More Blasphemy from Chaos Frank
Francis claims St. John the Baptist doubted whether Christ was the True Messiah!
He fell entirely silent for Italy’s Family Day, but now that that is over, Francis the Pretend-Pope is back to spouting blasphemies against God and the saints and heresies against the Holy Catholic Faith. On February 5, 2016, the prescribed Gospel reading in the Novus Ordo liturgy was Mark 6:14-29, in which we read about the beheading of St. John the Baptist. Francis used the occasion to speak about another but related Gospel passage, Matthew 11:1-6, which also mentions the Baptist:
And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he passed from thence, to teach and preach in their cities. Now when John had heard in prison the works of Christ: sending two of his disciples he said to him: Art thou he that art to come, or look we for another? And Jesus making answer said to them: Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen. The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in me.
Commenting on this passage, Francis had the audacity to say that St. John was not sure whether Jesus of Nazareth was truly the Messiah! Have a look at the news report from Vatican Radio:
Pope Francis took his congregation beyond the text of the Gospel, inviting them to enter into John’s cell, to look into the soul of the voice crying out in the desert, of the one who baptized the crowds in the name of Him who was to come, the one who was now weighed down not only by the iron chains that bound him in his prison, but by the shackles of some doubt, despite everything:
“But he also suffered in prison – let us say the word – the interior torture of doubt: ‘But maybe I made a mistake? This Messiah is not how I imagined the Messiah would be.’ And he invited his disciples to ask Jesus: ‘But tell us, tell us the truth: are you He who is to come?’ because that doubt made him suffer. ‘Was I mistaken in proclaiming someone who isn’t [who I thought]?’ The suffering, the interior solitude of this man. ‘I, on the other hand, must diminish, but diminish thus: in soul, in body, in everything…”
(“Pope Francis: God triumphs through humility”, News.va, Feb. 5, 2016; underlining added.)
The outrage of this blasphemy is staggering, but we wonder if anyone in the audience even noticed or cared.
Let us now proceed to show why Francis’ interpretation is wrong and an insult to St. John the Baptist, and then we will examine what the correct interpretation is.
What Francis is asking us to believe is that St. John the Baptist, of whom our Blessed Lord said that “there hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than” him (Mt 11:11), doubted whether Jesus Christ was the true Messiah, and that he did so despite the fact that….
- he was sanctified by Christ in the womb (Lk 1:41)
- his entire mission was to identify the true Messiah and lead people to Him, a role he fulfilled perfectly (Jn 3:26-36)
- he recognized our Lord and pointed Him out to the people: “The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world. This is he, of whom I said: After me there cometh a man, who is preferred before me: because he was before me” (Jn 1:29-30,36; cf. Jn 1:15)
- he baptized our Lord and saw the Heavens open and heard the voice of God the Father testifying: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mt 3:16-17)
- he himself said that he recognized the Son of God when the Holy Ghost came down upon Him at His baptism: “And I knew him not; but he who sent me to baptize with water, said to me: He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and I gave testimony, that this is the Son of God” (Jn 1:33-34)
- he recognized our Lord and said to Him: “I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me?” (Mt 3:14)
And despite all this, Francis leads his hapless sheeple to believe that this great man, St. John the Baptist, thought to himself, “But maybe I made a mistake? Was I mistaken in proclaiming someone who isn’t [who I thought]? This Messiah is not how I imagined the Messiah would be”?! This is outrageous!
Think about it: Since St. John’s only role was to lead people to the true Messiah, in the spirit of Elias (Mt 11:14; Jn 1:6-8; Lk 1:17; cf. Mal 3:1), if even he didn’t know for sure who the true Messiah was, then what would have been the point of God sending him? What was he doing? He would have simply been a blind man leading the blind (cf. Mt 15:14; Mt 23:24). Besides, if St. John the Baptist had suspected that Jesus of Nazareth was perhaps not the true Messiah after all but a charlatan — oh, the blasphemy! —, it hardly would have made much sense for him to ask for confirmation, for obviously no deceiver will tell you he is a deceiver just because you kindly ask him. So, what Francis is saying here is not only insulting and outrageous to the nth degree, it is also completely boneheaded, as usual.
The question that still remains to be answered, however, is this: What, then, do we make of the Scriptural text, which says very plainly that the Baptist sent two of his disciples to ask the Lord Jesus whether he is the Messiah? Does this not indicate that he had doubts? Why would St. John send his disciples to ask that question?
Thankfully, we need not go very far to find the answer. All we need to do is consult a traditional Catholic Bible commentary, such as the one provided by Fr. George Leo Haydock, included in the famous Haydock Bible, available online here or in print here. The following is Fr. Haydock’s commentary on Mt 11:2-3 (“Now when John had heard in prison the works of Christ: sending two of his disciples he said to him: Art thou he that art to come, or look we for another?”):
Ver. 3. Art thou he that is to come? (Greek, who cometh?) i.e. the Messias. John the Baptist had already, on several occasions, declared that Jesus was the Messias. (John i). He could not then doubt of it himself, but sent his disciples to take away their doubt. (Witham) — St. John the Baptist sent his disciples not to satisfy his own doubts, but for the sake of his disciples, who, blinded by the love they bore their Master, and by some emulation, would not acknowledge Christ to be the Messias. (St. Chrysostom in Baradius) — This expression of St. John is much taken notice of, as conveying with it a very particular question. “Tell me, says St. John, now that I am departing out of this world, whether thou art coming to redeem the patriarchs and holy fathers; or wilt thou send another?” (St. Thomas Aquinas) — And St. Chrysostom also explains it thus, Art thou he that art to come to limbo? but the Baptist omitting this last word, sufficiently indicated to our Saviour what was the purport of this question. St. Jerome and St. Gregory say, that by his death, he was going to preach to the holy fathers that Christ, the Messias, was come. John does not here propose this question as ignorant of the real case, but in the same manner as Christ asked where Lazarus was laid. So John sends his disciples to Jesus, that seeing the signs and miracles he performed, they might believe in him. As long, therefore, as John remained with his disciples, he constantly exhorted them to follow Jesus; but now that he is going to leave them, he is more earnest for their belief in him. (St. Thomas Aquinas)
(Rev. George L. Haydock, Commentary on Matthew 11:3, Haydock’s Catholic Family Bible and Commentary [New York, NY: Edward Dunigan and Brother, 1859]; underlining added; italics given.)
What a different picture now emerges from that given by the False Pope in Rome! It was not to settle his doubts that St. John the Baptist wanted the disciples to ask Jesus if He was truly the Messiah — he had none himself — but to help put away their doubts and uncertainties.
Francis totally ignores the orthodox explanation given by the various Saints and Scripture authorities quoted above, and instead causes scandal in his hearers, claiming that St. John the Baptist pondered in himself whether he had perhaps given testimony not to the true Messiah but to a charlatan! The blasphemy is revolting and sickening!
Then again, this is nothing new for Francis. He once claimed the very same thing even about the Blessed Virgin Mary, that she too had doubts right at the foot of the Cross, asking herself if perhaps God had lied to her! Don’t believe it? Or don’t remember it? Here is the original story:
As you can see, Francis is no stranger to blasphemy. In addition to the above, his track record also includes all of the following, and then some:
- Bergoglio jokes about the Crucifixion of Christ
- Francis says the Church is like the Blessed Mother – and has Flaws
- Francis tells People Not to Fear the Last Judgment
- Francis’ Favorite Painting contains Blasphemy against Jesus Christ
- Francis kisses Crucifix with Occult Symbolism
- Francis says “God does Not Exist” but the Three Persons do
- Francis dedicates Medal with blasphemous Hammer-and-Sickle Crucifix to the Virgin Mary
- “God is Father and Mother”: Bergoglio’s Transgender-God
- Francis claims Jesus had to “Beg Forgiveness”!
In all this, one cannot help but be reminded of these words of Holy Scripture: “And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven” (Apocalypse 13:6).
Image source: photopin.com (Catholic Church of England and Wales)
License: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
He is infallible but this was not proclaimed infallibly.
Infallibility is not the point. Catholicism is. “Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 Jn 9). Francis proclaimed heresy. Heretics are not members of the Catholic Church. That’s the issue. Although a Pope does not always have to be infallible, he does always have to be a Catholic.
What a ridiculous opinion contrary to basic rationality. The Pope doesn’t have to be a Catholic really? What do you mean by that and who made you the judge? The Pope has always been infallible and never impeccable. Even if the Pope is wrong in this matter (I believe he is) that does not mean he is not the Pope nor that infallibility has failed. Interpreting scripture in a way contrary to your opinion does not make Pope Francis a heretic. Claiming that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church makes you one.
All of this is discussed at length throughout our web site. Of course the Pope has to be a Catholic at all times, else he could not be the head of the Catholic Church.
Your main error is to think that the Pope can teach heresy as long as he doesn’t do it under the protection of infallibility. That’s false.
The gates of hell have prevailed only if Francis IS Pope, not if he isn’t:
As for the objection, “Who made you the judge?”, that was masterfully answered by Fr. Felix Sarda in his book “Liberalism is a Sin”, which received the endorsement of the Vatican under Pope Leo XIII:
So you are claiming that if the Pope utters heresy even under non infallible conditions he is no longer Pope? You are going to have to go back far further than Vatican II if that is the made up standard you are asserting.
More than forty years after his death, Pope Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites,
“and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”.
Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, “And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.”
The Sixteenth Session adds: “To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!”
What does infallibility have to do with any of this? Any Catholic, if he becomes a heretic, ceases automatically to be a member of the Church. That goes for a Pope as much as for a Fr. Martin Luther or anyone else. (Although I want to point out that I do not believe that a true Pope CAN become a heretic — I do not believe Francis was ever a valid Pope to begin with.)
You only have half the story about Pope Honorius. The whole story was very well explained by Fr. (later Cardinal) Louis-Nazaire Begin and can be found here: