Francis' Latest: Denies Dogma on Hell

[FatherCekada]

See paragraphs 13-14

http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2015/0...109542750/

The wicked are not punished eternally, but "annihilated" — the teaching of the Gnostics, the Seventh Day Adventists, and the Jehovah's Witnesses — a denial of a doctrine de fide divina et catholica definita.

[Melkite]

I'm sure you're aware most people here don't speak Italian?

[Qoheleth]

Its not a problem that it is in Italian...just use the translate function in windows  :)

[austenbosten]

:eyeroll:

We know the Holy Father says a lot of whoppers, but c'mon! this is Eugenio Scalfari....we all know how credible he is.

[agnes therese]

Scalfari has proven himself to be an unreliable source.  Why should anyone believe him on this one?

[Azygos]

Who is Eugenio Scalfari that I should believe him?

[FatherCekada]

:eyeroll:

We know the Holy Father says a lot of whoppers, but c'mon! this is Eugenio Scalfari....we all know how credible he is.

Credible enough for Francis to keep giving Scalfari interviews to communicate his ideas.

What Francis is up to is this: He uses non-standard channels or methods to communicate what his real messages are: a phone call to the divorced/remarried woman, a private tete-a-tete with a transsexual, a chat with religious order heads about Pelagian trads, private comments to a Brazilian bishop about changing celibacy, off-the-cuff blather about "rabbits," or in this case, an interview with an atheist journalist notorious for his aversion to quotation marks.

Those who are tuned to the Francis frequency certainly get his message, but using these channels and methods give him a disingenous and Nixonian "plausible deniability."

That way, he can snooker conservative types ("Yikes! Scalfari, for heaven's sake! What do you expect from an atheist?" "You don't believe a story about a phone call, do you?" "Liberal Brazilian bishop? Come on!") but still rally his revolutionary troops and lead them to FutureChurch.

[Azygos]

I just don't understand what you are trying to accomplish by posting this article. The truth on this subject cannot be substantiated as fact and even if this article were entirely true then it is still secondhand hearsay and is not worth anything.

What is a Catholic supposed to do with this information?
And should we really spread it as truth, even though it cannot be verified?

[FatherCekada]

I just don't understand what you are trying to accomplish by posting this article. The truth on this subject cannot be substantiated as fact and even if this article were entirely true then it is still secondhand hearsay and is not worth anything.

That is just the reaction Francis wants from conservatives when confronted with his obvious errors: Keep your heads in the sand, deny you can ever get to the truth of the matter, blame the media, say the translations are wrong, say it was a private conversation so it doesn't count, maintain that what Francis says is not really public when he proclaims it from the Vatican loggia, or dismiss it because it lacks a  bright, red "INFALLIBLE!" stamp.

Meanwhile, Francis' real target audience — the overwhelming majority of post-Vatican II Catholics whose faith has been entirely corrupted after fifty years and the godless secularists — ARE getting the message: Hell? Don't worry about it!

[Johnny Midnight]

Denying there is a hell and denying there is a Pope seem roughly equivalent to me.  :shrug: