Glad to see things like this discussed and hosted on the channel. Regardless of our individual take, it's important we continue to pray for the Church and all the faithful.
@@Erick_Ybarra, Pope Francis uses the symbol of walking or journeying for "sincere dialogue", so that is not the point but a way to describe interreligious dialogue. What is the aim of the walk? "Young people are courageous and like to seek the truth but they have to be careful not to become what you referred to as “armchair critics” with endless words. A young person must be a critical thinker, and it is not good never to be critical. But you must be constructive in criticism, because there is a destructive criticism, which only makes a lot of complaints but does not offer a new way forward."
@@professorvecchio9675 You just denied what I said, and then immediately affirmed it. Not helpful. Of course we don't want to destroy the way forward. But the goal of Francis is simply to walk and journey with different religions
@@Erick_Ybarra, I am perplexed by this claim of contradiction. I am pointing out that Pope Francis praises the courage of these youth, who want to seek truth, and then cautions them in their approach, so that they don't get stuck in endless criticism. He encourages critical thinking. I don't see how "critical thinking" is "simply to walk and journey with different religions." It seems to me that you are imposing that on Pope Francis's words and ignoring what critical thinking normally means.
As someone who lived in the Middle East for 3 years, what they heard was “the boss of Christianity said my religion is a path to God and I do not need to accept Christ,” regardless of what his intentions were. Do not take living in the west for granted and project your understanding onto the rest of the world. They heard who they perceive to be the head of Christianity say they’re going to go to Heaven.
Bold of Daniel to step into the staunch defense when even Lofton and Horn declined, lol. We are too far into his pontificate with other scandalous statements and decisions to default to the massage of his words into orthodoxy. Erick is right about this and Amoris Laetitia and the death penalty innovation.
I think it can appear that way when someone else is offering an alternative interpretation. We have to get into the weeds of what was said and what it might mean. But my interpretations is fairly straightforward: 1) Pope Francis encourages truth and critical thinking, 2) this is mostly about attitude in which we do not take a position of superiority, and 3) there really (objectively) is one God and so the various religions are ways for one to arrive at this one God, but this does not imply a) salvation, b) equality of ways, or c) success. The issue with Erick's interpretations is that a-c is that it forces Francis into a relativism, which implicitly conflicts with the first point, and a universalism which conflicts with the deposit of faith and many other Statements from Francis. Erick would have to shoulder a heavy burden to force those implications, and I did not see him do that. Rather, as a son of the Church, Erick and I have a moral obligation to respect and be charitable to the pope.
Two people that I respect and like a lot. Great thinkers. I enjoyed the discussion. Thank you, gentlemen. I think for many of us, whether there's a reasonable interpretation or not, the word choice is **at best** imprudent. Setting aside if there even is an acceptable interpretation of it, given the charitable interpretation, accounting for the context and audience, the true audience of the Pope in the digital age is still always the entire world. People around the world heard salvation is **obtained** in every/any religion.
Yes, I agree. Even in the world of possibility and probability, could we ever picture Jesus, the Apostles, the Early Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, or the best doctors and saints throughout time before the 20th century getting up to tell the digital age that no religion is more important or true than the other because all of the world religions, like the different languages, are pathways by which to arrive at God..... JUST LIKE THAT?
An alcoholic may hit rock bottom and find Christ (he may also die hitting rock bottom and find Hell). God's providence and mercy cannot be presumed. So it would be incorrect and unwise to say that alcoholism is a equally valid path to God as, let's say, sobriety. Sobriety is a superior path, even if God can and does write straight with the crooked lines made by the destructive path of an alcoholic. Whatever Pope Francis intended to communicate, the message received in Singapore was anything but wise or clear. It certainly wasn't orthodox by any traditional yardstick of Catholic teaching in the area of interreligious dialogue. He never clarified those remarks. So, we can safely conclude that he wanted to leave us a "mess". Unfortunate, for a man whose role it is to defend the Faith and unite his flock in the grace and truth of the Gospel. Great discussion, gents!
@@JohnPopeII “We can safely conclude…” that Pope Francis intends heresy. That he intends evil. That is the opposite of how Catholics are to think and it leads to the sins of evil suspicion, rash judgement and slander. This is the way the Puritan’s thought at the Salem Witch Trials. CCC 2478 is the Catholic practice. It avoids these sins. This is a pattern of thinking Im seeing from people critical of Pope Francis. How will you defend a pope you like that has these accusations thrown at him? “We can safely conclude he is a heretic?”
To clarify, I did not argue that each path is equally valid. I said that, in a subjective sense, God may providentially order someone's life on an objectively inferior path precisely because that is the path that would best lead them to God. The is why sincere dialogue is needed, not aggressive bullying or superiority. This is also true if one is to intervene in the life of an alcoholic. The aim would be to get them on the sober path, but one can only do that if one respects the alcoholic as a person.
@ Exactly. We cannot take out of the context of the conversation that he said, “I have the truth”. That represents the Catholic teachings. There is too much emphasis on the other person saying, “I have the truth”. The child’s answer is also ignored, which further makes one not see the context of what Pope Francis was talking about. He cannot mean they have the truth if he is saying he has the truth. The Catholic in his example would mean the Catholic believes Catholicism is the fullness of truth. This should also rule out assuming witches are being legitimized. The whole context was God, so anyone not seeking God would be ruled out.
Something else to consider is theirs a lot of things that are part of one's journey, and there are a lot of things to be repented of. That's the point. One doesn't embrace those things and say oh this was great, no, weeping and repentance is the answer to various errors like we're discussing.
I dont think Daniel's reference to Pope Francis's words about disability and weaker parties proved that Pope Francis disclaimed equality of religions. He was merely talking about disparities of power, not disparities of truth.
I think it is some time of power/ability, yes, but in what way? To remedy this sense of aggressive bullying, Pope Francis invites us to think of our own abilities and limitations, and that will allow for sincere dialogue aimed at the truth.
@@professorvecchio9675 Yes, subjectively we should resist the temptation to aggression and bullying by examining our own personal abilities and limitations. But this point is irrelevant to the question of whether Pope Francis believes or communicated that all religions have objective abilities and limitations or are more or less equivalent paths to arrive at God.
This conversation was interesting, but I was dissapointed that they spent the whole time arguing about how to interpret what the Pope meant. I think there's a more important theological conversation to be had. Clearly, Erick holds a more exclusivist view on soteriology which he understands as the orthodox view, and people like Tyler McNabb hold a more inclusivist view, call it Rahnerism or whatever you want. Just a couple weeks ago on this channel, McNabb argued compellingly that the Rahnerian-esque view is the mainstream Catholic view coming out of Vatican 2, and with that it mind, it seems much more plausible that the pope's statements reflect a Rahnerian-esque view, as both Ybarra and McNabb argued (although McNabb didn't mention Rahner), than that his statements should be interpreted as compatible with Ybarra's more exclusivistic view, as Vecchio seemed to be arguing. I'm not saying this conversation wasn't worth having, just that it seemed to dance around the more important conversation regarding what the Church's position on non-Christian religions actually is.
Erick is 100% correct here. Our Holy Father Pope Francis is very wise, but in these handful of times on the one, true religion, he has spoken incorrectly, such as at Singapore. Other times on this topic, he definitely has spoken correctly.
What evidence are you using to rule out him talking about interfaith dialogue vs salvation? Eric said Pope Francis meant that the “path to God” was “successful”. Where in the conversation did Pope Francis say the path was “successful”? What IM seeing is people are not thinking like Catholics. Eric was asked about the judgement of charity. This is CCC 2478, which avoids the sins of evil suspicion and rash judgement in CCC 2477. Eric basically said he gets to ignore the judgement of charity because Pope Francis was “clearly” guilty of Eric’s accusations. He then mentioned past documents Pope Francis had written. They asked him my question on which documents Pope Francis had written that states other religions are “successful” in salvation. He confirmed there are none. So, that means he meant documents like Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans. He is using debunked theories to judge Pope Francis. Every accusation about these documents has been debunked. People like Eric though have no desire to see Pope Francis as innocent and that is a sickness. How can he ignore CCC 2478 when it was also ignored in each of these past accusations? Even the Pachamama scandal was based on not practicing CCC 2478. This Catholic teaching prevents slander and he is saying he gets to ignore Catholic teaching because he thinks Pope Francis is guilty. We call that the leftist belief called “your truth”. He is thinking like a leftist, not a Catholic and you are saying he is 100% correct? This is his argument and the argument those that ignore CCC 2478 are using. The path to God is meaning salvation. Faith alone leads to salvation. And once you are on that path, you are saved and will go to heaven. That all religions lead to a Sola Fide and Once Saved Always Saved salvation. That’s Calvinism. He is using a Protestant argument to accuse the pope who is judged by no one. Canon Law 1404.
@ Do you ever think Pope Francis is ever innocent of any of the constant accusations against him? I never liked Nancy Grace’s show because everyone was guilty in her mind. I see that trend with people with your way of thinking. Pope Francis is guilty always. That is a very disturbing trend. Revelation 12:10. The Accuser of the Brethren is Satan. I stopped listening to accusers. Constantinople IV Canon 21. Im aware of that.
@ You never showed how Pope Francis was saying a “path to God is successful”. I don’t know… Like Constantinople IV Canon 21? Or Revelation 12:10? Donum Veritalis, which you constantly violate? When is Pope Francis ever innocent? I see a disturbing trend that he is always deemed guilty. Where is the desire for him to be innocent? The Accuser of the brethren is Satan.
@ What I see from this conversation is a distraction from the topic Pope Francis was talking about. You think the context was salvation. It wasn’t. It was interfaith dialogue and how we can best communicate with each other. We all think we have the truth. But if we make a baseline, that we all seek God, then we start from peace. With peace we can lead them to truth. This is the ingeniousness of Jesus saying, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Instead of this we talk about salvation. A priest was recently kidnapped in Africa. That is the answer the child gave, “destruction”. Is your diversion from the topic in any way preventing evil acts towards Catholics? Or is it leading to the evil acts continuing? It helps if one actually tries to understand what the king’s royal steward is saying rather than joining the band wagon of those that constantly accuse Pope Francis of this or that when an explanation can be reached. Doesn’t it bother you that these accusers hardly ever see Pope Francis as innocent?
When Pope Francis said that "all religions lead to God" what he was saying was based in the catechism (CCC 843). Other religions prepare the mind to accept Christ eventually, and in that sense they have value. This is not a new idea, and it shouldnt be taken as something radical.
@Erick_Ybarra Here is John Paul II: "T]he Council [Vatican II] says that the Holy Spirit works effectively even outside the visible structure of the Church, making use of…the common soteriological [salvation-related] root present in all religions. Christ came into the world for all these peoples. He redeemed them all and has His own ways of reaching each of them in the present eschatological phase of salvation history." Francis said "all religions are PATHS to God". He is not saying a Muslim who denounced Christ will be saved because Islam will lead to salvation. He is saying, as John Paul II set as a precedent, that any religion can create a root on which a path to Christ can start.
@@Erick_Ybarrawhat's with your bent these days to take uncharitable interpretations of the Pope? How is this good for your spiritual health? To not take into full account what Pope Francis clearly believes about the Truth that is Catholicism and pretend that off the cuff comments have to have the theological precision of encyclicals is entirely uncharitable. Not a single sincere person is confused about Catholicism being the one true religion to the POPE. Perhaps you aren't well versed in effective interfaith dialogue that brings one out of falsehoods and into the truth if you think the Pope was wrong about how to approach others who are on their own path trying to find God
@@canadianamateurfilmdude that is rather wishful thinking, pope Francis did not make any attempt to say that the end goal is to become Christian. If I say that all roads lead to Rome no one will assume that I mean all roads lead to one single road which itself takes us to Rome.
@Vinsanity997 You are working under the presupposition that Francis has not exclaimed Christ and the Gospel for decades, including many orthodox stances (ordination, salvation, etc). With that context as a background, his words here should not be taken to mean he is endorsing other religions, even if that is how it may be taken by those unfamiliar with his writings. If all roads lead to Rome (Christ), the paved highways (Christianity) provide an efficient, direct way to Rome. There are still side roads that are more unkempt and wild, that may lead to the highway or indirectly to Rome. I believe your analogy is not consistent with your claims about what Francis said. Again, I cite CCC and St JP II
One of the things that's going on here is that Pope Francis is explicitly as a more progressive/liberal thinker, attempting to adopt as much of egalitarianism as he possibly can within the order structure and hierarchy of the church. What were noticing, what we're all noticing, is that the church is not a subjective egalitarian democracy that can be put on the same level of any institution or any other religion. It is objectively superior. Critiques against triumphalism fall very flat because it comes across as folks being upset that someone is genuinely exultant. I think of it like a marriage, one absolutely should be triumphalistic and exultant and joyous and ecstatic about being married, the joy of the bride and groom is infectious and it's meant to be a public display of their love and affection. People who are put off by triumph and joy and having found the true faith are like people who are upset that the bride and groom are too happy about being married and they're trying to get them to tone it down.
Eric: RUclips is automatically deleting my replies. Pope Francis asked a question. You should answer it and look at the child’s answer to his question. That shows the context of his conversation was interfaith dialogue and not salvation. He wants to create a peaceful start to dialogue. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers”. We can convert more people if we start with peace. Look at our history. We took over the Roman Empire once we had peace. This is the ingeniousness of Jesus’s teachings on peace. Catholics: I have the truth. Muslim: I have the truth? What use is that? That is the question. “Where does this lead?” “Destruction.” I’ll note a priest in Africa was recently kidnapped. Did that happen because people say, “I have the truth” yet cannot effectively explain to another why their religion is truth?
Something that hasn't occurred to many people I'm sure is that the argument that all religions are paths To God and such, puts to those more progressive and liberal thinkers in a very interesting spot. They now cannot condemn traditionalists who don't embrace that who are within the bosom of the church who hold to dogma In a more strict sense for if it is true that separate different religions are paths to God and such and they're making the argument that they can't refute folks who hold to various incompatible religions with the truth of the Catholic faith, then how much more so for the more traditional members of the actual church who are within the bosom of Mother Church, who are holding firm to the dogmas of the church, who are the most loyal sons and daughters of the bride of Christ? 😊 If that's the argument that the more pluralistic and egalitarian members want to make, very well. By their own confession and argument, they cannot object in any way shape or form to the path that different actual members of a more traditional preference are taking. I think instead of tying oneself into not, one could just simply discard much of this baggage and unapologetically and wholeheartedly just embrace the faith rather than bending over backwards to apologize for the gospel being offensive. A lot more authentic that way, and I'll say as a part of my personal journey, as a brute historic fact, what drew me into the church was the full-throated and strong endorsements of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Some preferred gentleness, I get it. The argument itself can say nothing against those who need strength and firmness and directness, unless those who are advancing this idea are willing to say that such paths are not authentic paths to God. Obviously from their own perspective it is self refuting nonsense.
How many people had aboriginal languages in mind in hearing Pope Francis talk about all religions being a path to arrive at God? Zero. Not a strong defense of the scandalous metaphor. I wish Daniel would have just forthrightly admitted the scandal of the Pope's choice of words, phrases, metaphors, etc. regardless of what was meant or intended, rather than hedging on that.
Hi Tony, I only bring this up in response to the argument that if all religious are languages, then they are somehow equal in their ability to communicate. That is an assumption that is not present in the analogy.
@@professorvecchio9675 One can surely argue that some languages have objectively better ability to communicate than others (especially when casting a wide net); I don't deny that. But is it reasonable to think that Pope Francis and especially his hearers had such a distinction in mind when saying/hearing that metaphor? I don't think so. *Most people don't typically think of one or more modern common languages as being inherently or significantly superior to any other for general communication. So the metaphor is clearly egalitarian and scandalous in subjective effect if not in objective strict principle.*
@@tonyl3762 so in this dialectical context, Erick is telling me what the Pope meant. When he says that "languages" implies that they are all equal in their ability to save, or that one is as good as another, he is introducing a context to Pope Francis's words, and that is based on Erick's presuppositions about the nature of language that are simply not true. So I don't raise this because I think Pope Francis had it in mind, I raise it to say that we shouldn't burden ourselves with false presuppositions about the nature of language when considering what Pope Francis meant.
Thank you for this and dr vecchio was perfect! But I don't get Eric. His approach where he knows how Pope Francis thinks is baffling. Yes Pope said it there but I know what he really thinks.
@@Erick_Ybarra I would like to hear your answer to the question of, given this reading, what is the point of interfaith dialogue? I'm not saying your position is wrong, just wondering what your response that it makes Pope Francis' interfaith meetings pointless.
The point is to arrive at truth, not to twist the popes words until it appears plausibly orthodox. Erick is trying to interpret the pope correctly not “charitably”
@@Vinsanity997 It's absurd to believe people will always say exactly what they think. People mess up, oversimplify and pick wrong analogies, that doesn't accurately reflect their beliefs. It's idiotic to not start from considering this possibility, given that the remarks were not made in a carefully prepared document. Yeah, not an intelligent or worthwile discussion.
Glad to see things like this discussed and hosted on the channel. Regardless of our individual take, it's important we continue to pray for the Church and all the faithful.
Really appreciate this discussion.
"I don't understand the point then of interreligious dialog" thats a great point
Per Francis, the point is to "walk together".
@@Erick_Ybarra, Pope Francis uses the symbol of walking or journeying for "sincere dialogue", so that is not the point but a way to describe interreligious dialogue. What is the aim of the walk? "Young people are courageous and like to seek the truth but they have to be careful not to become what you referred to as “armchair critics” with endless words. A young person must be a critical thinker, and it is not good never to be critical. But you must be constructive in criticism, because there is a destructive criticism, which only makes a lot of complaints but does not offer a new way forward."
@@professorvecchio9675 You just denied what I said, and then immediately affirmed it. Not helpful. Of course we don't want to destroy the way forward. But the goal of Francis is simply to walk and journey with different religions
@@Erick_Ybarra, I am perplexed by this claim of contradiction. I am pointing out that Pope Francis praises the courage of these youth, who want to seek truth, and then cautions them in their approach, so that they don't get stuck in endless criticism. He encourages critical thinking. I don't see how "critical thinking" is "simply to walk and journey with different religions." It seems to me that you are imposing that on Pope Francis's words and ignoring what critical thinking normally means.
@@professorvecchio9675 I understand. This is where we disagree. He says many times that dialogue is to journey with people with differences
As someone who lived in the Middle East for 3 years, what they heard was “the boss of Christianity said my religion is a path to God and I do not need to accept Christ,” regardless of what his intentions were. Do not take living in the west for granted and project your understanding onto the rest of the world. They heard who they perceive to be the head of Christianity say they’re going to go to Heaven.
Bold of Daniel to step into the staunch defense when even Lofton and Horn declined, lol. We are too far into his pontificate with other scandalous statements and decisions to default to the massage of his words into orthodoxy. Erick is right about this and Amoris Laetitia and the death penalty innovation.
Dr. Vecchio makes some very good points, plausible points, but boy it seems like it takes a lot of gymnastics to interpret
I think it can appear that way when someone else is offering an alternative interpretation. We have to get into the weeds of what was said and what it might mean. But my interpretations is fairly straightforward: 1) Pope Francis encourages truth and critical thinking, 2) this is mostly about attitude in which we do not take a position of superiority, and 3) there really (objectively) is one God and so the various religions are ways for one to arrive at this one God, but this does not imply a) salvation, b) equality of ways, or c) success. The issue with Erick's interpretations is that a-c is that it forces Francis into a relativism, which implicitly conflicts with the first point, and a universalism which conflicts with the deposit of faith and many other Statements from Francis. Erick would have to shoulder a heavy burden to force those implications, and I did not see him do that. Rather, as a son of the Church, Erick and I have a moral obligation to respect and be charitable to the pope.
Two people that I respect and like a lot. Great thinkers. I enjoyed the discussion. Thank you, gentlemen.
I think for many of us, whether there's a reasonable interpretation or not, the word choice is **at best** imprudent.
Setting aside if there even is an acceptable interpretation of it, given the charitable interpretation, accounting for the context and audience, the true audience of the Pope in the digital age is still always the entire world.
People around the world heard salvation is **obtained** in every/any religion.
Yes, I agree. Even in the world of possibility and probability, could we ever picture Jesus, the Apostles, the Early Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, or the best doctors and saints throughout time before the 20th century getting up to tell the digital age that no religion is more important or true than the other because all of the world religions, like the different languages, are pathways by which to arrive at God..... JUST LIKE THAT?
Part of the reason why people heard that is because many Catholic influencers were imprudent and uncharitable in how they characterized what he said.
@@professorvecchio9675 that’s a very unconvincing appraisal of the situation
An alcoholic may hit rock bottom and find Christ (he may also die hitting rock bottom and find Hell). God's providence and mercy cannot be presumed. So it would be incorrect and unwise to say that alcoholism is a equally valid path to God as, let's say, sobriety.
Sobriety is a superior path, even if God can and does write straight with the crooked lines made by the destructive path of an alcoholic.
Whatever Pope Francis intended to communicate, the message received in Singapore was anything but wise or clear. It certainly wasn't orthodox by any traditional yardstick of Catholic teaching in the area of interreligious dialogue.
He never clarified those remarks. So, we can safely conclude that he wanted to leave us a "mess". Unfortunate, for a man whose role it is to defend the Faith and unite his flock in the grace and truth of the Gospel.
Great discussion, gents!
@@JohnPopeII
“We can safely conclude…” that Pope Francis intends heresy. That he intends evil. That is the opposite of how Catholics are to think and it leads to the sins of evil suspicion, rash judgement and slander. This is the way the Puritan’s thought at the Salem Witch Trials.
CCC 2478 is the Catholic practice. It avoids these sins. This is a pattern of thinking Im seeing from people critical of Pope Francis.
How will you defend a pope you like that has these accusations thrown at him? “We can safely conclude he is a heretic?”
To clarify, I did not argue that each path is equally valid. I said that, in a subjective sense, God may providentially order someone's life on an objectively inferior path precisely because that is the path that would best lead them to God. The is why sincere dialogue is needed, not aggressive bullying or superiority. This is also true if one is to intervene in the life of an alcoholic. The aim would be to get them on the sober path, but one can only do that if one respects the alcoholic as a person.
@
Exactly. We cannot take out of the context of the conversation that he said, “I have the truth”. That represents the Catholic teachings. There is too much emphasis on the other person saying, “I have the truth”. The child’s answer is also ignored, which further makes one not see the context of what Pope Francis was talking about. He cannot mean they have the truth if he is saying he has the truth. The Catholic in his example would mean the Catholic believes Catholicism is the fullness of truth. This should also rule out assuming witches are being legitimized. The whole context was God, so anyone not seeking God would be ruled out.
Something else to consider is theirs a lot of things that are part of one's journey, and there are a lot of things to be repented of. That's the point. One doesn't embrace those things and say oh this was great, no, weeping and repentance is the answer to various errors like we're discussing.
I dont think Daniel's reference to Pope Francis's words about disability and weaker parties proved that Pope Francis disclaimed equality of religions. He was merely talking about disparities of power, not disparities of truth.
I think it is some time of power/ability, yes, but in what way? To remedy this sense of aggressive bullying, Pope Francis invites us to think of our own abilities and limitations, and that will allow for sincere dialogue aimed at the truth.
@@professorvecchio9675 Yes, subjectively we should resist the temptation to aggression and bullying by examining our own personal abilities and limitations. But this point is irrelevant to the question of whether Pope Francis believes or communicated that all religions have objective abilities and limitations or are more or less equivalent paths to arrive at God.
This conversation was interesting, but I was dissapointed that they spent the whole time arguing about how to interpret what the Pope meant. I think there's a more important theological conversation to be had. Clearly, Erick holds a more exclusivist view on soteriology which he understands as the orthodox view, and people like Tyler McNabb hold a more inclusivist view, call it Rahnerism or whatever you want. Just a couple weeks ago on this channel, McNabb argued compellingly that the Rahnerian-esque view is the mainstream Catholic view coming out of Vatican 2, and with that it mind, it seems much more plausible that the pope's statements reflect a Rahnerian-esque view, as both Ybarra and McNabb argued (although McNabb didn't mention Rahner), than that his statements should be interpreted as compatible with Ybarra's more exclusivistic view, as Vecchio seemed to be arguing. I'm not saying this conversation wasn't worth having, just that it seemed to dance around the more important conversation regarding what the Church's position on non-Christian religions actually is.
exlcusivism only work on debate. but pointless is interfaith dialogue
I’d love to talk to Mcnabb
Spot on Erick.
Erick is 100% correct here. Our Holy Father Pope Francis is very wise, but in these handful of times on the one, true religion, he has spoken incorrectly, such as at Singapore. Other times on this topic, he definitely has spoken correctly.
What evidence are you using to rule out him talking about interfaith dialogue vs salvation?
Eric said Pope Francis meant that the “path to God” was “successful”. Where in the conversation did Pope Francis say the path was “successful”?
What IM seeing is people are not thinking like Catholics. Eric was asked about the judgement of charity. This is CCC 2478, which avoids the sins of evil suspicion and rash judgement in CCC 2477. Eric basically said he gets to ignore the judgement of charity because Pope Francis was “clearly” guilty of Eric’s accusations. He then mentioned past documents Pope Francis had written. They asked him my question on which documents Pope Francis had written that states other religions are “successful” in salvation. He confirmed there are none. So, that means he meant documents like Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans. He is using debunked theories to judge Pope Francis. Every accusation about these documents has been debunked. People like Eric though have no desire to see Pope Francis as innocent and that is a sickness. How can he ignore CCC 2478 when it was also ignored in each of these past accusations? Even the Pachamama scandal was based on not practicing CCC 2478. This Catholic teaching prevents slander and he is saying he gets to ignore Catholic teaching because he thinks Pope Francis is guilty.
We call that the leftist belief called “your truth”. He is thinking like a leftist, not a Catholic and you are saying he is 100% correct?
This is his argument and the argument those that ignore CCC 2478 are using. The path to God is meaning salvation. Faith alone leads to salvation. And once you are on that path, you are saved and will go to heaven. That all religions lead to a Sola Fide and Once Saved Always Saved salvation.
That’s Calvinism. He is using a Protestant argument to accuse the pope who is judged by no one. Canon Law 1404.
@@paulmualdeave5063sounds like you are unaware of many things
@
Do you ever think Pope Francis is ever innocent of any of the constant accusations against him? I never liked Nancy Grace’s show because everyone was guilty in her mind. I see that trend with people with your way of thinking. Pope Francis is guilty always. That is a very disturbing trend.
Revelation 12:10. The Accuser of the Brethren is Satan.
I stopped listening to accusers.
Constantinople IV Canon 21. Im aware of that.
@
You never showed how Pope Francis was saying a “path to God is successful”.
I don’t know… Like Constantinople IV Canon 21? Or Revelation 12:10? Donum Veritalis, which you constantly violate?
When is Pope Francis ever innocent? I see a disturbing trend that he is always deemed guilty. Where is the desire for him to be innocent?
The Accuser of the brethren is Satan.
@
What I see from this conversation is a distraction from the topic Pope Francis was talking about. You think the context was salvation. It wasn’t. It was interfaith dialogue and how we can best communicate with each other. We all think we have the truth. But if we make a baseline, that we all seek God, then we start from peace. With peace we can lead them to truth. This is the ingeniousness of Jesus saying, “Blessed are the peacemakers.”
Instead of this we talk about salvation. A priest was recently kidnapped in Africa. That is the answer the child gave, “destruction”. Is your diversion from the topic in any way preventing evil acts towards Catholics? Or is it leading to the evil acts continuing?
It helps if one actually tries to understand what the king’s royal steward is saying rather than joining the band wagon of those that constantly accuse Pope Francis of this or that when an explanation can be reached. Doesn’t it bother you that these accusers hardly ever see Pope Francis as innocent?
49:35 the most important part
56:20 the analogy of language assumes that there is equality because languages are not inherently better than others
33:27 if that’s what the Holy Father meant, then this philosopher said it much more clearly than our Holy Father
When Pope Francis said that "all religions lead to God" what he was saying was based in the catechism (CCC 843). Other religions prepare the mind to accept Christ eventually, and in that sense they have value.
This is not a new idea, and it shouldnt be taken as something radical.
That would be manipulating what the Pope said. Let's not do that.
@Erick_Ybarra Here is John Paul II:
"T]he Council [Vatican II] says that the Holy Spirit works effectively even outside the visible structure of the Church, making use of…the common soteriological [salvation-related] root present in all religions. Christ came into the world for all these peoples. He redeemed them all and has His own ways of reaching each of them in the present eschatological phase of salvation history."
Francis said "all religions are PATHS to God".
He is not saying a Muslim who denounced Christ will be saved because Islam will lead to salvation.
He is saying, as John Paul II set as a precedent, that any religion can create a root on which a path to Christ can start.
@@Erick_Ybarrawhat's with your bent these days to take uncharitable interpretations of the Pope? How is this good for your spiritual health? To not take into full account what Pope Francis clearly believes about the Truth that is Catholicism and pretend that off the cuff comments have to have the theological precision of encyclicals is entirely uncharitable. Not a single sincere person is confused about Catholicism being the one true religion to the POPE. Perhaps you aren't well versed in effective interfaith dialogue that brings one out of falsehoods and into the truth if you think the Pope was wrong about how to approach others who are on their own path trying to find God
@@canadianamateurfilmdude that is rather wishful thinking, pope Francis did not make any attempt to say that the end goal is to become Christian.
If I say that all roads lead to Rome no one will assume that I mean all roads lead to one single road which itself takes us to Rome.
@Vinsanity997 You are working under the presupposition that Francis has not exclaimed Christ and the Gospel for decades, including many orthodox stances (ordination, salvation, etc).
With that context as a background, his words here should not be taken to mean he is endorsing other religions, even if that is how it may be taken by those unfamiliar with his writings.
If all roads lead to Rome (Christ), the paved highways (Christianity) provide an efficient, direct way to Rome. There are still side roads that are more unkempt and wild, that may lead to the highway or indirectly to Rome. I believe your analogy is not consistent with your claims about what Francis said.
Again, I cite CCC and St JP II
One of the things that's going on here is that Pope Francis is explicitly as a more progressive/liberal thinker, attempting to adopt as much of egalitarianism as he possibly can within the order structure and hierarchy of the church.
What were noticing, what we're all noticing, is that the church is not a subjective egalitarian democracy that can be put on the same level of any institution or any other religion. It is objectively superior. Critiques against triumphalism fall very flat because it comes across as folks being upset that someone is genuinely exultant.
I think of it like a marriage, one absolutely should be triumphalistic and exultant and joyous and ecstatic about being married, the joy of the bride and groom is infectious and it's meant to be a public display of their love and affection.
People who are put off by triumph and joy and having found the true faith are like people who are upset that the bride and groom are too happy about being married and they're trying to get them to tone it down.
Did they bring up Clement of Alexandria in this video
No, what did you have in mind?
Eric:
RUclips is automatically deleting my replies.
Pope Francis asked a question. You should answer it and look at the child’s answer to his question. That shows the context of his conversation was interfaith dialogue and not salvation. He wants to create a peaceful start to dialogue. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers”. We can convert more people if we start with peace. Look at our history. We took over the Roman Empire once we had peace. This is the ingeniousness of Jesus’s teachings on peace.
Catholics: I have the truth.
Muslim: I have the truth?
What use is that? That is the question. “Where does this lead?” “Destruction.”
I’ll note a priest in Africa was recently kidnapped. Did that happen because people say, “I have the truth” yet cannot effectively explain to another why their religion is truth?
to find truth we need faith and reason.
but are all we need only faith and reason?
it amazes me anyone still thinks catholicism is Christianity, when the Word of our Creator proves the contrary.
Something that hasn't occurred to many people I'm sure is that the argument that all religions are paths To God and such, puts to those more progressive and liberal thinkers in a very interesting spot. They now cannot condemn traditionalists who don't embrace that who are within the bosom of the church who hold to dogma In a more strict sense for if it is true that separate different religions are paths to God and such and they're making the argument that they can't refute folks who hold to various incompatible religions with the truth of the Catholic faith, then how much more so for the more traditional members of the actual church who are within the bosom of Mother Church, who are holding firm to the dogmas of the church, who are the most loyal sons and daughters of the bride of Christ?
😊 If that's the argument that the more pluralistic and egalitarian members want to make, very well. By their own confession and argument, they cannot object in any way shape or form to the path that different actual members of a more traditional preference are taking.
I think instead of tying oneself into not, one could just simply discard much of this baggage and unapologetically and wholeheartedly just embrace the faith rather than bending over backwards to apologize for the gospel being offensive. A lot more authentic that way, and I'll say as a part of my personal journey, as a brute historic fact, what drew me into the church was the full-throated and strong endorsements of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Some preferred gentleness, I get it. The argument itself can say nothing against those who need strength and firmness and directness, unless those who are advancing this idea are willing to say that such paths are not authentic paths to God.
Obviously from their own perspective it is self refuting nonsense.
So why do Catholics need or rather God need intercessors??
Evangelisarion is not a difficult concept in Christianity
23:00 what you’re saying is true but it doesn’t negate anything that Erick said either. The point is it gives a *perception* of relativism.
witchcraft objectly inferior to tomism.
this argument only work on academia only.
did all people have same level academia?
How many people had aboriginal languages in mind in hearing Pope Francis talk about all religions being a path to arrive at God? Zero. Not a strong defense of the scandalous metaphor. I wish Daniel would have just forthrightly admitted the scandal of the Pope's choice of words, phrases, metaphors, etc. regardless of what was meant or intended, rather than hedging on that.
Hi Tony, I only bring this up in response to the argument that if all religious are languages, then they are somehow equal in their ability to communicate. That is an assumption that is not present in the analogy.
@@professorvecchio9675 One can surely argue that some languages have objectively better ability to communicate than others (especially when casting a wide net); I don't deny that. But is it reasonable to think that Pope Francis and especially his hearers had such a distinction in mind when saying/hearing that metaphor? I don't think so. *Most people don't typically think of one or more modern common languages as being inherently or significantly superior to any other for general communication. So the metaphor is clearly egalitarian and scandalous in subjective effect if not in objective strict principle.*
@@tonyl3762 so in this dialectical context, Erick is telling me what the Pope meant. When he says that "languages" implies that they are all equal in their ability to save, or that one is as good as another, he is introducing a context to Pope Francis's words, and that is based on Erick's presuppositions about the nature of language that are simply not true. So I don't raise this because I think Pope Francis had it in mind, I raise it to say that we shouldn't burden ourselves with false presuppositions about the nature of language when considering what Pope Francis meant.
Thank you for this and dr vecchio was perfect! But I don't get Eric. His approach where he knows how Pope Francis thinks is baffling. Yes Pope said it there but I know what he really thinks.
What the Pope said matches what he meant.
@@Erick_Ybarra I would like to hear your answer to the question of, given this reading, what is the point of interfaith dialogue? I'm not saying your position is wrong, just wondering what your response that it makes Pope Francis' interfaith meetings pointless.
@@VACatholicfor Francis it’s to get closer in peace with each other
@@Erick_Ybarra Understood. Very sad if true.
The whole point of language is to reveal our mind and thoughts.
Ybarra's position is way way too uncharitable. The pushback wasn't really on point either. Meh
Charitable interpretations are not unlimited.
The point is to arrive at truth, not to twist the popes words until it appears plausibly orthodox. Erick is trying to interpret the pope correctly not “charitably”
@@Vinsanity997 It's absurd to believe people will always say exactly what they think. People mess up, oversimplify and pick wrong analogies, that doesn't accurately reflect their beliefs. It's idiotic to not start from considering this possibility, given that the remarks were not made in a carefully prepared document.
Yeah, not an intelligent or worthwile discussion.
@ wow