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

True. I didn't claim that he did.

No, I haven't invented it. Scalfari seems to have his own agenda. He has printed what he wants to believe in the past and he has done so this time as well.

I couldn't agree more.

Well the scandal, as I see it, is faithful Catholics constantly wanting to believe it and repeat it as fact.

That's your opinion, and I gather the opinion of many Catholics. However, it's not our job to decide whether Apostolic Succession is successful or not. Most Catholics just try and live by the Church's teaching and, on the matter of hell, nothing has changed.

Personally I try not read too much into what this Pope did or didn't say. It's a waste of time. Nobody ever put Benedict XVI or JP2 under this much scrutiny. But Catholics are falling over themselves to prove how terrible this Pope is. I find it really really interesting.

 

View attachment 7694

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/in...8-zeno-s-papacy-and-the-sherlock-holmes-axiom

Excerpt:

As Antonio Socci observed, the methodology here, that appears to be Francis’ favourite game, is two-tracked: first, to issue “vague and theologically ambiguous” messages intended to be heard by the Catholic world, meticulously avoiding “explicit statements” while “little by little demolishing” Catholic doctrine; and second, to send signals to the secular world, the non-Catholic readers of the extreme-left La Repubblica, that the pope’s real position is one of fashionable, radical doubt on central issues of Catholic teaching. Socci asserts that this radical doubt is the substance of Francis’ “true ideas” and these messages are being issued in this way “in order to build up his ‘revolution’ and to have popularity among non-Catholics and the media.”

In other words, he’s hiding behind Eugenio Scalfari specifically because of Scalfari’s lack of credibility; because Scalfari is a life-long bitter anti-Catholic crusader; because he’s in his 90s; because he admitted he doesn’t take notes or make recordings. This is the cover that Francis is using to get his message out for those with ears to hear, all while remaining with his toes barely on this side of the “formal heresy” line, the line that he knows we are all waiting for him to cross.

Given the regularity with which the Catholic world has had to endure this monotonous exercise in two-step subversion since the first days of this pontificate, it is difficult to argue against Socci’s thesis without ignoring much of what we can observe with our own eyes. From what his former victims in Argentina have reported, this is the patented game, the Bergoglian Tango, that he has used from the earliest days of his ecclesiastical career. Jorge Bergoglio was and remains known mainly for his skill at manipulation and his eagerness to cause division, strife and chaos in order to consolidate his own power. A classic Peronist.

...

They want us to not remember that Bergoglio has said exactly this and other scandalous things to Scalfari, and not once but several times. They want us not to think about the fact that in every case, he has never once issued a clear, unequivocal statement that Scalfari’s claim was not true. They want us to ignore the fact that something very similar to this was inserted into the text of Amoris Laetitia – again with just enough of an ambiguous twist to provide a diaphanous veil of increasingly implausible deniability: “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.”

With each rotten bloom of scandal, we are expected to look only at this instance, and ignore the full context of all that we have learned in the last five years[1]. We are supposed to forget that Bergoglio’s longstanding habits have been reported by the Argentinians he worked with in the past and these reports are completely congruent with what we are seeing today. And we have ourselves heard and read the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of times he has “accidentally” misquoted Scripture, endorsed homosexual activists, gender ideologues and abortionists, insulted faithful Catholics, lay and clerical; said that atheists can be redeemed through good works, said that Christ and His Blessed Mother were guilty of sins…

After five years of this constant stream of scandal, error, heresy, blasphemy and outright blatant lies, are we now really expected to believe that Francis didn’t tell Eugenio Scalfari what Scalfari said he did? It’s true that we don’t have a recording of the conversation, and yes, it’s true that Scalfari is an elderly communist and hater of the Church. But these are the only bits of negative space left in the drawing, and all that surrounds them pretty clearly tells us exactly what we’re looking at.​

 

Hi Everyone,
I just came across this article in the National Catholic Register. It is very refreshing, yes-reassuring!
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...c-trying-to-solve-left-right-dichotomy-in-the

 

A mystic? And I’m the Tooth Fairy.

 

I'm sorry but this is a load of hooey.
The subtitle says it all:

"Massimo Borghesi draws on Pope Francis’ intellectual formation to conclude that he is trying to resolve tensions between polar opposites."

To resolve tensions between polar opposites one must talk with both them. How long has Cardinal Burke been trying to talk with the Pope now?
Coming up on two years. He will not even be heard.

Mystic? I don't think so.

 

His third way is to get rid of anyone to the right of center. Simple. No truth necessary for PF.