Context Matters: How Pope Francis' Words on Faith Are Being Misinterpreted. Analysis by Andrew Likoudis
Pope Francis has recently come under intense scrutiny (again), with some detractors (mis-)labeling him a heretic (again)
During his September 2024 Apostolic Journey, Pope Francis addressed young people at Singapore’s Catholic Junior College. In a scheduled interreligious meeting, he emphasized the importance of dialogue and mutual respect among different faiths. The comments that stirred this controversy stated:
. . . if you start arguing, “My religion is more important than yours. . . ,” or “Mine is the true one, yours is not true. . . ,” where does this lead? . . . All religions are paths to God. I will use an analogy, they are like different languages that express the divine. But God is for everyone, and therefore, we are all God’s children. “But my God is more important than yours!”. Is this true? There is only one God, and religions are like languages, paths to reach God. Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian. Understood?
While official translations of his remarks may vary slightly, the core message remains consistent, and ultimately either translation is orthodox despite what the critics have claimed. Many have dismissed the controversy off-hand insisting that the comments are not magisterial. This is debatable since this was a scheduled formal address during an Apostolic Journey. However, the reaction to these comments—magisterial or not—displays some serious issues, much more problematic than the comments themselves, however ambiguous or unclear. The issue at hand is the reactionary culture formed by critics who make themselves look ridiculous in revealing that they haven’t done their theology homework.
Read in their fullest context, Pope Francis was discussing how to dialogue. This is important because the media routinely takes Pope Francis’ words out of context. The fuller context is as follows:
One of the things that has impressed me most about the young people here is your capacity for interfaith dialogue. This is very important because if you start arguing, “My religion is more important than yours. . .”, or “Mine is the true one, yours is not true. . .”, where does this lead? Somebody answer. [A young person answers, “Destruction.”] That is correct. All religions are paths to God. I will use an analogy, they are like different languages that express the divine. But God is for everyone, and therefore, we are all God’s children. “But my God is more important than yours!” Is this true? There is only one God, and religions are like languages, paths to reach God. Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian. Understood? Yet, interfaith dialogue among young people takes courage. The age of youth is the age of courage, but you can misuse this courage to do things that will not help you. Instead, you should have courage to move forward and to dialogue.
The Pope never states that all religions are equal, or by themselves and isolated from Christ, salvific. He is referring to the age-old truth that religion naturally serves as a path out of atheistic immanentism and naturalism. Indeed, Pope Francis stated in earlier magisterial teaching from the beginning of his pontificate how these non-Christian symbol-rich religious systems are conducive to salvation. In Evangelii Gaudium, he notes:
Non-Christians, by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God”,[199] and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”.[200] But due to the sacramental dimension of sanctifying grace, God’s working in them tends to produce signs and rites, sacred expressions which in turn bring others to a communitarian experience of journeying towards God.[201] While these lack the meaning and efficacy of the sacraments instituted by Christ, they can be channels which the Holy Spirit raises up in order to liberate non-Christians from atheistic immanentism or from purely individual religious experiences.[1]
Would people also object to the notion that natural philosophy serves as a path to God, even though acknowledging the existence of the God of Nature is not innately salvific? If such objections are minimal, it follows that there should be even less resistance to the notion that non-Catholic, symbol-rich religious systems may serve as paths to God.
Some have noted that this seems to reduce the words of Christ about being “The Way, the Truth, and the Life” to a footnote, but as one Catholic apologist has pointed out:
That there are “many paths to God” in no way contradicts the fact that Jesus Christ is the “only way” to God and salvation. I am surprised that this is so difficult for us as Catholics, right? We are the ones who call priests Father even though Jesus says, “call no man father.” St. Paul says we have many fathers and that he is a “father” to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 4:14-15. Scripture says Jesus is our one teacher (Matt. 23:8), yet we have many “teachers” in the Church (James 3:1; Eph. 4:11). Jesus is our “one mediator” (1 Tim. 2:5) and unique “intercessor” (Heb. 7:24-25) and yet we are all called to be “mediators” and “intercessors” (1 Peter 2:5-9; 1 Tim. 2:1-4). Jesus is our unique “pastor” and “bishop” (1 Peter 2:25) and yet we have many “pastors” and “bishops” in the Church (Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:1). Jesus is our one priest and our one high priest (Heb. 7:22; 3:1) and yet we have many “priests” and “high priests” in the Church (1 Peter 2:5-9; CCC 662; CCC 1557). I could go on, but I would bore you to death if we considered Mary our “life,” Jesus our “life;” Jesus our one “leader,” yet we have many “leaders” (Matt. 23:10; Heb. 13:17). Jesus is our “only savior,” yet we and the Church in general are called to “save souls” (Titus 2:13; 1 Cor. 9:22).
Catholics should therefore refrain from overly simplistic or fundamentalist interpretations of scripture, since, it is the Church through the assistance of the Holy Spirit which has ultimate authority in deciding how to faithfully interpret Divine Revelation—Scripture and Tradition.[2]
The teaching elaborated by Pope Francis is not new though either, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under then-Cardinal Ratzinger, produced a document—a Notification— ratified by Pope John Paul II regarding the book, “Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism” by Jacques Dupuis. In §8 of the Notification it can be read:
In accordance with Catholic doctrine, it must be held that “whatever the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures and religions, serves as a preparation for the Gospel (cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, §16).” It is therefore legitimate to maintain that the Holy Spirit accomplishes salvation in non-Christians also through those elements of truth and goodness present in the various religions.
During this journey of Pope Francis’ on a second occasion, he decided to reinforce his initial message by lauding cultural and religious diversity as “a gift from God” in a video address to the Albanian Interreligious Youth Conference for Mediterranean Encounters 2024. He encouraged the youth to “contemplate the diversity of your traditions as a wealth, a wealth willed by God.” The Pope emphasized, “Unity is not uniformity,” adding, “the diversity of our cultural and religious identities is a gift from God.”
This statement aligns with the earlier joint-declaration signed at the interreligious Abrahamic Family House in Abu Dhabi with the Grand Imam of Al Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb, which expressed that “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.”[3] This remark had drawn criticism from one of Pope Francis’ most vehement critics, Bishop Athanasius Schneider from Kazakhstan, leading Pope Francis to privately clarify that he intended to convey that it is God’s permissive will being spoken of, since active will would denote that God prefers multiple religions rather than one, and yet to deny that the existence of multiple religions is God’s permissive will would render God impotent.[4]
In contrast, the Pope’s more recent comments focus on the anthropological benefits of diverse traditions and identities, not necessarily their soteriological implications. Again, indifference and relativism cannot be derived from the pope’s comments. In the same speech to the youth, he highlighted the example of the Albanian Martyrs as an inspiring witness for all. Why die for one’s faith, rather than convert, if all religions are equal?
The context of these comments needs to be kept at the forefront, as their meaning is considered and assimilated into our understanding. As Pope Benedict XVI noted in his 2012 Christmas Address, interreligious dialogue is not the venue for evangelization, but it is complementary to it, and helps to facilitate it. He states:
- Dialogue does not aim at conversion, but at understanding. In this respect it differs from evangelization, from mission;
- Accordingly, both parties to the dialogue remain consciously within their identity, which the dialogue does not place in question either for themselves or for the other.
Some fundamentalist Catholics tend to label non-Christian religions as entirely false or solely the product of demonic influence based on deficient readings primarily of Psalm 96 and 1 Cor. 10:20, and hold that by practicing the non-Christian religion demons end up being worshipped, but this view isn’t entirely accurate, or as nuanced as the Church’s own teaching on these passages.
As can be derived from Catholic-Protestant apologetics when it comes to the issue of veneration of the Mother of God, intentions matter—indeed, they make all the difference. The only major difference between latria (worship) and hyperdulia (veneration) is the intention. All external acts may remain the same. Therefore, it needs to be taken into account that while materially, a Hindu may be worshipping an idol, his intention may be directed rightly towards the “Unknown God” that St. Paul alludes to in his Sermon at the Areopagus, where he states:
You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious. For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, ‘To an Unknown God.’ What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you.[6]
In other words, while a symbol derived from a deficient religious system may only gesture toward God, what is intended to be worshipped, in spirit and in truth, is God Himself, and not the idol.
As theologian James Likoudis has written elsewhere:
All sincere prayer signifies an opening to God the Creator and his graces (whether those so praying are conscious of that God or not). . . In following St. Thomas Aquinas, their religious practices can be said to reveal obedience to the natural law of God to practice the virtue of religion, and an implicit faith in God the Creator of all men. . . . Moreover, as all good missionaries know, the first step to conversion is the observance of natural law. . . The Pope’s acts [at the interreligious gathering at Assisi in 1986] (however at first troubling to you and others) can well be justified by a long theological tradition in the Church which has noted the seeds of natural religion and supernatural grace operative among pagans of good will.
And as St. Hilary of Poitiers points out: “the Light of Christ will always shine where, simply, the windows of the soul are open.”
Some may offer the counterargument that, for example, believing in Brahman the all-encompassing deity of Hinduism, is fully incompatible with the Church’s teaching on the Trinity, since Hindus regard Brahman as possessing different attributes and surrounded by different doctrines than those of the Trinity found in Christianity. However, it is just as easily to be seen that Brahman is an amalgamation of an Eastern symbol system combined with the imagination of these Eastern cultures, guided by the Holy Spirit to lead followers of these Eastern traditions toward the concept of the One True God and out of atheistic immanentism or naturalism. Thus, whether intended or not, Brahman plays a role in directing Hindus toward the One True God, who per Vatican I’s Dei Filius can be known by natural reason,[7] serving only as a partial and symbolic representation. Indeed, it is even more approximate than these fundamentalist Catholics make it out to be, since, there is even a trinity—the Trimurti, the trinity of supreme divinity that includes Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva—within Hinduism, including a “creator”—Brahma—thus obtaining further parallels to the Christian Trinity.
Regardless of the incompleteness of the particular symbols employed by these non-Christian religions, the Holy Spirit is constantly at work in and throughout these systems, despite any simultaneous sinful or demonic influences. This reflects the history of humanity: natural symbols point to God, demons twist and distort them to an extent (but not irredeemably), and in all this God remains omnipresent.
In essence, religious systems should first be evaluated based on their inherent metaphysical goodness, as they aim to fulfill humanity’s natural religious inclinations. This initial assessment must precede any judgment about their falsehoods or harmful aspects. It is important to approach the evaluation of any religion with respect for others and with objectivity, starting by recognizing their metaphysical strengths. This is because the metaphysical elements represent what truly exists, while sin and error are merely deficiencies or absences of being.
In the 2000 document Dominus Iesus, a clear and unequivocal text written to counter religious relativism and subjectivism, it states:
The hypothesis of the inspired value of the sacred writings of other religions is also put forward. Certainly, it must be recognized that there are some elements in these texts which may be de facto instruments by which countless people throughout the centuries have been and still are able today to nourish and maintain their life-relationship with God.
As theologian James Likoudis writes:
The Church has always recognized that there have always been secret operations of the Spirit of Christ among the pagan peoples, and has confessed in Vatican II that “By her action, the Church brings it about that everything of good that is sown in the human heart and mind, in the rites and cultures of peoples, not only does not perish but is purified, uplifted and consummated, for the glory of God, the confusion of the devil and the happiness of mankind.’[8] The Church respects both natural and supernatural goods and furthers both. The pope’s present critics and detractors do not, and prefer to fall back on narrow theological perspectives which the Church has found inadequate in understanding the fullness of Catholic Tradition regarding the salvation of souls.[9]
Some have asked, “If other religions can facilitate salvation through the truths they contain, why be Catholic?” The answer should be clear: Christ is the source of salvation, and without Him, there is no salvation. Moreover, He has entrusted the fullness of the means of salvation to the Catholic Church. Christ Himself is present in the sacraments, and He has bestowed Divine Revelation upon the Church. There is no salvation to be found outside the means the Church provides.
While non-Christian religions may possess elements of goodness and truth, these ultimately find their source and rightful place within the Church. God may choose to act outside the ordinary means of salvation to rescue those who sincerely seek truth through their conscience and the natural law written on their heart, even within a non-Catholic religion. However, pursuing truth in this way is more challenging without Christ visibly serving as the standard of truth. Additionally, properly forming one’s conscience is impossible without the guidance of the Church and divine revelation.
The notion that Pope Francis is a religious relativist or indifferent towards the various religions ignores many previous statements he’s made along the lines that “Jesus is the only door to eternal life” and that “The truth finds its full realization in Jesus Christ.” He has stated elsewhere:
Christ is the Mediator, Christ is the bridge that we cross to turn to the Father (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2674). He is the only Redeemer: there are no co-redeemers with Christ. He is the only one. He is the Mediator par excellence. He is the Mediator. Each prayer we raise to God is through Christ, with Christ and in Christ and it is fulfilled thanks to his intercession. The Holy Spirit extends Christ’s mediation through every time and every place: there is no other name by which we can be saved: Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and humanity (see Acts 4:12).[10]
Critics who ignore these many statements are either being disingenuous or being lazy and not bothering to look, preferring instead to make unsubstantiated critiques.
As one Deacon Douglas McManaman has recently written:
The claim that Francis is sowing seeds of doctrinal and moral confusion is not entirely convincing to me. I don’t believe people are more confused and in the dark about doctrinal and moral matters today than they have been within the past forty or fifty years. Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI were rather clear about certain matters, but only those who bothered to listen actually benefited from that clarity, and if my experience is any indication, relatively few bothered to listen. The situation has not changed all that much.
It doesn’t require much sophistication to understand that the Pope is being consistent and orthodox in his speech. Perhaps he is conveying a truth that the uninitiated masses are not yet prepared to accept, but that is all that can be said. Consequently, he should not be blamed for any ensuing confusion. It is important to recognize that no one can fully articulate all of the potentially relevant or interconnected convictions of a highly complex theological topic in a single address. Moreover, interreligious dialogue demands delicacy, respect, and sensitivity. The fact that this topic was addressed primarily to non-Catholic youth, and not traditionalists in America further emphasizes the need for thoughtful consideration.
A hero of traditionalists, Pope St. Pius X would frown upon such attitudes and complaints, to say the least. The anti-modernist pope writes:
When one loves the Pope, one does not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat in each man’s ear that will which has been expressed so many times, not only verbally but also in letters and other public documents.
An early champion of the papacy, 14th century theologian Demetrios Kydones further illustrates just how destructive and ridiculous such critical attitudes show themselves to be, and how disruptive to evangelization (eminently more so than some isolated comments said in an interreligious meeting in Singapore). Kydones writes:
So when someone comes along and says the Pope is in error and everyone ought to abjure such error, we really have been given no proof for such an allegation, and it makes no sense for anyone to pass judgment on what has first to be proven. What is more, we will not succeed in finding out why and by whom the Pope is to be judged, no matter how earnestly we try. But aside from the prospect that the one who has the Primacy in the Church is in error, what confidence can be placed in those of lower rank? If we continue to carry on like this, all shepherds of the Christian people will become suspect because what we accuse the Head Shepherd of is even more likely to befall all those who are less than he. Would not every matter of faith have to end with a question mark if there indeed be no final seat of authority in the Church? There can be no certitude anywhere, if none is worthy of credibility. Then we are no longer talking about the religion which St. Paul described as one; rather there will be as many religions as there are leaders, or worse still, none at all! Every believer will suspect everyone else and will proceed to pick and choose whatever belief suits him. Then, as in a battle fought in the dark, we will be striking at our own friends, and they at us. How the non-believers will enjoy our antics, because we Christians are now engaged in endless bickering among ourselves, since none of us wants to concede anything to anyone else. The whole missionary effort to spread Christian beliefs will be stopped in its tracks since no one will pay any attention to those who cannot even agree among themselves.[11]
Another eminent Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine also preempted these sort of fundamentalist and traditionalist attitudes, writing:
Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him [the Roman Pontiff] so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men. On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope; yet from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err, if the Pontiff would err.[12]
On the bright side, the focus has been on the pope’s comments and not the fact that he attended an interreligious meeting. That used to be controversial. History reminds us that the Church’s theology of non-Christian religions has always served as a stumbling block for traditionalists, who, at one point caused an uproar over Pope St. John Paul II’s Meeting at Assisi in 1986.[13]
For those that doubt the necessity of interreligious dialogue in the Church’s mission, St. John Paul the Great writes in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio,
Inter-religious dialogue is a part of the Church’s evangelizing mission. Understood as a method and means of mutual knowledge and enrichment, dialogue is not in opposition to the mission ad gentes; indeed, it has special links with that mission and is one of its expressions. This mission, in fact, is addressed to those who do not know Christ and his Gospel, and who belong for the most part to other religions. In Christ, God calls all peoples to himself and he wishes to share with them the fullness of his revelation and love. He does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression, even when they contain “gaps, insufficiencies and errors.” All of this has been given ample emphasis by the Council and the subsequent Magisterium, without detracting in any way from the fact that salvation comes from Christ and that dialogue does not dispense from evangelization.[14]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, teaches: “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”[15] St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church’s ecclesiology supports this notion with his doctrine on the relation of sincere non-Catholics to the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi, supports this notion when he teaches that baptism of blood[16] and baptism of desire[17] can constitute an informal relationship to the Church sufficient for salvation[18]; The Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium supports this with its teaching on the Church of Christ’s subsistence in the Catholic Church[19]; Fr. John Hardon, SJ, a traditionalist hero, produced his dissertation on Bellarmine’s “doctrine”; and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in its teaching on the entrustment of unbaptized infants to the Mercy of God also supports this notion.[20]
The narrow interpretation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (Eng: outside the Church there is no salvation) put forward by some traditionalists, suggesting that formal membership in the Church is strictly necessary for salvation is a condemned position known as Feeneyism, named after the priest, Fr. Leonard Feeney who held this view and was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII on the basis of it.[21] Lumen Gentium states in stark contrast to Fr. Feeney’s interpretation, that:
Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.[18*] In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. [125] On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.[126] But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,[127] and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.[128] Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.[19*] Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.[22]
Nevertheless, Lumen Gentium continues,
. . . [T]he Church is compelled by the Holy Spirit to do her part that God’s plan may be fully realized, whereby He has constituted Christ as the source of salvation for the whole world. By the proclamation of the Gospel she prepares her hearers to receive and profess the faith. She gives them the dispositions necessary for baptism, snatches them from the slavery of error and of idols and incorporates them in Christ so that through charity they may grow up into full maturity in Christ. Through her work, whatever good is in the minds and hearts of men, whatever good lies latent in the religious practices and cultures of diverse peoples, is not only saved from destruction but is also cleansed, raised up and perfected unto the glory of God, the confusion of the devil and the happiness of man. The obligation of spreading the faith is imposed on every disciple of Christ, according to his state.(21*). . . In this way the Church both prays and labors in order that the entire world may become the People of God, the Body of the Lord and the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and that in Christ, the Head of all, all honor and glory may be rendered to the Creator and Father of the Universe.[23]
The Catechism reiterates all of this, wherein it states:
- The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race: All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . . .[24]
- The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”[25]
- To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.[26]
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself. The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.[27]
As one eminent scholar of the 20th century, Henri de Lubac, has written, further expounding upon these ideas,
The things we commonly say today about the integration of cultures—or “values”—into the Christian faith were once said by many of the Fathers, often with considerable audacity, of the very religions themselves (in what might be salvaged from them) and not just of their “cultural” elements if indeed the religious and cultural elements of certain religions are susceptible of adequate distinction at all. They saw Christianity, not in its denominational limitations but as the total world-religion—the kat-holon into which the partial elements could be fitted after being suitably purged. This can be seen from the way in which sometimes even pagan myths are retained as reflecting Christian truth.
Consequently, we may say that the final judgment of the Fathers on the religious phenomenon, insofar as it can be deduced from the mass of documentation and the variety of attitudes, is a judgment of the dynamic order-if we may so call it. It is part of a theology of history. It is formulated as a function of the sole Church of Christ that bears the Absolute, Christ. Everything true and good in the world must, as St. Paul advises, be taken up into and integrated in the Christian synthesis, where it undergoes transfiguration. . . . “The entire redemptive plan found its expression, or was ‘incarnated’, in the ‘grace’ and ‘truth’ which came to us through Jesus Christ and through the salvation that was not to be found elsewhere.[28] All the more reason, then, for regarding other religions whatever their merits “salvific,” that is, entering into or remaining in “concurrence” with faith in Christ.
St. Augustine however, who in other respects may be classed as a rigorist, says that “even the Gentiles have their prophets”—but they were, he adds, prophets of Christ unknown to themselves. It was in the same sense that Clement of Alexandria said: “God raised up from the bosom of Greece the most virtuous of its children that they might be prophets to their own people.”[29] If judgment is given as a function of Christ’s Church, which, in pilgrimage toward the Parousia, has an integrating and saving mission, then it can no longer be a question of considering the various non-Christian religions from a static point of view, as independent totalities. All the good in them, we conclude, are such elements as may be integrated in Christ. Lastly, all that can objectively be saved thus has a relationship with the Church.[30]
De Lubac, the prolific writer that he was, further demonstrates in another of his works, how this assimilative method can be taken up, where he notes:
[T]he intransigence of the faith is not a passionate unbendingness in the desire to impose upon others our personal tastes and personal ideals. A tight-clenched hardness of that kind is fatal to the supple firmness of truth and is no defense to it whatsoever; a Christianity that deliberately takes up its stand in a wholly defensive position, closed to every overture and all assimilation, is no longer Christianity. Sincere attachment to the Church can never be used for the purpose of canonizing our prejudices or making our partialities part of the absolute of the universal faith. It may thus be pertinent to recall that a certain confidence and detachment are part of the Catholic spirit. At the right time, the Church can find in the very shrines of the devil things to beautify her own dwelling; that particular miracle is always something new and unforeseen, but we know that it will happen again.[31] However rooted in history the Church may be, she is not the slave of any epoch or indeed of anything whatsoever the essence of which is temporal. The message she is bound to pass on and the life she is bound to propagate are never integral parts of “either a political régime or a social polity or a particular form of civilization,”[32] and she must forcefully remind people of the fact, in opposition to the illusive evidence to the contrary, which, in fact, derives simply from the bonds of habit.[33]
Despite numerous accusations from papal critics claiming that the Pope denies Christ as the primary source of salvation, it is crucial to recognize that these allegations are unfounded. Less than two weeks after concluding his Apostolic Journey, the Pope released a third statement via Papal Address that decisively refuted these claims. In his address, he unequivocally affirmed:
You may have met many teachers in the course of your studies or work experiences or have even engaged in sincere dialogue with everyone, yet turning to the Gospel guarantees you an exceptional Master, Jesus, the only one who was able to say: ‘I am the way, and the truth and the life’ (Jn. 14:6).[34]
Far from denying Christ’s central role, the Pope actively reinforces it. Moreover, critics who accuse the Pope of undermining Christ’s necessity have evidently neglected to conduct the essential research. They overlook the Pope’s consistent and unwavering affirmations of Christ’s indispensable role in salvation. He has stated this same message in the past, such as in a Homily of April 18, 2016 where he proclaims that, “The Lord thus clearly says: you cannot enter eternal life by any entryway that is not the door—that is not Jesus.” And he will assuredly continue to reinforce this message as long as he remains pope.
[1] Pope Francis, Apostolic Exhortation on the Joy of the Gospel Evangelii Gaudium, §254.
[2] See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 85.
[3] Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/travels/2019/outside/documents/papa-francesco_20190204_documento-fratellanza-umana.html.
[4] Since then, Bishop Schneider has enshrined his misguided criticism in his book Credo, where he denies various Church teachings under the guise of holding to older teaching, ignoring magisterial developments and the Church’s present interpretation of these older documents, their language conditioned by the circumstances in which they arose. Dr. Larry Chapp a theologian of the Ressourcement/Communio school has thankfully done the Church a favor in analyzing and highlighting the errors present in what the Bishop is presenting as a sort of alternative catechism for the faithful; Larry Chapp, PhD, “Credo is a weaponized response to Vatican II and the CCC”: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/12/17/credo-is-a-weaponized-response-to-vatican-ii-and-the-ccc/.
[5] Pope Benedict XVI, Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia, Dec. 21, 2012. Emphasis added. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2012/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121221_auguri-curia.html.
[6] Acts 17:22-23. Emphasis added.
[7] Vatican Council, Dei Filius, Canon II. §1: “If anyone shall say that the One True God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things; let him be anathema.”
[8] Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, §17.
[9] James Likoudis, “A Brief Dialogue on The Pope’s Interfaith Peace and Prayer Meetings at Assisi”: https://jameslikoudispage.com/Letters/inassisi.htm.
[10] Pope Francis, General Audience, Mar. 24, 2021.
[11] Demetrios Kydones, “Apologia,” in Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism, trans. James Likoudis, foreword by Scott Hahn, PhD, afterword by Vladan Stanković, PhD (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2024).
[12] St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, vol. 2: Books III-V (De Controversiis) (Mediatrix Press, Kindle Edition), 162. Emphasis added.
[13] See for more on this, “A Brief Dialogue on The Pope’s Interfaith Peace and Prayer Meetings at Assisi”: https://jameslikoudispage.com/Letters/inassisi.htm.
[14] Pope St. John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio, §55.
[15] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 839.
[16] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1258.
[17] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1259-1260.
[18] Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, §103.
[19] Lumen Gentium, §8.
[20] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261.
[21] See Lumen Gentium, §16, for reference and its corresponding supplementary note no *19: Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston: Denz.-H, 3869-72.
[22] Lumen Gentium, §16.
[23] Lumen Gentium, §17.
[24] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 842.
[25] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 843.
[26] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 845.
[27] Second Vatican Council, Declaration on Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate, §2.
[28] Jn. 1:17; Heb. 4:12; Cf. Christopher Butler, OSB, The Idea of the Church (Baltimore, MD: Helicon Press, 1962): Exception having been made for divine revelations and dispensations which antedated the Incarnation, the positive values of which have all been taken up into, and absorbed by, the Christian dispensation—so that none of them now has any standing in the supernatural order independently of Christianity—the Christian religious system is the only one that can truly claim to have divine authority and to embody God’s saving purpose to mankind” (p. 151).
[29] St. Augustine, Epist. 118, chap. 5, no. 33(PL 33:448).
[30] Henri de Lubac, The Church: Paradox and Mystery, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2021), 106-108.
[31] St. Hilary of Poitiers, Tractatus Super Psalmos, Trans. Anton Zingerle, (1891 edition), Psalm. 67, no. 12, 287-288.
[32] Bruno de Solages, Pour rebâtir une chrétienté (1938), 174; see Leo XIII, letter to Cardinal Rampolla, October 8, 1895: “Things human change, but the beneficent virtue of the supreme Magisterium of the Church comes from on high and remains always the same. . . . Established to last as long as time, it follows with a loving vigilance the advance of humanity and does not refuse (as its detractors falsely claim) to come to terms with the reasonable needs of the time as far as this is possible.”
[33] Henri De Lubac, Splendor of the Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 281.
[34] Pope Francis, Address to the Delegation of “The Economy of Francesco” Sep. 25, 2024. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2024/september/documents/20240925-economy-of-francesco.html.
Special to Catholic News World by Andrew Likoudis
Source: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/natureandgrace/2024/09/is-pope-francis-really-a-heretic-take-number-7-action/
Comments