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.
****Caww, if Jesus didn’t leave himself with us on the earth after he died, we’d all be dead ourselves long ago. We are a weak people. Christ would never have abandoned us. The Eucharistic Miracles are proof (not that he should have to send us some) that he is alive in the Living Bread. Read up on the saints; they will all tell you it’s true, in a lot better way than I ever could.****
THAT’S why He sent the Holy Spirit!!!!!
A believer has the Holy Spirit in him to do those very things.
At the center of the Church is the Eucharist, where Christ is present and active in humanity and in the whole world by means of the Holy Spirit. -JPII"The Intrinsic Link between the Eucharist and the Gift of the Holy Spirit" is explained here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19890913en.html
First I need to hear that you acknowledge that Catholicism incorporates paganism in their service to God.
LOL, nope. Only diflection.
I see. catholics don’t think that God can take care of stuff Himself without Catholics helping Him along.
“That was for you.”
Nope. If you were waxing poetic about Luther or sola scriptura or sola fide and other Protestant inventions it certainly wasn’t meant for me even if it was posted to me.
“Altogether it was of more import than the defensiveness displayed in the “Luther chatted up the devil” type of misrepresentation of things which you engaged in”
There was no defensiveness on my part but, of course, you’re free to imagine anything you wish. And from your posts I would think you imagine quite a bit.
“— done after accusing Elsie of “making things up” concerning a list of evil popes having taken their orders from the devil.”
Accusing? That’s the word you would use? You make it sound like Elsie actually has proof that the Devil gave orders to popes yet it has already been shown that Elsie can’t post any such thing and, of course, none in fact exists.
“The brief notes of what those popes were noted for provide grounds for extrapolating they were much in the thrall of Satan.”
Oh, I’m sure they were sinners. Aren’t you and I also sinners? But sinners are enthralled to sin more than to the tempter himself and that offers no proof of having received orders from the Devil. Temptation, and giving in to it, are one thing; a claim about people receiving orders from the Devil is another - and one that clearly will remain unsubstantiated like so many other anti-Catholic fantasies.
Blinded eyes.
“anyone who pays attention would have noticed years ago.”
Oh, I have. This is at least the second or third time I have been told that Elsie is a man. Because it is a woman’s name, however, and for other reasons not about me, I tend to forget. To be honest, it doesn’t really matter to me in any case.
“But, unless we have Jesus, we cannot give Him; that is why we need the Eucharist.” -Blessed Mother Teresa, 7-15-96 http://adorationrocks.com/letter.html
Being less than fully correct enough in a technical sense on one side of a supposition -- does not prove the other side as to the conclusions drawn from using that initial supposition in the manner which you did, leaving yourself still distant from establishing that your initial comments on this thread were actually in all ways "right" though I suppose you could continue to skip along declaring yourself to be "right" while ignoring how you have otherwise been wrong.
I pointed out to you just how your initial comments on this thread were wrong, outlining how that was so, showing you also what it would take to establish how the contention (based upon how you used Matthew 2) requires comparison of the processes of extrapolation to establish the conclusion which you drew from it and proclaimed to be true or "right" -- without that conclusion being much interrupted by Ireneus' own possibly less than well founded opinion in this single issue, showing in part just how strained the effort of extrapolation to make "Mary" out to be the "new Eve" in actuality was.
The biggest problem concerning that effort, is that to fully reach the conclusions, one runs afoul of theology as presented by Paul when doing so, primarily in how Paul discussed how sin entered the world, then in how justification and grace was provided.
You have yet to disprove any of that.
Being that what I had to say is contrary to your own initial overall contention (that Bergoglio by extrapolation could make Paul out as having written of Mary as the "new Eve") you have assisted in disproving your own contention, regardless if you are able to recognize that, or are else unwilling to admit to it if you do understand what it is that I was saying about it.
Jesus dwells in my heart through faith.
He promised to never leave me or forsake me.
I don’t need to eat Him to have Him in me and I don’t need to do it over and over again, because He doesn’t leave me.
The Father is seeking those who worship Him in spirit and in truth, not those who worship images or objects in lieu of Him. He only inhabits people, not things.
“that which goes into the mouth goes out thru the digestive tract,” Jesus
“The inner man is renewed day by day” Paul
The taking of the Eucharist or “the bread and cup” is a spiritual transaction done in remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice. Whether it was ever blood and flesh or simply bread and wine doesn’t matter one wit in terms of the form of its physical matter but rather the attitude of the one who partakes of the Lord’s supper is what is important.
Can you honestly say that many nominal Catholics who receive Eucharist(even after going to confession) but then live their daily lives much like non Christians do in sinful fashion have actually received Christ via the Eucharist they took? If so, they don’t show any evidence of it. Politicians like Pelosi who say and do the most loathsome things but go Church and pretend like everything is all hunky dory don’t show any evidence of having received anything like a Christ presence thru the Eucharist.
Can a person meet Christ thru the partaking of the bread and cup....well Christ can meet and regenerate a soul anywhere, but that comes thru a working of the Holy Spirit in one’s heart. Countless Christians have encountered the “real presence of Christ” without receiving a wafer or sipping a cup in the physical sense. Yet rest assured that from the moment they believed, such persons indeed have “eaten of the body of Christ and drank of his blood” having been regenerated by the Spirit of God!
The Spirit of Christ is with a Christian day by day, whether he takes Eucharist that day or not. That which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit. By acknowledging Christ’s death and resurrection so that we might be saved, and asking for his forgiveness so that we might have a new life in him, we have spiritually “eaten his body and have sipped of his blood”.
We have “consumed Christ” by believing that God has sent him into the world, not to condemn us but to save us! The Lord’s supper is a Holy occurrence we are all encouraged to partake in; a time of deep self reflection and a chance for repentance...but it is the Spirit of God that gives us life!
The Spirit regenerates us and renews our inner man daily. The times set up that we partake of bread and cup are to remind us of that spiritual transaction and we are warned to take such a time of remembrance most seriously.(”do not eat and drink in an unworthy manner lest you eat and drink damnation to your self...for this cause many are sick and some are already asleep”)
We are to share the gospel but Christ “gives of himself”...after the wooing and work of the Holy spirit. Bread and wine without context is just bread and wine;it is the Spirit of God that provides context. That which goes into the mouth goes out thru the digestive tract but Christ we have always with us...”even unto the end of the world”!
“You proclaim an impossibility, for you have proven yourself not “right” all along, being in error in the very places which I showed you to be so.”
No, actually did no such thing. You will make claims that I was wrong, but those are merely mistaken claims. Everything I said is true.
His mom, Lara Lor-Van, gives him a boost over the TALL ONES...
His friend...”Ela Vil”...helped with his depression over losing Lois Lane.
(yeah I know...bad joke!)
That was not the middling portion I mentioned which was intended for you...
As for discussion concerning how the five solas could be seen to relate to even the one scripture passage from the Epistle to the Hebrews, chptr 12;
2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.is less "waxing poetic" than what Ireneus engaged in, in regards to himself speaking of Mary as "new Eve" who allegedly "loosened the knot" of Eve's disobedience, when Eve herself though complicit was not charged by God with that crime, while the man Adam himself directly was.
In the many ways in which obeying the tempter, those popes showed by the testimony of their own actions who it was they were taking orders from, there needn't be blow-by-blow recounting of any conversations they may have had, whether those be unwittingly engaged in on those pope's side of the 'conversation' or not, to indicate that your accusation that Elsie was just making things up be false.
While the hearsay evidence which you presented as alleged "proof" Luther should be despised for conversing with the devil, coming as that does from polemical foe of Luther's should be accepted instead?
Here again on basis of your own somewhat artificially imposed technicalities, which technicalities upon examination can be excluded, points towards the difference between judicial and common law, which is why I had included some mention of that juxtaposition and how that related to how Catholic popes and lesser prelates went about their own processes of judgement, the flaws inherent with those methodologies, and how you do seem to echo that fasci-bundle approach, showing again distant echo of Roman Empire administrative practice was to large extent taken up by the Church of Rome as model and remains within "the mind of the church" (if you do share that "mind") with yourself posing as to be shifting to a common law approach only when the initial attempts of intimidation fail.
Take the hearsay evidence and go pound sand with that.
Meanwhile, I will remember to not listen to what "they" say, but pay attention to what they do.
There's that judicial law approach I have been talking about.
Yet you are best a litigant, not a judge.
"If a man bears witness of himself he bears false witness."
Who was it that told us that? Jesus did, citing Hebrew religious law...
“That was not the middling portion I mentioned which was intended for you...”
In the end it doesn’t really matter since what I mentioned
(”If you were waxing poetic about Luther or sola scriptura or sola fide and other Protestant inventions...) seems to have been the majority of the text you posted.
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.