Maria Accused God of Deceit?
"The Gospel tells us nothing: if she said a word or not ... She was quiet, but in her heart - how much she said to the Lord! 'You told me then - that's what we have read - that He will be great. You told me that You would give him the throne of his father David, that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. And now I see Him there!' The Blessed Mother was human! And perhaps she would have wanted to say, 'lies! I have been cheated!'. John Paul II said this when he spoke of the Mother of God at one point. But she was overshadowed with the silence of the mystery that she did not understand, and with this silence, she has accepted that this mystery can grow and flourish in the hope ".
This passage from the morning sermon by Pope Francis for Holy Mass in the Domus Santa Marta was published by Italian editors of Vatican Radio. The German editors reported this sermon as on every day, but omitted this point, however.
Daring Interpretation of Pope Francis
The daring interpretation that Pope Francis gives to Mary's silence, gives rise spontaneously to two questions.The first question that imposes itself is: In what document or speech is Pope John Paul II to have put such words of the Virgin Mother of God in her mouth?
Some searching and consultation of a colleague proved successful. The passage refers to the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater of the Polish pope about the Blessed Virgin Mary in the life of the Pilgrim Church. But what Pope Francis says his predecessor John Paul II may have said, does not correspond to what John Paul II said. The difference in content and language is astounding. Here are the words of John Paul II in the original:
John Paul II said something else
This blessing reaches its full meaning when Mary stands beneath the Cross of her Son (cf. Jn. 19:25). The Council says that this happened "not without a divine plan": by "suffering deeply with her only-begotten Son and joining herself with her maternal spirit to his sacrifice, lovingly consenting to the immolation of the victim to whom she had given birth," in this way Mary "faithfully preserved her union with her Son even to the Cross."38 It is a union through faith- the same faith with which she had received the angel's revelation at the Annunciation. At that moment she had also heard the words: "He will be great...and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end" (Lk. 1:32-33).
And now, standing at the foot of the Cross, Mary is the witness, humanly speaking, of the complete negation of these words. On that wood of the Cross her Son hangs in agony as one condemned. "He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows...he was despised, and we esteemed him not": as one destroyed (cf. Is. 53:3- 5). How great, how heroic then is the obedience of faith shown by Mary in the face of God's "unsearchable judgments"! How completely she "abandons herself to God" without reserve, offering the full assent of the intellect and the will"39 to him whose "ways are inscrutable" (cf. Rom. 11:33)! And how powerful too is the action of grace in her soul, how all-pervading is the influence of the Holy Spirit and of his light and power!
Through this faith Mary is perfectly united with Christ in his self- emptying. For "Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men": precisely on Golgotha "humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross" (cf. Phil. 2:5-8). At the foot of the Cross Mary shares through faith in the shocking mystery of this self- emptying. This is perhaps the deepest "kenosis" of faith in human history. Through faith the Mother shares in the death of her Son, in his redeeming death; but in contrast with the faith of the disciples who fled, hers was far more enlightened. On Golgotha, Jesus through the Cross definitively confirmed that he was the "sign of contradiction" foretold by Simeon. At the same time, there were also fulfilled on Golgotha the words which Simeon had addressed to Mary: "and a sword will pierce through your own soul also."
[ Redemptoris Mater, 18]
The statements of John Paul II seem to have nothing to do with what Pope Francis attributed to them. The faith of Mary is referred to by John Paul II as "heroic" and "enlightened" in comparison to that of the disciples. In the encyclical, there is not the slightest indication of any possible doubt on the part of the Virgin Mother of God.
Upon What Did Pope Francis Base his Statement?
The second question, however, relates to the wider context of revelation and theology: upon which theological arguments does Pope Francis base his pronouncing a very, let us say with the utmost restraint, "impetuous" judgment of the Blessed All Holy Virgin Mary? We sincerely have no idea.
If they were really spoken or thought by the Mother of God, they would be called blasphemous. But the doubts and the questions that Pope Francis puts in Mary's mouth, have no equivalent in Revelation, even less in the tradition of the Church or in the Fathers. Where do they come but then? They do not correspond either to the Scriptures or the Church's teaching, but solely the thought Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Thoughts that the new pope had already repeatedly hinted at or has expressed directly. It is Bergoglio's conviction that the faith in order to be "authentic" must implicitly include doubt.
The Confession of Doubt
The "personal creed" written by him at the age of almost 33, shortly before his ordination (see separate report , The "Personal Commitment" of Pope Francis Before his Ordination 44 years Ago ) brings two concets in connection with the belief this connection between authenticity and the doubts expressed. The note with this "credo" of 1969 might be stuck in Bergolio's private folder, but it is hidden to the world. However, the current Pope revealed it several times to others and even said a few years ago that he would sign it as much today as then. Along with several statements since the beginning of his pontificate, there is another dimension.
In an interview with the Jesuit journal La Civita Cattolica of 19 September the Pope said:
“The risk in seeking and finding God in all things, then, is the willingness to explain too much, to say with human certainty and arrogance: ‘God is here.’ We will find only a god that fits our measure. The correct attitude is that of St Augustine: seek God to find him, and find God to keep searching for God forever. Often we seek as if we were blind, as one often reads in the Bible. And this is the experience of the great fathers of the faith, who are our models. We have to re-read the Letter to the Hebrews, Chapter 11. Abraham leaves his home without knowing where he was going, by faith. All of our ancestors in the faith died seeing the good that was promised, but from a distance.... Our life is not given to us like an opera libretto, in which all is written down; but it means going, walking, doing, searching, seeing.... We must enter into the adventure of the quest for meeting God; we must let God search and encounter us.
The German translation follows almost without deviation in the Jesuit journal, Stimmen der Zeit. The Pope also spoke at the general audience on 30 October that he himself has had doubt:
"Who of us - all all! - Who of us has not experienced uncertainty, confusion and even doubt on a journey of faith? All! We've all experienced this: I also. Everybody. It is part of the journey of faith, it is part of our lives. All this ought not surprise us, because we are humans, marked by weaknesses and limitations. Do not be alarmed. We all have weaknesses and limitations!"
The Lofty Language of the Church's tradition to Mary
In what context are these generalizations that are derived from personal experience. which may be quite correct, have to do with what divine revelation, the Scriptures and the Church's teaching say about Mary Mother of God? The Most Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, the Immaculate Conception, the sinless, Virgin without stain. But how do doubt and outright rebellion against God belong to Mary, of Whom is the sung the most sublime and oldest hymns like the Magnificat, like the Bavarian and Austrian manner of eloquent folk variation dating in its origins from the early Christian prayer, Tota pulchra es Maria :
Thou art all-lovely, O Mary,
and in thee there is no stain of original sin.
Thou art the glory of Jerusalem,
Thou art the joy of Israel,
Thou art the honour of thy people.
Thou art the advocate of sinners,
O Mary! O Mary!
and in thee there is no stain of original sin.
Thou art the glory of Jerusalem,
Thou art the joy of Israel,
Thou art the honour of thy people.
Thou art the advocate of sinners,
O Mary! O Mary!
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
image: Messa in Latino
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches....
Ed: seems like silence is an opportunity to interpolate one's own personal confusion and fear, especially when it comes to modern theology.
AMGD
image: Messa in Latino
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches....
Ed: seems like silence is an opportunity to interpolate one's own personal confusion and fear, especially when it comes to modern theology.
AMGD
64 comments:
Nice post. I was horrified when I read about his statement earlier today. It is blasphemy in my opinion. I saw this analogy earlier, If someone wants to say, oh he said 'perhaps' then how about I say...well perhaps you are a pedophile. Hey! I said perhaps!!
1000 difficulties do not a doubt make - Newman I believe.
The polyester Pope strikes again. I think he forgot Simeon's prophecy, Luke 2: 34-36
It's a pity you removed this. I think it's a pretty good point. Still, the apostles saw many miracles and they doubted, but they weren't the Virgin either. It does appear to overshadow her Immaculate character.
Maybe this is just another one of those times when Holy Father is doubting an article of Faith as he suggests he has in the past. This is about as much of an admission of error as anything, I reckon.
This is an opportunity provided by Our Lady to the Franciscans of the Immaculate. They should send a public letter to the Pope asking him if he understood that he blasphemed Our Lady by accusing her of blaspheming the Almighty by accusing Him of lying.. After all, it is Catholic Mariology 101 that Our Lady was preserved from all sin - both original AND personal. Even if he did not grasp fully the substance of the statement, it still constitutes a grave sin to even suggest such s thing. It seems that he needs to confess this sin publicly, publicly recant the statement, and make a public act of penance. After all, if he does not acknowledge the grave matter of the statement he made, he misleads the faithful that such statements really aren't that important.
The Virgin Mary knew, the prophet Simeon told her.
And his father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning him. And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed. Luke 2:34-35
As far as I'm concerned, this is exactly equivalent to the actions of Nestorius in questioning the divine nature of Our Lord, except one could say that the doctrine he doubted was not as clear as the present one involving Our Lady. In his case, it took a Council to identify and reject his heresy. Here, in the present situation, the Pope is calling into question clearly-defined and promulgated dogmas and doctrines involving Our Lady's preservation from sin. The question is, who will be this generation's Eusebius to call out the Pope for the heretic he is?
I didn't want to take up the thread since I already posted and it was kind of like a rant. I don't know if you can put it back up, but if you want to you can. You make a pretty good point. But none of them ever became miraculously pregnant either even though they saw miracles, I don't think it was THAT personal to them. Plus, Mary raised Jesus. I know the fashion is to say Jesus didn't know who He really was the whole time or that He stayed quiet about it. I certainly know he was always perfectly aware and I am quite sure He prepared His mother for it, at least in some way. She was the one who kept faith til the resurrection. That is the tradition as far as I know.
Pope? Nope
Read Cum ex Apostolatus Officio by Pope Paul IV, promulgated on 15 Feb 1559
Sede Vacante
HORHE
57255 --> 5+7+2+5+5 = 24 --> 2+4= 6
MARIO
41217 --> 15 --> 6
BERGOGLIO
252373317 --> 33 --> 6
I could probably do that to your name.
I'm inclined to agree. You wrote: "I've been thinking about this since I read it earlier today. If he really thinks this is an ok thing to say...the only conclusion is that his faith has major, major problems. He must think Our Lady did not really see an angel, or get pregnant miraculously. How could anyone think an angel from God who announced her miraculous pregnancy that actually happened could have been a liar all along?? If I saw an angel who told me all this stuff and told me I would get pregnant and I suddenly did even though I was a virgin...well I think even I would have trouble calling the angel a liar after that!! Even at the cross I would not say, hey angel who announced my miraculous pregnancy...you must have lied to me at some point, right? He must have some kind of jacked up way of explaining it to himself without any miracles necessary. At the very least his faith is very immature if he has to project his own faith problems onto Our Lady! "
he needs to just stop talking
The Italian says: "La Madonna era umana! E forse aveva la voglia di dire: ‘Bugie! Sono stata ingannata!’" ("The Madonna was human! And perhaps she had the desire to say: 'Lies! I was tricked!'")
Our Lady—who is human yet full of grace, being herself the only Immaculate Conception—can never ever have a desire to blaspheme God, calling Him a liar and trickster.
Do not these "doubts, weaknesses and limitations" to which the Pope refers stem from Original Sin? Mary was never tainted by Original Sin.
His name is, in any case, spelt JORGE. 'HORHE'
This proves to me more and more that this man is unfit for office. This outrageous....blaspheming God and degrading the Blessed Virgin Mary by putting words in her mouth that she never would have thought or uttered.
There should be a groundswell of faithful Catholics to get this man out of the Papal throne .....have him resign to do penance for the rest of his life.
Were it not for Benedict XVI nearly a year ago resigning like a coward, we would not have Bergoglio (aka Francis I) today.
I am no fan of Bergoglio, but this time I'll speak in his defense. He's not blaspheming the Moth of God; he's pointing to the depth of sorrow she suffered, not spared even the temptation to blasphemy as her Son was not spared the temptation to be false to his Father. Latin Americans have a devotion to La Soledad. Here it is.
Romulus
"Mother" -- sorry for the typo.
Romulus
We believe that Mary was "full of grace" in accordance with the title that the angel Gabriel addressed her with.
As such, her understanding of the economy of salvation was more profound than that of her "peers", even more so than that of the great theologians who came later.
During Mary's thirty years of life with Jesus, the two must have often spoken of His mission on earth and she must have been more prepared than any of the Apostles of His death on the cross. Mary was silent because all her questions had been answered.
She was full of grace i.e. she was filled with the Holy Spirit long before anyone received that Spirit through baptism. In other words; she must've been way ahead of any human being in understanding the true meaning of Her Son's death and resurrection. She sufferd deeply as any mother would when she saw Her Son on Calvary but kept silent because she knew the reason for His death.
In my opinion: at the Resurrection, Jesus visited His Mother first as a sign of respect and only then showed Himself to Mary Magdalene. I dare say Mary was not surprised when Jesus appeared.
But what does it matter what I think? It is the Resurrection that takes center stage.
We should remember that Pope Francis is from Argentina, and he likely did not have a good formation in seminary. The Argentinian hierarchy shun orthodoxy and also tradition because they think that it's a form of elitism. What the Pope may not understand is that his Latin American view is not going to go over well with a lot of Catholics. I think it's possible, too, that he just doesn't know all that much about Catholicism, and since he just wants to be "pastoral," he may feel that he can say whatever he thinks (which is a really bad idea for a Pope). I have to remember that he won't be Pope forever.
Was Mary's faith greater than Christ's? Do we accept that Christ cried out "Father, why hast thou forsaken me" as he hung on the cross? Then how can we cry "blasphemy" at the suggestion that Mary might have felt forsaken as well? To suggest that Mary never wavered in her faith as she watched her son be tortured and murdered, even as Christ himself sweat blood and pleaded to have "this cup taken from him", is unreasonable in my opinion. Did Christ remain sinless even as he struggled with the task he was given by his Father? Of course. Then to suggest that Mary attained a state of grace and faith above even that strikes me as unrealistic. Now, having said all of that, I do not believe it is the Pope's place to be postulating the thoughts of Mary. But I don't see how it can be called blasphemy.
The responsibility falls on each one of us to accept or deny that he is, as he is said to be, the false prophet. If this report is true and accurate it is the perfect example of a false prophet, simply uttering words which are not true. We can not comprehend the holiness of Mary. If one spends the time in reading a book like the Mystical City of God one learns that she is more special than is understood from the bible, as well as St Joseph. Imagine the poor soul who hears the words from the said homily and begins to think this way! That is the danger of following a false prophet. Especially the note that explains how he dragged John Paul II into it but seems an inaccurate reference! And yet many people don't have the guts to conclude that this guy is dangerous to the faith. Beware of people who make excuses for him! A pope is still a man, there is no heavenly guarantee that he is going to heaven. He will stand in judgement like the rest of us. Beware of people who claim he was chosen by the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself chose Judas as one of his disciples. God's plans are often a mystery. However each one of us is responsible for our choices. Catechism #675 speaks of the great apostasy that church must endure in the end times. We can't trust everything we read but there is so much about this pope that is not normal.
To be putting in Mary's thoughts the presumption that she would treat God as a lyer... or the Angel Gabriel....yes...This is blasphemy...Mary knew the Scriptures and she knew that her Son's journey would lead to suffering - after all His mission was to save humanity from sin...the Angel Gabriel reminded her of this...and so did Siméon at the temple. As for Christ, he is stating psalm 22...he only stated the first verse out loud...but read the psalm till the end...
so according to Francis 1, Christ pretends and the blessed Virgin Mary, Immaculata, called God a liar? What's next? satan isn't really the father of lies? This is relativism gone zeus in the mouth of a bishop with Big issues.
I find your willingness to defend this statement as supremely repulsive and ignorant. How is it ignorant? Because it evidences a lack of knowledge about exactly how much humility those chosen by the Almighty possess. It would do you well to acquaint yourself with those saints particularly known for their humility. One comes to my mind immediately - St. Bernadette. Read this article about St. Bernadette here:
http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2010/04/st-bernadette-soubirous-of-lourdes-part.html
I never forget her statement likening herself to a broom - that the Lord had used and returned its place after the apparitions ended. If a saint not preserved from sin can evidence such faithful docility to the will of the Father and humility I cannot comprehend the docility and faithfulness of Our Lady. I suggest you stop considering it a matter for speculation and more properly rather as a matter of mystery and awe.
Extremely dismaying to realize that Mel Gibson, a film actor, has a deeper grasp of Our Lady's role in salvation than our Holy Father apparently does.
I think the best thing to do is to act as though the Holy Father is senile and babbling. Just carry on as normal.
you're exactly correct Rebacca..
I think we need to note that this Pope is a Jesuit. One particular element of the spirituality of St. Ignatius of Loyola that once got him in trouble with the Inquisition was his concept of contemplation, wherein the imagination is used to "enter into" the scene. This opens the way for God to speak personally (from the point of view of psychology, particular elements of the subject being contemplated stand out as it "speaks more" about the situation of the one contemplating), yet this also can lead to exaggerations and over imagination. St. Ignatius keeps this in check with a good spiritual director and "thinking with the Church." Note also that this "homily" is actually a fervorino, meant to appeal to the "fervor" of the listeners.
Allow me to quote Fr. Z's take on Pope Francis's fervorini: we never get what the Pope actually said in its entirety. We are only getting bits and pieces as determined by someone working for either Vatican Radio or L’Osservatore Romano or… well… it’s hard to know! This is a problem. Did the newsie doing the reporting making the right selection of quotes? Is the newsie doing the reporting a theologian? We should either get everything Francis says or nothing. Moreover, the Italian accounts and the English accounts of what Francis said differ somewhat. And who knows how what Francis says in these sermonettes will ultimately be related to the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff? We are told that it is doesn’t form part of his magisterial teaching, but… really? They sure are being played up by the Holy See’s news agencies, aren’t they! ... It is best not to jump to negative conclusions based on the incomplete reports about fervorini of ambiguous magisterial authority." (WDTPRS post 23 May 2013).
THE
MANGER'S
FEAT
"O come, O come",
The waiting said
Where pink turns green
And purple, red.
Where fasting turns
To festive feasts
And midnight whispers
Come from beasts.
Where slate gray skies
Tint brown clouds glow
Full and fraught
To burst with snow
And burdened mules
Who trod the roads
Can finally rest
Take off their loads.
Where families cut
Down Balsam fir
To scent their homes
Like incensed myrrh.
And men once dark
Living in danger
Shed tears and kneel...
The feat of the manger!
Dymphna said: 'I think the best thing to do is to act as though the Holy Father is senile and babbling. Just carry on as normal.' I'm trying. Pray that his doctors adjust his meds.
Terrye said: 'Extremely dismaying to realize that Mel Gibson, a film actor, has a deeper grasp of Our Lady's role in salvation than our Holy Father apparently does.' there's a big difference. The left hates Mel. It's a good litmus test.
Amon on Ignatian/jesuitism. Jesuits used to be called, 'the Pope's men'; they were fearless missionaries saving souls for Christ. The superior general during the 60s, surprise surprise, was not a 'pope's man'. They fought JPII for crying out loud. now we have an 'anti-pope's man' as 'pope'. God bless those making excuse for the General of the Faith et al. How long can excuses be made for Francis. Either he recants or in a big way qualifies in relation to 1900 years of predecessors many of the things he has done and said and written reaching back to the Word Incarnate, or?...
Happy Christmas, Long-skirts.
Here is something John Paul II wrote that was more in line with Francis' thinking in this, although it is not as bad of course:
"In the new Way of the Cross, composed by John Paul II, we read the following or the fourth Station of “Jesus Meets His Sorrowful Mother”:
The mediation contains a flashback to the Annunciation, and a recounting of the prophecy of the Angel regarding Our Lord, “…and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”
John Paul’s Fourth Station continues:
“Mary heard these words. She often returned to them in the secret of her heart. When she met her Son on the Way of the Cross, perhaps these very words came to her mind with particular force, ‘He will reign, His Kingdom will have no end,’ the heavenly messenger had said. Now, as she watches her Son condemned to death carrying the cross on which He must die, she might ask herself all to humanly, ‘So how can these words be fulfilled?’ In what way will He reign over the house of David. And how can it be that His Kingdom will have not end?’ Humanely speaking, these are all reasonable questions. But Mary remembered that she first heard the angel’s message, she had replied, ‘Behold, I am the handmade of the Lord. May it be done to me according Your Word.”
found here: http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/051719b1c386102f78e4a615712b748e-170.html
Anonymous, I can only conclude that you have not entirely considered what it must mean for one entirely without sin to be pierced through the heart. I put it to you it's an existential agony of abandonment the rest of us cannot begin to imagine.
Romulus
Happy Christmas, Rebecca. it's interesting. read St Louis de Montfort, and it seems like a man who made a pilgrimage towards Our Lady. Read JPII, and it seems like something like him had to come to her.
O, holy fathers, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Gregory the Great. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint John of Damascus, Saint Cyril, all ye fathers of the Church, pray for us!
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!
I can speak to one of these questions at least. In point of fact, all the "newsies" who do the translating for Vatican Radio of the pope's talks are trained theologians. I can speak directly for the English language section where I know the men personally. They hold advanced degrees in theology and canon law from reputable Pontifical universities and are personally dedicated to the Faith in its fullness.
No, I go so far as to suspect that you are an interloper who doesn't have the faith. I have already noticed that on blogs discussing this issue someone is going around and posting virtually the same message defending this statement. I believe that it is far more likely that Our Lady had in mind the wickedness and faithlessness of the leaders of her own people as recounted by Our Lord rather than the Almighty's alleged "failure to keep his agreement" at the moment of Our Lord's crucifixion:
"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness. Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness. So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just,
And say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell? Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar. Amen I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not? Behold, your house shall be left to you, desolate. For I say to you, you shall not see me henceforth till you say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."
Referring to Christ's words that you referenced, Bishop Fulton Sheen wrote: "During this part of the Crucifixion, Our Blessed Lord was repeating the Psalm of David which prophetically referred to Him, though written a thousand years before...The signal feature in the sufferings of Our Lord revealed in this Psalm was His desolation and solitude. The Divine Son called His Father "My God" -- in contrast to the prayer which taught men to say "Our Father Who art in heaven." It was not that His human nature was separated from His Divine nature; that was impossible. It was rather that just as the sun's light and heat can be hidden at the base of a mountain by intervening clouds, though the peak is bathed in sunlight, so too, in taking upon Himself the sins of the world He willed a kind of withdrawal of His Father's face and all Divine consolation...This particular moment He willed to take upon Himself that principal effect of sin which was abandonment."
Christ did not doubt. Nice try.
However trained and faithful, what FatherZ says is true. I don't even really like the English translations on the Vatican website as some of the translations can be watered down a bit. Well, I don't know anybody who likes the Vatican website.
One of the issues that came up in discussing the Pope's statement is whether Our Lady was given foreknowledge of the culmination of Our Lord's mission - as if Our Lord's words during life would not have given her a clue as to how it might end. I find that extremely improbable. In fact, I wonder whether when hearing the words "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets . . ." Our Lady's heart was first pierced by the recognition that her son Our Lord would soon share the fate of the prophets who came before Him!
The troubling part here is the appearance of the usual Modernist technique of infiltrating doubt, discored and confusion about articles of Faith where the "Church has been silent." If the Church has been silent about something, maybe it's a good time to keep the mouth closed?
I would have to agree with your view, Enoch. I was brought up by a very strict Catholic father but when I was married with kids and I sought to grow in my faith, all that was in the book stands in the back of the parish churches were books by dissident Jesuit theologians. Of course, at the time I didn't know this to be true. And there was no internet at that time, where perhaps someone on a blog could have set me straight. I was just soaking in the heresies, "gloriously ignorant" of the subtle lies hidden in between a great deal of interesting and scholarly material. When I started to discuss some of these things with my father, things similar to what Pope Francis was saying about Our Lady, he said, "Where did you get that idea?" That was when I told him about some of the authors that I was reading: Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, Pierre Tielhard de Chardin. He hit the roof! Why are you reading those dissident theologians? But how was I to know? Everything they said was matching up nicely with what was being said in the pulpit at daily Mass.I had to start from scratch and try to unlearn all the nonsense. But perhaps, Pope Francis never unlearned what he learned in the heretical seminary. After all, it's really not his fault that the cardinals voted him in. Maybe he is doing his best. I know I had no idea that what I was reading was wrong because the heresies were not blatantly taught - they were slipped in between the truth - like chaff among the wheat. Perhaps Pope Francis doesn't know what he doesn't know - if you know what I mean.
I would have to agree with your view, Enoch. I was brought up by a very strict Catholic father but when I was married with kids and I sought to grow in my faith, all that was in the book stands in the back of the parish churches were books by dissident Jesuit theologians. Of course, at the time I didn't know this to be true. And there was no internet at that time, where perhaps someone on a blog could have set me straight. I was just soaking in the heresies, "gloriously ignorant" of the subtle lies hidden in between a great deal of interesting and scholarly material. When I started to discuss some of these things with my father, things similar to what Pope Francis was saying about Our Lady, he said, "Where did you get that idea?" That was when I told him about some of the authors that I was reading: Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, Pierre Tielhard de Chardin. He hit the roof! Why are you reading those dissident theologians? But how was I to know? Everything they said was matching up nicely with what was being said in the pulpit at daily Mass.I had to start from scratch and try to unlearn all the nonsense. But perhaps, Pope Francis never unlearned what he learned in the heretical seminary. After all, it's really not his fault that the cardinals voted him in. Maybe he is doing his best. I know I had no idea that what I was reading was wrong because the heresies were not blatantly taught - they were slipped in between the truth - like chaff among the wheat. Perhaps Pope Francis doesn't know what he doesn't know - if you know what I mean.
I must be getting really dumb. That was the most obvious thing. Merry Christmas!
Characteristic liberal modernist papal flim flam - they just love to make themselves stand out politically acceptable to the rest of the neo-liberal establishment. The post-conciliar papacies are a disgrace. They all have far too much to say for themselves. Francis should follow his own advice about silence. Indeed, it is golden.
None of the post-conciliar papacies really trust Our Blessed Lady because She embarrasses their rabid ecumenism which St Maximilien Kolbe stated is the enemy of the Immaculata. Indeed, this corroborates what Pope St Pius X said about them in anticipation - enemies of the church.
just a reminder, when we stand before the judgement seat, it will include trial by blog posts...... Our popes are not impeccable, they can, gasp, like us, make mistakes, preach on, francis, like benediction & others, preach on....
Mistakes are not the same thing as obvious doctrinal errors, or scandalous comments made in public by a Pope.
Surely, his public witness has not only been unprecedented, but very worrying to those few who are still Catholic.
Maybe you need to pray more before and think more before commenting on blogs?
I feel cheated this personage became Pope.
Pope's are suppose to express hope and lead.
This one encourages disbelief and incoherence.
So what Francis said was correct....as usual....brilliant, compassionate and experienced in real life as he is. Thank you. I have to smile so often at the fearful and laced up little faith of so many, protecting their personally safe little insecurities!
rose
No. Perhaps you didn't bother to read the article.
The "Shocking Pope" schtick is getting old. I'm sure he was making a point, but he seems to have trouble knowing where the lines are that shouldn't be crossed. There is almost an autistic quality to his utterances, where he lacks the empathy to understand how his words are heard by others. However, I will say this. I would not say this about Our Lady. I would not even think it. It would not "ring true" to me. Honestly, I don't know that it would ring true for any mother. I'm not sure anger and a spirit of accusation would be the over-riding feeling at the moment; just deep, deep sorrow. To so portray Our Lady at the foot of the Cross as this Pope has is sickening.
You know the old saying, "Preach the gospel, and if you must, use words." Well Francis is one case of a guy who probably shouldn't use words, because he always gets them wrong.
I'm a mother with an autistic son who at a young age was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes. I can tell you that even though my son wasn't crucified there was certainly anger and confusion about what was going on. I was not feeling lied to, and I did not lose my faith at any point, or even entertain serious doubts, but I was very upset at the unfairness of putting so much on a little boy who could barley speak and had so many challenges already, and I was certainly wondering why. No angel ever came to me and explained what would happen, so I was completely floored, but the anger is possible even without a spirit of accusation. There are very few pains for a mother that are worse than watching your child suffer and being unable to do anything about it.
Oh, and autistics do not lack empathy, which has nothing to do with how someone else takes what you say (which no one can control anyway). They can lack the ability to think before speaking though.
How ironic that Saint Francis of Assisi's prophecy is being fulfilled, in part, by a man who dishonors his namesake.
Where are the Bishop's and Cardinal's protests over this heresy three years ago? Why all the excuses for Francis? Do you not understand where this is all headed? Have you read AA 1025?
I don't have a crystal ball, but aa-1025 was a forgery.
Mary wouldn't have been so self centered and so desirous of human honors to have said any of that, either out loud or even to herself. Her entire being was focused on her son and His mission. Pope Francis is either incredibly stupid or very evil. Either way, it's safe to say he's the worst thing to hit the church is many centuries. I pity him.
I every time used to study piece of writing in news papers but
now as I am a user of net so from now I am using net for articles,
thnks to web.
Comme c'est écrit sur les affiches, du grand cinéma.
He does show shines of 'modernism' and pandering to anthropomorphic Utopian agendas/political forces who built there so called 'peace & safety' using license for moral relativism, oppressing free speech & oppressing religious observance in the public sphere, foster and encourage the painful murder of tens of thousands of helpless children in the culture of death every single year and other such horrors.
Only God know if he is duped or knowledgeable of what he does.
I pray for him every day.
Post a Comment