The Tenth Crusade
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Papa's got a brand new bag.
Pope Francis said:
"What is reconciliation? Taking one from this side, taking another one for that side and uniting them: no, that’s part of it but it's not it ... True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us. When we go to confession, for example, it isn’t that we say our sin and God forgives us. No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say: 'This is your sin, and I will sin again'. And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission: to become the sinner for us, to liberate us."
It isn't that we approach Sacrament of Confession with remorse for own sins to seek forgiveness.
This is preposterous, sayeth Pope Francis.
Jesus is a sinner, we take His own sins to Him and we tell Him, this is Yours and I'm going back out into the world to do it again. Jesus likes that.
This maxim must be part of the ordination rite of the Society of Jesus?
They all seem to be afflicted with gross distortions and spiritually lethal theology.
I recently saw a video of the Pope struggling to translate what he was trying to say into English. I am hoping this farcical concept is a translation error.
Compounding deep rooted sin with sacrilegious abuse of the Sacraments...all I can say about that is, if you think the diabolical disorientation is 50 shades of crazy now, we haven't seen anything yet.
Keep a vigil over your thoughts and your soul. Stay in close contact with Confession and the Eucharist. Find a way to get to daily Mass or as many times as possible during the week. This is my advice to TTC readers. A couple of loose screws on the ship. We are in for a rough ride.
n.b. Here is feedback on Kasper's talk, which was arranged by Pope Francis and is purported to have caricatured it as excellent theology.
There is a lot going on there.
Mainly, a Pope ordering disobedience to effect giving the Properties of Christ in the Eucharist to souls in a state
of mortal sin, driving that soul to its own spiritual suicide.
All I can think of is Christ's warning that they will kill us and say they are doing a service to God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
This is truly unbelievable. I have had it with him and his never-ending stream of confused and, now, openly heretical and disgusting commentary about the person of Jesus Christ. Christ was utterly and completely sinless. Everyone cradle Catholic knows this. That he could even say something like this is shocking.
And don't tell me neoCats that I have to shut up because he is the pope, either. He's is talking out of his proverbial behind at this point and severely denigrating Christ and his own office at this point. He should resign.
Carol, Do you know if Boston Catholic Insider has stopped publication?
M
The Bishop of Rome fears the World, that much is clear. His intellectually incoherent double talk is intentional. The aim is to lose dogma and the Magisterium in the fog of alleged "mercy" and a "pastoral response". This Pope personifies the "spirit of Vatican II". The reclamation project (to proclaim the actual meaning of Vatican II) attempted by John Paul II and Benedict XVI has been scrapped by Francis. We are headed back to the 1970s in overdrive.
What a fog the poor man is in!
He tries to be a crowd pleaser
and will say anything.
I always pray at Mass that the Church gets a new Pope like JPII
or another like Benedict XVI.
Francis has proven himself unfit.
Carol,
Mark Mallett has a blog post today on the prophecy of St. Francis, and what it means for Pope Francis's pontificate. He takes a different view, one in line with the Charismatics.
M
2 Corinthians 5:21
New International Version (NIV)
21 God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
People you are not theologians read your bible.
We know from our catechism what the Church teaches.
Papa Francis is off base.
And you can't get more fundamental than
the RC Church it's our Bible.
It's true that Christ's was sinless. It's also true that Christ's became sin for us. How can both be true? Because God required a sinless sacrifice to redeem humanity. The sacrifices that the Levitical priesthood performed could not deal with sin permanently. Only Christ, by shedding His blood, could remove sin as the ultimate threat to eternal life. This is basic to Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and non-denominational Christians.
Methinks the problem is that theologians try to express old doctrines in new ways, and make fools of themselves, in the process.
Besides, if the neo-Catholics are telling people to shut up because Francis is pope, then they are the worst sort of Ultramontanists.
Christ is an unblemished Lamb. This is 400 years of JudeoChristian history and theology. As the unblemished Lamb, His substance doesn't contain sin.
The most compelling theological error in our Holy Father's statement is about the Sacrament of Confession. We do not go to the Sacrament to foist our sins upon Christ and tell Him we are going right back out to do it again. And if we do, Jesus doesn't like it. At all. In fact, a priest who recognizes this perversion is obligated not to absolve us. If we forum shop to obstruct recognition of the misuse, I am not quite sure the substance of sin (which affects judgment and intellect) is actually swept from the soul. I would have to review the theology to confirm, but I am almost certain it doesn't.
This misunderstanding has substantive consequences to intellect, judgment and soul, which drives the person deeper into the quagmire.
I am not even hosting comments that make correcting theological errors, which harm people, a conflict with love and charity. Such allegations are absurd.
M, the editors at BCI are on a special project that is consuming their time. They are not finished, but the projects are altering their free time to write. I don't see that changing any time in the near future given the substance of project.
Papa Alex, the NIV? What's dat?
You have to watch those translations. Check out the DR!
Here ya go:
[21] Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him.
Do yourself a favor. Throw the NIV into the fireplace and get yourself a Douay Rheims. That's the translation of the Apostles.
M, I read Mark and absolutely agree that we can and are never concerned about the Chair of Peter.
I don't think Mark is looking at the problem without prejudice. The Pope is not speaking and teaching ex Cathedra. If he changes something ex Cathedra, Christ binds it to our salvation. We are good with that.
We have a different kind of problem with Pope Francis. He is asking his see to contradict what Christ binds.
This is a huge problem. On many levels.
I don't know what language he tried to translate his thoughts. I don't take refuge in the debates about what he shoulda, woulda, coulda said.
I only know that what he is saying is affecting how my children make judgments on the importance of obedience for the purpose of their own salvation.
This has been going on for a year now. Any reasonable person with a problem expressing doctrine would have made adjustments by now. He just keeps on keeping on.
That is my business. It is the business of every practicing Catholic who takes their faith and the salvation of souls seriously.
If he wishes to release divorced and remarried people from bondage, then he has to have the spinal fortitude to change the teaching ex Cathedra and bind it.
Using apostate theologians (who have led their entire country into an abyss) to explain how we circumvent and disobey Church teaching does not fly.
Twice he says Jesus was a "sinner." He says Jesus "likes it" when we sin again. This is a train wreck of a papacy people, and I don't care whether he was canonically elected or not as Mallet writes about. On that topic, the notion that any cardinal would come out and openly declare that there was a canonical defect in an election is specious at best. They all take oaths of secrecy.
The sedevacanists are claiming problems with election. Mark was probably trying to cover a host of issues. I am with him on most of it, excepting ex Cathedra is not an issue and has never been an issue, never will be an issue.
The Pope's trajectory is the worst possible scenario. Leaving the binding in place but leading his see into a matrix of disobeying that binding.
Keep in mind that if he is going to memorialize civil unions as worthy of sanctifying Grace of the Sacraments, he is going to have a hard time excluding any kind of civil marriage.
After all, who is to say the man who's aves his wife to civilly marry his male lover could be excluded?
If I understand the Pope correctly, all he would have to so is go to confession and tell Jesus he was going home to do it again. Jesus likes that, eh?
I see no clarifications yet from the Holy See. If anything calls for one, this does.
Just compare and contrast Francis's words here with how Padre Pio reacted in the confessional to sin. He would get angry; he was harsh, but people flocked to him, knowing that the anger and harshness was justified. He did not tell them that their sins were "Christ's sins."
He said what? I mean, what did he say? I mean HUH?
apparently his comments have now been removed from the Vatican news site....
I think it is necessary to know how the Pope used his tone and his body language to undersstand what he ment by "'This is your sin, and I will sin again'
If he lowered his head and sadly admitted that he is weak and will no doubt sin again but it is not his wish - then I understand. He he was happy in his tone to just get back to the sinning then that is disturbing. If he were joyous as a Little Flower was happy to sin so that she could find humility and find herself spending more time on her face in repentence then I understand that. The translation or the format of the communication (written) has kept me up at night again with anxiety. Pope Francis ... could you have Cardianl Wuerl re-translate your words into American Catholic Language so that we may understand what you are really trying to tell us?
p.s. Thank you Pope Francis for putting trusted Cardinal PELL in charge of cleaning up the Bankster problem at the Vatican Bank.
Just reading from a scholar about Pope Francis plan to toss out the money changers from Vatican Bank
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/transformation-at-the-vatican
anon 1:34
Though I see your point, it is a big stretch for me.
He doesn't just omit remorse and firm purpose to amend our lives, he poopoos it. Makes the Sacrament place where we drop sins off to Christ the sinner and go out and do it again because that is what Jesus likes.
I can't get there given the context of his statement.
anon 5:16 - Yes, he seems to be very concerned about the money. Saving his money from corruption. I don't find his priorities particularly comforting, do you?
I don't like his priorities either. Tossing out the apostates
and popping the balloons would be my
priority.
great column Carol..
What is the source of this? Was he drinking? Maybe delusional? I read papa had a fever and canceled his night out recently.
Apparently his comments were poorly translated in this case, which is a relief to me. Mundabor parses the original italian and finds the english translation terribly incorrect. So happy day, the pope is not a Lutheran and apparently did not say that Jesus is a sinner, or that he likes it when we sin again. The correct translation was the usual, more or less, he is ready to forgive us when we sin again.
That anyone could be working at the Vatican news office and be that bad at translating the pope's words is quite conceding.
"If he changes something ex Cathedra, Christ binds it to our salvation. We are good with that."
No member of the Church, much less the Roman Pontiff who is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, can "loose" persons from the truth of God. Those who remarry without an annulment are living in adultery and cannot receive either the Sacraments of Penance of the Holy Eucharist without committing a sacrilege. This is an immutable truth. If this truth can change upon the choice of the Roman Pontiff, it lacks ultimate truth and morality is only an issue of legality.
If the Roman Pontiff were to allow civilly divorced and remarried persons to commit sacrilege under the cloak of papal authority, not only would he not loose them from the moral obligations of the Gospel, he would bind them to false doctrine, incorrect practice, and unite them to perdition. Furthermore, such an action would turn the House of God into a house of damnation rather than the pillar and ground of the truth.
Clearly, the choices to be made in October 2014 are not issues of legality, but are pivotal for the continued integrity of the Catholic religion. The appropriate response is not a blanket plea for the use (or rather, abuse) of papal authority, but rather a defense of the Catholic Faith, which does not change but remains constant through all generations.
Post a Comment