Are All Religions Paths to God? - Tyler McNabb

[@halleylujah247]

This was such a thought provoking conversation. Thank you.

[@nealkriesterer]

The Mississippi River gets you to the Gulf of Mexico. But there are many rivers that lead into the Mississippi.

[@ChristopherPlance]

Tyler McNabb is such an important thinker in the Church today. So grateful for his witness here and his synthesis of the Tradition

[@anthonymarchetta8796]

Pope Francis didn't say, though, that other religions have pieces of truth that can lead to the one truth. He compared the other religions to different languages that each mean the same thing. This is a completely different point.

[@vaskaventi6840]

This is "listened to the first 10minutes then commented before hearing the second half"-coded

[@anthonymarchetta8796]

This is "I'm not going to make a substantive response, just accuse you of not watching the video in the most passive-aggressive way possible" coded.

[@vaskaventi6840]

@@anthonymarchetta8796 u should watch fr tho

[@lazarus_alonsius]

Pope Francis never said these religions are in themselves salvific. And it is certainly true that certain languages are more effective at communicating certain concepts, some even being the sole language in which such concepts can truly be expressed, while still other languages exist which don’t even have the capacity for counting past 5

[@anthonymarchetta8796]

@@lazarus_alonsius Right, but the full context of Francis's remarks, as Erick Ybarra pointed out, is that he is trying to use this to minimize the differences between these religions, not highlight them. The entire point of Pope Francis's comment is that you should not be saying that any one religion is superior, just as you can't say any one language is superior to another. If Francis was making the point that some languages are more effective at communicating certain concepts than another, he wouldn't have made that analogy in a context where he was trying to limit religious infighting.

[@ClingToAntiquity]

The danger of heresy is the truths that it teaches.

[@rexgloriae316]

Amazing. I'll be using this one.

[@joevasanu7459]

If this was correct, the Pope could have, should have been a better shepherd to clarify that what he said wasn’t what he meant as his flock is horribly confused

[@1CASSIODORUS]

I was evangelized by the writers of the Perennialist school. I'm inclined to say The doctrine of a _transcendent_ unity of religions is the only plausible way of affirming that more than one religion can be true . Unity is not to be found on the periphery , but in the mystical core . What the Advaitan Vedantists called _ Nirguna_ Brahman . Ultimately , I think this point of view can only work if the theistic traditions can be reconciled with unqualified nondualism.

[@musicmaker1026]

When you have to reinterpret everything he said, and reject what it means at face value for it to not be heretical, you're probably interpreting what he said incorrectly.

[@anthonymarchetta8796]

I think my issue is that what Dr. Mcnabb is really doing is basically just confirming sedevacantist worries about Vatican II by claiming he interprets the documents in line with a worrying religious indifferentism. If he is right, then Vatican II contradicts various earlier Church documents, and should be rejected. I don't think we can accept Dr. Mcnabb's interpretation.

[@jacobheatherington]

Sorry, but this is not persuasive. When Pope Francis said that religions are like languages, he obviously did not mean that some languages are better than others in some respects. Just look at the transcript. He explicitly and repeatedly makes it clear that he does not want anyone to say that their religion is better than others, more important than others, or true where others are false. The entire point, unmissable in context, is to stress equality. We all know that if some liberal Episcopalian or whatever had said these exact words 15 years ago during the reign of Pope Benedict XVI, we all would have said "oh, that's the heresy of religious indifferentism." Nobody here would have doubted it. Can we all just be honest about that much? And unfortunately, is it not enough to point to Pope Francis's words in other contexts promoting evangelization or saying Christ is the only way to the Father. That assumes that the holy father is perfectly consistent in his views. But he is not a careful thinker, and he may hold mutually contradictory views. In one context he may believe in evangelization (whatever that means) and that Christ is the only way to salvation (in some vague sense). In another context, he may believe in religious relativism. If you could actually press him on this contradiction, I frankly suspect he might just get mad at you and call you a self-absorbed promethean neo-Pelagian. I don't really know what to do with this, but it helps no one to deny that the obvious, plain meaning of the words he spoke is not orthodox. Maybe you can wrestle them into the bounds of orthodoxy with a great deal of effort, but the whole of his comments seem almost designed to resist such defenses in this case. Obviously this speech was spontaneous and not magisterial, but we are long past the point where you can snidely say that conservatives (or whoever) are just waiting to pounce and interpret Francis uncharitably. Some of Francis's critics are uncharitable. But far more tried for years and years to interpret Francis as favorably as possible, until Francis's repeated refusal to stop speaking like this finally broke them.

[@paulywauly6063]

I disagree with with you. The Pope has always maintained that Christ is our Saviour. I think there is too much over reaction . At the end of the day we need to understand that the Pope is not speaking magesterial here and he is talking to a specific audience within an interfaith context . The very fact that the Pope HAS affirmed the uniqued and salvific nature of the incarnation , I think its unfair to use this statement as a means to attack him . God can use the truth in other religions to bring people to God. " blessed are the peace majers for they shall be called children of God".

[@st.mephisto8564]

47:46

[@nicodreyer3417]

Thank you for the insightful discussion, Suan and Dr McNabb. While I broadly agree with all the views expressed, I do think this kind of topic should be handled a bit more carefully and with more charity towards those on the "fundamentalist"/"conservative" side. I don't think it is unreasonable for the average person's charity towards Pope Francis to be running a bit thin at this stage, especially since it seems we end up with situations like this every other month now. These scandals always seem to have been avoidable had the Holy Father just worded things a bit differently, so to make thing out as if the fault lies solely with the flock just serves to further radicalise those who are already disillusioned with the current Pope. Lastly while I agree with everything said regarding other religions, I think this should be balanced with the very real danger posed by the errors contained in other religions. I also do not think that we can comfortably say that other religions(at least certain sects within them) are totally free from the influence of the demonic. So the picture is a lot more nuanced as I am sure you are aware, so the fundamentalist aversion to this cannot be attributed merely to ignorance of other religions.

[@matthieulavagna]

I would've loved to debate tyler on this issue...

[@1984SheepDog]

Violence to logic and language itself to own the sedes

[@befast1973-g2f]

The church made this determination way back at Vatican 2

[@joevasanu7459]

Suan, you do a disservice by “strawmanning” the other view. Your caricature of opposing views is not honest or helpful to the discussion and is hardly “intellectual.” Please reconsider

[@kofiadjei-frimpong9279]

Yes, all religions have paths to God. But the right path is Christ Jesus' path.

[@Chumpersluvsgames]

Then they arent all paths to god🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨

[@hajduksplit698]

By saying path to God, you are saying God is at the end of that particular path. Only one path has that end. Why not say something along the lines that other religions represent a search for God?

[@paulywauly6063]

​@@hajduksplit698 Bleesed are tje peacemakers for they shall be called children of God". There are many religions that promote peace. The promotion of peace is a path to God. God Bless 🕊

[@polemeros]

This is just one more in a decade+ game of hide and seek Bergoglio plays, but the accumulating result is to show the loss of self-confidence in Catholic Tradition, in order to please God Knows Who. Muslims, for example, who have NO lack of self-confidence, would never debase themselves by relegating Islam to one "language." And no one trashes them for it. Bergoglio/Catholicism now is being eaten away from the inside by trying to please the people Schleiermacher named in the 19th century: the cultured despisers. And that is a dead end.

[@pkbalram640]

If so, all are true. This means that if I worship Satan as God then I am on the right path. Hindus says God is in you and Jesus says the kingdom of God is in you. Christian says God came as his son in human form and hindus says God came as himself in human form. Who is right?

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Pope Francis is absolutely correct, as EVERYTHING leads to God eventually! Jesus Christ teaches that when He dies, He will draw ALL MEN TO HIMSELF! For salvation? No! For judgment and Revelation of Truth? Yes! Pope Francis teaches that Jesus Christ ALONE saves, but that God shall render to everyone according to one's works or lack of works! Why was the Good Samaritan, a foreigner outside the faith, justified before God by his work of mercy and why was the giving of alms and prayers of Cornelius, a Non Christian Gentile, pleasing to God? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!

[@computationaltheist7267]

You're defending the indefensible. If Pope Francis is right, then Christ is just another religion. Not everything leads to God and even a semi-modernist like Larry Chapp stated that Francis was wrong to word it that way.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@computationaltheist7267 most inaccurate, as again, Jesus Christ teaches that when He dies, He will draw ALL MEN TO HIMSELF! For salvation? No! For judgment and Revelation of Truth? Yes! Pope Francis is absolutely correct and teaches nothing contrary to Holy Scripture or Canon Law! EVERYTHING Leads to God eventually, it's source!! Why was the Good Samaritan, a foreigner outside the faith, justified before God by his work of mercy? You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!

[@computationaltheist7267]

@@matthewbroderick6287 Are you proposing Universalism?

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@computationaltheist7267 not at all! Just affirming what Jesus Christ teaches and what Pope Francis affirms! That Jesus Christ will draw ALL MEN TO HIMSELF! For salvation? No! For judgment and Revelation of Truth? Yes! As the Son of Man shall give to each according to one's works or lack of works! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!

[@computationaltheist7267]

@@matthewbroderick6287 Do you accept that other religions have false and maybe even demonic teachings?

[@brooks3376]

You can’t be intellectual and a Catholic, when Catholic teachings say not to question. This is the most dishonest shit I’ve ever heard.

[@polemeros]

Hmmmm. Are you allowed to question, say, the liberal dogma of racial equality? Or universal adult suffrage? Just try it and see how much the open-minded intellectual world responds. EVERY group has a baseline.