New interview published June 29…
Francis Denies/Mocks Sacred Scripture: “Woman was taken from a Rib… I’m kidding, that’s a Joke”
In less than 2 weeks, “Pope” Francis, too exhausted to attend to all of his scheduled obligations, has cranked out yet another interview, making it the ninth in total since his election on March 13, 2013, according to our reckoning.
Click here to read the interview in full in English:
The professional blogger/ translator/ traveler/ cook/ businessman/ lecturer/ anything-but-a-real-priest “Father” John Zuhlsdorf has shared his translation of a few lines of text from this interview in which Francis confounds ultra-liberals waiting for “women priests”, and of course, this is something Zuhlsdorf loves to zero in on as it allows him to perpetuate the idea that Francis is somehow a Catholic or a conservative — as though all it took to be a Catholic was to affirm one Catholic thing every once in a while.
What Zuhlsdorf (“Father Z”) conveniently fails to comment on is Francis’ mocking of the divinely-inspired text of Sacred Scripture. Here’s what Francis said, answering a question about the Church being “misogynistic” in her rejection of women priests:
M: You speak, perhaps, little about women, and when you speak about them you take on on issue only from the point of view of motherhood, woman as spouse, woman as mother, etc. But women by now are heads of state, multinationals, armies. What posts can women hold in the Church, according to you?
Francis: Women are the most beautiful things that God created. The Church is woman. Church is a feminine word [in Italian]. One cannot do theology without this femininity. You are right that we don’t talk about this enough. I agree that there must be more work on the theology of women. I have said that we are working in this sense.
M: Isn’t there a certain misogyny at the base of this?
Francis: The fact is that woman was taken from a rib … (he laughs strongly). I’m kidding, that’s a joke. I agree that the question of women must be explored more deeply, otherwise one cannot understand the Church herself.
(Francis Interview with Il Messaggero; translation by Rev. John Zuhlsdorf; red and bold print added for emphasis.)
Francis is alluding here to the inerrant Word of God, which tells us in Genesis 2:18-24:
And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself. And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.
Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.
(Gen 2:18-24; underlining added.)
Laughing heartily about the matter, having alluded to this passage, Francis explicitly says: “That’s a joke.” He points to the true teaching about the creation of woman but then makes fun of it by using it in the context of a joke, in the face of an unbelieving world that dismisses as silly and mythological the creation accounts in Genesis anyway, and pretty much all that reeks of the supernatural in Sacred Scripture. (On this, see also: The Wrong Kind of Joke.)
Obviously, then, Francis does not believe in the divinely inspired testimony of Holy Scripture, as he is feeding the Modernist flame that passionately denies that Eve did indeed come from Adam, and instead dogmatically adheres to the pseudo-scientific fairy tale of evolution. (Yes, these people prefer to believe that the first woman came from a monkey rather than from a man.)
“Ah!”, you say, “but Francis’ words here are ambiguous, and surely he didn’t mean to suggest that the creation of Eve from Adam wasn’t true, or a laughing matter, or that Catholics aren’t bound under pain of mortal sin to believe it.”
Pope Pius VI already grappled with the deliberate ambiguities of the proto-Modernists of his day and pointed out:
In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation.
Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.
(Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei , introd.)
This is what this post is about: denouncing “the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.” You will wait for a long time for the Modernist Vatican to come out and say, “Lest anyone should be deceived by an unfortunate statement made by the Holy Father, we hereby reaffirm and declare that all Catholics must, under pain of mortal sin, believe that Eve was created from Adam’s rib, as recounted in Genesis 2.”
“Ah!”, you then say, “but Genesis 2 isn’t to be taken literally, only in a figurative sense, and Francis is using this as a joke if taken literally!”
Well, well, how much you have fallen prey to the errors of the Modernists already. On June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission responded to a number of questions relating to the sacred text in Genesis 1-3, how it is to be understood, and how Catholics are and are not allowed to interpret it. Here are the relevant excerpts of this decree, refuting the Modernists’ errors on a “figurative” understanding of Genesis 1-3, and specifically the account of the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib:
Question II: Whether, when the nature and historical form of the Book of Genesis does not oppose, because of the peculiar connections of the three first chapters with each other and with the following chapters, because of the manifold testimony of the Old and of the New Testaments; because of the almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers, and because of the traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people, the Church always held, it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth; but are either accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls?–Reply: In the negative to both parts.
Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundations of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil’s persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer?–Reply: In the negative.
(Pontifical Biblical Commission, “The Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis”, Acta Apostolicae Sedis I (1909): pp. 567-569; Denz. 2121-2128; red and blue font, bold print, and underlining added.)
Make sure you read the entire decree, linked in the Denzinger numbers above, for a full understanding of what is and isn’t permissible to hold with regard to Genesis 1-3.
“But,” you may object next, “That’s just some decree of a commission, this is not the Pope speaking, so we can ignore this.” Really? Not so. Pope St. Pius X foresaw precisely this objection, and he condemned and refuted it in his Apostolic Letter Praestantia Scripturae of 1907 against the Modernists, giving full authority to the Pontifical Biblical Commission to bind the consciences of all Catholics:
Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.
Moreover, in order to check the daily increasing audacity of many modernists who are endeavoring by all kinds of sophistry and devices to detract from the force and efficacy not only of the decree “Lamentabili sane exitu” (the so-called Syllabus), issued by our order by the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition on July 3 of the present year, but also of our encyclical letters “Pascendi dominici gregis” given on September 8 of this same year, we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter “Docentes” of the constitution “Apostolicae Sedis,” which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents, as propagators and defenders of heresies, when their propositions, opinions and teachings are heretical, as has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, especially when they advocate the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies.
(Pope St. Pius X, Motu Proprio Praestantia Scripturae, Nov. 18, 1907; underlining added.)
Here is a list of links to the documents to which Pope Pius X in part refers, refuting and condeming the errors of the Modernists:
- Encyclical Vehementer Nos (1906)
- Syllabus of Modernist Errors Lamentabili Sane (1907)
- Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907)
- Encyclical Editae Saepe (1910)
- Apostolic Letter Our Apostolic Mandate (1910)
- The Oath Against Modernism (1910)
- Also: Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis (1950)
In addition to being a temerarious denial of Catholic doctrine regarding the sacred text of Genesis 2, and an implicit denial of the inerrancy of Holy Scripture, Francis’ carefree and casual dismissal of Eve being created from Adam’s rib as a “joke” also has much farther-reaching implications than the immediate and primary context of creation. Why? Because Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib is a type, a foreshadowing, of the creation of the Catholic Church from the side of Christ on the Cross.
The great traditional Haydock Commentary on Holy Scripture notes the following on Genesis 2:21:
Ver. 21. A deep sleep. Septuagint, “an ecstacy,” or mysterious sleep, in which Adam was apprised of the meaning of what was done, and how the Church would be taken from the side of Christ, expiring on the cross. (Menochius)
(Rev. George Leo Haydock, ed., Haydock’s Catholic Family Bible and Commentary ; Genesis ii; underlining added.)
In an encyclical letter published in 1897, Pope Leo XIII teaches: “The Church which, already conceived, came forth from the side of the second Adam in His sleep on the Cross, first showed herself before the eyes of men on the great day of Pentecost” (Leo XIII, Encyclical Divinum Illud Munus, n. 5).
Pope Pius XII, in his gorgeous and lengthy encyclical on the mystery of the Church, refers to Pope Leo’s teaching and elaborates on it, showing not only how the Church came forth from Christ’s side but also how she is endowed with the fullness of salutary gifts to be communicated to men, a task in which she can never fail, in virtue of that very Blood that came from our Lord’s pierced side and His wounded Body:
That [Christ] completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. “And it is now,” says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, “that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is …. molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood.” One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.
And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area — He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [see Mt 15:24] — the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.”
But if our Savior, by His death, became, in the full and complete sense of the word, the Head of the Church, it was likewise through His blood that the Church was enriched with the fullest communication of the Holy Spirit, through which, from the time when the Son of man was lifted up and glorified on the Cross by His sufferings, she is divinely illumined. For then, as Augustine notes, with the rending of the veil of the temple it happened that the dew of the Paraclete’s gifts, which heretofore had descended only on the fleece, that is on the people of Israel, fell copiously and abundantly (while the fleece remained dry and deserted) on the whole earth, that is on the Catholic Church, which is confined by no boundaries of race or territory.
Just as at the first moment of the Incarnation the Son of the Eternal Father adorned with the fullness of the Holy Spirit the human nature which was substantially united to Him, that it might be a fitting instrument of the Divinity in the sanguinary work of the Redemption, so at the hour of His precious death He willed that His Church should be enriched with the abundant gifts of the Paraclete in order that in dispensing the divine fruits of the Redemption she might be, for the Incarnate Word, a powerful instrument that would never fail [note well, SSPX! — NOW]. For both the juridical mission of the Church, and the power to teach, govern and administer the Sacraments, derive their supernatural efficacy and force of the building up of the body of Christ from the fact that Jesus Christ, hanging on the Cross, opened up to His Church the fountain of those divine gifts, which prevent her from ever teaching false doctrine and enable her to rule them for the salvation of their souls through divinely enlightened pastors and to bestow on them an abundance of heavenly graces.
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis , nn. 28-29,31; underlining added.)
How refreshing, how clear, how beautiful is true Catholic papal teaching! What a contrast to the verbose claptrap, the poisoned ambiguous and modernistic drivel we hear from the Vatican II antipopes, who forever prattle on about nothing but “dignity” and “dialogue” and “mutual respect”, who extol heresies and heretics all over under the guise of liberty of conscience!
Jorge Bergoglio’s denial of Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib makes a lot of sense when we consider that just as he denies the factual truth of Eve’s creation in this manner, so he also denies that the Catholic Church has replaced the Jewish synagogue, that the New Law of Christ has replaced the Old Law of Moses, which is now but a “bearer of death” (Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 30):
It is abundantly clear that Francis is not a Catholic but a Modernist, a member of “the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church,” as Pope St. Pius X warned us:
Although they express their astonishment that We should number [the Modernists] amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all but fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.
(Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis , n. 3; underlining added.)
Wisely did St. Francis of Assisi prophesy a “destroyer” on the Chair of St. Peter, rather than a true Pope (see here).
Image source: composite with base element from shutterstock.com