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.
Did he cut any fingers off like one of YOUR beloved popes?
Doubling down is ALWAYS a good tactic.
and which parts of the "protestant Bible" did he write?
How many times have the nihil obstat and Imprimatured writings of Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori and his over-the-top exaltation of the Virgin Mary been dismissed as "only his personal opinions" here? Would YOU consider him "orthodox"? Yet, here you are defending some architect who happened to be "Protestant" (actually High-Anglican, which is as close to Roman Catholic as one can get) who voiced his own biased opinion about architectural preferences. When you find his religious views published somewhere, then I might care to discuss him further.
It's actually humorous that you fight tooth and nail over the most minute details discussed here. I'm actually surprised how furiously you try to defend your "rightness" and everyone else's "wrongness". I can only sympathize with your spouse as this character trait is rarely confined to Internet sites.
“and which parts of the “protestant Bible” did he write?”
The German one? All of it. He was the translator after all. He cut OT books from the canon, placed NT books in an unpaginated appendix, changed passages to suit him.
A poster from Catholic Answers said this:
I wonder, is this the effect FRoman Catholics imagine they will have here by attacking Martin Luther? I will advise them that they shouldn't get their hopes up. I am grateful sites like http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ exists, because they do a great job of exposing the hypocrisy and dishonesty behind much of what polemical Roman Catholics use as weapons.
“And I have little reason to believe you would read it should I post it.”
Fine, but more realistically it is unlikely that there is anyone who fits the criteria. Thus, whether or not I would read it is immaterial.
“How many times have the nihil obstat and Imprimatured writings of Alphonsus Maria de’ Liguori and his over-the-top exaltation of the Virgin Mary been dismissed as “only his personal opinions” here?”
I don’t know. Perhaps a number of times. But how does that help you in any case? What Catholic is bound by the Catholic faith to hold to the writings of Ligouri that are his own? I like the Presbyterians Peter Leithart and Alister Begg. What Presbyterian is bound by their particular beliefs or writings? Exactly none.
“Would YOU consider him “orthodox”?”
Absolutely.
“Yet, here you are defending some architect who happened to be “Protestant” (actually High-Anglican, which is as close to Roman Catholic as one can get) who voiced his own biased opinion about architectural preferences.”
No. It amazes me how you can repeatedly misstate things. The quote was not about architecture alone by any means. He specifically mentions “formularies, services, and structures.” Do you think for even a single second he means only architecture when he mentions that “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.”
“When you find his religious views published somewhere, then I might care to discuss him further.”
I PUBLISHED some of his religious views right here at FR. That’s what the quote was about. The quote certainly didn’t cover everything he believed but it most certainly included some of what he believed. How could you possibly miss that?
“It’s actually humorous that you fight tooth and nail over the most minute details discussed here.”
I fight for all truth no matter how large or small. What I have noticed is that Protestant anti-Catholics by-and-large don’t seem to care whether or not they have their facts straight. They just post whatever they like about the Catholic faith whether it is true or obviously false. Then when you point out what they got wrong - which is usually many things - they complain that the “minute details” don’t matter.
“I’m actually surprised how furiously you try to defend your “rightness” and everyone else’s “wrongness”.”
There’s nothing furious about it. If I’m right, and I know it, I’ll say so. When Protestant anti-Catholics make error after error - such as suggest that Cram was only talking about architecture - why should I not point that out? Am I really to believe you are not saying it to try and discredit him? But if you are wrong - and clearly you are (yet again) - aren’t you the one who is further discredited?
“I can only sympathize with your spouse as this character trait is rarely confined to Internet sites.”
And perhaps Protestant anti-Catholics only lie when online, or are only ignorant online. Maybe.
“You didn’t quote Luther’s work directly, neither did you post the link where you got the text.”
I did post the link. It did not come up as an active link but it is right there are at the bottom of the quote. Gee, I guess that’s one of those “minute details” huh?
How does quoting Cram "help" you? You just HAD to slip that in there to further disparage "Protestants"? The biography I posted from Wiki says about him that, "At age 18, Cram moved to Boston in 1881 and worked for five years in the architectural office of Rotch & Tilden, after which he left for Rome to study classical architecture. During an 1887 Christmas Eve mass in Rome, he had a dramatic conversion experience. For the rest of his life, he practiced as a fervent Anglo-Catholic who identified as High Church Anglican." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Adams_Cram)
I happen to think he was WAY off base about how he described "Protestant" appreciation of beauty and can opine that his was a biased view based on a preconceived deference for the mystery and wonder he saw in Rome and Roman Catholicism with what he had experienced as a "Protestant" before his "conversion experience" and his love of Gothic Revival architecture. He's entitled to his opinion, but so am I to disagree with his "religious" views about what he thought Protestantism neglected.
That you cannot discuss much of anything on this thread, or others, without labeling opponents as "Protestant anti-Catholics" who lie and are dishonest and asserting anyone who isn't a Catholic is by default a "Protestant", demonstrates an inability to address points respectfully OR honestly. You may view these exchanges as mere sport, but it's better to envision a mission field with readers we may never know are out there and our witness for Christ is what gets communicated way past the minute details of our disagreements. Spiritual pride isn't a positive attribute.
Again with the pettiness! Like I said, you didn't use an objective OR honest source. Had you done that, instead of relying upon something you read from a Roman Catholic "apologetics" site, you would have known the truth instead of a pathetic attempt to once again smear all NON-Roman Catholic Christians with attacking Luther. It doesn't help with that credibility part - if that matters to you.
“How does quoting Cram “help” you?”
Cram’s quote shows that even some Protestants realize the destruction that Protestantism has wrought.
“You just HAD to slip that in there to further disparage “Protestants”?”
Actually, if anything is being disparaged, it’s Protestantism. And I see no reason to not point out the truth about it as a philosophy and theology.
Catho;ic is nothing but apostasy.
It is a total rejection of all Yeshua asked of us.
Nobody that knows Yeshua cares what or who Luther was, or believed.
There is no separation of law and grace; that is insanity.
By grace are we saved through the faith given us by Yeshua writing his Torah on our hearts (Romans 2). Not hearers of the law will be justified, but doers of the law.
You must be reading your theories out of a Hal Lindsay comic book.
The catholic church is based on extermination of all who follow Yeshua’s Torah, and the inquisition was actually 1100 years long, not just 1000, and millions were killed in that assault on God’s people.
Get used to the words Yeshua spoke in Matthew 7:23, as you will hear them when you stand at the great white throne.
“Again with the pettiness!”
Wow. You complained there was no link. I pointed out there was one, noted that it was not active, but was still there. I also noted that not noticing it was there - when it is so obvious that it is there if you read the quote - is ironic in light of your comment about “minute details”? And you’re calling that “pettiness”? Details obviously matter.
“Like I said, you didn’t use an objective OR honest source.”
So you claim. Your claim simply doesn’t matter to me.
“Had you done that, instead of relying upon something you read from a Roman Catholic “apologetics” site, you would have known the truth instead of a pathetic attempt to once again smear all NON-Roman Catholic Christians with attacking Luther.”
I’m not “Roman Catholic”. I’m just Catholic. And I know many Catholics who are not members of the Roman Church but are members of the Melkite, of Byzantine, or the Russian Orthodox Church in Communion with Rome, and other Catholic Churches. If you feel Protestants are smeared, I don’t care. Luther is your sect’s spiritual father. That’s not my problem. It’s yours.
“It doesn’t help with that credibility part - if that matters to you.”
In your eyes, no.
Yes, I believe in the Triune God. I don’t think [what you’ve illustrated in red] shows disrespect, however; Christ is teaching his peoples, including the woman he refers to as a dog. Calling the mother of God names, though, is disrespectful.
“The catholic church is based on extermination of all who follow Yeshua’s Torah, and the inquisition was actually 1100 years long, not just 1000, and millions were killed in that assault on God’s people.”
Nope. The first inquisitorial tribunal was only erected in the early 13th century. Now, to help you with the math: 21 - 13 = 8. So, even if the inquisition existed today (and it really doesn’t; certainly not as it once did), that would be far less than 1100 or 1000 years. This is what facts matter. Also, it should be remembered, that some places in Europe never had an inquisition. Most inquisitions were short-lived as well. Thus, only those who wish to believe in fantasies believe what Protestant anti-Catholics believe about the inquisition. Those same people, however, have never cared about the truth, or facts, or “minute details” like the number of centuries involved, or whatever.
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.