Pope Francis Supposedly Claimed Virgin Mary Is Second Trinity, At Godhead Level

Pope Francis, with his open-mindedness and more humanist approach to Catholicism reportedly promoted that the Virgin Mary should be at the second Holy Trinity, even putting her at Godhead level.

Pope Francis recently attended the morning mass for the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows on Sept. 15 at Casa Santa Marta. He preached on how the Virgin Mary "learned, obeyed and suffered at the foot of the cross," according to the Vatican Radio.

"Even the Mother, 'the New Eve', as Paul himself calls her, in order to participate in her Son's journey, learned, suffered and obeyed. And thus she becomes Mother," Pope Francis said.

The Pope further added that Mary is the "anointed Mother." Pope Francis said the Virgin Mary is one with the church. Without her Jesus Christ would not have been born and introduced into Christian lives. Without the Virgin Mary there would be no Mother Church.

"Without the Church, we cannot go forward," the Pope added during his sermon.

Now The End Begins claims Pope Francis' reflection on the Virgin Mary suggests people's hope is not Jesus Christ but the Mother Church.

The site claims his sermon somehow indicates a change in the position Jesus holds in the Holy Trinity. Jesus has reportedly been demoted to the third trinity. While the Virgin Mary and the Holy Mother Church, the Roman Catholic Church, takes over his place at the second trinity.

Additionally, basing on Pope Francis words he may have supposedly even put the status of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the "Godhead level."

Revelation 17:4-6 according to the site, gives meaning to the Pope's reflection. The chapter tells the story of the apostle John and his "great admiration" for the Virgin Mary. Now The End Begins claims the verses also speaks about the Holy Mother Church and how God thinks of the "holy Roman Mother Church".

However, the Bible seems to contradict Pope Francis promotion of the Virgin Mary to second trinity. The site quoted some passages wherein the "blessed hope" of the Christians is "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." There was reportedly never any mention of the Virgin Mary as being any kind of hope to anyone or anything.

But during the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, Pope Francis ended his reflection with the assurance of hope from the Virgin Mary and the Mother Church.

"Today we can go forward with a hope: the hope that our Mother Mary, steadfast at the Cross, and our Holy Mother, the hierarchical Church, give us," he said.

However, the Bible's passages shouldn't be taken literally, especially when it comes to reflections of the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ.

“I’ve always been puzzled by the awkwardness of this, as Eve was Adam’s mate, not his mother.”

There’s no awkwardness at all. Types can work out in different ways. Think about it:

Eve drew her flesh from whom? Adam. They were not just of the same flesh because of marriage. They really were of the same flesh (Gen 2:23).

Christ drew His flesh from whom? Mary. The only way for them to be of the same flesh was for Mary to carry Jesus as a child in her womb as a baby.

There’s no awkwardness there. That’s just the only way it could be done to be similar (same flesh) as Adam and Eve.

Once the first human pair was created, the only way a later pair could have one draw flesh from the other was for there to be a mother-child relationship. There is no other way without God creating a human outside of the human race. How would that person be truly part of the human race without a human mother as others had mothers? No, God the Father wanted His Son to be human in every way but sin so He had to have a mother.

Eve had no mother. Adam had no mother. Mary was clearly a special person, perhaps to the point of being singular among created human beings. However, we are told by scripture that all are fallen and sinful, and in need of salvation. Mary herself says as much. Therefore, this doctrine created via extrapolation built upon assumptions found nowhere in scripture, scholarly no doubt they might have been, is error.

“Eve had no mother.”

So?

“Adam had no mother.”

So?

“Mary was clearly a special person, perhaps to the point of being singular among created human beings. However, we are told by scripture that all are fallen and sinful, and in need of salvation. Mary herself says as much.”

Wait. Remember when you said, “Going beyond what is written and building doctrine upon assumptions will always lead to trouble, regardless of denomination”? Okay, now you’re saying Mary “says as much” that she is “fallen and sinful, and in need of salvation.” She only says that Jesus is her Savior. She never says she is fallen and sinful. You’re doing exactly what you were complaining about a matter of minutes ago.

“Therefore, this doctrine created via extrapolation built upon assumptions found nowhere in scripture, scholarly no doubt they might have been, is error.”

Again, explain Matthew 2:23 by giving me an EXACT verse from the Old Testament that says EXACTLY what Matthew says or else Matthew is guilty of what you just accused others of doing. And if Matthew is guilty, but you still believe he was inspired, then what are you saying about the Holy Spirit? Do you think before you post?

Isaiah 11:1.

According to Jerome: Isaiah 11:1 is the Old Testament prophecy: “Once more it is written in the pages of the same evangelist, “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” Let these word fanciers and nice critics of all composition tell us where they have read the words; and if they cannot, let me tell them that they are in Isaiah. For in the place where we read and translate, “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots,” in the Hebrew idiom it is written thus, “There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root.” “ (Jerome, Letter 47:7)

John the Baptist cautioned against thinking that God is bound by our genealogy.

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. - Matt 3:9

That is why I reject any notion that Mary could have thwarted the will of God by simply saying "no." He could have replaced her until one said "yes."

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

“According to Jerome...”

So you’re now claiming that Jerome is an inspired biblical author? Seriously, you do realize that nowhere in Isaiah 11:1 does the word “Nazarene” appear. Also, Matthew said, “And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene.” English Standard Version

I know exactly why that verse is cited as a possible explanation. For a similar reason Judges 13:5 is sometimes cited. Yet neither verse says what Matthew says.

Matthew is essentially extrapolating - which is exactly what you are condemning.

“You need to take the Bible as a whole, vlad.”

Oh, so demanding specific verses for things would be stupid, right? I mean, if you were to stay consistent with what you just said. Thanks for contradicting yourself yet again.

“Do you really need me to show you where scripture says all mankind are fallen and sinful?”

No, just show me where Mary said she was. That was your claim. See how easy it is to go “beyond what is written and building doctrine upon assumptions...regardless of denomination?” By the way, you know what a hypocrite is, right?

“Do you actually believe that, because it’s not ensconced in the very same verse and tied up with a pretty bow that it somehow doesn’t count?”

I’m just asking you to back up your own assertion. You said Mary said “says as much” that she is “fallen and sinful, and in need of salvation.” Can you show a verse where she “says as much” or not?

“Your understanding is very stunted and confused, if so.”

My understanding apparently is much better than yours. Also, I have remained entirely consistent in post after post while you essentially contradict yourself.

Seriously, you do realize that nowhere in Isaiah 11:1 does the word “Nazarene” appear.

Matthew is not extrapolating, he is stating the accepted understanding of Old Testament prophecies, plural. You can't be serious in claiming that "The Nazarene" was somehow pulled out of thin air by Matthew, can you? Ludicrous, if so. You're rejecting the efforts of Jerome, a saint of your church, who provides you with explanation of Hebrew idiom. They weren't thinking and speaking in Latin, vlad, much as RC apologists might try to impart that impression.

I've not contradicted myself, vlad. I've contradicted you. I'm really not up for another round of 30 or more increasingly lengthy replies with increasing levels of rudeness coming from your end of the exchange. The truth is evident to reasonable minds. You made a common, erroneous RC claim regarding Matthew that I've quite easily refuted, based upon scripture and a saint of your own church, without even having to break out the Catholic Encyclopedia on you again. And, that appears to have put a bee in your bonnet. You're going to have to get it out all on your lonesome tonight, though. It's nearly midnight, on a weeknight. So, good night.

Eve came out of Adam via a rib. For the equivalent analogy to hold, then Mary must also have originated out of Christ via his own rib. (not Christ out of Mary).Therefore Mary cannot be the “second Eve”. Now spiritually, Christians are born again via the outworking of the Holy Spirit. We are born out of the substance of Christ....since he is the new Adam, then we as the whole body of believers are the New Eve...or more simply the Bride of Christ! If Christ is the new Adam then his Bride is the new Eve!

Hallelujah...praise God from whom all blessings flow!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.