This pope said in a recent homily at Mass
that ‘Jesus became the Devil’ for our sake
Yet everyone feigns not to notice his progressively
erroneous if not blasphemous statements about Christ
Translated from
April 6, 2017
In the Church today, many are shaking their heads because things never before seen or heard have been happening. There have been all kinds of popes in the past 2000-plus years but there has never been a pope who, during a homily at Mass, says things that, from any other person, would be considered blasphemous.
The other day, for instance, Papa Bergoglio, at Casa Santa Marta, said something that ought to have sent a shiver down the spines of his listeners even if no one has dared say anything.
Commenting – in a totally absurd way – on the Biblical passage about the bronze serpent raised by Moses in the desert (Numbers 21, 4-9)* this pope said that
Jesus “became sin, became the Devil, for us”. [Textually! ‘Gesu si e fatto peccato, si e fatto diavolo, per noi’.] .
*
[Of course, I had to look this up: God had sent a plague of serpents to afflict the Israelites – those who were bitten by the snakes died - because of their endless complaints while wandering in the desert after having crossed the Red Sea miraculously. To cure those bitten by the snakes, God asked Moses to create a serpent of bronze and mount it on a pole, so that anyone who was bitten could look up to it and be cured. The evangelist John would later use this image to say: “Just as Moses lifted up* the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,j15* so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life”. (Jn 3,14-15)]
But how can any Christian [much less the pope] say that
Jesus ‘became the devil’? In Christian doctrine,
Jesus took upon himself all the sins of the world to pay for everyone as the spotless sacrificial lamb, such that St. Paul wrote: “For our sake he [God] made him to be sin who did not know sin, n so that we might become the righteousness of God in him”
(2Cor 5,21).
But to say that Jesus ‘became the devil’ is something else entirely, something that sounds gnostic. The Son of God became man to redeem mankind – he did not become the devil to redeem
devils, who, one must recall, are totally distinguished by their inextinguishable hatred of God. So it is unimaginable for a pope to say that Jesus ‘became the devil for us’.
But there has been a four-year-long series of such incredible sallies with which Bergoglio has been bombarding his poor flock, most of whom are increasingly disoriented and misled.
He told Eugenio Scalfari that
“there is no Catholic God”. [Yet the Trinitarian God distinguishes Christianity significantly from the two other monotheistic religions which moreover do not recognize Jesus Christ as divine!]
On June 16, 2016, opening the diocesan convention in Rome, in the Basilica of St. John Lateran, he affirmed that in the episode with the adulterous woman who was being stoned for her sins,
Jesus ‘played the fool somewhat’, adding that in this case, “he failed to be moral” (‘ha mancato verso la morale’), and finally, that Jesus himself was not ‘clean’ (‘non era un pulito), by which one cannot even guess what he meant.
To his ‘perplexing’ [un-Catholic and un-Christian] statements, one must add his ‘magisterium of gestures’, such as the fact that when blessing the faithful, he never does so by imparting the sign of the Cross with his hands .
[Really? Shows that I have not been watching any video of this pope since the first few weeks – the last time was probably when he visited Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo eight days after he became pope] , or his obstinate refusal to kneel before the Tabernacle and before Jesus in the Eucharist (whereas he kneels repeatedly to watch the feet of a chosen few on Maundy Thursday).
One could add his various other ‘shots’ against the faith, especially about morals, for example, what he told Scalfari:
“Each of us has his own view of good and evil. We must encourage each one to proceed to do what he thinks is good” – a perfect manifestation of relativism which is the death knell for Catholicism.
But that which is most striking is the progression of his statements – always more incredibly unheard before – about Jesus which has culminated in the statement that “Jesus became the devil” for our sake.
What explanation can we find?
The first that comes to mind is theological ignorance. It is true this pope is not culturally equipped and is one of the rare persons in modern times who became a cardinal and then pope without a doctorate in theology.
But for more reason, if one is so unprepared in theology and can be so imprudent as to make statements that are blasphemous, then it is not right to take on the supreme doctrinal function in the Church because it is like having a boy who cannot even drive to pilot a Boeing jet. At the very least, such a person should avoid speaking off the cuff
[on anything that has theological implications, much less about Jesus!]
In the second place, the lack of academic degrees in theology does not explain the jawdropping statements this pope makes, because
one can pick out any Catholic parish priest who only had seminary training, without special degrees, and one can be sure he would never say things like ‘Jesus became the devil for us”. Nor would any Catholic who has received proper catechism!
The fact is that Bergoglio has literally theorized the idea of ‘incomplete thought’
[i.e., something that is ever-changing, according to circumstance, ergo, once again, supremely relativistic]. So that he disqualifies and denounces anyone who continues to manifest solid thinking as doctrinaire, fundamentalist and rigorist.
He said so in one of his interviews with Fr. Antonio Spadaro when criticizing the ‘educated’ past of the Jesuit order:
“They lived within closed thought, rigid, more instructive-ascetic than mystic”.
Then in
Evangelii gaudium, he takes issue with
“those who dream of a monolithic doctrine defended by all without regard for nuances” (EG 40), adding,
“At times, listening to language that is completely orthodox – that which the faithful receive – the language used is something that does not correspond to the true Gospel of Jesus” (EG 41).
So now we have a pope who instead of being the custodian of doctrinal orthodoxy, criticizes ‘completely orthodox’ language.
Some say he does so in order to justify the ‘howlers’ that he says and wishes to continue disseminating. But this obstinate will – which has been constant over the past four years – makes one think that it is a systematic decision to destroy Catholic doctrine, or at least, to subject it to such delegitimization in order to propagate the idea among Christians that anyone can now say, think and believe whatever he wants.
It is the imperial rule of relativism. And a Barnum circus [ [i.e., not faith at all].
But perhaps, to better understand fundamentally what is happening, it is well to recall the ‘dramatic struggle’ in the Church referred to by Mons. Georg Gaenswein one year ago, in an address at the Pontifical Gregorian University, to describe the context of the 2005 Conclave which had elected Joseph Ratzinger as pope over Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who was the candidate of the preogressivist cardinals. He said:
“In the Conclave of April 2005, Joseph Ratzinger – after one of the shortest conclaves in Church history, was elected pope after only four ballotings, after a dramatic struggle between the so-called ‘Salt of the Earth’ party which had formed around Cardinals López Trujíllo, Ruini, Herranz, Rouco Varela and Medina Estevez, and the so-called Sankt-Gallen Group around Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini and Murphy-O’Connor…
The election was certainly the outcome of a [wider] confrontation – whose key Ratzinger himself, as Dean of the College of Cardinals, had provided in his historic homily on April 18, 2005, in St. Peter’s Basilica [before the Conclave began] – in which ”a dictatorship of relativism does not recognize anything as definitive and whose only measure is the individual ‘I’ and its wishes” opposed the measure that it is “the Son of God as true man who is the measure of true humanism”.
One of the leading Catholic philosophers living today, Robert Spaemann, who is also a personal friend of Benedict XVI, struck the note last year in an article for Die Tagespost with the eloquent title,
“Even in the Church, there is a limit to what is supportable”.
Another important Catholic philosopher, Josef Seifert, who worked with both John Paul II and Benedict XVI,
has made critical statements about this pope, noting that, “The pope is not infallible unless he speaks
ex cathedra [formally]. Some popes (like Formosus and Honorius I) were condemned for heresy. It is our sacred duty – for love and mercy towards all souls – to criticize our bishops and even our dear pope if they should deviate from the truth and if their errors damage the Church and the souls in her care”.
We have never had such an explosive situation in the Church as we have today.
leave it to Mundabor, however, to be scathing about the all but en-masse failure of the Church hierarchy to at least mount a serious and systematic defense of the faith from the assaults of the Bishop of Rome. Sure, we have the Four Cardinals' DUBIA, but they are simply emblematic of all the questionable points of doctrine, theology and pastoral practice that this pope has proliferated and keeps proliferating daily. That does not mean we should not pay attention to each of these individual points which are just as important in principle as are the Five DUBIA!
Stupidity vs Cowardice
APR 7, 2017
The Evil Clown has now publicly praised the two FrancisBishops of Malta for releasing their notorious guidelines on sacrilegious communion.
We keep notice the same tactics here: one hushed word to the Chilean Bishop in private and a praise of the Maltese bishop in public. No answer from him to the Dubia, but the head of the CDF stating that no answer is due. Deception, confusion, hypocrisy on steroids below which is, as every intelligent mind understands, a deep desire to destroy everything Catholicism has always represented.
It astonishes me that some people keep calling this a clever master plan. It isn't. It is the stupid behaviour of a very stupid man. It is as predictable and as easy to see through as the excuse of the child found with his hands in the cookie jar. In a sane world it would not work for more than a quarter of an hour.
The reason why Francis is getting his way is not a supposed clever mind. It is the astonishing cowardice of bishops and cardinals who very well see what the man is doing and prefer to shut up in front of such an open attack to everything that is Catholic.
Francis'S papacy has exposed not only the inevitable consequenceS of the VATICAN-II nonsense. It has also exposed the astonishing weakness of the Church hierarchy, whose several thousand bishops are unable to muster any meaningful resistance to a man who would make Luther – and certainly makes Satan – proud.
It is very clear now that the once so strong Catholic hierarchy, influential and feared by local politicians almost everywhere, has been hollowed from the inside for more than fifty years; leaving little more than a skeleton, a fragile house of card unable to withstand even the open, public proclamation of heresy and praise of sacrilege from her very top. Whilst the Church is and remain indefectible and it will never be wiped out of the earth, this is a barque that is now rotten in every plank, and keeps floating only because of Divine assistance.
In the battle between stupidity and cowardice, the evident stupidity of Francis is being clearly surpassed by the astonishing stupidity of our shepherds.
May they get, all of them, the treatment they have deserved when they die.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 08/04/2017 05:07]