• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bergoglio said: see you in Hell, maybe

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
The Bible agrees with you because the wicked are 'destroyed forever' (Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22) so the ' eternal torment ' is 'eternal ruin' ( Douay 2 Thessalonians 1:9 ) The 'destruction' of ungodly people - 2 Peter 3:7 B.

Quite.

There's the further question of whether the wicked perish at or before judgment day. Paul and John might have us believe that the recently departed souls stay in a sort of waiting area, where the devout are given mansions, before the resurrection in the new kingdom to come.

Of course, it could be much simpler than that. Maybe only the righteous were to be resurrected, and the rest to remain in the grave, which I think is probably the more likely implication in the texts.

Profanity and skipping mass also aren't sins found in the Bible, either, at least not as taught by the prophets or Jesus. Catholicism has taken great liberties with the teachings of Jesus.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Nobody deserves eternal torment, especially not for some of the rather mundane things considered "mortal sins" by the Catholic Church, like profanity and missing mass.
Neither of those are, plus the Church no longer uses the word "mortal", nor do we judge others.

They are:
lust
gluttony
greed
sloth
rath
envy
pride
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
Neither of those are, plus the Church no longer uses the word "mortal", nor do we judge others.

They are:
lust
gluttony
greed
sloth
rath
envy
pride

I think you should re-read the Catechism, which mentions the mortal sins above, and then the 1983 Code of Canon Law which reaffirms them as grave matters concerning the soul.

The 7 deadly sins aren't really related.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Nobody deserves eternal torment, especially not for some of the rather mundane things considered "mortal sins" by the Catholic Church, like profanity and missing mass.

What the Church considers mortal is not mundane. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent"
Para. 1858: Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother" (Mk 10:19). The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother" (Mk 10:19). The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Far from doing away with sin, contemporary theology admits that sin is very much with us and touches us more deeply than we realize. Greed, violence, corruption, poverty, hunger, sexism and oppression are too prevalent to ignore.
A new look at the moral life has been informed by the biblical renewal in the Church and by some philosophical shifts within the Church and society.

Sin is just as basic a term in our Christian vocabulary today as it has been in the past. Its root sense means to be disconnected from God through the failure to love. In sin, we simply don't bother about anyone outside ourselves. Sin is first a matter of a selfish heart—a refusal to care—before it shows itself in actions. Because loving God and loving our neighbor are all tied together, sin will always be expressed in and through our relationships. The biblical renewal has given us covenant, heart and conversion—not law—as our primary moral concepts. Responsibility has replaced obligation as the primary characteristic of the moral life. Shifts in philosophy have emphasized the dignity of persons and the value of sharing life in society. Together these shifts in theology and philosophy support a relational model of the moral life. The relational model emphasizes personal responsibility for protecting the bonds of peace and justice that sustain human relationships.

Social sin has been around as long as civilization, but it is a relatively new concept for Catholics. We have tended to focus exclusively on personal (actual) sin: lying, cheating, missing Mass. We have not paid sufficient attention to social structures and customs which hold such sinful practices in place.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Can a Catholic Pope tell an autistic child “maybe we’ll see each other in hell?”

Thanks to a priest I found this shocking video, where the "pope" calls the mother of an autistic boy.
The phone call is very nice, mother and son express their overwhelming joy.
Towards the end of the call, there is this dialogue, at 3:27

Bergoglio: Thank you both, and please pray for me.
Lady: Thank you Your Holiness. Thank you Pope Francis. We will surely pray for you, but you surely don't need our prayers, for you are already a Saint.
Bergoglio: Oh, my God...
Lady: yes, you really are. You are in our hearts.
Bergoglio: Well...who knows, we may see each other in Hell someday.

* this in Italian, but the sentence also mean : see you in Hell.
I believe that Pope Francis was trying to convey the idea - one that I happen to agree with - that salvation is not ensured for anyone.

Anyone at any time can either rise or fall - it all depends on what they decide to do - how they decide to live their lives.

They were claiming that he was "already a Saint" - intimating that his salvation was guaranteed - but he correctly - IMHO - rebuked that teaching.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
........
There's the further question of whether the wicked perish at or before judgment day. Paul and John might have us believe that the recently departed souls stay in a sort of waiting area, where the devout are given mansions, before the resurrection in the new kingdom to come.
Of course, it could be much simpler than that. Maybe only the righteous were to be resurrected, and the rest to remain in the grave, which I think is probably the more likely implication in the texts.
Profanity and skipping mass also aren't sins found in the Bible, either, at least not as taught by the prophets or Jesus...

First of all, meeting together is in a sense 'survival classes' and we should Not forsake them - Hebrews 10:24-26.
Please notice at Acts of the Apostles 24:15 both the righteous and unrighteous are worthy of a resurrection.
The departed, recent or otherwise, are in the grave and yes I suppose one could consider the grave as 'waiting area' for the unconscious dead - Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; John 11:11-14.
Righteous Job (at Job 14:13-14) knew he would ' wait ' being concealed in the grave until a future date.
Judgement Day for 'resurrected people' is Jesus' coming Millennium-Long Day of governing over Earth.
Judgement Day for 'living people' is at the soon coming Glory Time for Jesus as found at Matthew 25:31-34.
The living figurative 'goats' do perish/ are destroyed 2 Peter 3:9 they don't repent.
The 'sheep' can remain alive on Earth, and be here on Earth to see calendar Day One of Jesus' 1,000 year reign.
Since ' enemy death ' will cease on Earth, then the 'sheep' can gain 'everlasting life on Earth' as originally offered to Adam before his downfall.
Those who prove to be wicked 'after' they are resurrected will be: destroyed forever - Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I believe that Pope Francis was trying to convey the idea - one that I happen to agree with - that salvation is not ensured for anyone.......

I find Jesus agrees with the ^ above ^ because Jesus said to endure to the end to be saved .
- please see Matthew 24:13; Matthew 10:22 B; Mark 13:13 and Hebrews 10:36; Revelation 2:10 B
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
What the Church considers mortal is not mundane. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent"...................................
Thus, sin is: either deliberate or not, on purpose or not, by accident or not, premeditated or not, willful or not........
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I believe that Pope Francis was trying to convey the idea - one that I happen to agree with - that salvation is not ensured for anyone.

Anyone at any time can either rise or fall - it all depends on what they decide to do - how they decide to live their lives.

They were claiming that he was "already a Saint" - intimating that his salvation was guaranteed - but he correctly - IMHO - rebuked that teaching.
Then Pope Francis should be a Lutheran, then.
The Pope is supposed to be a saint, and act like a saint. He is called "His Holiness".
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Thus, sin is: either deliberate or not, on purpose or not, by accident or not, premeditated or not, willful or not........

Yes, do you not see the difference? On way to see it, though it is a sin, is it real guilt before God.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Then Pope Francis should be a Lutheran, then.
The Pope is supposed to be a saint, and act like a saint. He is called "His Holiness".
The Catholic Church believes that a person can only become a "saint" after death - and even that designation goes through a formal process.

For example - only 82-84 of the past 266 Popes were made "saints" after death - and those two anomalous "sainthoods" were two Popes that only certain wings of the Church accept as "saints" - so the process seems to be very complicated.

The Pope teaching correct principles - that salvation is not assured to anyone - is a "saintly" thing to do IMHO - but it does not make him a "saint".

Do you believe that the Pope was acting "un-saintly" when he taught this correct principle to this young man?

Lastly - the title "Holiness" is not any claim about the personal sanctity of the Pope himself - since they believe that only God is holy - but the title signifies that the Pope - by virtue of his election - belongs to God in a special manner and that he is called to practice exceptional sanctity.

Catholics do not believe that anyone is entitled to salvation - they do not believe that anyone living is a "saint" - and they believe that only God is holy.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Yes, do you not see the difference? On way to see it, though it is a sin, is it real guilt before God.
Adamic sin ( imperfection in us passed down to us from fallen father Adam ) we can't stop inherited Adamic sin.
If we, although being imperfect, 'intentionally' do wrong that is the greater sin.
Kind of like: Is there a 'white lie' (?) No because sin is on purpose or not, willful or not.........
The BIGGEST difference being: committing the 'unforgivable sin' - Matthew 12:32
A sin in which there is No repentance possible.
Please notice the little word "if" found at 1st John 1:17 " if " we walk.....
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Catholics believe that every just and good person is entitled to salvation.

is it ' entitled ' or possible that every just person even unjust person can be saved - Acts of the Apostles 24:15
Only the wicked are 'destroyed forever' - Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22
 
Top