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.
Right. Dodge the logical points, and throw a red herring... followed up by a double-scoop of appeal to popularity. Any other fallacies you’d care to throw... or would you like to step back and let those who actually want to DISCUSS these things do so?
No one’s forcing you to “buy” anything. Just let discussion forum members discuss, eh?
Jesus who?
The Jesus who had nowhere to lay His head?
The carpenter and itinerant preacher who owned the clothes on His back?
That Jesus?
Or, we could conclude that God saw fit to include in Scripture whatever was necessary for us to know about Enoch.
The problem with extra Biblical revelation is that if it contradicts Scripture, it's wrong. If it doesn't, then it's redundant and therefore not needed.
Honestly, the Bible is long enough as it is. It contains more than enough material to keep anyone busy for a lifetime and then some, studying it and learning about God.
And people want to or seem to feel the need to add MORE?!?!
WHY?
Perhaps because on an instinctual/spiritual level all people know that they live in God and in him, “move and have their being”. There is so much more going on then the mere words of the Bible can reveal and so much more going on than the mind can possibly fathom. The mistaken attempts to add more to the Bible arises out of the inability of some to simply rest and trust in the word of God and to wait for the Spirit to reveal to our hearts just what is needed for each of us to know and understand.
...” Can you *prove* it (i.e. prove that your interpretation is right, and mine is wrong, using the Bible alone—i.e. using your own principle)?”.....
Scripture is of no private interpretation....it’s application of scripture....acts, behavior, praying, teaching, ....how we ‘apply’ it to our life and others.
Well said.
Sure they are. In the part where John says....." but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,".
What things? The things that John penned.
No one’s forcing you to engage me, paladinan. Ply your wares elsewhere and see what sort of success you find.
PS: Jude does draw one of its verses from Enoch and Jude does have “God shine” all over it....you can’t dismiss it. Part of Enoch such as the “Son of Man comes with 10000’s of his saints to execute judgment” is in Jude. Enoch is not easily dismissible like other “extra canonical” books but the fragments we have of it contain passages too fantastic(like something akin to Ripley Scott’s “Prometheus”) to be readily acceptable as full gospel truth. What God will reveal, he will reveal soon enough. For now I accept the Bible for what it is including Jude, leaving Enoch aside as a speculative question for now.
Tell us, then. What is steadfastness and how does it make us perfect and complete?
and where is *sacred tradition* and an *infallible teaching authority* mentioned in Scripture?
Or is it tradition that tradition is necessary? That would be pretty convenient.
The point? Douay-Rheims is a Catholic version.
Besides, didn't it offer enough versions of the Bible for you to compare?
You need to repost the image. All I’m seeing is a black box.
and here
Pope Francis kissing a man-made carved block of wood
I'm not dismissing it. All I meant was that all we needed to know about Enoch, God saw fit to include in other places in Scripture.
I would be more than cautious about accepting anything outside of that that someone later comes along and claims should have been included in the Bible but for some reason wasn't.
Even the Mother, 'the New Eve', as Paul himself calls her,
What the heck is holding and kissing?
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.