Frank 28 Oct talk

(Vatican Radio) At the centre of Pope Francis’ homily on Monday morning was the passage from the Gospel of Luke during which Jesus remained in prayer throughout the whole night before choosing the twelve apostles, and he pointed out that Jesus continues to pray and to intercede for us.

Speaking to those gathered at Casa Santa Marta for Mass, the Pope said that by praying to God to choose his apostles, Jesus was “putting together his team together” – and afterwards a great number of people came to be with Him and to be healed by Him, because “power was coming Him and healing them all”. And he referred to three different rapports Jesus has: “Jesus and the Father, Jesus and his Apostles, Jesus and the people”. And the Pope pointed out that “Jesus prayed to the Father for the Apostles and for the people”. And he said: he is still praying.

Jesus has saved us, he said, with his prayers, with his sacrifice, with his life. He is gone now and he continues to pray – the Pope said – but does that mean that Jesus is a spirit? Jesus – he underlined – is not a spirit! He is a person, a man with flesh like our flesh, but in the glory of God. He said Jesus has wounds on his hands, on his feet and on his side. And when he prays he shows the Father the price of our salvation. Pope Francis said: “it is as if he is saying: Father, may this not be lost!”

So prayer stems from Jesus who prays and intercede for us.

“We often say to each other: pray for me. I need prayers. I have so many problems”. And that is good – Francis pointed out – “because we are brothers and we must pray for each other”.

And the Pope says he prays to Jesus to pray for him and intercede for him.

He concluded saying that He prays for all of us, and he does so courageously, showing the Father the price of our redemption: his wounds.

We must think about this – concluded the Pope – and we must thank the Lord. We must thank him for giving us a brother who prays for us and intercedes for us. And speaking to Jesus we must say: “Lord, you have saved me. And now pray for me”. “It is to him we must entrust our problems, our life and many other things so that He may take them to the Father”.

I suppose I shouldn't have looked at a Frank sermon had best stay away from such sites as Vatican Radio, but, well, now I'm physically ill-feeling, and I've got to ask:

Who would Jesus pray TO?

I know He prayed ON EARTH. But then He rose again and ascended into Heaven &c. I've always prayed TO +Jesus God, and also asked the Saints for intercession. I know we pray in nomine Christis, but even as a toddler that was one thing that was clear as day to me. The Trinity.

Even the Protestants seem to understand that +Jesus DOES actions (That song, "Jesus take the wheel" — they don't sing, "Jesus, pray that someone else take the wheel".)

Doesn't this seem a bit like what got ironed out at Nicaea in the 4th C?

I got the impression from his "the Father is my Being" and "Jesus is my teacher and pastor" comments in the infamous interview that he does not hold Catholic beliefs regarding the Holy Trinity.

Matthew 7:13-20

Yes, this seems strange. Whenever we pray a litany we always ask Jesus to "have mercy on us" and we ask the saints including Mary to "pray for us."

Everything is relative.  Anything can mean anything at any given time.  Nothing really matters.  Truth, errors.  Right, wrong.  Good, evil.  Doctrine, heresy.  God, Satan.  Whatever man.

Jesus was said to be "praying" for us in the Gospel of St. John.  Yet the Latin word there is "rogo" and not "oro".

Nevertheless, over the years, the term pray has taken on a specific theological meaning so that it should NOT be used of Jesus.

Jesus INTERCEDES for us with the Father, but is never said to "PRAY" for us.  Could we ask our Lady to "have mercy on us"?  In a way, she can have mercy (from the Latin misericordia or pity / compassion), but mercy has taken on a specific theological meaning whereby it's only ever used of God in any official context (e.g., prayer or liturgical text), since it now connotes forgiveness of sins, which only God can do.

At the very least this represents Bergoglio's complete theological incompetence and muddle-headedness.  At worst it could be another do to suggest that his thinking is Arian.

He's probably not smart enough to even understand what Arianism is.  I'm actually starting to suspect that he doesn't believe Jesus to be a son of God in any sense different than we are sons of God.

I my days at Jesuit High School, I met many Jesuits who didn't really believe that Jesus was God.

Good old Franz Josef Van Beeck at Loyola University of Chicago.  I suppose I was a masochist to go from a Jesuit High School to a Jesuit University.

He was teaching that the Gospels were written after 70 AD.  I asked him what the evidence for that was.  He responded by saying that it was due to references in the Gospels to the Fall of Jerusalem.  So I answered, "You mean the prophecies of Our Lord?  So you're saying that you don't believe that Jesus, being God, was capable of knowing the future?"  He gritted his teeth like he wanted to kill me.

At another time, he kept talking about contradictions among the different Gospels.  So I asked him to point one out.  So he said, "If the angel told Mary in Luke that she would conceive of the Holy Spirit, then how was it that in Matthew Joseph didn't know where Mary's child had come from?"  I calmly responded, "She didn't tell him."  You could practically hear him dropping a load in his pants.

One of my brothers, who went to the same Jesuit High School said, "Ah, we met Francis years ago, and many Francises, at St. Ignatius."

I remember another Jesuit priest asking the class, "Does a Mass takes place if the priest celebrates it without anyone else present?"  After about five heretical responses, I raised my hand and said, "Of course it does." [I was the first to say that.]  He said, "Well, the Church would agree with you."

He used to crack himself up by telling the following story in class:  Some modernist Jesuit theologian was stunned by an announcement that archeologists had discovered the bones of Jesus.  Another modernist asked him why that would shock him so much.  He responded, "I just can't believe it.  He actually existed."

Just the latest installment of The Francis Files. I just hope he keeps spewing his non-Catholic BS so that his myopic defenders eventually have to admit the obvious: the man is an apostate. Of course, his apologists would defend him if he came out onto the balcony of St. Peter's and announced that he would be canonizing Judas Iscariot. But hey, Roger Mahony and Timothy Dolan are in communion with him, right?