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 suppose virtually all English historians and genealogists...”
Except for the ones who don’t - which is almost all of them today.
“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.”
False. A few were executed and it sure looks like the charges and confessions were false. But it could not have been to take their property since no one who tried the knights ended up with their property for very long. King Phillip the Fair did not end up with their property for keeps even though he’s the one who made accusations against the Templars and arrested them all over France. No one has ever been able to offer a completely convincing explanation as to why Phillip did what he did
“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.”
Well, since it WAS ORDERED BY THE TEMPLARS and it was completed 122 years before any Templars went on trial OF COURSE IT WAS “just an innocent exercise in accounting”. Why else would the Templars order it to be done?
“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.”
Really? So the one with the stunted view is the one who knows the difference between 1185 and 1307 (the year when the Templars were arrested)? No, the one with a stunted view is the one who thinks a Templar ordered inventory of Templar property IN ENGLAND IN 1185 is because of a trial in France in 1307 - 122 years later. By the way, no Templars in England were ever put on trial. So even if they were happening at the same time, it still wouldn’t show any relationship. But, hey, why let actual facts (and different centuries) get in the way of anti-Catholic fantasies, right?
“Careful, you seem to be losing track of what makes you appear to have been correct, lol.”
Nope. As I pointed out if you’re going to say everything is an inquisition then they are happening all the time and everywhere and many of them are performed by Protestants like what happened to Leithart.
Then again, we could just use the term the way people who actually know something use it. How about that?
Reg Country,
I am going to meet soon with some Protestants who left behind their heretical sects to become Catholics and fully embrace Christ for the first time in their lives. I could keep arguing with you over the word “inquisition” tonight. It’s just that you used to seem to actually know what it meant but now you’re essentially saying it means whatever you want it to.
Or I could enjoy myself by listening to former Protestants talk about their love of Christ and His Church. I am most definitely choosing to listen to the former Protestants. Have a nice night.
Thank you. We are in agreement.
Your timely reminder and admonishment would be better directed to our dear vlad, however, who appears unable to admit any possibility of error or wrongdoing pertaining to your and his church.
Context?
Of course.
And when the incident of the schoolmaster having changed/removed the Ave Maria replacing that with "Praise be to God" as reported, is neglected as included context --- then that is evidence of those who do not include that aspect bear guilt of failing to give context also.
Paul Johnson, and now myself, can say the same thing.
Do catechumens just miraculously start breathing via their nostrils, do they pray to Mary for assistance or is there some sort of ritual or training necessary, in order to cease being mouth-breathers, vlad?
Or, are they rather like Anglican priests allowed to remain married, and so they're mouth-breathing Catholics?
You must be in Europe. It's not night here. It's mid-afternoon. So, good day.
“Your timely reminder and admonishment would be better directed to our dear vlad, however, who appears unable to admit any possibility of error or wrongdoing pertaining to your and his church.”
I admit to my mistakes and point out yours. I see no reason to admit error where there is none or to make the mistake of ascribing errors made among men to the Persons of the Holy Trinity. People IN the Church make mistakes. The Church does not teach error. Those are necessary and proper distinctions.
With all due respect, vlad, no, you do not.
It proves that your church is hypocritical at the very least as it does not even hold to the standards put forth in Scripture, the very Bible that your church claims to have written.
The antics of your popes doesn't even qualify them to wait tables in the original NT church.
Qualifications for elder and deacon.
1 Corinthians 5:1-13 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
That precludes taking communion with someone like that.
2 John 1:4-11 I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as we were commanded by the Father. And now I ask you, dear lady—not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning—that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it. For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.
Titus 1:5-16 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
1 Timothy 3:1-13 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 5:19-24 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
God is clear about those in authority being men of integrity and far too many of your church leaders have failed abysmally.
In addition is the blatant hypocrisy that Catholics routinely display when castigating Luther or Calvin for imagined sins, holding them to the standard of Jesus Himself in purity of life and yet when it's a CATHOLIC leaders, pffttt..., they're just sinners like the rest of us.
Either hold ALL leaders to the same standard to which you hold Prots to or none, like y'all do with your own leaders.
For the record, this is GOD'S standard for what spiritual leaders are supposed to live like, and it isn't just boys will be boys.
Just more evidence of bigotry. Do you deny that Christians existed and exist outside of the Roman Catholic church who do not identify as "Protestants"?
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.
That is false. The term "Roman Catholic" was in use centuries before the Reformation, was used by Popes and continues to be used BY the Roman Catholic church to this day. A little history:
The church widely known as the Catholic Church consists of 23 autonomous churches (all of which are subject to the Pope)— one "Western" and 22 "Eastern" — governed by two sets of Codes of Canon Law.[2] To refer to all 23 autonomous Churches together, official Church documents often use the term "Catholic Church" or, less frequently, the term "Roman Catholic Church". The usage that makes the term "Roman Catholic" mean members of the Latin Rite or Western Church to the exclusion of those who belong to the Eastern Catholic Churches does not appear in any recent document of the Holy See, and popes have used the term "Roman Catholic Church" on various occasions throughout the 20th century to mean instead the whole Church without exclusion of any part.[3]
In popular usage, "Catholic Church" is usually understood to mean the same as "Roman Catholic Church". In compound forms such as "Roman Catholic worship" the term is sometimes used to differentiate Western (Latin Church) practices from Eastern. However, in itself the word "catholic" translates into English as "universal" or "pertaining to the whole", as opposed to "particular" or "related to a part". Being "catholic" is one of the Four Marks of the Church set out in the Nicene Creed, a statement of belief accepted by many churches, even if not in communion with the Pope.
The word "church" represents the Greek word ecclesia, originally meaning "meeting, assembly", the usual Septuagint translation of Hebrew qahal, "congregation [of Israel]", as in Deuteronomy 31:30 and elsewhere.[4] The word "Catholic", meaning "universal", was first applied the Church by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrnaeans in 110. It was repeatedly used to describe the "universal" congregation of the believers of the pure Word of Christ in theological works such as St. Augustine of Hippo in his books Confessions in 394 and City of God in 410. After the 5th-century splits that followed the First Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon, the Church split again in the 11th century, with the Western Church loyal to the Pope and the Eastern Orthodox Church loyal to the Patriarch of Constantinople. St. Thomas Aquinas repeatedly used the word "Catholic" to describe the Church loyal to the Pope, the bishop of Rome, as opposed to those loyal to the bishop of Constantinople, called the Ecumenical Patriarch.
The use of the adjective "Roman" to describe the Church as governed especially by the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) became more widespread after the fall of the western Roman Empire and into the early Middle Ages. For example, the mid-eighth-century document known as the "Donation of Constantine" repeatedly declares that its grant of imperial prerogatives and patriarchal primacy is made to "the most holy Roman Church". This document became a crucial theoretical statement in the Middle Ages "to defend the universality and supremacy of Roman jurisdiction over lay rulers and their subjects in Western Christendom."[5]
16th and 17th centuries
The terms "Romish Catholic" and "Roman Catholic", along with "Popish Catholic", were brought into use in the English language chiefly by adherents of the Church of England, which saw itself as the Catholic Church in England, so that they were not willing to concede the term Catholic to their opponents without qualification.[6]
The reign of Elizabeth I of England at the end of the 16th century was marked by conflicts in Ireland. Those opposed to English rule forged alliances with those against the Protestant reformation, making the term Roman Catholic almost synonymous with being Irish during that period, although that usage changed significantly over time.[7]
Like the term Anglican, the term Roman Catholic came into widespread use in the English language only in the 17th century.[8] The terms "Romish Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" were both in use in the 17th century and "Roman Catholic" was used in some official documents, such as those relating to the Spanish Match in the 1620s. There was, however, significant tension between Anglicans and Roman Catholics at the time (as reflected in the Test Act for public office). Even today, the Act of Settlement 1701 still prohibits Roman Catholics from becoming English monarchs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)
Should I post a list of self-named Roman Catholic churches in America for you?
Well, if Catholics feel free to define Protestantism for non-Catholics, then that sword cuts both ways and non-Catholics can define who’s Catholic whether Catholics like it or not.
So y’all end up owning Pelosi, Kennedy, Chavez, Kerry, Cuomo, and all the liberal, pro-abort, pro-homosexual marriage Catholics that y’all like to count as part of the 1.2 billion strong when y’all appeal to numbers in the numbers game.
If they’re baptized Catholics who attend mass regularly and partake of communion, then according to Catholic teaching, they are in Christ and going to heaven because they are accepting Jesus.
The Catholic church keeps accepting them as in communion by giving them communion and Catholic funerals. They’re yours, like it or not, and, like it or not, they are examples of the fruit of Catholicism.
Good try.
Funny. If indeed the term *Roman Catholicism* is a Protestant invention (which I don't believe it is) then why do Roman Catholic churches self-identify as *Roman Catholic*?
I doubt anyone is holding a gun to the heads of those Catholics who label their churches as such.
And they do in areas where other Catholic rites exist to differentiate between them and he other rites.
Buffalo is a good example with Roman Catholic churches IDing as *Roman Catholic* to distinguish them from *Ukrainian Catholic*.
PlaceMarker
Bla, bla, bla...
>> “A person has to be open to the truth in order for them to accept the truth” <<
.
You have correctly identified the blockage that comes between catholics and Yeshua.
.
I understand the premise, and the mental gymnastics one needs to know their way around in, in order to retain hold on that premise.
Yet your [above] statement still begs the question -- who or what is "The Church" that does not "teach error".
From among the most ancient of texts in our shared ecclesiastical tradition, comes this;
24An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen. In every place where I record My name I will come to you, and I will bless you. 25 And if you make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone; for if you use your tool on it, you have profaned it. 26 Nor shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it.’
I'm glad I've not done THAT!!
Calling what the RCC has created and peddles as the Mother of GOD is down right ACCURATE!
You got the NUMBER!
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.