"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. "

http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-the-christian-life-proclaims-the-road-to-reco

"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. "

http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-the-christian-life-proclaims-the-road-to-reco

???

I will have to ponder on this statement for a while.  

It sounds, at first glance, that Bergoglio is putting a whole new definition and assigned his own prejudices to Our Lord.  It may actually be even more repugnant than that.  I will have to spend time running it through my mind.

 :dancing-banana:
Francis seems to misunderstand the horror of sin.  Jesus "became sin for us" and was put to death.  We are to put to death sinning, not to sin afresh!  If one were to tell the priest in Confession he wants forgiveness for the purpose of sinning again, should he expect to be absolved?  Here is an example of what Protestants do, collecting Bible verses out of context and using them to justify self.

Pope Francis became a heretic for them[/i] , gαys, atheists, protestants and Jєωs.

The faithful are just a fashion and the only people going to hell are self-absorbed traditionalists.

The choice is clear, you either follow Francis or you follow Jesus.

This is even more blasphemous than thinking Mother Mary might have born ill-will toward her Son.

Saying Our Lord "became a sinner for us " in context or out is just unthinkable.  Do the Protestants even go this far?

Nobody who worships Christ as Lord, in any way, could say this. I daresay not even Moslems would appreciate having one they consider an "imam" described in such a fashion.

They're going to have to go with the "gravely mistranslated" excuse. I know the Vatican's been to that well many times, but Bergoglio risks losing his newly "nabbed" evangelical tongue speakers — and his goal is unity, not disunity. (Hopefully not unity in sin, but who knows. Time will tell, I suppose.)

But I expect a huge retraction.

Quote from: StCeciliasGirl

But I expect a huge retraction.

The thing is this was a homily from June.  We haven't heard of a retraction, but then again, this is the first I'm hearing of the homily at all.

OP:  Did you search this and find it or is it just getting reported?

Thank you for the correction; I see it now (the date). I think that's when we were in Rome. I don't know: we returned the day James Gandolfini passed away (thought I'd have those dates burned into my brain because it was scorching hot there, and we opted to ditch Rome and head down south). Dates must be close to this article, though.

So I did a search on the URL looking for linkbacks (who was discussing it), and it turns out this was one of the many MANY terrible mistranslations Bergoglio has been afflicted with. (NCRegister warning.) Yep. "Mistranslation."

Of Italian.  

Well at least his new friends the Copelands can speak in tongues with him.  :alcohol:

A bad translation (sic) that the Vatican has left up in its so-called "mistranslated" form.  :scratchchin:

Here's the original in Italian. I used Bing's and Google's translators and, sure enough, got the opposite meaning that is supposedly in the Italian. I don't much trust the translations though, as any ding dong is able to "make a better suggestion" or offer a translation, and since Radio Vat hasn't changed their site, as far as I know, Bergoglio said exactly what the English page reads.

The NCRegister woman can soak in that Vatican heresy all she likes. They've left up the scandalous "mistranslation" for the English-speakers to wallow in for 8 months, and it is still blasphemy. I think the message is crystal clear.

I think it's pretty official that Francis is a heretic. Even if not overtly so. It will always seem very, very fishy to me that he constantly borders on blasphemy. You can only blame mistranslation so much before the language barrier issue stops being effective defense against all manner of heresies.
Even if we tossed out everything he said, all we need do is look a what he does. We have on worldwide news that he celebrated with Jєωs in a Jєωιѕн liturgical service. Then, he accepted the laying on of hands by some nutjob evangelicals. (Montanism was condemned in the third century.) This is false worship and an act of superstition, if I am remembering correctly. Then, one has to ask how many times have our popes participated in acts of false worship and superstition?

I'm going to keep going over this in my mind, but I really do think we have been cursed with bad popes. I really wanted to like Francis at first. But it's hard to like a pope who isn't even Christian.