Jesus Christ made statements about himself that if not true would make him the greatest egomaniac who ever walked the earth—statements such as “I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn 14:6) and “I am the light of the world” (Jn 8:12). He also said: “All things have been entrusted to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Mt 11:27). And, further: “Anyone committed to the truth hears my voice (Jn 18:37).
Jesus made such audacious statements about his identity because he indeed was and is God incarnate, and the sole Savior of the world. The truth declared and defended, for which many Christians have even given their lives. And the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
Through the centuries, in so many languages, cultures, peoples and nations, the Church has constantly confessed this one faith, received from the one Lord, transmitted by one Baptism, and grounded in the conviction that all people have only one God and Father. (par 172)
Papal indifferentism?
Pope Francis, during his September 2024 trip to Singapore, seemed to contradict the particularity of Christ and the Christian faith when he said that “all religions are a path to God” and also remarked:
If you start to fight, ‘my religion is more important than yours, mine is true and yours isn’t,’ where will that lead us? … There’s only one God, and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Some are Sheik, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, and they are different paths [to God].
This is not the first time the Holy Father sparked controversy and was accused by some of indifferentism. In 2019, Francis signed the Document on Human Fraternity, also known as the Abu Dhabi Declaration, posted on the Vatican website, which declared:
The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.
And in September 2022, Francis participated in the Seventh Congress of the Leaders of World and Traditional Religions, which took place in Kazakhstan. The Congress issued a declaration that stated, in words similar to the Abu Dhabi Declaration:
We note that pluralism in terms of differences in skin color, gender, race, language and culture are expressions of the wisdom of God in creation. Religious diversity is permitted by God.
In the wake of the Abu Dhabi Declaration and perhaps in response to his critics, Pope Francis clarified during an April 2019 general audience that God’s willing of “the diversity of religions … is only according to his ‘permissive will.'”
The position that all religions are simply different “paths to God” is closely associated with universalism—the idea that ultimately hell is empty or ultimately will be empty—a theory that goes back to Origen in the third century. On January 15, 2024, Pope Francis told Italian journalist Fabio Fazio “I like to think hell is empty; I hope it is”—though he did caution: “What I would say is not a dogma of faith, but my personal thought.” In fairness, Francis has affirmed the existence of hell, most explicitly in his 2016 Lenten message when he preached:
Yet the danger always remains that by a constant refusal to open the doors of their hearts to Christ who knocks on them in the poor, the proud, rich and powerful will end up condemning themselves and plunging into the eternal abyss of solitude which is Hell.
In the face of indifferentism and universalism, some Catholic authors have reiterated that Jesus is the only Savior of the world, that the true Faith fully subsists in the Catholic Church founded by Christ, and that hell is real (and is most probably populated). They argue that such theories undermine or even deny the significance of human freedom and that religious indifferentism articulated in such statements as “all religions are a path to God” poses a threat for the need to proclaim Christ and his mandate to “make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28: 18).
An exhaustive response to religious indifferentism
In 2024, En Route Books and Media published Jesus Christ, Scandal of Particularity: Vatican II, A Catholic Theology of Religions, Justification and Truth, by theologian Eduardo Echeverria. A professor of theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit,
Echeverria provides an exhaustive scholarly examination of the problem of religious indifferentism and in-depth refutation of positions denying that in Jesus Christ “there is salvation in no one else” (Acts 4:12). Echeverria explains in the preface that this “Christological dogma of the Church has been lost … Religious relativism, namely the idea that all religions are equally vehicles of salvation has become ever more common.” Jesus Christ, Scandal of Particularity seeks to “reassert the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Christ.” Echeverria’s work is especially a defense of the true meaning of the Vatican II teaching found in Lumen Gentium (LG)—most particularly Article 16—that lays out the conditions by which it may be possible for non-Christians to be saved. These articles in LG are often misinterpreted, exploited, or simply ignored by those who advocate that salvation may be attained by belief in and practice of any religion. In addition, the book focuses on the correct principles by which inter-religious dialogue should be conducted.
Echeverria begins with a lengthy response to the work of Fr. Gerald O’Collins, S.J. O’Collins provides a novel argument as to how all non-Christians can be saved. God reveals himself to all men through natural law and thus O’Collins concludes that “God’s revelation, in some true sense, reaches everyone.” Based on Romans 1: 20 and 2: 12-15 this is certainly true. But Echeverria points out that O’Collins’ approach fails to recognize the “important distinction between God’s general revelation, or creation revelation and his specific revelation” as O’Collins argues that simply following natural law is in itself salvific.
While LG 16 acknowledges that salvation may be possible to non-Christians who follow the dictates of conscience and “with His grace strive to live a good life,” LG also teaches that whatever “good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.” And Echeverria is quick to correct O’Collins’ failure to include LG 16’s admonition that persons are often deceived by Satan, and are therefore prone to false ideas and practices. Moreover, Echeverria also corrects O’Collins in that the latter ignores the other Vatican II document Ad Gentes regarding the necessity of the missionary activity of the Church. Contrary to O’Collins, Ad Gentes teaches that God wills “[a]ll must be incorporated into [Christ] by baptism and into His Church, which is His Body” (Art. 7).
In contrast to O’Collins’ “inclusivism” view of redemption, Echeverria supports what he calls an “accessibilism” more in keeping with the conditions for the possibility of redemption for non-Christians. He offers an important defense of propositional revelation—that truth about God, and thus the object of faith, can be expressed and thus known in doctrinal statements. There exists now a certain doubt and a pessimistic belief that human language is but “fallible verbalizations” of faith—rather than truly constituting “the content of God’s self revelation.”
Echeverria takes on prominent theologians such as Edward Schillebeeckx and Juan Luis Segundo, who argue that faith is not about belief in articles of faith but that God’s revelation is all about an experience of redemption—not “information, but transformation.” Of course, with such a revisionist view of faith and revelation, Christ’s own words about himself and the creedal statements of the Church are not objectively true—since in this view all human language relativizes the truth about God. Never mind that God himself has said things about himself in dialogic revelation—and he expects human beings to make a response, as he has “made something unknown known”!
In Chapter Four, Echeverria shows how O’Collins misinterprets the Vatican II document Guadium et Spes (GS)—the Pastoral Constitution on the Church—especially article 22: “For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man” O’Collins, according to his inclusivism, argues this means that indeed every man and woman, even those who do not profess the Christian Faith, are nonetheless united to Jesud as his “assumption of human nature means assuming each human person.” Echeverria, drawing on the work of Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), demonstrates this is not what is meant by the teaching of GS 22. Rather, it teaches that in the Incarnation he became truly human as Christ, in his particularity, enters into “the real plane of actual concrete human existence.”
An examination of remarks by Pope Francis
Echeverria next turns his attention to the issue of inter-religious dialogue with a primary focus on Pope Francis’s approach to this subject. Echeverria begins by stating that the manner in which Francis advocates inter-religious dialogue is burdened by the primary problem of the Francis papacy: a lack of clarity. Francis’s advocacy of inter-religious dialogue often fails to take into account the fundamental differences among religions and how other faiths teach doctrines opposed diametrically to the truths of Christianity.
Referencing a 1999 CDF document on subjectivity, Christology, and the Church, Eccheverria argues that Francis, while promoting “understanding through dialogue, tends to substitute the process of dialogue for the search for truth itself.” According to Echeverria, most egregious is Francis’s 2014 statement: “Engaging in dialogue does not mean renouncing our own ideas and traditions, but the claim that they alone are valid or absolute.” Echeverria is concerned that the pope’s statement seems to deny that truth can be known—in other words, not only that Jesus is ontologically the sole sufficient cause of salvation even for those who are invincibly ignorant, but that there is a true epistemological dimension to salvation.
Echeverria relies on the teachings of St. Paul VI and the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue (PCID)—namely, that inter-religious dialogue cannot ignore “contradictions that may exist between [other religions] and Christian revelation” and that for the mission of the Church, such dialogue must include an evangelization dimension. According to PCID, in respectful dialogue with others it is also necessary to announce the truth that there is a “divine order which is only one: that of grace, faith, of the Church and of the Christian life.”
Echeverria also asserts that Francis’s approach contradicts St. John Paul II, who taught that dialogue is a “truth-oriented process” that, far from stifling dialogue, is “a commitment to the truth of one’s religious tradition by its very nature makes dialogue with others both necessary and fruitful.”
Echeverria concludes his work with a lengthy examination of the positions of other theologians on the issue of epistemology—notably, Bernard Lonergan, and Edward Schillebeeck. He explains where they err and also in what way they are correct and helpful in showing how human beings can know objective truth.
Echeverria’s work is a scholarly contribution, full of rigorous research, to a serious issue confronting the Church today. One weakness may be found in the author’s almost heavy emphasis on evangelization as necessary because persons are subject to the darkness of the mind and prone to error, though he doesn’t completely ignore other vital reasons—that Christ wills personal unity with all people, that all men be brought into the true unity of his Church, and that human completion is fulfilled only by such a true personal union with Christ in the life of the Spirit.
This book would have benefited from better editing, as some of Echeverria’s arguments are repeated (even word for word), and from streamlining lengthy discussions. However, these are minor faults that ultimately do not detract from the important defense Echeverria has made on an issue that directly affects the God-given mission of the Church to “make disciples of all nations.”
Jesus Scandal of Particularity—Vatican II, a Catholic Theology of Religions, Justification, and Truth
by Eduardo Echeverria, PhD
En Route Books and Media, 2024
Paperback, 529 pages
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Francis’ ecclesiology is seriously adrift in many respects. His ecclesiology, unfortunately, has been seriously perverted by his Marxism.
Of course there is a hell and of course there are persons already there. Where else would Satan and the fallen angels exist? So the Pope needs to re-think his notions about the Four Last Things.
A great comment dear Deacon Ed, about an excellent review of a book of unparalleled importance for the saving faith of all Catholics today.
I’d want to take things a little further and say that all Christian congregations, including all Catholic congregations, are primarily subject to their utter devotion to Christ Jesus, our LORD. We all know of parishes where Christ is diminished and others where the congregation lives the truth:
“With Jesus Christ we have everything, without Him we have nothing!”
As a widely experienced & highly qualified scientist theologian I admit that theology, philosophy, science, & sociology have fallen far short of an ability to embrace – or rather be embraced – by King Jesus Christ.
Musicians have been far, far more successful; two contemporary examples –
Matt Redman & David Funk – Lamb Of God / Amen (Total Praise) [Live From The Mission]
THE IMAGE – Gather Worship, Matt Redman & kaestrings
Have you notice at Holy Mass how those who claim dual allegiance (e.g. to the Church and Freemasonry or other Indifferentisms) are incapable of joyously singing Christ’s praises. That’s why some good Catholics refer to them as “Freezemasons”.
An artful move, illuminating the pluralist fluidity of Pope Francis by critiquing a congruent work by Fr. Gerald O’Collins, another Jesuit.
And, about outreach to Muslims: it might be that as a religion, Islam errs in conflating an undifferentiated and incomplete intuition of our universal and inborn Natural Law together with the eclectic and broader Arabian narrative compiled into the package-deal Qur’an.
From the parallel hadiths, this residual focus:
“There is not a child that he or she is born upon this ‘fitrah,’ this original state of the knowledge of God [expropriated as “Islam”]. And his parents make him a Jew, a Christian, or a Zoroastrian . . . and if they are Muslims, Muslim.” How for the Church to affirm “fraternity” under universal and inborn Natural Law, but without diluting the Trinity and the distinct, historical, and divinely gifted event (!) of the Self-disclosing Incarnation, and of Redemption? The difference between religious “belief” as under, yes, monotheistic Islam, and other natural religions—contrasted with supernatural Christian “faith” in the particular(!) person of Jesus Christ, fully human and fully divine….
Some might even say that to fully surrender this clarity would be to resemble either a Muslim or a Freemason, or both.
Perhaps the Pope was thinking along this doctrine but did not explain it well.
The doctrine of invincible ignorance in Catholicism refers to the idea that individuals who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the truth of the Gospel or the teachings of the Church, may not be held morally culpable for that ignorance. This doctrine is rooted in Catholic moral theology and the Church’s understanding of God’s justice and mercy.
People are not held accountable for not responding to a message they never heard. That would be inexcusable and unjust. Ultimately, people are condemned because of who they are, not simply by what they do. Our sinful nature organically lives in open rebellion against God, and that is grounds for divine judgment.
Can we hold that there’s salvation outside the Church? The Church as correctly said in LG 16 and repeated by Migliorino quoting Echeverria in this article is yes. Fr O’Collins’ approach to salvation outside the Church is based on the hypothetical of possibility, adherence to natural law [itself insufficient] whereas the Catholic Church provides what’s realistically essential for men to attain salvation. Sacraments of which there are seven and are vital for spiritual reconciliation with God.
Natural law, since the Fall from grace is insufficient. Christ revealed to us by the examples in his own life that salvation requires acts of virtue motivated by grace that extend beyond our human nature. Indifference equalizes all religions. Christ’s revelation is unique and necessary. Only by faith in Christ can we perform acts of heroic charity. It’s possible, there are exceptions, although it’s less likely [it depends on the accent we place] that a person without access to the sacraments can be saved.
Regarding salvation it is likewise a virtue to hope for the best outcome, that is, to hope [and pray] that most persons, or that all might be saved. That was held by the Apostle, who said God would have all be saved, which doesn’t repudiate the loss of salvation and that many may be lost.
Apostle Matthew (who gave up his whole life to follow Jesus) knows what is meant when he reports Jesus’ teaching:
“Enter by the narrow gate, since the road that leads to perdition is wide & spacious, and many take it; but it is a narrow gate & a hard road that leads to life, & only a few find it.”
Renowned biblical exegete, Professor David L. Turner writes: “. . the contrast of the many & the few is sobering to say the least. It motivates disciples to strive first to enter the narrow gate themselves & then to help others to enter it by making disciples from all the nations of the earth (Matthew 9:37-38; 25:18-20).
The many church leaders who set aside these words of Christ, to themselves follow the wide & spacious road, are blind guids who, together with their adherents, will end up in the pit. God is no respector of personages or their positions.
Beloved Apostle John cites Jesus’ words: “My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, they follow Me. I give them eternal life, they will never perish. No one can snatch them from My hand.”
Anyone who lovingly follows Jesus Christ – The Living LORD of All – & who listens to His Voice & joyfully does their best to obey Him, will experience the narrow gate & the hard road, He spoke of. In this life they will be opposed, not only by the devil, the world, & the flesh, but by the wide-roaders who, sadly, inhabit every church.
Only with arms reaching out for Jesus’ help and eyes set on the rewards He has promised, could anyone persevere for a lifetime’s pilgrimage on the hard road.
Yet, the miracle is that many do. Praise GOD!!!
To clarify what I say at the end of my opening comment “although it’s less likely [it depends on the accent we place] that a person without access to the sacraments can be saved” in context means that it’s much more likely that we, et Al will be saved through the sacraments than without. Otherwise, we denigrate the immense power of Christ’s presence in the seven sacraments particularly his body and blood.
And in said context Christ’s words are telling, the gateway to salvation is narrow, many will try to enter but few will succeed. Christ established the sacraments for us to live a sacramental life precisely to facilitate our salvation.
The truth is that if ANY ONE HUMAN PERSON is saved (and we know not who is and who isn’t except the Blessed Virgin Mary) then that salvation can only come through the sacrificial merits of Jesus Christ. The only salvation is the one that comes by way of Jesus Christ – none other.
Here we go again. Note how all commenters so far have not specifically stated that the ongoing and unchangeable Church doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Church [Catholic] there is no salvation) admits of a few and ONLY a few exceptions: Baptism of Blood or a Baptism of Desire can substitute for Baptism of Water, and people must be Invincibly or Inculpably Ignorant of the necessity to be a member of our Lord’s One and Only True Church to have a chance at salvation outside this Church based on how they live their lives in conformity with natural law, and in sincerely seeking to know and serve God.
Moreover, praying and hoping for all to be saved while knowing that many will not be saved is not a useless or hypocritical practice as some illogically maintain. It coincides with God’s desire that all will be saved while knowing and teaching us that many will not be saved. God is not hypocritical or engaging in a useless desire in knowing that many will not be saved, and we mere humans, imitating our Lord, are not engaged in a useless and hypocritical practice of hoping for all to be saved while knowing simultaneously that many will not be saved.
There seems to be a category of non-Christian who will be saved, according to Mark 9:41 – “If anyone gives you a cup of water to drink just because you belong to Christ, then I tell you solemnly that they will not lose their reward.”
Those who support us because we are Christ’s will be rewaded. We also know that those who oppose us because of our faith in Christ [and they are legion] are on the road to an eternity in hell (see Mark 9:42).
In this way, genuinely Christian Catholics are loci of division: saving those who help us for Christ’s sake; damning those who oppose us because of our faith in Christ.
Each of us has a huge responsibility to faithfully & lovingly witness King Jesus Christ, since our witness is determining the eternal destiny of both those who favour us for Christ’s sake and those who obstruct us because of our witness to Him.
As beloved Apostle John reports in Revelation 12:17, the devil wages war against Our Blessed Mother Mary’s children: those of us who obey God’s commandments and bear witness for Jesus.
Contrariwise: an attitude of disregard for God’s commandments & indifferent diminishment of Jesus would number us among the devil’s warriors.
So what can we say about those in our Church who are maintaining such attitudes?
MJR: “There seems to be a category of non-Christian who will be saved, according to Mark 9:41 – ‘If anyone gives you a cup of water to drink just because you belong to Christ, then I tell you solemnly that they will not lose their reward.’”
Mark 9:41 does not provide a fast track or any other track to salvation for non-Christians if they give a true follower of Christ a cup of water because he or she follows Christ. Also, the context of the passage’s “anyone” pertains to fellow Christians and how they serve each other in community, according to sound Catholic exegesis. Also to be kept in mind based on our Lord’s commission and establishment of His One True Church, Christian and Catholic are understood as being one and the same.
Moreover, Church teaching is not changed or softened or given an exception due to a faulty interpretation and application of Mark 9:41 or any other passage that is interpreted as an exception or considered to be a legitimate addition to definitive Church teaching without any Church support for the bogus claim.
So once again, the unchanging dogma applicable to all and which is to be believed by all without hesitation or doubt is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, which admits of Only the following exceptions that can open the gate to salvation:
Baptism of Blood, or a Baptism of Desire as a possible substitute for Baptism of Water.
Invincible Ignorance of the necessity to be a member of our Lord’s One and Only True Church, and also living a life in conformity with natural law, and in sincerely seeking to know and serve God.
NB: There is no Church teaching that wrongly declares Mark 9:41 is also an exception to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and anyone who claims this, no matter how kind-hearted and sincere they may be, is promoting error in direct opposition to Church teaching, and the error should not be considered legitimate in any way.
Dear Tom, your reasoning appears feasible until we reflect on what you ignored:
“We also know that those who oppose us because of our faith in Christ [and they are legion] are on the road to an eternity in hell (see Mark 9:42).”
The balance between the blessed who help us because we witness to Christ Jesus and the cursed who obstruct us is made perfectly plain by Saint Mark (who was Apostle Peter, the First Pope’s amanuensis).
Your interpretation of Saint Mark’s words and of Catholic teachings is what we call isagesis (making it fit your preconception) rather than exegesis. A fatal flaw that can be observed in some of the teachings of the original Protestants.
In addition, as a loving fellow Catholic Christian, one would humbly exhort you to prayerfully abjure the fatal sin of judgementalism (please read Mathew 7:1 and then Luke 6:37).
King Jesus Christ alone decides who is qualified for an eternity of joy with The Holy Trinity, with our Most Blessed Mother Mary, with the holy angels, with all our great martyrs & saints, and with all those who love GOD.
Entrance isn’t by formulae, nor is it decided by any of us human beings.
Old Testament scholars will refer us to the many unbaptised, like Enoch, Abraham, Sarah, Elijah, Elisha, etc., etc. who we know to be in Heaven.
In addition, dear Tom, please open your eyes and observe the rapidly growing percentage who claim to be one with us in sacramental Catholicism, whose lives are set on spiritism, witchcraft, freemasonry, and even Satanist human sacrifice (documented to include some clergy). These flout GOD’s commandments, are despisers of Christ’s teachings, and their evil pleasure is in maliciously undermining every sincere Catholic who is true to Jesus.
GOD is LOVE but also TRUTH and JUSTICE. The New Testament makes it abundently clear that villains have no place in Heaven. Catholic villains no exception!
The Catholic Church is a perfect, Christ-ordained vehicle for transforming us humans and fitting us for Heaven. People ‘in’ the Church who ride in an anti-Christ vehicle will miss the destination.
Let’s always pray for them to repent and, at last to believe The Good News.
Thanks for defending and clearly providing Catholic teaching on salvation, Tom. As Fr. Morello also makes clear, the way to salvation is a narrow one and few will find it. Unfortunately, others like Dr. Rice do not like the ramifications of Jesus’ teaching about few finding the narrow road, and so they misinterpret Scripture and Catholic teaching and substitute their own sentimental wishful thinking instead of assenting to how the Church explains essential salvation requirements to really help people attain salvation.
Sorry, beloved LR Slono, you’ve set up a ‘straw man’ and attacked it.
Why not read my actual comments and then, by all means, provide your rational critique of them.
As of now, those several comments, humble though they be, stand unassailed.
Dear fellow Catholic, let’s avoid emotional & partisan diatribe and always be careful to address one another respectfully, relevantly, and rationally.
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from Marty
Thank you, Professor Slono. You’ve also hit the nail on the head in pointing out a major problem with too many Catholics not accepting definitive Church teaching on Salvation, and so they do not reach out to others outside the One True Faith because they believe such will be saved anyway despite definitive Church teaching to the contrary. Some misguided Catholics even ape Protestants in wrongly pitting Scripture against Church teaching, and this harms them as well as others who may be misled by their faulty interpretations.
The review of Echeverria’s book makes it appear quite similar to another book I have previously recommended on the very same topic, and written in 2021 entitled “Deadly Indifference…” by Eric Sammons. Sammons’ scholarly book also calls for a stronger evangelization toward others outside the Faith, because Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is Our Lord’s definitive teaching, and so if we truly love others outside the One True Faith, our outreach to them must be based on this reality. Any other approaches to salvation must be rejected as false and indeed quite harmful.
May the Good Lord Bless you in your efforts to bring more people home to Our Lord’s One and Only Church.
In response to Dr Tom Flanders: “Some misguided Catholics even ape Protestants in wrongly pitting Scripture against Church teaching, and this harms them as well as others who may be misled by their faulty interpretations.”
Sadly, more ‘straw men’ – that is setting up things to be critiqued, with no actual real examples. The factless slurs erected by the Flanders/Slono academy are designed to squash all true, fact-based, discussion in favour of their own stenotic view of our faith. This attitude has been & still is the worm that causes schism upon schism.
In truth, they are judging, without facts: “You are not a real Catholic; we are!”
Catholicism is a far grander faith than these beloved men have yet grasped.
For example: The Catechism of the Catholic Faith – every Catholic leader’s magisterial authority – has a free interplay between over 3,500 citations from The New Testament. It allows for The Word of God to dictate the words of The Church.
These critics might get to know The Word of God better as a way to avoid prejudiced accusations against other Catholics. And, as a Christlike way of giving praise to other Christians who genuinely honour GOD by announcing His Word to the world (as Pope St John Paul II showed us all).
It would be a comfort if Dr Flanders and Professor Slono were to assure us that their sweeping criticisms of Word-loving Catholics and other Christians are not products of their allegiance to freemasonry or some other anti-Christ cult.
Ever in the loving mercy of King Jesus Christ; blessings from Marty