Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

World’s End Update. The “Last Things” According to Francis

In the important newspaper “la Repubblica” of which he is the founder, Eugenio Scalfari, an undisputed authority of Italian secular thought, last October 9 returned to speaking in the following terms about what he sees as a “revolution” of this pontificate, in comments by Francis that are derived from his frequents conversations with him:

“Pope Francis has abolished the places where souls were supposed to go after death: hell, purgatory, heaven. The idea he holds is that souls dominated by evil and unrepentant cease to exist, while those that have been redeemed from evil will be taken up into beatitude, contemplating God.”

Observing immediately afterward:

“The universal judgment that is in the tradition of the Church therefore becomes devoid of meaning. It remains a simple pretext that has given rise to splendid paintings in the history of art. Nothing other than this.”

It is seriously doubtful that Pope Francis really wants to get rid of the “last things” in the terms described by Scalfari.

There is in his preaching, however, something that tends toward a practical overshadowing of the final judgment and of the opposite destinies of blessed and damned.


On Wednesday, October 11, at the general audience in Saint Peter’s Square, Francis said that such a judgment is not to be feared, because “at the end of our history there is the merciful Jesus,” and therefore “everything will be saved. Everything.”

In the text distributed to the journalists accredited to the Holy See, this last word, “everything,” was emphasized in boldface.


At another general audience a few months ago, on Wednesday, August 23, Francis gave for the end of history an image that is entirely and only comforting: that of “an immense tent, where God will welcome all mankind so as to dwell with them definitively.”

An image that is not his own but is taken from chapter 21 of Revelation, but from which Francis was careful not to cite the following words of Jesus:

“The victor will inherit these gifts, and I shall be his God, and he will be my son. But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”


And again, in commenting during the Angelus of Sunday, October 15 on the parable of the wedding banquet (Matthew 22: 1-14) that was read at all the Masses on that day, Francis carefully avoided citing the most unsettling parts.

Both that in which “the king became indignant, sent his troops, had those murderers killed and their city burned.”

And that in which, having seen “one man who was not wearing the wedding garment,” the king ordered his servants: “Bind him hand and foot and throw him out into the darkness; there shall be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth.”


On the previous Sunday, October 8, another parable, that of the murderous vine dressers (Matthew 21:33-43), had undergone the same selective treatment.

In commenting on the parable during the Angelus, the pope left out what the owner of the vineyard does to those farmers who killed the servants and finally the son: “He will put those wretches to a miserable death.” Much less did he cite the concluding words of Jesus, referring to himself as the “cornerstone”: “He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him.”

Instead, Pope Francis insisted on defending God from the accusation of being vindictive, almost as if wanting to mitigate the excesses of “justice” detected in the parable:

“It is here that the great news of Christianity is found: a God who, in spite of being disappointed by our mistakes and our sins, does not go back on his word, does not stop, and above all does not avenge himself! Brothers and sisters, God does not avenge himself! God loves, he does not avenge himself, he waits for us to forgive us, to embrace us.”


In the homily for the feast of Pentecost, last June 4, Francis argued, as he often does, against “those who judge.” And in citing the words of the risen Jesus to the apostles and implicitly to their successors in the Church (John 20:22-23), he intentionally cut them off halfway through:

“Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven.”

Omitting the following:

“Those you do not forgive, they will not be forgiven.”

And the fact that the truncation was deliberate is proven by its repititon. Because Francis had made the exact same deletion of the words of Jesus on the previous April 23, at the Regina Coeli of the first Sunday after Easter.


Last May 12 as well, while visiting Fatima, Francis showed that he wanted to set Jesus free from his reputation as an inflexible judge at the end of time. And to do this he warned against the following false image of Mary:

“A Mary of our own making: one who restrains the arm of a vengeful God; one sweeter than Jesus the ruthless judge.”


It must be added that the liberty with which Pope Francis cuts and stitches up the words of Sacred Scripture does not concern only the universal judgment. Deafening, for example, is the silence in which he has always shrouded Jesus’ condemnation of adultery (Matthew 19:2-11 and parallel passages).

In a surprising coincidence, this condemnation was contained in the Gospel passage that was read in all the churches of the world precisely on the Sunday of the beginning of the second session of the synod of bishops on the family, October 4, 2015. But neither in the homily nor at the Angelus on that day did Pope Francis make the slightest reference to it.

Nor did he make any reference to it at the Angelus of Sunday February 12, 2017, when that condemnation was once again read in all the churches.

Not only that. The words of Jesus against adultery also do not appear in the two hundred pages of the post-synodal exhortation “Amoris Laetitia.”

Just as no appearance is made in it by the terrible words of condemnation of homosexuality written by the apostle Paul in the first chapter of the Letter to the Romans.

A first chapter that was also read – another coincidence – at the weekday Masses of the second week of the synod of 2015. To tell the truth, those words are not included in the missal. But in any case, neither the pope nor anyone else ever cited them while discussions were being held at the synod about changing the paradigms of judgment on homosexuality:

“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them” (Romani 1, 26-32).


Moreover, at times Pope Francis even takes the liberty of rewriting the words of Sacred Scripture as he sees fit.

For example, in the morning homily at Santa Marta on September 4, 2014, at a certain point the pope attributed to Saint Paul these “scandalous” words: “I boast only of my sins.” And he concluded by inviting the faithful present to “boast” of their own sins, in that they have been forgiven from the cross by Jesus.

But in none of Paul’s letters can such an expression be found. The apostle instead says of himself: “If it is necessary to boast, I will boast of my weaknesses” (2 Corinthians 11:30), after having listed all the hardships of his life – the imprisonments, the floggings, the shipwrecks.

Or: “About myself I will not boast, except of my weaknesses” (2 Corinthians 12:5). Or again: “He said to me: ‘My grace is enough for you; strength is in fact made fully manifest in weakness.’ I will therefore gladly boast of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me” (2 Corinthians 12:9), with more references to the outrages, persecutions, anguish he has suffered.


Coming back to the final judgment, Pope Benedict XVI also acknowledged that “in the modern era, the idea of the Last Judgement has faded into the background.”

But in the encyclical “Spe Salvi,” which he wrote entirely on his own, he forcefully reaffirmed that the last judgment is “the decisive image of hope.” It is an image that “evokes responsibility,” because “grace does not cancel out justice,” but on the contrary “the question of justice constitutes the essential argument, or in any case the strongest argument, in favour of faith in eternal life,” because “with the impossibility that the injustice of history should be the final word does the necessity for Christ’s return and for new life become fully convincing.”

And again:

“Grace does not make wrong into right. It is not a sponge which wipes everything away, so that whatever someone has done on earth ends up being of equal value. Dostoevsky was right to protest against this kind of Heaven and this kind of grace in his novel ‘The Brothers Karamazov.’ Evildoers, in the end, do not sit at table at the eternal banquet beside their victims without distinction, as though nothing had happened.”

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

Originally published at L’Espresso. Reprinted with permission. 

346 thoughts on “World’s End Update. The “Last Things” According to Francis”

  1. While reading this article I couldn’t help but think of Martin Luther and Calvin. They selectively interpreted and edited the Bible to suit their own needs. How is this different?

  2. While reading this I could not help but think of Ven. Fulton Sheen’s words:

    “The False prophet will have a religion without a cross. A religion without a world to come. A religion to destroy religions. There will be a counterfeit Church.

    Christ’s Church the Catholic Church will be one; and the false Prophet will create the other.

    The False Church will be worldly, ecumenical, and global. It will be a loose federation of churches and religions, forming some type of global association.

    A world parliament of Churches. It will be emptied of all Divine content, it will be the mystical body of the anti-christ. The Mystical Body on earth today will have its Judas Iscariot, and he will be the false prophet. Satan will recruit him from our Bishops.”

    I encourage you to find any Mass offered either by pope Francis or when he was cardinal Bergoglio.

    I could be wrong, but I have not been able to find one genuflection during consecration. Not a SINGLE ONE.

    • Mind you, I’m not defending Francis per se, but it IS possible that, given his age, he (and any other priest of advanced age, health or disability) may not be able to genuflect. The rubrics for Mass, even before V2, allow for other forms of demonstrable reverence when necessary. Do not be so quick to judge by external appearances. Ask, if he (or any other priest) gives another appropriate sign of homage.

      • He has been shown kneeling in other venues and before Protestant ‘ministers’ – there is nothing wrong with his knees. He sees himself as a ‘mature christian’ (sic) and stands proudly before God. At the judgement he will kneel alright. He will kneel before the Jesus he ignores at Mass now.

        Remember JPII when he was very ill? He had someone to help him kneel. There was no question that he understood Who was in front of him at Mass.

        • In that case, I would say: As the Vicar of Satan, and with pride equaling his master’s, he arrogantly believes he doesn’t need to show reverence and submission to his archenemy.

      • Fair enough and I would respect that if he did not genuflect before muslims every Holy Thursday. But he does so it is possible, just not before the Creator of all visible and invisible!

      • I’m really tired of that flimsy excuse, Mike. Bergoglio has no trouble falling to his knees on Holy Thursday to wash and kiss the feet of Protestants and Muslims. He doesn’t genuflect at the Consecration because he does not believe in Jesus presence in the Holy Eucharist. Period!

  3. If I could count for every NO parish how this heresy has been infected upon the sheep, I would run out of numbers. Many parishes no longer do the Confetior and hurry through “Lord Have Mercy.” I have witnessed the exact same scenario from the readings of a few of these Gospels listed. These silly priests enable a wanton flock and the flock enables the wanton priest. In the field of psychiatry it is called dysfunctional enabling. In the field of theology it is called the selfishness of man who desires his sin over God. I belong to a TLM and only attend NO parish when necessary. But oh what I have seen is enough to prevent further attendance

    • Hoping to have a faithful NO (with no sacrilegious Communion in hand, turning the back on the Lord, protestantization of everything possible) is like saying Amoris was made to be in line of tradition or that VII. was the work of Holy Ghost. The creators of those were never meant to bring people closer to Christ, but they could not plain out contradict the teachings. They had to do it little by little, inch by inch and now they are in full blown position of power. Save your soul and keep your families souls save and ditch the NO altogether-

    • My NO parish also does not say the confetior and rushes instead through the Lord Have Mercy. Among other abuses … I haven’t been to mass in a month. It has become for me a near occasion of sin because of my anger at what I see and hear. The nearest LM is a three hour round trip and I am 70 years old and still working full time. I must work weekends. I must somehow get myself to TLM. I don’t want to die in my sins, but I can’t go back to this NO disaster of a so-called Catholic parish. God have mercy on my soul!

      • How I wish Bishop Schneider could speak yo these heart wrenching dilemmas so many faithful find themselves. How much Lord do you want from us in these situations?

        • Good question! I think I have really had enough of the NO church. Except for EWTN … I will make do with spiritual Communion.

      • Katherine: bear in mind that the NO offers valid sacraments. Confession, the Eucharist, et. al. are valid in NO parishes. Do not cut yourself off from the sacraments willingly.

        • Yes, I understand. But my confessions with this NO priest have been anything but helpful. What do I do with the anger I feel at Mass? How can I receive Our Lord with anger in my heart?

          • Pick up a book by Venerable Fulton Sheen or any approved Catholic text on the life or imitation on Christ. But the fact that the NO priest is not helpful is unfortunate and not at all pastoral (and is that not what everything is about according to some?) is awful but as long as validly absolves you of your sins…well….that is what you and I seek in confession. It’s then up to us to examine our own lives and figure out what things we do that contribute to sin, that lead us to sin.

            I for instance, just this morning have finally realized that what leads me into prolonged and gravely sinful fixation on lustful thoughts is having three or more drinks. So I have two solutions: cling to my wife’s side after having had such quantity drinks so that I am not sitting alone with my thoughts, go straight to bed or don’t drink more than two alcoholic beverages (duh!).

        • Thank you, but I should not receive with the anger in my heart at the priest and the disrespectful people who dress immodestly, or like they are at the beach, or don’t even try to make their children mind. My religion, my church of 47 years, should not be my cross. I have a hard time believing God would want that.

          • No one’s suggesting you should receive when you’re overcome by anger, but your faithful adherence to the Sunday precept to be present at mass is vital.

            Do not suppose that the Church exists to make your life agreeable and pleasant. The Church exists to save souls by uniting them to the Crucified One. You cannot enjoy a participation in his victory while refusing to participate in his passion. The Cross is for all of us, and if the Father’s will did not spare even his own son from suffering, how can we suppose ourselves to be exempt? Learn from him.

          • Yes, I agree with what you are saying and I will continue to try to go to my NO parish for as long as I can, but I am determined to try to get to a Latin Mass. The things that are happening in my NO parish are WRONG! I don’t want to look like I approve of them by being there! There is only one Catholic Church in my town. I live in a rather rural part of south eastern North Carolina, so driving to a “nearby” town still requires time (and extra gas money that is difficult for me on a limited income.The only thing I can think of to do here is sit in a back pew and keep my head down, then just go up for Communion. What a sorry way to have act after being a Catholic for 47 years!

          • Katherine,

            Some good priests (I am thinking of Mgr Lefebvre and Father Calmel) have advocated that, while attendance to Novus Ordo masses might be an acceptable compromise for souls who do not know any better, it might also be best for others to simply avoid it, even at the cost of no sunday mass.

            Sunday attendance is indeed a grave requirement, but serious motives may excuse one without constituting a grave sin. People usually think of something like a broken leg, but moral reasons also apply.

            If attendance to this particular mass scandalises and infuriates you, then quitting is an option for a devout Catholic.
            You could instead make an extra effort once a month to make a trip and attend a Tridentine Mass, and would not be at fault for it.

            One should neither fall for scrupules, nor quit altogether.

          • Thank you! At last someone really understands my predicament! I will read my missal at home and watch EWTN and try to get to a Tridentine Mass when I can. I will not give my seriously disordered parish tacit approval by sitting there! This way I may find some peace. Thank you and God bless you.

  4. The homily I recently heard about the murderous vinedressers featured the allegation that God the Father, as the owner of the vineyard, didn’t actually want to collect any fruits at all. He dispatched His mistreated servants, and then His Son, in the hopes that the tenants would realize that He had planted the vineyard FOR THEM in the first place, and that all He wanted was for them to show their love for Him by embracing the servants rather than killing them. Silly tenants! (Another little tidbit for the “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” file.)

  5. These papal sentiments are a manifestation of the false universalism which has infested so much of the Church since Vatican II. JPII was largely to blame for these errors by his elevation of Hans Urs von Balthazar and his perpetuating the myth that the Church has never actually taught that there is anybody in hell. Francis is merely the logical consequence of this false premise when it is followed to the obvious conclusions.

    If everybody is going to be saved anyway then of course “proselytism is solemn nonsense”. If everybody is going to be saved anyway then of course there “is no final condemnation” and there is no sin that can be bad enough to exclude the saved from the Sacraments. If everybody is going to be saved anyway, then of course all these idolatrous religions must have some salvific value. If everybody is saved anyway then why not allow Lutherans to receive Holy Communion. Truth no longer matters, sin no longer matters, idolatry no longer matters because “the mercy of God” is so great that everybody is going to be saved anyway.

    Universalism makes all religion redundant – why bother being religious, why bother being good, why bother giving a damn about anything?

    • He probably never heard the term Origenism. One of the main characteristics of Origenism is the apocatastasis:

      Apocatastasis, a Greek word meaning “restoration,” is used to designate the error taught by Origen and based on a misinterpretation of some passages of the New Testament that in the end all men, including those in hell, would be restored to God.

      Source: Dirksen, Aloys, C.PP.S. Elementary Patrology: The Writings of the Fathers of the Church. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1959, p. 305. Imprimatur.


      Contrast this with the exchange between St. Jacinta of Fatima and Lucia:

      Jacinta remained sitting on her rock, looking very thoughtful, and asked:

      “That Lady also said that many souls go to hell! What is hell, then?”
      It’s like a big deep pit of wild beasts, with an enormous fire in it — that’s how my mother used to explain it to me — and that’s where people go who commit sins and don’t confess them. They stay there and burn for ever!”
      “And they never get out of there again?”
      “Not even after many years?”
      “No! Hell never ends!”
      “And heaven never ends either?”
      “Whoever goes to heaven, never leaves it again!”
      “And whoever goes to hell, never leaves it either?”
      “They’re eternal, don’t you see! They never end.”

      Perfect refutation of apocatastasis.


      To be fair, Origen retracted his errors before he died.

      • I think there may be some confusion between the Church never naming individual people who are in hell as the Church does name and declare that certain people are Saints and are in heaven, but at the same time the Church teaches that many souls are lost and do go to hell forever.

        • You are correct. It’s flat out in the Bible that there are people–named–who are in hell. At least three are priests or would have been priests: amongs others, named specifically are Dathan (thank you Cecile B. DeMille, regardless of how he portrayed him) in the OT and Judas in the NT.

          • Did Jesus say about the person who would betray him “…better if that man had never been born…”?
            In my humble opinion, I don’t need false mercy, I need to be told how to get to heaven, I need to know that God is merciful and is also just.

          • Whether Judas is in hell or not, is not important. He may or he may not be. I don’t worry about such things. What is more concerning for me is the state of my soul and the state of others. That is, stay in the state of grace with the Church until death and you will be saved. That is, die “in the sacraments” of the Church, die in the state of grace, and you will be saved. Stay away from sin (mortal) that will condemn the soul.

            God is merciful which is stronger than His justice, but God’s mercy is His justice; His justice is His mercy. The Eucharist (Mass), frequent confession, the bible, pray the rosary, fasting. Those five things will do wonders in making a person holy. Also as an additive, meditate frequently on the Last Four Things: Judgment, Heaven, Purgatory, Hell.

            That is my answer to your question you wrote, “I need to be told how to get to heaven”. I don’t believe in false mercy; I believe in mercy and judgment which is reflective on the Sacraments of the Catholic Church; which there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, as how the Church defines the term.
            As far as Judas goes, I can’t care less. How Judas is judged, is between him and God. All I care about, is being faithful to the Seat of Peter in this faithless world, the state of my soul in the eyes of God, and my eternity.
            Have a good day, God bless you, pray for those who sit on the Chair of Peter, pray for souls and the conversion of those souls, pray for those in Purgatory, pray for me, and I am out of here.

          • Nice post Matthew.

            You are missing one important factor which is that God’s grace is necessary to succeed! We will pray for you. Please pray for us the Fathers and Mothers that are trying to keep their young children on the right path by trying set the good and truthful example. The parents that are working hard to keep away from the false teachings that are seeping out of Christ’s church.

          • Matthew,
            IF I’m not mistaken the four last things are: death, judgement, heaven, and hell, of which we will all receive three. A good book on this subject is, “The Four Last Things” by Fr Martin von Cochem. God bless.

    • No, I don’t think JP II was at all largely to blame for these errors. He fought very courageously, if imperfectly at times, for the true Catholic Faith. Remember Fides et Ratio, Evangelium Vitae, The Splendor of Truth and the Catechism.

      • I don’t deny that he valiantly fought to preserve many truths of the Catholic faith, but as for the doctrine “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” he sold out the pass – due largely to his veneration for HUvB. Admittedly, he and Ratzinger saw Balthazar as the antidote to the influence of Rahner on VII and the post-conciliar church, but his eschatology was a warped fabrication of Catholicism in which he leant more weight to the ramblings of that dodgy mystic Adrienne von Spayer than he did to Scripture and Tradition. Another man who followed his gonads into error!

        • Deacon, sorry for bothering you, but if you are still reading this I would like to ask you about the two previous popes and their interest in Balthazar. I never could understand it, mainly because of his tendency to Universalism, which you mentioned. Thus, if you could, please inform us as to what influence of Rahner it was to which they were trying to use Balthazar as an antidote. Thank you.

          • It was a long time ago when I studied these matters so my recall is somewhat sketchy. However, the general gist of it is that there were 2 main camps of modernisers who were active at Vatican II. The “aggiornamento” camp which wanted to “update” the teachings of the Church to make them relevant to modern times and the “ressourcement” camp which wanted to return to the sources of the Scriptures and patristics to render the modern expressions of the faith more in continuity with its origins. Rahner was the star of the aggiornamento camp (think “hermeneutic of rupture” and “Spirit of Vatican II”) and von Balthazar was the star of the ressourcement camp (think “hermeneutic of reform in continuity”).

            To take the work of the Council forward the Rahnerites founded the journal “Concilium” in which they in the mould of the “Bologna school” continued to push for a radical departure from Catholicism. Almost as a counter-measure the journal “Communio” was founded by the disciples of von Balthazar – Ratzinger, Kasper, von Balthazar, Ouellet, de Lubac and Bouyer being notable contributors.

            If you want more details of how these camps rivalled one another I suggest you read something like “Iota Unum” by Romano Amerio. But the bottom line is that on issues like “salvation outside the Church” (sic), Rahner’s “anonymous Christians” and von Balthazar’s “it is reasonable to hope that all men will be saved”, meant that the logical extrapolations of their soteriology led to the same de facto universalism being embraced by most of the Church. This has occurred to such an extent that Pope Emeritus (sic) Benedict XVI last year spoke of the dogma “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” being effectively abandoned by the Church. And this is a dogma which has been infallibly defined three times in the Church’s history.

            In brief I think they looked to von Balthazar to oppose the “hermeneutic of rupture”, but in doing so they got one anyway. “Conservatives” are nothing more than modernists in low gear.

          • You did a great service to me with such a considerate and thorough reply, Deacon. I had heard of the “Communio” journal before (odd, that even Kasper was on their side). How ironic that Balthazar got them into the very trouble they were trying to avoid. It’s so sad that this ressourcement faction could not just be happy with the way things were at the time. It’s like an idealist philosophy. They yearn for some kind of nebulous “deepening” of faith, which just ends up a regrettable mess. Like you said it’s still modernism (tampering with a 2000-year tradition). Thank you very much for your help!

          • THANK YOU.

            This is a very helpful clarification of what many of us converts no doubt have bumped into in pieces, but never formed a clear picture of. Wow, that was tremendously helpful.

            Here are links to the various statements made by Ratzinger/Pope-Emeritus.

            If one believes that a heretic cannot be Pope, these become even more troubling.




            In addition, I believe very strongly, as I have stated before, that in spite of their intentions, men possibly including Father Hardon, in accepting debate and discussion with Protestants in the Vatican 2 years, have set up a grave paradigm for the Church today and played VERY strongly into the hands of the the modernist apostates, in short, the devil himself.

            For in accepting as “separated brethren” in the modern sense {admittedly a term that goes back more than a hundred years for it is used in the commentary of Haydock}, Protestants are granted a status of possessing unchangeable doctrines WHICH THEY DO NOT possess. Thus EVERY time an ecumenical conference or meeting issues a statement whereby some area of agreement is found with “Protestant doctrine”, the agreement is worthless before the ink is dry. There is no such thing as a monolithic “Protestantism” and there is no such thing as fixed moral teaching in ANY of their sects. What is the point of “finding common ground” with them anyway? It is our job by the words of Jesus Himself to bring the Gospel to the world! To the Protestants, too!

            Protestants do NOT possess the charism of indefectibility. So what is agreed upon today is meaningless tomorrow, just as we have seen among the Lutherans where statements of agreement were made in the ’70’s and ’80’s and still treated as having validity, when in reality, the actual teaching on fundamental morality means something to Lutherans that is entirely different today. Think about contraception, divorce/remarriage, abortion, premarital sex, gender theory. How can we have any common ground with sects that have not just “accepted” those demonic changes but in fact in some cases actually promote the new morality as a pure good?

            THIS “moving target” morality may indeed be the “religious deception” mentioned in CCC 675 for it is precisely the religion being promoted by Bergoglio and the heretics in their novel teachings today.


            No moral teaching need be “changed” in clear speaking today in order to destroy the work of Jesus in the Catholic Church in vast regions! A paradigm only must be changed for the heretics to win, and THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TODAY. Protestant moral teaching always changes and we are adopting that very model.

            “Conservative” Catholics wait for Bergoglio to unleash a clear and heretical document denying this or that teaching on faith and morals. He will NOT {just as he will not answer the Dubia}. However, what he IS doing is replacing the unchangeable Rock of teaching with a fluid, never stable, shifting sand notion that includes the idea that agreements can be made with other religions based on “what we have in common”. But their beliefs CHANGE so what we have in common with them today is only common IF WE KEEP UP WITH THEM IN THEIR CHANGES.


            While those who know better sit in silence.

          • This is slightly off target, but I couldn’t figure out how to private message you (and I think there are several reading this thread who may be interested).

            So where do we go form here? What are we as lay members of the Catholic Church supposed to do (react/think/whatever) given this controversy that has soul-impacting ramifications? Obviously we still need to attend Mass, follow the CCC to the degree it still remains valid…..which might just be the source of my concern: what is no longer valid (i.e. means what it meant last year) in light of the Pope’s writings? We’re certainly not getting any direction from our Bishops (in the US anyways), in fact its conflicting interpretations. I’ll salute&execute, but I need to know which orders to follow. Who do we turn to when the shepherds are confused?

          • We follow what Catholics have always followed: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the Fathers of the Church, the Summa Theologica, the Magisterium up to 1962 and all the subsequent Magisterium which either does not conflict with or which is interpreted in the light of all the above. For the most part, the CCC is very good – just one or two areas to be wary of. Any doctrine which is “new” e.g. it is drawn from Vatican II only with no precedent or support in Sacred Tradition should be viewed as suspect.

            Most of what is written in the Vatican II documents is simply the verbose restatement of existing doctrine, but as Walter Kasper openly acknowledged, there are many deliberate ambiguities in there as this was the only way that agreement could be reached between irreconcilable positions. The bottom line is that Catholics need to know their faith so well that they cannot be led astray by false shepherds – I would always say start with Scripture.

          • “Who do we turn to when the shepherds are confused?”

            READ the BIBLE. Study the ancient documents of the faith. Read the lives of the Saints. Pray, and…


            Your family or a group in your parish or just your wife and your dog if that’s all you have.

            Maybe God is granting us this time to test just who follow HIM as opposed to following some human leader.

          • Brian, I am no spiritual director, or clergyman, of course, but one of the things I do (besides what Deacon A. mentioned earlier) is to turn to Our Lady. The fifteen promises She made to Blessed Alan de la Roche give us great solace,
            especially in these times. Sister Lucia of Fatima said there is no problem so great that it cannot be solved by the Rosary. The promises are a true Godsend to us — it will defeat heresies; destroy vice; decrease sin; it is a sign of predestination, and will bring intercession from the entire Celestial Court at one’s death, among many other soul-saving blessings. Truly, daily recitation of the Rosary must be the greatest weapon we have at this time. Hope this helps…..

        • Mike, can you refer to a source where I can find out what those particular errors are? It would help me in cases where I have to answer questions from people who might be lead astray when they read this particular Catechism to which you refer. (I’ve never read it myself). Thank you.

          • No, I’m afraid I can’t give a source that points out even most of the Modernist elements in the catechism. However, I’ve come across comments in articles by various orthodox theologians pointing out errors in various places related to the topic of their respective articles. Like you, I’ve never read the whole thing. Usually I’ve searched for particular information. However, in a private conversation with one of my professors concerning an item I came across that didn’t sound quite right, he said (as best as I can remember), ‘…Like the Vatican II documents, the catechism must be read very carefully because the Modernist statenents are subtle, reasonably worded and usually generalized rather than outright denial or contradictions of doctrine or teachings…’ In my own searches I’ve come across a few places where the content seemed at least questionable. I would suggest you follow his advice and also get a copy of the catechism of the Council of Trent. If the “JPII Catechism does not correspond to Trent in its meaning, I would question its reliability. I’m afraid that’s all I can tell you. Sorry.

          • Oh the irony, this is why I simply can’t take this site seriously is exemplified in this comment thread. We have either lay catholics or the bottom of the clerical hierarchy (deacon) calling Pope St. John Paul II a heretic, asserting the Catechism to be in error (while not producing any evidence; simply asserting with generalized statements) etc.

            The irony lies in the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum 3 with language of authority which would preclude a doctrinal teaching of the Church on the Catechism.

            “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.”

            Note: ‘my Apostolic Authority’ ‘Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium”

            This is rich… either one can admit to error from the Magisterial teaching of the Church or you’re in schism, until by luck, a Bishop of Rome declares Pope St. John Paul II a anti- pope.

          • If you don’t take us seriously, why do you bother with us? What credentials do you have that make you more knowlegeable or authoritative than we are? Your quote does not definitively prove the catechism contains no Modernist elements. If I am unable to give a source for a listing of those elements, it is because a) there is no single, unified sylabus of errors and b) I did not make a record of the articles and their authors which claim various elements exist, where and why the author judged them to be Modernist. Wr have never claimed to be perfect.

          • I’d like to take you seriously. I want to take you seriously. But come on this reeks of conspiracy central. In most cases, like Ockham’s razor, the simplest solution is the right solution.

            You said, “The catechism under JPII contains numerous modernist errors, which JPII let stay.”

            Okay, this is a positive claim. You have asserted these to exist. So, let’s see these examples.

            When pressed for the truth of you statement, like most on this site, “Oh, well it’s hidden in well crafted mischievous language.”

            Ah… What? Most likely not. It’s far more likely if such language is interpreted from the Catechism, it’s simply a result from one’s own personal bias from their reading. Of course, this thought process of mine would be a result of my credentials of my collegiate degree in History. Every history student takes a historiography class, in which one learns that everyone writes with a specific motive. It’s a natural tendency, so it shouldn’t carry a negative connotation when I say bias. It also doesn’t mean that there isn’t truth, but rather one simply needs to sift through most documents to get the bare bones truth.

          • winslow Michael Ezzo • 18 minutes ago
            Read “Gaudiam et Spes,” a Vatican II document which JPII, as Bishop Wotyla, wrote. It’s modernism to the core.

          • No problem, Mike. Thank you very much for your considerate reply. I have only read the Father Hardon Catechism, and a penny Catechism published by Fatima Center. I plan to read Baltimore soon. Maybe Trent will come after that. I plan to take it gradually. But anyway thank you for responding!

          • You’re quite welcome. Be aware, however, that many older books have been “updated” and reprinted by their publishers resulting in Modernist content being ibserted or replacing portions of the original material. I’ve been told this includes ansers to one or two of the questions in the Baltimore Catechism. I don’t renember which questions.

          • TRENT is awesome!!

            I am a convert with theological training and found it an easy read. But…my son-in-law does not have any theological training and he found it very easy to read as well…and VERY applicable to today!

            And Pope St Pius V and 5 Pius’s later, Pius X commanded it to be studied!

          • There is a post on 1P5 which refers to this in some detail. IIRC it was Maike Hickson’s husband who had posted online the notes of the late Fr John Hardon – notes which expressed his grave concerns about errors in the CCC and which were never acted upon.

          • Read “Gaudiam et Spes,” a Vatican II document which JPII, as Bishop Wotyla, wrote. It’s modernism to the core.

          • It downplays the evil nature of homosexuality. It implies that Muslims believe in the same God.

      • John Paul II was a material heretic. Period.

        I’ve pointed this out before: Wojtyla and Ratzinger (Popes JP II, Benedict XVI respectively) reigned in the Chair of St. Peter for for 34 of the 48 years between the closing of Vatican II and the election of Francis. That’s 71% of the Church’s history between 1965 and 2013. To whom do you suggest we attribute this chaotic ecclesial mess (e.g. universal apostasy)? Is it conceivable that the Church could devolve into a cesspool of doctrinal and moral corruption and the institutionalizing of the homosexual infrastructure within Her without the complicity of these two Pontiffs? Ridiculous on its face.

        The works you site (the Catechism being the exception) are legitimately praised (but NOT for either their readability OR their brevity). However, citing these as testimonies to JP II’s soundness is akin to me penning a few works on the brilliance of German economic development and industrial engineering between 1933 and 1938. In the end we still lived through the agony of 1933-1945 (and, it could be argued, history since 1945).

      • Canonization is not a declaration that somebody was perfect. I pray for the Holy Father every day – that he would fulfil his God-given mandate and actually confirm his brethren in the faith rather than spreading confusion and apostasy wherever he goes.

        • You are correct that canonization is not a declaration that somebody was perfect. It is also not a declaration that somebody was correct in all their opinions. Until Catholics understand this, it might be wise to put a moratorium on canonizations. The process seems to result in more confusion than it’s worth.

        • It has always raised my eyebrows at how rapidly JXXIII and JPII were canonized and how the process was modified to do so. Usually the process seems to take at least half a century. Something odd there.

          • Hmmm – political incentives to get it done quickly perhaps??? I wonder how they would have fared if a proper devil’s advocate had been at work on their cases?

        • Brother be very, very careful to avoid putting yourself anywhere near the throne of judgement. You have no idea whether or not St. John Paul the Great had to spend time in purgatory, what it was like if he did or if he in fact may be in Hell or in Heaven.

          • I did not judge him, a mere comment on his less than perfect actions: Scandalizing the faith at Assisi, World youth Day bacchanalia, the initiation of little altar girls at the altar of sacrifice, initiating of the 4th mystery of the Rosary that all Catholics rightly ignore are but just a few. We have a price to pay for our actions and Priests are more severely dealt with than lay.

          • Yes but you have no idea what his judgment was like and should never presume to know. You effectively are claiming that you know the mind of God when you proclaim the outcome of a person’s judgment.

          • Brian, please. enough already. He did what he did and I presume nothing, and I did not suggest what his punishment was only that he had an interesting purgatory. Few are clean as snow in order to see beatific vision. I merely highlight a FEW of PJPII’s issues.

          • Why is the fourth mystery of the Rosary bad? It encompasses the seven sacraments. 1) Baptism, 2) Holy Matrimony, 3) Holy Orders, 4) Confirmation and Extreme Unction, 5) Communion and Reconciliation.
            Meditating on the life of Christ and hope these Sacraments were created is holy indeed. It seems Pharisidical to want to stick with the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. This is how I see it.

          • A more appropriate response to the rosary would be to encourage the practice. Why add a mystery after 1000 years? I suggest it was hubris and not virtue that led to it. I agree that that is supposition, but added to kissing Islam’s “holy” book and his phenomenology and theology of the body, etc., etc. it leads me to my Pharisaical (I can’t believe you use Bishop Franks favorite term) position on our sainted pope.

          • Rosary developed from meditating on every aspect of Christ’s life with prayer beads not just three mysteries… I thought you were a traditionalist… … …

          • What would give you that idea? The origin of the rosary, although sketchy, is not likely a banal one off invention such as St. Dominic deciding one day that three mysteries were quite right. The three mysteries were, for the most part, just enough for the past 1000 or so years of meditation and the three made it quite nice to fit well into the 2,3,2 mode for a week. You choose to imply that it is traditional to make up another mystery, as though three just were not sufficient. I don’t recall our lady in Portugal suggesting that we need one, what she requested is that we pray the Rosary. For me I will continue to pray it using the standard three and ignore the one made up by a Koran kissing pope.

          • First off, I don’t have to accept Our Lady of Fatima, It’s private revelation, or do you not accept the teachings of the Church on that matter? To be sure, Catholics are not obliged as a matter of faith to believe everything ancient hagiographies tell us about the lives of the saints.

            Furthermore, St. Dominic is nothing more than pious tradition. The consensus of historians, even Catholic historians, have concluded that it was more of a development to the rosary. To say otherwise, would only exhibit the extraordinary conspiracy ridden attributes of this site and its visitors. In fact bead counting and prayers is more of human universal trait rather than a Christian trait.

            A’n early stage in the development of the Rosary in the West was the recitation by monks of the Psalms of David. The monks would recite them in groupings of 50, 100, or all 150. Since most lay brothers could not read, they would say the Our Father instead. An example of this is given in the Ancient Customs of Cluny compiled by Udalrio in 1096. One of the customs required lay brothers to recite 50 Our Fathers for the deceased of the order. In the 12th century, the Knights Templar were saying 150 Our Fathers a day for a week when one of their own died. Not surprisingly, when the practice of reciting many Our Fathers spread to laypersons, they came to call the strings of beads on which they counted the prayers “Paternosters.”

          • Can pompous be a respectable adjective to use for your response? If not, then perhaps it is your complete misunderstanding of context is the problem here. “I don’t have t accept Our Lady of Fatima, It’s private revelation, or do you not accept the teachings of the Church on that matter?” What are you asking in this run on sentence? The Church has no teachings on this matter, Phillip, it has a declaration on the merits of it and that is worthy of belief. On the history of the rosary itself it is what I said it was, sketchy. Period. Your derivation is just one of many many more. What hubris!

          • Pompous? Hubris? Or just plain confident? I’d say confidence to the degree that you had to attack the grammar of a non proof read internet comment rather than the idea that I’m not obligated to accept your sentiment on private revelation. Furthermore, the complete ignorance of the consensus history is nothing more than a reflection of one’s facile obstinance.

          • I’m sorry too, Dick, I have a personal affection for Pope John Paul II and let my emotions get the best of me. I think it lacks prudence to carry on the conversation because we’re simply rooted in our thoughts on the topic. God Bless.

          • Folks with goodwill in their hearts can error as easily as those without, Phillip. I too apologize to you, and too PJPII if I came on far stronger than necessary.

          • Are you people talking about mysteries or five new decades of the Rosary? How can it be wrong to meditate on and pray the Luminous Mysteries when they are all in Scripture? If they were good enough for Mother Angelica, they are good enough for me! She knew how to cut through the argumentative garbage and concentrate on what is Holy and true. Enough said.

          • Have you researched the actual history of the Rosary? How do you know all the previous mysteries were not spread out and added after other lengthy periods of time?

          • Great ? That may reasonably be doubted. If he might be in Hell, it is insane to canonise him. Only 4 Popes have so far been called ‘the Great’, and none of the post-V2 ones seem likely to join them.

    • So. if everyone is going to be saved anyway, the First Saturday devotion requested by Our Blessed Mother is canceled and I don’t have to go to Confession any more. Let me think about that.

    • I know it takes great grace, even heroic grace to be given final repentance at the death bed of life-long sinners and that God is ready to forgive even the hardest of all sinners if they truly repent. I don’t presume to know where a soul goes, only God knows that. Even among Catholics, there is an acceptance of this Francis effect when they comment on recent or even past enemies of Christ and His Church, who, may not be even Christian, when these persons die, Catholics say, God’s Mercy will give them Heaven and be saved even when there was no reason to believe it.
      It’s either a general washing away by Mercy of all that is gravely sinful practiced zealously by these known enemies, but it also seems to be believed that no one goes to Hell because of the Mercy of God who can forgive everything even though the great sinners have shown no repentance,but were spared a just punishment for eternity because God’s Mercy will save them despite themselves.
      This is either pc, wishful thinking, or false faith.

  6. While I find comfort in the notion that everything, EVERYTHING, is saved, as I hope and pray that evil gets nothing for its works, all I want is the truth. No matter how troubling, I want the truth. Is that what he is speaking, or leading us down a path of complacency like the foolish virgins who were shut out.

    • Jesus talked more about Hell than Heaven and the Bible is clear about what it takes to get to Paradise. Pope Francis appears to be speaking his opinion once again and we need not listen to that. Not everything he says or preaches is true if th oily s article is truthful. Find the truth and it shall set you free.

  7. One dimensional “Romper Room Catholicism” with no regard for the depth Mystery Who Is Almighty God. For sixties priests addicted to the zeitgeist such as Bergoglio the preferred pastoralism is a carrot to cajole and comfort — conversion, “turning around,” that is not so important.
    If it happens it happens.
    That is the best read you can give his praxis.
    Shallow men cut God down to their own size. If “he” ain’t like “me” he ain’t so good. Ya know?
    The Supreme Being, Infinitely Perfect, Who made all things can at once be perfectly just and perfectly merciful. What would give anyone the idea that justice and mercy are in opposition?
    If this man is not morally deficient, he is certainly cognitively so.
    He has got to go.
    The inmates have taken over the asylum.

    • ” What would give anyone the idea that justice and mercy are in opposition?”

      Justice intended in a broader way is certainly not in opposition with Mercy, but they have different effects for sure. St Thomas explains: ‘God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against His justice, but by doing something more than justice’ (ST 1a.21.3. ad 2).

      That is, when God applies Mercy He is not being unjust; on the other hand, Mercy and punitive Justice are very different things and have very different effects for the recipient.

      • “Justice and mercy are equal and consubstantial.” — Leon Bloy.
        Surely an issue for depth reflection. But from my groundling perspective the Infinite Perfection of Almighty God is adequate to the mastery of what appears to us to be in opposition. I was recently reading St. Catherine of Genoa on purgatory. Her willingness, her ability, to lay aside our normal rationale and enter into that mystery is far more illuminating than what she actually says about purgatory.
        For instance she understands the soul in personal judgement before God to be stricken with what we would term the sufferings of purgatory, but the soul is simultaneously utterly attuned to God’s will and as such is experiencing a kind of beatitude due to its conformity to God’s perfection. The soul is mindful alone of God.
        On the most human level I would appeal to the sometimes “agony” of an intensive labor accompanied with the total loss of self in the accomplishment of greatly challenging deed.
        The bottom line here is at best Bergoglio can’t evangelize so he dumbs things down and provides a placebo of consolation rather than inviting the faithful to deeper engagement. This is nothing less than pastoral malpractice — if he was a doctor he would be in jail. Is this practice out of disbelief? Out of pitifully poor engagement with the mysteries of Catholic faith? Out of stupidity? Out of the substitution of sentimentality for authentic devotion?
        What I would say is that it bespeaks a person woefully unfit for the duties of a priest, let alone the Vicar of Christ.
        The man needs to go.

        • “Justice and mercy are equal and consubstantial”

          Of course, in God they are.

          What i was saying is that there is a difference in their effects. The one who receives Justice is less blessed than the one who receives Mercy.

          “For instance she understands the soul in personal judgement before God to be stricken with what we would term the sufferings of purgatory, but the soul is simultaneously utterly attuned to God’s will and as such is experiencing a kind of beatitude due to its conformity to God’s perfection. The soul is mindful alone of God. ”

          But Purgatory is, in and of itself, a huge Mercy.

          Otherwise, in Hell, the souls of the reprobates experience perfect Justice even though the Mercy of God somehow tempers the torments they would receive if strict Justice was applied.

          But we can say that the reprobates receive much less Mercy than the elects, because the elects received the efficacious Grace which led them to final repentance.

          That’s the great mistery of predestination, Garrigou Lagrange has written a lot about it.

          I hope i managed to explain myself properly, I’m Italian so my English is far from perfect.

          • Marco, you express yourself perfectly, and I believe we are on the same page. Your analysis is somewhat more nuanced than mine, and it is much appreciated.
            I am at a loss for time, but I am struck by your insight which corresponds to that of St. Catherine of Genoa (in my limited reading of her). The soul who tragically finds itself in the state of eternal damnation is experiencing a tempered mercy – such a soul is simply unable to endure the Beatific Vision, and the suffering it endures in the state of damnation is also mitigated by God from what it deserves.
            I will reference the link you cite.

          • The analysis provide by Pope Benedict is always constituted by faith and reason – infinitely incomparable to sentimental notions served up by the current occupant of the Chair of St. Peter. The later is simple fraudulence, as such toxic and of serious danger to souls.
            Pope Francis’ obsession with mercy and forgiveness is itself symptomatic of cognitive dissonance and an emotional imbalance.
            It appears that he and other men and women of his generation who knew pre-Vatican II pastoral practice as young adults, embraced uncritically the wave of notions that swelled up in the wake of the hijacked Council. Born in the thirties and early forties, they entered
            religious life during the boom of the fifties, were likely afflicted by
            scrupulousness – a spiritual malady not so familiar to those born after the Council. Their painful obsessive-compulsive preoccupation with personal sin found its terminus in the “spirit” of Vatican II. That same “spirit” has become their new obsession because it represents their “release” from the neurotic cycle which subsumed their emotional and spiritual lives. A concurrent reaction against what is perceived as “rigidity” would seem to be reasonable in such a personality.
            This “James Dean” generation, now in geriatric mode, are now really “rebels without a cause” because the Council was a tragic failure. They can’t bring themselves to recognize that reality in all its horror and accept their share of responsibility for its endurance. To do so would rob them of their personal safe-space where responsibility for personal sin is consigned to the dustbin.
            I have seen far too many in this age group following this same pattern. It
            is actually a bit bizarre. It appears to be an immersion in fantasy, an
            abandonment of critical reasoning skills and an attentiveness to contriving justifications for what does not reflect simple reality. And this was in gear long before they approached their senior years. “Down the rabbit hole” as they say. Much of the episcopate can be found there today — witness the absurdity transpiring in Ireland with its “family” conference.

          • Let’s pray that the Holy Father answers Cardinal Burke regarding the dubia.
            Good to see this priest in England joining in the correction of Pope Francis: francis…
            I just wish there were bishops and priests from Ireland who’d follow his lead. Fr. Anthony Pillari, who serves as the chaplain for the Extraordinary Form and the Promoter of Justice in the Diocese of Plymouth, England says it is time to “resist’ the pope. He said St. Robert Bellarmine recommended it.

        • Mind you that efficacious Grace doesn’t annihilate free will. The Council of Trent anatematized the tought that the Grace of God deprives us of our freedom.

          To sum it up, the reprobates receive **sufficient** grace, that is: a grace really sufficient to be saved, but that the reprobates nevertheless do not use, choosing of their own will to behave and think in a way that ends up meriting them hell.

          No one, therefore, goes to hell who really has not himself to blame for it. At the same time, no one who avoids hell can boast of his goodness. All graces and all goodness come from God, so for every prayer, for every work of mercy, for every salvific act we do not really have the right to boast that “we did it”, though in a way we do really want to pray etc.

          What happens is that we do want to act freely, because God inspired us to, freely, act in that way. Think of a mother who knows her child so well she knows what she must do to motivate him to do his homework, though in the end the child really is the one who wants to do his homework. This subtle, but, at the end of the day effective, influence of the efficacious grace is called “physical premotion”.

        • “We receive justice at out judgment, and sometimes before. We receive mercy in the Sacrament of Confession”

          Even before than that. The very fact that we go to the Confessional it’s due to the fact that God had Mercy on us and insipired us to do that.

          We do not receive Mercy because we go to the Confessional; we go to the Confessional because we received Mercy.

          That’s why i wrote that

          ” no one who avoids hell can boast of his goodness. All graces and all goodness come from God, so for every prayer, for every work of mercy, for every salvific act we do not really have the right to boast that “we did it”, though in a way we do really want to pray etc.”

          • We do not receive Mercy because we go to the Confessional; actually we go to the Confessional because we received Mercy.

            We do not receive pay because we go to work, we go to work because we’ve received pay. Makes sense and I have a choice to work or not.

      • Justice is the rendering to another what he/she derserves. Even when someone is condemned to hell that is not merely punitive justice. Through a person’s sins he/she demonstrates hatred and rejection of God, His authority and His mercy. The damnation he/she receives corresponds to his/her rejection. In fact, when someone is condemned, God gives that person precisely what he/she has indicated they want by their behavior. Thus, instead of pease, joy, happiness and blessedness they are given turmoil, misery, torment and the opposite of blessedness.

        Mercy is the commutation of the consequences of actions deserving a just retribution. Mercy is just because the price for our sins has been paid by Christ with His passion and death and with it the fullness of God’s mercy was lavishly poured out on all mankind, the first fruits of which was the resurrection of Jesus and His ascension.

  8. The articles cites the Spe Salvi, and that is good. But let’s remember that in the Spe Salvi Pope Benedict XVI himself wrote words full of great hope

    ” This early Jewish idea of an intermediate state includes the view that these souls are not simply in a sort of temporary custody but, as the parable of the rich man illustrates, are already being punished or are experiencing a provisional form of bliss. There is also the idea that this state can involve purification and healing which mature the soul for communion with God. The early Church took up these concepts, and in the Western Church they gradually developed into the doctrine of Purgatory. We do not need to examine here the complex historical paths of this development; it is enough to ask what it actually means. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell[37]. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are[38].

    46. Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God. In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil—much filth covers purity, but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base and remains present in the soul. What happens to such individuals when they appear before the Judge? Will all the impurity they have amassed through life suddenly cease to matter? What else might occur? Saint Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, gives us an idea of the differing impact of God’s judgement according to each person’s particular circumstances. He does this using images which in some way try to express the invisible, without it being possible for us to conceptualize these images—simply because we can neither see into the world beyond death nor do we have any experience of it. Paul begins by saying that Christian life is built upon a common foundation: Jesus Christ. This foundation endures. If we have stood firm on this foundation and built our life upon it, we know that it cannot be taken away from us even in death. Then Paul continues: “Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:12-15). In this text, it is in any case evident that our salvation can take different forms, that some of what is built may be burned down, that in order to be saved we personally have to pass through “fire” so as to become fully open to receiving God and able to take our place at the table of the eternal marriage-feast.”

    It seems evident from this chapters that the Pope Emeritus believes that the saved outnumber the damned.

    • Please keep writing! What you write is so deep and educated and informative and illustrative and inspiring. There’s a lot of Novus Ordo criticism on this site but you don’t go there; you are just trying to explain what is going on in these desperate times. No matter what Catholic liturgy we worship in, we know this pope is out of whack and we sense the justice of a coming chastisement. Thank you for your thoughts.

    • Dear Marco,

      Thank you for your informative commentary — most helpful and thought-provoking.

      I do not, however, see how Pope Benedict’s reflections indicate that he believes the saved far outnumber the damned. The former pope seems to be reflecting on various states, not on numbers of individuals who participate in those states. He also makes it clear when he cites St. Paul, that the one, common foundation for all the saved is Jesus Christ. Well, most people in the world are not Christians, and many more are not members of the Catholic Catholic, and outside the Church the is no salvation, unless invincible ignorance in involved. Therefore, it would seem presumptuous indeed to expect that the majority of people are saved.

      Finally, if I am not mistaken, Pope Benedict had a great admiration for the theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, who was widely known for advancing a kind of neo-apokatastasis theory around the time of the Second Vatican Council. Do you happen to know if Pope Benedict took a favourable view of that theory of von Balthasar’s?

      Thanks again for your informative commentary.

      Yours in Christ and the Holy Family,


  9. Well that’s just hunky dory. It doesn’t matter what we do then. We don’t have to listen to the pope. Heck! We don’t NEED. a pope. Why on earth did God give us one? It doesn’t matter if I steal my neighbours car or if he murders me. We’ll all end up in heaven. Actually, we might just as well top ourselves now. No point waiting around. (Sarcasm off)

    • This farce reminds me of the wonderful story about the 19th century British cleric Frederick Farrar, who was apparently shakey on traditional Christian teaching, though he denied that he was a Universalist.

      After one sermon, a London workman rushed out of the church and allegedly shouted: “Good news, mates, old Farrar says there’s no ‘ell!”

      At least the workman recognised the revolutionary nature of such news; most media outlets seem to have ignored Francis’ views.

  10. Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves … Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

    • That’s the answer, BBC. Ignore him. I ask all faithful Catholics, Bishops, priests, religious and lay, act as if he doesn’t exist. If he tells you there is no hell, ignore him; if he tells you Islam is a religion of peace, ignore him; if he tells you you must not try to convert pagans, or anyone, to the Catholic faith, ignore him; if he tells you the divorced and remarried living in adultery can receive Holy Communion, ignore him; when he tells you practicing homosexuals may also be admitted to Holy Communion, which is coming soon, ignore him. If he tells you it’s ten o’clock and you look at your watch and it says ten o’clock, take your watch to a jeweler to find out what’s wrong with it. And ignore him.

      • Ignoring him is just half work. There are beloved ones around us, the neighbors too, who should and must be, at least twice, warned about him. And his anti-Catholic speeches.
        So, therefore is message from BBC above, not the best solution. Maybe, it can be only if we are alone, and if we literally live in small cave somewhere in a desert…

      • Catechise yourself and those you care about. Correct those who are in error. Defend the TRUE Faith and Teachings of Holy Mother Church.

  11. Why do some people say the Pope is not Catholic? He is not God. He is just a man, a sinner. He may well be a heretic or a very confused man. Either way it matters not. If a person feels compelled to leave the Church because of a mere man then they have fallen into Satan’s trap. The Church has not offended you. The Church has not taught anything heretical. The Church has not lead anyone astray.
    Pope Francis is a shepherd. He may be a thoroughly bad shepherd but he is only a man. We must stay strong, educated/catechised, prayerful, humble.
    One last thing, the Pope is a reflection of the people. We asked for him due to our own prideful sins. Make no mistake, while we may or may not be experiencing the “end times”, we are being chastised. It is us who need to fall on our knees and beg forgiveness, repenting and changing our hearts looking only at God, listening only to God. WE need to change.

    • The Catholic Church may shrink but it will never die. Never.

      And it may shrink to one man in a cave in Bethlehem. The Church may be preserved but there was never a guarantee that the Papacy or the Magisterium would be.

      • I can’t reconcile what I understand of Church teaching from the earliest days, not to mention “thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, with “there was never a guarantee that the Papacy or the Magisterium would survive”

        • I agree, Simon. Also, I cannot think of a single prophecy that doesn’t indicate that we will have a pope until the end. Good, bad, heretical, heterodox….they do not say, but that we will have a pope is undebatable.

        • “thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”

          I’m not sure that passage means what you assume it means. Gates are meant to keep things out. Gates don’t attack…they are defensive barriers. The defensive gates of Hell won’t prevail against the truth of the Gospel to set men free. That’s what I take it to mean.

        • The form of the Petrine function in the Church known as the Papacy, may conceivably pass away. The Petrine function as such is a permanent feature of the Church’s constitution, and will end only when the Church Militant ceases to be the Church Militant.

          Hope that helps.

          • Hardly. “The form of the Petrine function in the Church known as the Papacy” doesn’t even seem to make sense.

      • The glory of the Chirch is in her martyrs who, through the centuries, have testified to what we believe. And many of us will be called upon to join their ranks.

      • Without the Pope and bishops you cannot have the Catholic Church. If wd don’t have them than Our Lord did not keep His Promise.

    • The Catholic Church won’t die, but the Latin rite is shrinking by leaps and bounds. The Eastern rites are bound to The Pope in matters of dogma, not doctrine so the awkward things he says does not effect the other rites. One day, the liturgical language of the Church may well be Aramaic, because the number of Non-Latins may overshadow the Latins.

    • Greta points, Jacqueline. God is just and in his justness, he gives us the leaders we deserve. That we deserve men like Pope Francis, Donald Trump, Barwck Obama and women like Hilary Clinton, Angela Merkel, etc. should trouble us to no end.

      We indeed must fall to our knees and beg forgivness. And pray for the pope, too, while we’re at it.

      • You better get on your knees, like many faithful Catholics, and pray for the protection and continued spiritual guidance of Donald Trump. He supports life from conception, reversed the Obamacare contraception mandate and is strengthening the economy, a boost to family stability. Yes, he’s flawed, but to list him with your other reprobates is laughable.

        • I voted for him and I am glad I did. That, however, does not change the fact that he is a man with whom I would never associate. Thrice married, brags of his exploits, insults people constantly on Twitter. I am no consequentialist: that he is doing somethings I like, not doing things I would not like and is far preferable to the alternative does not mean I have to approve of the way he behaves.

          Pray for his protection– always. But I would never, EVER, fall on my knees and pray for “spiritual guidance” from a Protestant laymen who is thrice married, has dubious and unclear beliefs,etc. That is an absolutely ridiculous comment, John.

          • By associate, I mean work with or befriend. Let’s be clear, Christ commanded we preach to sinners, made clear we all are sinners. However, some of us recognize our sins, repent and work to amend. Those are people with whom I associate.

            Christ had former prostitutes and people who had lived evil lives within his circle. Christ did not have practicing prostitutes or others unrepentingly continuing to commit sins within his circle.

          • That’s exactly how I feel about it, Brian. I voted for him as the only viable choice and I’ll always be grateful to him for keeping that abortion monger servant of Satan out of the White House. But I do think he’s a moron. Sad to say, he proves it every day.

          • I don’t think the intention was to ask for spiritual guidance FROM President Trump but FOR him. God can work through anyone. ; )

    • When we say Pope Francis isn’t Catholic we are not referring to his membership in the Church. We are speaking about his worldview, his theology, his distortion or ignoring the Truth of Holy Scripture and his abandonment of the Church’s infallible Magisterial doctrines and teachings of the past 2,000 years. Thus, he is not Catholic because he has abandoned the faith. He is an apostate. He doesn’t even preach protestantism. He is basically preaching, advocating and promoting a secular non-religion in which will be sung, “Praise god for cloning us in his inage that we, like him, might do whatever we will and enjoy every natural and unnatural pleasure as it pleases us to do.”

      • Well said Mike44R. Bergoglio is at best a nominal Catholic. He hat long converted to the protestant faith if not even the one-world-religion. (read “The political Popäe). Similar to some Catholics I know, who embrace a “credo” utterly uncatholic, which could even be a mixture of various protestant sects. See also Eric Sammons’ “Why I signed the Filial Correction” at
        As such, Bergoglio disqualifies himself as “Pope” of the Catholic Church. I don’t listen to him anymore.

    • You contribute some truisms here, but be quite clear that if “we asked for him …” includes me, you are grossly mistaken.
      God is not a sadist.
      Our sins cry out for the grace of conversion, not pastoral deception.

      • We did’t ask for him directly. We asked for him through our own actions and inaction a. Our sins and lack of humility in addition to our pride through out our lives has brought the leaders we have now to rule over us. No one is exempt. No one is without sin. It sounds harsh but then truth usually is.
        God go with you.

    • I agree with most of what you say, Jacqueline, but when you ask, “Why do some people say the Pope is not Catholic?” it sounds like a rhetorical question. I’ve said from the first year of this unfortunate pontificate that he is a Protestant. A Protestant is a Christian who rejects the teachings of the Catholic Church. Case closed.

      I also doubt he’s a Christian, but I’m certain he’s not a Catholic.

      • He is, or was a Catholic, who may well be growing into a Protestant. All Protestants are heretics and his actions may well indicate heresy. We shall see. I am loath to make a judgement upon a Pope, he is Christ’s chosen. For whatever reason, he is our Pope. God help him and us.

        • I also doubt Christ chose him. In fact i’m certain He didn’t. Satan chose him. Bergoglio is destroying the Church. Do you think Our Lord is a party to the destruction of His Church?

    • “Amoris Latitia” is presently part of what Lumen Gentium #25 refers to as an example of “authentic magisterial teaching” (proposed to be followed and adhered to by Pope and bishops). According to this so-called legitimate document of the so-called legitimate Second Council of the Vatican, every Catholic is bound to embrace such teaching with both “intellect and will.” If you think this is NOT a catalyst for the loss of the faith for many, I think you underestimate the effects of contradiction on the mind (which is the heart of the soul).

  12. “For example, in the morning homily at Santa Marta on September 4, 2014, at a certain point the pope attributed to Saint Paul these “scandalous” words: “I boast only of my sins.”

    Pope Jorge is following Luther’s famous line: “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly.”

    Pope Judas is FULL OF HIMSELF. He thinks that he can change the Scriptures and do a BOLD FACE LIE. He has no shame with his blasphemies against God and His words. I pray every day that he would resign.

    • Re your last sentence: Imho, that would be worse. We already have one pope that resigned; we don’t need another. Remember the Great Western Schism.

    • I pray only that, in the name of Jesus Christ, God’s will be done. Safer that way. Much of what I prayed for in my life, I received. To my astonishment, it wasn’t what I needed.

  13. Heresy in spades but because it’s an anecdotal account of a private conversation which was never transcribed, recorded or signed by Francis, he gets a pass.

    A truly slimy individual.

    • Yes, maximum confusion and maximum deniability in the same report. I am reminded of the desperate Vatican spin doctoring when the first of these Scalfari interviews were published. Apparently, the nonagenarian journalist’s reports were generally reliable, but not in every detail.

  14. “Everything will be saved. Everything.” I’d say, “wow”, but I was educated by the Jesuits. It took me decades to unravel much of what I learned from them. To be sure, I emerged from school knowing a tremendous amount about world history and how to think. But I learned exactly nothing about the Bible, except that most of it (esp. the last chapter) was “metaphor” and had already been fulfilled.

    • Anne –

      I am glad you escaped the insanity of the contemporary Jesuit ideology.

      Please pray for me, as I have a dear young lady in my life who had her faith dismantled by the Jesuit establishment, and I know I must fast and pray that Jesus hunts her down and brings her to Him.

  15. I love the idea of the Pope rewriting the very words of scripture. It reminds me of the description of our former prime minister Tony Blair. One acid tongued commentator noted that TB would read the First Letter to the Corinthians as if he had written it.

    Seeing that there is allegedly Universal Salvation All Round, can Francis declare an end to all church collections, religious infrastructure, vocations, missionary work, etc and save us all a ton of money?After all, it is apparently a grave sin to try to convert the Orthodox, and probably anyone else. Maybe he could keep on a small cadre of revolutionary prelates, funded by selling property and art treasures, to preach against global warming and in favour of unlimited immigration, globalisation, etc.

  16. This pope murders God’s Son by twisting the teachings of Christ and deceiving the people hence leading them to eternal damnation.

  17. Why don’t we hear Bishops and Cardinals clamoring for Pope Francis dismissal because is obviously a heretic and a deceitful liar?

    Probably because many are Liberals and agree with his teaching. Because most Catholics welcome such a lenient God who doesn’t require anything of anyone and will in the end allow everyone into heaven. Because Cardinals, Bishops and priests value their jobs above the Truth.

    The Church is collapsing before our eyes. When Christ comes again there will be little to see in the way of those who have obeyed Him.

  18. God have mercy on all the souls in this thread who condemn and self-righteously judge the Church. So far, reading through the thread, I read judgment calls but not quotes or documentation to back up people’s statements. How sloppy and fake to make a point. I question the Catholicity of people in this thread. Everything I leave up to God and I suggest you all to do the same.
    Just for the record, I do not like this pope, but I do not condemn him either. I would gladly “take a bullet” for this Pope, not for the man, but for being the Vicar of Christ. If he is a bad pope, which he may be, or a holy good pope doing God’s will, I will leave that up to God.

    • Who on this thread said they would not do the same? And how dare you to self-righteously judge the Catholicity of people on this thread. We are not call to monatists: when the pope says things that are direct contradiction to the deposit of the faith, we have every duty and right to question him.

      This is not some conspiracy theorist article, the pope is clearly saying bizarre and false things about the existence of hell. He completely leaves out lines of Gospel text that provide context and illustrate that Christ never said “you are all saved”. Forget the comments, refute the article.

      • If you read through the thread, it is easy to see condemnation. I fail to see documentation in people’s comments in the context the Pope intended. I am not judging people’s souls, just their Catholicity based on their words. Not in many places I see constructive criticism, just negative criticism of what appears as false claims. You show me, where this Pope, using his words, rejected the dogmatic teaching of hell and told people, using his words, all people are saved?

        • Have you closely read the above article? Have you closely followed the Pope and his actions over the past 4 years? I have and it is now clear to me that Our Blessed Mother’s warnings at Fatima and Akita relate to our current time period. How in the world can we have one Catholic Country (Poland) proposing one action as a mortal sin and another Country(Germany) claiming it is not? The Pope needs to address the dubia now. I find it very interesting that the current leader of the Jesuits claimed Satan and hell do not exist, and never received a rebuke from our Pope.

          • Show me proof of where, by using his words, he rejected outright the dogmatic teaching on hell and that everyone is saved? Everything you have said, is purely speculation.

          • Matthew, in the opening four paragraphs of this article is the following:
            On Wednesday, October 11, at the general audience in Saint Peter’s Square, Francis said that such a judgment is not to be feared, because “at the end of our history there is the merciful Jesus,” and therefore “everything will be saved. Everything.”

            In the text distributed to the journalists accredited to the Holy See, this last word, “everything,” was emphasized in boldface.

            Chirst himself spoke of the narrow gate by which many will try to enter but few will.

          • “If we remain united to Jesus, the cold of difficult moments does not paralyse us; and if even the whole world were to preach against hope, if it said that the future will bring only dark clouds, the Christian knows that in that same future there is the return of Christ. When this will happen, no-one knows, but the thought that at the end of our history there is the merciful Jesus is enough to have confidence and not to curse life. Everything will be saved. Everything. We will suffer, there will be moments that cause anger and indignation, but the gentle and potent memory of Christ will eliminate the temptation to think that this life is a mistake.” (General Audience, 11.10.2017) I believe the Holy Father is saying, that if we stay united to Jesus during our trial in this life, we will be saved through God’s endless mercy. I don’t see where he rejected the Dogmatic teaching of hell?

            Our Lady foretold, and warned us about, a way of life that is godless and indeed profanes God in his creatures. Such a life – frequently proposed and imposed – risks leading to hell. (Homily; Pilgrimage of His Holiness Pope Francis To the Shrine Of Our Lady Of Fatima; 12-13 May 2017)
            Just as a post note, this blog doesn’t document its sources and is not legitimate source of documentation.

          • In respect of “this blog doesn’t document its sources” – that excerpt which you just quoted was linked to from the OP. (Was that how you reached it? It was for me.) I’m pretty sure I’ve followed links from here to sources many times.

          • I had been aware of the full quote but others may not have been so thanks for posting it. Frankly, however, the fact remains that his emphasis was that Jesus will save everything. To emphasize the point, the official Vatican press release cut off the end and added a single word sentence consisting of “everything” in bold font.

            If that is not enough, there are articles from Scalafari in which soul annihilation is put forth. You can claim the pope is being taken out of context or isn’t paying attention. Well, Scalafari is a very prominent media personality in Italy. And according to several around the pope, every time he talks to Scalafari there is something to refute…..which Francis never refutes….and continues to talk to Scalafari time and time again. If somebody kept misquoting you, wouldn’t you stop granting he or she interviews?

            Aside from the issue of hell, there are so many other heretical things being done it’s unbelievable. How about Jim Martin being appointed to a Vatican level post when he is out there flat out lying about the Church’s position on sodomy? How about Emma Bonino? How about appointing abortion supporters to the Pontifical Academy for Life? How about the radical Italian government official who completely repudiates the Church’s stance on homosexuality and transgenderism writing the foreword to a book which bears his name? What about all the dissident clerics, several who support heretical positions, whom he brings back into the fold? There are so many more instances of him taking positions and surrounding himself with people whose views are antithetical to the Church? Oh, he thinks we should dialogue with Paul Ehrlich and Emma Bonino but he sits back while people like Professor Siefert are sacked for trying to dialogue about the Euhcarist for adulterers.

          • Dear Matthew,

            United to which Jesus? The super tolerant Jesus or the straight talking truthful Jesus telling us to take the narrow path, take up the cross and to obey all of the commandments.

            There lies the problem!

          • The Jesus of our salvation. All he said was Catholic teaching. He didn’t stray from Catholic teaching. What he said is very “St. Faustina Divine Mercy” fashion.

          • Simple Google search

            “Fr. Arturo Sosa Abascal, the Jesuit’s Superior General, said in a May 31 interview with the Spanish paper El Mundo that Satan is a “symbolic figure” who doesn’t really exist.

            “We have created symbolic figures, such as the devil, in order to
            express [the reality of] evil,” said Abascal when asked if he believes
            evil is a process of human psychology or comes from a higher being.”

          • One can conclude with simple logic that hell does not exist for human souls by the below account of Pope Francis. This clearly is a heretical statement if it is an accurate account of the below conversation.

            “Scalfari: What happens to that lost soul? Will it be punished? And how? The response of Francis is distinct and clear (netta e chiara): there is no punishment, but the destruction/annihilation of that soul. [The Italian word is annullamento, literally, “turned into nothing”, meaning here the same as the more usual Italian word for annihilation, annientamento] All
            the others will participate in the beatitude of living in the presence
            of the Father. The souls that are destroyed/annihilated will not take
            part in that banquet; with the death of the body their journey is
            finished. And this is the motivation of the Church’s missionary
            activity: to save the lost. And it is also the reason why Francis is a
            Jesuit to the end.”

          • Where does the Pope deny the Dogmatic teaching of hell? Do not use sources from blogs, magazine articles, newspapers, CNN, hear-say reporting, etc. From a reliable source, where in the Holy Father’s words, does he “without doubt” reject the Dogmatic teaching of hell?

          • Where else can I obtain information regarding the Pope’s alleged statements? He refuses to officially address the simple Dubia. Why do you think that is the case? I think if he answered the dubia you would have the concrete evidence you so seek. I personally find his lack of clarity deliberate, and quite honestly I now believe to be deceptive. His actions regarding the Synod of the Family clearly show this trait in my opinion.

          • He does not have to “officially” say such to be wrong or to harm the faith.

            You seek only a juridical proof when what you have in front of you is evidence of serious misconduct. Conduct which leads others astray.

          • So does “Conduct which leads others astray.” from the so-called faithful when without proof of their claims, they yell “Crucify him, crucify him” (Luke 23:21)

          • No, what you are doing is lying and misdirecting. You seek to obfuscate and pretend nothing wrong is happening. Such conduct is contrary to the Gospel imperative.

          • Not really. There is plenty wrong with Pope’s Francis’s Pontificate. Plenty of disturbing things. I am one of those rigid Catholics the Pope speak of.

          • Dear Matthew, You do not like commentators sharing how they feel about the existing pope but you do like to tell us what we should do. Please could you expand on how you are a rigid Catholic?

          • Matthew, your challenge is welcome simply to give pause for reflection, and allows those of us
            with grave reservations to reflect and subsequently return to alarm and distrust in this pontificate
            AND those lay and clerical sheep who blindly support his doubtful propositions…..

        • But surely IF criticism was based solely on “reading between the lines” (which you don’t wish to be relevant)
          it would concern anybody of objective intelligence the many utterances and official letter: (AL) of the Pope
          given the ambiguity and controversy now widespread among lay and clerical members of the Church.

          What is implicit can AND does as much damage to morale among Catholic faithful as outright heresy.
          Where is His leadership and unifying dynamic ( a duty of the Papacy )……. ? There is creeping, serious
          division and its NOT coming from most of these threads.

      • [Lumen Gentium para. 25 ] “Among the
        principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent
        place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to
        Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the
        authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they
        must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit
        illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new
        things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that
        threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff,
        are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In
        matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the
        faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.
        This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to
        the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex
        cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium
        is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered
        to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter
        may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent
        repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

        Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative
        of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly
        whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the
        bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and
        authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on
        one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified
        when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges
        of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered
        to with the submission of faith.

        [And so forth ….]

        • Yes, but there are plenty of expositions, including by St. Robert Bellarmine that describe how a pope can be heretical. Of course, the theory is that we cannot have a heretical pope because the moment that one becomes a heretic, one is no longer Catholic, ergo no longer the pope.

          Now, I am not calling the pope a heretic, but he says heretical and verifiably false things or at least partial truths. The question that arises is at what point we would ever stop listening to a pope. For instance, I wonder if there are people who upon a pope declaring the Bible a self-help book and denying God, would continue to say that we must believe and follorw him because the “”non-existent” God in His divine law said the pope cannot be questioned nor error. We must therefore not question the pope because the God who does not error nor exist commanded us thus.”.

          I think there are some Catholics who may need to start asking themselves these kind of questions.

          • The Pope can error and introduce heresy. He can also save his soul and lose his soul. Nowhere in Church teaching does it say otherwise. He cannot however, error while on the Seat of Peter. We are not to negatively criticize the Pope while he uses his authority from “the Chair” of authority. As for a man, people can question and chose not to listen to a Pope; for he speaks for himself, not the universal Church.

          • No, Mattew, he can error. If a pope directly contradicts the words of Christ in the Bible–the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God–then he is clearly in error. When the pope says all will be saved, that is a bald faced lie. I could hand the Bible to a person who never attended a moment of a church service, never been catrchized and ask him to read even two passages among hundreds and ask him if he interprets the passages as saying all are saved. There is no way he would.

            In essence, this man is saying that I could commit sodomy on the alter, turn around desecrate the Eucharist, spit on the cross, drop dead in that instant and I would be saved or at worst my “soul would be annihilated” until the last day when I would be saved. That flies in the face of the entire Book of Revelation, of expositions on the Four Last Things, the Catechism, etc.

            Such words do not conform to the Bible, to the hermeneutic of continuity. It is literally found nowhere in any Church approved document and the only way people are backing it up is to say the pope is infallible and that he cannot error. Well, can he just sit up on the Chair of St. Peter and make things up? What if he decided to claim the eschatology will involve Winnie the Pooh coming to life and handing out honey jars to everybody who will live in Pooh Corner. What would we say to that? “Hey, great news, on the last day we all go to live in Pooh Corner!”?

    • You might hang around a bit more. This thread is not the be-all and end-all, there are more than sufficient reminders to pray for the Holy Father elsewhere. The people here are good people, with grave concern for the state of the Church and graver still concern for the future of souls being lead astray by an inattentive Shepherd.

      Marching into a conversation long in progress, and starting up about not hearing what was said long before your arrival is rather self-righteously judgemental in itself.

      If you genuinely believe that Pope Francis is doing God’s Will, then, in all honesty, you’ve not been paying attention to the facts. Defend AL as being consistent with the Church. Refute the article above. In short, debate the matter properly with the quotes and documentation you demand of others, and leave off the ad hominem attacks, or be quiet and learn something.

      I do agree with your opening statement however: May God, indeed, have mercy on all our souls.

      • I am openly questioning people’s comments which is disturbing. When I read people’s comments how they believe the Holy Father is a heretic, or that he is evil, or “Pope Judas is FULL OF HIMSELF.” (taken directly from this thread) then I have every right to defend the Seat of Peter and the faith among fellow Catholics. No one has documented any wording from this Pope on how he went against dogmatic teaching, yet they claim he had. I have every right to speak for my Church and point out error among fellow Catholics in stupid statements so commonly found on FB and other social media. Also, you don’t know who I know, what I know, what my work history is, etc. so I appreciate you not to imply that I need to learn something.

        • Yes, you are questioning that which exists in great quantity and detail, on this very site and yet you can’t be bothered to verify. That tells a person all that is needed about what you know – you want what is easy, and you would prefer to be spoonfed.

          Having the right to do something and being protected from the consequences of doing it are two very different matters.

    • It’s curious, Matt, the way you think. In your first paragraph you feign alarm at those you think “self-righteously judge the Church.” But then, in the very same paragraph, you “question the Catholicity of people in this thread.” Your charity clearly has rather limited borders. Let me then take a page from your book and hazard a guess that you are one of those surviving victims of that old malady, ultramontanism, that you’re the stuff from which Protestant anti-Catholic nightmares are made from. Thinking about distortions like yours is also what drove John Henry Newman to have grave reservations about Vatican I’s proclamation on papal infallibility.

      As for the lack of “quotes or documentation to back up people’s statements,” I can only suppose you really don’t read beyond the headlines of 1P5’s articles or beyond the handles of those who post here. I notice that you don’t tell us why exactly you “do not like this pope” for whom you’d be “glad to take a bullet.” So let me end with a bit of “documentation” to substantiate why I don’t particularly like this pope, just one example among dozens possible. I am scandalized that a Roman pontiff could say that Emma Bonino, a self-confessed mass murderess, is one of Italy’s “forgotten greats.” I am equally scandalized by Catholics who seemingly can’t act like men and who therefore refuse to denounce this kind of outrageous papal language clearly.

      • Yes, this pope had said stupid stuff, yes I disagree with the pope in the direction he’s taking the Church, yes I agree with Cardinal Robert Sarah in about everything he said about this pope and the church during present times. Yes, some of the pope’s writing is crap, such as climate change, etc. and Amoris Laetitia which stirred confusion among the faithful. etc. But where, using the Pope’s words, did he clearly introduce teaching that is anti-Dogmatic in nature?

        • He “introduced” it — that IS the proper word here — in Amoris laetitia, the document you yourself cite as stirring “confusion among the faithful.” What do you think the 5 dubia are all about? Of course he didn’t “clearly” state a teaching that is anti-dogmatic in nature; that would spoil the game entirely. He prefers, instead, the tactic of muddying the waters, confusing teaching just enough so that some (the bishops of Buenos Aires, many in Germany, Malta, etc.) initiate heteropraxy on their own. Then he — all unofficially, you understand — writes to the Argentinians telling them “there are no other interpretations” but theirs is possible for his exhortation.

          I may have a lot of negative impressions about this pope, but I never accuse him of being dimwitted. He’s clever and he knows exactly what he’s up to. He also knows there are Catholics out there like you who will suffer this slow dismantling of the Faith in silence, convinced they are somehow defending the papacy. He depends on that error.

          • I think there is also a problem when a pope–as Francis did–declares with glee that he is going to split the Church. Such a notion should not evoke a sense of pride. Many of us marked this 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s heresy with sadness that there are other people calling themselves Christian who reject the Church. To add to those ranks is not something of which the pope should be proud.

            So many, many things feel….dangerous….gloomy…..apacolyptic: the “Prophecy of the Popes” (FWIW); the 100th anniversary of Fatima and the Communist takeover of Russia; the 500th anniversary of the cleaving of God’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by a prideful monk with an enormous ego matched only by an enormous sense of guilt for all his perversions backed by arrogant lords and landowners; the absolute annihilation–in breathtaking fashion and breakneck speed–of western society; abortion; sodomy; APOSTASY.

          • I wish it weren’t true, but – to paraphrase Mary McCarthy speaking in a totally different context – I can’t disagree with even “the” or “and” in your post. If ever a pope was not indicated for a time or place, it has to be this one. I cannot think of another at any time in history who visited more devastation on Catholic teaching in so short a time. Franciscus Divisor.

    • Matthew, I have been praying for the conversion of Bergoglio since I started having doubts about his deeds and sayings (sometime in 2013). And I still pray for him “et al” daily, as well as all those I have an aversion for, like Kim Jung-Un, Ruhani, Putin, Erdogan, The Saudis and you know who. I pray for them because Jesus want it so, not because I enjoy doing that.

  19. Pope Francis and his handlers in the leftist “re-education” establishment teach a program aimed at infantalizing people, and of course, they target the young, who they can manipulate.

  20. Dear Matthew, Do you think the pope is doing God’s will? Do you think that it is possible for a pope to go to hell?

    The church belongs to Christ not us or the pope I only say this because you said “my church” in your previous post.

    Also, at every mass that I have attended we are asked to pray for the pope and at every adoration and at every rosary.

    Thank you for the point that you made about fasting for the pope as a possible solution to the current situation.

    • Yes. It is my Church. It is all the faithful’s Church. It is the Church of the saints, the suffering in Purgatory, etc. It is the Church of all who is, was, and will be validly baptized. Yes. It is my Church.

      • Dear Matthew, I hope that you are not judging our priest because he states time and time again that it’s not his mass and it’s not his church. It’s Christ’s church.

        • It is all our Church because we belong to it. Yes it is Christ’s church for He is the Paschal Lamb and we are the tabernacle. We are a significant part of the Church. Yes the priest is right. It is a Church we do not claim ownership too, which I do not. It is a Church we belong too, for we are a integral part of the Church through our valid baptism. Through Jesus Christ the High Priest he does what He wills and offers us, through His flesh, of His life, Passion, death, and Resurrection, our salvation. Now can we move on rather than nit-picking my comments and trying to put me on trial? I full-heartily agree with the priests., the liturgy of the Mass, and the graces coming from the perpetual sacrifice of the Mass itself.

          • Dear Matthew,

            I’m can assure you that I’m not nit-picking, I’m trying to understand where you are coming from with the comments that you have made.

            You say that you heartily agree with the priests , however that statement is impossible today as one priest will say one thing e.g. communion for all and another priest will say the opposite e.g. communion should be received in a state of grace. In reality only one can be correct in stating the truth and thus there lies the problem.

            At the moment there is an immense confusion and this has been spreading through out the faith for about the last 50 years, I have been reading this site for approx 2 or 3 years and the articles and commentators have helped me understand the faith better.

          • To highlight the depths of the confusion, let me give a simple example. Last year, I walked across the bridge over the River Neisse between Gorlitz in Germany and Zgorzelec in Poland. In 100 yards, priestly guidance on divorced and remarried people changed 180 degrees. This idiocy is evident across the world.

          • Exactly William it’s scandalous and yet because of tolerance it’s all okay but tolerance isn’t mentioned in the Bible.

  21. I suppose all of this is just a product of the “New Magisterium” to match the “New Evangelisation”. Its advertisement would be akin to: The Francisterium …… carefully crafted teachings for every day lives!

    ……because “at the end of our history there is the merciful Jesus,” and therefore “everything will be saved. Everything.”

    Forgive me, Holy Father, but can I submit some Dubia on this statement?

    1) Does this statement include the Prince of Hell?
    2) Does this statement include the other infernal princes?
    3) Does this statement include the Betrayer, Judas Iscariot?
    4) Does this statement include all the evil people who have been sent to Hell?
    5) Most of all, Holy Father, does this include the Queen of Crime: Hillary Clinton?

    I would be grateful for Your reply, Holy Father. But, I am aware of Your immense concern with the environment right now, so I shall patiently wait until You have time to respond after battling man-made warming.

    Respectfully submitted by a rigid Catholic who is closed to the Holy Spirit and a Promethean Neo-pelagian.

    • I too, by using the Pope’s words, am a rigid Catholic, who is not conservative, not liberal, not traditional, for those are labels of man. I am Orthodox to the Seat of Peter which God calls all of us to be.

          • To God, above else. If the pope–and you could argue that he has–contradicts the unambiguous Word of God, the words of Christ, etc. then I will not be faithful to him. At what point does your faithfulness end?

            For the record, mine has not. But I’m not going to sit back like a sycophant and agree with heretical statements.

          • Townsend meant to say, “Orthodox to the See of Peter” or, perhaps, “Orthodox to the Chair of Peter.” Regardless, the phraseology is odd and, in Townsend’s lexicon simply means he will refrain from criticizing even the most foolish acts and statements of whoever occupies the pope’s position. It’s called ultramontanism, the same genre of attitude that prevented American Catholics from criticizing for so long the sexual criminal negligence that plagued their dioceses back in the 90s. It’s a great disservice to the the Church, but you’ll be hard put to get these fanatics to acknowledge that fact.

    • “If we remain united to Jesus, the cold of difficult moments does not paralyse us; and if even the whole world were to preach against hope, if it said that the future will bring only dark clouds, the Christian knows that in that same future there is the return of Christ. When this will happen, no-one knows, but the thought that at the end of our history there is the merciful Jesus is enough to have confidence and not to curse life. Everything will be saved. Everything. We will suffer, there will be moments that cause anger and indignation, but the gentle and potent memory of Christ will eliminate the temptation to think that this life is a mistake.” (General Audience, 11.10.2017) I believe the Holy Father is saying, that if we stay united to Jesus during our trial in this life, we will be saved through God’s endless mercy. I don’t see where he rejected the Dogmatic teaching of hell?

      • 1) Well, the fact he says “everything will be saved. Everything.” is enough to understand that he is taking a universalist approach, and he connects this “everything will be saved” with the Final Judgment.

        2) To be frank, he is far too clever to openly deny a dogma (as the whole saga with Amoris Laetitia has shown). He will just toy around with one idea, and then let the Bishops run wild with it, without actually being the one who tells them to accept it. And then, he won’t reign in the Bishops when asked, thus allowing his Modernist teachings to spread. Besides, most of the Episcopacy are also Modernists, so they will just consent willy-nilly.

        3) In a March 2015 interview, the Pope was asked about the lost soul:

        “What happens to that lost soul? Will it be punished? And how? The response of Francis is distinct and clear: there is no punishment, but the annihilation of that soul.

        No punishment? Annihilation of the soul? That is clearly contrary to the dogma on Hell. In Amoris Laetitia, the Pope famously stated: “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!“. This is also contrary to the dogma on Hell (not to mention Christ’s own teachings).

        With statements such as these, one can only ask: when Francis mentions “hell” exactly what does he mean? Well, since he never clarifies his own position, we can only speculate.

  22. Oh, one other “last thing” we should not forget about: this is where the False Prophet ends up in the Lake of Fire for eternity. Rev 20:10

  23. Can someone help me out here, because the more I try to understand Pope Francis’ alleged views on the Last Judgement the more confused I become.

    This is a report of a PF speech in 2013 where apparently he claimed that, according the the Gospel of Matthew, followers of Jesus will join Our Lord in carrying out the Last Judgement. Talk about previous papal advice on Who Am I To Judge. On that glorious day, every Christian will allegedly join in judging everyone else?? Or is it just a lousy translation?

    This might be one way of getting Universal Salvation as no one will want to condemn erring relatives and neighbours.

    If PF is thinking of Matthew Ch 25, v 31-46….well, Matthew says nothing of the kind.

    “”A second reason for confidence is offered by the finding that, at the time of judgment, we will not be left alone. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus preannounce that those followed him will join him in glory to judge everyone with him”. ” That’s nice to know that at the time, not only can we count on Christ, our Paraclete, our Advocate with the Father, but we also can count on the goodwill and the intercession of so many of our brothers and sisters who have preceded us in the journey of faith , who have offered their lives for us and who continue to love us unconditionally!”,-because-Christ-will-always-be-at-our-side-29782.html

    • William,my advice, less reading more prayer, start saying the Rosary, try and find time to say all 15 decades everyday, you will get ALOT more from that than trying to understand the minds of men who choose to mock God.

  24. With the nit-picking of my words, changing the subject behind my words, and twisting my words as if I was the one on trial, I can see how commenters on this thread do the same thing with the Pope’s words. No one, on this thread, filled with accusation towards the Holy Father, ever did show me the words from our Holy Father, from a legitimate source, where he denied the existence of hell or any other Dogmatic teaching. Just as I originally thought.

    • Matthew, if we lived in a gated community you would be the last man chosen to occupy
      the watchtower. By the time you would sound the alarm to danger the front door would already
      be breached.

      You have been given multiple examples of the Popes questionable behavior yet you remain in
      denial to facts regarding such behavior for reasons known only to yourself, in a word: Disingenuous.

      • I am only asking for proof of the Holy Father’s denial of the Dogmatic teaching of hell from a legitimate source. All I ask?

        • Look here, when a wolf in sheep clothing operates he operates in disguise, Pope Francis is
          hardly going to expose himself as a heretic by condemning dogma outright.

          But none the less the damage is DONE given the lack of solid grounding ( in the faith ) by Catholics
          in general.

          If he is sincere he is at best misled ( as many are ) by the spirit of the age.

          Perhaps your purpose is to represent the “doubting Thomas” angle vis-a-vis the issue of “Dubious
          Dubia Doubting Francis”…….. time will tell as things unfold, God bless Matthew.

        • Matthew: in this article their is a direct quote including what he released to the press saying “everybody will be saved. EVERYBODY.”. There is your denial of hell right there amongst all the other comments cited in the article.

          • Brian, please don’t feed the trolls. He’s only here to antagonize. Follow Our Lord’s maxim: “Do not cast your pearls before swine.”

          • I sense you are correct. Nothing short of a letter from Francis where he states “I am an unrepentant heretic” will satisfy Matt. As Spanish so rightly has it, No hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver (No one is more blind than he who doesn’t want to see).

          • Matthew has a point, you know. I don’t agree with what I think is his analysis, which I think is far too sanguine, but it’s easy to exaggerate the Pope’s words here. For example, your quotation is wrong; the Pope didn’t say “everybody” but “everything”:

            Quando questo succederà, nessuno lo sa ma il pensiero che al termine della nostra storia c’è Gesù Misericordioso, basta per avere fiducia e non maledire la vita. Tutto verrà salvato. Tutto.

            My Italian is not good enough to follow all of his speech but I think this part is not difficult: “When this will happen (i.e. the second coming), no one knows, but the thought that at the end of our history there’s Merciful Jesus, it’s enough to have faith and not curse life. Every thing will be saved. Everything.” (Corrections welcome)

            Now, to the extent that I understand that (even in English), I don’t like it because of the obvious potential for heterodox interpretation. It seems to me as though it’s a thoroughly irresponsible thing for a Pope to say in a General Audience. But I think you can’t pin it down as heterodox. (I do fear that it will be wilfully interpreted in a heterodox way.)

          • It’s the media
            It’s the translation
            It’s that we do not parse like a lawyer
            It’s the ionosphere
            It’s global warming
            It’s this it’s that


          • Ultimately, Simon, isn’t that the core problem with this pope? His unerring obliqueness, that studied ambiguity that leaves Catholics scratching their heads and that plants a smile on the faces of the devious? Of course, the raison d’être of a pontiff is to provide clarity, not equivocation.

          • When we hold onto Jesus, we are saved. Jesus Christ is our salvation. I didn’t read anything contrary to the Dogmatic teachings on hell. His message mirrors the message of the Divine Mercy.

          • Divine mercy also requires contrition, penance and the true intention of not committing that sin again. The pope never seems to include this important fact. No one here disagrees with God’s great mercy, for those that seek it with humbled hearts.

          • Townsend will only accept a direct statement from the pope himself in which he admits he is a heretic and signs it with his signature and the imprint in wax of his papal ring. Then Townsend will demand that a panel of graphologist examine the document to certify that indeed it bears the pope’s signature. If they do, he will then demand the Swiss Guard investigate to see if the pope was being held against his will and threatened in order to make him write the offending document. If even that fails to get him to his predetermined point, he will ask that the Swiss Guard be investigated for collusion with certain nefarious anti-papal forces….. In other words, there is simply no end to Townsend’s excuses.

          • Exactly, it is the same game they have played since day one of this papacy. To deny what is happening is to be complicit in the error and deception.

    • While I’ve never said that Francis has formally denied any dogmatic teaching, that’s a rather low bar for heresy. But I digress. It’s a well known theological maxim that praxis precedes doctrine. Francis has joined every other post-conciliar Pope (JP I being the exception) in altering Church praxis. This permits the development of structures which incarnate policies which simply ignore dogma and doctrine while never formally denying it.

      You want to know what kind of man you’re adulating? Take a gander:

      You can have him.

        • Am I being addressed by a sentient human being? If you decide to come to this site and antagonize posters, expect to get some push back. And also have more in your intellectual arsenal than silly questions.

          • Because people yell “Crucify him, crucify him” (Luke 23:21) without any proof of their accusations of the Holy Father being a heretic.

          • Your words, that prompted my question. The Holy Father, as a man, is not my hero, but the Vicar of Christ is my hero. I fail to see where I am judging in asking a simple question. Also, you shouldn’t use the word “hell” in a non-religious sense (cussing).

          • Oh, please. Save the puritanical linguistics for someone else; it makes me gag to hear a grown man say something that idiotic. Now let me ask you something: Did you graduate from eighth grade? I know you won’t be offended because, after all, I’m only asking a simple question.

  25. It is now more clear why he wants to open the Eucharist to those who may or may not be in a state of mortal sin, and why he tolerates bishops creating guidelines they say are based on Amoris Laeticia that endorse it: it doesn’t matter what state a person is in if all are saved. Add to this the pope’s recent comments on the death penalty where he now wants the Church to hold that it is an intrinsic evil, and it is clear that to the pope, there is no justice or condemnation- only mercy for all. If the pope is denying God’s justice, then this explains so much about what we are seeing in this pontificate, and those who have a voice should speak out and condemn these errant and dangerous teachings.

    • Of course, PF is sawing off the branch on which he and all his well fed Cardinals are sitting. If Jesus is to preside over a huge tent including ALL mankind, what is the point of avoiding sin? And what is the point of having a huge religious organisation?

      By the way, if anyone is running the seating arrangements in this huge tent, I don’t want the slot next to Adolf H or Charles Manson. Rather uncharitable of me, but no one is going to penalise me for being uncharitable.

      • The new “Church” of Francis will be like a huge social justice organization concentrating on equality in our life on earth. There will be sin, but mercy will immediately take care of that problem. No need for that final judgement. Just a formality. This new religion, to include all religions, will fit into the hoped for one world government. His is the manifestation of that most nefarious of all heresys, warned about by St. Pius X and many others, modernism.

  26. I am sure Hell is full of people who taught that Hell either does not exist or that nobody goes there. Pope Francis will not escape judgement for his heresies, false judgements and false mercy.

    • What heresies did he try to propagate? Please show me, if you can, from a legitimate source, in his words, any heresies he tried to propagate?

      • Be careful, Matt. You seem to want a written papal confession that will not be forthcoming; Francis seems to prefer to flirt with rather than espouse heretical positions. To propagate means to spread, to encourage. By that definition, Francis certainly has at least fostered heretical interpretations of his exhortation Amoris laetitia. The most charitable thing we can say is that he has sewn confusion when his duty as pontiff is precisely the opposite, viz. to clarify. He did so explicitly in his published letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires where he said that theirs was the only interpretation of his words, knowing full well the Argentine bishops in some cases favored allowing practicing and unrepentant adulterers to receive Communion. (for a full explanation see: That is why many Catholic scholars do not accuse Francis of heresy, but rather with fostering it, or advancing its progress by obfuscation. Given what has happened in Argentina, Germany, the Philippines. Malta, and in isolated dioceses in the US, it’s hard not to agree with these scholars.

      • I had been aware of the full quote but others may not have been so thanks for posting it. Frankly, however, the fact remains that his emphasis was that Jesus will save everything. To emphasize the point, the official Vatican press release cut off the end and added a single word sentence consisting of “everything” in bold font.

        If that is not enough, there are articles from Scalafari in which soul annihilation is put forth. You can claim the pope is being taken out of context or isn’t paying attention. Well, Scalafari is a very prominent media personality in Italy. And according to several around the pope, every time he talks to Scalafari there is something to refute…..which Francis never refutes….and continues to talk to Scalafari time and time again. If somebody kept misquoting you, wouldn’t you stop granting he or she interviews?

        Aside from the issue of hell, there are so many other heretical things being done it’s unbelievable. How about Jim Martin being appointed to a Vatican level post when he is out there flat out lying about the Church’s position on sodomy? How about Emma Bonino? How about appointing abortion supporters to the Pontifical Academy for Life? How about the radical Italian government official who completely repudiates the Church’s stance on homosexuality and transgenderism writing the foreword to a book which bears his name? What about all the dissident clerics, several who support heretical positions, whom he brings back into the fold? There are so many more instances of him taking positions and surrounding himself with people whose views are antithetical to the Church? Oh, he thinks we should dialogue with Paul Ehrlich and Emma Bonino but he sits back while people like Professor Siefert are sacked for trying to dialogue about the Euhcarist for adulterers.

          • The scholars say that these passages along with a number of “words, deeds and omissions” of the Pope are “serving to propagate heresies within the Church.”
            According to the signers, the “words, deeds and omissions” of Pope Francis that promote heresy include:
            Refusing to answer the dubia (five yes-or-no questions) submitted by the four cardinals (two of whom are now deceased) asking him to confirm that Amoris Laetitia does not abolish five teachings of the Catholic faith.
            Forcibly intervening at the 2015 Synod of the Family where he insisted on inserting into a midterm report a proposal (that did not receive sufficient votes) to allow communion for adulterers and a proposal that pastors should emphasize the “positive aspects” of lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital cohabitation.
            Endorsing an interpretation of the exhortation by Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schönborn that allows for Holy Communion to be given to adulterers.
            Affirming the statement of the bishops of the Buenos Aires region that allowed Communion to be given to adulterers, stating that “there are no other interpretations.”
            Appointing to positions of influence within the Church men who publicly dissent from Catholic teaching on the sacraments, including Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia and Cardinal Kevin Farrell.
            Allowing guidelines for the diocese of Rome to be issued under his authority that permit adulterers to receive communion under certain circumstances.
            Leaving uncorrected the publication in L’Osservatore Romano, the official journal of the Holy See, the Maltese bishops’ interpretation of Amoris Laetitia that allows communion for adulterers.
            Seven heresies
            The Catholic clergy and lay scholars go on to list seven “false and heretical propositions” which they say Pope Francis “directly or indirectly” upholds through his “words, deeds, and omissions.” These seven propositions, listed below, are summaries of the positions which they attribute to Pope Francis and deem to be heretical.
            1.A justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin.
            2.Christians who have obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom they are validly married and have contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of their spouse, who live more uxorio [as husband and wife] with their civil partner, and who choose to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of their act and full consent of the will to that act, are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin, and can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity.
            3.A Christian believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action.
            4.A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience.
            5.Conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married to another person, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God.
            6.Moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely unlawful on account of their object.
            7.Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it.
            The clergy and scholars state that these “propositions all contradict truths that are divinely revealed, and that Catholics must believe with the assent of divine faith.”

            They add that it is “necessary” that such heresies be “condemned by the authority of the Church,” on account of the “great and imminent danger” they cause to souls.
            As one of the signers explained to LifeSiteNews, St. Thomas Aquinas taught that faithful Catholics have a duty to correct an erring prelate. He quoted the following passage from the saint’s famous theological work Summa Theologiae:
            If the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. 2:11, Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.
            I took this from ‘Over 60 scholars correct Pope Francis for ‘propagating heresies’ by Pete Baklinski Lifesite News

          • ‘ambiguity’ and heresy. I still don’t know why he hugged and praised Emma Bonnino,
            a proud abortionist.

  27. Good post.. Are any of you aware of an infallible statement from the Magisterium which condemns or excludes the “annihilationist” theory of Hell? Thank you.

  28. You see how Francis uses the half truth method of lies by omitting the key parts, thus manipulating inferences. The consistency shows intent, diabolical intent of the father of lies.

  29. Good post. Are any of you aware of an infallible statement from the Magisterium which excludes the “annihilationist” theory of the damned? Thank you.

        • Yes, it does. The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead includes the dead who are damned along with those who are saved. While for the saved the resurrection of the body means an extra level of bliss, for the damned it means an extra level of woe (ie, physical pain). It’s Catholic doctrine, based on scriptural texts such as “The worm in them dieth not”, etc.

          • Thank you, Hugh. However, the resurrection of the damned is compatible with the annihilationist theory. I would like a dogmatic statement which excludes the annihilation of the soul after an “age” of punishment.

          • Thanks, Nick. The annihilationist theory (eg, of Origen) has been condemned, whereas the resurrection of ALL the dead is Catholic doctrine, as is the eternity of Hell. Origen’s theory was condemned at the Synod of Constantinople in 543. (See Denziger, 211). See Ludwig Ott: “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, pp. 481-2 where he lists the many scriptural references to the eternity of hell punishment such as my quote above (Mk 9, 45 – why is this not enough in itself, given there are no suggestions otherwise in all of scripture?) and notes that the Fathers before Origen (whose theory, as I said, was condemned) unanimously affirmed the eternal duration of the punishment of hell. Ott notes that the eternity of Hell and the resurrection of all the dead are De Fide doctrines. As to the resurrection of the damned, scripture says (for example) “And they that have done good things shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgement.” (John 5, 29) and in the Athanasian Creed it says “On His coming all men will rise with their bodies.”

            The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993) clearly states both doctrines. It says at 998: “Who will rise? All the dead will rise, “those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.” and at 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.”

            Not a pleasant subject, but we deny or ignore it at our peril. Prayers, H.

          • Thank you for your thorough response, Hugh. I’m familiar with the above sources but I still fail to see the exclusion of the theory of annihilation. For example, the condemnation of Origen does not exclude annihilationism as it excludes only Origen’s (pseudo-Origen?) apokatastis (not to mention that that particular condemnation in the 5th ecumenical council is much disputed as Justinian may have added it later. Even so, it has no bearing on annihilationism but only apokatastis.) As to the Scripture verses cited, I find them most compelling. However, lately, I have been questioning them because the word translated as “eternal” in Scripture usually does not mean forever, but a particular “age.” Also, Jesus’ description of Hell often implies annihilation (e.g. like the burning of chaff). And given the fact that Paul says “God will be all in all” eventually, Scripture does imply that no being still in existence will be separate from Him, thus leaving open the theory of annihilationism. See Al Kimel’s post for further problems with the Greek word “aionos” regarding the meaning of it in the passages most often cited to defend an everlasting Hell ( Note: we can affirm that the damned will be resurrected, punished for an “age,” and then annihilated without contradicting the sources you cited. So given this, I’m still searching for an infallible statement by the Magisterium on the exclusion of the theory of annihilationism. I will without hesitation submit to whatever the infallible Catholic Church teaches but I have yet been able to find such a statement.

          • Nick, what about “The worm in them dieth not?” No mention of “everlasting” there, but clearly implying it. Do you read it as “The worm in them dieth not, until they are annihilated?” I’m sorry, but this is just playing with words. At the end of the Canon, the celebrant says “all glory and honour is yours per omnia saecula saeculorum”. That literally means “in the century of centuries” or “age of ages”. Is it permissible to believe after that honour and glory stops being God’s? And maybe that there are four persons in the One God, because that theory hasn’t been explicitly and infallibly condemned?

          • As you know, the Scriptures can be interpreted in many different ways. One of the reasons a Catholic can be spared much confusion is that the Church is able to infallibly clarify a particular doctrine. I am wondering if she has done so regarding the everlasting torments of the damned because I don’t find the Scriptures to be conclusive, at least how I read the Greek. For example, the “worm will not die.” Is Jesus referring to a literal worm? Is said worm immortal? Will this worm continue forever while the damned cease to exist at some point? Think of other sayings of Jesus. Jesus says to hate your mother and father. Does he mean that we should hate our parents, the God of love commanding us to hate? Of course not. Because that can’t be his meaning, we reinterpret them to mean actually the very opposite of the literal meaning. Jesus says “call no man father.” And yet we call priests father. Are we contradicting Jesus? No. So we interpret him differently than the literal saying. Images and sayings of Jesus can be interpreted in different ways. Hence, my desire to know what the Church has infallibly declared regarding Hell. As to your last point, the Church has infallibly taught that there are only Three Persons. And very explicitly. Hence, my desire to see this as regards to the everlasting torments of Hell. . . . . N.B. Annihilation may be completely wrong. That’s not the question. The question is one a heretic for holding such a position. One can be in error and yet not a heretic if the said doctrine is not explicitly, infallibly defined by the Church.

          • Nick, (apologies for delay … been away) the everlasting nature of hell for the damned is in the Athanasian creed, it’s in the liturgy, it’s there in Aquinas and Augustine all the doctors of the church and most of the Church fathers. Moreover, it’s taught by a moral unity of bishops in many eras of the Church.That definitely happened post Trent, when the Roman Catechism, dripping with references to everlasting punishment in hell, was taught without demur in every diocese in the Church. You’ll not find a single national or diocesan catechism from that period which denies the everlasting punishment of Hell. That fact alone guarantees it to be infallible doctrine, according to the criteria of Lumen Gentium para. 25: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.”

            I think you are seeing difficulties where there are none in your scriptural questions. Jesus’s reference to the undying worm is clearly saying that the damned will experience an everlasting penalty. What you’re saying is it’s more likely that Jesus is making a huge mental reservation, about the damned being eventually annihilated, but the worm going on forever, than that he means what he says … the “worm” (demonic, physical, or both – why not?) goes on torturing them forever. Your references to “Call no man father” don’t apply here: Jesus often used irony and exaggeration and this is a classic instance, as one can see from many texts where he is perfectly happy to see father/teacher/rabbi applied to humans. Where are the controlling texts which show that “the worm will not die” is an irony or exaggeration – ie, texts which obviously imply that the damned will be annihilated after a period of time in hell?

          • Sorry Nick (re my earlier post below) – I misread your post as implying that the resurrection of the damned theory was as debatable as the annihilationist theory.

            What you’re saying is that even if there is a resurrection of the damned, that doesn’t exclude their being annihilated at some subsequent point in time.

            This point is true, logically. But (and this is why I urged it in the first place) that doesn’t settle the matter: it’s also logically compatible with the resurrected saved being annihilated after a period of bliss, and the scriptural references imply a symmetry between the two final states. (e.g. John 5, 28-9: “Do not marvel at this: for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth; those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.”)

            Hence my banging on above about the De Fide status of the doctrine of the resurrection of the damned.

            With all that said, to answer your question, (!) annihilationism has been definitively condemned.

          • Thank you, Hugh. Why could it not be true that the resurrection to Judgment be the annihilation of the damned? The annihilation of the damned is without end, i.e. forever. in pace Christi

          • Thanks, Nick. 1. Because it’s no “punishment” to be absolutely annihilated (not just killed). Not to have existence is not something one feels positively or negatively. One simply doesn’t exist! In fact, annihilation is something a lot of people opt for these days when they choose suicide – believing erroneously that they thereby cease to exist altogether and thinking it’s better to not exist at all than to exist with pain. It’s a way out of pain for them. 2. All the talk in Scripture, the Fathers, and Catholic tradition about Hell as a “punishment” would turn out to be a grand deception.

            And thinking further: where are Satan and his minions now? They’re in Hell. Along with many sinners of the race of Adam. Is there a serious suggestion that God will continue to put all these creatures through excruciating agony until the General Judgement, and then end their punishment by annihilating them? Why doesn’t He do it straight away? Is he just a Sadist? The Catholic position is much saner: God sees good in everything He has created … even Satan. To annihilate something is to imply that he has made a mistake. The fact that a rational creature of God fails to respond to God’s love is a choice of the creature. God doesn’t deny the creature the dignity of being able to make that choice, even if it makes that choice in perpetuity.

          • Thank you. Those are some good points but ultimately I don’t think they are conclusive. First, “punishment” is not punishment because it “feels” negative. Punishment is not about feeling but about a proportionate retribution. Second, annihilationism does not exclude physical punishment for a time. In fact, the theory holds just that but after a due amount of time the damned will cease to exist. Thirdly, it has been argued that actually a majority of the Fathers do not hold to an everlasting Hell (including the demons and Satan). St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Theodore of Cyrus, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, etc held to a form of apokatastasis. And the majority opinion in the Eastern wing of the Church for sometime held to the same. And given the possible mis-translation of “aionos” in most New Testament translations as “eternal,” we have good reason to see why many of us may have falsely assumed an everlasting physical torment of the damned. Given these problems, I’m hoping to find an infallible statement by the Magisterium rejecting annihilationism. But what I keep finding instead are citations which lead back to the Scripture passages that may or may not be mistranslated. An infallible statement from the Magisterium would put this to rest. In pace Christi

          • 1. “Punishment is not about feeling but about a proportionate retribution.” Well, punishment would not be punishment if it were experienced positively. In that case it would be a reward.
            2. “Second, annihilationism does not exclude physical punishment for a time. In fact, the theory holds just that but after a due amount of time the damned will cease to exist.” The damned in hell are with fixed wills hating God. The pain they experience is just retribution for their fixed choice. They deserve everlasting punishment because their rebellion against God is also everlasting. If they are annihilated, they are not getting what they deserve, which implies that God is not just. The annihilationist theory is therefore a denial of God’s justice.

    • Dogma does not require an “infallible statement.” The dogma concerning hell more than qualifies for Vincent of Lerins’ criteria: ““We hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by everyone.”

      Vincent of Lerins has come under attack in recent decades, but an excellent defense has been penned by Thomas Guarino, “Vincent of Lérins and the Development of Christian Doctrine (Foundations of Theological Exegesis and Christian Spirituality)”

  30. Latest word, as of 25th Oct 2017, from Pope Francis on Universal Salvation – it will certainly not be his last.

    Er, no, it does not look quite like Universal Salvation All Round, as implied in the quotations in Sandro’s article above. Apparently you have to express a little repentance before you can get into Heaven. No clear indication on whether you have to have any faith in Jesus, so I am not clear if non-Christians get in under some concession such as invincible ignorance.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...