Recently, Pope Francis caused quite the stir by claiming all religions are a path to God, akin to talking to Him in a different language. As found on Vatican News, ""All religions are paths to reach God," said Pope Francis. "They are—to make a comparison—like different languages, different dialects, to get there. But God is God for everyone."" (1).
Naturally, this statement sparked controversy among Christians and Roman Catholics alike. For Christians, it is just one more proof that the Church of Rome is a heretical organisation headed by a Hellbound usurper. But even Roman Catholics recognise the patent absurdity of the head of what is claimed to be the only true Church of Christ claiming Christianity isn't even the only true religion.
We can approach this from three different angles: The logical one, the Roman one, and the Biblical one.
The logical way does not require one to have any particular faith. You can be an atheist and realise that all religions cannot be a path to God, with the most obvious reason being not all religions even hold that there is one God to seek a path to. Polytheism, far from being an ancient form of idolatry (which God, Himself, frequently punished by His own hand), still remains a problem in today's world. Many modern religions teach a plethora of gods, whether in the peripheral, or worthy of our direct devotion.
Furthermore, with the exception of Christianity and its offshoots, no religion accepts Christ Himself as God. If you ask a Muslim if Jesus is God, he will very quickly scoff at the idea and call you an idiot for believing 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. Not only is Islam not a path to the Triune God, to whom Francis was presumably referring, but Muslims do not want a path to God. They want, and believe they have, a path to Allah, whereas it is "shirk" - literally an unforgivable sin - to say Jesus is God. In their theology, on judgment day, Allah will ask Jesus if He ever told people to worship Him or His mother, and He will say no.
The Roman way is to look at the way Roman Catholicism has viewed itself historically until today. While it has changed meaning significantly over time, Roman Catholicism has historically taught "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus". That is, "there is no salvation outside the Church". Historically, this has meant one cannot be saved, except through direct union with the Roman Catholic Church. As early as the 6th century, Roman Catholicism has taught "...and to Peter as well was committed the care of "feeding the sheep" (Jn. 21:15); and also to him did the Lord hand over the "keys to the kingdom of Heaven" (Mt. 16:19). If, however, anyone believes contrary to this, let him know he is condemned and anathematized. Consider, therefore, that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. Those not willing to be at agreement in the Church of God cannot abide with God. For the Church of God is established among those known to preside over the Apostolic Sees, and whoever separates himself from these Sees is manifestly in schism." (2).
By this logic, even I, a so-called "Protestant", am condemned an anathematized, and manifestly in schism. Of course, Pope Pelagius II, having been in Hades for centuries now, no longer believes his anti-Christian gospel, but if we could send Pope Francis back in time to near the end of Pelagius' papacy, Pelagius would say to him "know that you are condemned and anathematized!"
The Biblical way is to point out that Jesus was extremely clear that He, and He alone, is the path to God. As He famously declared in John 14:6, "...I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." This is just one example of many, in which He clearly shows that no religion is a path to God, He is.
But perhaps Jesus is not so clear. After all, the Roman Catholic Church, which is headed by none other than this same Pope Francis, alleges that the Bible is not to be studied by one's own skill. As we find in the Council of Trent, "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established." (3).
Such is the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church to this very day. When Scripture is cited against Rome, Rome is cited against Scripture. It's not that Scripture actually disagrees, it's that "your interpretation" disagrees. But you are not the authority over Scripture, the Roman Magisterium is. For this reason, you can point out, for example, that Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly says "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." On its own, this is one of the clearest proofs of Sola Fide. But to block this interpretation, Roman Catholics point out that it does not say we are saved by grace, through faith alone. Forget the fact that it goes so far as to say "...not of works, lest anyone should boast." Works, by Roman Catholic reckoning, are necessary, and therefore, even though Ephesians 2:9 specifies "not of works", there is clearly room to crowbar works in.
Similarly, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is powerful proof of Sola Scriptura. It states "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." But notice, it doesn't say Scripture alone is inspired, or useful for all these things, that the man of God may be complete (a fact which most Roman Catholics, upon encountering this verse, completely omit). So, clearly, there's room for Roman Catholic tradition even in this powerful verse.
And who could forget Roman Catholic Mariology, particularly her role as co-Mediatrix with Christ? Just one verse, namely 1 Timothy 2:5, is all it takes to convince a reasonable person that Christ is the one mediator between man and God, for it clearly says "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,". It's such a clear verse that I often hear ex-Roman Catholics testifying to how it brought them out of Rome. But it doesn't say Christ alone. If you are committed to Roman Catholic Mariology, this verse won't even faze you, for as clear as it is, it is not so clear that it cannot be bent wildly out of shape to include an infinite string of mediators. There is one mediator between man and God, but Mary is at the level of man, mediating with Christ for us. Where do we find that in Scripture? Nowhere! But it's in Roman Catholic theology, so we must cram it in somewhere.
It should be no surprise to us that the head of a Church with this much contempt for Scripture would make such an illogical, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian statement as "All religions are paths to reach God". Nowhere in Scripture do we find the phrase "Christ alone", much less attached to the words "is the path to God". Biblically, it's true. Christ alone is the path to God, and if anyone says otherwise, even if they were an Apostle, even if they were an angel from Heaven, let them know, they are anathematized (Galatians 1:8). Forget Pelagius II, if Pope Francis could meet a single one of Christ's own Apostles, they would denounce him as nothing more than an antichrist. A false Apostle. A reprobate deceiver, destined for everlasting Hellfire, because he has denied the God of his salvation. Only if he repents can he escape the pit designed for the devil and his angels.
But inconsistent though he be with Christ, he is quite consistent with his own Church. For centuries now, the Roman Catholic Church has spoken many great blasphemies, using the most "convincing", yet unstable logic to twist the word of God beyond recognition. Yes, Scripture says "by faith", but not "by faith alone". Yes, it says Scripture is inspired, but not "Scripture alone". Yes, it says there is one mediator, but not "Christ alone is that mediator". Why, then, are we surprised that the current leader of this counterfeit Church publicly forgets that Christ, and Christ alone, is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man comes to the Father but through Him?
Interestingly, the Pope's entire throne sits on a misinterpretation of God's Holy word. We've probably all heard the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Boom, Protestants destroyed; Peter and his successors are the rock upon which the Church is built. All other ground is sinking sand! First Vatican Council even enshrined this interpretation into dogma. You're at open variance with a clear teaching of Scripture if you do not take this view.
But what if we check the context? I'll do you one better. What if we let Augustine, a so-called Church "Father", and even a "doctor of the Church", no less, check it for us? "In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (4).
Here, Augustine not only denies the interpretation foisted upon us by the Roman Catholic Church, but does so in a very "Protestant" sounding way. How often are we forced to remind Roman Catholics that Jesus uses two different words here, only to be told that while Matthew's account is in Greek, Jesus likely spoke Aramaic? In this mythical Aramaic original, "you are peter, and on this rock" are both the same word. But according to none other than Augustine, "...‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him."
Still worse is his statement "But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." This is not the advice a Roman Catholic would give, and certainly not on so crucial a verse as Matthew 16:18. It is official Roman Catholic dogma that Peter is the rock, and that this has always been the interpretation of the Church. Yet, nearly 400 years after the event itself, Augustine presents two interpretations, his latter being significantly further from Rome's than his former, and he goes as far as saying "let the reader decide"?
This kind of disconnect between Roman Catholicism and one of its "doctors" is only possible because Roman Catholicism is an evolving faith. Not even the Papacy itself is solid. Thus, neither is Christ. At least, not in their man-made theology.
But contrary to the assertions of Pope Francis, and his fake Church, Christ is indeed the sole mediator between man and God. No other religion, nor even a genuine religious figure, like Mary, is acceptable to Him. Thus, we must regard even a Roman Catholic as we regard a follower of any other false religion, reminding them "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”" (Acts 11:12, emphasis added). Christ alone, not Muhammad. Christ alone, not Buddha. Christ alone, not Guru Nanak. Christ alone, not even Mary will be able to cover a single sin you have committed against the Holy One.
But Christ covers them all. Scripture makes it clear that He is the only way. Indeed, He tells us "“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14). What a fool is Francis, therefore, to declare that all religions are a part of this narrow way, so difficult that few find it. But difficult though it be, it is sure, for as John writes, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13).
And so, dear reader, the choice is yours. Join Pope Francis, his fake Church, and the wide array of false religions, on the broad way to the wide gate leading to destruction, or join Jesus on the narrow path He built with His own nail-pierced hands, reaching the narrow gate which He alone can open, unto eternal life. The choice, to me, seems obvious.
References
1. Lubov, Deborah C. - Pope calls Singaporean youth to unity during interreligious dialogue, Vatican News, September 13th 2024 (link)
2. Pope Pelagius II - Dilectionis vestrae, 585 A.D.
3. Council of Trent, Session IV, Second Decree concerning the edition and use of the sacred books, April 8th, 1546 (link)
4. Augustine, The Retractions
AI usage
AI was used in the following ways in the production of this article:
1. Creating the background behind the Pope for the header image.