• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The "only true religion"

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
How are you defining "true"?

Useful, constructive, honest to itself and to wider reality.

I did some research, and it seems that it refers to something that is accurate or exact or is in accordance with fact or reality. How would the number of adherents of a system of belief fulfill that definition?
It does not. That is not at all what I meant.

Numbers are useful for attaining a measure of mutual cooperation and diversity of skills. They say nothing about how true a religion is, although too few people may be a significant challenge for a religion to take care of its own health.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Do you think Pope Francis would take a view more similar to yours? I am incredibly impressed by this man and it's hard for me to imagine that he would say I'm going to be damned for not being a Catholic.

Hello Katzpur :)

Pope Francis would certainly not say that you are going to be damned simply for not being a Catholic. Our doctrine has been pretty clear on this point for centuries, such that even the most traditional voices in the Church have not held the view often touted by 'Fundamentalists' in the Bible Belt:

"...It is false that we say to anyone that he is damned. To do so would be false to our general doctrine relating to sects outside the bosom of the Church. We are persuaded that all of those who with sincerity remain in their errors, who through inculpable ignorance believe themselves in the way of salvation . . . are children of the Catholic Church. Such is the opinion of all divines from St. Augustine..."

- Nicolas-Sylvestre Bergier, (1715 – 1790), celebrated French Catholic theologian

As you can see, this is no 'new' teaching either. At Vatican II a group of "far-right", ultra-traditionalist Catholics rebelled against the modernization of the church under St. Pope John XXIII at that ecumenical council, led by a French priest called Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. He and his followers - known as the SSPX - were ultimately excommunicated from Holy Mother Church for repeatedly refusing to obey the Pope and accept the reforms of the council. Nevertheless, despite condemning so-called "innovations" in church doctrine (including ecumenism and interfaith outreach to other religions), Lefebvre and his cohort held to the traditional church doctrine on non-believers and salvation:

"...There are three ways of receiving baptism: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit...The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church..."

- (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics)

Now, Lefebvre and the SSPX represent Catholicism at its most 'fringe' and 'far-right' extreme yet his views on salvation are far more 'liberal' than many Fundamentalists and traditional Protestants in general with their sole fide take on the matter.

The Catholic dogma in this area is quite distinct. I would call it "exclusivist inclusivism". On the one hand, the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ [in our eyes that is], the vehicle and font of salvation for all humanity, the "universal sacrament of communion" to use the language of ecclesiology. There can be no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Yet this does not mean that everyone outside it (bodily) is "wrong" or "lost". On the contrary, there are many within the Church bodily who are not of her spiritually, while there are many outside her bodily who are within her spiritually:


"...How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!...When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body.... All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark..."

- Saint Augustine, Church Father (354–430 AD), Baptism 5:28:39

"...He was ours [a Christian] even before he was of our fold. His way of living made him such. For just as many of ours are not with us, whose life makes them other from our body [the Church], so many of those outside [the Church] belong to us, who by their way of life anticipate the faith and need only the name, having the reality..."

- St. Gregory of Nazianzus, <Oration> 18.5 (c. 374 AD)


"...The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation..."

- St. Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (1990)
The official name for this doctrine is "baptism by implicit desire", in other words possessing a pure heart whereby one faithfully adheres to the dictates of their conscience and the will of God as far as they themselves, or their religion (if they have one) implores them and so attains to salvation:

"...But does the proposition that outside the Church there is no salvation involve the doctrine so often attributed to Catholicism, that the Catholic Church, in virtue of the principle, "condemns and must condemn all non-Catholics"? This is by no means the case. The foolish unchristian maxim that those who are outside the Church must for that very reason be eternally lost is no legitimate conclusion from Catholic dogma. The infliction of eternal damnation pertains not to the Church, but to God, Who alone can scrutinize the conscience. The task of the Church is confined exclusively to the formulating of the principle, which expresses a condition of salvation imposed by God Himself, and does not extend to the examination of the persons, who may or may not satisfy this condition. Care for one's own salvation is the personal concern of the individual. And in this matter the Church shows the greatest possible consideration for the good faith and the innocence of the erring person...She places the efficient cause of the eternal salvation of all men objectively in the merits of the Redeemer, and subjectively in justification through baptism or through good faith enlivened by the perfect love of God, both of which may be found outside the Catholic Church...The gentle breathing of grace is not confined within the walls of the Catholic Church, but reaches the hearts of many who stand afar, working in them the marvel of justification and thus ensuring the eternal salvation of numberless men who either, like upright Jews and pagans, do not know the true Church, or, like so many Protestants educated in gross prejudice, cannot appreciate her true nature. To all such, the Church does not close the gate of Heaven, although she insists that there are essential means of grace which are not within the reach of non-Catholics. In his allocution "Singulari quadam" of 9 December, 1854, which emphasized the dogma of the Church as necessary for salvation, Pius IX uttered the consoling principle: "Sed tamen pro certo...." (But it is likewise certain that those who are ignorant of the true religion, if their ignorance is invincible, are not, in this matter, guilty of any fault in the sight of God). (Denzinger n. 1647)
. . . As early as 1713 Clement XI condemned in his dogmatic Bull "Unigenitus" the proposition of the Jensenist Quesnel: . . . no grace is given outside the Church. . . just as Alexander VIII has already condemned in 1690 the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld: . . . (Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ). . . Catholics who are conversant with the teachings of their Church know how to draw the proper conclusions. . .The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven...”"

- The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910)
Vol. 14, TOLERATION
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
That's not what I intended to convey. It's interesting that you decided to interpret it that way.
Your analogy suggested it. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter what my favourite colour is.

What did you intend to convey?

I don't recall saying that it's "just as good" to be X and to be Y, and if you choose to read such implications into what I said (in spite of it not being what I said) that is your decision and you are free to do so. I'm telling you, for the second time, that I do not see things that way. That some religions feel they are the "one true way" in no way makes them false. I do not view religions in terms of being "true" or "false" to begin with. I don't think in black-and-white terms like that.
Of course a religion isn't an all-or-nothing package deal. A religion is more than just its claims, and even the claims can be individually true or false.

... but you agree that this particular claim (i.e. that a religion is the "one true way") is false even when it's part of a religious belief system, don't you?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Useful, constructive, honest to itself and to wider reality.


It does not. That is not at all what I meant.

Numbers are useful for attaining a measure of mutual cooperation and diversity of skills. They say nothing about how true a religion is, although too few people may be a significant challenge for a religion to take care of its own health.
But according to the definition (and you said "by definition"), the word "true" only applies to things that are in accordance with fact or reality. How do you reconcile your first comment with this?
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Your analogy suggested it. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter what my favourite colour is.

Really? You feel that isn't important? Huh.

I see this as being about values, and our values and preferences anchor much of who we are as people and as cultures. I can't think of many things that are more important than these things within the realm of the human species. Telling stories and making meaning of life is fundamental to all peoples - as fundamental as our need to breathe air and eat food. Values are a huge part of how we tell stories and make meaning. The things we cherish are important to who and what we are. There's nothing trivial about it.

Though I suppose, if we want to take another angle, in the grand scheme of things, all humans in general don't matter. But that's not really the story most humans like to tell, is it? :D


Of course a religion isn't an all-or-nothing package deal. A religion is more than just its claims, and even the claims can be individually true or false.

... but you agree that this particular claim (i.e. that a religion is the "one true way") is false even when it's part of a religious belief system, don't you?

It depends on the sense being meant. It would be most accurate to say that the notion of there being "one true way" is not part of my life's narrative, and it is not a story that I like to tell. That story does not bring desired meaningfulness into my life, so I do not tell it. And to be honest, I do not understand the story either. If we must use terms like "true" and "false," that story is "false" for me and me alone. That I personally find the story to not be useful or "false" does not mean it is "false" for anyone other than myself. Others do like telling that story, and it does bring desired meaningfulness into their lives. Others like that, find value in it. For those people, it is "true." But again, I really do not prefer to look at things in those binary "true" and "false" terms. It doesn't really reflect how I approach it. I don't treat an art like religion as if it is a science.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
But according to the definition (and you said "by definition"), the word "true" only applies to things that are in accordance with fact or reality. How do you reconcile your first comment with this?
I am not seeing the trouble, so I can't comment on it or attempt to reconcile it.

Maybe you can be more specific, or reword it to point it out to me?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
I am not seeing the trouble, so I can't comment on it or attempt to reconcile it.

Maybe you can be more specific, or reword it to point it out to me?
LuisDantas said:
Nope. It would be depressing if it were. Any religion which is gifted with enough people of sincere intent and sufficient wisdom is by definition true.

Since the word "true" only applies to things that are in accordance with fact or reality, how can "any religion which is gifted with enough people of sincere intent and sufficient wisdom" be "true by definition"?
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Pick mine! Pick mine!

But no, I don't adhere to the concept of the one true faith. Religions are fingers pointing at the Moon, they're not the Moon. And more than one finger can point at the same thing.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Really? You feel that isn't important? Huh.

Really. While I have a favourite colour, I recognize that it's arbitrary, and my choice of favourite colour has little to no bearing on how I live my life. It doesn't even affect what colour of car I drive (I tend to drive used cars, so condition, features, and price are bigger concerns than colour).

I see this as being about values, and our values and preferences anchor much of who we are as people and as cultures. I can't think of many things that are more important than these things within the realm of the human species.

My favourite colour has virtually nothing to do with my values.

Telling stories and making meaning of life is fundamental to all peoples - as fundamental as our need to breathe air and eat food. Values are a huge part of how we tell stories and make meaning. The things we cherish are important to who and what we are. There's nothing trivial about it.
Your favourite colour is really that important to you?

Though I suppose, if we want to take another angle, in the grand scheme of things, all humans in general don't matter. But that's not really the story most humans like to tell, is it? :D
No, it isn't.

It depends on the sense being meant. It would be most accurate to say that the notion of there being "one true way" is not part of my life's narrative, and it is not a story that I like to tell. That story does not bring desired meaningfulness into my life, so I do not tell it. And to be honest, I do not understand the story either. If we must use terms like "true" and "false," that story is "false" for me and me alone. That I personally find the story to not be useful or "false" does not mean it is "false" for anyone other than myself. Others do like telling that story, and it does bring desired meaningfulness into their lives. Others like that, find value in it. For those people, it is "true." But again, I really do not prefer to look at things in those binary "true" and "false" terms. It doesn't really reflect how I approach it. I don't treat an art like religion as if it is a science.
Regardless of your preferences, many religions make claims about many factual matters that are either true or false.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
When it comes to claims about the existence of deity, It appears that all religions are equally true, in the way that dividing any number by zero yields an equally meaningful result.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
LuisDantas said:
Nope. It would be depressing if it were. Any religion which is gifted with enough people of sincere intent and sufficient wisdom is by definition true.

Since the word "true" only applies to things that are in accordance with fact or reality, how can "any religion which is gifted with enough people of sincere intent and sufficient wisdom" be "true by definition"?

Because it is the truth of wisdom and of purpose that defines a true religion, of course.

What else could I possibly mean?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Because it is the truth of wisdom and of purpose that defines a true religion, of course.

What else could I possibly mean?
First of all, we are talking about something being "true", not whether something can be considered a "truth". Very different terms. Nevertheless, what is the "truth of wisdom and of purpose that defines a "true" religion"? By "truth" are you referring to some kind of noble effort or "good heart" or something?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
First of all, we are talking about something being "true", not whether something can be considered a "truth". Very different terms.

I just don't understand what you mean here.

Nevertheless, what is the "truth of wisdom and of purpose that defines a "true" religion"? By "truth" are you referring to some kind of noble effort or "good heart" or something?

The whole point of a religion is to promote moral recovery and religious wisdom, isn't it?

If you are implying that somehow a "true" religion would have guessed right on how many deities or afterlives there are... I don't think I can ever agree with that. It is hard enough to convince me that those are religious matters in the first place.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
I just don't understand what you mean here.



The whole point of a religion is to promote moral recovery and religious wisdom, isn't it?

If you are implying that somehow a "true" religion would have guessed right on how many deities or afterlives there are... I don't think I can ever agree with that. It is hard enough to convince me that those are religious matters in the first place.
I would say that a set of beliefs is not "true" unless said beliefs line up with reality. Thus, I don't think we can know whether any religion is true.
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
In that case, which other religions do you consider true?

I don't frame the issue as whether religions are "true," but whether and in what degree I feel that they are effective means of pursuing what I understand to be the goals of religions: aiding people in reaching out for the numinous, giving people tools for spiritual growth, advocating and providing tools to help create more just societies.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Nevertheless, what is the "truth of wisdom and of purpose that defines a "true" religion"?

The purpose of religion and truth ofwisdom is to know the truthful G-d and His attributes to enable us to improve our natural, moral and spiritual conditions.
Regards
 

Kirran

Premium Member
The purpose of religion and truth ofwisdom is to know the truthful G-d and His attributes to enable us to improve our natural, moral and spiritual conditions.
Regards

What if you don't believe in God?

Also, just because the purpose of religion is to know God, doesn't mean that only one religion works for that.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Your favourite colour is really that important to you?
[/COLOR][/FONT]

I get the sense that you're missing the point of what I'm saying due to your fixation on this one specific manifestation of values. Take a step back, cease that fixation on this one specific manifestation, and look at the big picture. Look at your values and preferences on the whole. Think about the emotional underpinnings of your existence as a human animal, what you love, what you hate, how you feel about things. Consider the life-narrative you tell yourself, and to others. How you see meaning in life, how you understand truth, how you approach relationships. That all relates to values and preferences, either your own or those instilled in you by culture (frequently both), including (ir)religion.

If you can say to me that you think none of that is important, then I probably can't help you to understand.


[/COLOR][/FONT]Regardless of your preferences, many religions make claims about many factual matters that are either true or false.

I'm quite aware that some religions do that. They are free to do so, just as others are free to not do so. And we are all free to judge them as we see fit.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
What if you don't believe in God?

Also, just because the purpose of religion is to know God, doesn't mean that only one religion works for that.

If one does not believe in G-d that person should also be respected absolutely no compulsion.
In fact all revealed religions work for that.
Regards
 
Top