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.
“Nobody said they did.”
You posted it in response to my argument which relied on that very assertion. If you weren’t arguing against my argument, then what was the point of posting it?
“Also whether they acknowledge it or not they draw a breath by the grace of God.”
Yes, but we will get nowhere fast if we simply confuse verses about God the Father with the Holy Spirit in order to support an argument. God the Father is who causes rain to fall on believers and unbelievers. It is by the grace of God the Father that both believers and unbelievers draw breath. Assertions about God the Father, even valid ones based on Scripture, are not much help when we are talking about our relationship with the Holy Spirit, and if fact may muddy the waters and prevent a proper understanding, if they are misused.
So where else do you contend that life comes from?
You think it can exist independent of God?
God sends rain on the just and the unjust, the righteous and unrighteous.
How is it a stretch to think that He sustains life even in unbelievers?
He DOES want them to come to a knowledge of salvation. Would it be inconsistent for Him to sustain their lives to give them every opportunity they can possibly have to do so?
God is not like us, being good to those who love Him and not good to those who do not love Him.
Read the Beatitudes some time.
What do you think you have that you have not been given as a gift from God?
Yes.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
“Be specific and we will get to the truth, that is if you believe in Gods Word.”
Of course I believe in God’s Word. I wouldn’t be bothering with this argument if I didn’t.
As for specifics, let me try to clarify my argument for you. In post 267, metmom, in response to a post I made speculating about why some people might care to look at extrabiblical books (such as Enoch), said:
“So who needs the Holy Spirit anyway at that rate?”
This question, and subsequent posts, seemed to suggest that we ONLY need the Holy Spirit, and not any more mundane things, to achieve spiritual understanding. This is not the position of the Bible, it is an expansion of assertions in Scripture to the point of absurdity.
To try to demonstrate that absurdity, I made some similarly absurd statements based on the same type of reasoning, in an attempt to show the flaw in the original argument. It’s an exercise in reductio ad absurdium. For example, if looking at a book outside of Scripture means I think that I don’t need the Holy Spirit, then learning to read (which would require sources outside of Scripture) must also be a rejection of the Holy Spirit.
I accept Scripture, but I won’t accept absurd arguments that go beyond Scripture, simply because someone claims that Scripture supports their position.
No. Doing mundane things, such as picking up a book and reading it, does NOT get one spiritual understanding.
Without the enlightening of the Holy Spirit, you could read yourself blind and not a bit of it would make any sense to you.
There is NOTHING that the natural man can do to gain spiritual understanding. It has to be given to him.
Why? you ask?
Because the natural man is spiritually dead.
Just as a blind man cannot perceive the light about him or the Deaf man cannot perceive the sound about him, neither can the natural man perceive spiritual truths because, being spiritually dead, he does not have the ability to perceive the spiritual reality around him.
Then that begs the questions.
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is God?
How else does the Father interact with man if not through the Holy Spirit?
” So where else do you contend that life comes from?
You think it can exist independent of God?”
No, I do not. I assert that life comes from God the Father, which is who that verse refers to. You are posting verses about God the Father, then mistakenly asserting that they refer to the Holy Spirit. I am simply not accepting the confusion that you seem to be operating under.
“Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is God?”
Yes, but I do not believe the Holy Spirit is God the Father. The Bible describes them by different names and terms for a reason. If we ignore that, then we are sowing the seeds of confusion, and we will arrive at absurd conclusions, such as some that you have been making.
“How else does the Father interact with man if not through the Holy Spirit?”
In a multitude of ways. After all, the Holy Spirit was not sent to Christians until after Christ’s death (John 14:16, Acts 2). This is a general statement, however, as the Holy Spirit certainly interacted with man in some ways before this, with the many references to the “Spirit of God” in the prophets, as an example. Yet, the Jews had no notion that this “Spirit of God” was different than God the Father, as their rejection of that Christian idea demonstrates. We Christians have no excuse for making that mistake though, as God has revealed that truth to us.
To assume that every reference to “God” is interchangeable with the Holy Spirit, is essentially a denial of the trinity/triune nature of God. If they are interchangeable, then God must have been redundant in speaking of Himself as three different persons or aspects. (I don’t want to get sidetracked into some argument about the Protestant/Catholic differences about those doctrines, hence the use of both sets of language)
“No. Doing mundane things, such as picking up a book and reading it, does NOT get one spiritual understanding.”
I did not say “get spiritual understanding”, I said “get TO spiritual understanding”. That missing word is important.
“Without the enlightening of the Holy Spirit, you could read yourself blind and not a bit of it would make any sense to you.”
This isn’t the question. The question is: can you get the sense of the Bible without bothering to do mundane things first, such as learn to read, open the Bible, read the words, perhaps consult a dictionary to understand the meaning of words, etc. Can we dispense with all that and simply ask the Holy Spirit to give us understanding while skipping those steps?
Please note, I’m not asking about exceptional cases, where someone might have a special revelation that grants them knowledge directly from God, I’m speaking of the general, what most believers will have to do in order to get to a spiritual understanding of the Bible.
Is there one God or three? Does the Holy Spirit do things without the will of the Father? We don’t confuse when we say Holy Spirit. There is one God. It’s becoming very obvious to me that you indeed don’t avail yourself of or listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit when trying to understand scripture.
Well put.
Thank you so much for your beautiful essay-post and may God ever bless you and your loved ones.
“Is there one God or three?”
One, of course.
“Does the Holy Spirit do things without the will of the Father?”
No, of course not. Does that mean we can simply interchange any verse about one with the other? Or with the Son?
If so, then what is the point of God revealing all three to us, and giving us verses specifically about all three? Are you saying God did that for no reason, that He is irrational?
“It’s becoming very obvious to me that you indeed don’t avail yourself of or listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit when trying to understand scripture.”
You started this conversation off with these baseless, insulting assertions, and you continue with them. Yet, I am the one who doesn’t have the guidance of the Holy Spirit?!? Speck, plank, need I say more?
Jeepers ... thank you so much for your insights, dear brother in Christ!
No, you have been quibbling all along...it doesn't make you right. It's already been explained to you that Isaiah 11:1 is one of the prophets Matthew is referring to (reminder...he said "it is spoken" not, "it is written"). Isaiah 11:1 says, "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots". Note, the word branch is the transliterated Hebrew word "netser" and it literally means sprout, shoot, branch (always figurative). About the the city named Nazareth:
If after all this back and forth you still want to beat your chest and claim you alone are right and those who have challenged you are wrong, you will be the only one claiming that. It seems as if you never mention these other points that have been given to you. I imagine it might deflate your somewhat vaulted self image?
We haven't forgotten that this all started from an assertion that the Pope can say pretty much anything he wants about Mary and it doesn't matter what God's word says to the contrary. It took over 1800 years for the Roman Catholic church to define the sinlessness of Mary as a dogma all Catholics have to believe. Up until then, it wasn't a dogma of the RCC. Some believed it, sure, but not everyone and certainly it wasn't a declared, ex cathedra pronouncement all those centuries before. That's why we must hold to the only material we absolutely CAN know without a doubt IS the truth because it came through the very breath of God - the sacred Scriptures, the Bible. Whatever a religious "authority" declares must be believed by all must have as its basis the Scriptures. This is something the Apostles taught because it's what Jesus taught them by word and by example. It isn't something genuine Christians should fear or deny.
“Yes.”
Yes, to which part of the question exactly?
Is it yes to this:
“do I need the Holy Spirit to do every little thing for me”
or yes to this:
“is some effort on my part acceptable?”
I don’t understand why so many people miss that. It is FAR from dishonoring or disrespecting Mary to admit what Scripture clearly teaches - ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
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.