Monday, January 4, 2016

DId Boy Jesus Apologize for Staying Behind at Temple?

Fr. Z. has a good treatment of the latest oddity from Pope Francis: that Jesus had to apologize to Mary and Joseph for His lovable Bart Simpsonesque prank in not joining the caravan.
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 “escapade”, 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. 
Jesus is God. God does not apologize because He is never in the wrong, never causes offense (although some may find reason to be offended by Him).

When Pope Francis imagined Mary shaking her fist at God from the foot of the cross, he was pulling the same trick. The characters in the gospels, whether Mary or Jesus, must first and foremost be human.

Pope Francis does not exhibit much in the way of a sense of the supernatural. His thinking seems unusually concrete for an ordinary Catholic with a healthy devotional life, let alone a pope. Perhaps he has difficulty understanding the stories. He knows the words, but he cannot follow the music.

Another possibility is that he is trying to make the gospel figures "accessible," to his audience and retain their attention by turning them into entertaining, purely human stories. It's almost like he has WAIT FOR LAUGHS penciled in after, "For this little “escapade”, Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents." Ha, yes, that little scamp Jesus! Good one Holy Father. I can totally see my boy doing something like that.

Whatever his reasons, the gospel doesn't need to be spiced up, dumbed down or obscured with ill-informed speculation.

Our man Jorge -- still putting the "lio" in Bergoglio.


  1. It's like the Pope suddenly started comparing The Finding of Jesus in the Temple to an episode of Seinfeld, and then expected me to get some sort of revelation out of it once he'd brought it down to my level.

    Oh that kooky Holy Family, now for a message from our sponsors...


  2. Scripture is not a useless diary of what Jesus
    did today in his twelve year. The Lord is to be
    ponder, presumption can misread, mislead and

  3. Now comes Jergio Bergoglio, like Hosanna Obama, in full apology mode, assuming that others--this time Jesus--must apologize for crimes they did not commit. This is the attitude of people who are not proud of who they are or what they do. It is clearly a sign of weakness and lack of faith in who and what they represent.

  4. It really seems like he didn't understand the story. How sad is that? The fifth joyful mystery! - I think i just found some compassion for Pope Francis. And in this new light; "Like rabbits"; is it possible this man lacks even the understanding of the blessings of children? Pray for him.

  5. I think you're right, and Pope Francis is trying to make the Biblical figures "human." The fact that they're already human, except that Jesus is fully human AND fully divine, seems to escape him. I've said all along that he's got a pedestrian intellect (at best, and I was trying to be charitable); but he may also be the type that thinks that every thought of his is "inspired" by the Holy Spirit.

    I was away for just over a week, with my husband's family in another part of the state. I have no smart phone so had little access to the internet -- and the respite from Francis's inanities was wonderful.

    By the way, " ... still putting the lío in Bergolio" -- brilliant! Made me laugh out loud.


  6. Hatchetwoman you are correct. He once said "listen to what I say, that's magisterium." He actually thinks his every utterance is infallible by virtue of being pope - - assuming his election was valid. As Bear once said, his flawed human personality has swallowed the office of the papacy completely and he's now terribly confused.

    Little escapade. Amazing. Does he even recall that all the doctors of the law were "amazed" at his intelligence and wisdom - - at 12??? I think not.

  7. Bear, Maybe it is the case that Bergoglio learned his Christology in the Catechism which teaches that Jesus sinned.

    The Universal Catholic Catechism on Scandal

    2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

    2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.

    2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion. Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible." This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

    2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"

    And then read what it teaches about Jesus and Scandal:

    587 If the Law and the Jerusalem Temple could be occasions of opposition to Jesus by Israel's religious authorities, his role in the redemption of sins, the divine work par excellence, was the true stumbling-block for them.

    588 Jesus scandalized the Pharisees by eating with tax collectors and sinners as familiarly as with themselves. Against those among them "who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others", Jesus affirmed: "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." He went further by proclaiming before the Pharisees that, since sin is universal, those who pretend not to need salvation are blind to themselves.

    589 Jesus gave scandal above all when he identified his merciful conduct toward sinners with God's own attitude toward them. He went so far as to hint that by sharing the table of sinners he was admitting them to the messianic banquet.But it was most especially by forgiving sins that Jesus placed the religious authorities of Israel on the horns of a dilemma. Were they not entitled to demand in consternation, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" By forgiving sins Jesus either is blaspheming as a man who made himself God's equal, or is speaking the truth and his person really does make present and reveal God's name.

    ABS doesn't know who wrote or edited this execrable entries but, objectively, the Catechism teaches that Jesus gave scandal; i.e., gravelly sinned

    1. Scandal comes from a Greek word meaning skandalon which means something that causes one to stumble. It doesn't have to be a sin. In fact, Jesus Himself is a skandalon, or stumbling block. I think we have two meanings of "scandal." The first is placing a stumbling block causing people to sin. But then we have Jesus as a stumbling block to truth. Indeed, look in Matthew 21:42 where Jesus describes himself as a stone. B ear doesn't see any problem with this. You should read the catechism in context, or it is easy to go astray.

    2. So the Pharisees were stumbling, but they were stumbling on Jesus. Or perhaps they have switched to the more ordinary English usage of causing one to be morally outraged.

  8. Bear. With all due respect, you introduced extraneous matter into the subject, with the subject being what the Catechism teaches and not what it leaves out.

    Now, one could also cite Spirago-Clarke, "The Catechism Explained" which, on pages 387-388 deals with scandal in an orthodox fashion.

    Now, all that you say is well within Tradition but the entries in the Catechism are not in continuity with Tradition for the Catechism charges Jesus with an action that the Catechism defines as a sin.

    The Catechism does not define active and passive scandal, as it should if it is writing these entries this way.

    Me and thee likely remember Jesus (fish with coin) speaking about the necessity of not causing a scandal...

    other examples abound and can be found in Aquinas, Augustine etc.

    However, the Catechism is a product of the new theology and..well, read it and weep.

    The Universal Catechism and the Pope who approved it give scandal.


  10. I've seen St. Alphonsus Liguori quoted elsewhere on this:

    "It is certain that, to a soul which loves God, there can be no greater pain than the fear of having displeased Him. Therefore in this sorrow alone did Mary complain, lovingly expostulating with Jesus, after she had found Him: “Son, why hast Thou done so to us? Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing” [Lk 2:48]. By these words, she had no idea of reproving Jesus, as heretics blasphemously assert, but only meant to express to Him the grief proceeding from the greatest love she bore Him, which she had experienced during His absence: ‘It was not a rebuke,’ says Denis the Carthusian, ‘but a loving complaint.’"

    "As heretics assert" - because one says something like this does not mean that one is a heretic, however coupled with the litany of other oddities, it all appears to be of a piece.

  11. Bear. ABS understands the reluctance to come to grips with scandalous error in a universal catechism, for who wants to seriously have to think about the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church being so careless - to the point of sin - with the Divine Person, Jesus Christ?

    However, ABS does not think your critical antennae were up when you read the entires for you responded with what is essentially a reading on indirect scandal which, although not part of any of the entries on scandal, is perfectly orthodox.

    But, note this well, the catechism itself teaches, that is the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches that such indirect scandal is itself sinful;

    2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"

    Look, the plain and simple truth is these entires are indefensible and they are so indefensible that our will to disavow this scandal prevents our own eyes from even seeing the enormity of their evil; the entries teach Jesus Christ, Our Creator, Redeemer, Lord, and Saviour, is a sinner.

    1. Not reluctant. The Bear will not impose an absurdity upon a text when there is a logical way to read the text as making sense. There is a term of art, "scandal," and then there is the more common meaning "to be outraged." Do you really think the Catechism is meaning to claim that Jesus Christ committed the sin of scandal? With all due respect this is like a Protestant who seizes upon some proof text out of context and keeps banging away at it. The Bear understands your reluctance to accept the catechism give you by the plain old Catholic Church. The fact that it speaks ill of the death penalty is enough for trads to reject it. The whole thing is therefore untrustworthy, so sure, the CCC was written to accuse the Second Person of the Holy Trinity of committing sin. Patent nonsense.

  12. Your defensiveness is noted and understood. You can not accept that such an abomination undeniably appears in a universal catechism and so you are constrained to accuse me of bad intent (ABS as Aqualung?)

    There has been no imposing of an absurdity on the part of ABS for the very words of the catechism is an indictment all on its own whereas ABS merely pointed it out to you.

    And, admit it, when you wrote what you did about indirect scandal (jan 5th) you did not even realise the Catechism itself also condemns that as a sin.

    ABS will drop it but the stark scandal is solely the doing of the man/men who wrote those entries, the editor who approved them for publication, and the Pope who promulgated it.

    Men sometimes wonder why Jesus seems to have withdrawn much (not all, obviously), of His Grace from the Hierarchy and His Church and all manner of reasons are advanced for this partial withdrawal of Grace but few point to these entries as a possible reason; rather, when it is pointed out to them, they accuse the messenger of bad intent.

    The intent of ABS has been to have these entries rewritten for they are unworthy words about Our Lord and Saviour, careless and cavalier words that are wholly unacceptable when speaking about one's spouse.

    One can't imagine the Bear publicly accusing his spouse of scandal even if she had caused scandal, but we are supposed to tolerate such cavalier ingratitude when such teachings issues from His spouse even though Jesus did not give scandal.

    O, and as for intent, ABS has written to his Bishop - he is perfectly fine with the entires - and twice written to the CDF and has received not even notice the complaint was received to say nothing about acknowledging a problem exists.

    1. ABS, chill. Drink some good liqueur. Watch a bit of Caddyshack. Eat a fish. Read a book on brain surgery.

      The Catechism's incompleteness is no reason to accuse its writers and editors of ascribing sin to Our Lord. You're right that they should have been careful enough to be precise and thorough with the definitions of scandal, but the Catechism is not meant to be a complete, self-sustaining black box of theology. It acknowledges other sources and can reasonably expect people to reference them.

  13. The Catechism's incompleteness is no reason to accuse its writers and editors of ascribing sin to Our Lord.

    2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "

    J. That is a lie of galactic proportions. It has NEVER been taught by the Church that indirect scandal is a sin' rather, the opposite has always been taught - that indirect scald is not a sin. Surely, you can now see and understand that this blasphemous heres ought not be allowed to stand, especially considering that heresy is directed against the Divine Person, Jesus Christ?

    J. You can remain willfully blind and ignore the blasphemy about Jesus Christ set before the world by the Church but the words are undeniably clear.

    O, and have you stopped to consider that this is the first time any Catechism promulgated by the Church/Pope has ever identified any person as one who gave scandal.

    There has to be a reason why the Church chose to teach that Jesus gave scandal (it teaches that twice) and so ABS would like an explanation and any advice to ignore the blasphemy sound like bad advice to anyone who loves His Lord and Saviour; there has to be a reason why the Church chose to identify, for the first time in its history, a person as one who,two times, gave scandal.

    ABS would like to know the reason for that would would be as indefensible as the actual words of these execrable entries which, collectively, represent a just cause to burn every single copy of the catechism in existence.

    Now, ABS will drop the subject again - unless comments are directed to him - and thank you, Bear, for your patience.

  14. Many priests seem to lack a sense of the supernatural, and a mere naturalism comes across in their homilies and even in the way they conduct the liturgy (lack of gravitas in handling the Eucharist, for example - twitches and extraneous moves in handling it as if inattentively handling a neutral object)


Moderation is On.

Featured Post

Judging Angels Chapter 1 Read by Author

Quick commercial for free, no-strings-attached gift of a professionally produced audio book of Judging Angels, Chapter 1: Last Things, read...