Skip to main content

Pope Francis's "could almost be a Atheistic Document" still doesn't Reaffirm Existence of Hell

Reuter and the leftist Catholic media are really excited because Pope Francis in the Apostlic Exhortation "Gaudete et Exsultate" mentions the devil "over a dozen" time.

In their minds this proves somehow that Francis is explicitly reaffirming that he believes in the existence of hell. (Reuter, "After 'no hell's report, Pope give the devil his due," April 9, 2018)

The Pope may believe that there is no hell as his atheist friend Eugenio Scalfari reported him saying, therefore the devils may be on the earth or even in heaven and not in hell which doesn't exist accordingly to the words attributed to him.

Remember that Francis thinks heaven is inviting many atheists over those rigid Catholics who believe in Jesus's words about adulterous sexual acts being intrinsically evil as Pope John Paul Il reaffirmed and taught.

Maybe Heaven is not only inviting many atheists, but many devils, too.

That the Pope may believe this is not that far-fetched. Tracy Rowland in "Catholic Theology" (page 193) says Francis in 1984 reviewed a book of Hans Urs Von Balthasar.

Fr. John Hardon refused to review a book by Balthasar for Fr. Joseph Fessio's Ignatius Press because of the author's heretical views on hell. Hardon said the book "leaves doubt if whether there's anyone yet in hell." (therealpresence.org, "Seduction of Evil Spirits," September 7, 1997)

The heart of the matter is that to this point and in this new papal document Francis has not as Cardinal Raymond Burke said "clearly reaffirmed the truth about... hell." (Breitbart, "Cardinal Burke: Pope Francis Feeds Confusion in the Church," April 5, 2018)

But, surely someone will excitedly say Reuter in the above article says one time in the document "Francis did mention hell."

If the Pope had "clearly... reaffirmed the truth of hell" then with this passage he might have condemned to hell all the rigid Catholics who believe in the Ten Commandments and the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church in the media and on blogs who point out that many of Francis's teachings contradict Revelation.

Reuter quotes the Exhortation as saying:

"Even in Catholic media... we see how the unguarded tongue, set on fire by hell, sets all things ablaze."

Nice metaphor, but hardly a clear reaffirmation of the existence of hell.

Strangely enough, as far as I saw, the Exhortation only speaks of the "mission" and "the perennial 'today'" but not of the afterlife.

It could almost be a atheistic document.

An atheistic globalist could have written this document as a call for the masses to forget about national security remembering that the only sins are not to support unlimited immigration and the Islamic take over of what is left of Christian Europe (which are as important as the holocaust of the unborn babies), if it didn't have so much flowery Catholic language and the lip service to the unborn.

This Exhortation could almost be a atheistic document.

If Francis can't apparently talk about the afterlife in this document, as least as my quick look through the Exhortation seems to show, even after he just made worldwide headlines denying hell which was attributed to him by his friend and refuses to this day to reaffirm the existence of hell and apparently in this document doesn't speak of heaven, I didn't see a reference to heaven, then he needs to read the following words of St. Paul.

Even if someone finds the word "heaven" mentioned somewhere, nowhere in the Exhortation, that I saw, is there anything remotely coming close to St. Paul's:

"If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people to be pitied."
(1Cor. 15:19)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.










Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...