Pope Regarding Hell: “Let not your heart be troubled.”

A Council can remove a Pope, In fact, it’s happened several times in the past and known by most, God is of course superior to a Pope but a Council as well, The Pope is supreme within the law but the Council is supreme over the law, simple as that.

 

Richard67's article is the same article that Brian posted a link to yesterday and I think that Socci did use the word impeachment. As Brian pointed out Socci is discussing the "cessation of the Petrine ministry" - the end of the papacy. The following is the title in Italian and in English,

Antonio Socci: "UNA SOLLEVAZIONE DI CARDINALI HA FERMATO (PER ORA) L’ERESIA BERGOGLIANA SULL’INFERNO. LA SMENTITA FARLOCCA E IL RISCHIO IMPEACHMENT"

Antonio Socci: "A LIFT OF CARDINALS HAS STOPPED (FOR NOW) THE BERGOGLIAN HERESY ON THE HELL, FARLOCCA'S LOSSES AND THE IMPEACHMENT RISK"
​

This is the whole translation of the article,

The debris that fell on Friday in the Basilica of San Pietro seems to be the sign of the disastrous Easter 2018 of Pope Bergoglio and his declining pontificate. After months of accidents and slips, the yellow of the interview with Scalfari on the hell broke out.

He wanted to be a resounding attempt to recover consensus as "revolutionary pope" (he likes to call himself that) and instead it was a very serious misstep. He understood this on Thursday morning when he received a very tough phone call (we'll see later) and ran for cover.

SMENT (FARLOCCA) IGNORED

But the paravaticano site "Il Sismografo" yesterday complained that despite the "denial" that "alleged sentence attributed to the Pope - something like 'Hell does not exist' - now for 48 hours is a real avalanche on the network and it is spoken in all languages".

In fact the clamor is great abroad, but not in the Italian press. And above all - two days after the "denial" of the Vatican - "Repubblica" did not even report it. As if it were non-existent.

Because? Is not it unusual behavior? And why did the Italian newspapers keep the mute? So as not to step on the feet of the Vatican and "Republic"?

It's strange. In fact, for this story, the ghost of the impeachment that may cost the papacy (for heresy) is hovering (and could still hover) on Pope Bergoglio.

Just as there is a sort of moral-professional public delegitimation on the lay pope of the Italian press, his friend and confidant Eugenio Scalfari. In fact, who speaks the truth?

OR THE ONE OR THE OTHER

The cases are two: o Bergoglio has made those explosive heretical statements that have led "The Times" to the holder "Pope Francis abolishes the Hell", or Scalfari invented that scoop making an unprecedented professional slip and undermining the credibility of "Republic", A resounding thing in the time when every day they thunder against fake news.

If the declaration of Bergoglio is true, we are facing the most colossal twist of the two thousand year history of the papacy. If that statement was not true, the scoop of "Repubblica" would be the fake news of the century.

Either one thing is true or the other is true. Tertium non datur. There was only one third explanation that could patch the hole at best, but they did not choose it at the Vatican.

In fact - assuming that Scalfari could not have made a sound plan of that conversation about hell - the story could close if the Vatican statement had admitted that the two had a conversation about that eschatological argument, but Scalfari had completely understood backhand what was said by Bergoglio.

It was enough that the pope, through the spokesman, reiterated his firm and convinced rejection of those heretical theses and his clear and explicit adherence to the Church's creed, adding that there had been a colossal misunderstanding.

It is true that Scalfari would be very bad, as one who takes whistles for flasks, but the case would have closed. Instead this was not the Vatican "denial".

THERE ARE THE TRUTH

In fact, the Vatican does not deny that the two have talked about that topic and does not say that Scalfari has understood upside down, but only states that the text of Scalfari is "the result of his reconstruction" in which "the textual words" are not mentioned Pope.

But what are those words? Why do not they reveal it to us?

Each interview is a reconstruction. The Vatican had to tell us whether Bergoglio disavows and rejects that thesis that has been attributed to it or not (the damned souls "are not punished ... there is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls"). Why did not he do it? If they are asked, in America, also authoritative Catholic intellectuals. Why did the Vatican not deny the substance?

The story of the form to be attributed to the journalist is old: the previous papal spokesman, Father Lombardi, had already dealt with this, after the first two chats-interviews between Scalfari and Bergoglio.

All the Vatican distance outlets had then dissolved in front of the pope's decision to republish those interviews in one of his books and thus to credit them.

On the other hand, Scalfari said on Thursday that he met Bergoglio "on his invitation" for the umpteenth time.

"THE TIMES" BELIEVE IN SCALFARI

Why Bergoglio invites him if he knows that then there is the risk that he will make his own "explosive" unauthorized report, attributing to him the enormity that he does not think? They want to make believe that this time we have fallen for the umpteenth time, without wanting?

There is to be doubted. How is it to doubt that "Republic" prints these interviews without any form of consent of the interested party.

"The Times" questioned an expert who "tends to believe Scalfari more than the Vatican" because if you know that someone turns your thoughts upside down, you "do not keep to inviting him".

There is therefore a game of the parties between Scalfari and Bergoglio that has been going on for five years and which allows the Argentine pope to use a sort of double magisterial track: when he speaks to Catholics he expresses himself in a certain vague and theologically ambiguous way. It avoids explicit tears by slowly demolishing the doctrine (the tactic of the boiled frog).

Instead, through Scalfari he lets the secular world know its real, modern ideas, to credit its "revolution" and to have popularity among the media and non-Catholics.

It is no coincidence that "The Times", published on the front page on Friday, credits those statements as essentially authentic and praises Pope Bergoglio because with this "suggestion" on the non-existence of hell he would try to "reconcile eternal truths with costumes and the mentality of the modern age ".

ALREADY THE CARD. MARTINI…

On the other hand, that idea about hell for a long time has been a notorious feature in the pastoral theology. Card. Martini - who is considered the great forerunner of this pontificate - in his last months, as a pensioner, wrote something like this in his book-testament:

"I have the hope that sooner or later everyone will be redeemed. I am a great optimist ... My hope that God welcomes us all, that he is merciful, has become ever stronger ... On the other hand, it is natural, I can not imagine how Hitler or a murderer who has abused children can be close to God. It's easier for me to think that such people are simply being annihilated."

With these ideas, the pro-government wants to be more merciful of God and of Jesus himself who instead in the Gospel describes with terrible words the pains of hell. Here is the sense of bergoglio's mercy: overcoming that of Jesus.

On Hell he had let Scalfari go on ahead. For three times, on "Repubblica", over the years, he had already attributed that thesis to Bergoglio, without reporting direct quotation marks. The Vatican had never denied.

Reactions within the Church, confused and annihilated, there had been none. So this time someone must have thought it was time to quote those bergogliani concepts.

The newspaper came out, Thursday morning, no denial left from the Vatican. Until 15.00 when, with many hours of delay, that release came out. Because? What had happened?

THE REVOLT

It seems that this time - in front of a quotation that directly attributes to Pope Bergoglio two explicit heresies, in contrast with two fundamental dogmas of the Church - an important cardinal (not Italian) is indignant, has called some colleagues and then, even on their behalf , has directly suggested to Bergoglio what that interview could mean (professing heretical theses is one of the four causes of cessation of the Petrine ministry).

Bergoglio consulted with the Deputy Msgr. Becciu and decided to immediately run for cover with that statement of his spokesman, whose prior notice was given to Scalfari who - until today - has been at the game.

This would explain why "Republic" did not disclose the "denial" and did not respond. But will the story end here?

Antonio Socci
From "Libero", 1 April 2018
​

The following is an even stronger opinion on the papacy and it doesn't fit with what Cardinal Burke has stated in the past in regards to the Pope being a heretic imho,

The latest from Rome: One helluva distraction
https://akacatholic.com/hell-of-a-distraction/​

 

I’m not a fan of this writer, but that is worth reading:


https://akacatholic.com/hell-of-a-distraction/

The latest from Rome: One helluva distraction
Louie
The latest from Rome: One helluva distraction
Over the past few days, fresh on the heels of the Vatican letter debacle, many in traditional Catholic media have been wrestling with Francis’ most recent interview with his pal Eugenio Scalfari.

Did Francis plainly deny the existence of Hell or not?

I’d say there is good reason to believe that the answer is that he probably did; but as I’ll explain momentarily, I don’t especially care either way.

As a kind reader recently made me aware, among those in Catholic media who have weighed in on the debate is Michael Matt, publisher of America’s oldest traditional newspaper, who said:

If he actually did say this … If he believes this … Pope Francis is a heretic.

Indeed! The next obvious question, one I suspect he is unwilling to answer, is whether or not such a man can be considered Catholic much less the pope.

Look, I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Matt – whose approach to the present crisis is emblematic of a much more widespread problem – but why are we hyperventilating over what may or may not have been said to a ninety-three year old atheist who prides himself on not taking notes?

How about we focus on what we know – like the fact Francis has kindly provided the world with a signed written statement (and other irrefutable evidence) clearly attesting to which immutable Catholic doctrines he accepts and those that he rejects.

On the topic of Hell, for instance, he left no room for debate concerning what he believes, and what’s more, what he intends to lead others into believing, by stating:

No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone… (AL 297)

No one, everyone; i.e., there are no exceptions.

Folks, this is as blatant and as unambiguous a denial of the existence of Hell as we could ever hope to see, and it is just one of the many heresies set forth in Amoris Laetitia; the selfsame document wherein Francis plainly insists:

• The Divine Law is impossible for some persons to keep (cf AL 295)

• Adultery is not a mortal sin even for those who knowingly persist in it (cf AL 301)

• And worst of all, that God Himself asks us to do so. (cf AL 303)

And yet there are some in the comfortable world of well-established “traditional” Catholic media who – even though Francis has rejected appeal after appeal to confirm the true faith – cannot bring themselves to state the obvious:

Francis is without any question whatsoever a heretic, and a formal one at that.

Those of us who have a voice in Catholic media have a grave obligation to speak this truth plainly, warning all with ears to hear of this clear and present danger; even though we know very well that doing so will incur a certain cost.

And why?

Simply put: For the glory of God and the salvation of souls.

 

Hi Aviso

I am not aware of any Church council removing a valid Pope. Some councils may have recognized that some men were anti-popes when the Church has had multiple claimants to the See of Peter, but that is not the case now as Fr. Benedict recognizes Pope Francis as the legitimate Pope. Also several valid Popes have resigned the office as well. I will admit I am perhaps missing something, but not to my knowledge.

 

The Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basel...ect....who is Fr. Benedict my Friend ?

 

Fr. Benedict is what the former Pope Benedict XVI has asked to be called.

Can you be more specific as to what valid reigning Popes have been removed from office?

 

The Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basel all fired one pope or another and I am sure you will get the détails, this should be easy for you, to my knowledge you are the first to call the Pope Emeritus Father Benedict, Pope Benedict himself is signing any official Church documents with this name (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), so my turn please remind me when the former Pope had asked to be called Father Benedict, My memory probably, thank you.

 

At the Council of Pisa in 1409, the bishops dethroned the two rival schismatic popes, Benedict XIII and Gregory XII, and elected a third, Alexander V.

At the Council of Constance (1414-1418), the Council accepted the resignations of Benedict XIII and Alexander’s successor John XXIII and deposed the third papal claimant, Benedict XIII.

At the council of Basel, Pope Eugene IV was deposed in 1439, but the Council itself was declared illegitimate by the rival Council at Ferrara and Florence.

To my understanding these were all cases of schismatics, anti-popes, or Popes who resigned for the good of the Church.

So yes, theoretically if they held a council and asked Pope Francis to resign then possibly he would. This however brings up additional problems as current canon law today reads that no Pope may be pressured to leave the Papacy. That may not have been the law when these other councils were held. And as cited in most cases they were’t legitimate Popes anyway.

Here is one of the articles that states the title that the former Pope Benedict XVI prefers to be called is Fr. Benedict:
http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=12369

 

So a Pope can be remove and this one will be remove, be sure of that, via God or probably a Council in my opinion and the sooner the better, in other word There’s nothing preventing someone, if they can get sufficient support, to convene a Council that declares itself legitimate and then deposes a pope, simple as that.

Thanks for the link about Pope Benedict, well when Benedict will put back his Priest's habit (black and not white ) and will sign any official document with Father Benedict (which is not the case yet) then I will call him myself Father Benedict until then (in other word probably never) I call anyone to call him Pope Emeritus Benedict, so I keep my opinion, thank you.

PS : Our good Friends Salza and Siscoe's book Probably ? in my opinon to avoid at all cost.

 

I'm not so sure that he outright denied the existence of Hell. It's more likely that he believes that Hell and its occupants will be annihilated after the General Judgement. That would be closer to Teilhard deChardin's beliefs, so AED could be right. I think that Teilhard believed that all creation is evolving, moving closer to God to the stage that God's creation will be absorbed into God's divinity, uniting the Creator with the created for all eternity. From my limited understanding of what he believed, he appeared to have no place for Hell and the damned in his surmising thereby necessitating their extinction.

If Pope Francis believes something along those lines, it would fit both with his warnings to the Mafia and allow for something along the lines of what Scalfari reported. According to Scalfari, cosmogenesis was among the topics they discussed.

Usually after Pope Francis says or does something questionable from a Catholic viewpoint, the reactions of his apologists fall into three categories:
(1) The Vatican insiders - journalists and blogger friends/friends of friends of the Pope or one of his clique; this category tends to treat Church teaching like a political manifesto, changeable with each Conclave;
(2) The Catholic "intelligentsia" who like to boast about how well read, well educated, or well informed they are, insinuating that any dissenting views are a sign of idiocy; this category will go to any lengths to turn 2+2=5 into a development of doctrine or hermeneutic of continuity; sometimes members of this category can also be found in category (3)
(3) The foot soldiers or echo chambers of (1) or (2), sometimes of both categories, who populate social media sharing links to the blogs and opinion pieces and lauding the bloggers/journalists/clergymen for their understanding of the deep, inner Francis; this category tends to give the impression that they believe that the Holy Spirit commanded the Cardinals at the Conclave to choose Pope Francis, making the Pope some kind of reincarnation of Jesus.

Browsing the internet, categories (1) and (2) are singing dumb, relying on the Vatican's non-denial, hoping the heresy accusations will fade away, leaving room for discussion on the possibility of incorporating annihilationism into official Church teaching at some later date. The majority of category (3) are sticking with "Merciful Francis is like Jesus who ate with sinners" and "mean Scalfari is a bad friend who misquotes good Pope Francis"; a few are trying to turn "depart from me you cursed into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" into some kind of temporal punishment (turning Hell into Purgatory) by a God who if he were as merciful as Pope Francis wouldn't let anyone suffer eternally. I will be very surprised if this doesn't pop up again, possibly in the form of a paper written by one of the Pope's favourite theologians - someone like Cardinal Kasper or a Jesuit.

 

Brian,
It continues to be very confusing.
I remember Cardinal Burke stating that the Pope did not commit heresy with AL and if he did he would cease to be the Pope.
Maybe things have been slowly getting clearer.

 

My Good Friend Brian, I am sorry but I do not share your opinion, this writter as you call him, in other word Louie in my opinion is probably one of the Best Spiritual Son of the Fatima Priest, Father Gruner and I will suggest to anyone to read his blog without hesitation, in other word my favorite blog as well, of course I do not share all with Louie, by the way he is not a Garabandalist but Father would be probably pleased with him, I am sure of that and I will give more détails why below :

I was myself in contact with the Fatima Priest for years as with John Vennari, I own to the Fatima Priest my Catechism as my own research about the Fatima 3rd Secret, let me add also and this will stop many rumors , No my Father was not Francis Alban, the author of the famous Book "the Fatima Priest" about Father Gruner, Yes I share the same name but not more, My Father was close to Mother Theresa only, in other word they had the same blad...etc...thank you.

Attached the Video from the Fatima Priest about Garabandal, this is the result of our own contact, Father was also a reader of my blog.

 

I have been praying that the truth will come out and people will be helped
I think that our prayers and Rosaries are bringing good fruit
Maybe not so much changing the Pope and the rotten hierarchy
But helping us to have the graces we need

 

Pope says there is no hell.

Date April 1st

(If only!)

 

For people who can assert that 2+2=5, it is only a short step to 'everlasting=temporary'. This policy renders every statement ever made by anyone capable of being interpreted any way whatsoever. It is an approach that ultimately dissolves all reality. The 'intellectuals' who propagate this nihilism (it is no coincidence that they conjure up the concept of annihilation) are guilty not of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but of delegating themselves as the source of Knowledge itself. Pride to the ultimate degree. Their new religion may devastate our church, but it won't itself have much staying power.

The evil concept that infects Teilhardism, and also that lies behind the increasingly nonviable and discredited Theory of Evolution, is the notion that the Higher can be created by the Lower. Long ago, Aristotle reasoned that this was not so (no effect can be greater than its cause), but even well before that, God had revealed this Truth in Genesis. It would be typically ironic that Catholic liberals would take upon themselves a world-view that is currently, and very quickly and comprehensively, falling apart as their new paradigm. Those in fashion are always on the verge of becoming outdated.

 

That is precisely where I take my consolation. Focus on what we know is true. Yes our non-denominational friends will either have things to say or ask us for our point of view. We must be quite honest in that point of view!!

 

There is a very interesting article in, 'Crux', about all this.

I say, 'Interesting', because it illustrates some very,very confused thinking about all this. People really, really, really want to believe the Pope did not really say this, so they go through all kind of mental gymnastics to believe this, this is a very good example of such confused thinking:

.a kind of wish it all away, let's pretend it never happened point of view:

I kinda of want to holler, 'Get real!!' I'm long past the, 'Wish upon a star', phase myself, the logic here appears to be,

'It was just Pope Francis being silly; again'

https://cruxnow.com/news-analysis/2...n-interview-pope-interview-this-time-on-hell/

 

"Those in fashion are always on the verge of becoming outdated" is so true. It brings to mind the Vatican doing a survey of young people in preparation for the next Synod. A hefty proportion of those young people are non-Catholic, non-Christian or atheist. Their "wants" will be the excuse for more shelving of dogma and doctrine under the guise of pastoral practice. By they time the practice is fully implemented, the young people surveyed will be approaching middle age yet the universal Church will be pandering to notions of their immature image of the ideal Church of their ideal God. Notions which the lessons of adult life will have caused them to abandon. I get the impression that our Church is being led by people who took a wrong turn on their way home from Woodstock and ended up in the Vatican.

 

Allen claims that Pope Francis has spoken about Hell more often than any other recent Pope, gives one not entirely convincing example, then claims: "One could go on compiling examples, but there's no need to belabour the point". Hmmm...

They appear to be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

I'd say they took more than a wrong turn.