teaching.