Pope Regarding Hell: “Let not your heart be troubled.”

As an example, in my understanding, it is not sinful to say "Pope Francis has not been clear enough in answering the latest charge by Scalfari that he said heretical things."

I think it would be sinful to say "Pope Francis has not been clear enough in answering the latest charge by Scalfari because he wants to destroy the Church."

The first statement is a fact and the second one tries to guess the inner disposition of the person.

 

I miss Pope Benedict by the day.

 

Find me a quote where Pope Francis says Scalfari was wrong!!

The Vatican response is exactly below ---

The Vatican said "no quotations" in the article "should be considered as a faithful transcription" of the Pope's words.

But note the Vatican does not deny the substance of what Scalfari wrote!!

 

Agreed. It's actually really simple. And my concern is that lots (not necessarily on this MOG site) of Catholics, for some reason, on social media are jumping on Pope Francis in the first week of Easter to declare him a heretic, when in actual fact, the man did not deny the existence of hell and EVEN IF HE DID, WE KNOW HE CAN'T BECAUSE: MAGISTERIUM/JESUS/APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

I am so weary of explaining to people that Catholics have not done a U-turn on the need for Salvation. And the worst thing about it is, the damage has been done not by atheists, but by Catholics themselves. Good Catholics constantly tweeting stuff like "Oh well, now that hell no longer exists... etc" just to get likes and re-tweets. Beyond my understanding.

 

Well Vatican Public Relations doesn't quite conform to your model, Garabandal, unfortunately. From my experience, it is unusual for every CEO, Manager, The Pope, to refute every wrong comment that is attributed to them. My experience is that by responding directly to every falsehood that someone accuses you of, only gives credence to that falsehood., so I would say you are approaching this from the wrong angle. What YOU want is for Pope Francis to come out onto the balcony of St Peters at Angelus tomorrow and declare that hell exists. Wouldn't we all, and please may it happen. It isn't going to happen. He has refuted Scalfari's twisted comments via his massive press operation.

St Paul made it clear that we should not tangle with those who wish to tie us up in Philosophical knots. Speak the truth and let your yes be yes, etc.

I am not surprised that Pope Francis has not affirmed Catholic ( nay, Christian) belief in hell. It doesn't need affirming because it is a basic reality.

What is much more interesting and even frightening, is the numbers of Catholics who actually want to believe there is no hell and, who seem to be falling over themselves to tweet and facebook this lie. That's what's interesting to me.

 

No, I simply want Pope Francis to state that Scalfari misinterpreted his words & give clarification. And to stop the interviews with Scalfari.

Please do not reply to this post.

 

I couldn't agree more. He needs to stop giving those interviews to Scalfari.

 

Oh no. I have just seen this. I apologise... I didn't intend any offence.

 

No worries!

 

a/ He has not said a word.
b/ We know that, but he is clever enough to use slippery, indirect methods to achieve his aims.
c/ This all could have been joyfully alleviated by a man who hardly ever shuts up saying a few words. However, as in the Dubia, when it comes to defending the doctrines that his words and actions, inadvertently or otherwise, bring into confusion, doubt and worse, he chooses to remain completely silent.

The Vatican statement that you quote is too weak to deserve the status of a denial. Nor was it helpful to read of Cardinal Nichols' proto-universalist speculation of an empty Hell. Presumption has never been recommended.

 

So, what in your view, explicitly are the aims of Pope Francis ? you haven't made that clear. I would be very interested to know what you think these might be.

Jesus got a bad press from remaining largely silent during his inquisition from the High Priest, Herod and Pilate. Silence seems to be the retreat of the innocent.

 

Or as cunning as the diplomat Machiavelli.

 

I'm sorry, Bella, but I don't see things that way. Scalfari didn't "accuse" the pope of anything. He simply reported what the pope said to him in their conversation. The "denial" put out by the Vatican only said that the pope didn't say the words exactly as quoted. Period. That is not a denial. A denial is saying that the substance -- the meaning -- of the quotations is incorrect. Like, I can say, "I reject the dogma of hell" and somebody could quote me as saying, "David has said that he does not believe in hell." Well, I can say the same thing the Vatican said and say it in all truth: "I did not say the words I was quoted as having said." It's true, I didn't. You see? The Vatican's statement also did not say that Scalfari's quotations of Francis were "twisted" -- only, again, that that the pope didn't say the words exactly as quoted. You have made that up out of thin air, I'm afraid, as also when you said that Scalfari "wish[ed] to tie [Francis] up in Philosophical knots." There is no evidence of that whatsoever. You have invented it. You then say, "Speak the truth and let your yes be yes, etc." That's what we want Pope Francis to do. That is his job.

The matter in question is of utmost importance. The pope has been quoted as saying that he believes there is no hell and that souls are annihilated. What could be of more import than that? Whether he said it or not, or in the precise way he is quoted as having said it (which is the only thing that the Vatican denies) does not matter. I repeat, he has been directly quoted as saying that he believes there is no hell and that souls are annihilated. Because of this fact, many people will believe that the pope did in fact say those words and since the pope said them, then it is permissible to believe that there is no hell and that unrepentant sinners are simply annihilated. It doesn't matter whether he actually said it or not or in that precise way or even if the pope were to give a homily tomorrow and say for all the world to hear, "I, Pope Francis do not believe in hell." The last case does not matter (in a certain sense) because that would be a statement of the pope's personal opinion. No one, not even the pope, has any power to change a De Fide doctrine of the Church, i.e. a Dogma. The pope can not change a dogma of the faith in a book, interview, homily, letter, or even in magisterial documents. If he intended to do so by an ex cathedra definition, God would intervene and one way or another, would prevent him from doing so. But most Catholics do not understand these things. For most Catholics, if the Pope said something, it must be true. Do you see how this is the problem? They would then live their lives accordingly, falling into mortal sin and not particularly caring because "so what, if I don't make it to heaven, I won't suffer an eternity of torment in hell because I'll just be annihilated." Because of that they won't go to confession, and so on. The Fear of God which is the beginning of wisdom will be gone. IS THERE ANY GREATER SCANDAL THAN THIS? I'm using "scandal" in its more technical sense, not like Watergate was a scandal, but in the sense of a "stumbling block" (which is literally what the Greek means) that one person (or persons) puts in the path of another person (or persons) that cause them to sin. "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea." "Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation comes!" THIS is why the pope himself needs to say, "I, Pope Francis, believe and profess what the Catholic Church believes regarding these matters and which no Catholic is free to reject, namely, that hell exists, it is eternal, and unrepentant sinners suffer there for all eternity." This is what it means to "let your speech be yes, yes or no, no" (and anything beyond that is from the evil one). This is what it means to "confirm the brethren in the faith." This is why the office of the papacy exists. To make clear what the Church believes and professes. This is what popes have ALWAYS done throughout the centuries. Anything less than making clear what the Faith of the Church is by saying something like the above is the gravest dereliction of duty a pope can commit, in my opinion, because not doing so could lead to the loss of millions of souls. The pope has been quoted as saying that he denies two fundamental truths of the Faith and he must do something to remedy this situation. I don't know how to make it plainer than that.

Take yourself out of the present moment and pretend, if you will, that someone told you six years ago (or whenever before the pontificate of Francis) that a future pope will be directly quoted by a journalist as saying that he does not believe in hell and that he believes that souls that do not go to heaven are annihilated AND that this news is spread throughout the world, secular and Catholic, by the global media, which it has been. Everybody who's paying attention knows about it. First of all, you probably would never believe that would happen. Me neither. But the person insists on saying that this will happen. Do you for a moment think that this pope, if he did in fact not say or imply any such thing, would not feel duty-bound to say, "I never said any such thing. This journalist is either lying or he's a very confused nonagenarian who should probably retire from that profession" and would do this without fail? I don't. But this is what has just happened. Of course, Pope Francis may issue such a denial in the future but the fact that he didn't do it immediately and still hasn't after one week leads one to the conclusion that he did in fact say that he believes those things, even if not expressed with those exact words. Why else would he not issue a clear denial? And of course there's the issue of why he keeps granting interviews to this atheist reporter as well. It certainly seems like this is his chosen modus operandi for spreading these ideas of his, does it not? Why else would he do it? He's certainly not stupid.

Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit. He who is silent, when he ought to have spoken and was able to, is taken to agree.

Pope Francis is a terrible Pope. He's probably the worst in history, but future historians will need to make that call, and I am no Church historian. The only open question in my mind is: is he evil? Does he have malignant intentions or is he doing (mistaken though he is) what he thinks is best for the Church? IMO, everybody must assume the latter. There is only one person who knows the answer to this question for sure, plus maybe a few of his truly closest advisors/friends. We must assume, with him as with everybody else, that his intentions are good. We will probably never know the answer to that question, but it really doesn't matter one way or the other. Whether he has good or bad intentions, he is doing great harm to the Body of Christ, at least in my estimation. I'm more than sure that many, if not most, Cardinals, Bishops, priests, and laypeople, think Pope Francis is doing a great job. They see what he is doing and read what he is saying and think it's a great change for the Church, a "breath of fresh air". Pretty much all my family can be included in this group.

For anybody interested, I went through a file I have that lists all of the 254 infallibly declared dogmas of the Catholic Faith as given in Dr. Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma". Here are the two in question:

249. The souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell. (De fide)
250. The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity. (De fide)

As I was going through the list, I ran across this one, number 118:

God gives all the just sufficient grace (gratia proxime vel remote sufficiens) for the observation of the Divine Commandments. (De fide)

But that's neither here nor there at the moment.

con't...

 

I have seen the following quote many times of late and I'm sure others have as well but I believe it's worth repeating:

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."
-- Dogmatic Constitution of Vatican Council I "Pastor Aeternus", chapter 4, paragraph 6 (18 July 1870)

How I wish the Holy Father would read this statement of Vatican I during the course of his daily prayers when he first gets out of bed in the morning (and live by it).

Please pray the Rosary for Pope Francis and for Ireland. The grace of conversion is always there if he is willing to accept it. If that is true for a nobody like me (as it is for all of us), how much more so than for Christ's Vicar on earth? St. Paul, pray for us.

 

Gotta get to bed. Good night and God bless everyone.

 

Wow, wow, wow...thank you dcana for this well thought out and perfect answer.
May the grace of God's goodness and mercy be upon us all, as we muddle through the chaos that surrounds us.
Many rosaries for both Pope Francis as well as Ireland.

 

Don't forget other evidence that tells us PF actually believes these things:
(Excerpts from an article on onepewerfive):
1) Scalfari has, however, given us other examples on this topic in the past. For example, in October of 2017, Scalfari told us that the pope, along with his hand-picked pervert at the head of both the Pontifical Academy for Life and the John Paul II institute, Archbishop Vincenzo Pagalia, believes that that “the souls dominated by evil and not repentant cease to exist while those who are redeemed from evil will be assumed into beatitude, contemplating God.”

Earlier that same year, Scalfari told us that the pope had said, “In a millennium or so our human species will be extinguished and souls will merge with God.”

And in 2015, the dynamic duo were said to have discussed Francis’ bizarre eschatology with similar results:

“What happens to that lost soul? Will it be punished? And how? The response of Francis is distinct and clear: there is no punishment, but the annihilation of that soul. All the others will participate in the beatitude of living in the presence of the Father. The souls that are annihilated will not take part in that banquet; with the death of the body their journey is finished.”

2) Amoris Laetitia 297, which reads, “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!”

3) And as Vatican journalist Edward Pentin has brought to light, Francis is also on record preaching last year that “everything will be saved — everything” and that at the end of history there will be an “immense tent, where God will welcome all mankind so as to dwell with them definitively.” He also said judgment was not to be feared because “at the end of our history there is the merciful Jesus.”

read the full article:https://onepeterfive.com/did-franci...ican-plays-another-shell-game-with-the-truth/

 

3) And as Vatican journalist Edward Pentin has brought to light, Francis is also on record preaching last year that “everything will be saved — everything” and that at the end of history there will be an “immense tent, where God will welcome all mankind so as to dwell with them definitively.” He also said judgment was not to be feared because “at the end of our history there is the merciful Jesus.”

No wheat and tares? This is precisely the core teaching of occultists. You can look it up, don't take my word for it. Men who put forth "do what thou wilt" and "the law of one", those who practice sodomy as well as masons adhere to this teaching. They use many forms of deceit. But please be forewarned, if you do spend the time to study the teachings of these vipers be prepared to endure attack. They are insidious and incredibly cunning in their efforts to make subjective, make relative, and obscure the Truth.

Read 2 Thessalonians 2.

 

John Allen has written a piece in Crux about the reaction to Scalfari's report on the non-interview. For charity's sake, I won't share my opinion of John Allen. He says that Scalfari's newspaper sacked a columnist who wrote a piece asking why the paper continues to “doesn’t put a stop to the fake news of Scalfari and even pretends not to notice it, when the whole world talks about it and is scandalized by it?” The sacked columnist also gave his opinion that newspapers don't care about truth because what matters is whether it will get people talking. The newspaper's editor defended the sacking on the grounds that he had offended his colleagues because, while he had the freedom of discussion, he didn't have the freedom to insult or deride the community in which he worked.

Allen quoted a couple of other reactions from people agreeing that it was fake news and that people should know better than to believe Scalfari. The following extract from Allen's piece caught my attention and I hope I'm not committing an offence against charity by saying that as a Catholic I find it disturbing:

Meanwhile, another well-known Italian columnist, Father Mauro Leonardi, on Tuesday took to the pages of Avvenire, the official newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference, to respond to critics who’ve suggested that Francis should stop meeting with Scalfari, knowing that his words are likely to be distorted and sensational, and misleading headlines will result.​

Leonardi wrote that what those critics fail to appreciate is that Francis and Scalfari are friends - in fact, he writes, Scalfari is “in love” with the pontiff.

“Talking about the conversations between Scalfari and the pope, we should focus most that the pope, through Scalfari, the pope speaks to us, and he does it like the Holy Spirit: The pope speaks, and his friend, Scalfari, understands him ‘in his own tongue,’ with his own codes,” Lenoardi wrote.

“For the pope, that’s fine, and he won’t correct him,” he said. “When the pope is with Scalfari, he’s Jorge Mario, not Francis,” Leonardi said, using the pope’s given name.

“If Eugenio believes that Jorge Mario thinks, like him, that Hell doesn’t exist, it’s fine with Jorge Mario, he won’t correct him,” Leonardo said. “Being friends isn’t about proselytism but finding common ground, without fearing the contamination and distortions that come with every friendship.”

Leonardi then turned to the pope’s critics.

“This is the real reason for the scandal among some ‘catholically correct’ personalities,” he wrote.

“The friendship between Scalfari and the pope upsets people and draws criticism because it’s not on anybody’s side,” Leonardi said. “It’s neither secular nor Catholic, it’s friendship, period, and friendship can’t be caged for any institutional agenda or personal advantage.”
​

Maybe it's a fault in me, but I'm flabbergasted to read the above comments, especially the bolded part, from a priest and published in the official news outlet of the Italian Bishops' Conference. He's talking about the Vicar of Christ!!!!

 

It is the diabolical disorientation that Sister Lucy said would overtake the clergy.

"People must recite the Rosary every day. Our Lady repeated this in all Her apparitions, as if to arm us in advance against these times of diabolical disorientation, so that we would not let ourselves be fooled by false doctrines, and that through prayers, the elevation of our soul to God would not be diminished."
-Sister Lucy, Dec. 4, 1970

"... It is because the devil has been able to infiltrate evil under the guise of good, and they act as the blind leading the blind, as Our Lord tells us in His Gospel; and souls go on allowing themselves to be deceived."
-Sister Lucy, Sept. 16, 1970

http://fatima.org/crusader/aworldview/worldview9.asp