When Jesus spoke about that place
with the weeping and gnashing of teeth,
He wasn’t talking about Walmart
March 29, 2018
Even as cockle therefore is gathered up, and burnt with fire: so shall it be at the end of the world. The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matt 13:40-42
It’s pretty basic. Does not require a “sophisticated theologian.”
And if thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished. And if thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off. It is better for thee to enter lame into life everlasting, than having two feet, to be cast into the hell of unquenchable fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished. And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out. It is better for thee with one eye to enter into the kingdom of God, than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished. Mark 9:42-47
Therefore, Hell is: a) Real, b) Eternal, c) Populated.
[Scalfari:] Your Holiness, in our previous meeting you told me that our species will disappear in a certain moment and that God, still out of his creative force, will create new species. You have never spoken to me about the souls who died in sin and will go to hell to suffer it for eternity. You have however spoken to me of good souls, admitted to the contemplation of God. But what about bad souls? Where are they punished?
[Francis:] “They are not punished, those who repent obtain the forgiveness of God and enter the rank of souls who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls.”
There is a lot of mainstream huffing and puffing over this, but I don’t really understand why.
It’s at least the second or third time he has uttered the annihilation heresy. Maybe it’s the first time he claimed that even the place itself doesn’t exist. Of course Bergoglio has also promulgated Universalist heresy, so it can be a bit confusing.
Then we have the ongoing scandal of sinners encouraged to keep sinning, and that in some concrete situations, God even prefers it that way. God wills sin, most dogs go to heaven, and bad dogs just go poof.
Turn away from this man and finish out Holy Week with a good examination of conscience. Repent, and believe in the Gospel. In other news, the plaster inside St. Peters began crumbling today. Fix your bearing. We are at war.
I leave you with a re-post.
When Francis treats us worse
than Satan treats us
August 5, 2016
From Francis’s comments at WYD this past Saturday, via CNA:
“Today, the Lord wants us to feel ever more profoundly His great mercy,” the Pope told the youth, "We may think that we are the 'worst' on account of our sins and weaknesses. However, this is how God prefers us to be, in order that “His mercy may spread.”
I can’t find an official transcript of this off the cuff remark, so let’s just go with the CNA version. Such a short and simple statement, yet so many levels of error.
First and most obvious,
God does NOT prefer us to remain in our sins and weaknesses. Law of non-contradiction, hello?
Sin is that which goes against God’s will. Francis’s statement reduces to “God’s will = not God’s will”. So no, that doesn’t work.
Second,
if WE prefer our sins and weaknesses over the will of God, it isn’t so that “his mercy may spread.” On the contrary, our refusal to repent and continued disobedience cuts us off from that mercy on our own account. It’s just another example of twisting the truth to the point of a complete inversion of truth.
In order for Francis's statement to be true, think about what also would have to be true.
- It would mean the 'Non Serviam' of Lucifer and his angels was not of their own free will, but that their sinful act was actually willed by God.
- It would mean the Original Sin of Adam and Eve was not of their own free will, but their sinful act was actually willed by God.
- And it would mean the transmission of Original Sin down through the ages, its resulting Concupiscence in all of mankind, causing all of us to tend toward sin against God’s will, is actually willed by God.
None of this is Catholic. But as I have written before, all of it is consistent with the constant ramblings of a man so lost in his sins, he doesn’t think it humanly possible to resist any of them. No, what we have here starts out as pure Luther (who was also totally lost in his sins), then dovetails into a Calvinistic Total Depravity, where our free will is completely subjugated to sin. Simply, we are incapable of doing the right thing, so don’t worry, be happy. This. Is. Heresy.
The total depravity angle has the added benefit of firing up Francis the Insult Machine whenever his comments turn to faithful Catholics. Because in his mind, there are no faithful Catholics, only hypocrites.
-
The false doctrine of total depravity, taken to its logical end, teaches that ALL of man’s actions, even good actions, are inherently evil because our motivation for doing good cannot be altruistic but rather must be egotistic. So you can take all your beads, counted rosaries, novenas, Masses offered, and get off your high horse.
Lastly, the final diabolical inversion at play here is truly sinister. In fact, it is
an example of Francis treating us worse than Satan treats us. Oh yes. When we make some effort to amend our lives, and it goes very badly, as it tends to at the beginning, Satan attacks us by telling us we are miserable pathetic failures and that God will never love us. His aim is despair, followed by your abandonment of the effort.
Francis attacks us by telling us we are wonderfully blessed by our successful sinning, and that God loves our sins. Do you see how much worse this is? By the way, his intent doesn’t matter (except regarding the degree of his culpability). Whether it is willful or negligent is immaterial to the effects on the ground. It is still an attack, an attack on souls.
Friends, while we cannot expect to live sinless lives, this is exactly what we must strive for.
At every instance of temptation, God offers sufficient grace to offset the concupiscence, providing us the ability to choose the right action. Every sin we commit happens because we choose to refuse the grace being offered, and instead choose our will over God’s will. This is what Catholics believe. Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
And here was Antonio Socci on Hellgate:
The whole truth about the game
between Bergoglio and Scalfari
Translated from
March 28, 2018
Yesterday, another mess-up in the Vatican. Like the Vigano case but fa more serious.
La Repubblica published the nth ‘conersation’ between its founder-editor Eugenio Scalfari and Pope Francis, and its content was as usual, explosive.
Scalfari reports he asked Bergoglio on the fate of souls who die in mortal sin: “Are those souls punished?” The pope’s reponse, reported in quotation marks by Scalfari was:
“They will not be punished… Souls that failed to repent and can therefore not be pardoned, disappear. Hell does not exist – only the disappearance of sinful souls”.
They are shattering words that conflict directly with what Jesus himself revealed directly in the Gospel, warning sinners and asking them to convert in order not to end up in the Gehenna of ‘inexhaustible fire’. His words were terrifying:
“The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all who cause others to sin and all evildoers. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears ought to hear.” (Mt 13, 41-42).
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Mt 25, 41)
“Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ Many are invited, but few are chosen.” (Mt 22,13).
“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’” (Mark 9, 43-48).
From these revelations by Jesus, the Church has drawn her do trine on the existence of hell and the eternity of its punishment for those who die in mortal sin.
The statements attributed to Bergoglio thus sweep aside with one hand the Christian doctrines on the immortality of the soul and of Hell. It is as if the Church has deceived the faithful for 2000 years and worse, that Christ himself had lied by planting in us the fear of Hell.
[This is something never before seen in Christian history – when the Successor of Peter has done the exact opposite of what he is supposed to do – to confirm his Catholic brethren in their faith. To affirm heretical statements of this kind against Catholic doctrine would lead to the cessation of the office of Roman Pontiff. [This, of course, does not only refer to these statements on hell and the annihilation of unrepentant souls, but to so many others one is hard put to keep track of and have become so habitual for this pope that even the most hardened commentators do not always react as they should whenever he comes up with one of these outrages.]
And that is why the Scalfari story instantly became a sensation. [Not really, because Bergoglio had said much the same thing at least twice before, and it passed fairly unnoticed but by a few. It became a sensation because the interview was published on Maundy Thursday a truly diabolical timing. Scalfari may have planned the timing maliciously, but surely Bergoglio ought to have anticipated it because Scalfari never lets more than two days pass from his interview to the publication of a report on the interview – and he could have requested his BFF not to publish it during Holy Week! But either he didn’t, because for him, any day is a good day to make the headlines (which he has already assured himself on Maundy Thursdays because of his great act of humility in washing and kissing the feet of 12 who are among ‘the least of the least); or he did, and Scalfari refused, brushing aside any reservations Bergoglio may have had about timing. He can’t – and the Vatican didn’t - use the excuse that Scalfari thoroughly misrepresented him this time, because there were previous occasions when Scalfari reported the same thing and was never denied by the Vatican.]
The earthquake really didn’t hit the Vatican until the Times of London, before noon Thursday, reported it with this headline:
“Pope Francis abolishes hell – He says impenitent souls simply disappear”.
The furor continued to build up, so that by 3 pm, the Vatican press office released a communique saying:
“The Holy Father Francis recently received the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica at a private meeting on the occasion of Easter but without giving him an interview. What the author says in his article today is the fruit of his reconstruction, in which the words textually said by the Pope are not cited. Therefore, nothing enclosed within quotation marks in that article should be considered a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father”.
So the Vatican denied the form but not the substance of the statement. In fact, it does not say that the words ‘quoted’ on the abolition of hell are the fruit of Scalfari’s fantasy, but rather the fruit of his reconstruction, which is usual with interview reports when these do not purport to be transcripts. At the same time, the Vatican communique specifies that the article did not use the pope’s ‘textual words’ nor was it a ‘faithful transcription’.
One must wonder why the very ideas expressed by the Pope that Hell does not exist and that unrepentant souls simply disappear were not categorically denied?
[What a farce it makes of our Act of Contrition when we tell God “I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell”!] Why didn’t the Vatican simply say that those statements attributed to him are heretical and totally rejected by Bergoglio? Why not underscore that this pope has said the exact opposite on other occasions, showing that he believes in hell and in eternal damnation?
This is a game that has been going on for some time. Periodically, Scalfari reports on his private conversations with Borgoglio, attributing gross whoppers to the pope (Ex:
There is no Catholic God). Fr. Lombardi, at the beginning, pointed out that the talks with Scalfari were not interviews and that
“the specific expressions referred to, in the formulations reported, cannot be attributed with certainty to the pope”.
Yet not long after, the first two Scalfari ‘interviews’ were included in a book published by the Vatican in the name of the pope as protagonist of the first interrviews he gave in the first year of his pontificate.
Was that not therefore a form of authenticating Scalfari?
And this matter of abolishing Hell is nothing new. Scalfari already attributed it to Bergoglio on three previous occasions - an editorial on Sept 21, 2014; on March 15, 2015 [
“The response of Francis was clear – there is no punishment [for an unrepentant soul],
but the annihilation of that soul”]; and on Oct. 9, 2017,
[“Pope Francis, I repeat, has abolished the places of eternal residence of souls in the afterlife. His hypothesis is that souls dominated by evil and were unrepentant cease to exist, whereas those who have been rescued from evil will be assumed into a beatitude of contemplating God. That is Francis’s hypothesis.”)
Yesterday was a new occasion, replete with quotation marks, to report the same thing, but this time, the Vatican was forced to distance itself somewhat from Scalfari because of the overwhelming reaction.
Yet hardly convincing to anyone.
The script has been played out too often. Bergoglio uses Scalfari in order to throw a pebble into the pool of public opinion, and then, depending on the reactions, will take refuge behind opaque explanations.
But meanwhile, the message has reached the global public, bringing more confusion and disorientation in the Church .
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 01/04/2018 05:24]