Posted on 11/07/2019 8:55:21 AM PST by ebb tide
ROME (ChurchMilitant.com) - In a new series of troubling revelations, Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari has quoted Pope Francis as denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus in stating that the crucified Christ emerged from the tomb as a spirit rather than as a body.
In a front-page article in Tuesday's La Repubblica, Scalfari expands on his earlier quote from Pope Francis, where the Holy Father is interpreted as rejecting the divinity of Jesus while on earth, and dovetails that statement with Francis’ alleged denial of Christ's bodily resurrection.
According to Scalfari, Pope Francis said, "He [Jesus] was a man until he was put in the sepulchre by the women who restored his corpse. That night in the sepulchre the man disappeared and from that cave came out in the form of a spirit that met the women and the Apostles, still preserving the shadow of the person, and then definitively disappeared."
Church Militant contacted the Holy See Press Office for comment, which was caught by surprise and was unaware of the new allegations. Matteo Bruni, director of the Holy See Press Office, told Church Militant:
As already stated on other occasions, the words that Dr. Eugenio Scalfari attributes in quotation marks to the Holy Father during the interviews he had cannot be considered as a faithful account of what was actually said, but rather represent a personal and free interpretation of those who listened, as appears completely evident from what is written today regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ.
The explosive new quotes have been published in Scalfari’s book Il Dio unico e la società moderna: Incontri con papa Francesco e il cardinale Carlo Maria Martini ("The One God and Modern Society: Meetings With Pope Francis and Cdl. Carlo Maria Martini") released on Tuesday.
“The Scalfari claims about Francis’ heretical beliefs are so shocking, and the Pope’s adamant silence so incomprehensible, we have to assume that this is an accurate account of their conversations, U.K. Deacon Nick Donnelly told Church Militant.
“The claim that Francis denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus takes us into the area of de fide doctrin," he added. "Every time we recite the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed we proclaim the bodily resurrection of Jesus. In the past, an ecumenical council would have been convened to condemn Christological heresies."
"Scalfari’s claim that Bergoglio is a Docetist — someone who holds that Jesus only appeared as a phantasm or spirit — takes us into the territory of needing an Ecumenical Council to condemn him and uphold the Catholic doctrine of the Resurrection,” he said.
Scalfari’s La Repubblica article is a reproduction of his introduction in his book.
The journalist, who admits to being an unbeliever, insists that he is nevertheless “very much interested in the history of the Church that began when Paul fell from his horse while going from Jerusalem to Damascus.”
Drawing a wedge between Pauline Christianity as a radical innovation compared to the Jewish Christianity of Jesus’ first apostles, including Peter, Scalfari identifies Jesus’ recognition of His divine Sonship at the age of 30.
“Until he was 30 he had remained in the family but it is at that moment that he discovers in himself the Son of God descended to earth for the redemption of men from all over the world,” Scalfari writes.
Because Saint Paul interpreted Christianity as totally different from Judaism, Christianity now saw itself as unique “without being confused with other religions.” This gave rise to a number of controversies, chief of which was the relationship of Jesus to the Father.
“The Son had the same powers as the Father but there was a substantial difference between them: the Father had created the Son, after which the powers were the same but the Son was Creature while the Father was Creator,” he remarks.
It is in this context Scalfari elaborates on his meeting with Pope Francis.
“I was personally responsible for speaking with Pope Francis in our first meeting four years ago, and His Holiness, who is very prepared in these matters,” told him that “God, who is Unique to all the people of the whole world, decided on his incarnation to help humanity to believe in the hereafter and to behave appropriately in thinking and acting.”
Then, Pope Francis reportedly told Scalfari: “That is, he is a man: true and total, and he shows it in the last week spent in Jerusalem, at the last supper, in the Garden of Gethsemane where he prays to God to exempt him from being crucified, but God does not answer him.”
“Also on the cross he is a man who turns to what he calls the Father and almost reproaches him by saying: ‘Father, Father, you have abandoned me,’” Francis reportedly said.
Italian social media has erupted in shock at the new revelations.
“Scalfari continues to attribute to Bergoglio quotes that contain unheard-of theological enormities and no one from the Vatican cares in the least of denying, nor do they tell Scalfari to stop. Catholics think: those who keep silent agree,” tweeted noted Italian journalist Antonio Socci.
“Pure heresy: the risen Jesus was not a Spirit but was alive in flesh and blood. Thomas put his finger in his wounds,” an Italian Catholic tweeted back.
Scalfari commends Francis for preaching this interpretation “with the strength that no one else has employed,” as it “corresponds to a reality that our mind can only judge perfectly logical for those who believe in a deity.”
Pope Francis has solved the problem of religious plurality because he is not thinking of a God monopolized by only one group, Scalfari explains.
“There cannot be a supreme deity generated only by a group of faithful while other groups have different deities,” and “these are differences that must be overcome.”
“Thinking of a God owned by a people and not others is meaningless, and the Pope is denying it day by day, and not only with words but with facts: He embraces Muslims, obviously embraces Jews and Protestants,” he adds.
Explaining why he treats both Pope Francis and Cdl. Martini in one book, Scalfari notes that “both priests addressed issues of the highest cultural, religious and even political level in the sense in which politics has a positive or negative influence on the life of men.”
Moreover, Martini was a great friend of Pope Francis in Argentina and, like Francis, had tried to modernize the Church. “Martini knew that the Church needed profound changes,” writes Scalfari.
A companion piece in La Repubblica written by Italian philosopher Roberto Esposito suggests that Martini also supports the idea of Jesus’ spiritual rather than bodily resurrection.
“The Resurrection of the spirit — states the cardinal in one of the highest moments of the dialogue with Scalfari — it is the flame that drives the wheel of the world,” Esposito writes.
Esposito relativizes the Resurrection: “The resurrection is not only the dead, in the unfathomable mystery of faith. It can also involve the living, whenever the love of neighbour wins over self-love. In this second sense we rise again, we can rise again, with respect to the hell of egoism, at every moment, on the part of each, even of the worst of sinners.”
Esposito praises Scalfari’s book for examining Francis’ “relationship with politics and therefore with power” as “the other front on which all the novelty of the pontificate of Francis is measured.”
This position of Francis is “revolutionary” and “an exercise that looks like a real battle outside and inside the Church.”
“Outside, in defense of those who are abandoned, discriminated against, rejected by the protected areas of the world. Inside the Church, against the powers that, putting the interests of the ecclesiastical institution in front of her and remove her from her pastoral mission,” Esposito observes.
Martini, a biblical scholar and Jesuit who died in 2012 as the archbishop of Milan, was suspected of being a member of the Italian Freemasonry.
That used to be a good rhetorical question. Now it’s just a good question.
He's more likely to be the false prophet, the second beast of Revelation 13:11.
It is possible to espouse an objective error --- to hold and express an erroneous religious conviction --- without knowing it IS an error. That would be objective heresy (I think they call it "material" heresy) but it wouldn't be subjectively culpable if you were truly ignorant.
On the other hand, you are guilty of "formal" heresy only when you realize that what you believe is truly against and incompatible with a dogma of the Church, but you obstinately refuse to set your erroneous opinion aside.
I don't know if "material" heresy is enough to put you outside of the Church. I know "formal" heresy is.
It raises epistemological problems too, which just make my head go around and around. I actually am convinced that objective truth is "knowable" and that the rules of logic apply (like that elegant "Rule of Non-Contradiction") but --- is it possible that there are people whose thinking processes are so screwed up, they can't actually tell if they are contradicting themselves or not?
I might never have thought so, but I once met a maddening woman, a poet and mother of seven, whose method of thinking was so wafty-lofty and-- um, screwball--- that... oh well...
And Pope Francis' verbal style baffles me in somewhat the same way. If ambiguity is your habitual way of thinking and speaking, are you even mentally equipped to commit a clear-cut heresy?
I think the former top theology guy, Fr. Tom Weinandy, who got run off his job at the USCCB for saying in print that Francis is a problem pope who causes constant confusion, also once mused that Pope Francis may be paradoxically "untouchable" as far as formal heresy is concerned, because he seems to be incapable of constructing clear-cut declarative sentences. :o(
But that's the vexing thing. There are supposedly intelligent people out there, who keep maintaining that Francis is OK because everything he says can be interpreted in an orthodox way.
If you squint real hard and look at it sideways.
Due to that all-purpose ambiguity.
I'm torn between thinking he's either a paranoid schizophrenic, or a g@%%@$^%& Peronist.
Yes we do. Scalfari keeps imputing to Francis heretical and ugly statements. The Vatican keeps telling us Scalfari is old and goes by memory, but then follows that up by giving him yet another interview for more heresy to come out.
This is a game and the evidence is clear that Scalfari isn't lying.
“If he’s a heretic, he’s outside the Church , per definition.”
An excellent example of circular logic. According to the RCC the Pope is infallible on matters of Doctrine. He therefore can not be “outside” of it.
I’d be happy to be shown where I’m wrong.
Thanks.
L
A legitimate pope is infallible only on matters of faith and morals when preached to the universal Church.
It is obvious that Jorge Bergoglio has neither faith nor morals.
“A legitimate pope....”
Is chosen by the College of Cardinals who declare him to be the Pope. That’s as legit as it gets according the RCC doctrine.
L
Not when the election rules were violated.
Glad you asked. Here's where you're wrong. Doctrine is determined by Scripture and Tradition-with-a-capital-T, which means "What the Church has consistently taught."
As for Scripture, that is Public Revelation and that ceased with the death of the last Apostle, approx. 100 AD.
As for Big "T" Tradition (Sacred Tradition, not just local, temporary, or customary stuff like "Green is the liturgical color for the Sundays in Ordinary Time"), the Nicene Creed is a good example of Tradition, and as you will see, it is an authoritative interpretation of Scripture. The Trinity, The Incarnation and so forth.
A pope is not infallible in matters of Scripture unless he is speaking ex cathedra and ---here's where the logical Law of Non-Contradiction comes in--- without abrogating or reversing any or all of the dogma that was there already.
Since 1950, no Pope has claimed to make an infallible statement. Francis has never claimed it.
There are many questions that may arise from the above, and if you want to ask them, go right on ahead.
Bottom line is that some goofball thing coming out of the Pope's mouth is, at best, an opinion (theologoumenon ) and a worst, papal heresy.
That's not an oxymoron, like "giant shrimp."
Thank you for the explanation. I’ll freely admit my ignorance on these matters and I appreciate your effort to educate me. Often that’s not an easy thing to do.
Best,
L
Nowadays everyone identifies the rule of Francis as in some sense Peronist. The Catholic Church explicitly does NOT teach that a pope is an oracle of God and a fount of new doctrine or religious knowledge. The Church explicitly identifies a pope as a conservator of the Deposit of Faith, seen as a stable thing, which indeed can develop (be deepened, be made more elaborate as its inner logic is applied to new situations or to answer new questions)--- but which cannot be self-contradictory.
But as mentioned before, Jorge Bergoglio runs the papacy like a Peronist, a man who is entirely free to contradict Scripture, or Tradition, or his predecessors or even himself. This is not at all what Catholicism means by the Papal Magisterium.
It's chaos. The cat's run wild.
But who will bell the cat?
It seems to me that one of three things will have to happen. Papal authority being what it is, Francis' heresies must be denounced by either a past pope, the present pope, or a future pope.
A past pope: obviously I have only one man in mind,Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. He could either reveal something that proves his own abdication was invalid; or the conclave that elected Francis was invalid; or that Francis has fallen into unambiguous, persistent and obstinate heresy somewhere in his pontificate.
The present pope: Francis could repent of his heresy; or he could abdicate; or maybe he could be pressured into abdicating by an open revolt by the Cardinals: that wouldn't have the authority to depose him, but he might self-depose if he saw he could in practice no longer govern.
A future pope: whoever gets elected after Francis could denounce him posthumously. It's happened before.
Christ will get this sorted out as He always has in the past: by raising up saints. Things were pretty desperate during the Great Western Schism (1378-1417) --- but it took 40 years to sort it out.
So we may have extended pain ahead.
So long as my parish has a valid Mass and my bishop is in communion with Francis, I guess that makes me in Communion with Francis, de jure. Can't chase me out with a stick.
THis will get sorted out. But as the Western Schism should have taught us: it will be in God's time, not necessarily ours. Patience conquers all ("La paciencia todo lo alcanza", St. Teresa of Avila).
And as the esteemed Doctor of the Church Teresa also said: "All times are dangerous times."
A big part of it has been "precisely defined" -- that's what ecumenical councils are good for. We can further look at "what the church has always taught" versus "various specific heresies through history".
Teaching that Christ was not bodily raised from the dead is Docetism, not Catholicism. There is no vagueness or ambiguity or lack of precise definition about it.
Many times Catholics/Orthodox/etc. do this in order to prove they aren't Protestants, attributing total inerrancy to American Protestants as some sort of recent innovation. and they still claim this. If all this is to put daylight between themselves and Protestantism, then why adopt the historical Biblical criticism that Protestants invented? Why engage in ecumenical activity with the most radical Protestants in the world (such as lesbian Lutheran and Episcopal "bishops")? Why are the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and (I assume) the "Nestorians" all members of the National and World Councils of Churches? They evidently have no problem with the most radical Protestants in existence and object only to American Fundamentalist Protestants.
It's disgusting to hear all this anti-Protestant rhetoric used against total inerrancy, traditional authorship, and literal-historical interpretation when the people who use it are practically in bed with mainline Marxist Protestants!
I'm sorry. You all deserve every bit of this. You've asked for it. You've been asking for it for over a hundred years. When liberals engaged in the most bigoted ethnic slurs against the group with whom total inerrancy and literalism are most associated you were either silent or joined them. How stupid to believe the dinosaurs died because they didn't get on the ark! Oh really? What about your own anti-scientific doctrines like the virgin birth, the resurrection, the loaves and fishes, the "real presence," and all the innumerable miracles attributed to your "saints???" If the uniformity of nature rules out a literal interpretation of Genesis, then it rules out all these beliefs as well. If Adam could only have come into existence the way everyone else is born today, then the same applies to J*sus. You never have an answer to this. You just dismiss it as ridiculous. Well then . . . pardon me if I enjoy this.
All chrstianity is in free fall. Stick a fork in it; it's done. Mainline Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Miaphysitism, Nestorianism, Anglicanism--even Evangelicalism is turning liberal. All you can do is invoke the glories of European civilization and imply that every American is supposed to have the same religion as George Washington. There is only one reason to believe any religion, and that is that it is true--not whether or not it is (in the worlds of lefty indigenists) "de ways of our pipples." Some conservatives invoke heritage and history so often I wonder if they even believe the actual doctrines of chrstianity at all.
All that is left of real belief in chrstianity is the "heretical cults" (like the J Witnesses), the trailer parks, and the Old Regular Baptists of the Appalachian mountains. The latter will still be here when all the rest of you have merged into a global syncretic monstrosity.
That leaves only the sincere Fundamentalist Protestants, who can only remain chrstians by telling themselves that the original "true" version disappeared almost immediately and had to be restored centuries later via a sort of theological archeology. If chrstianity is so pathetic that it disappeared for twelve hundred years and had to be "restored" time and time again . . . then what do you see in it? All I can guess is that it's the only religion that offers free salvation at no cost whatsoever and prevents you from having to spend your lives tightrope walking over the flaming pits of Hell. But however unpleasant it may be, Constantine did not suddenly introduce "baptized heathenism" in 313, at which point all the Southern Baptists in Ethiopia and southwestern India suddenly morphed into monastics. There is not one ancient chrstian community in existence that was ever remotely Protestant or "sola scriptura" (one reason being that the NT was still being written and couldn't be invoked or quoted by anyone).
Finally, for all the talk about "chrstianity or chaos," chrstianity is chaos: Ephesians and non-Ephesians, Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians, Orthodox, Catholics, Reformation Protestantism, radical Protestantism, and all the "newly restored" version which absolutely no one can prove one way or another.
I know you can't reason someone out of a position he didn't reason himself into, but you're all going to have to make a decision: whether or not to simply admit you were all wrong and accept the religion that has been there from the beginning and whose authenticity almost no one disputes. I am sorry if in trying to make this point over the years I have alienated any of you. But until you understand that the Torah came first and that the claims of chrstianity have to be submitted to the judgment of the first Revelation, as long as you accept Genesis and the "old testament" only because J*sus endorsed it one thousand years later . . . your minds will remain resolutely closed. You'll all simply continue to refute each other's versions of chrstianity (which you've all done a zillion times).
I'm sorry for my stridency (due to frustration), but I sincerely that someone out there will give this some thought.
Speaking of “the chair of Peter”, why didn’t he intervene when Paul was imprisoned in Rome? Why didn’t he at least visit him in prison? I’ve never understood that.
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.