Did Pope Francis tell Eugenio Scalfari that he, Bergoglio, didn't beileve in the Divinity of Christ? It is highly likely.

Aimci,

The Vatican Press office is saying that Pope Francis did not deny the Divinity of Christ. 

So that clears that up, right? Nope. Of course he said it. A: He's done things like this since his election, using old Eugenio Scalfari to float ideas that he, Bergoglio, wants to float, yet at the same time, doing it this way give him "plausible deniability" when the backlash flames too hot.

B: And also, considering the odd way Scalfari talked about this, that Bergoglio said Our Lord was no longer God when He became Man, etc., is something having roots in Modernist "Process Theology" -- and one can reasonably ask how the doddering old Communist journalist clearly knew the details of such an absurd but at one time trendy theological notion.

A Commentator at OnePeterFive explains how Bergoglio learned this "Process Theology" idea himself during his studies, and thus it is highly likely that he believes it and actually did pass it on to Scalfari:

Deacon Augustine • 3 hours ago

I believe that Scalfari is more credible than the Vatican Press Office on this matter for the following reasons:

In 1966 the Dutch Jesuit Piet Schoonenberg contributed to the journal "Tijdschrift voor Theologie" in the article "Jezus Christus, gekend als men, beleden as Zoon Gods" ("Jesus Christ, Known as Man, Confessed as the Son of God", vol 6. 1966) along with the Augustinian theologian Ansfried Hulsbosch among others. Schoonenberg was one of the founders of the "Nouvelle Theologie", and a contributing editor of the infamous Dutch catechism (did I mention that he was a Jesuit?). He was known as a "process theologian" and advocate of the "Ascending Christology" or "Christology from below" that was so popular at the time and during the following decades. He studied philosophy, theology, and exegesis in Nijmegen, Maastricht, and the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. In 1948 he received the doctorate in theology at Maastricht with a dissertation on theology as interpretation of faith according to recent French literature (la nouvelle théologie and its critics). After teaching for several years at Maastricht and Amsterdam, he became associated with the Higher Catechetical Institute at Nijmegen in 1957. In 1964 he was appointed ordinary professor of dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of Nijmegen, where he became professor emeritus in 1976 and where his closest collaborator was the Dominican Edward Schillebeeckz.
In McBrien's "Catholicism", Schoonenberg's Christology (did I mention that he was a Jesuit?), as set out in the above paper, is briefly summarized as follows:

"More deliberately than Hulsbosch, Schoonenberg confronts the question of the pre-existence of Christ. He argues that the Second Person of the Trinity is none other than the human person of Jesus, who came to exist at a specific moment in time. God is initially a single Person, therefore, but as history unfolds God becomes two Persons, and then three. Christ is God's ultimate revelation, however, and not simply a fortuitous climax to history. In him the fullness of what it is to be human is realized, just because the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him."

Following Hulsbosch, Jesus was a human being who became God - he was not God who became a human being. Needless to say, he was repeatedly reprimanded by the CDF for the unorthodoxy of his teaching. The Scriptural texts which Schoonenberg used to justify his "Christology from below" are precisely those which Scalfari refers to in his above article.

It is notable that Schoonenberg was teaching his "Christology from below" at Nijmegen from 1964 to 1976. He continued writing until 1992. This would cover the exact period when another Jesuit would receive his own theological formation from the Society. Completing his novitiate on 12th March 1960, this other Jesuit went on to complete his tertianship at Alcala de Henares in Spain taking his fourth vow on 22nd April 1973. It wouldn't be until 1986 that he went to Germany to complete his doctoral thesis. This other Jesuit was, Jorge Bergoglio.

Now, please tell me what is more likely:

a) A 95 year-old atheist journalist somehow stumbled upon the theological ramblings of a dodgy Jesuit professor from the 60's and 70's, using the same texts and coming to the same sort of conclusions as his "Ascending Christology" school of thought?

or

b) He heard them, or something approximating to them, from another Jesuit who received his formation at the same time that these theories were doing the rounds in the Society of Jesus (and probably still are for all I know)?

I think that the pertinent dubium to submit to the Pope is whether the Ascending Christology of Piet Schoonenberg SJ is now acceptable to be believed and taught within the Catholic Church? If so, is this what he believes personally?

AnP
PS 
For those who have the time to watch video, Taylor Marshall is just back from Rome and reports here on how crazily pagan this whole "Amazon Synod" is. 
Excerpts"

“They are literally overtaking the Vatican Gardens and doing pagan rituals. If we had said (at any time in the recent past) that there would be pagan rituals in the Vatican Gardens, people would have said, ‘You’re just conspiracy theorists." Where are those naysayers now? – Tim Gordon.

“For all those people who said my book (Infiltration) was a shoddy conspiracy theory, shame on you. You carried water for pagans. … You can’t have the pope sit in front of pagan idols and say, ‘The Church makes sense’. And any bishop who is quiet about this, moving forward, is complicit.” … “This is a spiritual battle. Now is the time for war, and the main weapon is the Rosary. If you’re not praying the Rosary, you’re not on the team.” – Taylor Marshall

And remember that this report was put together just before Eugenio Scalfari’s latest bombshell, in which he claims that in his presence, Pope Francis denied the divinity of Jesus.