Bergoglio Blasphemes Again: Jesus Christ “Made Himself the Devil”!

Novus Ordo Watch ^ | April 6, 2017 | Novus Ordo Wire

[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:

• “Bergoglio Arriva Ad Affermare in Chiesa Che “gesu’ Si E’ Fatto Diavolo” E Tutti Fanno Finta Di Nulla. Ecco La Sua Strategia” (Antonio Socci)

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:

• “Nel segno della croce” (Vatican.va)

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:

• “Pope: ‘the Cross is not a badge of belonging'” (Vatican Radio)

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).

[Mrs. Don-o]

Pope Francis has not invoked papal infallibility at any point in his pontificate.

If you will review the doctrine of infallibility, you will see that it is used very infrequently --- the last time was in 1950 with Pope Pius XII's Munificentissimus Deus statement.

In 2005 Pope Benedict XVI remarked, "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know".

Pope John XXIII once stated it with a humorous twist: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible".`

`

[Mrs. Don-o]

Why don't you just look it up?

Here's Wikipedia

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra papal teaching are as follows:

• the Roman Pontiff
• speaks ex cathedra,
• that is, when, (in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,)
• he defines
• a doctrine
• concerning faith or morals
• to be held by the whole Church.

For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must:

• Be a decision of the supreme teaching authority of the Church (the Pope alone or with the College of Bishops)
• Concern a doctrine of faith or morals
• Bind the universal Church
• Be proposed as something to hold firmly and immutably

Each of those phrases is constitutive for infallibility. If one condition is missing, what you have is a non-infallible statement.

[Campion]

Only a (1) definitive (not speculative) teaching (2) on faith or morals (3) addressed to the whole church (4) by the Pope speaking as Pope (not, e.g., as a private individual) is protected by infallibility. All four qualifications have to be met.

[metmom]

So basically, anything else he says, or any other Catholic leader says, is up for grabs.

A Catholic can take it or leave it as they see fit and have their own personal interpretation of Catholicism.

1.2 billion versions of Catholicism.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think it would be of benefit for you to acquire a passing acquaintance with the Catholic Catechism.

It would give you a fine overview if Catholic doctrine and dogma; even if you didn’t accept it, you’d know what it IS; and that would save you from making silly statements which imply that there are only two categories in Catholic theology: infallible Papal statements, and “take it or leave it.”

[ealgeone]

So basically, anything else he says, or any other Catholic leader says, is up for grabs. A Catholic can take it or leave it as they see fit and have their own personal interpretation of Catholicism. 1.2 billion versions of Catholicism.

There's no other way to understand that.

So far no one has been able to give a list of every ex cathedra statement of the pope.

Some say two ex cathedra statements:

There is no set list of ex cathedra teachings, but that’s because there are only two, and both are about Mary: her Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870) and her bodily Assumption into heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950).

http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2011/05/there-list-infallible-teachings

Others suggest there have been possibly as many as seven.

Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact confirmed by the Church's magisterium.[72] However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.

Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

Tome to Flavian, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;

Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;

Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just after death rather than only just prior to final judgment;[73]

Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;

Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical; Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;

Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Denial_by_Catholics

For the man supposedly put in charge of the church the pope has not had a lot to say about what is or is not official church doctrine.

Without further clarification from the pope, each catholic is left to his or her own understanding of Scripture...that is unless the Catechism is considered official dogma.

And even that doesn't give an understanding of each verse in the NT.

The only place I've seen that happen is in Christian churches that use a Biblically based teaching/preaching method.

[ealgeone]

Has the Catechism been declared dogma?

[redleghunter]

Yes this one doctrine unified OTC seems to have some serious schisms. One site daniel1212 and I post at has three Roman Catholic forums because they cannot get along.

[Elsie]

The True Third Secret of Fatima?

 

John 15:15

"No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.

 

Catholic teaching: well; except the stuff that Mom will reveal to you about 19 centuries from now.

[Elsie]

Jesus Christ “Made Himself the Devil”!,

Actually; Rome has recorded that Jesus called their first pope the devil:

Get thee behind me, Satan.

[Elsie]

I just want to know where and who are the two witnesses.

Me and metmom

[Elsie]

It's not about every random thing that a Pope thinks or says.

Heck; it ain't even everything that the apparition that Rome calls MARY says; either!

[Elsie]

That's happened only four times in two thousand years.

Then why does Rome even NEED a pope?

Can't Mary come down and whack the faithful with a ruler when needed?

[mdmathis6]

“I just want to know where and who are the two witnesses.”
“Me and metmom”

And I’m the lovably pathetic winey sidekick who they tell to hide in the hills with all the little kids(and with Lassie) as the Earth quake will strike when the heroes resurrect to heaven!

[jmacusa]

Confused he is. The Dark Side is strong with this one.

[metmom]

Well, isn’t the ex cathedra statements only what’s formally binding on Catholics or not?

If it’s not formally binding, then they do have the choice to accept it or not. Right?

[metmom]

Without further clarification from the pope, each catholic is left to his or her own understanding of Scripture...that is unless the Catechism is considered official dogma.

And his or her own understanding of the Catechism as well.

Unless there has been issued some sort of formally binding compendium *interpreting* the Catechism as well as Scripture.

Perhaps some Catholic could point us to that source.

[metmom]

Yes this one doctrine unified OTC seems to have some serious schisms. One site daniel1212 and I post at has three Roman Catholic forums because they cannot get along.

Pffftttt.....

They can't even get along here on FR.

[Campion]

Something heard (or seen) in an apparition, even if the apparition is formally approved by the Church, is "private revelation," not "public revelation". Private revelation is not binding on anyone in faith, except perhaps to the person(s) who actually experience the apparition.

[Elsie]

What kinda wine?