Has Francis Abolished
... and has
thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off: it is better for thee
to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go
into Hell, into unquenchable fire:
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished.”
(Saint Mark 9.42-43)
Jorge Bergolglio — (“Francis”):
“Receive the forgiveness
of God and go among the line of souls who contemplate Him, the
souls of those who are unrepentant, and thus cannot be forgiven,
“Hell does not
exist, the disappearance of sinful souls exists.”
“Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared
for the devil and his angels.”
(Saint Matthew 25:41)
“If thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee:
for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish,
rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.”
(Saint Matthew 5:30)
that such antiquated concepts as Hell and punishment — even eternal
and unimaginable suffering — cannot possibly be true!
In fact he recently assured us that “No
one can be condemned forever, because 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” 1
“Who, then, uttered this nonsense?” you demand.
The answer, of course, is Saint Mark. What is
more, we reply, we have never heard of the Bible as a logical formulary,
or Sacred Scripture understood as a treatise on logic!
Is there a “Logic of the Gospel”?
a “logic of the Gospel”, we ask? One that supersedes,
and so validates or invalidates statements in (the
words of) the Gospel? In order to really arrive at
what is written in the Gospel and uttered by Christ, must I invoke
simple Modus Ponens, or De Morgan’s theorem in determining
their logical consistency and their place in a Truth Table?
I have difficulty — apart, of course, from the
Sacred Deposit of Faith entrusted to Holy Mother Church by God Himself
— with the following contention: it is now apparently incumbent upon
me to explain to my acquaintances that in Saint John 8.58, in
using the temporal term before Jesus is not expressing antecedence
— inasmuch as it would be an anachronism in light of the concept of
eternity which preceded time —
— and therefore His subsequent use of the temporal and existential concept
of “am” while not a breach of the concept of eternity is nevertheless
a breach in the concept of time. Therefore (∴) Christ, in
this and most instances, could not possibly have meant what He seems
to have very clearly, simply, and unambiguously stated concerning
“invisible" and the eternal”? (Q.E.D)
A Propositional Exegesis of Holy
In other words, I must propose the teachings of Holy Scripture
not in terms of faith — but logic — or more to the point,
in terms of logical consistency; and while Francis’s appeal to logic is absurd, the inevitable conclusion
of what amounts to what may be called a propositional exegesis
of Sacred Scripture itself is not absurd in the least!
must both vigorously and respectfully disagree with Francis, Bishop
of Rome, that the Four Gospels are logical treatises bound
to laws inherent in propositional logic rather than the Laws of God
enunciated by His Son and the Prophets in Sacred Scripture.
one of the vexing issues that, in broad circles, “do not accord
with the logic of the Gospel” is
in today’s reading: Jesus became angry! It does not
“fit” the progressive (and fictitious) notion that Jesus — and His Father,
for that matter — never become angry! In fact, they are never offended!
They are totally understanding and accepting of our idiocy, even our
blasphemy! After all, you have seen the real Jesus in
velvet art, pop culture, and in the rudifacient “children’s homilies”
at Mass by Deacon Dick:
“See Jesus come. See Jesus hug the Pharisees. See Jesus
affirming the Sadducees. See Jesus smile. See Jesus apologize
for inconveniencing and upsetting the Roman soldiers.
Oh … that Cross-thing? He is unhappy because we have not
hugged each other enough today.”
to break it you and to offend your feminized sensitivities — and proclivities
— but Jesus was a man. Not Mr. Rogers, not Mrs. Doubtfire, and
definitely not a wimp. He was beaten, scourged, mocked, crowned with
thorns, and crucified — that is not the stuff of wimps. Or delicate
yes — He occasionally became angry!
recorded in and testified to in all four Gospels-that-are-not-textbooks-on-logic.
because you have arrived at a satisfactory truth-variable through
logic — but because God said so — in Holy Scripture. And because
it is what the Holy Catholic Church authentically teaches and
has taught for 2000 years. Because it makes sense! And because Christ
was True God and True Man!
The Bible is not a Truth Table. It is the Living Word of
God. It is Truth, just as Christ is Truth Himself
(Saint John 14.6) — and most annoying to some, a truth at which you
will never arrive through propositional logic.
of the Gospel
of the Gospel”:
shalt not commit adultery”
— Jesus Christ
have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice
cunning or to tamper with God’s word.”
(2 Corinthians 4.2)
to you that call evil good, and good evil:
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness:
that put bitter for sweet,
and sweet for bitter.” (5.20)
Boston Catholic Journal
Comments? Write us:
Further Reading on
the Papacy of Francis: