Did the Pope commit heresy?

[eleos1954]

His comments in Singapore:

All religions are paths to reach God. They are — to make a comparison — like different languages, different dialects, to get there. But God is God for all If you start to fight saying 'my religion is more important than yours, mine is true and yours isn't', where will this lead us? There is only one God, and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Some are Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christians; they are different ways to God.​

​

Which is in direct contradiction of the Lord's own words in John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

If no - why?

If yes - what should be done? Should he be censured or removed?

The pope seeks to unite all religions under papal authority ... in order to do that he must take a "neutral stance" and/or a vague stance(s) on various aspects of biblical teachings. This is why we see the Catholic Church seemingly accepting teachings that are outside of biblical teachings. It is a "you can have a cake and eat it too approach" (so to speak),

He has made previous statements that all are children of God (well yes and no). Though it is true humanity was created in the image of God, because of mankind's disobedience one must be adopted into the family of God through Christ and we then are to become His obedient children (obedient to His teachings). There are disobedient children (orphans) and obedient children (adopted).

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, has made us alive and adopted us as his own. We were all born orphans, but in Christ, we are fatherless no more. If one remains disobedient they don't get adopted into the family of God and remain orphans (fatherless).

John 1:12-13, NIV. "To all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God

The bible don't teach there are different ways to God ... the bible teaches that Jesus Christ IS God (our creator) and salvation is only through Him (no other ways/paths).

Now ... with the popes comments ...does he mean anyone from any religion can be led to God ... or is he talking about salvation?

Anyone can be led to God whether they are religious or not ... but they are led through the prompting of the Holy Spirit ... God calls all and people respond to that call or not. It is not a religion that leads ... it is the Holy Spirit that leads .... and the Holy Spirit will always lead one to Christ not through some other god ... there is not a pathway through other gods.

It comes down to worship .... one is only to worship the one God (our creator) And that this one God is three co-eternal Persons who work together in unity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) ... Christians can not worship with others that worship other gods. The worship of other gods is idolatry ... incompatible with Christianity.

He's not clear on his statement and is causing great confusion (this is not a good thing) ... he should clarify ... perhaps he will. ??

 

[Philip_B]

I don't think Pope Francis was embracing heresy, any more than Pual did when we penned Romans 1:19-20; or the writer of Philippians 2:12-13. Those caught up in chasing heretics relentlessly often seem more interested in keeping the walls higher rather than lifting Jesus higher so that he might draw all people to himself. Our role, each of us, as Christians, including the Pope, is to act as God's ambassadors rather than to acts as God's bouncers.

The sages from the East came to Bethlehem and they left. There is no suggestion that they were Jews, or that they left as Christians. what are we to make of their eternal fate?

God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

 

[All Becomes New]

or the writer of Philippians

You have almost disqualified your answer by saying this. Paul wrote it.

There is no suggestion that they were Jews,

Sure there is. Haven't you heard that the Wise Men could have been Jews who stayed in Babylon from captivity to the time that Jesus was born?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Why can't every truth in Hinduism, Islam, or Sikhism be truth because it comes from God through Jesus?

Because they DONT. Plain and simple. If I am wrong then please share one teaching, just one from any of those religions that speak of the Divinity of Jesus and His Atonement as the only way to Salvation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

His comments in Singapore:

All religions are paths to reach God. They are — to make a comparison — like different languages, different dialects, to get there. But God is God for all If you start to fight saying 'my religion is more important than yours, mine is true and yours isn't', where will this lead us? There is only one God, and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Some are Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christians; they are different ways to God.​

​

Which is in direct contradiction of the Lord's own words in John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

If no - why?

If yes - what should be done? Should he be censured or removed?

The RCC needs re-reformed. Not for this, but for many such man-produced anti-biblical claims

 

[jas3]

I would say yes. He's had 11 years to be given the benefit of the doubt, but he has repeatedly expressed beliefs of religious indifferentism.

If yes - what should be done? Should he be censured or removed?

Robert Bellarmine, a Catholic saint, says the following:
"...a Pope who is a manifest heretic [i.e. who has expressed a heretical belief publicly], ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church." (On the Roman Pontiff, bk. 2, ch. 30)

Myself, I think that while Bellarmine is correct in what should or can happen, Francis is both a product of and has made use of a period of rampant modernism in the Catholic Church, and for this reason he won't be censured or deposed.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't think Pope Francis was embracing heresy

The Catholic document Dominus Iesus from 2000 was penned to address precisely the sort of errors that Francis' statement represents.

For example:

4. The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle). As a consequence, it is held that certain truths have been superseded; for example, the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability - while recognizing the distinction - of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church.​

​

The roots of these problems are to be found in certain presuppositions of both a philosophical and theological nature, which hinder the understanding and acceptance of the revealed truth. Some of these can be mentioned. . .​

 

[Jamdoc]

His comments in Singapore:

All religions are paths to reach God. They are — to make a comparison — like different languages, different dialects, to get there. But God is God for all If you start to fight saying 'my religion is more important than yours, mine is true and yours isn't', where will this lead us? There is only one God, and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Some are Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christians; they are different ways to God.​

​

Which is in direct contradiction of the Lord's own words in John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

If no - why?

If yes - what should be done? Should he be censured or removed?

Absolutely he did.
I wouldn't consider the "pope" to be Christian.
as to what should be done?
I'd seriously question the entire Catholic Church, or at least it's leadership, question its doctrines against scripture.
Many people did that starting hundreds of years ago.

 

[Jamdoc]

Jesus is the way [to heaven, which was the subject under discussion] and the truth [about eternal life in the love of God] and the life [the life of God himself in you]. So, why can't a Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, know Jesus? Why can't every truth in Hinduism, Islam, or Sikhism be truth because it comes from God through Jesus?

Well since you brought up Islam and Jesus, how about you look at what Islam teaches about Jesus?

That he was just a prophet, not the son of God, did not die on the cross and did not, and in fact cannot atone for your sins because in Islam no one can atone for the sins of someone else, absolutely denies that God would have a Son and emphasizes the Oneness of God, It teaches that Jesus had a doppleganger put on the cross in his place, ascended up to Heaven without dying, and will return in the end times......
to break crosses. That is, to destroy the Church. To tell Christians that they were wrong to consider him the Son of God, and to convert to Islam....
or die.
Because he will abolish the Jizyah tax for people who practice other religions... why? Because no other religion but Islam will be allowed under the Islamic version of Jesus. He is analogous to the False Prophet in Christian Eschatology.

Now.. do you still want to consider Islam a path to God the Father, through Jesus?

 

[Philip_B]

You have almost disqualified your answer by saying this. Paul wrote it.

Philippians is a canonical text of the New Testament, one of the 27 books universally (or all but) accepted throughout all the Churches. I accept Paul's authorship, however, that is not such a big deal to me.

Sure there is. Haven't you heard that the Wise Men could have been Jews who stayed in Babylon from captivity to the time that Jesus was born?

You are not going to establish that from scripture, and the essence of the accounts suggests they were sages and stargazers which is not the normal territory for ancient Jews, whereas for Persins it would.

The traditional approach to the understanding of the passage which is read when we celebrate Epiphany is to see this as the Revelation of Christ o the Gentiles.

 

[Philip_B]

Absolutely he did.
I wouldn't consider the "pope" to be Christian.
as to what should be done?
I'd seriously question the entire Catholic Church, or at least it's leadership, question its doctrines against scripture.
Many people did that starting hundreds of years ago.

And yet he affirms the Nicene Creed!

 

[Jamdoc]

And yet he affirms the Nicene Creed!

He's not really confirming Christ when He's saying that Islam is a way to the Father.

 

[Philip_B]

I don't think that was what he said.

He's not really confirming Christ when He's saying that Islam is a way to the Father.

Do you think we are called to be ambassadors for Christ?

Whilst there may be differences berween what you believe and what the Pope believes, I suspect you may have more belief in common than you imagine.

 

[BobRyan]

His comments in Singapore:

... God is God for all If you start to fight saying 'my religion is more important than yours, mine is true and yours isn't', where will this lead us?​

Interesting.

What is the first century NT example. What do we read in the Bible?

Were they teaching "Christianity is not true and all others in error - rather we all bring a little something to the table" -- is that the kind of truth they were all willing to die for?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Interesting.

What is the first century NT example. What do we read in the Bible?

Were they teaching "Christianity is not true and all others in error - rather we all bring a little something to the table" -- is that the kind of truth they were all willing to die for?

Why did you not quote the entire statement? You left out the heresy.

 

[dzheremi]

Unfortunately, Roman Catholicism's fatally flawed and heretical ecclesiology makes sure that nothing will be done about this, but yes, obviously it is heresy to claim that it's somehow wrong to assert that your religion is true, and therefore others -- to whatever degree they disagree with the truth (CHRISTIANITY) -- are false. Were this somehow not the case, one might wonder how it is that so many warnings against false teachers and false Christs can be found throughout the holy scriptures and the life of the Church more generally.

(Note: I'm focusing on that particular bit of his statement because I know that well-meaning RCs who are denial about the fact that they are being led by a heretic, and have been led by heretics of various kinds to differing degrees ever since Rome formally left the orthodox faith in 451 AD, can and will look at the "all religions are paths to God" statement as expressing a certain kind of truth -- namely, that all religions try to point their believers towards that religion's "God" or "gods", without explicitly stating that all these believers therefore find God; sort of a "blind men feeling different parts of the elephant" idea, which is dumb but popular because it sounds really tolerant and open minded and kind of cool to people who frankly don't seem to like to think very deeply about anything. Rest assured, however, that the entire thing is heretical and deeply troubling to hear coming yet again from the mouth of the leader of the largest single Christian confession on the planet. I know this is naive on my part, but were it possible to do so on the basis of Francis' persistent "foot-in-mouth disease", I would hope that such a statement would be taken as grounds to suspend all future talks with the RCC until they prove to the Orthodox world that they have someone serious to represent them who will not talk out of both sides of his mouth depending on who his audience is. Read: Pope Francis probably would not have included such remarks at a "non-ecumenical" event, assuming that the modern RCC can even conceive of such an event existing in the first place.)

 

[Jamdoc]

I don't think that was what he said.

Do you think we are called to be ambassadors for Christ?

Whilst there may be differences berween what you believe and what the Pope believes, I suspect you may have more belief in common than you imagine.

Ambassador doesn't mean deny Christ and affirm pagan religions as ways to reach God the Father. That doesn't get people repenting and turning to Christ.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The pope is an evil idolator who perverts the gospel to please Satan and trick people into following false god Mary...aka Ishtar.

No - I believe you are wrong - as is the hatred that is being displayed.

 

[th1bill]

I don't think Pope Francis was embracing heresy, any more than Pual did when we penned Romans 1:19-20; or the writer of Philippians 2:12-13. Those caught up in chasing heretics relentlessly often seem more interested in keeping the walls higher rather than lifting Jesus higher so that he might draw all people to himself. Our role, each of us, as Christians, including the Pope, is to act as God's ambassadors rather than to acts as God's bouncers.

The sages from the East came to Bethlehem and they left. There is no suggestion that they were Jews, or that they left as Christians. what are we to make of their eternal fate?

God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

I am sorry but the Pope is wallowing in this one on overtime. That is heresy.

 

[dzheremi]

The sages from the East came to Bethlehem and they left. There is no suggestion that they were Jews, or that they left as Christians. what are we to make of their eternal fate?

What if it's not about pretending to know the ultimate fate of individuals, but about making clear the line between what is true and pure worship of God and what is not? Because the former we cannot know (as such judgment is left up to the Just Judge), but the latter is absolutely knowable, as it is baked into all of our liturgies, vespers/matins, fasting/feasting, corporate and individual prayer rules (e.g., the Agpeya or your particular church's equivalent), and everything else that we do as a Church.

So to have the earthly head of a major Christian confession side-step basically everything that shows the unique truth of Christianity (which is 100%, no-kidding the only true religion -- accept no substitutes) so as to instead regurgitate pablum that may seem fine on a bumper sticker but is significantly less-than-fine to literally everyone who is not already religiously indifferent (as it does not give the non-Christian or the Christian any idea why they should be Christian in particular) is a major disappointment. And calling it a "major disappointment" is really greatly softening the language that such an attitude deserves, out of respect for my former coreligionists in the Roman Catholic Church, many of whom I know are as distressed if not more distressed (as it's "their guy" who is saying these things) than non-Catholic Christians may be at hearing the same message coming from Pope Francis. I should not like to add to that.

It is also not, as you would apparently have it, a matter of being "caught up in chasing heretics", as that would imply some kind of concerted effort to ferret them out and "catch" them. In this case, however, he might as well be dressed in reflective tape and an orange hunting vest. He's really being that clear and open about it, as this is far from the first time Catholics and non-Catholics have rightly decried his sense of not actually caring all that much about or for Christianity in particular when addressing a mixed-faith audience. Frankly, I think faithful Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church and communion deserve someone who is much more of a "straight shooter". I still disagreed with them on many fundamental issues then (hence I am not Catholic), but I never wondered where his predecessor stood regarding the basics of the Christian religion and its absolute and inalterable perfection, no matter what else may "lead to God", should God Himself find a willing servant who is for whatever reason temporally (temporarily?) belonging to another faith.