CathInfo.com

what do you mean by that?
Who is paraphrasing what?

On second thought, maybe Poche meant that Bergoglio was paraphrasing Saint Paul. If that’s the case, what rotten evil kind of person would use the word “devil” in place of the word “sin”?

Sorry Jaynek, that IS heresy, “strictly speaking”, and he knows it. He admits it! And....guess what? He doesn’t care one iota! All your excuses, cringing, and wishful thinking is for naught.

You do not seem to have understood my position.  I am saying that he habitually teaches in a way that fosters confusion and/or heretical ideas by using ambiguity that allows him to maintain deniabilty.  This is not an excuse for him. I think that what he is doing is arguably worse than simple heresy.  It's a sort of meta-heresy.  It is not simply weakening faith in specific doctrines, but a pervasive pattern of behaviour that undermines the belief that orthodoxy in general is an important and desirable value.  He is also eroding the authority of the Church.  

The passage that you cited is one of the clearest examples of the problem.  In it, he shows that he is aware of what he is doing and does not care.  He therefore seems to be engaging in deliberate malicious ambiguity.  This is a characteristic  of modernism which, as Pascendi says embraces all heresies, so you can make a case for calling it heresy.  But I don't think that this is precise enough or strong enough language to describe what is wrong.

If you were to tell me that a certain person were committing adultery and I responded that it was not strictly speaking adultery but rather fornication, that would not be "excuses, cringing, and wishful thinking."  It's a matter of wanting exactly the right word to describe a sin, not a denial that a sin has been committed. 
 
If you want to argue with somebody, Poche seems interested in defending Francis.  I'm not.  Everything that I have written has been recommendations to criticize him using the strongest arguments, the best evidence, and the most precise language.  I suppose you can disagree if you want, but, in that case, disagree with what I am actually saying.  Don't make me out to be a defender of something that I can't stand.

Yes, that is true.  But that is not the issue here.  In modern Hebrew, there are two different names that are translated as "Jesus".  One of them "Yeshua" is neutral.  The other "Yeshu" may have pejorative connotations.  There is a good case that it originated as a play on words, sounding similar to the actual name while being an acronym for a curse.

I was making the point that, since people are usually unaware of the origins of words, we cannot assume that everyone who uses the word "Yeshu" intends it as an insult.  Mark made a good argument that the specific person in question, the painter, Chagall, would have had the background to be aware of the etymology and probably did intend it as an insult.  His evidence went a long way to convincing me, but I still see it as a debatable point.  I still think that there are far clearer reasons to object to the painting "White Crucifixion" and to be disturbed by a pope identifying it as a favourite.

"The other "Yeshu" may have pejorative connotations. "

The other "Yeshu" does have pejorative connotations.

Why are you so loathe to admit that?



"Mark made a good argument that the specific person in question, the painter, Chagall, would have had the background to be aware of the etymology and probably did intend it as an insult."

I also provided evidence that the video slut and Jorge himself have "the background to be aware of the etymology" of the insult.

Why are you so loathe to admit that?



"I still think that there are far clearer reasons to object to the painting "White Crucifixion" and to be disturbed by a pope identifying it as a favourite."

Then let's hear those "far clearer reasons."   What is worse than calling for Jesus and His Holy Name to be obliterated?