Posted on 03/29/2018 7:40:27 AM PDT by NRx
[Scalfari:] Your Holiness, in our previous meeting you told me that our species will disappear in a certain moment and that God, still out of his creative force, will create new species. You have never spoken to me about the souls who died in sin and will go to hell to suffer it for eternity. You have however spoken to me of good souls, admitted to the contemplation of God. But what about bad souls? Where are they punished?
[Francis:] "They are not punished, those who repent obtain the forgiveness of God and enter the rank of souls who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls."
Pope Francis --- in a repeated, flagrant charade of plausible deniability --- always disguises his responsibility for such statements by hinting that he "quite possibly didn't say that." It's totally dishonest.
In this case, it was in a "private" conversation with Eugenio Scalfari, a 95-year-old atheist leftist newspaper editor, to whom he has given FIVE interviews even though he knows that Scalfari neither records them nor even takes notes. Scalfari simply "transcribes" what he "recalls" about the interview, and then publishes it.
This gives Benedict the crooked opportunity to claim that he kinda said that, but kinda didn't. In the subsequent official press release from the Vatican:
"The Holy Father Francis recently received the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica in a private meeting on the occasion of Easter, without however giving him any interviews. What is reported by the author in today’s article is the result of his reconstruction, in which the textual words pronounced by the Pope are not quoted. No quotation of the aforementioned article must therefore be considered as a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father."
So: this was not an interview (!) and Scalfari reconstructed the conversation from memory (which we already knew). But at no point does the Vatican Press Office explicitly deny that the Pope said that Hell doesn’t exist.
Since this is the FIFTH time Pope Francis has pulled off this exact same stunt --- saying a lot of heretical gibberish to Scalfari, and then issuing a denial that actually denies nothing --- you can only conclude that this is the deliberate guerrilla-style demolition of doctrine under no auspices and no flag.
Catholics are totally disgusted.
I've heard there's a conference coming up in Rome in just 2 weeks to discuss the conditions under which a pope could be deposed. It was originally billed as an abstract theological discussion about a hypothetical situation, but I imagine it could be a great deal more pointed now.
If you have any charity in your heart, pray for this disastrous pope to be deposed.
😱😱😱😱😱😱!!!!
Actually it's scarier for the Pope. Does he really think this will end well?
He is likely to get a personal tour of hell and a stay for all eternity, if he keeps this up. He needs prayers.
Also, Jesus talks about Hell directly so I really don't get it, and I'm saying this as a practicing Catholic 😫.
While I think he’s on the right track on this topic, I feel for the Catholic folk who have to watch as this clown dismantles their once-beloved Church and it’s beliefs.
“always disguises his responsibility for such statements by hinting that he “quite possibly didn’t say that.”
—
It’s always “mistranslated”. Apparently there is no one within the Vatican who is fluent in English.
On Holy Thursday too!
This "ex cathedra" condition has been invoked only once since the doctrine of infallibility was defined. The following 2 minute YouTube --- which is actually funny, in a grim but wacky way --- should help clarify this.
Un-Poped? LOL! In all seriousness, I don’t know what it would take to do that, and I’m Catholic.
This is not true. Every child in the Confirmation class was required to get a Bible when I was confirmed back in 1963.
There's a great deal more history behind this, but I can't get into it right now because I'm literally out the door for the doctor's office.
Lol
Required to own a Bible, yes. Not required to read it without the direct supervision of a priest.
I've posted the key paragraphs for the casual reader of these threads to illustrate my point....emphasis mine.
Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.
Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu [1943]. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew.
http://www.usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/study-materials/articles/changes-in-catholic-attitudes-toward-bible-readings.cfm
Yet, Roman Catholics cannot agree on how many times the pope has exercised this “authority”.
That lowlife scumbag Marxist thug is going to pay dearly when he arrives at the Pearly Gates and is sent straight to Hell.
You realize that almost nothing a pope says is infallible. You’re showing your ignorance, the last thing a pope said infallibly was over 60 years ago. On top of that I would bet $$ that what he said is that he doesn’t believe there is a PLACE called hell, in other words it may be more of a state. Anyone that says they really know is full of crap.
The Vatican denies.
Nuttier than a squirrel turd
So why does Bergoglio continue to grant the atheist Scalfari audiences/interviews, if he is so misrepresented?
And why has Bergoglio, himself, never denied Scalfari’s allegations? Lombardi, a Jesuit, has been shown caught in his lies before.
And why was Scalfari’s first interview posted, with Bergoglio’s approval, on the the Vetican’s official website twice and twice removed?
Well then gee - I’m a big dummie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.