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).
Hey!
I ain't so dang smart to figger if this stuff is BINDING or not; so, to be on the SAFE side, I'll jus accept it all!!
Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Hail Mary!!)
The objection you guys are trying to raise, that not every Bible verse has been infallibly interpreted and defined, is silly. Infallible teaching is traditionally structured in the negative, first of all: "This is what you may *not* believe and still be a Catholic."
Trying to exhaustively define the whole meaning of even a single Scripture verse would be a bad idea; much of Scripture has multiple senses and nuances of understanding. Why tie exegetes' hands like that? No, the Church tells them how *not* to interpret it, and then gives them their freedom.
It’s not about every random thing that a Pope thinks or says.
Mat 15:11 It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.”
James 3:1 Dear brothers and sisters, not many of you should become teachers in the church, for we who teach will be judged more strictly.
Now the lesson is DON’T REPEAT CATHOLIC DOGMA WITHOUT THINKING. Your priest who is infallible is JESUS, not the pope.
Having said that it would be good for all of us to see if God has a little extra coal around for our lips.
Is this formal Rome teaching?
I'll bet that MARY would like some input here!
I'm just SURE she meant this to go out to EVERYONE; not just Dominic and Alan de la Roche
(Given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan de la Roche)
| 1 | Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive powerful graces. |
| 2. | I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary. |
| 3. | The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies |
| 4. | It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of people from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means. |
| 5. | The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish. |
| 6. | Whoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying Himself to the consideration of its Sacred Mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise Him in His justice, he shall not perish by an unprovided death; if he be just, he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life. |
| 7. | Whoever shall have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the Sacraments of the Church. |
| 8. | Those who are faithful to recite the Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plentitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the Saints in Paradise. |
| 9. | I shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary. |
| 10. | The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in Heaven. |
| 11. | You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary. |
| 12. | All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities. |
| 13. | I have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the Rosary shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death |
| 14. | All who recite the Rosary are my children, and brothers and sisters of my only Son, Jesus Christ. |
| 15. | Devotion of my Rosary is a great sign of predestination. |
Of course that's not "only what's formally binding". The doctrinal teachings of ecumenical councils are all infallible, but those aren't Papal ex cathedra statements.
And it's false to assert that only infallibly proclaimed teachings are binding in conscience. Infallibly proclaimed teachings are things that can't be changed.
We were, however, specifically addressing the claim that most things a Pope says are, or are supposed to be, protected by the charism of Papal infallibility. That claim is also not true.
HMMMmmm...
Is the following true or not??
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."
--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Here's a start:
"The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".
--- Catechism, section 1, chapter 2
she meant this to go out to EVERYONE
No doubt, but a Catholic can reject it and not be guilty of heresy. Do I agree with them or think they're wise for doing so? No, but that's not the question.
I assume you do not believe that there are denominations in heaven, true?
Trying to exhaustively define the whole meaning of even a single Scripture verse would be a bad idea; much of Scripture has multiple senses and nuances of understanding. Why tie exegetes' hands like that? No, the Church tells them how *not* to interpret it, and then gives them their freedom.
If only Roman Catholicism practiced exegesis.
Based on your argument, you put the understanding of Scripture into the hands of the individual.
By your post you confirm what I've long suspected about this topic.
Each priest, bible study teacher (if Roman Catholicism has those), each Sunday School teacher, the individual reading at home, will read a text and understand it in their own way.
Until Roman Catholicism can definitively say this verse means this or that then they have no superior hold on understanding the Scriptures. But on the handful of verses the RCC has tried to explain it has done a poor job. The claim Jesus gave Mary to the church in John 19:26-27 is one that comes to mind.
This means the estimated 414,313 priests and estimated 1.2 billion Catholics are making their own personal understanding of Scripture whenever they read the Bible.
Never let it be posted again by any Catholic to accuse non-Catholics of "their own personal interpretation of Scripture."
Tagline
The tagline’s a quote from Jesus, by the way.
By your post you confirm what I've long suspected about this topic.
Each priest, bible study teacher (if Roman Catholicism has those), each Sunday School teacher, the individual reading at home, will read a text and understand it in their own way.
Never let it be posted again by any Catholic to accuse non-Catholics of "their own personal interpretation of Scripture."
EXACTLY!!!!!
Thank you, ealgeone.
oops! (whiney) :)
(wine in new wine sacks of course****to put the best face on my spelling mistake)
told ya I was “pathetic”!
Now if I was Pathetique...it would be Tchaikovsky’s symphony no. 6. (the final movement)
You and Campion need to square away your differences. He’s saying something different.
And out of context I might add. Do Catholics receive any training on how to understand the Word??
Maybe it's a good thing the RCC hasn't tried to explain each verse!
15“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Matt 18:15-18 NASB
Why the big deal over “context” ?
Since the Church is called in Scripture "the pillar and foundation of the Truth" and Jesus Himself, foreseeing disputes, says to take your disputes to the Church for judgment...
It may be that the current pope’s mission is to present Chrislam to the catholics left on earth AFTER the true Ekklesia is Raptured outta here. After all, people who believe they can physically eat the soul and divinity of Jesus will be led off along the broad road, especially when God allows them to believe ‘the lie’. They are already under strong delusion ...
Actually; Rome has recorded that Jesus called their first pope the devil:
Get thee behind me, Satan.
Well said.
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.