Pope: "Jesus' Cross was a Failure"

[other one]

I guess I must be a super smart dude for I didn't have any trouble understanding what the Pope was saying....   and I'd wager about 99.99% of the people in the USA really didn't pay enough attention to him to even think about it.....   unless they were looking for something to get him over...

[Guest shiloh357]

If you couldn't understand English, I wonder what your theology would look like on Worthy? 

Oh please...  He could have spoken through a translator and could have made the point using good theology.  Language is not a barrier. 

Good theology can be spoken in any language.   This is an issue with the Pope leaving out the most important aspect of true Christian theology.

 

 

“I am certain I have never said anything more than what is in the social doctrine of the church…I follow the church and in this, I do not think I am wrong.”

“Maybe I have given an impression of being a little bit to the left…But if they want me to recite the Creed, I can!”

Pope Francis

And the Nicene Creed -- recited by all at every Catholic Mass -- includes the following:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God...

"For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father...."

But he didn't recite the Creed.  It would have been better to do that than to leave people with the idea that the cross of Jesus was a failure.

Also, in the above quote, he refers to the social doctrine of the Church.   We don't have a "social doctrine."   He is referring to socialism as if social justice and biblical Christianity have anything in common.

Sorry Old School but the more you try to dig him of this hole the worse you make it.

[AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken]

I didn't listen to him speak. 

[OldSchool2]

If you couldn't understand English, I wonder what your theology would look like on Worthy? 

Oh please...  He could have spoken through a translator and could have made the point using good theology.  Language is not a barrier. 

Good theology can be spoken in any language.   This is an issue with the Pope leaving out the most important aspect of true Christian theology.

 

 

“I am certain I have never said anything more than what is in the social doctrine of the church…I follow the church and in this, I do not think I am wrong.”

“Maybe I have given an impression of being a little bit to the left…But if they want me to recite the Creed, I can!”

Pope Francis

And the Nicene Creed -- recited by all at every Catholic Mass -- includes the following:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God...

"For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father...."

I wish you would understand, that doesn't mean anything what people are taught to say. Just because you repeat the Nicene Creed  for 100 yrs doesn't mean you are  born again and saved Christian....

No one said it did -- it only proves the speaker is aware of the articles of the Christian faith.

I wish you would stop making straw man arguments for things that were never claimed.

[OldSchool2]

If you couldn't understand English, I wonder what your theology would look like on Worthy? 

Oh please...  He could have spoken through a translator and could have made the point using good theology.  Language is not a barrier. 

Good theology can be spoken in any language.   This is an issue with the Pope leaving out the most important aspect of true Christian theology.

 

 

“I am certain I have never said anything more than what is in the social doctrine of the church…I follow the church and in this, I do not think I am wrong.”

“Maybe I have given an impression of being a little bit to the left…But if they want me to recite the Creed, I can!”

Pope Francis

And the Nicene Creed -- recited by all at every Catholic Mass -- includes the following:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God...

"For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father...."

But he didn't recite the Creed....

The message Pope Francis preached at St. Patrick’s was from his homily during Mass, and during Catholic Mass the Nicene Creed is recited by everyone as a verbal affirmation of the faith.

You're more than welcome to criticize Francis for espousing junk science, his apparent anti-capitalist stance, etc., but to take an orphan quote out of context is to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

[OldSchool2]

I didn't listen to him speak. 

As he has an accent, it's less painful to just read his homilies.

English is not Francis' strong suit.

[AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken]

As long as he didn't say "¡Yo Quiero Taco Bell!"

[thereselittleflower]

I haven't seen any proof that he has lied.....       and your article definitely was not accurate...   so where do I go....   Malachi was in a position to know and Pope Paul VI gave him permission to write about these things and put him in a position to do so;  John Paul II carried on with it.....   that's the simple truth.  Malachi was an exorcist and an active priest holding mass occasionally up until the day he died.....     and if he was such a terrible person, the popes would not have let him stay in the Church.   Certainly would not let him hold Mass.

I'm honestly confused, other one, by your statement he never lied.   

He lied about his affair with Mary.  He lied about it to her husband, to his fellow priests, to his superiors.   He even went so far in his lying to make her husband, and others, believe her husband was suffering from a psychological illness for even thinking that there was an affair going on. He did so with the expertise and finesse of an accomplished, practiced liar.   His character is one of complete untrustworthiness.   This is why he was stripped of his priestly duties and authority.

This revelation of such serious deficiencies in his character is why I have no trust for anything he wrote about, especially in works of fiction. I would not use him as a source of valid information.

Edited September 30, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[other one]

I haven't seen any proof that he has lied.....       and your article definitely was not accurate...   so where do I go....   Malachi was in a position to know and Pope Paul VI gave him permission to write about these things and put him in a position to do so;  John Paul II carried on with it.....   that's the simple truth.  Malachi was an exorcist and an active priest holding mass occasionally up until the day he died.....     and if he was such a terrible person, the popes would not have let him stay in the Church.   Certainly would not let him hold Mass.

I'm honestly confused, other one, by your statement he never lied.   

He lied about his affair with Mary.  He lied about it to her husband, to his fellow priests, to his superiors.   He even went so far in his lying to make her husband, and others, believe her husband was suffering from a psychological illness for even thinking that there was an affair going on. He did so with the expertise and finesse of an accomplished, practiced liar.   His character is one of complete untrustworthiness.   This is why he was stripped of his priestly duties and authority.

This revelation of such serious deficiencies in his character is why I have no trust for anything he wrote about, especially in works of fiction. I would not use him as a source of valid information.

I'm talking about in his books.....    and it's not just him that is a testimony as to the truthfulness of the books.....   Paul VI and John Paul II did not question his books, nor did they stop him from his priestly duties, especially his exorcisms.....       none of us are perfect and none of us experience sinless lives.....    and my goodness if you are going to set things up that one has to be perfect or near to be listened to or read, who in your Church could speak or write in public....

[thereselittleflower]

I haven't seen any proof that he has lied.....       and your article definitely was not accurate...   so where do I go....   Malachi was in a position to know and Pope Paul VI gave him permission to write about these things and put him in a position to do so;  John Paul II carried on with it.....   that's the simple truth.  Malachi was an exorcist and an active priest holding mass occasionally up until the day he died.....     and if he was such a terrible person, the popes would not have let him stay in the Church.   Certainly would not let him hold Mass.

I'm honestly confused, other one, by your statement he never lied.   

He lied about his affair with Mary.  He lied about it to her husband, to his fellow priests, to his superiors.   He even went so far in his lying to make her husband, and others, believe her husband was suffering from a psychological illness for even thinking that there was an affair going on. He did so with the expertise and finesse of an accomplished, practiced liar.   His character is one of complete untrustworthiness.   This is why he was stripped of his priestly duties and authority.

This revelation of such serious deficiencies in his character is why I have no trust for anything he wrote about, especially in works of fiction. I would not use him as a source of valid information.

I'm talking about in his books.....    and it's not just him that is a testimony as to the truthfulness of the books.....   Paul VI and John Paul II did not question his books, nor did they stop him from his priestly duties, especially his exorcisms.....       none of us are perfect and none of us experience sinless lives.....    and my goodness if you are going to set things up that one has to be perfect or near to be listened to or read, who in your Church could speak or write in public....

 

Yes they did remove him from his priestly duties.  He was actually laicized.  

In a letter from the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, the following is stated:

"In 1965, Mr. Martin received a dispensation from all privileges and obligations deriving from his vows as a Jesuit and from priestly ordination."

Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, 25 June 1997, Prot. N. 04300/65

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 30, 2015 by thereselittleflower