This article was originally intended to serve as one of the articles in the seven-part series, “On God’s Chosen People.” While writing the series, I was distracted from working on it and have not been able to pick it up since. But in light of recent comments made by Pope Francis, it would appear that now is as good a time as ever to revisit this article, and upload it by itself as a reminder of our Lord’s own teachings concerning religion and faith.
When speaking of God’s chosen people, perhaps one only needs to say one thing: “John 14:6 states, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’“ Jesus summarizes the Christian faith in one sentence, and nullifies any other appeal to salvation. For salvation can only be achieved through Christ. Thus, while further distinction apart from the words of Christ in John 14 may be helpful, it is not necessary. Christ is the only way to the Father. Apart from Him, there is no salvation.
This, however, has been contradicted even by some in the Church. Recently, Pope Francis declared that “all religions are a pathway to God.” He also claimed that religions are like languages, saying, “There is only one God, and our religions are languages, paths to reach God. Some are Sikh, some are Muslim, some are Hindu, some are Christian, but they are different paths.” It seems that John 14:6 has fallen by the wayside.
Some Catholics defended Francis on the grounds that he was not speaking ex cathedra, or “from the chair.” In Catholic theology, the pope may speak ex cathedra, which means he is speaking dogmatically; in this case, the pope is infallible–what he says is true, it becomes doctrinally binding and dogmatically accepted. As the argument goes, because Francis was not speaking ex cathedra, his comments do not matter; they are rendered meaningless and unworthy of controversy. But this is a ridiculous defense, for even though he was not speaking “from the chair,” he entirely and wholeheartedly nullified the entire religious system to which he has pledged his allegiance. He is supposed to be serving as its “Vicar.” Not to mention, his comments are thoughtless and unbiblical.
In the spirit of charity, let us first assume that Francis may not be entirely wrong. While it likely was not the intended meaning of his comments, one could argue that all religions are pathways to God in the sense that those who subscribe to other religious systems are often left hopeless, looking for a greater good and a solid hope–which would inevitably lead many of them to Christ. Thus, it is not the religion itself that leads people to Christ, but rather the hopelessness and meaninglessness of those other religious systems. Even then, the religion is not a pathway to God, but forces its adherents to find something greater on account of its own emptiness and truthlessness.
Whatever the alleged “Vicar of Christ” meant by his comments, it is simply antichristian to say that all religions are a “pathway to God,” for there is only one religion–that is, the Christian faith–that leads people to God. There can be no other means by which one can come to Father. As Christ reminds us in John, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Our Lord is clear enough. There is no other pathway to God except through Him. And while it is charitable to say that other religions may leave one hopeless and destitute such that he would seek out a greater and truer hope, our Lord certainly would not grant this terminology. These religions cannot be pathways to God, for in themselves they lead to eternal damnation and separation from the true God. There is one pathway to God, and that is Christ.
The Pope’s recent comments ought to leave the Roman Catholic Church wondering where they place their confidence. For while they have spent countless hours defending the pope’s godless actions, they have defended his notion, whether it was implicit or explicit, that Christ is not the only pathway to God. Is this not antithetical to the true Christian faith? What must we make of those who defend the pope’s comments–and his office–even when he speaks so flagrantly of the Gospel?
What if Francis had spoken dogmatically or doctrinally—that is, “from the chair?” What then? Would his comments have been binding? I assume most Catholics would think not, but what then is the point of the pope’s office? For in that case, in order to nullify his otherwise binding declaration, an appeal must be made to the ancient traditions and doctrines of the Church. There must be an appeal to the rules and norms to which the Church has traditionally held. But that again would nullify the pope’s office and ability to speak authoritatively, or “from the chair,” and render this argument ineffective and useless–as if it wasn’t already. And even such an appeal must conform to a greater basis, a firmer foundation. Without question, this authority is Scripture, for it would be nonsensical and antithetical to appeal to an authority that contradicts or undermines itself. Thus, our only appeal is Scripture alone. What then shall we make of the binding traditions and sources of appeals that have been equated with Scripture? It would appear that Scripture is, as it should be, the only rule and norm of faith—rendering all of these other “authorities” powerless and unbinding.
The Church must focus on the Gospel—that Christ is the only way, the only truth, and the only life. Apart from Him there can be no other. Any self-professed and self-respecting Christian ought to recognize that Christ’s words in John 14:6 are clear. They can only mean one thing. The Pope’s inability to properly and rightly articulate biblical teaching, no less in such a disastrous way, regardless of whether he had spoken dogmatically or not, ought to be terrifying to every Christian heart.
The context in which Francis had spoken simply does not matter. The “ex cathedra” argument misses the point altogether, and is worthless on its own merit. Indeed, it is expected that church leaders sin and fall short. They, too, are human. But Francis’ particular statement is simply unacceptable for the Church. This is an error that, especially without recantation or repentance, warrants removal from office in any other case. For no matter how Francis had spoken, dogmatically or informally, his statements may certainly lead some Christians into an irreversible spiritual danger–which must certainly be counterintuitive to his supposed goal.
We must pray that the pope’s pluralistic comments do not lead weak souls away from the Church. We must pray for our Catholic brethren, that the truth of the Gospel would illuminate any darkness that clouds the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ. We must pray that the pope repents of his antichristian comments, and clarify that there is only one way to the Father–and that is through Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.
Perhaps more biblical substance is warranted:
“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
—Acts 4:12
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
—John 3:18
He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
—Acts 16:30-31
“If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.”
—Romans 10:9-10
Doubt the current Pope has ever read the bible. I'd add Isaiah 54:13; Jeremiah 31:34; John 1:18; 6:44 to your verses. These usually leave all "decision" theology, the pope and the other religions, in the Psalm 2:1-3 territory.
This incident is proof that we don’t need an infallible magisterium to interpret scripture, because they don’t have an infallible interpreter for their magisterium.