Christ Became Sin Freeing Us TO Sin : Gospel of Pope Francis
Pope Francis Extract:
(Emphasis added) Source"What is reconciliation? Taking one from this side, taking another one for that side and uniting them: no, that’s part of it but it's not it ... True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us. When we go to confession, for example, it isn’t that we say our sin and God forgives us. No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say: 'This is your sin, and I will sin again'. And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission: to become the sinner for us, to liberate us. "
See also attached pdf below
This is the faith I have been taught:
Christ paid the price for my sins. He took the punishment that my sins deserve. No effort of mine could remove my sins. He provides the Sacraments the first of which is Baptism when a sponsor speaks for me. Then when, and if, I give my adult 'fiat' to this truth I recognise that by his Cross I am redeemed (i.e.an infinite power was needed to pay for my freedom from sin. Then, as a Catholic, I can receive the Sacraments to confess each sin I commit, do penance for them; resolve never to sin again and to be delivered from them. I may then receive the Eucharist to unite me with God who alone is good - who hates sin but not the sinner.
2 Corinthians : 5:21
 Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him.
St. John Chrysostom:
God allowed his Son to suffer as if a condemned sinner, so that we might be delivered from the penalty of our sins.
[Homilies on the Epistles of Corinthians]
St. Cyril of Alexandria:
We do not say that Christ became a sinner, far from it, but being righteous (or rather, righteousness, because he did not know sin at all), the Father made him a victim for the sins of the world. [Letter 41.10]
So, was the Lord turned into sin? Not so, but, since he assumed our sins, he is called sin. For the Lord is also called an accursed thing [Gal 3:13], not because the Lord was turned into an accursed thing but because he himself took on our curse . . . It is written that he was made sin, that is, not by the nature and operation of sin . . .; but that he might crucify our sin in his flesh, he assumed for us the burden of the infirmities of a body already guilty of carnal sin. [The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord 6.60]
Concluding his homily the Pope recalls the inner anxiety of Paul. Pope Francis underlines that which defines
the "pillar" of Christian life, namely, that "Christ became sin for me! And my sins are there in his body, in his
soul! This - says the Pope - it's crazy, but it's beautiful, it's true! This is the scandal of the Cross! "
He embraced death for us with all willingness and 'became a curse for us,' holy and all-blessed though he was.
[The Proof of the Gospel 4.17]
St. Gregory Nazianzen:
. . . it is said that he was made sin or a curse for us; not that the Lord was transformed into either of these - how could he be? But because by taking them upon him he took away our sins and bore our iniquities.
[Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy 101]
In the Church many have their hands in their hair, because things that have never been seen are happening. There have been popes of all kinds in two thousand years, but a pope had never happened in the church who, in the homily of the Mass, utters phrases that - in the mouth of anyone else - would be considered blasphemy. The otherriers, for example, pope Bergoglio, in Santa Marta, came up with an expression that must have frozen the listeners (even if then nobody has the courage to say anything).
Commenting - in a totally absurd way - on the biblical passage of the serpent raised by Moses in the desert (Numbers 21, 4-9), he affirmed that Jesus "became sin, made himself a devil, a serpent for us". Textual. But how can we say that Jesus "became a devil"?
Jesus, for Christian doctrine, took upon himself the sins of all, paying for everyone as a sacrificial lamb without blemish, so that St. Paul writes: "He who had not known sin, God treated him as sin in our favor, because we we could become God's righteousness through him "(2 Cor 5:21).
But to say that Jesus "became a devil" is something completely different (with a gnostic flavor). The Son of God became man to redeem men, he did not become a devil to redeem the devils, who, I remember, are totally connoted by the inextinguishable hatred of God (it is unimaginable for a Pope to say such a thing about Jesus).
Lost - There is now a long series of sortie of this kind with which Bergoglio has long bombed the poor flock of increasingly disconcerted and bewildered Christians. To Eugenio Scalfari he declared that "there is no Catholic God". On 16 June 2016, opening the Conference of the Diocese of Rome, in the Basilica of San Giovanni in Laterano, he came out stating that Jesus, in the episode of the adulteress, "is a bit of a fool". Then he added that Jesus - always in the episode in which he saved the woman from stoning - "has failed towards morality" (this text too). Finally, even that Jesus was not "clean" (it is not known that he meant).
Add to this the "magisterium of gestures", such as the fact that in greeting the faithful he never makes with the hand the sign of the cross, or his obstinate refusal to kneel before the tabernacle and before Jesus the Eucharist (while he kneels in a whole series of other occasions in which there is no Eucharist).
Various other shots could be added, above all on questions concerning morals, for example always in Scalfari he said that «each of us has his own vision of the Good and also of the Evil. We must incite him to proceed towards what he thinks is Good "(a perfect manifesto of relativism, the end of Catholicism).
But what is most striking is the progressiveness of the increasingly unheard-of statements about Jesus, culminating in the sentence of the day before yesterday ("he became a devil"). What explanations can be found? The first that comes to mind is theological ignorance. True, Pope Bergoglio is not culturally equipped and is one of the few people who came to the cardinalate and then to the papacy without a doctorate in theology. But above all, if one is so unprepared in theology and so imprudent as to make declarations on the verge of blasphemy, it is good that he does not hold the highest office (even doctrinal) of the Church because it would be like putting a boy, who does not even know how to drive a car , to pilot a Boeing. Or at least it is good that you do not speak in arm.
Secondly, the lack of theological qualifications does not explain such disconcerting statements, because one can take any parish priest of Christianity who has only done the seminary (without other titles), and certainly will never say such things. Not even one who simply attended the Catechism. The fact is that Bergoglio literally theorized "incomplete thought". And those who continue to have a solid thought are disqualified as doctrinaire, fundamentalist and rigorous. He declared this in an interview with Father Spadaro criticizing the past learned of the Jesuits: "epochs (in which) in the company" he said "a closed, rigid, more instructive-ascetic than mystical thought was lived". Then in Evangelii Gaudium he took it upon "those who dream of a monolithic doctrine defended by all without nuances" (n. 40). And finally he wrote: "Sometimes, listening to a completely orthodox language, what the faithful receive, because of the language they use and understand, is something that does not correspond to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ" (n. 41).
Today we have the first pope who - instead of being the Custodian of doctrinal orthodoxy - criticizes the "completely orthodox language". According to some, he does it to justify the goodies he says and wants to continue to spread. But this stubborn will, which has been constant for four years now, suggests that there is a systematic decision to deconstruct Catholic doctrine or at least subject it to such delegitimization as to make the idea pass, in the Christian people, that everyone can say, think and believe what he wants. It is the empire of relativism. Indeed a Barnum Circus. But, perhaps, to fully understand what is happening, it is good to remember the "dramatic struggle" in the Church, of which he spoke, a year ago, at the Pontifical Gregorian University, Msgr. Georg Gaenswein, secretary of Benedict XVI, about the 2005 Conclave, which led to the election of card. Ratzinger, to whom the then card was opposed Bergoglio, supported by progressives.
Clash - Gaenswein evoked precisely the Conclave of April 2005 "from which Joseph Ratzinger, after one of the shortest elections in the history of the Church, came out elected after only four ballots following a dramatic struggle between the so-called" Salt Party of the Earth " (Salt of Earth Party) around cardinals López Trujíllo, Ruini, Herranz, Rouco Varela or Medina and the so-called St. Gall Group around cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy-O 'Connor () The election was certainly the result also of a clash, the key of which had almost provided Ratzinger himself as cardinal dean, in the historic homily of 18 April 2005 in St. Peter's; and precisely there where "a dictatorship of relativism that recognizes nothing as definitive and leaves only its own ego and desires as its last measure" had contrasted another measure: "the Son of God and true man" like "the measure of true humanism "". Gaenswein then added that at present the mentality that Benedict XVI had opposed is prevailing and "the" dictatorship of relativism "has long been expressed in an overwhelming way through the many channels of new media that could barely be imagined in 2005" . Words that make us understand what drama is going on inside the Church today. One of the greatest living Catholic philosophers, Robert Spaemann, a personal friend of Benedict XVI, thundered some time ago on Die Tagespost with an article with an eloquent title: "Even in the Church there is a limit to tolerability".
Another important Catholic philosopher, Josef Seifert, a collaborator of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, intervened with very harsh criticism, which motivated him thus: «the Pope is not infallible if he does not speak ex cathedra. Various Popes (like Formosus and Honorius I) were condemned for heresy. And it is our holy duty - out of love and mercy towards so many souls - to criticize our bishops and even our dear Pope, if they deviate from the truth and if their mistakes damage the Church and souls ». Such an explosive situation in the Church had never been seen.