Posted on 01/04/2016 1:53:48 PM PST by BlatherNaut
Jesus asked God the Father to forgive others. He never asked anyone to forgive Him.
Well, okay, he asked Mary Magdalen to forgive Him, but that was only a movie.
To be serious, there is a simple and obvious reason why Jesus never asked anyone to forgive Him: He never committed a sin.
That's because, while fully man, he was also fully God, and God doesn't commit sins, even, you know, small ones.
Incredibly, the Pope (the Pope!) doesn't seem to understand or believe this. In his homily for the feast of the Holy Family he claimed (emphasis in red): At the end of that pilgrimage, Jesus returned to Nazareth and was obedient to his parents (cf. Lk 2:51). This image also contains a beautiful teaching about our families. A pilgrimage does not end when we arrive at our destination, but when we return home and resume our everyday lives, putting into practice the spiritual fruits of our experience. We know what Jesus did on that occasion. Instead of returning home with his family, he stayed in Jerusalem, in the Temple, causing great distress to Mary and Joseph who were unable to find him. For this little “escapadeâ€, Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents. The Gospel doesn’t say this, but I believe that we can presume it. Mary’s question, moreover, contains a certain reproach, revealing the concern and anguish which she and Joseph felt. Now, of course, if we believe the Bible account, we know what really happened. Jesus didn't beg forgiveness when His parents finally found Him. Instead: When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You." And He said to them, "Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father's house?" But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them.… In my view, that's one of the most memorable passages in the New Testament. Through a window of 2,000 years you can feel the concern, and then the astonishment, of Mary and Joseph. They were worried about their son, as any parents would be. Interestingly, though, while they get an answer they didn't expect--"I was in My Father's House"--an answer that in the mouth of any other child would have been interpreted as obnoxious at the least, they do not reproach Him or box his ears, etc. Rather, Luke records them as being merely puzzled. I think they were also awed. They knew their son was heaven sent, even if they did not yet know He was God.
But back to the Pope. He makes statements that no knowledgable and faithful Christian would ever make. He either doesn't know his Christian teachings or he disagrees with them.
I do not think any more that he believes that Jesus was the Son of God.
Is the Pope Catholic? Well, he was baptized, obviously, and he was confirmed as a Catholic and then as a priest. So. in that sense, of course he's a Catholic. On the other hand, in terms of subscribing to Catholic teachings, the evidence suggests that the answer would be no.
*************************************************************
A word on sources. This homily is taken from the Official Vatican Network. But I was directed to it by Novus Ordo Watch. The funny/unfunny blog title picture is from their post. Novus Ordo Watch is a sedevacantist group. I am not a sedevacantist, and there's about as much chance of me ever becoming one as there is of me opening up a brothel in Tangiers or becoming a Sufi . . . or being elected President of the United States. If you have read many of my posts, you will also see that I disagree with the Novus guys on a great many matters.
But you know what? Aside from falsely (in my view) believing that the Pope is NOT the Pope, they've been more right and less wrong about Pope matters than the majority of Catholic bloggers. Give them some credit, unless you're one of those people who has an inordinate fear of what other people think.
Pray for them. And pray for all of us.
In the eyes of the “pope” it appears he believes Mary was sinless, but not Christ, so who does he worship? I think we can tell that it’s Mary over Christ.
Crafty is different from smart.
Being sensitive is a different thing, BXVI was very sensitive in his writings about Jesus and Mary. Bergoglio is sentimental - that is, he reduces everything to a sort greeting card version without any depth of feeling (remember, Bergoglio got along very badly with his own Italian immigrant parents, whom he regarded as bourgeois) and also with no understanding of the fact that he is talking about God made man.
The words are not mutually exclusive.
Perhaps. He's certainly an unabashed Martini Modernist.
Martini Pope. The Dream Come True
"Jesuit, archbishop of Milan and cardinal, he was the most authoritative and highly praised antagonist of the pontificates of Wojtyla and Ratzinger. His supporters see today in Francis the one who has inherited his legacy. And is putting it into practice"
Pope Francis:
"For this little "escapade", Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents. The Gospel doesn't say this, but I believe that we can presume it."
Pope St. Pius X:
"We, Venerable Brethren, for whom there is but one and only truth, and who hold that the Sacred Books, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, have God for their author (Conc. Vat., De Revel., c. 2) declare that this is equivalent to attributing to God Himself the lie of utility or officious lie, and We say with St. Augustine: In an authority so high, admit but one officious lie, and there will not remain a single passage of those apparently difficult to practise or to believe, which on the same most pernicious rule may not be explained as a lie uttered by the author wilfully and to serve a purpose. (Epist. 28). And thus it will come about, the holy Doctor continues, that everybody will believe and refuse to believe what he likes or dislikes. But the Modernists pursue their way gaily..."
(PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X ON THE DOCTRINES OF THE MODERNISTS)
You denigrated the style, though. Style and content are different things.
That would be even a worse state of affairs.
It’s almost like the whole cast of characters is the church’s puppet show to say what they want about it.
Somewhere there has got to be a stopping point... somewhere?
The fundamental problem is that BOTH are presuming to have some kind of say about the bible that isn’t actually taken as coming from the bible. Pius takes the defense approach, but the important thing it seems here, is that it has to be defended by the church... not that we can count on it to stand as the written form of the voice of God. Defending something too vigorously actually tends to make it look like it’s depending on you.
Oh, and also upholding and defending aren’t the same thing. The Protestants upheld the bible... Pius defended the bible... not the same thing.
Nitpicking.
Not nitpicking — it’s a question of the authority assumed in the person doing it.
So the Pope “doesn’t seem” to understand Jesus was sinless.
As usual, the qualifier.
He isn’t the first I have heard deny the Incarnation. First Pope though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.