Posted on 12/02/2013 7:06:42 PM PST by marshmallow
Jes·u·it·i·cal
adjective
of or pertaining to Jesuits or Jesuitism.
( often lowercase ) practicing casuistry or equivocation;
using subtle or oversubtle reasoning; crafty; sly; intriguing.
Or as the say you can take the Jesuit out of the Jesuits but not the Jesuit out of the Jesuit.
On Saturday, Radio Vatican said Pope Francis had said,
“In the Gospel, Jesus does not become angry, but pretends to when the disciples do not understand him,”
The ancient Fathers would baulk at such a suggestion, I can't think of one who would be be comfortable with the idea that the Gospels did not reveal the plain meaning of what Jesus said and did, it is only the Jesuits of the 17th century who would begin to suggest otherwise.
There is no suggestion in the Gospels that Jesus feigns, or pretends anything. On the contrary he is the 'Truth'. He says, "Let your 'yes' mean 'yes' and your 'no' mean 'no'". His Kingdom stands in contradistinction to that of the kingdom of the Father of Lies.
If Jesus really does 'pretend' to be angry but isn't really what else does he pretend? Is he really just 'acting' in other emotional responses, when he sighs, when he weeps, when he rails against the Pharisees. Is he really grinning broadly when he calls Simon Peter, 'Satan'?
I do not agree with Pope Francis on this, we do not need smiley or angry face marks to interpret the Gospels. Perhaps this says more about the Pope than it does about Jesus. Rather than Jesus pretending, is Pope Francis 'pretending'? After all if one believes the Son of God can and does 'pretend', why shouldn't the Pope? And if the Pope can 'pretend', why not the Church?
(Excerpt) Read more at marymagdalen.blogspot.com ...
I can't think of an time when Jesus feigned anger. Jesus did get angry. He had righteous anger, such as the time he made the whip and drove the money changers out of the temple.
However, there were several times when Jesus asked questions that Jesus already knew the answer to. One such event was when Jesus was on the road to Emmaeus when he asked what events people were talking about.
Breath of fresh air is my vote.
I for one would not mind if the Pope denounced the systematic destruction of liberty in America by an openly Marxist regime.
After all, Pius XI wrote an encyclical against the Marxist National Socialist regime in Germany in 1937.
Will Pope Bergoglio be tarred as having been “silent” years after the Soetoro regime’s persecution of the Catholic Church in America, and the destruction of liberty in America?
Our pathetic, Obamacare-supporting bishops certainly will be.
Since when does any layperson get to tell a pope what he should or should not do? Whose vicar is he supposed to be?
And as usual, words are just not effective for much of what is in the heart.
But I think there’s some cherry-picking going on here as well. Some media manipulation. What about his statement that progressivism is “fruits of the devil”? That wouldn’t support the latest claims that he is a leftist. And then there is his statment about “unrestricted capitalism”. Was he actually supporting socialism or addressing some legitimate flaws? So I’m just going to suspend judgement for now.
Well, another day another weird statement.
Was Jesus just pretending when he became angry and went into the temple overturning the tables of the money changers?
Wow - just wow is all I can say!
Jesus became a man - however, he was and is the Son of God - perfect - one can’t compare a Pope to the Lord -
I thought I was making the point that the Pope isn’t perfect like Jesus is. But my point was also that Jesus was a man, like the Pope. Sometimes we have indirect ways of making points, but doesn’t mean we’re dishonest about it.
What a piece of work.
Supposedly it was mistranslated, and should have read "unrestricted consumerism."
Who does the Pope think should be restricting “consumerism”?
1) I’m not a layman.
2) A layman may think or say anything he likes about the Pope and the Pope’s pronouncements anytime the Pope is not speaking ex cathedra on dogma or morals.
I don’t think he was talking about someone restricting it. I think he was saying that people should control themselves and spend in moderation.
You have largely hit the nail on the head. The Pope has many roles—only on occasion is he actually addressing the whole world, and the format of the address makes it clear whom is being addressed. If it isn’t in the AAS (the Vatican’s official publication for things that should be noted) one isn’t obliged to care unless it is directed specifically at one’s self.
You have largely hit the nail on the head. The Pope has many roles—only on occasion is he actually addressing the whole world, and the format of the address makes it clear whom is being addressed. If it isn’t in the AAS (the Vatican’s official publication for things that should be noted) one isn’t obliged to care unless it is directed specifically at one’s self.
Thank you very much for that spot on comment. The producer-consumer model is essential to free enterprise. Products and services aren't created in a vacuum for they require a market willing to acquire those entities.
Of course, most catholics believe anything that comes from the Magisterium when the Magisterium stops their depraved activities long enough to babble a few laughable banalities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.