Francis denies Hell

[KnightofChrist]

17 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Anathema statements are not infallible, or at least they are not a good determination in of themselves, that is if my memory from seminary is still up to speed. Also the Second Synod of Orange was a local/particular council, as such I don't think this is exactly a very compelling argument.

Also I don't think this quite says what I think you think it says. One of the very consistent caveats or lack of clarity is what is the nature of that punishment? If the word 'complete' was dropped it would say what I think you want it to say. But with it there it certainly adds to a traditional tread of belief with the early Christians that apart of the eternal punishment for sin would be the memory of sin and its punishment. That cannot be really taken away.

Also I could be mistaken here but I don't think the church has the authority to definitively define anything that they are not taking from some unanimous consensus of the church's deposit of faith. I mean I know the First and Second Vatican Councils pushed papal and conciliar infallibility in limited contexts, but I am not quite recalling if that is one of the requirements or not.

Personally I think the infallibility argument for Catholics is taken a wee bit too far and/or is a mistake. I recall a doctor of catholic theology and history telling me something along the lines that the doctrine of infallibility is a result of the indefectible nature of the church, saying something along the lines of that in this sense its the authority of the church that god blesses to bind and loosen, and that god will honor those definitions even if they be lacking or wrong, thus someone who believes such god will honor and those who do not... not so much.

But I would have to get some old books out to think about the previous paragraph some more.

Reading the full opinion piece... Piergiorgio Odifreddi's objection to his former boss is not that he lacks credibility but that he doesn't do enough to engender trust... such as taking notes, making recordings, not sensationalizing the news, and so on. In the opinion piece he admits that Eugenio Scalfari has retracted statements in the past. Not really the hallmark of 'fake news'.

The Catholic Church also has a pretty tenuous relationship with putting truth behind its agenda, rather the Catholic Church has a very long track record of putting its agenda first and truth sometimes comes later. So I am not in particular very impressed that the Catholic Church didn't like the reporting.

Which is basically Piergiorgio Odifredd's whole point. That it was made first page.

Also Piergiorgio Odifreddi QUIT, he says it right in his piece (that funny enough he cited) and explains why. Also Eugenio Scalfari is NOT a communist. So whoever this blogger is seems to either not grasp the Italian all that well or is really injecting his own fake news into the situation.

Yes, I am aware that Benedict XVI does not agree with the Second Vatican Council.

The Second Vatican Council had a lot of very difficult to fully process aspects to it. I don't think any Pope has ever said its been fully implemented or well understood by anyone.

No. I think that is a cop-out answer firstly. Secondly, I argued it is in opposition to even basic justice and holiness (citing the catechism of the Catholic Church and the gospels).

I mean lets be really blunt. If hell is as bad as conservative Christianity proposes then god's hell looks worse than North Korea's death camps. Isn't that a little embarrassing to you that if true you could say 'well that hilter... at least he wasn't as mean as god.'?

So basically this summed up is, 'god is justice, because justice is god, therefor god cannot be unjust, and justice cannot be god'? That basically sounds like you are making the word justice utterly meaningless.

So based on what was written here... define for me justice.

 

To "Hell" with your heresy. Hell does exist there are both demonic and human souls who have, are and will be damned there forever. This is not up for debate, not only because this is not the debate board, but because Christ and the Church has always taught Hell exist and souls are immortal. Despite any cunning falsehoods, errors or lies you are able to formulate. Stop misleading people, please. Or don't it will not surprise me if you don't. It is a incredibly sad state of affairs in the Church hen the most basic teachings are being denied and have to be defended. 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

1 hour ago, (filtered) said:

To "Hell" with your heresy.

Except you can't show it is heresy. There are plenty of Catholic theologians who propose a reconciliationist view of the afterlife and even no hell at all... they have not been penalized by the Catholic Church nor the institutions that employ them. Rather the opposite...

For example Hans Urs Von Balthasar ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Urs_von_Balthasar ) who was both one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century for the Catholic Church, was a devote Priest, and was in fact elevated to cardinal (even if posthumously because sadly he died before the ceremony due to his exceeding age). He proposed not a straight forward renouncing of hell but rather proposed that its eternity, if there are any souls there now, and if there will be a final salvation is at least uncertain and undecided by the church... and that there is both the want and need from a scriptural point of view to hope for the salvation of all. This was most prominently put on display in his book "Dare We Hope: "All Men Be Saved". He opens up the book with several quotations as a primer:

Quote

"Neither Holy Scripture nor the Church’s Tradition of faith asserts with certainty of any man that he is actually in hell. Hell is always held before our eyes as a real possibility, one connected with the offer of conversion and life."

The Church’s Confession of Faith: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, published by the German Bishops’ Conference, English edition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), p• 346

 

1 hour ago, (filtered) said:

Hell does exist there are both demonic and human souls who have, are and will be damned there forever.

So says you. But the eternal damnedness of hell is not settled by the Catholic Church. At least not definitively. But it has been the norm for Christianity kinda since Agustin and moreover since Aquinas.

1 hour ago, (filtered) said:

This is not up for debate, not only because this is not the debate board, but because Christ and the Church has always taught Hell exist and souls are immortal.

It isn't a debate. It is a factual thoughtful and meaningful discussion about current events and matters that relate to them at least tangentially. The Ope Mic form has the description of "General discussion among Catholics and non-Catholics about Catholic or non-Catholic stuff." That seems to fall well within that guideline and the topic of Pope Francis seemingly and allegedly denying hell is well on topic.

But as I have shown already that is not true. Even modern top and revered Catholic scholars disagree that it is settled. That is just factual. And to date despite claims, like from individuals like you, no one has seemed to be able to bolster the claim that it is settled.

And it is not a debate, apologetics, nor inter-religious dialogue. As an agnostic I am merely joining the discussion and contributing. If I were debating I would be much more forceful and be much more blunt. Like if a debate I might point out that claiming something without sources isn't proof and just because you believe something to be so doesn't mean it is so. But out of deference to that this isn't a debate I have tried to keep my criticism to an absolute minimum and attempted to keep it to a meager sharing of facts.

1 hour ago, (filtered) said:

Despite any cunning falsehoods, errors or lies you are able to formulate.

No falsehoods, errors, or lies. This is all coming from reasonable sources. I dare say that is tantamount to calling me a liar... and I am very sure a personal attack.

1 hour ago, (filtered) said:

 Stop misleading people, please.

Fairly joining in on on-topic discussion, sharing my views in a relevant meaningful and constructive manner, and contributing with information and sources... is not misleading people. You may viciously disagree with me, that is your right and a right I encourage you to have, but quite simply it is not misleading... and again you are basically calling me a liar. A personal attack.

1 hour ago, (filtered) said:

Or don't it will not surprise me if you don't.

This is very similar to my last interaction with you at:

Which I responded to... you seem very bombastic (telling me I can take my views to hell, I am fairly sure that violates the 'negative criticism of other religions guideline'), accusatory (you alleged I was rude and contradictory, though not being able to cite anything specifically), demeaning (you implicated me as dumb among other references), and I could go on...

I was very quick to assess and let you know in that reply that:

Quote

Though I agree... if that is how you feel... you shouldn't spend a single nanosecond on me. And seeing how you respond to evidence I am not convinced that even if you did it would be particularly useful to you.

Stress was in the original post as well. Despite this you seem to continue interacting with me despite holding same views. To which this is more of the same from you far as I can see... which so far I wold easily say falls into cyberbullying. You seem to think that your faith entitles you to cyberbully others. A pity.

I will be honest any further continuation in same form from you will not surprise me at all. It seems to be your normative 'modus opradi'...

2 hours ago, (filtered) said:

It is a incredibly sad state of affairs in the Church hen the most basic teachings are being denied and have to be defended. 

I am not of the Catholic Church. I am an agnostic. More specifically a secular humanist.

The fact that you feel a defense is needed/warranted is quite telling about how you have read my comments thus far. Perhaps it is far more convincing and compelling than you give me credit. So thats something. Thanks.

[Anomaly]

Francis is right in this instance.  (In my opinion...)  There is no eternal physical hell.   There is only our brief physical existence with our relatively perceived experience of hell or or heaven in this life.  

Take a breath and be kindly empathetic and try not to create today’s hell for others or yourself.  

Edited April 7, 2018 by Anomaly

[Seven77]

Pope Francis didn't deny the existence of the eternal hell. A secular liberal journalist who is in his 90s says that he did...  the man didn't take notes and is known to make stuff up.  He said that he wanted to meet the Pope, and he honored that.  Why does the Pope keep meeting him?  how about this: the Pope doesn't actually know the journalist is twisting his quotes? It is entirely possible. In charity, give people the benefit of the doubt before making a judgment--  We should operate this way.

I have heard/seen some of his homilies in which he mentioned the devil, the devil is real-- which logically means that hell would be real too. 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

19 minutes ago, Seven77 said:

and is known to make stuff up.

Not to date. Although he has in the past admitted that he was wrong (not made up, just wrong, it happens even to the very best of journalists... and like a real honest and creditable journalist he retracted and apologized). But no... I have no seen or heard a single actual incident of him making anything up at all.

Other criticisms about him like his very outdated style, not taking notes, leaning liberal (at least socially), and so is pretty fair... I mean the man literally vividly remembers WWII and was made to work for the only atheist axis power, Mussolini... who politically was extreme far-right backed by the Italian Confederation of Industry and he went around killing socialists and communists for good measure. So its not too surprising that kinda made him dislike the political right... and thats actually his cited reason for disliking it. Also why hes viciously anti-corruption.

This notion that hes not reputable... is basically following this logic I find here and elsewhere. "I believe in hell. Surely the pope must too. Therefore this man is a liar. Anyone who remotely agrees with me proves my point."

26 minutes ago, Seven77 said:

I have heard/seen some of his homilies in which he mentioned the devil, the devil is real-- which logically means that hell would be real too. 

Its not really that unusual to deviate from the mainstream beliefs on hell within the Catholic Church. The rationale and justification for it abounds.

But to say that he talks about a devil means he believes in hell is really reaching. Besides even if you read the bible the devil isn't in hell. Because... god. The book of Job even indicates that god lets the devil wander into heaven into the divine council/court.

And there are those who believe in an underworld or non eternal non tormenting state after death who are Catholic... I mentioned one above. So even mentioning hell what hell is... isn't clear.

This is an example of confirmation bias. You read what you think... and you find what you think.

 

[KnightofChrist]

8 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Except you can't show it is heresy. There are plenty of Catholic theologians who propose a reconciliationist view of the afterlife and even no hell at all... they have not been penalized by the Catholic Church nor the institutions that employ them. Rather the opposite...

For example Hans Urs Von Balthasar ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Urs_von_Balthasar ) who was both one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century for the Catholic Church, was a devote Priest, and was in fact elevated to cardinal (even if posthumously because sadly he died before the ceremony due to his exceeding age). He proposed not a straight forward renouncing of hell but rather proposed that its eternity, if there are any souls there now, and if there will be a final salvation is at least uncertain and undecided by the church... and that there is both the want and need from a scriptural point of view to hope for the salvation of all. This was most prominently put on display in his book "Dare We Hope: "All Men Be Saved". He opens up the book with several quotations as a primer:

 

So says you. But the eternal damnedness of hell is not settled by the Catholic Church. At least not definitively. But it has been the norm for Christianity kinda since Agustin and moreover since Aquinas.

It isn't a debate. It is a factual thoughtful and meaningful discussion about current events and matters that relate to them at least tangentially. The Ope Mic form has the description of "General discussion among Catholics and non-Catholics about Catholic or non-Catholic stuff." That seems to fall well within that guideline and the topic of Pope Francis seemingly and allegedly denying hell is well on topic.

But as I have shown already that is not true. Even modern top and revered Catholic scholars disagree that it is settled. That is just factual. And to date despite claims, like from individuals like you, no one has seemed to be able to bolster the claim that it is settled.

And it is not a debate, apologetics, nor inter-religious dialogue. As an agnostic I am merely joining the discussion and contributing. If I were debating I would be much more forceful and be much more blunt. Like if a debate I might point out that claiming something without sources isn't proof and just because you believe something to be so doesn't mean it is so. But out of deference to that this isn't a debate I have tried to keep my criticism to an absolute minimum and attempted to keep it to a meager sharing of facts.

No falsehoods, errors, or lies. This is all coming from reasonable sources. I dare say that is tantamount to calling me a liar... and I am very sure a personal attack.

Fairly joining in on on-topic discussion, sharing my views in a relevant meaningful and constructive manner, and contributing with information and sources... is not misleading people. You may viciously disagree with me, that is your right and a right I encourage you to have, but quite simply it is not misleading... and again you are basically calling me a liar. A personal attack.

This is very similar to my last interaction with you at:

Which I responded to... you seem very bombastic (telling me I can take my views to hell, I am fairly sure that violates the 'negative criticism of other religions guideline'), accusatory (you alleged I was rude and contradictory, though not being able to cite anything specifically), demeaning (you implicated me as dumb among other references), and I could go on...

I was very quick to assess and let you know in that reply that:

Stress was in the original post as well. Despite this you seem to continue interacting with me despite holding same views. To which this is more of the same from you far as I can see... which so far I wold easily say falls into cyberbullying. You seem to think that your faith entitles you to cyberbully others. A pity.

I will be honest any further continuation in same form from you will not surprise me at all. It seems to be your normative 'modus opradi'...

I am not of the Catholic Church. I am an agnostic. More specifically a secular humanist.

The fact that you feel a defense is needed/warranted is quite telling about how you have read my comments thus far. Perhaps it is far more convincing and compelling than you give me credit. So thats something. Thanks.

Your choice of screen name and of avatar are misleading. Not to mention confusing and contradictory. The name is too long and is not fully shown. It just reads Green Scapulared Human. Now I understand that should read Humanist. But I've met plenty of people who say they are Catholic and humanist. The screen name is still misleading and lead me to believe you were Catholic. It is likely others have also been mislead. 

 I do not have the patience to debate someone arguing Hell doesn't exist or that souls are not immortal. I have the same patience debating someone arguing the Earth is flat and does not revolve around the Sun. 

It's settled matter and this is not the debate board. 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

24 minutes ago, (filtered) said:

Your choice of screen name and of avatar are misleading.

No... its not. Green Scapulars are typically for converts or lapsed Catholics. I was raised Catholic and even went to the seminary before leaving... and then left. Really left.

25 minutes ago, (filtered) said:

Not to mention confusing and contradictory.

No... you just didn't bother to read and decided to make some rash assumptions. You seem to do that a lot.

26 minutes ago, (filtered) said:

The name is too long and is not fully shown.

Pretty sure that if my name was too long it wouldn't of been allowed. That is just a guess. I didn't design the website. Not being fully shown. It is fully shown when I look at the page. I don't know what it looks like for you.

Highlighted areas just in case it was missed... (I really doubt it was, I really suspect this is post-rationalization)

33 minutes ago, (filtered) said:

 It just reads Green Scapulared Human. Now I understand that should read Humanist. But I've met plenty of people who say they are Catholic and humanist.

"GreenScaplaredHuman". No spaces. But it displays correctly. It should read 'human'. Because I am a 'human'. Which is to say the classical definition of human.

Quote

human (adj.)
"from Latin humanus "of man, human," also "humane, philanthropic, kind, gentle, polite; learned, refined, civilized." This is in part from PIE *(dh)ghomon-, literally "earthling, earthly being," as opposed to the gods"

It is very possible to be humanist and religious.

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.

To be a Catholic and be a secular humanist would not be as possible.

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
Secular humanism is a philosophy or life stance that embraces human reason, ethics, social justice, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the bases of morality and decision making.

The rejecting religious dogma aspect would be a stumbling point for Catholics, at least traditional and conservative Catholics, among other things inherent to secular humanism like philosophical naturalism and rejection of superstition and supernaturalism.

Basically the difference is one of degrees and scopes. Secular humanism is a deeper degree and larger scope. It is more developed. Almost all references to humanism today are to secular humanism and is in a sense the evolution of humanistic thought.

Personally as a secular humanist I would have no issue with someone saying they are Catholic and a secular humanist... but if they wanted to talk like you I would have major criticisms.

51 minutes ago, (filtered) said:

The screen name is still misleading and lead me to believe you were Catholic. It is likely others have also been mislead.

There is no intention to mislead. I suppose by your rationale I might accidentally assume you are a British knight, or a pope, or literally of the honored order that bears the same name... Yet there is nothing I can see that shows me you aren't any of those things where as on mine it clearly says agnostic and a green scapular isn't typically for Catholics...

So if we are going down the rabbit hole you want... you are the deceptive one. There is nothing to show me that you aren't those things. But I won't because its bunk and you should know its bunk.

55 minutes ago, (filtered) said:

I do not have the patience to debate someone

I don't think you are able to do anything other than reaffirm your already held convictions and criticize others for not agreeing. Thats been the only thing I have seen you do. And you seem unable and unwilling to engage honestly with me nor in a manner that is constructive or productive. You just want to argue... or more specifically you came here in the guise of self-righteous pomp.

56 minutes ago, (filtered) said:

someone arguing Hell doesn't exist or that souls are not immortal.

I never argued hell did not exist or that souls are not immortal.

Here is something fun to know about discussions. You read what other people type and you respond in a charitable on-topic productive way. You know what isn't that? Just making stuff up, accusing people of things, insulting/demeaning, and then bullying them... then hiding behind a false defense of faith. I doubt there is anything all that Christian or Catholic in this.
 

59 minutes ago, (filtered) said:

I have the same patience debating someone arguing the Earth is flat and does not revolve around the Sun.

This isn't a debate. This is you throwing a tantrum. You haven't cited anything. You have been grossly offensive, rude, condescending, deceptive, and outright a bully.

And if you want to pretend this is on the same level as the earth going around the sun. Prove to me with physical evidence, like I can show you that the Earth revolves around the sun (because I can), that hell is eternal.

I won't hold my breath. Don't fall off your flat earth trying to find it either.

1 hour ago, (filtered) said:

It's settled matter and this is not the debate board. 

Except its not. If it were you could show it. And you could at least explain the alternate sources I have brought up.

Except you can't. Because it isn't settled. And it is relevant to the topic.

What is NOT relevant to the topic is your complaints about me as a person and your imagined motivations that I may or may not have.

 

 

 

[KnightofChrist]

It is very easy to mistaken you as a Catholic given your name here and avatar. Accept it. On a phone that you are agnostic does not show up at all. On a computer it is small and easily missed. 

I'm not going to be goated into a debate that will just be a waste of time. For me it would be just as silly to argue with someone saying the Church doesn't really teach Christ was crucified. Or as I stated earlier that the Earth wasn't round.

I made this thread to discuss the report of the Pope denying Hell. If he did or did not.

I've said all I'm going to say about this. If others wish to continue debating with you on whether or not the Church actually teaches Hell exist. That's their choice of course but I think it's a bit silly and a waste of time.

[GreenScapularedHuman]

8 minutes ago, (filtered) said:

That's their choice of course but I think it's a bit silly and a waste of time.

A very good summary of this interaction with you thus far. Silly and a waste of time.

Since you haven't addressed anything I wrote nor rebutted any of my claims. And since all of this is really just you cyberbullying at this point and feigning ignorance/innocence... Thanks. but I am very comfortable with my posts. I doubt you are. If you are then you have my pity.

[Jack4]

On 4/6/2018 at 8:54 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Yes, I am aware that Benedict XVI does not agree with the Second Vatican Council.

I think you are missing the whole point; the quote is not of B16 in his personal capacity, it is from a document from a Curial dicastery  and duly approved by the Pope.

On 4/6/2018 at 8:54 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Anathema statements are not infallible,

.... and not always wrong; this anathema statement is about doctrine, not discipline.

Quote

Also the Second Synod of Orange was a local/particular council, as such I don't think this is exactly a very compelling argument.

But it was accepted by the Pope.

On 4/6/2018 at 8:54 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

So basically this summed up is, 'god is justice, because justice is god, therefor god cannot be unjust, and justice cannot be god'?

No, read what it says about grace,and also the last paragraph. 

11 hours ago, Seven77 said:

Pope Francis didn't deny the existence of the eternal hell. A secular liberal journalist who is in his 90s says that he did

 

From a friend in another forum:

Quote

 

 

There is also the possibility that he is not being 'misquoted' at all, but rather keeps talking to him because Scalfari is the only person he feels comfortable being completely honest with, and the more this happens, the less and less plausible the 'misquotation' theory becomes. After all, as the saying goes 'fool me once, shame on you, fool me five times, shame on me', or something like that...

The thing is, Pope Francis himself has never directly denied that anything Scalfari has ever printed is untrue. All the denials have been issued on his behalf by his spokesman. We ASSUME, without any real basis other than wishful thinking, that the reason the denials are being made is that the Pope has talked to his spokesmen and told them to issue a denial, but we don't actually know this for sure. Frankly, I think the real truth is likely that the Pope's spokesmen were caught flatfooted by the stories when they appeared in the media, and they issued a denial of their own accord, because they figure that protecting the Pope's image is their job, a job that the Pope makes very difficult by constantly making asinine, unscripted comments where he sticks his foot in his mouth. I want to hear Pope Francis deny all these remarks from his own lips, not from his spokesmen, who, for all we know, may not have even talked to the Pope before issuing their denials. 

And we do know that the Vatican press office does spend a lot of time on damage control because the Pope's impromptu comments are often heavily edited and revised before being posted on the Vatican webpage, which is a clear indication that the Vatican bureaucracy is well aware of just how harmful many of the Pope's comments are.

Indeed, given how often this Pope makes severe gaffes when speaking off-script, it's a fair question to ask why he keeps doing so. He has official speechwriters who spend hours writing carefully worded remarks that avoid all the verbal potholes he keeps falling into, and yet, he constantly throws the speech away and speaks off the cuff. Why? 

...

I think the most charitable interpretation is that the Pope is not particularly knowledgeable in theology, and he is an extremely unsystematic thinker who tends to get carried away into rhetorical flights of fancy and ends up saying things without really being aware of the full implications of what he is saying, only really realizing that has said something really stupid later on down the line, if at all. I also think he may have a bit of a problem that he tends to try to please a particular audience by saying something he thinks they want to hear, which may be why he says stuff that sounds orthodox when he is talking to Catholics, and stuff that sounds heterodox when talking to an atheist.

One thing that was said about Bill Clinton may be true of Pope Francis as well 'he means what he says when he says it, but tomorrow he will say the exact opposite, and he will mean that too, his sincerity is absolute, but it exists only in the passing moment.'

Again, that he is simply undisciplined and doesn't think about what he is saying before he says it, is probably the most charitable interpretation of his behavior.

 

 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

7 hours ago, Jack4 said:

I think you are missing the whole point; the quote is not of B16 in his personal capacity, it is from a document from a Curial dicastery  and duly approved by the Pope.

I think the whole point you have is minimizing this aspect of the Second Vatican Council. Which is not a really a concern or regard for me. But that is what I think. Because I am fairly sure not even the Pope can just go ahead and refute/modify conciliar documents on his own.

But more specifically I don't think what he wrote really refutes the statement nor its relevance. It also ignores the rather unusual history of democracy-esque practices in the early times of Christianity, including remarkably the election of bishops... even the bishop of rome. So the whole idea of a democratic church really isn't all that unusual and was (and in some limited ways) still hallmarks of Catholicism except that it has been limited (perhaps unduly, depending on which catholic scholar you listen to) to select special clergy for the most part.

7 hours ago, Jack4 said:

and not always wrong; this anathema statement is about doctrine, not discipline.

Dogma is a matter of discipline. The reason it is of relevance is NOT so much because the Catholic Church says it is true but because it is an indication that Catholics need to give some 'assent' to it. But anathema if you look at the meaning of the word it is very difficult to take it as anything other than disciplinary.

7 hours ago, Jack4 said:

But it was accepted by the Pope

I must of missed where and how that is of relevance to this discussion...

7 hours ago, Jack4 said:

No, read what it says about grace,and also the last paragraph.

How about you just tell me what you think it says. I already read it. You don't seem to think I took the meaning you took from it. So rather than asking me to keep rereading it how about you just come out with it?

7 hours ago, Jack4 said:

From a friend in another forum:

A not so bad spin...

Though if I were to be very cynical for a moment... I think Pope Francis is the best PR stunt the Catholic Church has ever done. From his name, to how he acts, to where he is from, to everything about him. It is almost like the Vatican got it through their heads that public relations and marketing matters. And if that is true its not hard to imagine that these statements which are made off-the-cuff are just to get attention and good publicity.

After all... Pope Francis was hailed for saying who is he to judge LGBTQers... but he didn't really do or change anything did he? So he got attention... he made people think the Catholic Church is less anti-LGBTQ (except it hasn't really changed at all, at least not because of and/or under Pope Francis).

PR...
 

[Jack4]

10 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

I think the whole point you have is minimizing this aspect of the Second Vatican Council.

Not minimising but understating. In the hermeneutic of continuity

But more specifically I don't think what he wrote really refutes the statement nor its relevance. It also ignores the rather unusual history of democracy-esque practices in the early times of Christianity, including remarkably the election of bishops... even the bishop of rome. So the whole idea of a democratic church really isn't all that unusual and was (and in some limited ways) still hallmarks of Catholicism except that it has been limited (perhaps unduly, depending on which catholic scholar you listen to) to select special clergy for the most part.  

Though the style of administrating was different, they did not believe that the truth is decided by majority vote

 

10 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Dogma is a matter of discipline. The reason it is of relevance is NOT so much because the Catholic Church says it is true but because it is an indication that Catholics need to give some 'assent' to it. But anathema if you look at the meaning of the word it is very difficult to take it as anything other than disciplinary.

Anathemas are a literary form sometimes used to teach doctrine. 

I must of missed where and how that is of relevance to this discussion...

On the authority of the Council.

How about you just tell me what you think it says. I already read it. You don't seem to think I took the meaning you took from it. So rather than asking me to keep rereading it how about you just come out with it?

That God loves us does not automatically  magically blot out sin. Those who separate themselves from God ate doing precisely that. Sin against the Holy Spirit. 

 

10 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

A not so bad spin...

Though if I were to be very cynical for a moment... I think Pope Francis is the best PR stunt the Catholic Church has ever done. 

I beg to differ. He spreads confusion. 

 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

4 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Not minimising but understating. In the hermeneutic of continuity

That didn't quite make sense to me?

4 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Though the style of administrating was different, they did not believe that the truth is decided by majority vote

But they did... its how the councils (even the one you cite) worked. You may believe that there is something more transcendent about this process but that is a belief. Why is the vote of bishops or cardinals more secure from error than say if it were a vote of the faithful?

Also kind of missing if the bishops (even the pope, the bishop of rome) was selected at least in part by the faithful... then those bishops (and the pope) were by extension a reflection of the people's voting... no?

4 hours ago, Jack4 said:

That God loves us does not automatically  magically blot out sin. Those who separate themselves from God ate doing precisely that. Sin against the Holy Spirit. 

Sinning against the Holy Spirit if I recall correctly is refusing the mercy and love of the Holy Spirit. That is to say... refusing forgiveness. Like by refusing to seek forgiveness.

But that doesn't really refute or answer many of the things I brought up before. It also seems like you are strawmaning me... I never said there is no hell... I just said I cannot fathom that it is eternal nor that it is a horrible place. It seems inherently contradictory to the alleged nature of god and it seems not to be well supported by the early christians nor even really even by the modern body of definitive doctrines and this is confirmed by some of the best experts on catholic theology (as I mentioned previously).

But the whole idea of god, forgiveness, hell... all is quite 'magical' in a sort of condescending sense now isn't it? Ironic that you opted to use the word 'magic'.

4 hours ago, Jack4 said:

I beg to differ. He spreads confusion. 

The New Testament even says that sometimes people are in need of milk not meat. Jesus said there were many things that he wanted to tell them but they could not bear it then. Jesus also confused quite a few people... it was something even his apostles and disciplines asked about. Even his alleged explanations are rather confusing and cryptic. The whole of the Bible is kinda a hodgepodge of writings, ideologies, and the like.

But the Pope, as the most visible and highest authority in the Catholic Church, he has a responsibility to bring people in and NOT out.

Notes: I think this topic is a little conflated. Pope Francis was alleged to have said hell does not exist... I said I don't believe that if there is a hell that it is eternal or a place of torment, at very least I hope and pray, and I do pray for the spirits in purgatory and hell that they be saved and/or receive relief. Even the demons. I believe that the right thing to do. Even though I concede I am not even so sure I believe there is a god, heaven, hell, or anything like that to be honest. But that goes into why I am here in the first place, my screen-name, and so on...

In the course of discussing Pope Francis' alleged view I commented my view. I then offered why...
I also added in that this view, that sinners disappear, is not entirely alien and was never quite rebuked or condemned... the doctrine just fell out of common christian theology.

Edited April 9, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman

[dUSt]

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/04/09/the-devil-is-real-and-not-just-a-symbol-pope-francis-says-in-exhortation/

[little2add]

This tread reminds me of a song...