FrankenPope: We must not focus on the words of Christ

FrankenPope: We must not focus on the words of Christ

Francis Santa MartaIn his Santa Marta homily given earlier today, the God of Surprises (aka Jorge Bergoglio) once again took the occasion to mangle Sacred Scripture in order to justify his departure from the Catholic faith; in this particular case, as it concerns marriage.

Today’s victim text was the Novus Ordo Gospel reading taken from Mark 10:1-12 – familiar words that bear reconsidering:

Jesus came into the district of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds gathered around him and, as was his custom, he again taught them. The Pharisees approached him and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” They were testing him. He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?” They replied, “Moses permitted a husband to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.”

But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

In the house the disciples again questioned Jesus about this. He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

As reported by Vatican News:

The Gospel passage for the day, from the Gospel of St Mark, speaks of the intentions of the Pharisees, who asked Jesus a question precisely in order to test Him. Pope Francis described questions of this kind, about what you can or can’t do, as casuistic.

Let’s stop here for a moment to define (in Catholic terms) this word, casuistic.

According to Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary:

Although the term [casuistry] has taken on some unsavory meanings, due mainly to critics of Roman Catholic moral practice, casuistry is an integral part of the Church’s moral tradition. Its purpose is to adapt the unchangeable norms of Christian morality to the changing and variable circumstances of human life.

In other words, casuistry is the entirely valid process of justly applying a moral norm to a given situation; e.g., when applying Thou shalt not kill to a case of self-defense, one may reasonably conclude that the taking of an aggressor’s life can at times be justified.

In a situation such as this, it is understood that the Decalogue concerns the taking of innocent human life. We see this reflected in the Church’s traditional teaching on capital punishment.

In the present case, “Francis” (as he has come to be known) is determined to relegate Thou shalt not commit adultery, and the words of Our Lord on marriage as recorded in the Gospel passage under discussion, to a moral norm that can be adapted according to certain “concrete circumstances.”

This, needless to say, is a novelty that has no place in Catholic tradition; indeed, on the contrary, it has been condemned.

Be that as it may, according to Vatican News:

He [Francis] explained: “Not the great ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ with which we are familiar. This is God.” Instead, the Pharisees reduce the Christian life, the way of following God, to a question of “yes, you can,” or “no, you can’t.”

So, in order to accept the Bergoglian exegesis, one must believe that when questioned about the lawfulness of divorce, Our Lord simply shrugged His shoulders and essentially said: GeeI dunno… I guess it depends on the circumstances!

Clearly, this is a wholesale fabrication from someone who hates the Catholic faith and her Head; one that stems from the Bergoglian Christological heresy that I’ve mentioned in this space many times – Francis doesn’t really believe that when Jesus speaks this is God speaking.

Our Lord’s words are very plain; they are precisely the “no, you can’t” that Francis rejects. If you reread his words above carefully, you will see that, in essence, he is accusing Jesus of being a “Pharisee” in the most pejorative sense!

This is nothing new as his insistence in Amoris Laetita that the Divine Law is too difficult for some persons to keep amounts to turning Our Lord’s admonition of the Pharisees against Him: You shut the Kingdom of Heaven to men and do not lift a finger to help them!

According to Bergoglio, speaking on the Gospel passage (again, as reported):

Jesus “lays aside the problem of separation, and goes to the beauty of the couple,” who ought to be one.

The Pope continued:

We must not focus, like these doctors do, on [the answer] “Yes, you can” divide a marriage, or “No, you can’t.”  At times there is misfortune, when it doesn’t work, and it is better to separate in order to avoid a world war. But this is a misfortune. Let us go and look at the positive.

This guy can spin toe-to-toe with the slimiest of politicians!

Jesus was asked about adultery. He was not addressing “the problem of separation” at all; much less those cases when (for example, for the safety of a woman and her children) physical separation is warranted.

The headline to the Vatican News piece reads, “Pope Francis: Marriage is an image of God.” The one I chose for this post, however, is far more accurate.

It is reported by Vatican News:

Man and woman are created in God’s image and likeness; and for this reason, marriage likewise becomes an image of God. This makes marriage very beautiful, the Pope said. “Matrimony is a silent homily for everyone else, a daily homily.”

Nice try, but don’t be fooled. Bergoglio is a modernist and thus is wont to pervert the meaning and force of things and words (cf Pope Leo XIII, Ut Mysticum, and Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis).

As such, when he speaks of “marriage,” be aware that he is not speaking of such as the Church understands it; rather, he is, in the manner of liberals and liars, citing the word “marriage” while deliberately seeking to impart to it an entirely novel meaning.

Recall his address to the Ecclesial Convention of the Diocese of Rome in 2016 (available in Italian) wherein he spoke of cohabitating couples:

Yet I really say that I saw so much fidelity in these cohabitations, so much loyalty; and I am sure that this is a true marriage, they have the grace of marriage, precisely because of the loyalty they have. But there are local superstitions.

So, you see, Bobby and Susie are shacking up, with one or both of them perhaps presently married to another, and provided only that they stick it out for some undefined period of time, voila, it’s a marriage! And not just a natural marriage, mind you, but one endowed with God’s grace; i.e., it’s a sacrament!

What we’re witnessing in today’s homily is nothing other than a transparent ploy (transparent to those with eyes to see, at any rate) to avoid at all costs the non-negotiable words of Christ.

And why? For the simple reason that Bergoglio disagrees with Our Lord.

Over the last five years, many of us have grown numb to these magnificent attacks against the Faith, but take a step back and consider what Francis is telling the world:

We must not focus on what Jesus actually said, nor on what the Holy Catholic Church has always taught; rather, I am in charge, you must listen to me!

And this is a Catholic speaking?

For those who still insist (in particular, those who fancy themselves defenders of tradition), that Jorge Bergoglio remains a member of the Mystical Body of Christ in good standing (never mind his claim to the papacy), I will ask yet again in the hopes that even one will demonstrate the integrity to answer:

Is there anything this man can do to sever himself from the Church?

Get AQ Email Updates

8 comments on “FrankenPope: We must not focus on the words of Christ

  1. null
    Not many priest-concelebrants or others in the audience. Is FrankenPope losing followers in the Nuovo Roma Motel 6 chapel – as he is at his Wednesday public audiences in St. Peter’s square?

  2. From today’s (Friday Year 2 of the 7th Week in Ordinary Time) Novus Ordo Gospel reading from Mark 10: “Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
    The translation is from the latest (third) version of the USCCCP’s NABRE (New American Bible, Revised Edition) Bible which replaced the Douay-Rheims-Challoner version familiar to most English-speaking Catholics in America (and elsewhere in the world) before Vatican II.
    I say “latest”, because another translation of the New Testament of that Bible is in the works.
    The latest version of the New Testament has the advantage of being a “formal equivalent” or “as literal as possible” translation, unlike its predecessor in the NAB (New American Bible), which was a “loosey-goosey” or “dynamic equivalent” translation. Nonetheless, NABRE has the problem of starting out well with certain verses (especially some familiar to many pre-V2 Catholics) and then falling flat on its face (or elsewhere) with a sloppy dynamic-equivalent rendition (especially substituting an “inclusive” word or expression for a “sexist” one in the traditional translation). Thus, “Let no man put asunder” becomes “No human being must separate”.
    If the translators were so obsessed with purging sexist language, they could have substituted “one” for “man”, thus keeping the familiarity of that verse.
    I opine that the verse could be interpreted to mean that non-human beings (such as monkeys or robots) could replace people on marriage tribunals – or are they already there in view of the many annulments quickly granted on flimsy grounds?

    • Nice post.
      Oh, and “must separate” is utter retardation.
      If you must use the word ‘must’, you can, but you must use it correctly. As the previous sentence shows, the word means ‘to be obliged’.
      So, “no human being must separate” means no human being is obliged to separate. Which of course means that you actually can, if you want to, but you don’t have to if you don’t want to.
      (Assuming that he had to use the stupid ‘human being’ part) the translator should have said “A human being must not separate”.
      See what I just did there? Syntax is *important* in English. Merely moving the negative particle to another part of the sentence has restored the meaning of the original, which the translator corrupted.
      Could be the translator was just an incompetent poser. Most are these days. But it is strange how all these mod squad translations, since even before Vat II, in all their totally ridiculous and redundant multitudinousness, have one thing in common: they corrupt the sense of the original.
      That is not an accident. The old Challoner Douay is a good and readable translation, very faithful to the Vulgate, which in turn is sufficiently faithful to the Greek and Hebrew originals. There has never been a need for another — unless you don’t like the *meaning* of the originals, and want to invent your own Bible.

  3. Am I correct that I have just read that this Pope has told a practicsing homosexual that God made him that way and that he (the Pope) thinks it is fine? The news came to me via Lifesite News.
    If this is correct then, as far as I am concerned, this Pope has now crossed one one line too many and needs to be asked to stand down, unless, of course, he retracts his many heterodox and scandalous statements.

  4. In the past week alone, THREE lines have been crossed:
    1. The private audience report.
    2. Cor Orans’ extermination effort against contemplative nuns.
    3. The case of deliberate abuse cover-up as detailed by Elizabeth Yore.
    Each item has been reported on by AQ. And each provides substantial reason for Francis’ removal from office, effective immediately, on canonical as well as theological grounds.

Leave a Reply