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.

[BlueDragon]

Declaring things to be so do not make them so, though I notice that when the more difficult to escape type of thing arrives on your doorstep--- there is always avoidance of those particular aspects -- with lots of huffing and puffing and bluffing along with smokescreens of distracting discussion of yet other things which you seemingly prefer to talk about.

Then this.

The back and forth wherein you repeat denials (including of things you lifted no finger to address) while proclaiming yourself always right.

Yet in the things which I, not others described you were wrong concerning (and have yet to address) remain as much error as Bergoglio making it out to be that the Apostle Paul wrote of Mary being the new Eve.

[BlueDragon]

It's a big waste of time!

I don't think so.

A person does need time to prepare themselves for reception of His Presence as can be found/discerned in partaking of communion, if in result that to be discernible but at isolated hours of (His) visitation.

The need for purposed identifying of just what it is that is to be partaken of, is also much why there remains measures of validity in liturgical presentation itself as not only Romanists speak of such things, but the various Orthodox and "high church" Anglicans also (them all sharing similar wording in invocation & epiklesis though having some amount of disagreement concerning the entire affairs) while in worship in spirit and in truth any may find Christ present in the bread & the wine though curiously this be not the only way He may be worshiped, adored, communed with and the worshiper responded to and communed with by even Himself -- which is again yet more of the mystery.

For those who have yet to encounter Him in this manner -- focus upon simple "this is" the body broken for us may be helpful. "Who do you say that I am", He asked the many.

For those whom have encountered Him in this manner and had Him minister to them deeply, indescribably but life-changingly so, then more power to you my friend.

As for those whom can tell us all about the outsides of the thing (by thing I mean the worship itself, and the accumulated trappings and customs -- not God Himself) declaring they always find Him there but do not or have yet to --- it would tickle me pink if I could occasionally call down the cone of silence from the ceiling, as seen in that 1960's sitcom, Get Smart;

[boatbums]

” He is noted by no one as any sort of preeminent authority on Protestantism.”

I said Protestant authority, not authority on Protestantism so you’re wrong in any case... Again.

Can we agree that he was an authority on architecture who happened to be a Protestant???

[RegulatorCountry]

He wasn’t really even that. He was an Anglo-Catholic architect who was brought up Episcopalian.

[boatbums]

While it is not the *official* teaching of the church in so many words, in practice, it is. And unofficially, there's plenty of evidence that that is exactly how they see Mary, many of which include statements made by popes themselves.

And any one of them can be quoted as a "Catholic authority". ;o)

[BlueDragon]

If the man who invented your religion was chatting up Satan you might want to care.

Christ had his own conversation with Satan.

It is written that the Creator himself has had past conversation with Satan (concerning Job).

So yes, to take what you cynically wrote addressed to C.B. (as if he was a Lutheran?) can apply to myself also (though I not be precisely Lutheran or speak for all whom may be) the "man" first in the person of the Creator (going by historical order reversing my initial order of mention) then in the person of the only begotten Son of that same "man" who is God, had conversations with Satan.

Despite those things;
God by way of His Son, if having have invented Christian 'religion', to the degree He can stand to be in the same room with those things men call religion, which evidently He does upon occasion (despite His possible disappointment with what men do with religion in His name) condescends to men of low estate, visiting His own Spirit upon those in congregational church settings far and wide.

Faith in Him, in comparison, He Himself is the author and finisher of as it is written. Hebrews 12:2 there displayed elements of Sola Christus, Sola Fide, Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone") & Sola gratia ("by grace alone") can be seen all of them either in direct evidence, or as tangent to that one passage of scripture.

So just what was it you were hinting around about concerning Luther?

His chiefest "invention" being organizing and labeling the above principles as five distinct elements (Doctors of the Church have long propounded thesis in such manner -- including Jesus Himself engaging in flawless midrash in the Temple, in conjunction with reading from scrolls of scripture) leaves one wondering what it was which Luther invented which is so despised.

Being that Christ Himself in speaking with (and rebuking) Satan directly; when tempted by Satan, Christ spoke there not declaring His own authority as Son of God, but responded as it is written, there displaying usage of Scripture as ultimate authority of faith upon which trust may be effectively placed, truth derived then effectively utilized--- which is rather the core of Sola Scripture -- this principle itself being relied upon (in part -- and remember there are FIVE interconnected/interlocking sola's) in combating early arising heresies also -- was not an invention of Luther, but was instead merely descriptive of the principle, which principle had been greatly lost amid the habit of those of the RCC to rely upon judicial law, bundled fasci type of process in identification of tradition following custom, rather than a common law approach which includes a figurative breaking of the bundled laws open in order to read from the contents when presenting one's legal argument and reasoning while having inherent inalienable right also for calling into evidence material fact and witness.

Judicial/magesterial law curtails such processes to the extent which it empowers the judge or bench to declare what the facts and law both are, along with what the rules of process themselves are also, needing not provide justification to anyone for judgements reached and judicial decree pronounced, this having varied over long centuries of human existence only to degree of how tightly the fasci remained bundled, it's inwards content hidden from clear view...

Luther invented some amount of descriptive terminology towars principles once held but to significant degree long lost by those of the Church of Rome, some of whom still cling most bitterly to Sola Ecclesia as Supreme over all, appearing to prefer to figuratively carry that particular fasci (adopted from ancient Empire of Rome, contents adjusted to better fit inclusion of Christian concept as those of Church of Rome of whichever day, perceive them to be) in public procession and display.

Luther on the other hand did not attempt to parade personal authority, himself relying upon scripture and tradition both (but opposing some traditions which choked off truth as that can be clearly enough seen in scripture) espousing nothing much which comes to mind that was not previously accepted within the catholic, truly universal church in it's earliest times -- -- other than that which he brought with him from Roman Catholicism which was development and/or departure from the more original articles.

Yet Luther did work towards unbundling the fasci which made the Empire-mongers of the Church of Rome seek to burn him North & South, them able to later have those of their Church, under dual-jurisdiction of papal & secular authority law lay papist paws upon such as a Lutheran bookbinder burned at the stake in Spain, as recounted by Llorente, getting a little "Southern" action against Luther -- even after that man Luther himself had died...

Is that why Luther is hated? He dared to (and was successful in) defying papacy itself along with much of the rot which was produced in conjunction with that office over the centuries? So WHAT that German princes saw their big chance to escape yoke of secular bondage imposed upon themselves by ecclesiastics, along with everyone else.

The princes for the most part are no more, and the Papal States long gone, along with most (but not all?) of those money-making properties held by bishops whom had feet in two differing realms (spiritual authority & secular realm authority) yet would shift those interchangeably at will, blurring the realms by their very blending of the two.

It certainly wasn’t Jesus who invented Protestantism in the early 16th century

It certainly wasn't Jesus who invented the two swords of Gelasius theory either.

Pope Gregory VII died in exile for having engaged in that clumsly effort of requiring prices to kiss his feet (after the Normans had sacked Rome after bailing him out of his feuding) all while trying to keep a grip upon two swords, withyet a third made up of copies of the two clumsily forged together lengthwise (there is no way to ever clean the secular blade well enough for the weld to hold -- having you ever forged welded? it takes high heat, clean steel with no scale, brought to butter colored glow then pounded with firm and square hammer blows, facilitated by sufficient flux also. there is not enough borax buried under the face of the earth to ever hold final 'clean' enough to put those two blades together as one -- not until Jesus comes back and makes things RIGHT).

If it be Jesus who invented Roman Catholicism as it could be identified in pattern & practice in the early 16th century, then He surely enough took His bloody good time in crafting it, and if the RCC of that era have been His, and fair representation of what He truly desired for men on earth also, as was claimed by it's popes to be the law of God --- namely for men to be ruled over in the ways the RCC, wedded in ecclesiastical & secular authority with kings and lesser ranked [so-called] nobility produced -- that would make Jesus into being more of a two-faced, sly & double talking deceiver than that creature Satan.

Perhaps it was men (and Satan) who had "invented" all the things objectionable which could be widely enough found (as in scarcely avoided) within the Roman Catholic religion as it was in the 16th century, for centuries before that, and lingering while tapering off in the few centuries after?

Is that last not the general concept used as the ultimate denial that "the church" (by which in this instance I do mean the Roman Catholic one) was ever in error, or had ever "sinned", for when error or sin is pointed towards, in denial that the Church of Rome be any way guilty, often is replied something along the lines of "that was not The Church doing that" but instead is attributed to individuals to themselves shoulder all blame?

In this type of forensic examination -- the RC Church appears and is presented as "visible upon earth" but when pressed for what it had visibly done when those things objectionable, then it shrinks to less visible -- turning into a pile of decrees and proclamations, "teaching authority of magesterium" and the like, even if in ordinary magesterium the stinking rot from the goings on of past centuries activities of that crew can still be detected for those not much so well accustomed to the smell of the charnal houses as to not notice them, or to excuse using human beings as spectator spectacular torch-fuel as being not disagreeable to the Holy Spirit -- as long as the human being burned was first identified as a heretic.

Meanwhile, when that which is truly holy be found within the RCC (it takes a bit of looking around, but is not impossible task), with that having come from God even by their own admission, the same excuse-makers who maintain that the RCC has never been in error also attribute these holy aspects to that ecclesiastical community at the same time, either declaring or intimating that such holiness can not be found much of anywhere else (and if so, then not in fulness) there again doubling down on how it all be present as much for reason of their own being always right (in their own eyes) as it be from God Himself, by grace.

For if it be by grace (and it is, according to such men as Ratzinger) then where is this same grace when Luther is spoken of? Has the portions of that which God would extend through Christ to even Lutherans have fully died to then be dug up and burned as were the remains of Wycliffe, to then be cast into the river Swift? Those men again and again figuratively appear, standing on the banks of the rivers and streams of Europe as it were, declaring "repent" even as they themselves as men, were arguably imperfect also...

Such devils these men be. Whom will rid us of these meddlesome priests? Becket is still thinking upon it...

[RegulatorCountry]

Christ had his own conversation with Satan.

I was waiting for someone to point that out to our dear, bombastic vlad, lol.

[boatbums]

Are you unfamiliar with the use of "literary devices"? This account supposedly of a real experience Luther had with the devil is in fact NOT something he EVER said he had. From http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/02/helping-catholic-answers-with-luther.html:

In English, this treatise can be found in LW 38:147-215 entitled, "The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests" (1533). The editors of Luther's Works explain, "The idea of a disputation with the devil occurred to Luther while he was working on this third draft. This verbal exchange with the devil does not reflect his personal experience but is employed as an effective literary device in the first part of the book. The fact that Luther’s plan for the book changed as he developed these three outlines in succession is reflected in the rather abrupt way in which he concluded his writing as well as the remark that the book had become longer than he had originally intended it to be" [LW 38:144].

Why does it seem many Roman Catholics are so gullible that they'll believe anything as long as it makes them look good and the Reformers bad?

[boatbums]

It’s kinda sad what passes for “miracles” these days.

[boatbums]

He wasn’t really even that. He was an Anglo-Catholic architect who was brought up Episcopalian.

That's true as was mentioned in the Wiki blurb I posted. But, according to some, anyone who isn't a Roman Catholic is a Protestant. Trying to explain that we hold to the SAME faith as that of the Apostles and not the perverted versions which developed centuries later is dismissed out of hand. They cannot wrap their heads around THAT truth. I don't identify as a Protestant for just that very reason. I'm a Christian - of the ORIGINAL kind.

[RegulatorCountry]

My paternal grandparents were Primitive Baptist, maternal were Moravian. I understand getting back to first principles. Neither regard themselves as Protestant. I was raised Lutheran, now non-denominational Christian. So long as they’re teaching the Gospel of salvation and aren’t going beyond what is written, I’m OK with it. I’m acquainted with many Catholics in real life as opposed to online who are deeply Christian, more to the charismatic end of that church. I do worry for them, what with all the extraneous trappings and spiritual distractions, but they’ve negotiated that maze somehow.

[vladimir998]

“Declaring things to be so do not make them so, “

Except when it is. And it is.

[vladimir998]

“Can we agree that he was an authority on architecture who happened to be a Protestant???”

No, he was a Protestant authority on art and architecture. And although I didn’t say it then, he clearly was an authority of Protestantism as well in regard to Protestant aesthetics or lack thereof.

[vladimir998]

Well, as usual, your long post says little or nothing of important and in no way changes the truth of anything I said.

[vladimir998]

“I was waiting for someone to point that out to our dear, bombastic vlad, lol.”

Jesus and Satan never agreed.

Apparently Luther and Satan did:

“This statement is not made without foundation. Read Luther’s work against “The Mass and the Ordination of Priests,” (Erl. 31, 311 ff.) where he tells of his famous disputation with the “father of lies” who accosted him “at midnight” and spoke to him with “a deep, powerful voice,” causing “the sweat to break forth” from his brow and his “heart to tremble and beat.” In that celebrated conference, of which he was an unexceptional witness and about which he never entertained the slightest doubt, he says plainly and unmistakingly that “the devil spoke against the Mass, and Mary and the Saints” and that, moreover, “Satan gave him the most unqualified approval of his doctrine of justification by faith alone.” Who now, we ask in all sincerity, can be found, except those appallingly blind to truth, to accept such a man, approved by the enemy of souls, as a spiritual teacher and entrust to his guidance their eternal welfare?”
O’Hare, Facts about Luther, 135-136.

[vladimir998]

“Are you unfamiliar with the use of “literary devices”? “

Nope. Apparently you never actually read what I linked to. That’s okay. I won’t read the rest of your post.

[Elsie]

Then our time has NOT been wasted in discussing things with our Freeper, Catholic brothers and sisters.

[Elsie]

I'm guessing you probably don't know too much about the saints [their lives, etc.] or you wouldn't make that comment.

I'm guessing you probably don't know too much about the things saints are supposedly capable after their death; or you wouldn't make that comment.

[Elsie]

What would you do with your time if you didn't poke fun at the Catholic Church?

What would you do with your time if you didn't keep trying to justify all the things Catholicism has foisted upon it's members and the world?

[Elsie]

Luther said he chatted with the Devil. Your problem and his, not mine.

HMMMmmm...

So did JEsus...