Is It Arrogant to Say Christ Is the Only Savior? Asks Cardinal Ratzinger

ZENIT.org ^ | 12-03-2002 | ZENIT News

[ThomasMore]

Code: ZE02120223

Date: 2002-12-02

Is It Arrogant to Say Christ Is the Only Savior? Asks Cardinal Ratzinger

Points to the Missteps of Relativism

MURCIA, Spain, DEC. 2, 2002 (Zenit.org).- Is it pretentious for Christians to proclaim Christ as the only Savior of mankind?

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger posed that question Saturday, and in his response clarified the very meaning of the Christian mission.

The cardinal was addressing the congress on "Christ: Way, Truth and Life," which brought together world-renowned theologians at the Catholic University of St. Anthony.

"Isn't it arrogant to speak of truth in matters of religion to the point of affirming that truth, the only truth, has been found in one's own religion?" the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith added.

Addressing an audience of 3,000, Cardinal Ratzinger said that "today it has become a slogan of enormous repercussion to reject, as simultaneously simplistic and arrogant, all those who can be accused of believing that they 'possess' the truth."

"These people, it seems, are unable to dialogue; therefore, they cannot be taken seriously, because truth is not 'possessed' by anyone," the cardinal added, outlining the thesis of relativism. "We can only be in search of truth. However, against this affirmation one can object: What search is this about, if one can never arrive at the goal?"

"Are these people really searching, or is it that they do not wish to find the truth, because what they will find should not be?" he continued.

"Naturally, truth cannot be a possession; before it, I must always be one of humble acceptance, of being conscious of my own risk and accepting knowledge as a gift, of which I am not worthy, of which I cannot be vainglorious as if it were an achievement of mine," Cardinal Ratzinger clarified.

"If I have been given the truth, I must consider it as a responsibility, which also presupposes service to others," he explained. "Faith also affirms that the unlikeness between what is known by us and reality itself is infinitely greater than the likeness."

In reality, the arrogant one is the relativist, the cardinal said.

"Isn't it arrogant to say that God cannot give us the gift of truth?" he asked. "Is it not contempt for God to say that we have been born blind and that truth is not our concern?"

"Real arrogance" consists in "wanting to take God's place and to determine who we are, what we do, what we want to make of ourselves and of the world," the cardinal continued.

Therefore, "the only thing that we can do is to recognize with humility that we are unworthy messengers who do not proclaim ourselves, but who speak with holy fear of what is not ours, but of what comes from God," he added.

"Only in this way is the missionary task intelligible, which cannot mean spiritual colonialism, the submission of others to my culture and ideas," the cardinal emphasized. "In the first place, the mission calls for preparation for martyrdom, a willingness to lose oneself for the love of truth and of one's neighbor.

"Only in this way is the mission credible. Truth cannot and must not have any other weapon than itself."

[ThomasMore]

FYI and discussion

[Pyro7480]

In reality, the arrogant one is the relativist, the cardinal said.

"Isn't it arrogant to say that God cannot give us the gift of truth?" he asked. "Is it not contempt for God to say that we have been born blind and that truth is not our concern?"

"Real arrogance" consists in "wanting to take God's place and to determine who we are, what we do, what we want to make of ourselves and of the world," the cardinal continued.

Therefore, "the only thing that we can do is to recognize with humility that we are unworthy messengers who do not proclaim ourselves, but who speak with holy fear of what is not ours, but of what comes from God," he added.

These are wise words from Cardinal Ratzinger. Relativism IS an arrogant ideology.

[Desdemona]

ping

[chance33_98]

Jesus told the disciples to go into all the word and tell of the good news, he did not say go tell them what they want to hear. The good news is that God had heard mankind, through all the various faiths, and sent down a method of salvation from death's sting (through a chosen group of people).

If we don't believe in the message enough to tell others what it is, why should they believe it? The only thing I feel we should exercise caution in is what we tell people in addition to the message - that is where we get into problems. The basis of Christianity is that Christ died for our sins and if we repent and accept him we wash away those sins.

This problem is as old as the new testament, Paul chided peter(? I think it was him, late and I am tired!) for telling converts they had to be circumcised, and there were those trying to get people to observe jewish fasts and holy days - Paul preached 'tolerance' if you will on some things, the things that did not really matter. He was not trying to change the culture of the people but their hearts. But while non-jews were not bound by the old covenant they were still bound by the new one and by the example of Christ - who did believe in sin (which is where we get mired in detailing out what things are considered wrong in God's eyes).

There are problems to be examined but I think they boil down to an analysis of both the old and new testaments to get an overall picture of sins of the heart versus procedural sins of covenants. The whole problem with that though is people start interpreting things all sorts of ways to fit their needs. But if we teach the basics then in their heart they will be convicted by the holy spirit and know right from wrong - those who want to do 'wrong' are most often the ones trying to find a loophole in the bible to justify their deeds.

I would go on but it is late, sorry for the long rant!

[Citizen of the United States]

His Eminence demonstrates once more why he is in many ways the very model of the modern Catholic prelate. His Faith, intelligence, and undeniable orthodoxy have combined to produce a man for whose leadership and example I am most grateful.

[chance33_98]

I am not catholic myself, though I have heard the pope is. I do have a deep respect for the many through the centuries within the church who have devoted their lives to the mission Christ gave. So many people only think about the things they see as having been negative with respect to the catholic church - they take the few in power who have misused it and hold them up while forgetting the bulk of those who have given their lives helping others. God bless the Saints and their works!

[LiteKeeper]

With all due respect to His Eminence, this is a very common argument amongst evangelical apologists. I know of at least three or four who have posted articles along these very lines of thinking just in the last year. While I will in no way deny his line of reasoning, it is neither profound, nor original.

grace and peace

[Citizen of the United States]

Indeed, it is not an uncommon argument -- nor should it be. Truth is always truth, regardless of from whose lips it springs. If evangelical apologists promote the same message (and well they should), then they, too, are to be commended for their philosophical honesty and willingness to defend their beliefs.

His line of reasoning may not be original, but I do indeed believe it to be profound, regardless of whether His Eminence or the Reverend Jesse Jackson says it.

[saradippity]

Could you link me with a couple of the evangelical apologists who have spoken on the subject.I would appreciate essays or papers that are concise and reflect his thoughts as directly and clearly as he has. Thanks.