/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Oh come on. I'm not a Catholic and I know that he couldn't possibly have said this ex cathedra.

If you claim papal infallibility is a dogma, then teach it correctly, instead of using it as a scare whenever the Pope says something stupid or heretical. Which he probably didn't anyway to begin with.

Also, be respectful of clerical titles. His name is Francis, not Bergoglio.

>>629203

Buchanan is not saying Bergoglio said it ex cathedra. He is raising concern over the risks if he does hold these views, and what it could mean in the future. And Buchanan is a Catholic.

>Had the pope been speaking ex cathedra, as the vicar of Christ on earth, he would be contradicting 2,000 years of Catholic doctrine, rooted in the teachings of Christ himself. He would be calling into question papal infallibility, as defined in 1870 by the Vatican Council of Pius IX.

This implies that there even was a risk he said such a thing ex cathedra to begin with.

Why would he even say something ex cathedra in an interview?

>>629208

>>629215

>This implies that there even was a risk he said such a thing ex cathedra to begin with.

No, it doesn't imply that.

>>629204

This. Every anti-Francis thread has that in common

>>629203

>>629215

You're just missing the point. Even if he says it without it being ex cathedra, the vicar of Christ espousing such heretical views in public carries dire ramifications for the faithful.

I mean, what if during a speech or some other non-clerical event he got up before a crowd and said "Gay sex isn't a sin lol, love wins bigots." That wouldn't concern you simply because it wasn't ex cathedra? Is there anything he could say, or view he could hold that would concern you?

>>629204

>>629224

A decent portion of the board is convinced Francis is a stealth satanist who eats the feces of children, I'm not sure being a stickler for etiquette in this regard is a winning battle, or even relevant to discussion

>>629222

Then why mention papal infallibility at all if it is indeed completely irrelevant, as it should be?

But anyway, we're done discussing that.

If Pope Francis is a heretic, the other bishops will fraternally correct (or rather rebuke) him. If he insists on believing and teaching heresy, he will surely be deposed. Worse things have happened before.

Not that he even said anything heretical to begin with. I don't trust some atheist.

>>629228

He has offered his life for his church, his name is officially Francis now. Call him "diapah-lickin' papa Frankie" if that gives you pleasure, but that's better than calling him with a name that has ceased to be his.

Feel free to read the whole article by the way. It looks like people here are only commenting on the small excerpt I posted.

>>629230

Frankly, the bishop of Rome teaching annihilationism would have much lesser ramifications than the bishop of Rome teaching gay sex is fine. Non-Christians, and heck, laypeople don't understand very well the big difference between the various ideas on the exact nature of our eternal destruction, of our second death, besides that it's gonna be painful and eternally condemning and we must avoid it. Something like gay sex is an issue that is much more easy to understand though, especially as it is also political.

But anyway, if he's a heretic, it's the other bishops' job to correct him. If he ends up being deposed, I feel like half of the world's trad Catholics will jump from joy.

But honestly though… why would the Pope have said something so silly? Is he sabotaging himself?

>>629233

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

<For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

The pope is the Antichrist, even to this day he has stood in the temple of God and declared himself to be God. He deserves no respect.

>>629233

You don't trust the word of his own friend? Surely Francis himself trusts him if he would call him such. What I don't trust is the boilerplate non-denial from the Vatican.

>>629235

Well to those of some theological understanding, it's distressing to think that he could hold such views. If he believes such things, aren't you worried the direction his leadership might take the church? The hallmark of Francis' time as pope has been a pervasive sense of confusion which he frankly hasn't taken great pains to dismiss. A rank and file who has no sense of how to proceed is not conducive to strengthening an already spiritually ailing people's faith, I think we're well past the point of arguing that there's no cause for concern. And maybe the lay people wouldn't mind, but any error in belief is another obstacle to salvation, one heresy begets another.

As far as why he would say it aloud, who knows? Maybe he thought it would never be published. Maybe he genuinely believes it is the truth and would like to introduce it to the minds of the faithful in a roundabout way. One thing that would dispel all of this conjecture would be for him to flatly state that he holds no such view and that it is heretical.

And as far as being deposed for heresy, you carry a great deal of faith in the character of the bishops (which I'll admit is commendable), but they too are only human. Deposing a Pope for heresy these days is nearly as unthinkable as the american army declaring martial law and arresting congress for treason. Even if warranted, I don't know that I could trust it would happen, at least not before a great long time of prolonged pain.

>>629199

>the pope had had a private conversation, not a formal interview, with his friend Scalfari.

Why does the Pope keep talking to this man who takes the opportunity to sow confusion about what he believes?

>>629248

>Why does the Pope keep talking to this man who takes the opportunity to sow confusion about what he believes?

Because the man is just accurately restating what the pope said, and the Vatican is the one sowing confusion with their non-denial denials? Bergoglio wouldn't keep coming back to this guy if he was misrepresenting him.

>Bergoglio

>Berg

Makes me think

>>629199

>if all these hypothetical situations that did not happen happened then things would be really scandalous

BERGOLPFIPO NOT MY POPE IMPEACH NOW

>>629376

You see no problem with the pope being a heretic? Buchanan is a concerned Catholic conservative. Not a sede. The church is in a grave situation with Bergoglio at the helm. Closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't help. Nor does running defense for Bergoglio on every shocking statement he makes, blaming it all on the media.

Why won't Francis just come out and say "I didn't say that. Hell exists."? His cageyness about these things makes him seem really untrustworthy and that he always has ulterior motives. If he as the head of the Catholic church won't take a stand then who is supposed to?

>>629204

>Also, be respectful of clerical titles

I'll be respectful of clerical titles when the people having them behave like their titles.

>>629434

I trust Bergoglio about as far as I can throw him. It would indeed be easy for him to directly state that he was misquoted and hell exists.

Good article:

https://onepeterfive.com/did-francis-deny-hell-exists-vatican-plays-another-shell-game-with-the-truth/

Oh good. It's another episode of "I'm not Catholic and never have been, but something the Pope said disturbs me to my core" brought to you by Concern Trolls, Inc.

>>629434

B-but the media will just further misrepresent His Holiness!

>>629782

Pat Buchanan isn't Catholic? You're seriously misinformed.

>>629765

Thanks for linking this. Also found interesting regarding rumours of impeachment charges against Pope Francis: https://onepeterfive.com/after-recent-comments-on-hell-reports-emerge-of-curial-backlash-against-the-pope/

If anything, this is good news for Roman Catholics because Pope Francis can be labeled as an anti-Pope. After all, Pope Benedict is still alive and well.

Is anihiliationism even heresy? I've never heard it condemned before

>>629829

You've heard it condemned now, Skippy.

>>629800

Two nice articles. But the problem with Benedict is the hell thing isn't the only heresy - the false ecumenism where non-Christian faiths are praised and also seen as paths to God has been spouted by Francis, Benedict, John Paul, Paul VI, since Nostra Aetate from V2.

I'd like a pope who thinks Christ is essential.

>>629829

>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.

From the catechism

>>629204

>I'm not a Catholic

If you're lying, just know that that's wrong.

>>629873

Orthodox bishops proclaim Jesus is the only way to salvation.

>>629795

yeah he is

>>629884

Pardon me for the bump, but I really don't see this denying the possibility of anihiliationism. This excerpt speaks of the eternity of hell, not the eternity of the existence or experience of suffering of individual souls condemned there.

>>629884

The question isnt over whether hell exists or not, the question is over whether it is eternal suffering or eternal destruction

>>632514

Nobody much cares that it's now that much harder to persuade anyone outside the faith to repent and turn away from hell.

Here, as in just about every other sniveling den of cowards I've earnestly presented this problem to.

>>629228

>that quote

We'll he's right. God and the elders in heaven will be the ones to judge.

>>632505

Watch your backs, Skippy and Skippy.