Archbishop Emeritus Chaput's take from firstthings https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/09/the-pope-and-other-religions Pope Francis has the habit, by now well established, of saying things that leave listeners confused and hoping he meant something other than what he actually said. At the end of his recent trip to Singapore, the pope left his prepared remarks for an interreligious group of young people and offered some general reflections about religion. Since his comments were extemporaneous, they naturally lacked the precision that a prepared text would normally possess, and so hopefully what he said is not quite what he meant. According to news reports, Pope Francis suggested that, “[Religions] are like different languages in order to arrive at God, but God is God for all. Since God is God for all, then we are all children of God.” He went on to say, “If you start to fight, ‘my religion is more important than yours, mine is true and yours isn’t,’ where will that lead us? There’s only one God, and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Some are Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, and they are different paths [to God].” The Holy Father’s positive intent here was obvious. Francis then added a call to enter into interreligious dialogue. He spoke about dialogue as if it were an end in itself. “Interreligious dialogue,” he said, “is something that creates a path.” The question then is: a path to where? That all religions have equal weight is an extraordinarily flawed idea for the Successor of Peter to appear to support. It is true that all of the great religions express a human yearning—often with beauty and wisdom—for something more than this life. Humans have a need to worship. That desire seems to be hardwired into our DNA. But not all religions are equal in their content or consequences. Substantial differences exist among the religions the pope named. They have very different notions of who God is and what that implies for the nature of the human person and society. As St. Paul preached two thousand years ago, the search for God can take many imperfect forms, but they are each an imperfect search for the one, true, triune God of Sacred Scripture. Paul condemns false religions and preaches Jesus Christ as the reality and fulfillment of the unknown God whom the Greeks worship (Acts 17:22–31). Simply put: Not all religions seek the same God, and some religions are both wrong and potentially dangerous, materially and spiritually. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ, once and forever, revealed to all humanity who God is. He redeemed us by his death and resurrection, and he gave us the commission to bring all humanity to him. As our faith teaches very clearly, it is only Jesus Christ who saves. Christ is not merely one among other great teachers or prophets. To borrow a thought from C. S. Lewis, if Jesus were just one among many, he’d also be a liar, because he emphatically claimed that, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). A loving God may accept the worship of any sincere and charitable heart—but salvation comes only through his only son, Jesus Christ. Which is why Jesus did not say, “Stay on your path, and let’s talk about it.” We are called Christians because we believe Jesus Christ is God, the second person of the Trinity. From the beginning of our faith, followers of Christ were unique among world religions because they accepted as true Christ’s extraordinary claim that he is God—in part because of his miracles, in part because of his preaching, but ultimately because of his death and bodily resurrection. Christians have also always believed that this reality makes Christianity categorically distinct from all other religions, and in turn requires a total commitment of our lives. (For the Church’s Christology, see: the New Testament, the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Ephesus, the Council of Chalcedon, the Council of Trent, the Second Vatican Council, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Vatican’s document Dominus Jesus, which all, among many others, teach clearly the divinity of Christ and his unique role in salvation history.) To suggest, even loosely, that Catholics walk a more or less similar path to God as other religions drains martyrdom of its meaning. Why give up your life for Christ when other paths may get us to the same God? Such a sacrifice would be senseless. But the witness of the martyrs is as important today as ever. We live in an age when the dominant religion is increasingly the worship of the self. We need the martyrs—and each of us as a confessor of Jesus Christ—to remind an unbelieving world that the path to a genuinely rich life is to give oneself fully to another, to the other. The bishop of Rome is the spiritual and institutional head of the Catholic Church worldwide. This means, among other things, that he has the duty to teach the faith clearly and preach it evangelically. Loose comments can only confuse. Yet, too often, confusion infects and undermines the good will of this pontificate. Christians hold that Jesus alone is the path to God. To suggest, imply, or allow others to infer otherwise is a failure to love because genuine love always wills the good of the other, and the good of all people is to know and love Jesus Christ, and through him the Father who created us. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., is the archbishop emeritus of Philadelphia.
Also, wouldn't it maybe make sense to talk to those "tiny" religions and try to reach out to them, and show them the catholic church, rather than engage massive religious bodies who probably didn't watch the message that addresses them? For example in Paraguay there are successors of the "spiritual christian" sects of pre-soviet russia. Or the Torah-only jews that the orthodox deem heretics. when I played RPG games I always fought the tiny opponents before the big guy, maybe dialogue with churches everyone forgets about is a good idea?
True faith only comes by Grace, I think some dialogue is good (debates, inter-religious discussion), but it is not that important. Trying to convince people of God intellectually seems like a waste of time. Helping people to have an experience of God appears to be how evangelization was originally done.
I read an ethiopian-orthodox book about saints and the ancient method was : a group of monks went to the wilderness for a few years to pray\do asceticism, then they could do visible miracles and went to pagan towns to show everyone miracles and convert them. exorcism, healing, taming wild beasts, and saving crops
If two religions come to a friendly compromise on doctrine, the only certainty is that, while previously it was conceivable that one might have been true, both are now wrong.
This is true. I also pray that all doctrine is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Such that even if everyone is against it we don't compromise.
Also I was thinking the other night and realized Francis isn't universalist but a much extreme ideology I don't know the name of. I studied a book on the theological history of universalism, a consistent univ. theologian would say: " hell is FULL right now. It possibly will be empty but that won't start happening at least until the resurrection . and only the Catholic Church is the right religion, unbaptized non-catholics are sinning and risk hell or purgatory ,notwithstanding the abode point" so, Francis's preaching is a total novel idea that doesn't even match what some theologians have said about universalism.
Pope Francis seems to believe all religions lead to God, unrestrictively. There is a grain of truth in this. Many religions possess what C.S. Lewis described as the 'Tao', in other words a basic morality approaching the Golden Rule-in this, Mohammedanism is a notable exception, although many Muslims might individually abide by it. Therefore, it has always been acknowledged by The Church that some non-Christians will become worthy of Salvation. However, a far greater proportion of them would become so worthy if they accepted Christ. To extrapolate from this doctrine to the conclusion that religions other than Christianity provide a comparable route to Salvation is to make a complete mockery of it. The alternative scenario is that, fundamentally, Pope Francis is an atheist and really believes all religions are equal...in their futility.
Also, Faith and works. But of course, without grace we would never be worthy by ourselves-that would be Pelagianism. However, The Church teaches that we must cooperate with Grace-best way to do this is to practice Catholicism.
Doesn't Freemasonry teach that all paths lead to 'god'? From what I've read their members can be any religion and they do believe in many paths to 'god'. What Francis is saying most closely matches their ideas and is not novel.
This article seems to me to be bending over backwards to 'cut him some slack'. One cannot ignore the context of the previous statements and acts of this papacy. Excusing him for speaking 'off the cuff' in a 'foreign language' to young 'mostly non-Christians' is just not good enough. He's the Pope. He's the Vicar of Christ on Earth, even if he seems to deny it. It's his business to ensure clarity and truth in his statements. It's not for nothing that most previous popes kept their communications strictly formal and in Latin, the one language most resistant to ambiguity. The very exaggeration of his remarks, in the reactions of the faithful and inevitably the non-faithful, is their inevitable fruit, that's what happens when one's 'no' doesn't mean 'no' and one's 'yes' doesn't mean 'yes'. I doubt this confusion is accidental on his part. He's on record for encouraging young people to make a 'mess', repeating it on this trip, according to reports. What is a 'mess'? According to Merriam-Webster, it is "a disordered, untidy, offensive, or unpleasant state or condition". Is this what the Church or the world needs right now? Are these conditions of salvation...or damnation?
What comes to my mind is the parable where the Bridegroom invites his good friends to the wedding feast but everyone is too busy with excuses (as so many of us even "good Catholics" have been over the last century), so He invites basically the riffraff of society, the people you wouldn't expect to see at the Feast, to fill His table. I don't feel that I know enough of the intimate Mind and Heart of God to know for sure what He does and doesn't want His own pope to say when reaching out to non-Catholic youth in the hopes of attracting them to the One True God. But I do believe in this case that our Holy Father's heart was in the right place, and that He loves Jesus and loves His neighbor very much.
