Francis' Latest: Denies Dogma on Hell
#11
(03-22-2015, 08:53 PM)Johnny Midnight Wrote: Denying there is a hell and denying there is a Pope seem roughly equivalent to me.  :shrug:

But a pope who denies the former sure makes it a snap to affirm the latter.  :)
Reply
#12
Taken as a part of the whole, i can almost believe this. The progressive agend that his Holiness is pursuing, his abject disdain for anything traditional, his continual off the cuff interviews that are followed by a plethora of corrections from the Vatican, and the obvious fact that he is 100% Vatican II formed, and it all starts to fit. Even one of His biggest supporters, Father Barron, intimated that hell is empty.  I agree with Fr. Cekada that these topics are feeding am agenda that most Concilliar  Catholics will embrace. The ability to discern is contingent on having the knowledge of the Faith. Many Catholics do not posses that knowledge.
This article from Vox Cantoeis is another perfect example of the Concilliar Church run amuck :
http://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2015/03/bis...ws_22.html
Reply
#13
(03-22-2015, 02:49 PM)FatherCekada Wrote:
(03-22-2015, 01:19 PM)austenbosten Wrote: :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.

Nice try Cekada,

First, we don't know for sure (or at least I do not) if this is in any way true. Last time there was supposedly some meeting with Pope Francis and Scalfari, but there were no notes or recordings at all on the supposed meeting, so getting all hot and bothered over an interview that who knows if it ever took place, strikes me as being a bit of an ass and a fool. So many Catholics flipped out of the "Atheists in Heaven" comment that was never said...sorry but I left the overtly emotional Protestantism with all its feelings and half-facts, for a more calm, rational Catholicism that gathers evidence before calling it truth.

However, lets just assume that the Holy Father did say these things and believed in that heresy. He said them in jest and thus his heretical views are his own and he is answerable to his own views and honestly...it does not change a thing. Pope Francis is being the same pope as he's always been.


I am just saying, there's no need buy into every slander against Pope Francis, especially if it is coming from a very disreputable source such as Eugenio Scalfari
Reply
#14
It seems inconceivable to me that if a person so important and influential as Pope Francis were being so seriously misquoted and misrepresented, he would do nothing about it and allow these scandalous claims to be constantly made about him.
Reply
#15
I don't want to believe this but consider: if this news were only Scalfari's imagination, we would probably have Francis saying that 'I am sure that before death everyone gets a chance to repent and we all end up in Heaven'. It's more popular a view that annihilationism. With some effort I can imagine that - if annihilationism was the orthodox view - we would have modernists screaming: 'BUT HOW COULD A LOVING GOD DESTROY A SOUL????????????'
So this rather uncommon view apparently held by Francis would suggest that it is really his opinion. But we'll probably never now.
Reply
#16
(03-22-2015, 09:31 PM)Pulvis Wrote: Taken as a part of the whole, i can almost believe this. The progressive agenda that his Holiness is pursuing, his abject disdain for anything traditional, his continual off the cuff interviews that are followed by a plethora of corrections from the Vatican, and the obvious fact that he is 100% Vatican II formed, and it all starts to fit. Even one of His biggest supporters, Father Barron, intimated that hell is empty.

This method of coyly denying a dogma or a moral teaching, and then disingenuously "reaffirming" it or "clarifying misinterpretations" is straight out of the Sixties Modernist Playbook. Those of us who lived through that era saw the bad guys use it over and over.

But more than that, it is a trick of the modernists that St. Pius X exposed in Pascendi: They sound like Catholics on one page, and rationalists or atheists on the next.

(03-22-2015, 09:31 PM)Pulvis Wrote: I agree with Fr. Cekada that these topics are feeding am agenda that most Concilliar  Catholics will embrace. The ability to discern is contingent on having the knowledge of the Faith. Many Catholics do not posses that knowledge.

Correct. After fifties years of Vatican II, the vast majority of Catholics are clueless about doctrine and the requirement to adhere to it for salvation. They simply don't know it and are not particularly interested in it. Catholicism is just a content-free "brand" they identify with because it "does something for me."

This is why Francis is so popular. He provides the experience of group identity and makes you feel good, without the inconvenience of having to know the truths of revelation or their consequences.
Reply
#17
Dear FatherCekada,
As a Catholic who accepts all of the sacred dogmas of the Church, what should one do with this all of this information and this article by the Atheist author which cannot be substantiated as fact?

And, I believe that you are absolutely right that many Catholics are clueless about the need to adhere to the true doctrine unto salvation, however I believe that this is do to a lack of concern for their own souls as well as bad leadership. I tell my wife all the time that she needs to learn her religion and I remind her that it is necessary for her salvation. I talk about Catholicism 90% of the time and I have several Catechisms, Bibles, Books on Doctrine, Book by Doctors and Saints of the Church, as well as other prominent modern authors. Yet, she is still reluctant to learn her doctrine and would rather be on facebook or doing some other activity rather than learning the faith.

At some point people have to start taking responsibility for themselves. I'm convinced that if people want to know God and the true doctrine then they can know it even amidst this crisis, although it helps to have good leadership. God's Grace is sufficient to make men and women Holy even in the worst circumstances in the Church; it is there for those who want it.
Reply
#18
(03-23-2015, 12:43 PM)Azygos Wrote: ... I believe that you are absolutely right that many Catholics are clueless about the need to adhere to the true doctrine unto salvation, however I believe that this is do to a lack of concern for their own souls as well as bad leadership. I tell my wife all the time that she needs to learn her religion and I remind her that it is necessary for her salvation. I talk about Catholicism 90% of the time and I have several Catechisms, Bibles, Books on Doctrine, Book by Doctors and Saints of the Church, as well as other prominent modern authors. Yet, she is still reluctant to learn her doctrine and would rather be on facebook or doing some other activity rather than learning the faith.

At some point people have to start taking responsibility for themselves. I'm convinced that if people want to know God and the true doctrine then they can know it even amidst this crisis, although it helps to have good leadership. God's Grace is sufficient to make men and women Holy even in the worst circumstances in the Church; it is there for those who want it.

Some very perceptive comments.

The reason why the vast majority of Catholics no longer consider doctrinal questions to be important or worthy of interest is, ultimately, fifty years of Vatican II. If you're raised in an atmosphere where the hierarchy, clergy and popular Catholic press leave you with the impression that all religions are means of salvation, that God doesn't really care what you believe, that your own conscience is your supreme guide, that doctrine "evolves," that "we all worship the same God," and that our only moral obligation is be "nice" people, then worrying about what the Church teaches and adhering to it is pointless.

Francis himself has encouraged this attitude repeatedly in his St. Marta homilies. He paints doctrinal questions as abstract quibbling which distracts one from "encountering Jesus" (whatever THAT modernist buzzword means...) and "mercy" (which involves ignoring the amendment of life as a condition for absolution).

As regards this specific question:

(03-23-2015, 12:43 PM)Azygos Wrote: As a Catholic who accepts all of the sacred dogmas of the Church, what should one do with this all of this information and this article by the Atheist author which cannot be substantiated as fact?

The statements Scalfari attributes to Francis fit perfectly into the theological context that I've described above,

If doctrine doesn't matter and your conscience is your only guide, there's no NEED for hell. The worst that can happen if you're "really" bad -- you oppose illegal immigration, pharisaically refuse the eucharist to adulterers, or now, waste water --  is that you get zapped and annihilated, so there's no punishment to worry about.

So I see no reason to doubt Scalfari's accuracy on this point.
Reply
#19
"FatherCekada" Wrote:If doctrine doesn't matter and your conscience is your only guide, there's no NEED for hell. The worst that can happen if you're "really" bad -- you oppose illegal immigration, pharisaically refuse the eucharist to adulterers, or now, waste water --  is that you get zapped and annihilated, so there's no punishment to worry about.
But why would Francis not represent the much more prevailing liberal view on Hell, viz., that it exists 'but only as a possibility', which 'no one will choose', as 'God gives everyone last moment conversion possibility'?  Where would Francis get the annihiliationist - which nowadays is popular only among JWs and SADs - idea from? Do they really teach it in the seminary he graduated from?

Also, if God forbid the news will be confirmed to be true, it is better to say that 'Francis denies immortality of human souls' than 'Francis denies Hell'. Due to the very simple reason that, well, people like to think that there's no Hell, but they won't accept so easily that the pope said human soul is mortal.
Reply
#20
(03-23-2015, 06:00 PM)PolishTrad Wrote:
"FatherCekada" Wrote:If doctrine doesn't matter and your conscience is your only guide, there's no NEED for hell. The worst that can happen if you're "really" bad -- you oppose illegal immigration, pharisaically refuse the eucharist to adulterers, or now, waste water --  is that you get zapped and annihilated, so there's no punishment to worry about.
But why would Francis not represent the much more prevailing liberal view on Hell, viz., that it exists 'but only as a possibility', which 'no one will choose', as 'God gives everyone last moment conversion possibility'?  Where would Francis get the annihiliationist - which nowadays is popular only among JWs and SADs - idea from? Do they really teach it in the seminary he graduated from?

Also, if God forbid the news will be confirmed to be true, it is better to say that 'Francis denies immortality of human souls' than 'Francis denies Hell'. Due to the very simple reason that, well, people like to think that there's no Hell, but they won't accept so easily that the pope said human soul is mortal.

Father X, a very conservative priest who lived in Rome for awhile passed the link along to me, and added this explanation.

"This annihilation of the wicked has been a popular thesis among liberal Jesuits in recent decades. And, yes, it is heretical – directly contrary to many Gospel passages (e.g., Mt. 25: 46) and the constant teaching of the Church's magisterium. Scalfari says this response of Francis to his question was 'netta e chiara' -- 'clear and distinct.'

"So if it's not quickly denied by the Vatican I think we can take it as probably authentic – although Scalfari has not always been exact in past reports of interviews with Pope Francis. (Denial of Hell and annihilation of the wicked is also the Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine!)"

According to dogmatic theology, the precise theological proposition concerning hell that annihiliationism denies is "The punishment of hell is eternal."

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)