All Who Do Good are Redeemed -- Pope Francis

[MattyG]

So he can say "I think you're redeemed by Jesus as long as you do good, whether you believe in Jesus or not" and I can reply "Thanks, Francis! I think Brighid is cool with you whether you believe in Her or not, so we're on the same page as far as that goes. You won't burn me at the stake, I won't throw you to any lions, and we'll both go on happily thinking the other guy is not quite as right as we are. Have a nice day!"

 
This! This completely! If I got upset with everyone who had a fundamental disagreement with me on the nature of divinity and spirituality, I'd spend my life miserable.

I don't mind that many Hindi individuals believe that enlightenment can only be achieved by realizing that we're all a part of the god Brahma. I disagree with that on multiple levels. I don't mind that many atheists believe that my gods are fictitious and that there's nothing after death. I don't mind if Buddhists believe that life is suffering and enlightenment is only found through the eightfold path, even though I disagree with that. I don't mind religions that don't believe in reincarnation, even though I do. So what if the Pope believes that his god is all loving and will save us from a corrupting force that I don't believe in. I have just as little agency in any of those other beliefs. I don't get to decide if I'm part of Brahma, I don't get to avoid the nothingness of death, I don't get to achieve enlightenment without following the eightfold path, and I don't get to be reincarnated if Hades, Helheim, or Duat is all that awaits us. So long as he doesn't act against me, I have no reason to be upset.

[SunflowerP]

While a very good case can be made for universalism, like you, I suspect the main points Francis was trying to make that good works are required (faith alone is not enough -- as you point out that claim is actually considered heresy) and that Catholics should not be afraid to join with non-Catholics to do those good works.

 
I have been trying ever since this thread went up (in fact, before that; ever since I heard of the Pope's speech about this) to put a finger on, and then put words to, my sense of 'I don't think he was actually being that universalist' (if only because someone who was that explicitly universalist in his doctrines would be unlikely to even be considered as a candidate for the papacy, much less be elected to it). You and Darkhawk have expressed what I couldn't - thank you.

Sunflower

[Materialist]

So long as he doesn't act against me, I have no reason to be upset.

This is my opinion on the debate over the pope's homily. Even if it was just wishful reading into the lines by pluralistic sorts, so long as he's keeping his Catholicism in his own space, I don't care.

[EclecticWheel]

This! This completely! If I got upset with everyone who had a fundamental disagreement with me on the nature of divinity and spirituality, I'd spend my life miserable.

I don't mind that many Hindi individuals believe that enlightenment can only be achieved by realizing that we're all a part of the god Brahma. I disagree with that on multiple levels. I don't mind that many atheists believe that my gods are fictitious and that there's nothing after death. I don't mind if Buddhists believe that life is suffering and enlightenment is only found through the eightfold path, even though I disagree with that. I don't mind religions that don't believe in reincarnation, even though I do. So what if the Pope believes that his god is all loving and will save us from a corrupting force that I don't believe in. I have just as little agency in any of those other beliefs. I don't get to decide if I'm part of Brahma, I don't get to avoid the nothingness of death, I don't get to achieve enlightenment without following the eightfold path, and I don't get to be reincarnated if Hades, Helheim, or Duat is all that awaits us. So long as he doesn't act against me, I have no reason to be upset.

 
This is pretty much how I feel about it.  People of different paths have different ideas of what the goal is.  Some people employ chaos magic to in some sense become a god.  Some believe in enlightenment, others salvation.  Some paths just focus on being a good person and doing good works.  Some paths focus on balance and unity with nature.  Christians differ in their emphasis, too.  I tend to focus on divinization (theosis in Eastern Christianity).  That is my lens for looking at my spiritual landscape, but I respect that people of other religions have a different goal, a different belief about that.

My own presiding bishop, Most Reverend Katherine Schori has made similar statements as the Pope and the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. That is not to say that Muslims, or Sikhs, or Jains, come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through human experience-through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus.

(That quote can be googled, but a warning: most of the sites are totally dogging it.

In Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, the idea that all will eventually be saved is not a heresy, though both religions believe this is not a matter of certainty.  Both believe that the norm of salvation is by being visibly united to their expression of the church.

I could be offended.  Sometimes I am to a degree.  It just seems like hubris to me.  On the other hand, many Buddhists believe that all beings will ultimately be enlightened, and they have their own definition of how that works.  I am not a Buddhist, I don't look at my spiritual progress through the lens of enlightenment, but it doesn't bother me if a Buddhist thinks I will one day be reincarnated and enlightened.  Nor does it bother me if the Pope or the presiding bishop of my church looks at the issue through the lens of Jesus.

We are all entitled to our views.  I am more offended when the Catholic Church tries to reek hell on gays or whatever group they are focusing on in the culture wars.