Pope Francis Supposedly Claimed Virgin Mary Is Second Trinity, At Godhead Level

International Business Times ^ | 09/17/2014 | Tanya Diente

[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.

[caww]

....”examine this picture more closely”....

What for?... All the idols and representations of them are directly opposing what God has clearly stated we should not do....

It’s like this....Christianity started growing after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus,.... Rome was getting it’s pants in a knot as they saw this new Movement a threat to Rome’s Power and cushy lifestyle they were accustomed to.....So the government of Rome ‘literally’ sought to destroy the Christian Church through mass murder... but were unsuccessful.

... The ‘Roman’ Catholic Church “was created” as a response to True Christianity....The Pagan practices ,rites and rituals of Rome ‘were mixed’ with Christianity to create a new Brand of religion (Cathlolicism).. attractive not only to Rome’s leadership, but to those who didn’t want to give up their idols and practices.....which as the New Religion joined then with Rome and it’s partnership would dominate the world (as Rome did) and undermine True Christianity.

What is known today as Cardinals and Archbishops from the Catholic Church come from the Priests and High Priests of the Ancient Cults that ‘dominated’ Ancient Rome.... The way the Archbishops and Cardinals ‘dress’ are from those Ancient Cults.

God ‘detests’ Idol Worship. It is a sin to pray to statues or to worship any graven image.

Exodus 20:3-5 Leviticus 26:1 Deuteronomy 4:15-17

[CynicalBear]

They resemble all other pagan idols. It’s where the Catholic Church got them from.

[RegulatorCountry]

You’ve made an erroneous claim, and now appear to be resorting to Clintonian parsing in order to throw up a smokescreen. No apology is required, therefore none will be forthcoming.

[Boogieman]

“In particular, they hate to see angels and saints butting in where no one but they should be proper worshippers.”

Yet, there are no angels or saints in those pictures, simply pieces of wood, stone, and metal fashioned by human hands.

[CynicalBear]

>>Yes, because all you do in that post is prove me right, again.<<

Your view has been proven wrong again and again on this thread.

[vladimir998]

“You’ve made an erroneous claim,”

Nope.

“and now appear to be resorting to Clintonian parsing in order to throw up a smokescreen.”

No, never. You made false claims saying I said things that I NEVER ONCE SAID. Ever. Anywhere. I never did that do you. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I might ask someone a question that I assume does not represent their actual beliefs, but that is to clarify a point (either mine, or theirs).

I never said Jerome was wrong. Yet you wrote TO ME clearly suggesting that my belief was “Jerome is wrong,” I never said - or even thought - any such thing. My point has been consistent all along. The pope extrapolated about the New Eve. So did Matthew in 2:23. It’s just that simple and there is no other possibility because “Nazarene” appears nowhere in the texts in question. It’s irrefutable.

“No apology is required, therefore none will be forthcoming.”

Alright, then. You are apparently going on record saying that it is okay to make things up that a person never posted (never even thought!). Protestant anti-Catholicism really seems to struggle with the idea of being honest.

[vladimir998]

“Your view has been proven wrong again and again on this thread.”

That is completely, and undeniably, false. The word “Nazarere” appears nowhere in the texts of Isaiah 11:1 or Judges 13 (I’m even throwing in an extra verse there for you!). Matthew says “Nazarene”. I perfectly understand the explanations usually given and agree with them. None of that changes the fact that the word “Nazarene” appears no where in the text of Isaiah 11:1. Matthew extrapolated. So did Pope Francis. Case closed. I was right all along and irrefutably so. And on this subject, that will never change because no new text versions of Matthew or Isaiah are likely forthcoming!

[CynicalBear]

>>In other words, everything is directed toward the Real Presence of Jesus in the Sacrament of the Altar.<≤

So they aren't worshipping some of the idols but all of the idols and the people are worshiping the cracker idol. That's way better./s

[RegulatorCountry]

OK, so now Hebrew idiom agrees with you, Jerome was right and you are right too, despite your vehemently disagreeing that the prophecy primarily referenced in Matthew 2:23 is the reason Matthew calls Jesus Christ “The Nazarene.”

Riiight. Got it. /s

[vladimir998]

Cicero, don’t forget, many Protestants, especially Protestant anti-Catholics, hate beauty.

No less a Protestant authority than Ralph Adams Cram once wrote:

“From the outbreak of the Protestant revolution, the old kinship between beauty and religion was deprecated and often forgotten. Not only was there, amongst the reformers and their adherents, a definite hatred of beauty and a determination to destroy it when found; there was also a conscientious elimination of everything of the sort from the formularies, services, and structures that applied to their new religion. This unprecedented break between religion and beauty had a good deal to do with that waning interest in religion itself. Protestantism, with its derivative materialistic rationalism, divested religion of its essential elements of mystery and wonder, and worship of its equally essential elements of beauty. Under this powerful combination of destructive influences, it is not to be wondered at that, of the once faithful, many have fallen away. Man is, by instinct, not only a lover of beauty, he is also by nature a ‘ritualist,’ that is to say, he does, when left alone, desire form and ceremony, if significant. If this instinctive craving for ceremonial is denied to man in religion, where it preeminently belongs, he takes it on for himself in secular fields; elaborates ritual in secret societies, in the fashion of his dress, in the details of social custom. He also, in desperation, invents new religions and curious sects working up for them strange rituals . . . extravagant and vulgar devices that are now the sardonic delight of the ungodly. ... If once more beauty can be restored to the offices of religion, many who are now self-excommunicated from their Church will thankfully find their way back to the House they have abandoned. The whole Catholic Faith is shot through and through with this vital and essential quality of beauty. It is this beauty implicit in the Christian revelation and its operative system that was explicit in the material and visible Churches and their art. We must contend against the strongest imaginable combination of prejudices and superstitions. These are of two sorts. There is first, the heritage of ignorance and fear from the dark ages of the sixteenth century. I am speaking of non-Catholic Christianity. Ignorance of authentic history, instigated by protagonists of propaganda; fear of beauty, because all that we now have in Christian art was engendered and formulated by and through Catholicism; fear that the acceptance of beauty means that awful thing—’surrender to superstition.’ It is fear that lies at the root of the matter, as it does in so many other fields of mental activity.” (Radio Replies, vol. 2: 1052)

[CynicalBear]

They even make an idol of the host as they are to worship it.

[vladimir998]

“OK, so now Hebrew idiom agrees with you,”

RC, show me where I EVER said that the Hebrew root or Hebrew idiom was not a valid explanation for Matthew’s extrapolation? I never did. My point was that Matthew was extrapolating because “Nazarene” appears no where in the text. That’s irrefutable.

“Jerome was right and you are right too, despite your vehemently disagreeing that the prophecy primarily referenced in Matthew 2:23 is the reason Matthew calls Jesus Christ “The Nazarene.””

Oh, my gosh. Where did I ever, EVEN ONCE, say that “the prophecy primarily referenced in Matthew 2:23 is the reason Matthew calls Jesus Christ “The Nazarene.” ????? Where? You are completely making that up out of thin air. I NEVER, EVER, EVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. Ever. Seriously, how can you just make up something like that? How? How is that morally just on your part?

“Riiight. Got it.”

No, apparently you don’t. You’re again resorting to making things up out of thin air I never once said. Ever.

[vladimir998]

this should say “DENY”

“Oh, my gosh. Where did I ever, EVEN ONCE, DENY that “the prophecy primarily referenced in Matthew 2:23 is the reason Matthew calls Jesus Christ “The Nazarene.” ????? Where? You are completely making that up out of thin air. I NEVER, EVER, EVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. Ever. Seriously, how can you just make up something like that? How? How is that morally just on your part?

[RegulatorCountry]

Matthew did not make an educated guess or form an hypothesis regarding the meaning of the prophecy in Isaiah 11:1, vlad. He extrapolated not one whit. Neither did Jerome. The meaning of the prophecy is the meaning of the prophecy, and Jesus Christ fulfilled it.

[CynicalBear]

Give it up vlad. You have lost this one badly. Digging deeper won’t get you out of that hole.

[mdmathis6]

the pisture is hosted by cloud front....maybe your browser can’t linl to the JPEG for some reason or some java or other update is needed. I can see it...it’s pretty sad and frightening.

[caww]

Yes.... now there's one more thing I've noted about these mary statues/idols....they frequently show 'the serpent' under her foot....which catholicism again twists to mean other than what is written in order to continue with the saga of their mary....where she became the new eve and all that gobbly gook.

This is the scripture reference:

God said to satan....

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he (Jesus) will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." Gen. 3:15

We as Christians, know that this verse points directly to the promise made of Christ, as the Deliverer of fallen man from 'the power' of Satan, through His death, and resurrection....(a fatal blow against satan).

So even today we have a 'generation of vipers' on the one hand, and the people who are God's people in Christ on the other.

[CynicalBear]

Oh my! Good catch. I do believe the Catholics teach that it is the woman who crushes the serpents head. Another obvious error but that teaching would be reflected in the statue of Mary with her foot on the serpent.

[RegulatorCountry]

Bad translation, or intentional distortion?

[vladimir998]

“Matthew did not make an educated guess or form an hypothesis regarding the meaning of the prophecy in Isaiah 11:1, vlad.”

Nor did I claim he did. He extrapolated based upon the oral tradition of the text. So did Pope Francis as has been done in regard to Mary as the New Eve for at least 18 centuries. By the way, Nazareth is never once mentioned by name in any pre-Christian text (e.g. the Old Testament). Thus, the oral tradition about the New Eve is dramatically stronger and older than any interpretation of Isaiah 11:1.

“He extrapolated not one whit.”

Sure he did. He had to since the word appears no where in the text.

“Neither did Jerome.”

He did the same as Matthew in explaining Matthew.

“The meaning of the prophecy is the meaning of the prophecy, and Jesus Christ fulfilled it.”

No one here has denied it. What is undeniable also is that the word “Nazarene” appears no where in the text of Isaiah 11:1. I was right all along. What I have said is irrefutably true. And Jerome would have agreed with everything I have said just as I agree with what he said: St. Jerome succinctly stated, “Death through Eve, Life through Mary.” (Epist. 22,2 I).