An article by Eugenio Scalfari, in La Repubblica (March 15, 2015), raises questions about whether Pope Francis believes in the annihilation of non-believing souls and holds a minimalist view of the requirements for salvation. The question arises when he is talking to Europe's nonbelievers. The problem, as always in this sort of account, is that it's related from memory. So if this is a misrepresentation of his views, has the Holy Father corrected the public record? Please tell me he has. Otherwise, here is what it appears he's saying:
[...W]hat about those with no faith? The answer is that if one has loved others at least as much as himself, (possibly a little more than self) the Father will welcome him. Faith is of help but that is not the element of the one who judges -- it’s life itself. Sin and repentance are part of life [and include]: remorse, a sense of guilt, a desire for redemption and the abandonment of egoism.
What happens to that lifeless soul? Will it be punished? How?
Francis’ answer is very clear: there is no punishment, but the annihilation of that soul. All the others will participate in the bliss of living in the presence of the Father. The annihilated souls will not be part of that banquet; with the death of the body their journey is ended and this is the basis for the missionary work in the Church: to save the lost souls. And this is also the reason why Francis is a Jesuit to the core.
The Company founded by Loyola taught and still teaches its followers that the premise of mission is being in tune with others, i.e. being on the same wavelength, without which dialogue would be impossible. For that reason the missionary Church has to update itself according to the passage of the times and the diversities of places.
When dialogue finally becomes possible among different peoples, of diverse cultures, civics and religions, it is then that the missionary Church may stimulate the call for the good and limit the love of self.
Francis’ teaching makes a lot of sense even for those who don’t believe because it touches a deeply human factor, which is independent of belief in God and Christ His Son. It is a teaching which highlights the difference between man and the animal from which he descends, with a mind capable of reflection and self-judgment, by holding the bridle of his own narcissism and his head hled high, gazing at the stars.
7 comments:
Nope, not been answered yet.
Why would anybody trust Scalfari?
Also how can the Holy Father believe in annihilation? Why does he warn of Hell and the Devil?
Where is the Devil suppose to be?
Non-existence?
Why warn Mob bosses they are going to Hell if there is no Hell to go to?
> So if this is a misrepresentation of his views, has the Holy Father corrected the public record?
Why does he need too? To this day I still don't know what Pope St John Paul II said about the Passion of the Christ movie thought the Vatican Press office gave multi contradictory accounts and they work for the Pope.
The Vatican may get around to it or they might just ignore it since it's unbelievable anyway.
Dear Doc, so many of us have been reduced to flummification ( the state of being flummoxed) owing to the execrable eisegesis of the modernists that about the only thing that would get a rise out of us is if we were to hear that Luke
34 *Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent to thee, how often would I have gathered thy children, as the bird doth her brood under her wings, and thou wouldst not?
could be understood to be teaching us that Jesus is in some way capable of being thought of as poultry and partial proof of that is the ubiquitous presence of Peeps around Pascha.
But the Church teaches that the soul is eternal. In hell, the body and soul still exist and forever! So how is Pope Francis able to contradict Church teaching like this? I certainly don't trust him because of such ambiguous and even wrong statements like he made to Scalferi. He seems to be either stupid or willfully confusing the faithful and non-believers. I can't see any other possibility after these 3 years of his pontificate. Stupidity does not save souls.
If you read Benedict XVI's encyclical on Hope, he says pretty much the same thing. Universalism or at lest Annihilationism is now a viable option, thanks to the ambiguity of the last five Popes. Even as we busily go about sainting every last one of the for their 'heroic' papacies. It is actually scandalous. Talk all you want about the Magisterium or the doctrinal confusion of Protestantism, but we are currently just as at sea as many other 'denominations.' Face it: doctrinal clarity is a nostalgia piece and, in apologetic arguments, a sham. Truth as a consistently articulated dogmatic whole may now be the possession of schismatics. I don't know.
>If you read Benedict XVI's encyclical on Hope, he says pretty much the same thing. Universalism or at lest Annihilationism is now a viable option,
Not really it's not that simple.
Actually since the Church teaches all men receive sufficient grace for salvation & this grace is truly sufficient so that salvation is a real possibility for them then the salvation of all is a real possibility. But this is not true universalism which teaches there is no Hell or that Hell is just a very long Purgatory.
Hypothetical conditional Universalism teaches Hell is a real possibility and danger for souls.
But as I said why trust Scalfani? He doesn't even put quotes around the ideas he attributes to the Pope.
The Pope clearly believes in eternal Hell. His public statements reflect as much.
Personally, I don't find this "soft" message of endless hypotheses about an "empty" or "thinly" populated hell the least bit edifying.
Jesus' words are clear on the matter, and so are the words of numerous theologians, saints, and the Blessed Mother.
Post a Comment