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.
The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 971)By what "secret, conspiratorial knowledge" do you claim that the Church is lying, here, and that Catholics are secretly adoring the Blessed Virgin as a Goddess? Forgive me, but it seems as if you're conjuring dramatic-sounding accusations (inherited from past anti-Catholics) out of whole cloth.
He relied upon the understood meaning of prophetic language in the Old Testament, as your very own St. Jerome so eloquently attested. He did not invent anything from whole cloth, as in the instance of the RC Church referring to Mary as the Second Eve based upon Paul referring to Jesus Christ as the Second Adam in I Corinthians, when no such concept exists under any reading of words contained within scripture.
I don't understand why IBTimes is not scrapping this piece of gibberish! Are hits, page views more important than the reputation of this company?...How did this article go past an editor. None of it even makes sense. Forget bad reporting, this is misquoting and insulting to the Catholic community and the pope who did not say any of what the author has interpreted! Right from the headline!....Either publicly apologize for this or shut down this site that produces crap week after week. Read the reviews about IBTimes and it's terrible. They hire writers in bulk just to churn out articles and get hits. Filthy company and this "created" news has reached several people already...Shame on you IBTimes. Aren't 1000 reviews about bad reporting...enough to tell you how terrible you are? -Joanna
"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal.
There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. (RSV)
“He relied upon the understood meaning of prophetic language in the Old Testament,”
That’s an extrapolation about an extrapolation.
“...as your very own St. Jerome so eloquently attested. He did not invent anything from whole cloth, as in the instance of the RC Church referring to Mary as the Second Eve based upon Paul referring to Jesus Christ as the Second Adam in I Corinthians, when no such concept exists under any reading of words contained within scripture.”
I can’t take you seriously. No where in the text does it say “Nazarene”. No where. Matthew was extrapolating. No where does it say New Eve, but it does say new Adam. “Nazarene” is far more of an extrapolation than is “New Eve”. You keep making my point. Matthew had no actual text that actually said “Nazarene”. None. Zero.
Well, I suppose that's a matter of interpretation as there are many, myself included, who think that Scripture DOES teach it.
There are these verses.
John 20:30-31 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
According to John, what he alone wrote in just that gospel is alone sufficient for someone to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus.
And Paul, in his letter to Timothy, states the sufficiency of Scripture in THOROUGHLY equipping the man of God to be COMPLETE for every good work.
Npr did Paul appeal to tradition to Timothy for more equipping, and there was his perfect opportunity to do so, if it was needed.
And there's the fact that Jesus quoted Scripture authoritatively on many occasions.
He clearly appealed to the authority of Scripture and did it in many cases to validate Himself. He never appealed to tradition. Matter of fact, most of what HE had to say about tradition was not very complimentary.
That alone would prove the sufficiency of Scripture.
So including the terms *trinity* and *free will* was simply to point out that many of the things that Catholics adhere to are not listed by name in Scripture, which is the argument that Catholics use AGAINST sola Scriptura.
I find it, shall we say, inconsistent, to reject the *doctrine* of sola Scriptura based on the argument that it isn't listed specifically by name but is based on proof texts, and yet accept a whole plethora of other doctrines, which also are not listed specifically by name but are supported by proof texts.
The same standard ought to be applied to both. If proof texts are enough and specific words are not needed for that list, then the same standard ought to be applied to EVERYTHING, not picking and choosing based on seemingly nothing more than whether someone likes the doctrine or not.
Incidentally, your list is inaccurate on at least one point: "mortal sin" is definitely mentioned in Scripture (and contrasted with non-mortal sin); see 1 John 5:16-17:
Depends on the translation.
Here's a link to 1 John 5:16 and there's not one translation that uses the term *mortal sin*, including the Douay-Rheims Bible.
http://biblehub.com/1_john/5-16.htm
There's a tab at the top of the page that links to the Greek and there is no word in the Greek that translates to *mortal sin*. There are separate words for the words *sin* and *death*.
You’re tying yourself into knots, vlad. Matthew relied upon the meaning of prophecy as later validated by Jerome and others. Pretending that he pulled it out of thin air is just another late Roman novelty in contradiction to the early Church.
Obsessing upon one word will not alter the fact that you were in error, vlad.
And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.Interesting, that St. James claims "steadfastness" to be able to make one "perfect" (an even stronger word than in 2 Timothy) and "complete, lacking in NOTHING". Odd, that Scripture wasn't mentioned...
(?!?) Pardon me, but; what sort of inflammatory, fluff-laden clap-trap is THAT? Let me try that:
“You’re attempting to sow dissension and conflict, RegulatorCountry. Who is the author of dissension and conflist?”
Have some sense, man!
That's not a very good "gotcha" if that's what your trying.
Jesse was the father of David. The prophecy in Isaiah, previously cited, is a prophecy that a Rod would come out of Jesse through David to give rise to the Messiah. Jesse was the stem, from which came Jesus, the Branch. The Hebrew word translated "Branch" is netser (pronounced, nay'tser). Nazareth was named after this Hebrew word. A Nazarene was a person from Nazareth. In Matthew 2:23, it is written: And He dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene." There is no Old Testament prophecy corresponding to this verse, although Matthew may have inferred his statement from Psalm 22:6, Isaiah 11:1, and Isaiah 53:3. Followers of the Messiah, Who was from Nazareth, were first called "the Nazarenes" (that is, "the followers of the Nazarene"), before they were called "Christians" from the Greek Christos (the Christ, which is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew HaMashiach, or Messiah). To be called "a Nazarene" was considered by most Jews to be a name of shame or an insult because Nazareth had such a lowly reputation. A very liberal, paraphrased translation of Matthew 2:23 might read: "And Jesus lived in a city called the Branch, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called the Branch." [http://www.prophecyfulfillment.com/olivetrees.html]
Perhaps if you would study scripture with the council and help of the Holy Spirit instead of Catholicism with the help of fallible man you wouldn't try little "gotchas" that don't work so well.
I have plenty of sense, paladinan. I’m just not buying what you’re selling, and neither are plenty of others on this thread.
I’m rather enjoying watch you double down on your ignorance of scripture.
All those reading your posts should see post 153.
sola Scriptura is not SOLO Scriptura.
Nobody is claiming that Scripture states that it ALONE is to be used.
Here again, for the umpteenth time, is a explanation of sola Scriptura which has been agreed upon by several/many of the non-Catholics on this board.
Actaully, it's in the next post as I do not yet have it HTML formatted and don't have the time at the moment to keep it from becoming one long run-on paragraph.
Differing witnesses to the same Biblical events are going to cite events according to slants of personality and temperament...weighting some words differently or remembering other things others don’t. That they endeavored to write these things down as faithfully as they could remember them was a work between each witness and the Holy Spirit.
You cite Jude which cites a passage from the book of Enoch. Jude was put into canon which in turn puts Enoch or at least parts of it into play as being inspired by the Holy Spirit. A read of Enoch is fascinating because if there is any truth at all in that book then the whole history of the times of Noah need to be re-examined in light of that book as well as the apparent power of fallen angels to change their forms and to literally physically interact with females. I think the meaning of Enoch as well as other things revealed to John and Daniel remain sealed to our knowledge until God says it’s time for us to know them.
The books we have of Enoch seem incomplete as though they were scattered bits and pieces put together from a lost source. There may be yet a lost complete book of Enoch that God isn’t ready for us to have yet. The writer of the letter of Jude was certainly aware of Enoch as would the councils had been aware that put our present canon together.
As for the Holy Spirit....the only thought and sense I get is....”Just wait...when the truth is fully revealed everyone will be totally shocked and amazed at just what has been going on. A human being’s framing imagination would pale at the full reality of Heaven and the person of Jesus Christ and his or her mind will have no reference points to even handle the truth when it is fully revealed”!
In short, prepare to be totally “blown away!”
Scripture does NOT forbid us to use anything else, but that does not give anyone license to simply make stuff up as they go along and say that just cause Scripture doesn’t state that something didn’t happen, we ca presume it did and teach it as truth.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3059418/posts?page=828#828
Here is a good definition of what is meant by Sola Scriptura.
First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Churchs authority to teach Gods truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth. The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that Gods Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.
http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html
Then you need to show another infallible source that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary.
≤font color=blue>Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
If you can't show where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary then we will simply consider it " another gospel" and as such will consider those that teach it accursed. Since the only infallible source of what the apostles taught scripture alone is what we have.
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.