Does Hell Exist? Pope Francis Says No (Warning: This title is misleading)

[Luke6_37]

Luke6_37:

Sounds like your Catholic imagination needs some work! Why don’t you try the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola? Perhaps that will help you better understand your Pope, who is a Jesuit after all. Here is a link to a book published in 1864. Is that old enough for you? The meditation on hell is on p. 246

May God bless you and lead you to the fulness of the Truth. I’m not seeking to better understand the Pope…God knows his heart and will judge all of us according to the graces He has given us and how we cooperate or reject His invitation to be conformed to Christ instead of seeking to conform Christ to our way of thought.
You didn’t say whether or not you are trying to follow the spiritual exercises of St Ignatius?..if so, may they aid you on your journey to the Way, the Truth, and the Life!

Thank you. I know I am blessed, but its always good to be reminded of it. Same to you about the “fullness of Truth” thing. Of course, you must seek the Truth in order for God to lead you to it…

Matthew 7:7 NABRE - - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

Maybe you should reconsider your lack of desire to understand the Pope. He is a great Christian leader. A true model of Christ in that he reaches out to the marginalized, hears their cries, and does something about it. That means putting the Gospel first, even if it disrupts the status quo.

 

[kyrie03]

Old wine skins should not drink new wine, because it will cause them to burst! Better that they drink the old wine, which is good wine, and leave the new wine for the new wine skins who are flexible enough to handle it.

Clever…but consider a different interpretation of the parable in Luke V.

After explaining that the disciples need not fast while the Bridegroom was with them (St Austin -purpose of fasting is to afflict the body and subdue passions. And Christ, being God, had no need of fasting - no concupiscence. And while He is with the disciples to sustain them, they needed not to fast). The time for fasting would come when the Bridegroom was taken away. (Ven Bede explains -Christ gave us example by His 40 days fast of what man would need to do after driving away life of God/grace by sinning). Christ then gave the parable - no man puts a piece from a new garment onto an old garment. Nor do they put new wine into an old bottle otherwise the fermentation will cause the bursting and the wine is spilled. New wine must be put into new bottles. Christ is the wine. When we are baptized into Christ, we become a new wineskin - a child of God.

If I follow your reasoning…those who hold to the traditional dogmas are inflexible (old wineskins?) who cannot handle the new wine (new doctrines?)
And yes, I agree that infusing new/different doctrines into what was True yesterday, today, and forever, will cause bursting!

 

[kyrie03]

Maybe you should reconsider your lack of desire to understand the Pope. He is a great Christian leader. A true model of Christ in that he reaches out to the marginalized, hears their cries, and does something about it. That means putting the Gospel first, even if it disrupts the status qu

It is good to see Christ in others. And yes, the humanitarian efforts of the Holy See are laudable. However, the whole purpose of the papacy is not to be idolized by others, but to hand on the truths of the Catholic Faith, unchanged, to future generations. The Pope is the Chief Teacher and Ruler of the entire Church, the Visible representative of Christ on earth. Mankind put Christ to death for His teaching of the Truth. We know that the Bride of Christ, the Church, will follow in the footsteps of the Bridegroom - even to the death on the Cross.

 

[angel12]

But did the atheist represent or mis-represent the truth of the conversation? The Vatican didn’t say…

Pope Francis has spoken of the Devil and Hell so many times that there is no reasonable way to believe he would suddenly say that Hell does’t exist. Even if the Vatican hadn’t responded, which they did.

 

[kyrie03]

The doctrine of the Church, is that of Jesus Christ, not of any Pope. Yes, they reiterated the doctrine of Hell. Pope Francis has himself affirmed the existence of Hell.

Sorry, but could you point me to a source where doctrine of Hell was reiterated? I looked for the Vatican’s response and any response of Pope Francis after the Scalfari article. Only seeing that the Vatican issued a statement saying no quotations can be attributed to Pope. Not seeing that the Pope has addressed this at all.

 

[pnewton]

Here is one I found rather easily:

“There is still time not to end up in hell, which awaits you if you continue on this road,” Pope Francis said. “You had a papa and a mamma. Think of them, weep a little and convert.”

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/03/23/repent-now-to-avoid-hell-pope-tells-mafia-members/

Teaching children:

“This is hell: It is telling God, ‘You take care of yourself because I’ll take care of myself.’ They don’t send you to hell, you go there because you choose to be there. Hell is wanting to be distant from God because I do not want God’s love. This is hell. Do you understand?”

http://www.catholicnews.com/service...pope-denied-hells-existence-is-unreliable.cfm

Last Easter:

Pope Francis is taking direct aim at the wealthy and powerful of the world, saying in his message for Lent that they are often “slaves to sin” who, if they ignore the poor, “will end up condemning themselves and plunging into the eternal abyss of solitude which is hell.”

https://religionnews.com/2016/01/26/pope-francis-worlds-powerful-slaves-sin-risk-hell-ignoring-poor/

 

[kyrie03]

Pope Francis has spoken of the Devil and Hell so many times that there is no reasonable way to believe he would suddenly say that Hell does’t exist. Even if the Vatican hadn’t responded, which they did.

The only response I could find is the following from the Vatican Press Office: “The Holy Father recently received the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica in a private meeting on the occasion of Easter, without, however, granting him an interview. What is reported by the author in today’s article is the fruit of his reconstruction, in which the precise words uttered by the Pope are not cited. No quotations in the aforementioned article, then, should be considered as a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father.”
Is THIS the response to which you are referring?
Does THIS reaffirm the doctrine on Hell? Or the immortality of the soul?

 

[pnewton]

The only response I could find…

Whoa. That is a different question, maybe THE question. Why does there need to be a response directly from the Pope? He has spoke of Hell in the past and the Vatican has publicly affirmed that doctrine. Do we Americans now demand some sort of tweet:

"Some said I don’t believe in Hell. FAKE NEWS!!!.. Crooked Scalfari will say anything and the MSM will believe it. NO COLLUSION…

… covfefe…"

 

[kyrie03]

Thanks pnewton for these citations. However, none of these came AFTER the widely publicized report that the Pope denied existence of hell and considered himself a revolutionary. I can only imagine how many reporters asked for clarification or comment -and all they received was a paltry statement about the report not being a faithful transcription?!
You are claiming “FAKE NEWS” and “Crooked Scalfari”…neither the Vatican nor the Holy Father go so far. THIS is the scandal: that many have been deceived, the Vatican is aware of the publicity generated and resulting confusion, and chooses not to correct the deception. And you are chastising those who warn that something rotten needs to be addressed before more souls are led astray?

Say you were 15 years old, poorly catechized, and looking to justify immoral behavior. You skim the headlines and see that the “Pope denies the existence of hell”. Intrigued, you read the article and see the Vatican’s response and non-clarification of doctrine. If this is how cavalierly those in the know treat doctrine, must not be that big a deal! The seed of unbelief is planted, nourished over time in immoral acts, and if not corrected, blossoms into a false reality.

Wicked, isn’t it? That we humans tend to believe fake news. Eve believed the fake news of the serpent about the forbidden fruit. What if Adam had done his duty and had corrected the lie?

 

[Agathon]

Agathon:

Luke6_37:

Sadly, I think Cardinal Burke is the one who is creating the scandal

You’d accuse Paul of doing the same thing then.

No. Peter was wrong that time.

At least, the Holy Father wasn’t being prudent. At worst he was preaching against doctrine. Neither of those are good.

 

[pnewton]

You are claiming “FAKE NEWS” and “Crooked Scalfari”…neither the Vatican nor the Holy Father go so far.

What I said is that this is what Americans especially have come to expect. It is the way of the world to respond that way.

The Pope has taught on Hell. The Church teaches of a real Hell. The Vatican has reaffirmed that this teaching has not changed. The only ones who would be lead astray are those who choose to believe this atheist, an odd authority for a Catholic, to be sure.

Say you were 15 years old, poorly catechized, and looking to justify immoral behavior. You skim the headlines and see that the “Pope denies the existence of hell”.

…or you find an anti-Catholic tract, or the Pope responded differently, but you did not catch that, or you read this story a year from now because the Pope, or one of his Cardinals keeps it in the press with responses. There are countless ways to be lead astray.

 

[Agathon]

“From time to time” is not the same as a habit. Twice in his life he turned over tables, while he was known for supping with the worst sinners.

He rebuked His listeners on countless occasions for failing to understand Him. After His Ressurection, He rebuked His Apostles for failing to believe He was risen. Christ is many things. Nice isn’t one of them.

 

[pnewton]

Christ is many things. Nice isn’t one of them.

You are using the word “nice” in a way that is foreign to me. Is this one of those modern kid opposite things, like where “bad” means “good?” Does “nice” now mean rude?

“Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.” Colossians 4:6

“Say to Daughter Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’” - Matthew 21:5.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.

 

[Luke6_37]

Luke6_37:

Old wine skins should not drink new wine, because it will cause them to burst! Better that they drink the old wine, which is good wine, and leave the new wine for the new wine skins who are flexible enough to handle it.

Clever…but consider a different interpretation of the parable in Luke V.

After explaining that the disciples need not fast while the Bridegroom was with them (St Austin -purpose of fasting is to afflict the body and subdue passions. And Christ, being God, had no need of fasting - no concupiscence. And while He is with the disciples to sustain them, they needed not to fast). The time for fasting would come when the Bridegroom was taken away. (Ven Bede explains -Christ gave us example by His 40 days fast of what man would need to do after driving away life of God/grace by sinning). Christ then gave the parable - no man puts a piece from a new garment onto an old garment. Nor do they put new wine into an old bottle otherwise the fermentation will cause the bursting and the wine is spilled. New wine must be put into new bottles. Christ is the wine. When we are baptized into Christ, we become a new wineskin - a child of God.

If I follow your reasoning…those who hold to the traditional dogmas are inflexible (old wineskins?) who cannot handle the new wine (new doctrines?)
And yes, I agree that infusing new/different doctrines into what was True yesterday, today, and forever, will cause bursting!

Your interpretation of the parable is a bit narrow. Jesus is clearly making a statement beyond just fasting. The little parable about the cloth & wine is actually sandwiched between two stories about the Pharisees complaining about Jesus & his crew not being pious enough according to the law of Moses. In the first story they are not fasting, in the second they are picking grain on the Sabbath.

What Jesus is saying is that the pharisees are like old wine skins or old pieces of cloth, who are so rigidly attached to the Old Covenant that they couldn’t tolerate that times were changing, and a New Covenant was at hand. Jesus was changing things and it was literally blowing their minds. Can you blame them? What about the doctrines of the Old Covenant? The many many teachings about what to eat and wear and do? They were true yesterday, but not today and certainly not forever.

Now lets consider the parable of the new wine in light of what Jesus says to his disciples after his Resurrection…

John 16:12-13 NABRE - - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

The Apostles could only bear so much.

For example, they knew Mary, but it would probably have blown their minds to learn she was the Immaculate Conception. One would think that John would have figured that one out, but he doesn’t even include an infancy narrative in his Gospel.

We are so fallen and so far from the truth that each generation must be like new wine skins into which the Gospel is poured afresh. This is the only way that the Spirit can continue to guide the Church towards ultimate Truth without it blowing our minds.

 

[Agathon]

You are using the word “nice” in a way that is foreign to me. Is this one of those modern kid opposite things, like where “bad” means “good?” Does “nice” now mean rude?

It means being a pushover, and Christ was no such thing.

 

[Luke6_37]

Agathon:

Christ is many things. Nice isn’t one of them.

You are using the word “nice” in a way that is foreign to me. Is this one of those modern kid opposite things, like where “bad” means “good?” Does “nice” now mean rude?

Maybe @Agathon thinks “nice” really means “insincere”.

I must say though, it begs whether “death” really means “eternal conscious torment”.

 

[Luke6_37]

pnewton:

You are using the word “nice” in a way that is foreign to me. Is this one of those modern kid opposite things, like where “bad” means “good?” Does “nice” now mean rude?

It means being a pushover, and Christ was no such thing.

My mistake. Nice means “pushover”. Got it. Do you have any other words that actually mean something completely different from their plain meaning?

 

[Agathon]

My mistake. Nice means “pushover”. Got it. Do you have any other words that actually mean something completely different from their plain meaning?

You’ve done that yourself with eternal punishment = annihilation.

 

[pnewton]

It means being a pushover, and Christ was no such thing.

From further down the Sermon on the Mount:

“But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

I know what you mean by not being a push-over. You are speaking of the virtue of fortitude, and it is a virtue. However, there is also wisdom in meekness. The Holy Father has been very direct often, and then quiet sometimes. Someone above said that at best the Holy Father is not prudent. This raises the question of who is in position to judge who is in a position to allow their opinions to guide his.

Cardinal Burke? Perhaps, if like Paul, he had given is opposition face to face it would have been…prudent?

 

[Luke6_37]

Luke6_37:

My mistake. Nice means “pushover”. Got it. Do you have any other words that actually mean something completely different from their plain meaning?

You’ve done that yourself with eternal punishment = annihilation.

Annihilation is eternal.
Annihilation is a punishment.
Yet somehow, you don’t think annihilation is an eternal punishment.

That explains a lot.