Fr. Gliese SSPX's view of Pope Francis's teaching that all religions lead to God

[Michael Wilson]

I really did not expect Fr. Gleise, who is a teacher of apologetics and dogma at the SSPX seminary at Econe to come out with such a bland and almost non-committal assessment of Pope Francis' speech to the youths in Singapore   

https://fsspx.news/en/news/neo-pastoral-work-francis-47585

The Neo-Pastoral Work of Francis


Addressing himself to the youth of Singapore on September 13, 2024, the Holy Father clearly said that "All religions are paths to God." The following is a commentary by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, SSPX. He is a professor of apologetics, ecclesiology, and dogma at the Seminary of Saint Pius X in Écône. Fr. Gleize is the main contributor of Courrier de Rome. He participated in doctrinal discussions between Rome and the SSPX between 2009 and 2011.

1. During his recent journey to Indonesia, Pope Francis wanted to meet with young people at the Catholic Junior College of Singapore, on Friday, September 13, 2024. An interreligious meeting, in the sense that the young people in question, far from all being Catholic, belonged to different confessions, Catholic or not, Christian or not.
2. Encouraging these young people to "dialogue," the Holy Father clearly told them that all religions lead to God. "All religions are paths to God. I will use an analogy, they are like different languages that express the divine. But God is for everyone, and therefore, we are all God's children."[1]

3. The comparison is interesting. Indeed, Aristotle and St. Thomas tell us that language is the sign, the direct and immediate expression, not of extra-mental realities, but of ideas—that is to say, of intellectual concepts by means of which our mind makes present to itself, within its own depths, the reality that it knows.

And language is at the same time the means that nature has given to men so that they can communicate with each other, by exchanging their thoughts, through their adequate expression [2]. Comparing religion to a language is therefore comparing the path that leads to God to the path that leads to ideas, that lead to thought.

If religion is a language, God is an idea, and different religions are different ways of expressing the same idea. The Pope insists on this point: "'But my God is more important than yours!'. Is this true? There is only one God, and religions are like languages, paths to reach God. Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian."

4. The underlying presupposition of this speech of the Holy Father is precisely that different languages are only different expressions of one and the same idea. The different followers of different religions all have the same idea of the same God, and the only difference lies in how they express it.

5. But does the idea of God correspond to a reality, and is this the reality of only one true God? For example, does the idea of God, as Catholics and Jews express it in different ways, correspond to the eternal and objective reality of the Holy Trinity, the one God in Three consubstantial Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

Does the idea of Jesus Christ, as expressed by Catholics and Muslims in different ways, correspond to the historical and objective reality of Jesus of Nazareth, true Man, Son of the Virgin Mary and true God, eternal and consubstantial Son of the Father? Is there a reality, beyond our ideas? And if there is one, what is it?
Is it the reality of the extra-mental being—that is to say, of a being independent from our psychological and subjective reactions? Is it the same reality as that of our vital reactions, the reality of our religious feeling, of our need for the infinite, feeling, and need as they are lived and experienced? And would the idea of God be anything other than the awareness of this experience?

And can such an idea, with the language that expresses it, manage to give a sufficiently accurate account of this reality to which it refers? There are many decisive questions raised by this speech of Pope Francis, certainly richer in issues than it might seem at first glance.

6. For his part, Pope St. Pius X, in the Encyclical Pascendi, had given—quite clearly, moreover—several elements of response and discernment. According to the constant and duly established data of the Catechism, God is a personal Being, independent of thought, and He made Himself known, through His supernatural Revelation, as being One in the Trinity of His consubstantial Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

And as having united, in the Person of His Word, the individual human nature of Jesus of Nazareth, Son according to the flesh of the Virgin Mary. It seems difficult to see paths that lead to God in so many different religions, since these fundamental truths are denied as much by the religion of contemporary Judaism as by that of Islam, and more generally by "non-Christian" religions.

7. Unless we postulate that God is only an idea, referring at most to an existential experience or to a feeling, an experience and feeling that no religious expression could adequately express. Then, each believer can well feed the ambition to adhere, beyond the expressions of his religion, to the unknown truth that is never exhausted by any language.

In such a view, all the believers already share in the same faith, and all the beliefs in the world are only variations. Interreligious dialogue, such as Pope Francis encourages it, should hasten the dawn of the day when there will be a single religion for all humanity, after all contentious divisions have been abolished forever [3].
8. Should we then call for religious relativism or latitudinarianism? Not at all, because the error condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus is that of those who assert that "all religions are equal [4]." In asserting that "All religions are paths to God," Pope Francis does not say that they lead to Him "equally" or with the same value.

The teachings of Vatican II admit this salvific value, provided that it is understood in a differentiated way [5]. The Catholic religion would thus be the favored expression of the relationship between man and God—or of religious feeling that has become conscious. Would this allow us to speak of a "mitigated latitudinarianism"? Why not, as long as we do not exaggerate the scope of this possible "mitigation." It would likely be better to try to say "neo-latitudinarianism," but let us move on since de nominibus non est disputandum.

9. There was, let us not forget, a precedent. On Monday, February 4, 2019, Pope Francis cosigned, with the Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, a joint Document on Human Fraternity, for World Peace and Living Together. This text already asserted that "pluralism and the diversity of religions [...] are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings [6]." The pastoral work—neo-indifferentist—carried out with young people should logically flow from there.

[1] Address of His Holiness to the Interreligious Meeting with Young People at the "Catholic Junior College" (Singapore) on Friday, 13 September 2024
[2] Saint Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Perihermeneias of Aristotle, book I, lesson 2, no. 2.
[3] Cf. the article "Exhortation synodale et postconciliaire" ["Synodal and Postconciliar Exhortation"] in the November 2019 issue of Courrier de Rome.
[4] The condemned propositions 16 and 18 of the Syllabus state precisely this equality of the different religions, from the point of view of salvific value. Proposition 16: "Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation"; proposition 18: "Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church."
[5] Constitution Lumen gentium, nos. 15 and 16; Decree Unitatis redintegratio, no. 3; Declaration Nostra aetate, no. 2.
[6] See the article "François et le dogme (II)" ["Francis and Dogma (II)"] in the February 2019 issue of Courrier de Rome.

First Pope Francis doesn't say: ""All religions are paths to God", as Fr. Glieze affirms, but rather: "All religions are a path to arrive at God."
Both of which are false: there is only one "path to God" and that is Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church; all other religions are paths that lead one away from God and to Hell.
Fr. Gleize:

It seems difficult to see paths that lead to God in so many different religions, since these fundamental truths are denied as much by the religion of contemporary Judaism as by that of Islam, and more generally by "non-Christian" religions.

Not only "difficult" but impossible; why not just state this clearly, especially since this is an article for the faithful of the SSPX that hold to the Catholic teaching that there is only one true religion that leads to God?
But Fr. G. Goes further on (above0 and states further on this unbelievable gem:

In asserting that "All religions are paths to God," Pope Francis does not say that they lead to Him "equally" or with the same value.

Yes, Fr. All false religions lead to God according to Pope Francis, and further, they all lead "equally" to God i.e. Not in any way to Him, but to Hell. As it is a dogma of faith that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

[Michael Wilson]

Just two quotes from one of the Church Fathers on the view that "all religions lead to God (sic)"
St. Fulgence of Ruspe; From: "The Faith of the Early Church Fathers" William A. Jurgens, V.III

Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that no person baptized outside the Catholic Church can become a participant of eternal life if, before the end of this life, he has not returned and been incorporated in the Catholic Church

Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that not only all pagans but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics who end this present life outside the Catholic Church are about to go tinto the eternal fire that was prepared for the Devil and his angels.

[Lynne]

This was a beautiful response,

[clau clau]

"all religions are equal ...

but some are more equal than others.   

[KreKre]

Today one of the priests at the SSPX chapel I go to, said in the sermon: "Buddha will not lead you to Heaven, Mohammad will not lead you to Heaven... No man-made religion leads to Heaven." And then he quoted John 14:6, of course. He did not mention Francis by name, but to anyone who knows what Francis had said, it was clear that this was a correction.

It was an excellent sermon, very interesting, thought-provoking, and uplifting.

[Therese]

Michael,

There is a 2nd part to Fr. Glieze's remarks on the French SSPX website, that was published two days after the first. It doesn't appear to have been translated into English yet, but I assume it will be.

https://laportelatine.org/actualite/la-neo-pastorale-de-francois-ii

I read it through Google translate, and unless I am reading it incorrectly, he basically says it was heresy.

This is the link through Google translate: https://laportelatine-org.translate.goog/actualite/la-neo-pastorale-de-francois-ii?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

[KreKre]

Thank you for sharing that, Therese!

[Michael Wilson]

Yes, in the second part Fr. Gleize clearly states that what Pope Francis said was a heresy; I still don't understand the "why?" Of all of the mamby-pamby statements in the first part

[Michael Wilson]

Fr. Gleize:

Until now, in fact, the Society of Saint Pius X was criticized for denying the indefectibility of the Church, under the pretext that it considered the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium to be tainted by serious errors. This is in essence the argument developed and highlighted in recent months by the apologists of the Ecclesia Dei movement, encouraged by conservative prelates of the stature of Cardinal Burke, and to whom we will return: Mathieu Lavagna, for example on his YouTube channel [4] or Father Hilaire Vernier on the website of the Fraternity of Saint Peter [5] . How then can they position themselves with regard to these recent declarations by Pope Francis? If they affirm – like the Society of Saint Pius X – that they are seriously erroneous, would they not also deny the indefectibility of the Church? And if they affirm that they are not, how could they not affirm that the teachings of Innocent III, Boniface VIII, Clement VI, Eugene IV, Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XII are seriously erroneous? And from then on, would they not also deny, although in a different way, the indefectibility of the Church? Without doubt this should be a matter for serious reflection among theologians of the Ecclesia Dei movement.

Fr. Doesn't really respond to the charge that "If Vatican II taught error (as the SSPX rightly claims), then the Church has defected"; instead he turns the tables by directing the same argument back at the Ecclesia Dei apologists. But again, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and she cannot teach error or lead into sin or perdition, yet if Vatican II is a true Council and Francis is a true Pope, then the Church has indeed taught error and lead her faithful into sin and perdition.
Appealing to Msgr Lefebvre's "Declaration of 1974" doesn't clear anything up, as he claims in this declaration that the very men who speak for "Eternal Rome" also speak and represent "Neo Modernist Rome". Which means again that the Church can teach errors and heresies and lead her children into sin and perdition, except when the SSPX or anyone else tells us that it is not "Eternal Rome" speaking, just "Neo Modernist Rome".

[Bonaventure]

Today one of the priests at the SSPX chapel I go to, said in the sermon: "Buddha will not lead you to Heaven, Mohammad will not lead you to Heaven... No man-made religion leads to Heaven." And then he quoted John 14:6, of course. He did not mention Francis by name, but to anyone who knows what Francis had said, it was clear that this was a correction.

It was an excellent sermon, very interesting, thought-provoking, and uplifting.

I've noticed that many are not addressing what Bergoglio said directly.

Why?

If I caught my mother molesting a child, or there were a video of her saying child molestation is ok, I wouldn't just go on and say "child molestation is not ok"

Why are these people so afraid to name Bergoglio's apostasy?

[KreKre]

Why are these people so afraid to name Bergoglio's apostasy?

It is humility, but I think it is also form of "plausible deniability", a tactic I noticed SSPX often employs ("wise as serpents and simple as doves").

Rather than being confrontational (especially when there is little to gain from confrontation), they just teach the correct Catholic faith, which is an authority they undoubtedly have as priests. If they corrected the pope directly, their critics and the fence-sitters could dismiss them by saying that they've overstepped their authority: "look, they are disobedient to the pope" without specifying the inconvenient details of how and why. (Being disobedient to the pope is currently still considered a bad thing by most faithful outside sedevacantist groups, even though it seems Francis is trying his best to change that perception...) And they wouldn't be entirely incorrect in their criticism, because it is the duty of cardinals to call out the apostasy of the pope, not of a humble priest who takes care of 500 or so souls (however heroic he might be in doing this task).

But this way, if any authority of the conciliar church decides to blame this SSPX priest for saying "Mohammad will not lead you to heaven", he cannot do so without shining light on his own error and on the error of this pope.

Diocesan bishops are generally not stupid to actively try to suppress the SSPX. Sometimes they attempt it, but every time it backfires. This is why the conciliar church mostly ignores the SSPX, hoping they would just go away.

[Bonaventure]

I can see some merit in that tactic, but Bergoglio's beginning to spew this nearly every day.

At a certain point, gloves have to come off.

If most of us are keeping silent in the face of APOSTASY, it's no wonder pedophiles and faggots got away with their vile crimes for decades.

If priests and bishops can keep their mouths shut for plausible deniability in the face of literally denying Christ, they can do the same when they hear an altar boy screaming and crying in the sacristy.

[KreKre]

I can see some merit in that tactic, but Bergoglio's beginning to spew this nearly every day.

At a certain point, gloves have to come off.

If most of us are keeping silent in the face of APOSTASY, it's no wonder pedophiles and faggots got away with their vile crimes for decades.

If priests and bishops can keep their mouths shut for plausible deniability in the face of literally denying Christ, they can do the same when they hear an altar boy screaming and crying in the sacristy.

This all sounds good, but the only result of directly calling out the apostasy of the pope would be that the faithful in desperate need of a good shepherd be deprived of a heroic priest. This is not desirable.

On the other hand, this particular sermon did not come short, as the priest taught the correct doctrine without compromise, and to everyone who knew about what Francis had said, it was perfectly clear what it corrected. There was no obfuscation or covering up. And especially, there was no "popesplaining", which is trying to justify Francis' words and reconcile them with the deposit of faith which they clearly contradict. It was just: this is the true doctrine handed down to us by centuries of infallible teaching, this is what you must believe in order to be saved. Nothing more or less. And that is exactly what priests have a duty and authority to do.

It is up to cardinals and bishops to show courage and confront the errors at the highest level in the Church. As long as they are gutless and concerned only with the world, nothing will change. But when laity is well educated in the doctrine, when the faith is alive, then bishops can't get away with false teachings. A priest has to take care of his flock first and foremost, save souls, and preserve the deposit of faith through sacraments, great sermons, lectures, private advice, and confessions.

[Bonaventure]

This all sounds good, but the only result of directly calling out the apostasy of the pope would be that the faithful in desperate need of a good shepherd be deprived of a heroic priest. This is not desirable.

Why would they be deprived? He's SSPX. The entire SSPX should take a stand.

I spoke to my spiritual father about this for a few hours. We both agree that, had Archbishop Lefebvre seen such scandalous words and deeds from Bergoglio (recent apostasy comments, pachamama, etc.), the Archbishop would certainly have taken a sedevacantist stance.

"I call upon Francis to explain himself and repudiate these words in 72 hours. If not, it will be clear that he has fallen into heresy and apostasy and as such we owe him no obedience."

Archbishop Lefebvre had this to say about Assisi:

On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.

Bergoglio has turned the volume way up.

It was just: this is the true doctrine handed down to us by centuries of infallible teaching, this is what you must believe in order to be saved. Nothing more or less. And that is exactly what priests have a duty and authority to do.

Priests have a duty to call out hirelings and wolves attempting to devour the sheep, too.

Silence means consent.

It is up to cardinals and bishops to show courage and confront the errors at the highest level in the Church. As long as they are gutless and concerned only with the world, nothing will change.

Agreed. Which is why I've also asked where is Fellay, De Galarreta, Tissier, in condemning all this? Fr. Pagliarini?

Perhaps there has been some statement that I'm simply unaware of?

[KreKre]

Silence means consent.

Yes, but this priest certainly wasn't silent. He corrected the error and it was clear to everyone in the know whose error it was.

SSPX posted this sermon on YouTube, a few minutes ago - it explicitly mentions Francis: