In an article published today, well-known Italian journalist Sandro Magister chronicles the various ways in which His Humbleness, Francis, has twisted and mangled both Sacred Scripture and Catholic doctrine in such way as to make one believe that there is no Hell and all will be saved.
Among the outrages Magister relays 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.
This is the same audience cited in yesterday’s post wherein Francis mentioned the 100th anniversary of Our Lady’s appearance at Fatima; that’s right, where she showed the three shepherd children a vision of Hell populated with tormented souls.
If one still needed evidence that the men running the show in today’s Rome do not believe that Our Lady actually appeared at Fatima, much less the messages and the warnings that she delivered there, this should do it.
Oh, yeah, and it also underscores what I wrote yesterday; these men – Francis chief among them – simply are not Catholic.
At any rate, Magister also relayed the following:
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.”
This is nothing new for Francis. What does appear to be new, if my social media feed is any indication, is that it’s not just so-called “traditionalists” who are taking notice.
Many “conservatives” can’t help but acknowledge that these Bergoglian assertions are misrepresentations of the Catholic faith.
Sure, some may feel compelled to excuse them as merely examples of Francis’ unfortunate habit of using imprecise language, but there is no denying, even for many of them, that “everything is saved” and “all mankind will dwell with God in eternity” are heretical propositions.
I wonder… how many of these same conservatives would be surprised to discover that Francis isn’t being reckless; rather, he is simply repeating the doctrine (false doctrine, that is) found in the Novus Ordo Missae?
Consider, for example, the following excerpts taken from the Novus Ordo Roman Missal for the Mass of Christian Burial:
Before we go our separate ways, let us take leave of our brother/sister. May our farewell express our affection for him/her; may it ease our sadness and strengthen our hope. One day we shall joyfully greet him/her again when the love of Christ, which conquers all things, destroys even death itself. (Final Commendation and Farewell, Invitation to Prayer, Option 1)
Can we really be assured that we will one day “joyfully greet” our deceased loved ones once again? Of course not. Maybe we will, but then again, maybe we won’t.
Option 2 isn’t any better:
Trusting in God, we have prayed together for (N.) and now we come to the last farewell. There is sadness in parting, but we take comfort in the hope that one day we shall see N. again and enjoy his/her friendship. Although this congregation will disperse in sorrow, the mercy of God will gather us together again in the joy of his kingdom. Therefore let us console one another in the faith of Jesus Christ.
Can we be certain that everyone, without distinction, will one day be gathered together in the joy of God’s kingdom? Of course not.
Notice, however, that this is no different than what Francis said: “All mankind will dwell with God in eternity.”
Into your hands, Father of mercies, we commend our brother/sister (N.) in the sure and certain hope that, together with all who have died in Christ, he/she will rise with him … help us who remain to comfort one another with assurances of faith, until we all meet in Christ and are with you and with our brother/sister for ever. (Prayer of Commendation, Option A)
“Sure and certain hope” that “we all” will rise with and meet “in Christ”? Nonsense!
This alone is proof positive that the Novus Ordo Missae – in its official text and not simply by way of liturgical abuse – is poisonous. Clearly, therefore, this rite came not from Holy Mother Church, but rather was it dispensed to the faithful by sinful men, Paul VI above all, who far overstepped their bounds.
Please, pass this along to a “conservative” Catholic near you.
I learned years ago in the seminary that there is a difference and distinction between Redemption and Salvation. Redemption is what Jesus did on the Cross. Salvation is ours to work out with fear and trembling as St. Paul wrote. We must first cooperate with sanctifying grace by receiving the sacraments, going to Confession on a regular basis, and persevere to the end in order to have Salvation. As I used to say: “Redemption is the coupon of Eternal Life with God, while Salvation is the redeeming of the coupon through Christ, His Church, and grace.”
Apparently, Bergoglio never learned anything in the seminary.
I bet if akacatholic.com sets up a poll with a single question “Do you believe Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be The Vicar of Christ On Earth?” with only a “yes” or “no” option answer, everyone would be “Shocked!” with the poll results…
Can you be a legitimately elected Pope and not be The Vicar of Christ on Earth? This is not a rhetorical question, I’d really like to know.
You are proposing a contradiction, unless you consider the case of a Pope losing his office due to formal heresy schism or apostasy. The most probable situation we have is that Francis was not elected validity due to Benedict still holding the office, and that the candidate most likely had already separated himself from the mystical body a long time ago. Malachi Martin openly admitted such a possibility (an apostate “pope”) and I think he was trying to hint to us what the essence of the 3rd secret was. The Father Kramer thesis IMHO is the most probable, and fits both the known contemporary facts and Catholic prophecy as well.
Hard hitting, louie but that is exactly what we need in this time of universal apostasy. A good priest once told me that the Novus Ordo mass corrupts everything it touches. Satan is its author and I think its his crowing achievement in his plan to destroy the Church of Christ.
2 Cents………i recommend reading this book by Malachi Martin on the history of the Papacy.
https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Roman-Church/dp/1312889977
According to Mr Bergoglio, there is absolutely ZERO point in ever striving to do anything good….you may as well go out and commit as many sins as you can because nothing matters; we’re all going to Heaven regardless.
Mr Bergoglio is the best friend we sede’s have ever had.
What happens if/when Benedict dies before Francis?
What further happens is Franicis dies first and a new “pope” is elected while Benedict is still alive? Is that new “pope” the “pope” or would Benedict still be the “pope”?
Someone told Padre Pio that he didn’t believe in Hell. Padre Pio responded–“You will believe it when you get there.”
Well, one thing’s for sure, we definitely got the confusion that we were promised.
As far Hesse would say ” lots of blah blah blah ” coming from Francis.
Martin Luther would be proud.
I would submit that this the Cosmic Christ of Teilhard de Chardin, and not the Christ of the New Testament:
“83. …all creatures are moving forward with us and through us towards a common point of arrival, which is God, in that transcendent fullness where the risen Christ embraces and illumines all things. Human beings, endowed with intelligence and love, and drawn by the fullness of Christ, are called to lead all creatures back to their Creator.”
Pope Francis, Laudato si
By definition, Bergoglio is a Secular Humanist, at best. How this could be reconciled with the title Vicar of Christ is beyond belief. We are passed the stage for “corrections” and “dubias”. He needs to be exposed, evicted and excommunicated by those who have the power to do so. However, these are the same men who put him in the Chair of Peter (legitimately or illegitimately). They are no better than he is. This was the ultimate goal of the very successful Second Vatican Council.
“these men – Francis chief among them – simply are not Catholic.”
I don’t know how any reasonably well catechized Catholic can deny this. It is just that simple.
On another note; after to being to enough nuchurch funerals, I have made it clear to my wife and daughter that under no circumstances to let any priest canonize me upon my death just to make everybody feel good. That is an act of cruelty and is not Catholic. I will be roasting in purgatory and will greatly appreciate prayers and penances on my behalf. I am doing all I can now while I still draw breath but the most sensible, loving, charitable, and Catholic thing to do is assume the deceased is in purgatory and pray for the dead.
The heretical “all dogs go to heaven” approach robs the deceased of needed prayers. But that’s not important to nuchurch. Nuchurch isn’t about eternity. It’s about here and now. That’s all that matters.
I am currently reading The Four Last Things, Death, Judgement, Hell, Heaven, by Fr. Martin von Corhem, It is terrifying !!!! GET IT, READ IT, it will change your life !!!! Our Lord will not be a nice guy when he comes back !!!!!
It is a malevolent and cruel untruth which will Firstly – send souls straight to Hell and Secondly – deprive the souls in Purgatory from earlier release and deliverance from suffering by the prayers and sacrifices made in their names. Who’s going to pray for the dead when, according to FrancisOracle, they don’t NEED it.
ock – great point! You’re right about Fr.Martin von Corhem’s book. Jesus was quite clear when He told the Apostles that “This time I come as Saviour – the next time I will come as Judge.”
If all Catholics read this book Francis wouldn’t matter because no-one, and I do mean no-one , would give him or his apostate henchmen the time of day.
NuChurch is not Catholic. Only a fool or an evil person can argue that its Catholic. So many decieved faithful Catholics cannot understand this basic truth.
That last sentence like most derogatory things said about Pope Francis could also be said about PJPII and PBVI but that would be too fair and balanced for the fanatical Pope Francis bashers. Talk about “fake news” the so-called trad blogs are about as fair with Pope Francis as liberal media is with Trump. And your comment is indicative of what I’m talking about. “Trad” blogs nor their commenters would ever post something like this article I’m posting proving that Francis is preaching exact same thing, probably even worse, as predecessors but for some reason they just can’t and don’t want to admit this obvious fact. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/pope-no_faith.htm
Another thing I’d like to point out is that the “universal salvation” like errors of PJPII and PBXVI mentioned in above article are obviously based on Pope Pius IX’s 1854 “invincible ignorance” no-fault salvation teachings. So I think another title for above article could be FRANCIS “EVERYTHING IS SAVED” – BLAME POPE PIUS IX
My first comment above was in reference to Al The Silent Crusader’s last sentence: “Apparently, Bergoglia never learned anything in the seminary.”
Johnjobilbee, blame it on St Thomas Aquanis.
“Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.” (St. Thomas Aquinas)
Johnjobilbee, I am sure you have read this, but I post it for the edicfication of others. From Pius IX, QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE (On Promotion Of False Doctrines) 1863.
“Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”
I am not sure how you read univeral salvation in that paragraph. Pope Pius IX is simply reaffirming that those who are saved are saved by Divine Grace and a willingness to accept the Catholic faith.
Nice quote. St. Thomas also wrote:
“The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; “which, with God, counts for the deed. (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57)” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
–
St. Thomas is to support baptism of desire, yet if God can send someone to instruct why can He not send someone to baptize?
I am sure He can and if it pleases Him, He does.
Good Sunday evening Tom A,
You are writing now in internal contradiction, as you are rendering your opinion in lieu of the truth when you write, “So many deceived faithful Catholics cannot understand this basic truth.” One simply cannot be a “faithful Catholic”, while at once then from the immanence of that understanding, a “faithful Catholic” holds the reality as Truth, while at the same time, that “faithful Catholic” is deceived as you say, and therefore he does not as he cannot hold reality as Truth, while at once he holds reality as deception. When one is deceived, one sees reality as deception and not reality as Truth. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and Her One, True Faith, is fixed in Reality as Truth, as you well know, and therefore any of the Baptized who hold reality as deception, simply cannot hold the Faith, rather they hold the operation of error, which Saint Paul professes will take them to eternal damnation, if they die while holding that Supernatural operation, causing them to believe the lie as Truth. The Truth is hard as He commanded that He came to bring not peace but the sword. I pray this helps. In caritas.
I wrote that in a moment of anger and frustration. So yes, you perfectly illustrate the errors one can make when one allows emotion to overrule ones intellect. Thank you In Caritas.
Good morning Tom A,
God bless and keep you and yours’. It is patently clear that the One you seek is Truth, as I bear witness and as I am and can only ever remain, this side the veil, a perfectly miserable creature, seeking Him as Truth Himself, while we journey together as kindred spirits, each in his own life station, willing to serve God as He Wills for us. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
Now here’s a sobering thought totally abandoned by V2 N.O. “church”:
http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Hymni/DiesIrae.html
Tom A and John314, nice try but the St. Thomas Aquinas quote, which I agree with and Pope Pius IX’s quote do not say the same thing. Saint Thomas stresses the fact that they would at some point, despite their invincible ignorance, come into Catholic Church where PPIX doesn’t, in fact, the encyclical you quoted of PPIX is only one of three encyclicals where he mentions I.I. where one can even desperately try to stretch what he writes into meaning the same as St. Thomas Aquinas while the other two encyclicals are very clear he means exact opposite. In other words PPIX to me is clear by his words that he means there IS salvation outside of Catholic Church if one dies in Invincible Ignorance which, of course, is not same as what St. Thomas Aquinas is quoted as saying that at some point a sincere invincibly ignorant person would be given the necessary grace and light from God to convert to R.C.C.
Also John314 , like most people makes mistake of mixing Baptism of Desire with Invincible Ignorance which I never understood because they have absolutely nothing to do with each other and seems like an attempt to distract and deceive from the issue I’m talking about which is Invincible Ignorance not B.O.D. Stick to the issue at hand John314.
It also seems silly that somehow God has power to save a soul and convert it to the Catholic Church after it dies but can’t save it and convert it to the Catholic Church before it dies.
Pius IX does not contradict St Thomas. And even if he did, he is the Pope and can settle any dogmatic disputes. But Pius IX never says anyone is saved by II. He says they cannot be guilty in invincibly ignorant. They would still have to recieve Divine Grace in order to be received into the Catholic Church prior to death. How God accomplishes this is how He pleases. The Ethiopian Eunuch story in Acts is a good example of a soul receiving the supernatural Divine Graces necessary for salvation.
Forget about I.I., bottom line and problem is that he is saying one can die outside of Catholic Church or in a state of mortal sin and still attain eternal salvation unless one plays verbal gymnastics with his writings like Pope Francis defenders do with his.
Why would it be even necessary for PPIX to be first Pope ever to even bring up “invincible ignorance” if his point was they would eventually come into Catholic Church anyway. Its like saying there is no salvation outside of the church but those outside at this time may someday convert later and they would than be inside the Church, duh, I mean it makes no sense unless he was trying to say they would die OUTSIDE of the Church but could still attain salvation.
Dear Tom A: iI’m posting this article by a guy that agrees with you and despite the fact that I still say he’s doing all kinds of verbal gymastics to get these three encyclicals to say what he wants them to say notice when he gets to SINGULARI QUIDEM even he admits he can’t spin these words and somehow concludes that PPIX “did not intend” (not sure of his exact words but some excuse like that) to mean what it says.
I’ve noticed other trads have written long articles interpreting and explaining what PPIX was trying to say also . That fact in itself should be a big fat red flag I would think http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2013/07/venerable-pope-pius-ix-and-invincible.html?m=1
Great link, exactly what I have been trying to tell you. I do not read that article as you do. The author does not seem to be spinning anything or admitting anything as you suggest. Your accusation that Pius IX did not intend what he meant is not what the author says at all. Go back and reread it. He was talking about the second instance when Pius IX mentions II and does not explain it further as he did the first time and the third time. Here is what the author wrote,
“We may certainly assume that this was not an intended omission by the Holy Father. ”
The author is recognizing that Pius IX did not qualify II further in Singulari Quidem, as he did in Singulari Quadam and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore. The author is not saying Pius IX did not intend to mean what it says.
I have to go to sleep now and dont have time to go in detail but I still say he clearly states by simply reading his words and without putting our own outside preconcieved interpretation on it and especially in two of the encyclicals that there is salvation outside of the Church. Good night and Dominus Vobiscum.