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

  • Thread starter Thread starter pnewton
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton . . .
Confusion is the hallmark of this papacy . . . .
Click to expand...
pnewton (went on) . . .
Confusion is the hallmark of this papacy in the since that it is the hallmark of the Trump Administration, this past election and . . . .
Click to expand...
.

Cathoholic to pnewton:
WHY are you dragging President Trump into this discussion??
Click to expand...
.

Pnewton to Cathoholic:
The problem is not the Pope, (or in the sense I said, not Trump, or not election news), but sorry reporting.
Click to expand...
OK.

.

Pnewton ALSO to Cathoholic:
Trump, in case you did not know, is the president.
Click to expand...
.

Cathoholic:

Good grief!
 
Luke6_37 (parenthesis mine for context) . . . .
If you read it (The Bible) without bias, you’d see that neither Church doctrine, nor the words of Jesus, conflict with an annihilationist view of Hell - which is a real Hell. You should be careful what you label a heresy.
.
For example, how can a soul hold onto existence when it is eternally separated from God, who is the source of existence? Humans can’t even sustain their earthly existence without God.
Click to expand...
.

The Catholic Church does not teach annihilationism.
  • Written Tradition handed down by the Catholic Church (the Bible) does not teach annihilationism.
  • Oral Tradition of the Catholic Church does not teach annihilationism.
  • The official teaching office or “The Magisterium” of the Catholic Church does not teach annihilationism.
  • Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists teach annihilationism.
.

We affirm the “Resurrection of the body” as we proclaim each Sunday at Mass.

The people who remain in God’s grace get their bodies back at the end of time. For them their bodies are everlasting instruments of God’s glory.

The people who REJECT God’s grace get their bodies back at the end of time too. For them their bodies are instruments of everlasting punishment.

.
ROMAN CATECHISM Again, as the just and the wicked performed their good and evil actions in this life not without the cooperation of the body, it necessarily follows that
these actions belong also to the body as to their instrument. It was, therefore, altogether suitable that
the body should share with the soul the due rewards of eternal glory or punishment.
But this can only be accomplished by means of a general resurrection and of a general judgment.
Click to expand...
.

Yes, their “chief torment” was and now also is the “separation from God”, but they ALSO have other torments too now.

People’s “holding onto existence” after the final judgment or “separation from God” does not do away with God’s omniscience at the end of time any more than it does for the souls of the damned now BEFORE the end of time.

It has to do with separation from God’s saving grace from those people REJECTING this grace.
 
Last edited:
Great pre-emptive strike.

Obviously so far as the New Creation is concerned (which was what they were talking about) bad souls and bad angels will have disappeared. They will no longer be in control of the “Air”.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
40.png
Luke6_37:
If you read it without bias, …
Click to expand...
What is the problem of late with all the insults? I hold the position of the Church and saints and you call it bias. A metaphor still is a reflection of a reality.

But then there is the teaching of Jesus.

And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

And the teaching of the Church:
The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
Click to expand...
Fire may be a metaphor, but eternal pretty much means forever, in whatever sense time has after death.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t meant as an insult and I apologize if it came across that way.

I agree eternal means forever. The destruction of the soul is forever. But the idea of eternal conscious torment just makes no sense in the context of a merciful God. I think God sustains our existence until the Final Judgement, then those who will not repent die for real.

Jesus says God can destroy souls…

www.biblegateway.com

Matthew 10:28 NABRE - - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com www.biblegateway.com

Eternal separation from the Source of our existence is the second & final death.
 
One imagines the Church might profit more though if the pope talked to the surviving dubia cardinals more than he seems to talk to Scalfari.
 
Y’all can say “love thy enemy” and “he is trying to convert him” all day and sure, that is a possibility. But who is getting the most out of this relationship. Has the Pope converted a 94yr old man, or has this 94yr old man been spreading lies and confusion as to what the Pope teaches for 5yrs.

All I am saying is that, in the realm of world leadership, no head of state would continually go back to give private interviews to a journalist who straight up makes up the content of his interviews by “using his memory” and misrepresents what that leader has to say. The Pope may as well give private interviews to the staff of the National Enquirer and say “hey, I’m just mingling with the sinners”. But he is letting them dictate the narrative. Now if this guy just straight up made up an entire meeting that never happened, got it. You can’t do much about that. But if the Pope doesn’t want to be misrepresented in the media, he should consider avoiding journalists with loose journalistic integrity.
 
Such a relief he didn’t really say that, i hate it when the media puts words into the Pope’s mouth
 
I’m trying to imagine what an old-school pope would have done. Would he have issued a statement? Probably not. Do you think that His Holiness doesn’t know about the furor?
 
Luke6_37 Does truth change in the “present age”? The Catechism of Trent is as authoratative as today’s Catechism. Hans Urs von Balthasar’s book has little if any authority.
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
All I am saying is that, in the realm of world leadership, no head of state would continually go back to give private interviews to a journalist who straight up makes up the content of his interviews by “using his memory” and misrepresents what that leader has to say.
Click to expand...
Right. I’m reminded of the old saying; Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But to be fooled three, four, five and six times? By the same man? And each time, the Press Office of the Holy See has to intervene to “clarify” the Pope’s remarks?

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...es-pope-francis-still-trust-eugenio-scalfari/
 
Last edited:
First of all, Happy Easter Luke6_37. (But I can’t let your erroneous idea of annihilationism just slide here either. That would not be appropriate for the other readers here or really for you too.)

Luke6_37 (parenthesis mine for context) (from post 28) . . . .
If you read it (The Bible) without bias, you’d see that neither Church doctrine, nor the words of Jesus, conflict with an annihilationist view of Hell . . . .
Click to expand...
.

Cathoholic response (from post 44) . . . .

. . .
The Catholic Church does not teach annihilationism.
Click to expand...
  • Written Tradition handed down by the Catholic Church (the Bible) does not teach annihilationism.
  • Oral Tradition of the Catholic Church does not teach annihilationism.
  • The official teaching office or “The Magisterium” of the Catholic Church does not teach annihilationism.
  • Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists teach annihilationism.
.
We affirm the “Resurrection of the body” as we proclaim each Sunday at Mass.
.
The people who remain in God’s grace get their bodies back at the end of time. For them their bodies are everlasting instruments of God’s glory.
.
The people who REJECT God’s grace get their bodies back at the end of time too. For them their bodies are instruments of everlasting punishment.
Click to expand...
.
ROMAN CATECHISM Again, as the just and the wicked performed their good and evil actions in this life not without the cooperation of the body, it necessarily follows that
these actions belong also to the body as to their instrument. It was, therefore, altogether suitable that
the body should share with the soul the due rewards of eternal glory or punishment.
But this can only be accomplished by means of a general resurrection and of a general judgment.
Click to expand...
.
Yes, their “chief torment” was and now also is the “separation from God”, but they ALSO have other torments too now.
.
People’s “holding onto existence” after the final judgment or “separation from God” does not do away with God’s omniscience at the end of time any more than it does for the souls of the damned now BEFORE the end of time.
.
It has to do with separation from God’s saving grace from those people REJECTING this grace.
.
Click to expand...
.

Luke6_37 (from post 48) . . .
You are quoting the Catechism of Trent from 1050. Maybe something that better reflects the present age would be more convincing.
Click to expand...
.

Response below . . . .

1/ 2 . . .
 
Last edited:
2/2 . . . . .

Luke6_37 (from post 48)
You are quoting the Catechism of Trent from 1050. Maybe something that better reflects the present age would be more convincing.
Click to expand...
.

First of all Luke6_37, “The Roman Catechism”, also called “The Catechism of the Council of Trent” grew out of . . . The Council of Trent in the 1500’s A.D.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent was published by “Decree of Pope Pius V” who was born in 1504 and passed away in 1572. NOT even close to 1050.

Furthermore, we don’t “pick and choose” the catechetical teachings we get to affirm.

We believe them ALL.

We realize they are HARMONIOUS.

Lastly the fact that the Catechism of the Council of Trent (Roman Catechism) is older, does not make it passe’.

As a matter of fact, the Roman Catechism is a work of “FIRST RANK AS A SUMMARY OF CHRISTIAN TEACHING”.

Our RECENT CATECHISM asserts this.
CCC 9 "The ministry of catechesis draws ever fresh energy from the councils. The Council of Trent is a noteworthy example of this. It gave catechesis priority in its constitutions and decrees. It lies at the origin of the Roman Catechism, which is also known by the name of that council and which is a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching. . . ."12 The Council of Trent initiated a remarkable organization of the Church’s catechesis. Thanks to the work of holy bishops and theologians such as St. Peter Canisius, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Turibius of Mongrovejo or St. Robert Bellarmine, it occasioned the publication of numerous catechisms.
Click to expand...
.
NOT CCC 9 "The ministry of catechesis draws not very convincing energy from the councils. The Council of Trent is a noteworthy example of this. It gave catechesis priority in its constitutions and decrees. It lies at the origin of the Roman Catechism, which is also known by the name of that council but maybe something that better reflects the present age would be more convincing if you want catechesis.
Click to expand...
.

Annihilationism is not Catholic doctrine.

Annihilationism is Jehovah’s Witness and Seventh Day Adventist traditions of men.

Why not just affirm what the Church teaches concerning self-imposed everlasting separation from the life of God in a beatific way in the world to come (what we often term “Hell”)?

NO ANNIHILATIONISM.
 
Last edited:
FirstFiveEighth said:
But he is letting them dictate the narrative.
Click to expand...
Really. I would say that was true only if you let your buttons get pushed by the media which seems to be the case. Most of us are not so outrageable by foolish hype from the media and an attention seeking 94 yr old.
 
Last edited:
Luke6_37 said:
But the idea of eternal conscious torment just makes no sense in the context of a merciful God.
Click to expand...
Of all that attributes of God that make this impossible to understand, more than his mercy and his justice, is his transcendence. We can never say something about God makes no sense because it escapes our understanding. That is why divine revelation is the only way to know anything of God, including the existence of Hell and the fate of any fully unrepentant.
 
pnewton said:
40.png
Luke6_37:
But the idea of eternal conscious torment just makes no sense in the context of a merciful God.
Click to expand...
Of all that attributes of God that make this impossible to understand, more than his mercy and his justice, is his transcendence. We can never say something about God makes no sense because it escapes our understanding. That is why divine revelation is the only way to know anything of God, including the existence of Hell and the fate of any fully unrepentant.
Click to expand...
You do realize that what you just stated sounds a lot like fideism. Just thought I should point that out to you.

We certainly can know some things about God by more than Divine Revelation. I don’t agree with everything Justin, Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Balthasar & all the other great Catholic theologians have written, but like them, I expect there to be a good rational argument for everything God has revealed to us about himself - as well as what plans he has for the end times & our ultimate fate. We can also know some things about God by reason alone -like the fact that the creator of a rational universe must himself be rational.

As for Church doctrine on what is the NATURE of Hell and the ULTIMATE fate of the damned, I believe those are eschatological questions. Eschatology is not like Trinitarian theology, or Christology, or Pneumatology. Those are primary while Eschatology is derived from them. This means that the God who judges us must be consistent with the God who died for us.

Hell exists. No question about that. Jesus said so - and so it is. The error on the part of the journalist was to suggest Pope Francis said it didn’t exist. Which is absurd.

This, however, begs the question of what exactly did Pope Francis say that led the journalist to misquote him? I think it had to be something along the lines of the souls of the damned disappear or are GONE in some way.

That is not far from Annihilationalism. It certainly is not Eternal Conscious Torment, which is a good thing, because ECT is a barrier to evangelization, because it is not consistent with a loving and merciful God - unless like the Calvinists you change the definition of what it means to be loving & merciful.
 
Last edited:
JohnQPublic said:
Luke6_37 Does truth change in the “present age”? The Catechism of Trent is as authoratative as today’s Catechism. Hans Urs von Balthasar’s book has little if any authority.
Click to expand...
Von Balthasar was JPII’s favorite theologian. Bishop Robert Barron also teaches based on his work. So I will take their word for it that his writing is perfectly orthodox.

Catechisms are useful resources & reference manuals that summarize & cite other documents that range with respect to their own level of authority. They are written to meet the needs of their times, and when times change & doctrines develop, they are rewritten and updated.

The Catechism of Trent was retired long ago. It’s fine to study it as an medieval historical text, but I wouldn’t use it as a rule of faith for today, especially in light of the teachings of more recent counsels.
 
Last edited:
Since when is discussing something in the media “getting your buttons pushed by the media”. I can assure you I am not outraged, I just made a comment. Perhaps you are getting your buttons pushed by people saying the Pope shouldn’t talk to unreliable journalists. Perhaps you would rather we not talk about catholic things on a catholic message board. Or maybe we are just having a discussion over a news topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top