Author Topic: Bergoglio teaches that Jesus just pretended to be mad (Read 1359 times)

StCeciliasGirl · « **on:** December 02, 2013, 12:39:24 PM »

Quote from: Bergogio this weekend

In the Gospel, Jesus does not become angry, but pretends to when the disciples do not understand him,

From Fr. Blake's Blog (very funny post, by the way), quoting the much-beleaguered news.va (Vatican News site).

But the comments are where you get that sudden bout of nausea we're all so familiar with (you'd think one would get used to it, but you really don't!). Comment 1 starts with the usual, "Oh, oh bad translation" because, you know French is one of the harder languages to translate.

(Of course, the Vatican hasn't yet "re-translated" their French to the correct form, but why try since the re-translation doesn't help any, I guess.)

No really, go read the Vatican sermon. This Fr. Blake guy is right: Frank doesn't think Jesus+ ever got mad. Ever. Or could ever get mad.

Frank's doing more damage to the Gospel than Luther EVER did, and that's saying something.

Another nugget from Bergoglio:

Quote from: berGOGlio

While the spirit of the world wants us to take a “restricted path,” Saint Paul warns that the “spirit of the world treats us as thought we lack the ability to think for ourselves; it treats us like people who are not free”

Yes indeed: DON'T TAKE THE NARROW PATH! Take the large, wide, EASY path that allows us to think for ourselves!

:heretic:

I'm not quoting any more. Just hadn't seen this here yet.

LoverOfTradition · « **Reply #1 on:** December 02, 2013, 01:25:10 PM »

Well then, if Jesus just pretended to be mad, then what else could He have pretended to do? Could He have pretended to give us His Body and Blood?

This just gets scarier. We must pray for this poor man. The damage he's been causing is catastrophic. This is a serious statement to make!

StCeciliasGirl · « **Reply #2 on:** December 02, 2013, 01:26:43 PM »

The Vatican site removed the "not", so now the sentence merely makes no sense:

Quote from: news.va

The Pope said that, in order to understand the signs of the times, a Christian must think not only with his head, but also with his heart and spirit. Otherwise, he cannot understand the “way of God in history”:“In the Gospel, Jesus does become angry, but pretends to when the disciples do not understand him. At Emmaus he says: ‘How foolish and slow of heart’. ‘How foolish and slow of heart’… He who does not understand the things of God is such a person. The Lord wants us to understand what happens, what happens in my heart, what happens in my life, what happens in the world, in history… What is the meaning of what is happening now? These are the signs of the times! On the other hand, the spirit of the world gives us other propositions, because the spirit of the world does not want a community: it wants a mob, thoughtless, without freedom.”

So they just removed one word so far; I screenshotted this one. Can't wait for them to "re-re-re-translate" it again. SOMEONE at the Vatican has a hard job!

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** December 02, 2013, 01:34:01 PM »

Now, the difference between Our Lord's anger and most of our episodes of anger is that while due to Original Sin our anger typically acts on its own and not in due order, not in submission to the will, Our Lord's was under the direct control of His Will. When Our Lord became angry, He did so as a deliberate act of His Will, motivated by charity.

So that's probably Bergoglio's motivation for these theologically inept statements, i.e. trying to say that Our Lord never lost control the way we do and wasn't driven by passion (i.e "irascibility", which along with concupiscence is a passion that's capable in our fallen state of acting independently of the will).

To that end, I'd like to see the original language word for what is translated as "pretend". If it means more something like "presented Himself as angry" or "exhibited anger", meaning that it was a deliberate manifestation of His Will, rather than a passion (an uncontrolled impulse), then I'm on his side there.

Frances · « **Reply #4 on:** December 02, 2013, 01:59:47 PM »

:confused1:The Pope is incapable of clear expression so he needs Ladislaus to explain what he means? There's a job opening in Menzingen for Lad's skills!

StCeciliasGirl · « **Reply #5 on:** December 02, 2013, 02:17:14 PM »

I don't know, Ladis: think I'm going to have to go with the Apostles and the Church Fathers on this, and say Jesus was righteously ANGRY AS ALL GET OUT when he cleansed the Temple. I don't think anyone should even suggest that Our Lord pretended to be angry, especially when Jesus+ SAID He didn't come to bring peace, but a sword.

How might one twist THAT around? And worse yet: WHY would one twist that around?! The APOSTLES didn't mind telling the TRUTH, and they wrote it out when trying to get the masses Baptised, so they REALLY had a problem with original sin, and yet they still TOLD THE TRUTH. (Because they had the Holy Ghost guiding them.)

What comes from the Vatican is not mistranslations, but lies. You don't intentionally LIE about the Truth to avoid misunderstandings with the public —unless you're a demoniac, of course.

2Vermont · « **Reply #6 on:** December 02, 2013, 03:14:58 PM »

Methinks it isn't Christ who is pretending.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** December 02, 2013, 04:21:45 PM »

SCG, I didn't say that Our Lord wasn't angry. If in fact Bergoglio said that he was only pretending, then that's almost a borderline heretical view of Jesus, implying that He wasn't fully human.

But Our Lord never lost His patience, was never overtaken by emotion; any act of anger on His part was also at the same time a perfect act of charity and of patience. It is only we who in our fallen natures lose our patience and lose control of our anger.

Most people have heard about concupiscence, the attraction in our fallen nature to desire things against our will. Irascibility, however, most haven't heard of. It's the corollary or opposite, the repulsion against things that we find unpleasant or undesirable. Human beings experience these things as "passions" even against their will.

When Our Lord became angry, it's because He WILLED to be angry out of charity and justice. I'm suggesting that this is what Bergoglio may have been grappling with in coming up with his term and that perhaps it may be a translation issue where the original does not mean "pretend" so much as something like "willfully exhibited" or "displayed", etc.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** December 02, 2013, 04:22:46 PM »

Quote from: Frances

:confused1:The Pope is incapable of clear expression so he needs Ladislaus to explain what he means? There's a job opening in Menzingen for Lad's skills!

I'm actually lobbying for a Vatican post. It would certainly be a full-time job (official damage control / spin / PR person) and then I could move to Rome.

2Vermont · « **Reply #9 on:** December 02, 2013, 05:34:00 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

If in fact Bergoglio said that he was only pretending, then that's almost a borderline heretical view of Jesus, implying that He wasn't fully human.

When Our Lord became angry, it's because He WILLED to be angry out of charity and justice. I'm suggesting that this is what Bergoglio may have been grappling with in coming up with his term and that perhaps it may be a translation issue where the original does not mean "pretend" so much as something like "willfully exhibited" or "displayed", etc.

To say Christ pretended would mean that Christ was deceitful.

As for a possible translation issue, it's such a tiring excuse (and I know you're just playing Devil's advocate again). I've never seen such a misunderstood pope.

Frances · « **Reply #10 on:** December 02, 2013, 06:50:50 PM »

:dancing-banana:I hear the Freemasons' benefit package is great! Do be sure to remember the rest of us!

Charlemagne · « **Reply #11 on:** December 02, 2013, 08:04:16 PM »

I'm actually looking forward to the day Bergoglio pretends to canonize JPII and John XXIII.

OHCA · « **Reply #12 on:** December 03, 2013, 01:49:49 AM »

Quote from: Charlemagne

I'm actually looking forward to the day Bergoglio pretends to canonize JPII and John XXIII.

I don't know that I'm looking forward to it. Why are you?

Wonder if God will exhibit some anger for Bergy when he attempts that?

I am becoming less & less patient with the contrived excuses for him. His statements regarding Christ--my pastor & teacher but the Father is my Being; muddling the concept of the Holy Trinity; and now this--ignore the divinity of Christ and make him a Confucius/Buddha/Mohmmad-like figure.

Charlemagne · « **Reply #13 on:** December 03, 2013, 08:19:51 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Charlemagne
I'm actually looking forward to the day Bergoglio pretends to canonize JPII and John XXIII.

I don't know that I'm looking forward to it. Why are you?

Because I'm hoping against hope that it'll make at least some conciliarists open their eyes to the fact that he leads a false religion.

SJB · « **Reply #14 on:** December 03, 2013, 08:32:11 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ladislaus
If in fact Bergoglio said that he was only pretending, then that's almost a borderline heretical view of Jesus, implying that He wasn't fully human.

When Our Lord became angry, it's because He WILLED to be angry out of charity and justice. I'm suggesting that this is what Bergoglio may have been grappling with in coming up with his term and that perhaps it may be a translation issue where the original does not mean "pretend" so much as something like "willfully exhibited" or "displayed", etc.

To say Christ pretended would mean that Christ was deceitful.

As for a possible translation issue, it's such a tiring excuse (and I know you're just playing Devil's advocate again). I've never seen such a misunderstood pope.

Maybe his "humility" will cause him to refrain from any further speaking in public.