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.
Well, if you examine this picture more closely, you will find that the very center of all those rich colors, statues, and ornaments is the tabernacle, which contains the Body of Christ, His Real Presence. As he said at the Last Supper, “This is my Body.” And as he said elsewhere, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you.
And, as in many biblical passages, the Lord God of Hosts, as represented by Jesus in the Tabernacle, is surrounded by depictions of angels and saints, all of whose attention is directed toward Him—not toward themselves.
And if you look closely at the concelebrating priests and the alter servers, it would certainly appear that the eyes of all of them are focused on the tabernacle on the altar, not on the surrounding statues of angels and saints who are also focused on the tabernacle.
In other words, everything is directed toward the Real Presence of Jesus in the Sacrament of the Altar.
I understand that many Protestants hate that kind of thing. In particular, they hate to see angels and saints butting in where no one but they should be proper worshippers. But there is nothing there representing the direction of worship toward anyone but God.
...”So that thing is supposed to represent Mary to him?”....
Who knows what he’s thinking or feeling toward that....but obvious he’s being affectionate.
“You’re tying yourself into knots, vlad. “
Nope. I was right all along.
“Obsessing upon one word will not alter the fact that you were in error, vlad.”
I was never in error. Everything I said is true.
Your post is pointless. You apparently don’t even know what point was made. Every post you post on this topic will just keep proving me right.
Hebrew idiom is wrong, Jerome is wrong, but vladimir998 is right: Matthew pulled 2:23 out of thin air, there is no Biblical basis for prophecy regarding Jesus Christ being The Nazarene.
Riiight. Got it. /s
Mary did not create Jesus or naturally conceive Him. None of her DNA was in Jesus, otherwise he would have been sinful and flawed, and as a result would not have been able to redeem Mankind from the Power of Sin.
The Miracle of the VIRGIN BIRTH was a miracle planned and executed entirely by God....Mary was a righteous woman, and a disciple of Jesus Christ, who received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (just like the other Disciples). That is it.
This whole Worshipping Mary thing in the Roman Catholic Church comes from the Pagan Religion of Ancient Rome. In the Greco- Roman world the Worship of a goddess (of Egyptian origin) by the name of Isis were extremely popular and a respected aspect of the Greco-Roman Culture. Greco-Roman goddesses Artemis, Diana, Venus were all forms of Isis. "The Pagans identified Isis as the Queen of Heaven".... and as The Great Mother among other titles.... The most popular depictions of Isis were of her holding her child, Horus (another popular myth god),.... which was inserted into the Roman Catholic Doctrine and imagery.
Wow! Christ is certainly lost in that image of idolitry.
“I’m rather enjoying watch you double down on your ignorance of scripture.”
So you’re enjoying something that isn’t happening?
...”I haven’t seen a substantiated quote, attributed to the Pope, where he says Mary is part of the Godhead.”...
Look on the Popes site at the vatican.
Again, nothing in your post - not even from Jerome - in anyway disproves a single thing I said. It’s as if you don’t even know what you’re arguing about.
NOVLAD:
Stand back, it's gonna blow, lol.
“All those reading your posts should see post 153.”
Yes, because all you do in that post is prove me right, again.
Different words to say the same thing they’ve been saying for centuries.
Yes, it is necessary. First of all Peter is not the rock the assembly (body of Christ) is built on. Nor is the assembly (not even close to the concept the Catholic Church corruption of the word) an oganization. Second, no where in scripture is the concept of apostolic succession taught. Third, the "power to legislate is a fallicy.
The Bereans where commended for searching scripture to see if even what the apostles taught was correct. We search scriptures and find what the Catholic Church teaches is paganism.
“Hebrew idiom is wrong,”
I never said it was. Why are you insinuating that I did?
“Jerome is wrong,”
I never once said Jerome was wrong in his understanding of where Matthew got his idea. I merely pointed out that not even Jerome claims what Matthew says. And for what Jerome to be correct - and I have always believed he was - Matthew would have to extrapolate from the text of Isaiah 11:1 or Judges 13. And I have said all along that Matthew extrapolated from the text - just as Pope Francis did about Mary being the New Eve.
“but vladimir998 is right:”
Absolutely, irrefutably, indisputably right in every post of this thread thus far, yes.
“Matthew pulled 2:23 out of thin air, there is no Biblical basis for prophecy regarding Jesus Christ being The Nazarene.”
Is that what I said, even once? Nope.
In other words, on three occasions in this one post of yours you said things that are demonstrably untrue about me or my beliefs:
1) “Hebrew idiom is wrong,” ——— I never once said it was. I pointed out the Hebrew idioms and roots are not the word “Nazarene” as Matthew says it. Matthew extrapolated.
2) “Jerome is wrong,” ———— I never once said he was. I noted - when I asked for a BIBLICAL VERSE which proved Matthew was relying on a text that said “Nazarene” (I already long knew that no such verse existed) - that Jerome was not a Biblical author. He was a translator, yes, but not an inspired author. I agree with Jerome. The problem is that the word “Nazarene” does not appear does not appear anywhere that Matthew would have used. I was right all along and every post I posted and every posted you posted proved that again, and again, and again.
3) “Matthew pulled 2:23 out of thin air,”
I never once claimed that Matthew did that. And that 3 untrue claim of yours about me brings me back an unfortunate but unavoidable subject: the tendency among Protestant anti-Catholics to say things that are demonstrably false about Catholics, the Catholic faith, or the Catholic Church. I don’t know why so many Protestant anti-Catholics do it, but it’s as if they don’t believe it to be immoral.
I defy you, I DEFY YOU, to show a single time anywhere in this thread where I ever said, even once, that:
1) “Hebrew idiom is wrong,”
or
2) “Jerome is wrong,”
or
3) “Matthew pulled 2:23 out of thin air,”
Now, I already know I never said any of those things. If you cannot post evidence to back up your false claims, you should apologize. I never once misrepresented what you said in this thread by accident or on purpose. Logically you cannot claim the same thing.
” And people want to or seem to feel the need to add MORE?!?!
WHY?”
There are things spoken of in the Bible but not fully explained (mysteries). I think some people hope that the other books mentioned but not included in the Bible might shed some light on those.
“Stand back, it’s gonna blow,”
You’re been blowing smoke all along, and made things up out of thin air as well.
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.