I. There is legitimate disagreement among Catholics about Pope Francis
II. Religious submission takes for its object fallible authority
III. Insofar as Pope Francis manifestly denies the faith, I will resist him
IV. Insofar as Pope Francis confesses the faith, I submit to him
I. There is legitimate disagreement among Catholics on this point
During the great Western Schism, St. Vincent Ferrer backed the antipopes in Avignon, while St. Catherine of Siena supported the true popes in Rome. Both saints were utterly convinced and worked passionately to win over the faithful to their cause. If the saints disagreed over the status of the pope in a time of crisis, how much more will we sinners disagree in our time?
We live in evil days. It is a time in which, as Ratzinger once wrote, the Catholic faith is surrounded “with a fog of uncertainty” which has “hardly been seen before at any point in history.”[1] We live at a time when bishops have rejected the whole faith and seek to subvert it.[2] We must stand fast in the faith of our fathers and be willing to give our blood before we compromise a single letter of the faith. This is how our fathers conquered in their day, and this is how we will conquer in ours.
At the same time, we must permit disagreement where it is licit to do so. In this way truth and charity will be maintained. As we shall say later on for example, every Catholic is obliged to confess the dogma of hell, yet Catholics can disagree about whether the Holy Father has denied this dogma. Any disagreement on the latter point must not overshadow the former unity. Catholics must be able to unite over what is essential and disagree on what is doubtful with all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. iv. 2-3). At the same time, as St. Francis de Sales teaches in his section against slander, “you must speak freely in condemnation of the professed enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics,—it is true charity to point out the wolf wheresoever he creeps in among the flock” (Devout Life, Ch. 29). Therefore let us proceed reasonably taking care we do not sin against truth nor charity.
II. Religious submission takes for its object fallible authority
As I stated in my confession of faith, I believe Jorge Bergoglio to be the valid Bishop of Rome as Francis I, to whom I submit with religious submission of mind and will. This type of submission is the normal, daily submission that every Catholic owes to the Roman Pontiff. This religious submission is given to non-infallible authority, and is a step below the assent of faith, given only to what is infallible.[3]
Religious submission therefore is an action of the virtue of piety, defined by St. Thomas as rendering due honor and reverence to superiors.[4] The highest piety is given to God alone, yet to every lesser authority submission is given according to its due mode. Thus anything taught by a bishop is at least Sententia Probabilis if not Communis, due solely its authoritative origin (See The Meaning of Catholic). But even Communis can be set aside for good reason. This good reason is the case in which the high authority of the hierarchy is opposed to the higher authority of God Himself or an infallible truth of the faith. And it is just so with each order of human authority.
Thus St. Alphonsus says that we “obey our confessors in everything which is not manifestly sinful,” (Serm. 4th Sun. after Easter). And again the Roman Catechism says that wives must yield to their husbands “a willing and ready obedience in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety” (2.7 Matrimony duties). And again regarding children, if “commands [of the parents] be wicked or unjust, they should not be obeyed, since in such a case they rule not according to their rightful authority, but according to injustice and perversity” (3.4 Parents).
Thus we see that religious submission to lawful authority is always conditional upon the principle that this authority is also subject to God. If ever an authority refuses to submit to God, as St. Thomas says, we cannot submit to it. This is according to the Scripture We must obey God rather than men (Acts v. 29).[5]
But, as St. Alphonsus says, (ibid.) we cannot justify any refusal to submit unless it is manifest that such submission would be itself a sin. It must be manifest because what is manifest is beyond all judgement and doubt. That which is doubtful requires judgment from authority. Thus we cannot, upon our own judgment and opinion, set aside the lawful command of an authority. If, however, an authority is manifestly opposed to some higher authority, we must assent to the higher authority against him.[6] In this we will contrast the assent of faith and the assent of religion, to which we now turn.
III. Insofar as Pope Francis manifestly denies the faith, I will submit to the higher authority of the faith
Catholic doctrine which has the theological note of De Fide obliges the Catholic to give the assent of faith. This assent is higher than religious submission because it submits to something as infallible, revealed by God and explicitly defined by the Church.[7] Thus to refuse the assent of faith to a De Fide doctrine is a mortal sin against faith, whereas refusal of religious submission to authority is not always sinful as we have shown.
For example, it is De Fide dogma that the damned souls will receive eternal punishment (Ott, 509). The Athanasian Creed states that at the Final Judgment, “they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire” (cf. Mt. xxv. 45). This teaching is confirmed by numerous councils and defined by the Church beginning with the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II (543) “If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema”.[8] Thus this dogma is infallible De Fide to which every Catholic is obliged to give the assent of faith under pain of mortal sin.
Now in reviewing the Holy Father’s two encyclicals, four apostolic exhortations, as well as Amoris Laetitia, Evangelium Gaudii and Misericordia et Misera, there is no mention (in this sense) of “Hell,” “Eternal Punishment” or “Eternal Condemnation.”[9] But we do have this general principle contained in Amoris Laetitia, 297: “no one can be condemned forever (in perpetuum damnari), for that is not the logic of the Gospel. Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.” And again in a homily His Holiness declared “The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for eternity” or in another place “God never condemns, he only loves and saves.”
In the context of Amoris Laetitia, His Holiness says that this principle—mens evangelii “mind of the Gospel”—applies to a particular concrete situation: since God does not condemn forever, the Church does not condemn forever. It would seem clear from his homilies as well that he believes this to be an eternal principle of the Gospel. To make matters more confusing, His Holiness has permitted a prominent Italian newspaper to report private statements ascribed to him, indicating that he denies eternal punishment but believes that damned souls are annihilated (the Vatican issued a vague response to this). He has said elsewhere that sinners must repent to avoid hell, but given all of these statements, the faithful can reasonably ask: Holy Father, what do you mean by “Hell”? It would appear reasonable to conclude that if God does not condemn eternally, then Pope Francis does not understand “Hell” as eternal condemnation.
Out of piety, we must always interpret the Holy Father in the best possible way. However, we cannot abandon reason while doing so. All that is necessary in these circumstances is for the Holy Father to provide a confession of faith to leave the matter beyond all doubt. Thus far, the Holy Father has refrained from doing so. As it stands, a reasonable and pious man may conclude that the Holy Father denies the dogma of hell. Thus insofar as he does deny the faith, I submit to the higher authority against him.
IV. I submit to Pope Francis insofar as he confesses the Catholic faith
Since early 2014, Catholics have repeatedly sought–directly or indirectly–a confession of faith from the pope, concerned about the spread of confusion among Catholics regarding this and other doctrines.[10] This has happened at least thirty-five distinct times with only a single response from Pope Francis (albeit unofficial), when he was asked in person.[11]
If a father tells his son to deny the faith, his son will be troubled in his heart. Refusing out of piety to believe that his father wants him to commit manifest sin, the son asks him: “Father, did you really mean that I should deny the faith?” When the father refuses to respond, the son, unless he denies reason, can only come to one of two conclusions: the father is negligent and does not care enough to clarify himself or the father in fact intends to deny the faith. These two conclusions are manifest from the application of reason.
Based on his refusal to provide a confession of faith regarding the many errors and heresies (including moral failures) he is accused of I can only conclude that the Holy Father is negligent or he intends to deny the faith. In either case, it is manifest that Pope Francis resists the faith – either indirectly through negligence or directly through subversion. Therefore in regard to Pope Francis I must exercise the virtue of caution. St. Thomas defines caution as a part of prudence, meaning using knowledge of the past to foresee and avoid evil.[12] Now heresy is a very grave evil, which corrupts the soul, and it is for this reason, as we have seen, that the obligations of piety are set aside if they oppose the obligation of faith. Caution, therefore, leads me to prudently avoid submission to Pope Francis unless he is confessing the faith. At such a time as God sees fit to fully rectify the crisis in the Church, I will have less need of such caution. But until that time, I will confess the faith and submit to the Pope insofar as he submits to the faith, and resist him insofar as he resists the faith.
In the meantime, I submit to you, dear reader, for your own comments on the matter.
Timothy S. Flanders
@meaningofcath
—
[1]Ratzinger 1967: Intro to Christianity, 11
[2]Ratzinger as Pope Emeritus again notes this in his recent article “The Church and the Scandal of Sexual Abuse”
[3]Donum Veritatis,23. See also this discussion.
[6]This is not to say that what is manifest to some may not be manifest to others, as we asserted regarding the saints in the Great Western Schism. Among us sinners, clear reason can be impeded by other factors such as sin, ignorance, or a disordered intellect.
[8]Denz 411. For more references, see here.
[9]The two exceptions are Laudato Si, 148: “any place can turn from being a hell on earth into the setting for a dignified life” and Gaudete, 115: “the unguarded tongue, set on fire by hell, sets all things ablaze (cf. Jas 3:6)” and in a morning meditation he states “perhaps there is the danger, the danger of continuing in this way [of sin], far away from the Lord for eternity. This is very bad!”
[10]Maike Hickson, “Before Pope Francis was accused of heresy, Catholics reached out to him numerous times,” Life Site News, May 7, 2019
[11]This was an informal clarification regarding the Abu Dabi statement. The clarification was not printed but reported second hand by HE Athanasius Schneider
[12]ST II-II q49 a8
Can one deny a dogma and still remain in the Church?
My brother Robert,
In what manner are you saying “remain in the Church”? Denial of a De Fide dogma is the mortal sin of heresy which, if obstinately persisted in, becomes an excommunicated “crime.” The difference between the mortal sin of heresy and the crime is an obstinacy. Thus men can err but be corrected and thus not be a heretic nor be excommunicated.
With respect,
Timothy
How does the Church define obstinancy in relation to heresy?
I don’t know a technical definition off hand, but it is generally like this. This is how this actually happened:
1. Martin Luther writes errors about the faith including denying free will
2. Theologians accuse him of error
3. The Holy See condemns his errors in Exsurge Domine. He is now officially an “Erring theologian.” He is given a deadline to consider his errors, repent and recant
4. Martin Luther burns the papal bull publicly and refuses to recant by the deadline
5. At the deadline (and not before), Martin Luther is now officially a heretic, excommunicated, and is in a state of mortal sin
Thus heresy as an excommunicated crime involves error in the intellect, and obstinacy in the will. Erring theologians can be forgiven, whereas a heretic refuses to be corrected.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my questions. Here are a few more if you are willing to continue to do so.
You wrote, “…it is manifest that Pope Francis resists the faith…”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, wrote:
“This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope,”… (An Extract from St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30).
So, if you believe, which you seem to believe based on the quote above, that Francis is a manifest heretic––for, after all, what is a heretic but one who “resists the faith”–– how can you also believe Francis is the pope, given what St. Bellarmine teaches?
I look forward to your response.
Hi Robert,
Basically right now it is clear that the Pope errs, but it is unclear that he is obstinate. I think the second point is debatable. Since there is no canonical process for judging the pope, the bishops must get together and directly rebuke him and try to correct him. There are efforts to do this, in particular the most recent letter accusing of heresy and the recent Declaration from the cardinals. Moreover others, like George Neumyer (sp?) have documented the fact that Pope Francis has been formed in the Marxist Jesuitical schools of Modernism, so it is also reasonable to allow some time for Pope Francis to repent since he literally may not know any better. Above all, the virtue that moderates this crisis is the virtue of piety, which St. Thomas defines as showing due honor to our parents and lawful authority. We must proceed cautiously and carefully in this crisis and not move too quickly, which can cause more division than is necessary. When the division is necessary, it must proceed on very clear, unified lines with many bishops (if possible). I think the prudent course of action right now is to support the faithful bishops in their efforts to correct the Pope and in all things to hold piety and offer penance for the Holy Father that he may repent before death.
In Christ,
Timothy
What would clear obstinancy look like?
Honestly, and with due respect and charity to you, you seem to be denying fact to support your theory. What would St. Thomas Aquinas say?! If Francis is not a demonstrably, manifestly pertinacious and notorious heretic, no one is nor could be called such.
So, again, I ask, what would make you personally say, “Oh, Francis, yea, he is definetly a heretic now, no denyin’, an outright public denier of revealed truth, no doubt about it!”
And after you yourself were able to say he was a manifest heretic, would you agree with St. Bellarmine that Francis would no longet be pope?
Robert,
You are the first sede I have encountered that is charitable and reasonable, so I appreciate talking with you. In answer to your question about what would it look like, it is very difficult to tell, since the Tradition has very few examples about a heretical pope. The tradition also seems to be divided about how to deal with a heretical pope. Some, such as yourself following Bellarmine, state that he immediately looses his office. Others, such as HE Schneider, citing other sources, state that he can never be deposed. I observe that there have been successful depositions of popes in the past (Justinian as as well as Emperor Henry if memory serves). Others state that he can be deposed, but only with a canonical process. But others point out that the first see if judged by no one. Still, we can look closely at the examples of Honorius, Vigilius, and John XXII to try to gain some insight from our fathers, but the situation does not seem as clear cut from the Tradition as it appears you think it is or want it to be. Bishops in the west broke communion with Vigilius, but did they take the same tack with John XXII? Moreover, we have the example of Stephen VII causing a massive sacramental crisis by his excesses, yet this was reversed by his successor. Also Pascal II was condemned by St. Bruno for “heresy” but later recanted.
My point is simply that the answer is not clear from the Tradition. If answers are not clear, prudence dictates a sober, cautious approach – that would be what St. Thomas says from my view. At this time I think the efforts of HE Burke with the New Declaration are headed in a good direction, and there needs to be a direct confrontation where the situation is dealt with, which may lead to a schism. But it is paramount to keep the unity of Church as much as possible, and that means keeping with the faithful bishops and unity with all faithful Catholics and unity – as much as is possible – with the Apostolic See. Because I think one thing is clear from the Tradition, and that is all the saints strenuously fought always for unity with Rome and to convert Rome if needed.
Ultimately, however, I think all Catholics need to be patient with one another and forgive each other as we all try our best in good faith to be faithful Catholics. We may disagree on how to handle things but the essential thing is clear: schism is a sin against charity and schism is disunity with Rome. Keeping this in mind, that heresy is also a sin. Both of these things are grave matter. That is the truth that we will face at our death.
With respect,
Timothy
Actually Timothy tradition is quite clear that there has never been a manifest heretic ruling as Pope and there never will be because the office of the Papacy cannot be occupied by a heretic.
Vatican Council I, in the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4, solemnly teaches:
So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople [869-870], following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our Lord Jesus Christ, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church (Matthew 16:18) cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion… This gift of truth and a never-failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of
heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell..”
Archbishop John Purcell of Cincinnati, commented as follows afterwards:
The question was also raised by a Cardinal [at Vatican I], “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself. If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the
Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.
(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo
XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; Imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago).
Again your first sentence betrays your lack of study. If this so clear, why did the Fathers of the first Vatican Council laugh at an attempt to solve the question of Honorius et al.? Why is Cajetan’s opinion held for centuries if it is “quite clear” the contrary?
The morning meditation sounds like a pretty clear affirmation of hell/eternal separation from God. It’s obvious he believes in it and it sounds identical to what’s in the CCC.
The other texts are about judgment. Christ didn’t condemn anyone to hell. The Church continues Christ’s ministry, so she can hardly be bound to condemn people, even sinners. Only God knows that for sure. It’s not like his holiness denies there is sin in the world or evil-doing or wrongdoing. If memory serves he even famously warned mobsters in Italy that if they did not repent they would end up in hell.
Being judgmental can be an extremely bad habit that can destroy charity, the one eternal supernatural virtue. It can lead to rash presumption and bearing false witness against your neighbour. Marriages can be very messy affairs and in the past some Popes did wink at irregularities amongst, e.g., recently converted nations. There’s plenty of ignorance and confusion out there that could mitigate the sinfulness of irregular marital situations.
Tim,
Praise to Jesus Christ! Thanks for the your comments brother. I agree with a lot of your statements about virtues. The basic issue is this:
The Holy Father can easily clear all confusion in about five minutes but he does not. He can easily answer the dubia (it’s five yes/no I think), and he could have easily confessed Hell when five the opportunity to clarify.
Thus I hope you’re right. I prefer you to be right. As soon as the Holy Father clarifies Himself as hundreds of thousands of Catholics and bishops have asked him to, I will be overjoyed. But as such, we are left with making conclusions based on his other words and actions, which are not always clear.
With respect,
Timothy
Timothy – I really like your blog and your sensible approach. One point you raise has bothered me: you will not follow Francis where he goes against the faith, but you will follow him where he is in line with the faith.
I, on the other hand, will not follow Francis when he goes against the faith (I’m with you there), but I will not trust him even when he seems to teach in line with the faith. The reason for this is: I am not a trained theologian and could easily finding myself imbibing subtle errors from this man. So I have stopped listening to him altogether. This doesn’t mean I have abandoned the faith: it simply means I go to trusted sources for the true faith, typically older catechisms and all the creeds you have cited.
Think of Francis as a source of contaminated water: if you find pollution from a particular water source, you stop all drinking from it. You do not sip and sip and sip again, hoping that THIS time the water will be pure and potable. Once the foulness is detected, all of it becomes suspicious as a source of potable water.
So to your point that you will follow Francis when he’s in line with the faith, I would say that in that case I follow the faith, not Francis, whose concurrence with the faith is merely accidental – the faith just happens to line up with one of Francis’ person predilections in that moment.
Yes I think we agree in es sense, brother. I am trying to study the Summa, and frankly I simply don’t have enough hours in the day to read the lengthy encyclicals that are put out. When I say I submit to Pope Francis when he follows the faith, I agree this is probably accidental and not formal in nature. What I mean in especially is making decisions of resistance or submission for particular things. For example, if Pope Francis were to decree that the SSPX were fully regularized, I would submit to this because I agree it is in line with the faith. However, if Pope Francis approves some sort of female ordination in the Amazon, I will resist this.
Thanks, we do see this the same. As to resistance, I have opted to join the SSPX folks, not so much because of the Latin Mass (I will attend the Latin Mass or a reverent NO Mass), but just to get some doctrinal shelter from the storm of heresies and even blasphemies that are coming out of Rome these days. We are enjoined to break communion with heretics, and I’m trying to do that as much as possible. I had hoped that the U.S. Bishops would provide some kind of doctrinal firewall for U.S. Catholics to shield us from what was coming from Rome, but their recent vote to revise the catechism regarding the Death Penalty told me that there would be no help there – they would be more of a sieve than a firewall, alas. The SSPX clergy have stouter hearts, it seems to me. Thank God for them.
I certainly respect your decision brother as no man in these times should judge another faithful Catholic harshly for doing his best. Although I have not studied it very much, it does appear that the SSPX have maintained a loyalty and closeness to the Holy See to avoid schismatic attitudes despite their situation. Still, insofar as they officially state that one should not hear Mass at the NO, this, from my view is schismatic especially since Lefebvre was willing to admit the validity of the new rites in his initial agreement in 1988. They certainly have their own internal divisions, although to be fair these are certainly not as bad as those who are in perfect juridical communion with the Holy See. God willing a full regularization will come soon (ironically Francis has done a bit on this point). All of this to say I cannot justify to my own conscience communing with the SSPX because they are not under the jurisdiction of the local bishop. I would sooner move to another state than go there.
With respect,
Timothy
I take your approach to this pope. Francis has to date made many confusing [and often outrageous] statements in different forums and then refused to clarify them (e.g. all the interviews with Scalfari or his letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires); he has made more than a few dubious appointments over several years to different positions in the Church (e.g. McCarrick, Barros, Zanchetta, Ricca) and overlooked serious criminal behavior among clerics (e.g. Mauro Inzoli and, earlier when he was in Argentina, Julio César Grassi); and he has been less than truthful in public statements (e.g. not mentioning Juan Carlos Cruz’s letter to him concerning Bp. Barros, or his statement to a Mexican journalist that Vigano never told him about McCarrick). If instead of the pope he were my boss at work, knowing just these kinds of things, I would have to look askance on everything he said. In effect, an honest appraisal of the situation would force me to reverse the normal order of things and to doubt anything he said or did till it was proven true and honest, rather than to assume it was true till proven false.
Brother: agreed. It’s not malice on our part to be skeptical, but rather basic common sense. While always maintaining a humble piety toward him, praying for his conversion, and obeying him when his orders are not sinful.
Timothy
Honestly Timothy, I’m not sure that words like “schism” have any meaning now, or at least not the same meaning they once had – and hence they’ve become less useful terms. How is it possible to be in “schism” from a maniacally heretical and even apostate Pope? “Schism” has always been understood (at least in part) as breaking with the Pope (has it not?). But if the Pope is a pertinacious heretic, then he’s in “schism” from the Catholic faith, is he not? Granted, I’m skewing the use of the term “schism” there, but that’s because the traditional meaning simply no longer works. The situation we have now is so unparalleled that traditional language to describe church unity (or disunity) simply breaks down.
I’m neither a canon lawyer, nor a theologian, so I can’t explain the subtleties of the status of SSPX to anyone vis-a-vis the Church (or what has passed for the Church til now). All I know is this: the SSPX has valid Catholic sacraments and teaches the age-old Catholic faith. The Pope, on the other hand, teaches falsehoods almost daily (just the other day he said Jesus becomes bread in the Eucharist) and bears an unmistakable malice towards those who hold fast to what the Church has always taught. Between those two, the choice, to me at least, is clear. If it weren’t for the SSPX, I’d be forced to admit the failure of Jesus’ promise that the “gates of hell will not prevail”, because when Satan’s man sits in Peter’s chair and the episcopate is silently acquiescent (or even supportive), it sure looks to me like hell has prevailed.
I understand and respect your decision brother, and I don’t mean to be too harsh with the SSPX. In reality, all faithful Catholics are doing their best. We should forgive each other if we come to different conclusions in evil times. The answers are not clear. And we have real enemies, not each other.
God bless
Timothy
Yes, thanks for your wise words Timothy. God bless.
Maybe it’s too charitable, but I take Pope Francis’ comments as expressing an Eastern view of Hell, where God does not reject or deny anyone, but rebellion against God places you in a state where his presence, manifested to you, is painful. When we enter into the timeless place after death, we can no longer change our minds and reform ourselves, and this is called Hell and expressed using imagery of judgment and condemnation. So, in this sense, God condemns nobody, he extends his free and gratuitous offer of love to all humanity, and those who abuse the mystery of freedom to reject it, when God is all and all, experience God as pain, because pain is being near someone which you hate.
It’s also true that the church has never dared to place anyone in Hell definitively, not even Judas. In this sense, at least, the Church condemns nobody.
Now, unfortunately, I think that most Catholics or seculars will hear these comments as endorsing universalism. I pray for the grace Pope Francis needs to say what is right for the hour at hand. I also pray that Cardinal Sarah may become Pope and teach the gospel in a different way.
But above all, I pray for the salvation of all sinners—I pray that no one will turn away from His love.
Will,
The Eastern view of hell is espoused as you said by some like that. However, the eastern view by no means advocates the phrases that Pope Francis uses year. Consider the liturgical hymns of the Triodion on the Sunday of the Last Judgment or the exhortation by Russian theologian Brianchaninov to consider yourself condemned before the judge and plead for mercy (The Arena).
From my view, the opinion that Judas is in hell would be on the level of a Sententia Communis, which means that we cannot disagree without grave cause. The saints have had countless visions of people in hell, as well as the vision of our lady of Fatima. Although the individuals and number of souls in hell is not an object of revelation (and thus faith), it can be object of piety wherein we assent to the understanding given by our fathers who have seen hell. Most importantly, the words of Scripture militate against the error that we have a “reasonable hope that all will be saved.”
So I would not say that in the sense you say “the Church condemns nobody.” There is a general understanding among the Fathers that people have gone and are currently in hell. It would be the sin of temerity to go against their opinion on this matter, from my view.
With respect,
Timothy
Timothy,
I concur with you 100% on whatever you explained. I agree with our friend Thomas Gillespie as well and in that context, would like to share retired Dutch priest Cor Mennen wrote about Francis in a blog, “People are so used to having respect for the pope that they think things cannot be that bad: they just believe it’s fake news,” whilst accentuating that Francis is “harmful” to the Church, in his opinion.
Likewise, Mennen added, “On good grounds I think he is a heretic, but at this time no one in the Church is entitled to declare this officially, thus provoking his excommunication. So for the time being we are stuck with a pope who is formally the head of the Church and at the same time harmful to the Church.…… But it is not forbidden at that same moment mentally to say a rapid prayer for the conversion of the pope.”
Again, on a separate note, I couldn’t agree more with Thomas: “If it weren’t for the SSPX (in my opinion not only SSPX, many other traditional and Conservative Catholic organisation where we see so much hope), I’d be forced to admit the failure of Jesus’ promise that the “gates of hell will not prevail”, because when Satan’s man sits in Peter’s chair and the episcopate is silently acquiescent (or even supportive), it sure looks to me like hell has prevailed.”
Oremus pro invicem!
Yes indeed brother. Thanks for your comment Ivo!