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.
“Give it up vlad. You have lost this one badly.”
No, actually I won this from the beginning and nothing has changed. Everything I have said is undeniably true.
“Digging deeper won’t get you out of that hole.”
I’m not digging deeper. I’m merely letting you and others dig your own holes - generally logic and scripture holes.
only the Gospel according to John is necessary for salvific content”). .....
Christ is sufficient for salvation...John simply writes of Christ as the one who saves us. If the Pope or some other leader tries to say that Obama is the true Savior via some type of assumed alter authority which they claim comes from God, then we go to the Bible to refute such a charge. That is Sola Scriptura simply explained.
The Bible is our backstop for when our various church leaderships become so infested with wolves in sheep’s clothing who spout wild claims and strange doctrines about God and Christ, that men of faith will have a tool and weapon to refute these men and restore a sound faith to our churches. (such as what happened at the birth of the reformation)
vladdy baby give it up man....you are floundering badly!
That is the definition of extrapolation, vlad. An educated guess or hypothesis. Matthew did not extrapolate. Neither did Jerome. You should just go ahead and concede, this supposed “gotcha” comment was ill-considered and erroneous. Matthew 2:23 directly referenced Old Testament prophecy.
“vladdy baby give it up man....you are floundering badly!”
Nope. Everything I have said stands. Everything I said was true.
Just a reminder, vlad. Your original reply regarding Matthew 2:23. It's still here for anyone to see. Time for you to concede.
“That is the definition of extrapolation, vlad. An educated guess or hypothesis.”
Pope Francis’ statement then was not an extrapolation by your definition. Either way you slice it you end up wrong. All Francis is doing is relying on 1800 years of oral Christian tradition based on scripture. All Matthew did was rely on 600 or less years of oral Jewish tradition of scripture. There is no word “Nazarene” in the Old Testament. It isn’t there.
“Matthew did not extrapolate.”
Then post the verse were “Nazarene” appears - oh, wait, you can’t. It doesn’t exist.
“Neither did Jerome.”
Jerome did what Matthew did.
“You should just go ahead and concede, this supposed “gotcha” comment was ill-considered and erroneous.”
Not at all. I’ve been entirely right all along. That won’t change.
“Matthew 2:23 directly referenced Old Testament prophecy.”
Clearly, not. There is no Old Testament verse that says what Matthew says: “Nazarene”. You lost a long time ago.
“Just a reminder, vlad. Your original reply regarding Matthew 2:23. It’s still here for anyone to see. Time for you to concede.”
Why would I ever concede when I have been right all along? I, FROM THE BEGINNING, have insisted that no where in the prophet’s does the word “Nazarene” appear. That is undeniably true. I asked you to provide the “prophet’s writing Matthew is relying on in Matthew 2:23” and you failed to do so. This is how we know:
1) Matthew never cites a single prophet in 2:23. None.
2) No prophet mentions “Nazarene”. None.
3) No extrapolation of any text in the prophets actually changes the fact that the word “Nazarene” appears no where in the prophets.
I have been right all along. That will not change.
Careful now, don't throw your shoulder out of its socket patting yourself on the back! You aren't anywhere close to being "right" this time, much less over and over again. Why don't we go back to the posts that STARTED all this?
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?
88 posted on 9/17/2014 11:19:09 PM by vladimir998
“He was relying upon the Old Testament, vlad.”
State the EXACT verse he was relying on RC. If you fail, you will not only be showing that you are wrong about Matthew, but you are wrong and hypocritical about the other issue. Have at it. State the EXACT Old Testament verse, RC.
You have been provided with numerous proofs FROM the Old Testament prophets that back up the truth spoken of by Matthew including from Roamer_1 about the actual city of Nazareth not existing at the time Isaiah wrote the prophecy concerning the Messiah - who would come from a "branch" out of Jesse. There are numerous prophecies we can see that speak of things yet to come and we only know they have been fulfilled exactly once we look back. That's why your demand to show you a verse in the OT that is specifically quoted in the NT - though it CAN be done in hundreds of cases - isn't what you should be expecting to see in ALL cases. That's short sighted and carnal and pointing that out is hardly hypocritical!
This line of discussion began over the RCC's claim of Mary being "sinless", let's not forget, and there ARE numerous and clearly stated verses that disprove such a claim - "oral" tradition, or not.
You’re quite mistaken, vlad.
The Bible is our backstop for when our various church leaderships become so infested with wolves in sheep’s clothing who spout wild claims and strange doctrines about God and Christ, that men of faith will have a tool and weapon to refute these men and restore a sound faith to our churches. (such as what happened at the birth of the reformation)
Amen!
I'm not sure where they stand on that today...seems like some where objecting about this belief and, like other things which they eventually let go of, may have done with this as well...but it's definitely still believed by many nontheless.
....I was reading about one of the Popes who said exactly that mary would crush the serpent's head.
“You have been provided with numerous proofs FROM the Old Testament prophets...”
No. The focus has been on Isaiah 11:1. I brought up the fact that Judges 13 can also be used. There were no “numerous proofs” from the Prophets. And in no prophet’s writings does “Nazarene” actually appear.
I have been right all along. It’s just that simple.
“You’re quite mistaken, vlad.”
No, I am absolutely right that no where does “Nazarene” appear in the text of Isaiah 11:1 or any other OT prophet.
Sinless does not require salvation or a savior. Mary recognized her need for a savior in Luke because she was born into sin as every human being ever born has been, other than Jesus Christ himself. If Mary, born of a sinful man and a sinful woman, could be born sinless and remain sinless herself, then the curse was broken before Jesus Christ was born.
In English, The Branch, vlad. Maybe the Latin is more opaque.
When anything OTHER than Scripture Catholic teaching (and by that, you mean the expurgated 66-book Protestant Bible) is used, and you and your company respond with primal howls of "GASP! Agh! Blasphemy! Idolatry! Heresy! False Church! Non-Christians! BeastofRevelationWhoreOfBabylon666!!! Moses, gather your stones!!"...
FRoman Catholics have hurled more than their share of such accusations.
No, I didn't say that.
The book of John is enough to bring us to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, which does not conflict at all with the statement that SCRIPTURE is enough to thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work.
Coming to Christ is the beginning. Spiritual growth and maturity, being conformed to the image of Christ, having out minds transformed to think like Him, becoming sanctified in our walk with Him, is a process.
A process that begins with being born again.
Not yet.
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.