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.
“I’m sorry but it is recorded as an inquisition.”
You didn’t even call it that. It’s an inquest. I posted a link for you to where you can BUY IT. It’s a property inventory. It is not an examination or trial of anyone in regard to the faith. THAT would be an inquisition as we all know it and have been using that word to describe it in this thread.
“That is the word.”
You didn’t even use that word. You said “inquest” and that’s what it was.
“You’ve stated that this did not begin until the 13th c., when quite obviously there was one in the 12th.”
False. How on earth can you say that when I linked you to the ACTUAL PUBLISHED RESULTS WHICH PROVE IT WAS AN INVENTORY OF PROPERTY and not an examination or trial of anyone in regard to the faith?
“Annoying, isn’t it, this picayune verbal hair-splitting?”
Would you rather be struck by LIGHTNING or a LIGHTNING BUG? There are only three letters separating the two ideas, but I bet most people would choose to be hit by the bug and not the bolt of electricity. Gee, what do you think, RC? WORDS MATTER. An inquest of property is not what ANYONE is talking about when they talk about an inquisition in this thread.
“Hopefully your being on the receiving end will moderate such behavior.”
That’s hilarious. You confuse inquest and inquisition and confuse one century with the one that came two centuries later and you think this is about moderating my behavior in “picayune verbal hair-splitting”?
Well, in any case, you were wrong as usual. No matter how “picayune [the] verbal hair-splitting” that isn’t likely to change.
Ultimately, only you can change the words you have said.
Paul Johnson could say the same thing.
I'm afraid you're incorrect yet again, vlad. You've used the word inquest. Every reply from me has used the word inquisition, as does practically every documented instance in England dealing with the inquisition of Cressing Temple, Essex.
Scan back up the thread and take a look. It'll help relieve at least some of the confusion on your end, hopefully.
“Ultimately, only you can change the words you have said.”
There’s no need to change anything I said. I was right.
“Paul Johnson could say the same thing.”
Not if he isn’t giving context.
“I’m afraid you’re incorrect yet again, vlad.”
That’s right, you mistakenly said “Inquisition” while I used the correct term. How terrible of me to make the mistake of thinking you actually used the correct term when you, in fact, didn’t. Wow.
“You’ve used the word inquest.”
That is the correct term - that’s probably why you didn’t use it.
“Every reply from me has used the word inquisition,”
Which of course is a mistake on your part.
“as does practically every documented instance in England dealing with the inquisition of Cressing Temple, Essex.”
And yet there was no inquisition as we know it and use the term in “Cressing Temple, Essex”. None. Evelyn Lord: http://books.google.com/books?id=N8BlAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=inquest+cressing+temple&source=bl&ots=1KGEYe4XfS&sig=QA9L_xVkebp3hApy6AbvDaPYdqA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MRcfVKusF8H2yQSZqYKYBw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=inquest%20cressing%20temple&f=false
“Scan back up the thread and take a look. It’ll help relieve at least some of the confusion on your end, hopefully.”
You did. I made the mistake of thinking you actually used the correct term when in fact you didn’t. I’ll learn from that mistake. You’re simply wrong again, and again, not just occasionally, or usually. When I’m wrong it is about you being right (which you weren’t). Lesson learned.
By the way, you still were wrong - there was no inquisition in 1185, not in England, not among the Templars, and you used the wrong word too.
Glad we got that cleared up. Notice I had no problem admitting I was wrong in assuming you actually used the correct term. If only others could be so honest about the real mistakes they make - like being mistaken about when and where the inquisition developed.
The medieval Inquisition began in 1184 at the behest of Pope Lucius III, vlad.
Yet another not-an-error error on your part? How can that be hair-split or turned around to your benefit?
“And yet there was no inquisition as we know it and use the term in “Cressing Temple, Essex”. None.”
That’s odd. Your Google doesn’t seem to work as well as my Google:
Now, I wonder why that might be, lol?
You claim you aren't a "Roman" Catholic? If you are part of the Latin rite, you certainly are and those other "rites" that are "in communion with Rome" are as well. It's all a semantics game. I'm surprised you would try that here. That IS your problem, not mine. In the meantime, I as well as millions of other Christians will continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ unhindered by the accursed gospel of Roman Catholicism. THAT is the fullness of the faith!
“The medieval Inquisition began in 1184 at the behest of Pope Lucius III, vlad.”
No, the inquisitions we have been talking about did not exist in 1184. They did not exist until the 13th century. This is why the Jewish Virtual Library (granted not the perfect source) says: “While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France. By 1255, the Inquisition was in full gear throughout Central and Western Europe; although it was never instituted in England or Scandinavia.” https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html
Oh, by the way, please not that they say “it was never instituted in England”? That means your earlier claim of an inquisition in 1185 was completely wrong which it was, of course.
What Pope Lucius III did in 1184 was issue the decretal Ad abolendam, which ordered bishops to take an active role in identifying and prosecuting heresy in their dioceses. That was not the inquisition, however.
“Yet another not-an-error error on your part?”
Well, if I made an error I would happily admit it as I did when I mistakenly thought you had gotten something right. I should have known of course that that was highly unlikely to begin with. What’s more interesting is that you don’t admit making mistakes no matter how often you make them - which is quite often.
“How can that be hair-split or turned around to your benefit?”
Everything will turn to my advantage as long as I side with Truth and I do. This is why, so far, the only mistake you can attribute to me (and I happily admit to it) is that I mistakenly thought you had gotten something right when, of course, you didn’t.
Ah, so you're now talking about a different inquisition, rather than claiming that none existed prior to the 13th century?
They did not exist until the 13th century. This is why the Jewish Virtual Library (granted not the perfect source) says: “While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France. By 1255, the Inquisition was in full gear throughout Central and Western Europe; although it was never instituted in England or Scandinavia.”
And now, you're resorting to what you term an imperfect source (why, because they're Jewish?) in order to evade the fact that the Medieval Inquisition was in fact begun in 1184 at the behest of Pope Lucius III?
It's interesting that catholiceducation.org agrees with me and not with you, vlad.
“That’s odd. Your Google doesn’t seem to work as well as my Google:”
Actually mine clearly working better than yours, but that’s probably down to the user. Remember, your false claim was that there was in inquisition - by which HAVE TO MEAN an examination of trial in regard to the faith of some believers. What happened in 1185 was an inventory of property. An inquest can be called an inquisition in that it is an examination, but it is not in regard to the faith and no one is prosecuted, found to be a heretic, reconciled to the faith, or punished in any way.
Thus, if you use google - at the link you provided - you discover the following:
“and the inquisition of 1185 into the English possessions of the Order indicates that the size of the two properties combined was 12 hides.” http://www.medievalists.net/2009/01/24/templars-and-hospitallers-in-essex/
See? No examination of persons in regard to the faith. No trial. It isn’t an inquisition as everyone has used the word in this thread and others. So, you’re wrong yet again - as I said from the beginning. That’s not hair splitting. That’s context and common sense.
or how about this one at your google link:
“an inquisition of the lands” Oh, so it’s about property and not an actual examination of people in regard to the faith. Plus the book is from 1875 when the word ‘inquisition’ when an Anglican like John Charles Cox were not as limited in their understanding of vocabulary as the modern mouth breathing anti-Catholic. http://books.google.com/books?id=Ph1NAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=cressing+temple+essex+inquisition&source=bl&ots=la3dGAhT6Z&sig=CR3JirN4rZQo6yGjmNBAdHg—gs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PSMfVMDNLZSfyATz-4GQDw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=cressing%20temple%20essex%20inquisition&f=false
“Now, I wonder why that might be, lol?”
Perhaps you simply don’t know how actually to use google.
I must admit when you said you met a woman on Facebook that is a saint, I lol'd.
Not in a funny way, and entirely possible!
In fact the post of yours that I am replying to was actually addressed to a saint!
There are millions of saints: every born again Christian, according to the Bible, is a saint.
Metmom is a born again Christian, I'm sure she hangs out with saints quite often.
I hope you meet many more mlizzy.
“I guess to anti-Protestant bigots who refuse to acknowledge there are Christians who don’t identify as “Protestant”, it’s a detail that doesn’t matter.”
Accuracy and facts matter more than self-styling fads. A Protestant is a Protestant even if he doesn’t like to use the word. A man is a man even if he makes the bizarre decision to have “sex reassignment surgery”.
“You claim you aren’t a “Roman” Catholic? If you are part of the Latin rite, you certainly are and those other “rites” that are “in communion with Rome” are as well.”
False. I am a member of the Roman Church within the Catholic Church. I am not a “Roman Catholic”. That is essentially a term used by Protestants since after they started their sects in the 16th century. The OED makes this clear. Second, a Byzantine Catholic is Catholic, not a “Byzantine Roman Catholic” nor a “Roman Byzantine Catholic”. The two terms cannot be paired for they are contradictory.
“It’s all a semantics game.”
It’s not semantics, it’s just true.
“I’m surprised you would try that here. That IS your problem, not mine. In the meantime, I as well as millions of other Christians will continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ unhindered by the accursed gospel of Roman Catholicism. THAT is the fullness of the faith!”
No, you will never possess the fullness of faith as a Protestant. Protestants can’t have what they don’t want.
I suppose virtually all English historians and genealogists are “mouth-breathing anti-Catholics” in your estimation then, since they term it the Templar Inquisition of 1185.
And, lest you also forget as your fellow co-religionists are wont to do, Templars were burned at the stake over false charges of heresy in order to take their property.
So, if you want to pretend that inventorying the property of the earliest Templar site in England the year after Pope Lucius III decreed an Inquisition was all just an innocent exercise in accounting, go right ahead.
However, some of us have a fuller understanding of history that is not stunted, twisted and constrained by such strange gaps as you’ve so amply demonstrated due to a desire to idealize the difficult, often immoral and even murderous history of your church.
-— the difficult, often immoral and even murderous history of your church. -—
Christians have sinned and continue to do so. Jesus ordained a bishop who handed Him over to be crucified.
(”it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his position as bishop let another take.”)
What does the existence of sinful clergy prove?
Moreover, sinfulness doesn’t typify the clergy. It’s the exception that proves the rule.
“Ah, so you’re now talking about a different inquisition, rather than claiming that none existed prior to the 13th century?”
Nope. There were many inquisitions and still are and always will be - many of them performed by Protestants, or the U.S. or municipal governments - if you simply throw that term around to any procedure that looks into things. This, for instance, was an inquisition closer to the inquisition Protestants always complain about from the Middle Ages and early modern period and only Protestants were involved: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/05/move-to-retry-leithart/
Now, the Leithart case is clearly closer to the sort of inquisition we were talking about it isn’t it? Are you honestly going to say otherwise? That’s not even possible.
An inquest of property is not an inquisition as you and I have used the term in this thread - unless you’re now going to claim that an IRS audit is an inquisition or an estate review to prepare a will is an inquisition or a store inventory is an inquisition.
No, the simple fact is - unless you have some sort of bizarre scheme going - you have used the word inquisition as everyone else here uses it: an examination and/or trial for suspected heresy against the faith. So, are you saying now that you have been using “inquisition” repeatedly, dozens, perhaps hundreds of times, in this forum over the years and never had a clue as to what it was, how to use it, etc.? Is that what you’re claiming?
My claim is the same as it always has been - there was no inquisition before the 13th century. An inquisition is an examination and/or trial for suspected heresy against the faith. Any other use of the word is not what we were talking about.
Now, I suppose an anti-Catholic would think it was to his advantage to keep pretending that an inquest of property in 1185 was the same as a heresy trial in 1245 even though they are clearly very different. Why? Only the anti-Catholic could say for sure.
“And now, you’re resorting to what you term an imperfect source (why, because they’re Jewish?) in order to evade the fact that the Medieval Inquisition was in fact begun in 1184 at the behest of Pope Lucius III?”
No. One, I could care less that they are Jewish. It amazes me the lengths that anti-Catholics will go to to impugn a Catholic. It’s an imperfect source because it’s an imperfect source. The people who compiled the page were not necessarily experts in the practices of the medieval Church. Second, Lucius III did not start the inquisition nor was it started at his behest. If that were so, then it would have started in 1184 when it actually started decades later.
“It’s interesting that catholiceducation.org agrees with me and not with you, vlad.”
It doesn’t surprise me at all that Madden - who I have met personally - would say that the inquisition started with Lucius III’s decretal. The first inquisition trial - as we know and use the term - was in the 13th century, however. It would not be until the time of Gregory IX that there was the first papal inquisition and that was in the 13th century.
=============================================================
Not true at all, metmom. A person has to be open to the truth in order for them to accept the truth.
Believe it or not, even many of the disciples of Jesus Christ Himself turned away from Him, and they foolishly rejected the truth He proclaimed directly to them.
If they even turned away from Jesus Christ Himself, and foolishly rejected His truthful holy teachings, it can unfortunately be expected that many foolish people today will also turn away from and reject those same truths being taught by far lesser teachers than Jesus Christ from within His Church, and those people who reject those same truthful teachings will be making the saddest and the most pitiful and very worst decision they will ever make in their entire lifetimes.
Recall these fateful words from the Bible, especially the question that Jesus asked the apostles (and still asks each one of us today).
-------------------------------------Does the fact that many foolish people turned away and rejected what Jesus taught, somehow make what He taught untrue?Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, "Will you also go away?" John 6:60, 66-67
-------------------------------------
Careful, you seem to be losing track of what makes you appear to have been correct, lol.
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.