Pope Francis insists 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”, 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 Hypothetical Syllogisms, 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 the “invisible" and the eternal”? (Q.E.D)A Propositional Exegesis of Holy Scripture?
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!
But we 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.
Indeed, 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:
I hate 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 men.
And, yes — He occasionally became angry!
It is recorded in and testified to in all four Gospels-that-are-not-textbooks-on-logic.
We believe it!
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
is True God and True Man!
Comments? Write us: firstname.lastname@example.org
Further Reading on the Papacy of Francis: