Posted on 04/07/2017 1:35:11 PM PDT by BlessedBeGod
The blasphemies of Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) are becoming ever more frightful. Just the other day we reported on his joke about the Most Holy Trinity (see here) during a private audience, and today we have another blasphemy to add to the ever-growing list: In his homily of April 4, 2017, Francis said that our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ “made himself the devil” for us!
To clarify right from the outset: Yes, he really said it (it’s on the Vatican web site). No, it’s not a mistranslation. And no, it’s not a misunderstanding either.
In Italy, this is front-page news already: The April 6 edition of the Italian daily secular newspaper Libero mentions it on page 1 with an article by Vatican journalist and author Antonio Socci — the man who once set out to debunk the idea that the Third Secret of Fatima had still not been fully released but in the course of his research discovered that it was indeed so. Here is a snapshot of the entire front page and the beginning of the Socci article in particular (click on each image for a larger version):
Socci, who is a native Italian speaker, also called attention to the matter on his Facebook page. His article in Libero is entitled,”‘That Devil Jesus’. Words of Bergoglio.” This article itself is not available online but the author just posted a follow-up article that was published in Libero today, Apr. 6:
What exactly did Francis say? The official summary (with copious verbatim quotes) of his April 4, 2017 sermon at the Casa Santa Marta appears in the Vatican’s own newspaper, Osservatore Romano, vol. CLVII, n. 79 (Apr. 5, 2017). It is also found on the Vatican web site:
An official and complete English translation of the text has not been released, but Vatican Radio has published an English summary, which, however, omits the most explosive portion of the homily and does not do justice to the original Italian text found on the Vatican web site:
In this homily, Francis continually emphasizes how Christ “became sin” for us (mentioning this phrase as many as seven times), and he exaggerates it beyond its orthodox meaning. It appears he enjoys doing so by the sheer repetition and undue emphasis of this phrase. This isn’t new for him — he has done it before, as for example in his homily of June 15, 2013, in which he claimed that Christ “became the sinner” for us, and in his sermon of March 15, 2016, in which he asserted that our Lord “became sin” and “a serpent”.
This time, however, Francis managed to outdo himself, virtually eclipsing his prior utterances. Speaking of the Cross, the Crucifix, as the badge of the Christian, Francis called it “the memory of him who has made himself sin, who has made himself the devil, the serpent, for us; he has humbled himself to the point of complete annihilation.” The exact Italian reads: “come memoria di colui che si è fatto peccato, che si è fatto diavolo, serpente, per noi; si è abbassato fino ad annientarsi totalmente“. These words are printed on the Vatican web site as linked above.
Under the cloak of admiring God’s humility, Francis claims that Jesus Christ Himself is the devil! Once again, Bergoglio shows himself firmly ensconced in the camp of his real masters, the apostate Jews, for this was the same insult the unbelieving Pharisees hurled at our Lord, as He lamented: “they have called the goodman of the house Beelzebub” (Mt 10:25; cf. Mt 12:24-30; Jn 8:52).
A more staggering blasphemy than to say that God is Satan cannot be imagined!
And yet there it is, right there on the various web sites of the Vatican.
Of course we can expect that the Francis Exoneration Machine of the professional (and not-so-professional) Novus Ordo apologists will quickly be fired up and shifted into overdrive. We will try to pre-empt any such attempts by means of the following considerations.
As far as context goes, it is clear that to give a veener of justification for his blasphemous drivel, Francis is alluding to two scriptural passages, the first of which was part of the “Mass” readings for the day:
“Wherefore the Lord sent among the people fiery serpents, which bit them and killed many of them. Upon which they came to Moses, and said: We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and thee: pray that he may take away these serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed.” (Num 21:6-9)
“Him, who knew no sin, [God] hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him.” (2 Cor 5:21)
What is the correct understanding of these passages, according to traditional Catholic Scripture scholarship?
First, let’s have a look at that bronze serpent mentioned in Num 21:9. The traditional Catholic Haydock Commentary, which synthesizes the interpretations given by the Church’s best authorities on the biblical text, says the following:
A brazen serpent. This was a figure of Christ crucified, and of the efficacy of a lively faith in him, against the bites of the hellish serpent, John iii. 14. (Challoner) (St. Ambrose; Apol. i. 3.) As the old serpent infected the whole human race, Jesus Christ gives life to those that look at him with entire confidence. (Theodoret, q. 38.) The brazen serpent was destitute of poison, though it resembled a most noxious animal; so Jesus Christ assumed our nature, yet without sin. (Calmet)
(Haydock Commentary on Num 21:9; underlining added.)
Did you notice? No mention of Jesus Christ being a serpent or quasi-devil. Rather, the brazen serpent was an image (or type) of Christ in the sense that He took on our human nature, yet remained without sin, and was lifted up on the tree of the cross. This had been signified by the bronze serpent, which was without poison and placed on a pole: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up” (Jn 3:14).
As regards 2 Cor 5:21, the Haydock Commentary gives the following explanations:
Him (Christ) who knew no sin, (who had never sinned, nor was capable of sinning) he (God) hath made sin for us. I had translated, with some French translators, he hath made a sacrifice for sin, as it is expounded by St. Augustine and many others, and grounded upon the authority of the Scriptures, in which the sacrifices for sins are divers times called sins, as Osee iv. 8. and in several places in Leviticus, by the Hebrew word Chattat, which signifies a sin, and is translated a victim for sin. But as this is not the only interpretation, and that my design is always a literal translation of the text, not a paraphrase, upon second thoughts I judged it better to follow the very words of the Greek, as well as of the Latin text. For besides the exposition already mentioned, others expound these words, him he hath made sin for us, to signify that he made Christ like unto sinners, a mortal man, with the similitude of sin. Others that he made he reputed [sic] a sinner; with the wicked was he reputed;(Mark xv. 28.) God having laid upon him all our iniquities.(Isaias liii. 6.) — That we might be made the justice of God in him; that is, that we might be justified and sanctified by God’s sanctifying grace, and the justice we receive from him. (Witham) — Sin for us. That is, to be a sin-offering, a victim for sin. (Challoner)
(Haydock Commentary on 2 Cor 5:21; underlining added.)
Another traditional Catholic Bible commentary observes:
‘Hath made sin’: i.e. ‘Has made Christ to be sin’, a saying deliberately meant to be startling. God allowed Christ to suffer a punishment fit only for sinners, and in that sense made him a sinner. There may be some further meaning.
(Bernard Orchard, OSB, ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture [London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953], n. 888a, p. 1105; underlining and italics added.)
Here we can see what the true meaning of these passages is. Our Lord Jesus Christ most certainly did not literally become sin, and even figuratively He only “became sin” in the senses explained above, i.e., by taking on our human nature (and thus bearing the likeness of sin; cf. Heb 4:15), by being reputed with the wicked on account of His Crucifixion (cf. Mk 15:28), and above all by offering Himself as a Perfect Sacrifice for sin (cf. Heb 7:27; 10:12).
It is ironic that Francis should preach on the Sign of the Cross, as it is precisely this sign and this Cross that he likes to avoid as much as he can. We recall his shameful hiding of his pectoral cross before the Jewish chief rabbis of Jersualem, his unmistakable efforts to avoid showing his cross in his “Pope Videos”, and his persistent refusal to bless people with the Sign of the Cross (usually he “blesses” people by laying his hands on their heads or touching them in some other way, but almost never with the sign of the Cross), his complete omission of the Sign of the Cross during a liturgical “blessing”, and his infamous “silent blessing” in 2013, which he performed without the Sign of the Cross in order to “respect the consciences” of those present who were not Catholic.
Despite his occasional flowery words, Bergoglio hates the Cross. He hates God. This is manifest.
Hatred of God is the greatest sin that can possibly be committed because it is directly opposed to the greatest and first commandment (Mk 12:30: “thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength”). Love of God is the greatest virtue, hence hatred of God is the most damnable vice. This is the clear teaching of the Angelic Doctor: “The best is opposite to the worst, according to the Philosopher [Aristotle] (Ethic. viii, 10). But hatred of God is contrary to the love of God, wherein man’s best consists. Therefore hatred of God is man’s worst sin” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 34, art. 2). Yes, hatred of God, which often expresses itself in blasphemy, is even worse than heresy:
Even unbelief is not sinful unless it be voluntary: wherefore the more voluntary it is, the more it is sinful. Now it becomes voluntary by the fact that a man hates the truth that is proposed to him. Wherefore it is evident that unbelief derives its sinfulness from hatred of God, Whose truth is the object of faith; and hence just as a cause is greater than its effect, so hatred of God is a greater sin than unbelief.
(Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 34, art. 2, ad 2)
Thus we see that “Pope” Francis’ words and actions make perfect sense: His heresies and blasphemies go hand in hand, as they both have their origin in the same depraved mind. The man simply hates God and His Truth. After these past four years, can anyone seriously doubt it? For those who still haven’t seen it, here’s a stock list of Bergoglio’s spiritual junkyard.
To those who still refuse to be convinced and claim it’s all a matter of “ambiguity” or “misunderstanding” (Tom Hoopes maybe? Or Jimmy Akin?), we pose one final question: Why is it that this man continually expresses himself in such a way that his words are taken for blasphemy and heresy? Is he not capable of speaking in a clear, edifying, and devout manner? Is this not his duty, given the exalted and unique office he claims to hold? The truth is: He is quite capable of speaking properly, he is simply unwilling to do so because he — not our Blessed Lord — is a devil.
“Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but that which is good, to the edification of faith, that it may administer grace to the hearers” (Eph 4:29).
Huh?
Logic ain't yer strong point; is it?
Here are seven.
Which one would YOU suggest a person to choose?
My question is:
Is He assumed to be DEAD at this point; or still alive?
If you just Read the BOOK you guys put together...
Acts 17:11 New International Version (NIV)
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
It seems to be fairly good advice.
If what was WRITTEN DOWN as SCRIPTURE at this point in time was good to follow; then a rational person should conclude that whatever else is WRITTEN DOWN as SCRIPTURE later would be too.
Is this found ANYWHERE in Scripture?
So you DON'T know it?
One woman's insult is another's clear praise.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJ21
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
(Or a women; too; I'd expect.)
Are you trying to convince the lurkers that when you type 'the church' you do NOT mean the RCC?
And that every instance of the word CHURCH in Scripture is NOT the big religious organization that you've aligned your stars with based in ROME??
I'd be happy with being beaten, whipped and made to write bad checks.
And I'd assume that every women is also included in this remark; too.
Well; except the Mary that Rome has conjured up.
See, now you just ruined a perfectly good bash Francis thread with your dash of anti-Catholicism.
I think some of those places you listed would be very surprised at the Roman Catholic Church....especially the part about consuming the blood.
Are you being facetious?
Not for nothing, but I’ve known and worked with many competent women who get that mankind means humankind.
In the 70s, we were told if women were in charge that everything would get more human. More humane. More humane than men.
Not seeing it so far.
However, the Churches I am referencing --- the ancient "non-Roman", Apostle-founded churches such as the Eastern Orthodox, and the ancient "non-Byzantine" Orthodox churches (some of them termed "Oriental") such as the Copts, the Armenians, the Assyrian Church of the East, etc. --- all still hand on through the generations what was handed on to them from the cradle-years of the Christian Faith: priestly/hierarchical governance; the Liturgy; the veneration and intercession of the Saints and Ever-Virgin Mary; prayers for the souls of the faithful departed; the life of the Sacraments; and the Real Presence (however they express it in their own languages) of the Lord Jesus in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar.
Grateful for anything you can add here about these other Apostle-founded Churches ---Copts, Armenians, etc. It would be of real interest.
No, the two witnesses are not identified. That hasn’t stopped speculation as to their identities, and the only two in all of scripture who haven’t died are Enoch and Elijah, so many denominations teach that they’re likely to be the two witnesses. I don’t have that much store in this being right or wrong, but it does make logical sense.
I'll stick with what we have revealed to us in the NT as it is the only inspired text we agree upon.
The writings of the ECFs the EO and the RCC rely upon are not considered inspired and in several cases contradictory of each other.
From the Jerusalem Council:
19“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. Acts 15:19-20 NASB
This passage, along with several others, contradicts the RCC claim we have to literally eat and drink His flesh and blood.
Regarding your other comment:
priestly/hierarchical governance; Not substantiated in the NT descriptions of leadership
the veneration and intercession of the Saints and Ever-Virgin Mary; Not substantiated in the NT
prayers for the souls of the faithful departed;Not substantiated in the NT
and the Real Presence (however they express it in their own languages) of the Lord Jesus in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. Not substantiated in the NT
Are you thinking I wrote the following?
You do see the relevance of this, right? It's not a matter of denominationalism. It's a matter of identifying the vital continuities which link any particular self-identified Church with that Church which was being spread by the Apostles in the First Century AD.
No “Dash” intended. I honestly don’t know why Catholics allow themselves to get get caught up in the Bureaucratic Political Legal nonsense, instead of just working out your own salvation. Phil 2:12
IOW who cares what his popiness says. He is just another soul who needs salvation just like the rest of us.
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.