Posted on 09/17/2014 9:07:14 AM PDT by thetallguy24
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.
Actually, it is the liberal churches that Rome is overall most akin to, vs. evangelicals , and the liberal Prot churches are typically closest to Rome.
Note that it is not official professions that define what a person or entity believes, but what they overall do and effect. (Mt. 7:20; Ja, 2:18)
And which is seen by Rome treating liberals as members in life and in death, even in the case of notorious impenitent proabortion prosodomy public figures. This is their church effectually testifying to what it overall believes in this regard, and thus they must own them due to your their boast of their true church identity.
Jealousy!
Well...Eve was driven out of the garden along with Adam but the sin trait is said to come thru the male not the females in a spiritual sense. Eve was not sinless; had she been she would have stayed in the garden and Adam driven.
“Great... then lets pick it up tomorrow - Have a good sleep!”
You can’t. Unless you can show an Old Testament verse that says “Nazarene” as Matthew uses it we are already done. Thanks.
Unless you can show a verse that says “Nazarene” we are already done here. I already know about the Hebrew roots idea. All that does is prove I was right. Matthew is extrapolating based on an oral tradition related to the text.
“That is exactly what the Targums say about the Messiah - He would be a branch (netzer) out of Jesse and that was what the city of Nazareth was called. Also, this isn’t a quibble, but Matthew 2:23 says, “That which was spoken through the prophets...” . It doesn’t say, “It was written. So, I agree with you and RC that there isn’t any speculation required.”
Either way you have proved my point: it is an extrapolation through an oral tradition. There is NO VERSE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT that says it as Matthew says it. Thanks for the assist. You guys keep proving me right again and again.
“But the sin was not Eve’s that Mary should atone for it.”
Mary wasn’t atoning for any sin. Do you even know what you’re talking about?
“Hello Alamo-Girl! Well, sleep eludes me, i think because of this thread running around in my head - So I will write this bit, fleshing out in the process, my position for vlad:”
Nothing you said in your post in any way changes the truth and accuracy of anything I have posted in this thread. All you’re doing is proving that Matthew used an extrapolation. That was my point. You keep proving me right. Unless you can find an Old Testament verse used by Matthew that says “Nazarene”, you’re done. It’s over. I was right all along. I was the one who brought up Matthew 2:23 in the first place precisely because it proved my point and that point was indisputable. It still is. It always will be. You can keep posting to prove me right again, and again, and again, as you already have, but I don’t see the point. I have been right all along in this thread anyway.
Satire, but God and Moses are not laughing at the actual doing of it, but are grieved.
“As i have said before, one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer.”
Indeed, many Apostles and saints died before consenting to do just such a thing. Remember, in the pagan world, such as was the case in Rome, or Babylon, no one expected the Jews or Christians to offer the highest worship (latria) to the pagan gods of their conquerors. Pagans themselves worshipped and acknowledged all gods, even if they reserved their primary worship and service to one tribal or national god. So, if veneration, hyperdulia, or what have you, to another besides the true God were acceptable, then the Jews of the captivity, or the Christians of the Roman era could have easily made an offering to the pagan gods to placate their rulers and avoid being martyred.
Yet, they stood firm and refused to even bend a knee to save themselves. That clearly shows that, by their example, we should offer no semblance of worship to any but the Most High.
“Any of you well catechized Catholics want to show us poor deluded Prots just WHERE Paul said this?”
It must be part of that “tradition” that is very important but Paul neglected to write down.
I didn’t say that Eve didn’t sin, but sin did not enter the world until Adam ate.
Scripture is clear that Adam is responsible for sin entering the world.
And where is phrase *sacred tradition* found in Scripture?
Or any of the following plethora of terms that Catholicism hangs on to?
Since they're not in Scripture by name either, then we can just as easily dismiss them as Catholics dismiss *sola Scriptura* because that term is not specifically found in Scripture.
trinity
catholic
pope
eucharist
sacraments
annulment
assumption
immaculate conception
mass
purgatory
magisterium
infallible
confirmation
crucifix
rosary
mortal sin
venial sin
perpetual virginity
apostolic succession
indulgences
hyperdulia
catechism
real presence
transubstantiation
liturgy
free will
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
If *sola Scriptura* is disallowed because the term is not found specifically in Scripture, then those terms above are as well.
The double standard which Catholics apply to support their belief system is blindingly obvious. It's called, *hypocrisy*
“There are not a hundred people in America who dishonor the Virgin Mary. There are millions of people who hate what the Catholic Church falsely teaches about her — which is, of course, quite a different thing.” -Elsie the GreatBut will Jesus refer to you as "Elsie the Great" after he reads this comment?
And He can and does also recast words which He inspired previously, as well as expand or contract words of Christ Himself. If you examine the duplicate accounts of the trial of Christ in the synoptics it seems rather obvious that all the words attributed to the speakers were not all spoken as such, or necessarily in the order given, but the Spirit expanded them to provide fuller revelation of the Truth of them, or contracted them in consideration of the audience.
|
(Mark 14:57-64) |
||
|
At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. |
And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death. |
And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. |
There are more, and sometimes it can be postulated that the sayings were duplicate, but in others it seems clear that the words were not always recorded exactly verbatim, yet as the words were by the Holy Spirit in the first place, then God has the freedom to expand upon them.
But which is in contrast to a church presuming to be able to decree it is speaking with the same authority as the same level as wholly inspired Scripture, even channeling doctrine out of amorphous oral tradition, which is not wholly inspired of God, nor are the words of the presumed infallible magisterium.
We're admonished repeatedly throughout scripture to test everything against it and to adhere to what is written. Doctrine or tradition that contradicts scripture is not Biblical. It does not belong. The purpose of scripture is to serve as an anchor of truth that remains true to the unchanging Word Of God. Embracing traditions that are not supported Biblically and especially those that go against scripture, is error.
LOL how did I miss this whopper yesterday!?
Thanks for the laughs!
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.