Francis denies Hell

[KnightofChrist]

So what does everyone think of Pope Francis denying the existence of hell, giving yet another interview (5th?) to Scalfari, and the Vatican's non-denial clarification?

I'd like to believe Francis said nothing of the sort but just how many times am I supposed to believe Scalfari is lying about Francis denying some major part of the Faith when he keeps giving interviews to the man?

 

[Luigi]

Scalfari is a 93-year old atheist. I don't know how healthy his ears and mind are. He does not record interviews, and he does not take notes during interviews.

The newspaper he founded, La Repubblica, is at least left-leaning - anti-religion, anti-Church, anti-Catholic. Scalfari has an agenda, as most journalists do these days. The idea that journalists are objective reporters of facts is simply not true, especially in Europe, especially among post-World War II liberal atheists. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the American mainstream media (notably NPR, MSNBC, CNN, Fox, etc.) picked up their clearly ideological journalistic approach from Europe's media.

If many journalists consistently misunderstand the Pope, then the Pope is probably the problem. If Scalfari is the only journalist who consistently misunderstands the Pope, then Scalfari is probably the problem. (I do, however, wonder why the Pope consistently grants private interviews to a journalist who consistently misunderstands/misinterprets/misquotes him.)

Here's an article from the Catholic News Agency that explains: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-dont-trust-report-that-pope-francis-denied-reality-of-hell-53450

[CatherineM]

You've fallen for fake news. 

[KnightofChrist]

2 hours ago, Luigi said:

Scalfari is a 93-year old atheist. I don't know how healthy his ears and mind are. He does not record interviews, and he does not take notes during interviews.

The newspaper he founded, La Repubblica, is at least left-leaning - anti-religion, anti-Church, anti-Catholic. Scalfari has an agenda, as most journalists do these days. The idea that journalists are objective reporters of facts is simply not true, especially in Europe, especially among post-World War II liberal atheists. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the American mainstream media (notably NPR, MSNBC, CNN, Fox, etc.) picked up their clearly ideological journalistic approach from Europe's media.

If many journalists consistently misunderstand the Pope, then the Pope is probably the problem. If Scalfari is the only journalist who consistently misunderstands the Pope, then Scalfari is probably the problem. (I do, however, wonder why the Pope consistently grants private interviews to a journalist who consistently misunderstands/misinterprets/misquotes him.)

Here's an article from the Catholic News Agency that explains: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-dont-trust-report-that-pope-francis-denied-reality-of-hell-53450

 

2 hours ago, CatherineM said:

You've fallen for fake news. 

But this is Francis' 5th personal interview with Scalfari, and the 5th time it has caused worldwide confusion and controversy.

Why keep giving personal interviews to an fake news, left-leaning, anti-religion, anti-Church, anti-Catholic atheist with an agenda? It doesn't make any sense.

 

It should not be forgotten that Pope Francis also denied Hell destruction of unsaved souls in a 2015 Scalfari interview that was published on the Vatican website under Francis' offical documents. 

[Luigi]

Scalfari is ninety-three.  He'll find out soon enough whether or not hell exists - and possibly even its exact location. One hopes that, as a reporter, he'll report back to the rest of us - either in La Repubblica or to Catholic News Agency. 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

Looking at my copy of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma in reference to hell, it mentions that the punishment of hell is eternal (de fide) but only in as much as the fires of hell are eternal, it mentions that the church fathers and the major theologians of the church have had some major lack of agreement and later major dissents from the ideal that souls will endure eternal punishment. As such the notion that souls in hell cannot be helped is not de fide. So I am not entirely sure that this is a very done deal for Catholics...

But personally I do not believe in a fire-and-brimstone hell. The whole idea that one can be separated from god is I think inherently opposed to the notion that god is omnipresent. I could go into why but needless to say I generally think that there will be an ultimate and final reconciliation and salvation of everyone eventually... what happens between now and that eventually I would like to hope and I even pray is very merciful, loving, and fair.

So if Pope Francis said this I don't think it really changes what most people believe or not about hell.
Which to note a significant number of Catholics when polled don't believe in hell either.

And as a curious add-on... some people believe in hell but not heaven.

[Seven77]

11 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Looking at my copy of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma in reference to hell, it mentions that the punishment of hell is eternal (de fide) but only in as much as the fires of hell are eternal, it mentions that the church fathers and the major theologians of the church have had some major lack of agreement and later major dissents from the ideal that souls will endure eternal punishment. As such the notion that souls in hell cannot be helped is not de fide. So I am not entirely sure that this is a very done deal for Catholics...

But personally I do not believe in a fire-and-brimstone hell. The whole idea that one can be separated from god is I think inherently opposed to the notion that god is omnipresent. I could go into why but needless to say I generally think that there will be an ultimate and final reconciliation and salvation of everyone eventually... what happens between now and that eventually I would like to hope and I even pray is very merciful, loving, and fair.

So if Pope Francis said this I don't think it really changes what most people believe or not about hell.
Which to note a significant number of Catholics when polled don't believe in hell either.

7

Fascinating, coming from an agnostic

Incidentally, speaking about agnostic, I don't trust anything a 93-year-old atheist leftist said that the Pope said. (Why does the Pope keep seeing the man?  Why did Jesus dine with public sinners?) 

Why on earth would the Pope blatantly deny what the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states:

 

Quote

1035 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." 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.

1

 And who cares what a significant number of Catholics believe. I mean it's not something to be concerned/ unconcerned about,  it just a significant number of Catholics believing something doesn't mean that it's true/untrue.

[GreenScapularedHuman]

59 minutes ago, Seven77 said:

Incidentally, speaking about agnostic, I don't trust anything a 93-year-old atheist leftist said that the Pope said.

The man in question has had a rather diverse life, politically and otherwise, and to say he is a leftist is... at least a little bit disingenuous since he spent the overwhelming majority of his life supporting right-wing causes. He says he is a libertarian and leans socially liberal, his journalistic style tends to be moderate though very critical of corruption.

He is a reputable and creditable journalist. Not known to lie or to be corrupt. Corruption is far more common and entrenched in Italy so that really says something about the character of the man. Nothing he has reported in general, including Pope Francis, has ever been refuted or denied moreover by the Catholic Church...

To reject what the man has reported purely on that he is an atheist, old, and/or even leftist ignoring his legacy or reputation is extraordinarily unfair/discriminatory.

1 hour ago, Seven77 said:

(Why does the Pope keep seeing the man?  Why did Jesus dine with public sinners?)

Perhaps because he is a decent man and a respected journalist in Italy. Perhaps because Pope Francis seems to use him to get news out in a manner that offers some illusion of deniability and distance. For example he previously reported Pope Francis indicated that from internal audits and investigation ~2% of the church's overall clergy suffered from some form of pedophilia. Not something that the Catholic Church is eager to talk about and one that is politically inadvisable for the Pope to put out as there is significant resistance to investigation, reform, and accountability within the Catholic Church on that very scandal.

But yes... If you read the gospels Jesus entertained the company of many sinners... including those who were trying to trick, challenge, entrap, and otherwise persecute him.

1 hour ago, Seven77 said:

Why on earth would the Pope blatantly deny what the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church isn't infallible and it isn't meant to be taken that way. The Catechism mentions this and discusses that not all doctrines of the Catholic Church are equal and reserves the interpretation and judgement of her own doctrines to the Church. The Catechism also concedes that every person must follow the dictates of their conscience, moreover in religious matters, and cannot be compelled to faith or to act contrary to their conscience.

So why would the Pope deny it? It seems to be an area of valid theological contention and dissent. It is also the Pope's right to do so moreover if it is a matter of conscience for him. The Catholic Church has far as I am aware always tolerated that its faithful moreover theologians to have intellectual liberty to approach theology. There have also been plenty of Supreme Pontiffs who have held views that were at least unusual or possibly heretical... the standard seems to be if they preach or attempt to change church doctrine regarding it.

If my understanding is close enough to right... that would mean that this journalist is really the only avenue for the Pope to discuss such dissent without risking his perceived legitimacy.
 

1 hour ago, Seven77 said:

And who cares what a significant number of Catholics believe. I mean it's not something to be concerned/ unconcerned about,  it just a significant number of Catholics believing something doesn't mean that it's true/untrue.

92 "The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."55

[tinytherese]

If the exact same journalist kept getting what I said wrong over and over, I'd stop giving him permission. 

[Guest]

Is there a link to where Pope Francis denies the existence of Hell ?  Or is it only reporting that he had denied Hell? 

https://aleteia.org/2018/03/30/3-times-pope-francis-warned-about-hell/

[Anastasia13]

19 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

But personally I do not believe in a fire-and-brimstone hell. The whole idea that one can be separated from god is I think inherently opposed to the notion that god is omnipresent. I could go into why but needless to say I generally think that there will be an ultimate and final reconciliation and salvation of everyone eventually... what happens between now and that eventually I would like to hope and I even pray is very merciful, loving, and fair.

Fun fact: some Eastern church fathers held that the burning in hell were not about the fire and brimstone but about the burning of God's love for the unsaved even though they rejected that love.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Anastasia (L&T)

[GreenScapularedHuman]

1 minute ago, Anastasia (L&T) said:

Fun fact: some Eastern church fathers held that the burning in hell were not about the fire and brimstone but about the burning of God's love for the unsaved even though they rejected that love.

I am aware. I have written elsewhere and before that is kinda what I think. I think the fires of the underworld are the Holy Spirit. If it is purifying and redeeming is up to the individual soul. In which that process can either be torment, purifying, and/or bliss purely on the state and disposition of such a soul entering into the Holy Spirit.

Though far as I am aware Eastern Orthodoxy tends to agree that hell is eternal.

[Anastasia13]

1 minute ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Though far as I am aware Eastern Orthodoxy tends to agree that hell is eternal.

This is so.

[little2add]

Paragraph 1. Christ Descended into Hell

 

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek -

IN BRIEF

636 By the expression "He descended into hell", the Apostles' Creed confesses that Jesus did really die and through his death for us conquered death and the devil "who has the power of death" (Heb 2:14).

637 In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven's gates for the just who had gone before him.

476 Eph 4:9-10.

hell exist 

death is hell

[GreenScapularedHuman]

Sheol was a tomb or grave, moreover a family tomb or grave... moreover in context the idea of a common grave for mankind... the idea of it as an afterlife is much later (300bce-100ce) but that afterlife was regarded for the virtuous and the unvirtuous, only much later (200ce-300ce) do references to it become more negative for the unvirtuous.

Edited April 3, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman