Hi Ahanu, as ever it's all context.
But in response to point VII:
"God not only permits, but positively wills, the pluralism and diversity of religions, both Christian and non-Christian."
"Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)
So every authentic 'way' has Christ as its source ... that's how we'd read it. That would incite other traditions, of course.
"This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4.11-12)
Tougher, but still the same principle as the above.
"For although there be that are called gods, either in heaven or on earth (for there be
gods many, and lords many). Yet
to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8.5-6)
That 'to us' emphasised by me is actually a let-out clause, and again, this does not exclude God appearing in and through Christ at other times in other places.
The Incarnation I would hold is unique and particular. One might argue that the divine principle was incarnate in the Buddha, but Buddhist teaches make nothing of the principle of holistic union that is put forward in a very positive sense in Christianity, and in many populist interpretations actually refutes it.
Buddhism could be said to be a
via negativa in that sense.
But, back to the plot, I see nothing that cannot be reasoned away, and really I think this is a call for Francis to clear up these issues which he tends to leave hanging around.
