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.
The error on the part of the journalist was to suggest Pope Francis said it didn’t exist. Which is absurd.
Click to expand...
Excellent point Luke6_37.
 
Luke6_37 said:
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 -
Click to expand...
Really? If you sin against an infinite God, shouldn’t you get an infinite punishment?
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, really nothing to see here for the critically minded.
Simply to take it seriously, as you appear to have, is to be manipulated.
 
Last edited:
That’s kind of what I was thinking. Pope Francis may very well be trying to convert him. Or at least open his mind to the possibility of God’s existence.
 
Or maybe he is an old man having a conversation with another old man he appreciates or finds agreeable. And the rest is in God’ s eyes and gaze.
 
Agathon said:
40.png
Luke6_37:
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 -
Click to expand...
Really? If you sin against an infinite God, shouldn’t you get an infinite punishment?
Click to expand...
Maybe not. Peter seemed to have gotten off quite easily. Jesus never even chastises him. None of the Resurrection encounters feature anyonr being punished for their faithlessness and abandonment of Christ.

Anselm of Canterbury came up with that idea to explain why Christ had to die for our sins. It is part of his Satisfaction theory of the Atonement. While it is popular, it’s not official doctrine. You can believe it if you like - or not.

Other theories such as Christus Victor or von Balthasars theory of Christ descending to the very depths of godforsakenness, which is what Father Baron teaches, are other perfectly valid options. Neither are about punishment per se.
 
Last edited:
Agathon said:
40.png
Cathoholic:
You are quoting the Catechism of Trent from 1050. Maybe something that better reflects the present age would be more convincing.
Click to expand...
Isn’t Sacred Scripture 2000 years old?
Click to expand...
A catechism is NOT Sacred Scripture. Not even the Didache was accepted as part of the canon. Equating the words of men with the word of God is a form of idolotry. Are you sure you want to go there?
 
Luke6_37 said:
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...
in a similar way to that of the fallen angles still existing?
 
It is heresy, plain and simple, to say that a soul cannot maintain its existence if it is eternally separated from God.

Nothing can cause a soul to cease existing.
 
Lol, what am I being manipulated into. Acknowledging that the Pope talks to a 94yr old journalist? Trust me, I take nothing Scalfari says seriously.
 
Luke6_37 said:
Equating the words of men with the word of God is a form of idolotry
Click to expand...
I’m not. The Catechism contains references to Sacred Scripture and Tradition, something which you obviously wouldn’t understand.
 
Luke6_37 said:
Maybe not. Peter seemed to have gotten off quite easily. Jesus never even chastises him. None of the Resurrection encounters feature anyonr being punished for their faithlessness and abandonment of Christ.
Click to expand...
Mark records that Jesus gave His disciples an earful when He appeared to them in the Cenacle. And didn’t Jesus tell Peter once, “Get thee behind Me Satan?”
 
Luke6_37 said:
For example, how can a soul hold onto existence when it is eternally separated from God, who is the source of existence?
Click to expand...
If a glass of water’s ultimate source is a river, does the water in the glass cease to be once contact with the river is cut off?
 
Luke6_37 said:
This, however, begs the question of what exactly did Pope Francis say that led the journalist to misquote him?
Click to expand...
We do not know if anything at all was even said. You keep missing this point. This attempt to read backwards from something we do not even know is true is the very thing we mustn’t do with garbage journalism. “Where there is smoke there is fire” does not apply in any circumstance, but especially when the smoke may be a lie.

And what is being reported (and rejected as true by the Vatican) is heresy. If you do not like the word, then feel free to report it. This place is ran by Catholic apologists who know enough of Catholic doctrine to understand this.
 
Last edited:
Agathon said:
40.png
Luke6_37:
Maybe not. Peter seemed to have gotten off quite easily. Jesus never even chastises him. None of the Resurrection encounters feature anyonr being punished for their faithlessness and abandonment of Christ.
Click to expand...
Mark records that Jesus gave His disciples an earful when He appeared to them in the Cenacle. And didn’t Jesus tell Peter once, “Get thee behind Me Satan?”
Click to expand...
We also have Jesus teaching two hard lessons in John 21, one a very painful reminder of his betrayal, and then a “mind your own business.”
 
Luke6_37 said:
A catechism is NOT Sacred Scripture.
Click to expand...
If we were Protestants, or anyone who believed that the Bible is to be interpreted by every person, and was the only source of revelation, this would matter.

You mentioned fideism earlier. I will say that I have far more confidence in the collective intelligence and spiritual understanding of the Church that Jesus established than my own rationality, especially when it contradicts what the Church teaches and Jesus said.
Luke6_37 said:
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
Click to expand...
And that last part is close to rationalism. I agree we can have rational evidence of some attributes of God. However, considering the infinity of creation and the difference between God and Man, what we can know, or have evidence of, by reason is but a drop in the ocean. What we know of the mercy of God, for example, comes from his own revelation. What we know of death, eternity, Hell, and Heaven, come from divine revelation.
 
Last edited:
The tone of your original post appears to gainsay your lightheartedness above.
 
If you say so. I did not realize my original post had a tone to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top