Which way will he fall?

http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...s-denial-hell/

I didn't click the link, but am looking at the URL. Why is this filed under "National Security"?

Here's the NYT article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/w...-scalfari.html

It looks like it's a non-quote from a non-interview. *Yawn*

The poker dealers can breathe a sigh of relief.

But it wasn't a non quote. The pushback carefully avoided saying that the pope didn't actually deny there was hell. Most likely he did say it and I doubt he will lie about it. So if the quote is true, what next?

That you're looking for a strongly-worded denial as if the entire Catholic world should be aghast by the Pope's alleged statement and that there should be some sort of dramatic theological reckoning as a result is simply stupid.

No, what's stupid is that anyone should think it is likely that there is a "hell". And many in the Catholic world already said that they would be aghast if the pope really did say that. I'd lay four to one he thinks it.

So you've gone from "it's not a non-quote" (despite the fact that it clearly is a non-quote) and "So what's next?" to "I'd lay four to one he thinks it." Good job.

What do *you* think is next? (Besides idly speculating while hovering over your keyboard.)

Edit: Also, "many in the Catholic world" is very Trumpian in its non-specific reference to a groundswell of people. You also hedged that "they *would* be aghast" if he had said it. I don't see a lot of evidence that people are *actually* aghast and this is likely just a flash in the pan newspaper headline to get viewership.

Edit 2: Also, you started with Breitbart's article that was filed under "National security." Really?

"Hell could never be made for me"

https://youtu.be/LwXDm8mbBRs

My OP was assuming that the quote is true. The fact that it might not be is irrelevant. If the Pope actually didn't say those things my OP becomes irrelevant, moreso obviously if he doesn't believe it. Buy if he does believe there is no hell and if he does publicly admit it, the articles I read are claiming it is a big problem in the eyes of most religious, practicing Catholics (example: http://www.oliverwrightesq.com/pat-b...lieve-in-hell/). Of course that is probably fewer than half of those who call themselves Catholics.

So... *Assuming* for the sake of your OP that the Pope did in fact state something along the lines of "Hell is not real..."

What exactly are you asking? Haven't you already assumed the conclusion?

Which is why you initially insisted that "it wasn't a non quote" and why you felt it important to note that "[t]he pushback carefully avoided saying that the pope didn't actually deny there was hell." Because under the premise of your OP, it completely makes sense that you would have to defend that statement.

Once again, you've out-clevered yourself in trying to salvage a terrible OP. By attempting to rewrite it with an unstated premise, you've made your post even less interesting than it already was. Congratulations.

Because Pat Buchanan's perspective is completely representative of the average American Catholic. Yup. Just like Breitbart should be seen as a sane and level-headed source of factual information.

I'm sorry, but this just isn't the thing you seem to imagine it is. In a few more days, you'll discover that basically nobody cares about this contrived controversy. Some conservatives that already don't like the Pope will complain for a little while, and then life will go on more or less as if this never happened.

What I find amusing in all of this is that the fine reporting of Breitbart is basically relying on the fine reporting of certain Italian communists. By fine I mean "prone to throw dubious stories at anything they dislike".

Though I guess they have a common enemy in the Catholic church.

But still, it's funny.

I assumed he said it but I also assume he might backtrack. My mistake was using the phrase "which way will he fall" when my main interest was how would Catholics handle it if the Pope doesn't disavow the no hell idea. Hopefully that happens so I can prove you wrong when you say it would be no big deal.

Annihilationism (destruction of the soul) as an outcome of a life is a known scholarly religious belief that is put forth in the article. Catholic doctrine, as the article states, is that hell is "fire" and that "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." So couldn't the "fire" of hell destroy the souls and thus achieve the same end? So in that case maybe the two beliefs aren't really antithetical?

It is my understanding that plenty of Christians are fine with not going to heaven as a bad enough punishment. It was only when I read some articles that I became aware that the big shots in the church aren't.

Yeah.

It's an immigration issue, but the places of migration in question
are supernatural and presupposed.

He's been on a tighrope since Galileo.

Still holding on. His balance is super-natural, in many ways. Intergenerational and cross cultural.

The rope is getting thinner now. Let's see how he does with the millenials.

Nah. Popes have been skipping from rope to rope forever. Today's Catholics wouldn't even recognize Catholics from a few hundred years ago as Catholic. Definitely an evolving religion.

Jesus apparently thought it. Stupid IYO?

Jesus used the word "Gehenna," which was a valley outside Jerusalem.

I'm pretty sure that's not what you think of when you use the word "hell."

And, I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't have in mind a place of eternal
torture in fire, with a little red man with a pitchfork.

Any more questions?

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/gehenna.asp

The article proves my point.

Both body and soul are destroyed there

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). No power on earth can destroy a soul. The soul is a part of a person that exists beyond physical death (Revelation 20:4). "Gehenna" has to be a place to destroy both the body and the soul.


So hell/Gehenna is not a place of eternal torment, but a place where souls are destroyed.

I agree 100%

If Pope Francis came out on live TV and said souls that die in mortal sin are annihilated instead of spending an eternity in Hell, I would be aghast as that would be a heretical belief.

If he were to promulgate an official document of the church which said the same thing, it would shake my faith to the core.

As presented, I don't put much stock in the article transmitting the true beliefs of the pope. The media does an astonishingly good job at misrepresenting the pope/Church even when using exact quotes much less an article that doesn't even have those.

While this may be your belief, it is definitely not the formal teaching of the Catholic Church.

CCC 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."617 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.

Also, what is your interpretation of Jesus speaking about separating the sheep from the goats in Matthew 25? Specifically were he says about the goats in verse 46:

And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Why?

You already know the answer...