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

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.

We are ‘strong’ in the Lord mlizzy...and that by the power and ever abiding Jesus within...not by inanimate objects made out to reflect that which they are not...He does not inhabit “things”.

Further I do not ‘rely’ on other peoples “experiences” ,saints nor sinners, no matter how they are read and presented....but on Jesus Christ and His word HE has given us. It’s His life and works we by His Spirit within us we follow...not men’s, not ever.

Jesus gave us His witness and His Fathers of what is true...and that’s sufficient for those who know Him.

The blindness to truth is far beyond a fog of deception ..some more than others, Metmom...it’s “mind” altering as with many of the cult teachings that are out there.

People look for something to “rest” their faith in that’s tangible and gives a sense of “belonging”....and this often distinctively seperate from the crowd. Cults and false religions are ready and willing to strike at such people and can spot them easily...often who have tasted the Lord is good, but have not followed thru.

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.

If that helps you sleep at night. Although, I will expect you to not challenge nor disallow citations from Roman Catholics who expound on their personal opinions of things Catholic and are called "Catholic authorities". Are you comfortable with that?

“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.

I can see how that tactic might help those who believe they are always right and everyone else is always wrong. Reach a post that clearly disproves an assertion and stop reading any further so one can claim he is still right. There's a word for that..."denial" comes to mind.

I read the things you post and then I do a little research to see if the conclusion the author came to is correct. Had you done the same, instead of taking at face value whatever pleased your ears, you would not be the one contending for a falsehood ...repeatedly. Luther used this "discussion" with the devil as a literary device to communicate his thoughts. He never said it was a genuine conversation and to assert he did is simply ignorant..especially since he stated it didn't actually take place. Have you read The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis? Did you think Lewis actually overheard these demons plotting and planning and then wrote his book? Maybe instead of scarfing up and pasting all the vitriol you can find to disparage the non-Catholic Christians here, you could approach topics with a more objective eye. It could probably help salvage what little credibility you have remaining after this thread.

“If that helps you sleep at night. Although, I will expect you to not challenge nor disallow citations from Roman Catholics who expound on their personal opinions of things Catholic and are called “Catholic authorities”. Are you comfortable with that?”

Since Protestants (scholars, clergy, laypeople) in his own day recognized Cram as I described him, you would have to choose people who are comparable. I have no reason to believe you are either capable of doing so or motivated to do so.

Cram also was recognized by his fellow Protestants to be orthodox - as much as that can be recognized in a general way since sectarianism is such an inherent fault of the Protestant world. Any Catholic you would call an authority should be likewise recognized as orthodox by the Catholic Church. I have little reason to believe you are interested in relying on such a person.

“Have you read The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis?”

Many, many times.

“Did you think Lewis actually overheard these demons plotting and planning and then wrote his book?”

Nope and he points out that he is using a literary device. Luther did not. And I have no reason to assume he was. You might assume it. I do not.

“Maybe instead of scarfing up and pasting all the vitriol you can find to disparage the non-Catholic Christians here, you could approach topics with a more objective eye.”

First of all, posting what Luther himself wrote cannot possibly be written off as “scarfing up and pasting all the vitriol you can find to disparage the non-Catholic Christians.” Did Luther write about his conversation with the devil to “disparage the non-Catholic Christians”? No, he did not. You say he wrote it as a literary device, but he certainly did not write it as a literary device to “disparage the non-Catholic Christians.”

“It could probably help salvage what little credibility you have remaining after this thread.”

You are not an adequate judge of the state of my credibility before or after this thread no matter how much you might wish to be. If you saw the private emails I get, you might be very surprised indeed.

If you saw the private emails I get, you might be very surprised indeed.

That last serves here best to yet again prove the saying;

One can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time.

There has been repeated opportunity for you to establish how I myself may have been wrong in my own original & central-most contentions, with it needing here be shown that I was wrong in all of them for yourself to be "right".

Each [marginal] attempt you have made to falsify most anything I have said (when not more simply fully ignoring that which is inconvenient to your contentions) has failed once I addressed that which you spoke in attempt to sweep it away by way of expression of your own opinions.

You are not an adequate judge of the state of my credibility before or after this thread no matter how much you might wish to be.

Says who?

Says you?

See the above folk saying.

Jesus never chatted with Devil. The Devil tempted Jesus and Jesus rejected his temptations. There’s a difference.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,

' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

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.

You are correct.

It's entirely different than the 'proof' shown to PROVE that...

"Luther said he chatted with the Devil. "

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.