Thank you Chris. I wish I could write about these topics as well as you do. It’s good to know I’m not the only one thinking these things. And I have yet to find anything I can’t restack in what you write.
I don’t think we can call it heresy or universalism so long as the phrase is understood in the context of how it’s used in Sacred Scripture. One can easily apprehend how “many” is an emphasis against Origen’s error, while “all” is a “Catholic” emphasis against Jansenism. Neither are a contradiction to either. The question becomes a matter of discerning emphasis and interpretation.
We need to bring back Hell! It might just help clear up at least some of all this immense human malfeasance these days! People don’t even think there’s a Heck much less Hell these days! When everyone goes to “a better place” it causes all kinds of trouble as we’ve seen in abundance in this Dumpster Fire decade.
The things you covered in your article are certainly scandalous, along with Leo's appointment of a nun to head the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life. Together, these represent universalism and a sort of "spiritual lesbianism," wholly uncatholic characteristics of modern man's belief system.
In charity, I think many people wanted — and still would like — to give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially given some of his more "Traditional" accoutrements, and a much less irascible demeanor in comparison to his predecessor. But true charity means calling out error for what it is. I would still like to give a few more months to see how things play out, to see how certain tendencies solidify. But everything mentioned above is alarming.
If anyone here reading this article from the Universalist point of view would like to know what the latest arguments are against universalism in favor of annihilationism, please see my free online PDF book “Hell is Made Holy”. The book adds to the overall discussion what will very likely be some of the hardest scripturally based arguments for the universalist view to defeat. So universalists may want to be aware of these. The book can be downloaded at: https://go.davidaaronbeaty.com/hellbook
That’s a horrible and intellectually dishonest interpretation of Isaac’s singular statement. He said God doesn’t create in order to “deliver” his creation mercilessly into Hell. Meaning, Gods purpose for creating is not to send his creation to Hell. He didn’t deny that there are people who go to hell lol.
This is why America needs to get back to the spirit of our Founders and keep this nonsensical Roman supernaturalist gobbledygook well clear of our Law.
That these people would object to Isaac's rational defense of the Maker's basic sense of morality ... that finite sin would only be punished with infinite torment by a cruel, malevolent, sadistic daemon ... words fail.
Add in predestination, that the Maker made the sinner full of sin and knew her fate from the instant of the making, just brings us to Thomas Jefferson's conclusion that this doctrine of Hell is a blasphemous absurdity.
I'm sure my comment here will be greeted with a torrent of sophistry, citing the libraries full of circular pseudo-reasoning about Free Will. Any curious six year old realizes the Epicurean paradox makes the various Xianities' concept of God incoherent. No more credible than Santa Claus.
Can you clarify in the article whether the Pope used this formula in his homily or during the actual consecration? The quote at the beginning seems to be from his homily, but the article says that he restored this error at the most sacred moment in the liturgy, implying he used it during the consecration. It's unclear whether he said it here, there, or both.
Isaac the Syrian’s views on hell were speculation on his behalf and only take up a tiny fraction of his work. He spoke continuously however about repentance and promoted a rigorous asceticism, neither of which liberals are very keen on. Virtually everyone who has read him concludes he is, hands down, the greatest writer on asceticism of all time. Anyone who seriously puts into practice his writings, can only be on the path that leads to sainthood. I challenge anyone to read his works and tell me otherwise.
The quote in the article isn’t from The Ascetical Homilies. It’s from a work called simply ‘The Second Part’ (36.9). Here it is in full for context:
"I am of the opinion that he is going to manifest some wonderful outcome, a matter of immense and ineffable compassion on the part of the glorious Creator, with respect to the ordering of this difficult matter of gehenna’s torment: out of it the wealth of his love and power and wisdom will become known all the more—and so will the insistent might of the waves of his goodness. It is not the way of the compassionate Maker to create rational beings in order to deliver them over mercilessly to unending affliction in punishment for things of which he knew even before they were fashioned, aware how they would turn out when he created them—and whom nonetheless he created. All the more since the foreplanning of evil and the taking of vengeance are characteristic of the passions of created beings, and do not belong to the Creator. For all this characterizes people who do not know or who are unaware of what they are doing … for as a result of some matter that has occurred unexpectedly to them they are incited by the vehemence of anger to take vengeance. Such action does not belong to the Creator who, even before the cycle of the depiction of creation has been portrayed, knew of all that was before and all that was after in connection with the actions and intentions of rational beings."
Chris, your reporting about the Leo papacy is excellent, fiery, frightening. Keep it up.
Thank you sincerely. It is readers like you who help spread the word and build the movement.
For All is indeed a message.
It’s not like it’s the first Leo-gram.
Long live the resistance!
Thank you Chris. I wish I could write about these topics as well as you do. It’s good to know I’m not the only one thinking these things. And I have yet to find anything I can’t restack in what you write.
Thank you Father!
To start with, stop calling the antipope the pope. Now we can go from there.
I doubt the Kwasnieski-Matt gets the memo.
1 Timothy 2:3–6
Greek Text (1 Timothy 2:4 & 2:6):
• Verse 4:
ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι
“Who desires all men to be saved” 
• Verse 6:
ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων
“Who gave Himself as a ransom for all”
—-
I don’t think we can call it heresy or universalism so long as the phrase is understood in the context of how it’s used in Sacred Scripture. One can easily apprehend how “many” is an emphasis against Origen’s error, while “all” is a “Catholic” emphasis against Jansenism. Neither are a contradiction to either. The question becomes a matter of discerning emphasis and interpretation.
What does it say about a pope when he misrepresents a heretic as a "great Eastern Father" and begins to make allusions to universalism?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's a duck.
Yep. Another Fake Pope.
We need to bring back Hell! It might just help clear up at least some of all this immense human malfeasance these days! People don’t even think there’s a Heck much less Hell these days! When everyone goes to “a better place” it causes all kinds of trouble as we’ve seen in abundance in this Dumpster Fire decade.
Don’t worry. Francis is in it.
The things you covered in your article are certainly scandalous, along with Leo's appointment of a nun to head the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life. Together, these represent universalism and a sort of "spiritual lesbianism," wholly uncatholic characteristics of modern man's belief system.
In charity, I think many people wanted — and still would like — to give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially given some of his more "Traditional" accoutrements, and a much less irascible demeanor in comparison to his predecessor. But true charity means calling out error for what it is. I would still like to give a few more months to see how things play out, to see how certain tendencies solidify. But everything mentioned above is alarming.
If anyone here reading this article from the Universalist point of view would like to know what the latest arguments are against universalism in favor of annihilationism, please see my free online PDF book “Hell is Made Holy”. The book adds to the overall discussion what will very likely be some of the hardest scripturally based arguments for the universalist view to defeat. So universalists may want to be aware of these. The book can be downloaded at: https://go.davidaaronbeaty.com/hellbook
That’s a horrible and intellectually dishonest interpretation of Isaac’s singular statement. He said God doesn’t create in order to “deliver” his creation mercilessly into Hell. Meaning, Gods purpose for creating is not to send his creation to Hell. He didn’t deny that there are people who go to hell lol.
This is why America needs to get back to the spirit of our Founders and keep this nonsensical Roman supernaturalist gobbledygook well clear of our Law.
That these people would object to Isaac's rational defense of the Maker's basic sense of morality ... that finite sin would only be punished with infinite torment by a cruel, malevolent, sadistic daemon ... words fail.
Add in predestination, that the Maker made the sinner full of sin and knew her fate from the instant of the making, just brings us to Thomas Jefferson's conclusion that this doctrine of Hell is a blasphemous absurdity.
I'm sure my comment here will be greeted with a torrent of sophistry, citing the libraries full of circular pseudo-reasoning about Free Will. Any curious six year old realizes the Epicurean paradox makes the various Xianities' concept of God incoherent. No more credible than Santa Claus.
Chris, please investigate the 1968 Holy Order Rites and how Montini changed them and most likely invalidated the NO priesthood.
Can you clarify in the article whether the Pope used this formula in his homily or during the actual consecration? The quote at the beginning seems to be from his homily, but the article says that he restored this error at the most sacred moment in the liturgy, implying he used it during the consecration. It's unclear whether he said it here, there, or both.
Isaac the Syrian’s views on hell were speculation on his behalf and only take up a tiny fraction of his work. He spoke continuously however about repentance and promoted a rigorous asceticism, neither of which liberals are very keen on. Virtually everyone who has read him concludes he is, hands down, the greatest writer on asceticism of all time. Anyone who seriously puts into practice his writings, can only be on the path that leads to sainthood. I challenge anyone to read his works and tell me otherwise.
The quote in the article isn’t from The Ascetical Homilies. It’s from a work called simply ‘The Second Part’ (36.9). Here it is in full for context:
"I am of the opinion that he is going to manifest some wonderful outcome, a matter of immense and ineffable compassion on the part of the glorious Creator, with respect to the ordering of this difficult matter of gehenna’s torment: out of it the wealth of his love and power and wisdom will become known all the more—and so will the insistent might of the waves of his goodness. It is not the way of the compassionate Maker to create rational beings in order to deliver them over mercilessly to unending affliction in punishment for things of which he knew even before they were fashioned, aware how they would turn out when he created them—and whom nonetheless he created. All the more since the foreplanning of evil and the taking of vengeance are characteristic of the passions of created beings, and do not belong to the Creator. For all this characterizes people who do not know or who are unaware of what they are doing … for as a result of some matter that has occurred unexpectedly to them they are incited by the vehemence of anger to take vengeance. Such action does not belong to the Creator who, even before the cycle of the depiction of creation has been portrayed, knew of all that was before and all that was after in connection with the actions and intentions of rational beings."