Strange views for a Catholic.

[Nicolaus]

I feel like the kind of wording he used was to vague and unclear. People from other religions could read his words and come out feeling like there is no need to convert to Catholicism. They could stay Protestant, Jew, Muslim or Hindu and still receive salvation. That may not be what John Paul was implying, but because of how vague his statements on these matters were; one could take them that way.

[Scriptorium]

I agree to a certain extent. But he did say that "Jesus Christ is the one Mediator and Saviour of the human race". There is much to be desired in these audiences. They certain rely on people being honest and mature. But then I wonder if really JPII did just face the fact that people of ill-will weren't listening to him anyway. One may have said that for all the good declarations of the Popes of the past, how many people were swayed by those declarations. How many people are swayed by the swaths of declarations of EENS given on some websites. I ask in sincerity. I doubt that many are. I am not saying the ecumenical approach is the way to go, but I don't know if going to the other extreme is either.

[charlesh]

"... it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour ..."

Implicit, and somewhat explicit in his explanation is that these souls respond to God's invitation. If He invited them to the Church, then they would be Catholics, so they have not been explicitly invited.

It is an attempt to make the so-called "People of God" larger than merely the Catholic Church. John Paul II is talking about people who reject Christ (do not "acknowledge" Him) yet are saved by practicing their false religion well. Implicit in John Paul's teaching is that faith, defined as the assent of the mind to the truth revealed by God, is not necessary for salvation. It is the destruction of revealed truth. If you believe John Paul was a modernist, then this makes sense, as modernism entails the complete annihilation of dogma, as you can read here.

Contrast the teaching of John Paul II with Catholic teaching:

Jesus Christ: "This is eternal life: that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Jesus Christ: "He that believeth not shall be condemned."
Athanasian Creed: Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly
Pope St. Pius X: We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.
Catechism of the Council of Trent: Such is the nature of the human mind and intellect that, although by means of diligent and laborious inquiry it has of itself investigated and discovered many other things pertaining to a knowledge of divine truths; yet guided by its natural lights it never could have known or perceived most of those things by which is attained eternal salvation..."

Apparently, faith is necessary...

Scriptorium, your own conversion story is testimony that those men of good-will who are truly "following the dictates of their own conscience" are rewarded by Christ with faith and the eventual entrance (or return) to the Church. You were in error while seeking the truth. God saw your good will and gave you a certain grace. You responded to that grace and were consequently lead out of error and into the ark of salvation. That shows how the traditional Catholic teaching is true: the Holy Ghost is not active in false religions, but rather is active in leading people out of them. The false religions are snares of the devil, but God, the good shepherd, finds his poor sheep tied up in them, cuts the bonds, and leads them back to safety.

[Norbert]

There is a deeper issue here...if all our works are as filthy rags (until redeemed by sanctifying grace) and the gods of the pagans are devils, as St. Paul would have it, then there isn't anything "good" in false religions, any more than there is in natural human behavior.

The rotten whole of "theology of human dignity" and the idea that "God's image is in everyone" or false religions "guide people towards Christ" is centered on a contradiction of the gospel: namely, the idea that  mankind is somehow naturally good in a greater way than as a creation of God.  And the "good" of man as a creation has literally no attachment in orthodoxy to eternal, e.g., real, consequences. 

If anything, false religions are evil in direct correlation to how much they resemble (e.g., how well they counterfeit) the Catholic gospel.  (See: protestantism, Mormonism, Islam).

And, frankly, as Christ said, if by "their fruits shall ye know them", I don't see a lot of "good" in things like Buddhism (desire is the cause of suffering and the best that can be hoped for is annihilation?), Hinduism (cows are worthy of worship, and [historically] women are property) or Mormonism even (Man can become God, God was once a man, divorce and contraception are ok if 'the church' says so, and abortion isn't always the same as murder).

No offense to converts to Catholicism from other faiths (I was one myself, having been nondenominational), but man is not basically good, and false religions don't "point people towards Jesus".  If anything, the only successes I've had with evangelizing non-Catholics has been with agnostics.

[Crusading Philologist]

I don't think the idea that there is some good in other religions necessarily rests on a belief in man's natural goodness. For instance, Joseph de Maistre, certainly no optimist when it came to human nature, once said, "nothing is false in paganism, but everything is corrupted."

[Scriptorium]

There is a deeper issue here...if all our works are as filthy rags (until redeemed by sanctifying grace) and the gods of the pagans are devils, as St. Paul would have it, then there isn't anything "good" in false religions, any more than there is in natural human behavior.

This is where you have it wrong. People are capable of good without sanctifying grace, so there is good in false religions and "natural" man.

From Ott:

Even in the fallen state, man can, by his natural intellectual power, know religious and moral truths. (De fide.)
For the performance of a morally good action Sanctifying Grace is not required. (De fide.)
The Grace of faith is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Sent. certa.)
Actual Grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Sent. certa.)
In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order. (De fide.)
In the condition of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without restoring grace (gratia sanans) to fulfil the entire moral law and to overcome all serious temptations for any considerable period of time. (Sent. certa.)
God gives all innocent unbelievers (infideles negativi) sufficient grace to achieve eternal salvation. (Sent. certa.)

[and others]

The rotten whole of "theology of human dignity" and the idea that "God's image is in everyone" or false religions "guide people towards Christ" is centered on a contradiction of the gospel: namely, the idea that  mankind is somehow naturally good in a greater way than as a creation of God.  And the "good" of man as a creation has literally no attachment in orthodoxy to eternal, e.g., real, consequences. 

Yes, but there is an opposite extreme that will deny or denigrate the dignity of each human because they are created in the image of God, and Christ died for that particular person specifically also. Their actions can degrade their dignity, and so the matter is how much they conform with their potential in Christ.

If anything, false religions are evil in direct correlation to how much they resemble (e.g., how well they counterfeit) the Catholic gospel.  (See: protestantism, Mormonism, Islam).

And, frankly, as Christ said, if by "their fruits shall ye know them", I don't see a lot of "good" in things like Buddhism (desire is the cause of suffering and the best that can be hoped for is annihilation?), Hinduism (cows are worthy of worship, and [historically] women are property) or Mormonism even (Man can become God, God was once a man, divorce and contraception are ok if 'the church' says so, and abortion isn't always the same as murder).

No offense to converts to Catholicism from other faiths (I was one myself, having been nondenominational), but man is not basically good, and false religions don't "point people towards Jesus".  If anything, the only successes I've had with evangelizing non-Catholics has been with agnostics.

Man is good by nature, but now lives in a fallen state. There is good in other religions if you look. We shouldn't take such an inquiry to extremes, because it clouds our judgement, but it will allow us to look at the situation accurately. An accurate assessment of false religions is that there is some good there, and some evil. That ratio is unique to each doctrine and practice. Obviously Satanism and Witchcraft would have a different ratio than Buddhism or Sikhism. And then you have each person's practice of that religion. Most modern ecumenists are way to optimistic. But we don't have to take the other extreme which is everyone is depraved, or that Christ dying for these types of people was an utter waste of timed since they'd never have any opportunity to be saved. There is a balance to be had which does not detract one iota from the Church as the sole ark of salvation.

[Richard C]

I feel like the kind of wording he used was to vague and unclear. People from other religions could read his words and come out feeling like there is no need to convert to Catholicism. They could stay Protestant, Jew, Muslim or Hindu and still receive salvation. That may not be what John Paul was implying, but because of how vague his statements on these matters were; one could take them that way.

I just ran into this on CAF, where a veteran poster asserts that the Church includes all the schismatic churches of the East based on some very charitable statement by the late holy father and some vague gestures of goodwill in the CCC. I think the Holy Father was as orthodox as any pope, but I think he overestimated his audience, thinking that the modern, educated laity would know the basics and read his words through those lenses.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

I just ran into this on CAF, where a veteran poster asserts that the Church includes all the schismatic churches of the East based on some very charitable statement by the late holy father and some vague gestures of goodwill in the CCC. I think the Holy Father was as orthodox as any pope, but I think he overestimated his audience, thinking that the modern, educated laity would know the basics and read his words through those lenses.

Subsistit in or Frankenchurch

[Norbert]

There is a deeper issue here...if all our works are as filthy rags (until redeemed by sanctifying grace) and the gods of the pagans are devils, as St. Paul would have it, then there isn't anything "good" in false religions, any more than there is in natural human behavior.

This is where you have it wrong. People are capable of good without sanctifying grace, so there is good in false religions and "natural" man.

From Ott:

Even in the fallen state, man can, by his natural intellectual power, know religious and moral truths. (De fide.)
For the performance of a morally good action Sanctifying Grace is not required. (De fide.)
The Grace of faith is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Sent. certa.)
Actual Grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Sent. certa.)
In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order. (De fide.)
In the condition of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without restoring grace (gratia sanans) to fulfil the entire moral law and to overcome all serious temptations for any considerable period of time. (Sent. certa.)
God gives all innocent unbelievers (infideles negativi) sufficient grace to achieve eternal salvation. (Sent. certa.)

[and others]

The rotten whole of "theology of human dignity" and the idea that "God's image is in everyone" or false religions "guide people towards Christ" is centered on a contradiction of the gospel: namely, the idea that  mankind is somehow naturally good in a greater way than as a creation of God.  And the "good" of man as a creation has literally no attachment in orthodoxy to eternal, e.g., real, consequences. 

Yes, but there is an opposite extreme that will deny or denigrate the dignity of each human because they are created in the image of God, and Christ died for that particular person specifically also. Their actions can degrade their dignity, and so the matter is how much they conform with their potential in Christ.

If anything, false religions are evil in direct correlation to how much they resemble (e.g., how well they counterfeit) the Catholic gospel.  (See: protestantism, Mormonism, Islam).

And, frankly, as Christ said, if by "their fruits shall ye know them", I don't see a lot of "good" in things like Buddhism (desire is the cause of suffering and the best that can be hoped for is annihilation?), Hinduism (cows are worthy of worship, and [historically] women are property) or Mormonism even (Man can become God, God was once a man, divorce and contraception are ok if 'the church' says so, and abortion isn't always the same as murder).

No offense to converts to Catholicism from other faiths (I was one myself, having been nondenominational), but man is not basically good, and false religions don't "point people towards Jesus".  If anything, the only successes I've had with evangelizing non-Catholics has been with agnostics.

Man is good by nature, but now lives in a fallen state. There is good in other religions if you look. We shouldn't take such an inquiry to extremes, because it clouds our judgement, but it will allow us to look at the situation accurately. An accurate assessment of false religions is that there is some good there, and some evil. That ratio is unique to each doctrine and practice. Obviously Satanism and Witchcraft would have a different ratio than Buddhism or Sikhism. And then you have each person's practice of that religion. Most modern ecumenists are way to optimistic. But we don't have to take the other extreme which is everyone is depraved, or that Christ dying for these types of people was an utter waste of timed since they'd never have any opportunity to be saved. There is a balance to be had which does not detract one iota from the Church as the sole ark of salvation.

I see your point.  However, I think it's awfully dangerous to start talking about human dignity and the good in other religions nowadays as traditional catholics, because not only is the Vatican talking about that more than enough, it's led tons of people into believing that the Church ISN'T the sole ark of salvation...there's more than enough quotable bullet points from VII to support universalism, whether that's because that's what they really support or not is a little immaterial.

[Vox Clamantis]

Not according the Pope John Paul II.  According to him, all religions can gain salvation.  You wonder why the Catholic church finds it hard to convert people?  Why convert if the path to God can be gained through  any religion?  The pope taught a false teaching.  Jesus said the only way to the father is through me. 

From a letter I wrote to someone:

You know, it's funny how you and I think about religion. I mean, you describe yourself as "an ecumenical kinda guy" -- and I can't say that I am that per se, but I definitely think that God saves whom He desires and that a lot of people are going to be surprised to find people in Heaven who are Jewish, Muslim, maybe even atheistic (well, agnostic anyway).  I mean, I believe that Jesus most certainly set up a Church on the earthly rock of St. Peter and that there is an unbroken line of Popes beginning with him. I believe that Peter was given the keys and is able to "bind and loose," that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are equally valid, that there are seven Sacraments -- everything in the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. So I believe that He gave us this Church -- the Catholic Church -- and wants us all to belong to it in a formal way, that if we were to all belong and profess the same creed that there'd be peace on earth as far as we could have peace on earth, that the social systems that could spring from Catholic teaching would be the most sane systems we could have, that we'd have as much earthly happiness as we could have given human and natural evil, etc.

-- But, as I said, I believe that though the Catholic Church IS "THE Church," and that Baptism belongs to Her, there are many people who are formally outside of Her that belong to the Soul of Her. I.e., while some are not in the body of the Church, they are in the soul of the Church, that the Church is bigger than She appears. Some Catholics would disagree with me, and some of the nastier trad types would faint at the idea of it and seem to revel in the idea of Protestants, let alone agnostics or Jews, burning in Hellfire forever -- but that is what I believe. Of course, I could be wrong. But thinking this is the only way I can logically reconcile what I've learned through History about the Catholic Church being THE Church set up by Christ and against which the gates of Hell will NOT prevail --  and the facts of God's love and benevolence. I think we are commanded to do what He told us to do, via His Church, but that those who simply don't know what those teachings are, or who might know some of what they are but who see them through the distorted lens of, say, a Seventh Day Adventist upbrining, can yet be saved by His grace alone, if they love -- even though they are at a great disadvantage at not knowing the full Truth, not having access to the Sacraments He's provided as a means of grace, etc.
 
I'd been asked before by some, "Well, gee, if those types can be saved, then what's the point of spreading the Gospel?!" And my answer is "Because we're told to, for one, and because it is THE GOOD NEWS! There's the obvious benefit, too, of introducing people to the Sacraments, a means of grace (and one with great benefits on psychological and social levels if they're seen as something God has given to us and asks us to do, that we're bound to as we're able, but that GOD is not bound to -- i.e., He can offer His grace in other ways, too, and if the Sacraments are properly understood, then one knows their benefits can be gotten in spiritual ways if the formal Sacraments are simply not available). Another reason is the aforementioned social effects of everyone belonging to the Church, of sharing the same vision of the True, Good, and Beautiful, of having the same ideas as to what is just, moral, etc." Like I've said before, some people treat the Gospel like a club to beat people with instead of the Good News! Know what I mean? I've met very few people who seem to understand the subtlety of what I believe -- and I'm not God, obvously, and could be wrong! -- but this is what I believe. I believe 100% what the Church teaches, but my understanding of Her size and the power of God's goodness, His desire for us to be with Him, the plenitude of His Love, seems to be different than that of not only many of my co-religionists, but other Christians as well.
 
My point is this:  you say that "we protestors definitely threw out too much baby with the bath water," and to that I must obviously agree, and I believe that the "protestors" -- as do all people -- belong in the Catholic Church, that it would please God for them to return -- and I believe this while acknowledging the corruptions that were being protested --  the selling of indulgences (never sanctioned by Church teaching, of course), the greed and other sins of some of Her clerics and hierachs, etc. So while I think that some of the early Protestants may have had good motives, they were wrong for leaving the Church. And modern Protestants, for the most part, in the U.S. anyway (the ones I'm familiar with), most often tend to simply not know what the Church teaches (many have been taught completely erroneous things about that matter) and have been victims of things like the "Black Legend" born of English anti-Spain propaganda, the Jack Chick tracts, Communist stuff like "Hitler's Pope," and media bias (e.g., look at the Catholic priest homosexual ephebophila crisis being called a "pedophilia" issue -- and how it was allllllllllllllll over the news while the VASTLY worse sexual abuse problems in the public schools and the problems with Jewish rabbis sexually abusing their minors are barely mentioned). In other words, they have an incomplete view of the Church and (at least to some point) are not culpable for having been brainwashed against Her in a lot of ways. But God knows who's who -- and Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or whatever, He knows who loves and who doesn't, who strives for Truth and virtue and who doesn't, who is culpable for not being formally inside the Church and who isn't,  those to whom much has been given and of whom much is required, etc., and it's HE, not me or anyone else, Who decides who will be with Him forever and ever -- and He's gonna surprise a lof of people, I think!