Hey Mark, I can’t stand Pooch’s nonsense either, but I think you are way out of bounds being so crude with calling him that name.

Thanks for the fraternal correction.
Before using the term I gave it considerable thought and it seemed commensurate with his subversion, but, since your mention, I will reconsider.

PoochDouche's "Pope" says his favorite painting is White Crucifixion, the painting that prays that the Holy Name of Jesus and memory of Him is blotted out.

It is disturbing that Pope Francis would identify the White Crucifixion as his favourite painting.  I think that Marian Horvat's article on the subject explains this well (whatever one may think of the author):

Christ crucified is in the center, but Chagall himself said later, it is by no means a ‘Christian’ picture. The scenes that surround the Cross - a shattered village, a pillaged burning ѕуηαgσgυє – tell its real meaning. It is a Christ who symbolizes the Jєωs who suffered at the hands of the nαzιs.

It is, however, inaccurate to claim that it is a "painting that prays that the Holy Name of Jesus and memory of Him is blotted out."  The painting portrays the inscription over Our Lord in Hebrew characters which translate to "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jєωs."    The word it uses for "Jesus" is "Yeshu" the usual modern Hebrew word.  It is plausible but debatable that the origin of the word Yeshu goes back to a тαℓмυdic insult, in which the name of Our Lord was replaced by a similar sounding blasphemous acronym.  It is also possible that the spelling of His name changed because people left out a silent letter, a typical linguistic process.  Linguists disagree.   (Personally, I think the argument for the blasphemous origin is stronger.)

But even if the current spelling originated from a blasphemy hundreds of years ago, that does not mean that everyone who uses it now intends blasphemy.  People are often unaware of etymology.  For example, the vast majority of people who use the word "goodbye" do not intend the blessing "God be with ye" and do not even know that is where the word came from.  There is no evidence that the painter Marc Chagall used the word "Yeshu" to blaspheme Our Lord.  On the contrary, such a meaning does not really fit the overall theme of the painting.

But even if Chagall did mean "Yeshu" in a blasphemous way, there is no reason to think that Pope Francis is aware of this obscure bit of linguistic trivia and this is his reason for liking the painting.  There are good reasons to see his liking of this painting as problematic (see the linked article), but not these improbable speculations.  It makes more sense to focus on the more definite problems.

Similarly, there are many well-attested direct quotes from Francis that are open to criticism for lack of orthodoxy/clarity.  It makes more sense to focus on these than to try to build a case on second-hand statements from an unreliable source.  According to the Vatican statement, Francis did not say the recent quote attributed to him, nor anything with a similar meaning, nor did he even discuss the topic with Scalfari recently. 

Using weak arguments makes a proponent of a position look like he is grasping at straws.  These kinds of criticisms of Francis give the impression that a person is so desperate to find something bad to say about Francis, that one will say anything regardless of how reasonable or probable it is.  No matter how much dislikes Francis or wishes to prove he is not the pope, one needs to apply critical judgment to the evidence one uses.  

The assessment of evidence should be independent of whether or not it supports a conclusion we like.  Scalfari is not a reliable witness and people should be able to see this regardless of their position on the Crisis.

Why do so many people say this?  If he's not a reliable witness, why would Bergoglio keep going to him?  It's really that simple.  Would you keep giving interviews to a man who consistently misstates your words, causing scandal to all his readers?  I was absolutely ready to say he was unreliable after the first and even the second interview.  When Bergoglio gave the third interview, I became convinced that Scalfari was accurately describing Bergoglio's words.

According to the Oct 10 press conference: "both the quoted remarks and the free reconstruction and interpretation by Dr. Scalfari of the conversations, which go back to more than two years ago, cannot be considered a faithful account of what was said by the pope.”

Taking these words at face value (whether or not we can believe them is another issue) Pope Francis did not recently give another interview to Scalfari.  The journalist is basing his comments on his memories of conversations that happened at least two years ago when he last interviewed Francis.  This alone would make it unreliable even if the person were not in his 90s and not an atheist.  Multiple sources attest that Scalfari admits that he did not take notes and relies on his memory for what he says about Francis.

Pope Francis is on record saying, "The grace which was revealed in our world is Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, true man and true God," in this homily  Scalfari is the only witness to the alleged heresy and it contradicts what Francis has taught publicly.  It is weak testimony.  

There is no point in considering any of the Scalfari claims, when there are so many acknowledged verbatim quotes that are open to criticism.  The case against Francis is stronger when we use high quality evidence rather than throwing in anything we can thing of that is remotely possible.

Ok Sean, so how do you decide when he teaches falsely? Are you infallible or just making an educated guess? Who are you to decide? Are you more Catholic than the pope?

He decides the same way protestants interpret the bible. Jєωgorglio can come out tomorrow and declare hail satan and still be considered their pope. I had a talk with a retired priest who denied there is a heaven. These are sick people, any sane catholic should realize the vatican 2 sect and Jєωgorglio are not part of the Catholic Church, but the ѕуηαgσgυє of satan

According to the Oct 10 press conference: "both the quoted remarks and the free reconstruction and interpretation by Dr. Scalfari of the conversations, which go back to more than two years ago, cannot be considered a faithful account of what was said by the pope.”

Taking these words at face value (whether or not we can believe them is another issue) Pope Francis did not recently give another interview to Scalfari.  The journalist is basing his comments on his memories of conversations that happened at least two years ago when he last interviewed Francis.  This alone would make it unreliable even if the person were not in his 90s and not an atheist.  Multiple sources attest that Scalfari admits that he did not take notes and relies on his memory for what he says about Francis.

Pope Francis is on record saying, "The grace which was revealed in our world is Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, true man and true God," in this homily  Scalfari is the only witness to the alleged heresy and it contradicts what Francis has taught publicly.  It is weak testimony.  

There is no point in considering any of the Scalfari claims, when there are so many acknowledged verbatim quotes that are open to criticism.  The case against Francis is stronger when we use high quality evidence rather than throwing in anything we can thing of that is remotely possible.

And yet, within the next year or two, Bergoglio will give this man another interview and all the while, he will never directly state that this last interview statement is false.

Whether one needs Scalfari's interviews or not, it is without doubt that the reported statements are essentially true.

I'm don't have your amount of time to spend on the internet engaging in useless arguments.
You are a rude and nasty young man.  Your use of that word told me all I need to know about you, and I do not want anything more to do with you and your constant virtue signaling.
I'm putting you on ignore.

I totally agree. I too put Mark 79 on ignore a couple of months ago. I'm glad that this forum has that option.

 …The painting portrays the inscription over Our Lord in Hebrew characters which translate to "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jєωs."    
 
 No. As the closeup shows, the word is not "Jesus," but Yeschu.
 
 
 
 The word it uses for "Jesus" is "Yeshu" the usual modern Hebrew word.  
 
 
 
 The word it uses for "Jesus" is "Yeshu" the usual modern Hebrew insult.
 
 
 
 It is plausible but debatable that the origin of the word Yeshu goes back to a тαℓмυdic insult, in which the name of Our Lord was replaced by a similar sounding blasphemous acronym.  
 
 
 I smell the rabbis' lying claim that the тαℓмυd is "just a series of debates," a lie urging us to ignore the plain language imprecations against Jesus Christ, His Church, and His New Chosen People.
 
 Perhaps it is also "plausible but debatable" that this slut uses Yeschu unknowingly:
 
 
 https://www.bitchute.com/video/jxWjkMBmh14v/
 
 
 It is also possible that the spelling of His name changed because people left out a silent letter, a typical linguistic process.  Linguists disagree.   (Personally, I think the argument for the blasphemous origin is stronger.)
 
 
 Perhaps such linguistic drift accounts for this recent Israeli art exhibit:
 

 
 But even if the current spelling originated from a blasphemy hundreds of years ago, that does not mean that everyone who uses it now intends blasphemy.  People are often unaware of etymology.  For example, the vast majority of people who use the word "goodbye" do not intend the blessing "God be with ye" and do not even know that is where the word came from.  
 
 
 Rabbinical dissembling akin to their "We don't believe that any more" when they are caught red-handed in their misanthropy, blasphemy, and perversion.
 
 You want to pretend it is "plausible but debatable" that Jєωs innocently use the slur? Then why are they teaching this?
 
 http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm
 
 More linguistic drift?
 
 There is no evidence that the painter Marc Chagall used the word "Yeshu" to blaspheme Our Lord.  On the contrary, such a meaning does not really fit the overall theme of the painting.
 
 Moishe Zakharovich Shagal, the Lithuanian Chasid of a fervently religious family, painted Jesus dressed as a Chasid, a sartorial style and cult that did not even exist until the 19th century. Moishe Zakharovich Shagal painted rabbis flying in the air over Jesus where angels should be. Moishe Zakharovich Shagal painted a burning ѕуηαgσgυє and a "pogrom." Moishe Zakharovich Shagal painted painted "Yeschu" (whose name and memory should be blotted out) as central to the woes of the haters of Jesus Christ. In his autobiography Moishe Zakharovich Shagal self-reported his mission to preserve Kabbalistic traditions (Kabbalism is foundational in all orthodox Judaism, especially in Chasidism)—and you want us to belive the Yeschu is accidental.
 
 I say "rubbish" to your exculpation.
 
 
 But even if Chagall did mean "Yeshu" in a blasphemous way, there is no reason to think that Pope Francis is aware of this obscure bit of linguistic trivia and this is his reason for liking the painting.  
 
 
 Are you serious? Do you think we are stupid enough to buy that absurdity? That blasphemy is merely "linguistic trivia,"  something only a Jєω would assert? Jorge has been studying with the rabbis for decades. He is pals with the worst of them, gifted with their works. Their influence, as I have frequently docuмented here, pervades Jorge's teaching, including  Yeridah Tzorech Aliyah (descent for ascent, a.v., sin to become holy). Do you want to tell us Jorge's "Jesus sinned and made Himself the devil" is not recognizably тαℓмυdic?
 
 
 There are good reasons to see his liking of this painting as problematic (see the linked article), but not these improbable speculations.  It makes more sense to focus on the more definite problems.
 
 
 There is nothing "improbable" about Jorge spouting тαℓмυdic rubbish and blasphemously enjoying the Yeschu inside joke. Recall that Jorge's newspaper recommends daily тαℓмυd study.
 
 



 
 Similarly, there are many well-attested direct quotes from Francis that are open to criticism for lack of orthodoxy/clarity.  It makes more sense to focus on these than to try to build a case on second-hand statements from an unreliable source.
 
 
 There is nothing "second hand" about Jorge naming his favorite painting.
 
 
  According to the Vatican statement, Francis did not say the recent quote attributed to him, nor anything with a similar meaning, nor did he even discuss the topic with Scalfari recently.
 
 
 As if the disputed nature of the alleged "Jesus was a man" exculpates Jorge's indisputably docuмented "Jesus sinned and made Himself the devil"?
 
 
 
 
 Using weak arguments makes a proponent of a position look like he is grasping at straws.  
 
 
 Using the rabbis tricks makes you look like someone who has not shed the lineage of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan.
 
 
 These kinds of criticisms of Francis give the impression that a person is so desperate to find something bad to say about Francis, that one will say anything regardless of how reasonable or probable it is.  No matter how much dislikes Francis or wishes to prove he is not the pope, one needs to apply critical judgment to the evidence one uses.  
 
 

 
 
 
 The assessment of evidence should be independent of whether or not it supports a conclusion we like.  Scalfari is not a reliable witness and people should be able to see this regardless of their position on the Crisis.
 
 
 Scalfari had nothing, not one damn thing, to do with:
 
 Jorge's well-docuмented embrace and evangelization of the тαℓмυd;
 
 Jorge's spouting тαℓмυdic go and sin theology;
 
 Jorge's chosen favorite painting; and
 
 Jorge's statement that "Jesus sinned and made Himself the devil."