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.
Huh?
And then he goes on to IMAGINE what an different word MIGHT mean or be understood as meaning!
Great analysis!
American 'choosy mothers' will EASILY top this number!
After all; we're up to 55,000,000 already!
You DO realize whom you are talking about?
Now THIS I can believe!
Same old fantasy.
Smile...
NOTHING is; unless the Magisterium puts IT'S stamp of approval on it.
AHhhh...
You've learned to avoid the MindReading charge.
HMMMmmm...
Matthew 17:20
Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."
This would seem to be quite; shall we say; judgmental; and it probably would be if it were not so well researched.
But where do you see Rome even making that a requirement? Rather, they are treated as members in life and in death regardless of their church attendance or immortality. Even Chavez was given a church funeral which is reserved for members. It is what one does, not what they profess, that constitutes the evidence of what they believe.
Great analysis!Hey, you pickin' on Jimmy Akin? I'll find additional writings on the topic when I get a chance to do so, and you can quip on those too. And where ya been? I thought maybe you got the boot. Do you take Sundays off? — which would be quite admirable. The Religion Forum wasn't the same yesterday.
I SAW that...made me mad!
I thought about asking the Mod to remove the post but he hears from me too often already.
;^)
Talk is cheap.
You are, of course, correct, and the Catholic church shows by its own actions that IT doesn't even follow its own catechism.
At least I wasn’t trying to make some kind of point, right?
A thoughtful reply, to which i would say that the bible has within it everything that a Christian must believe (obviously) does not mean it must be explicitly taught, as the sufficiency of Scripture in SS refer to both the material and formal sense.
In the latter, the gospel of salvation is so sufficiently clear that a soul may, by God's grace, read a text such as Acts 10:36-47 and born again and be baptized, while also materially providing for such things as reason and for discernment of both men and writings as being of God, and thus for a canon.
But teaching as doctrines things beyond Scriptural testimony is itself contrary to Scripture, thus we are "not to think of men above that which is written," (1Cor. 4:6) and which certainly applies to Mary.
However, the weight of Scriptural warrant is not the basis for the veracity or RC teaching, nor it is even necessary, only that it does not contradict Scripture. Yet which is autocratically determined by Rome based upon her premise of assured veracity as the claimed historical instrument and steward of Divine revelation, which itself is not Scriptural.
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
And as no less an authority as Manning asserted,
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour.. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227 .
Thus faithful RCs are not to objectively examine evidences in order to ascertain the veracity of official RC teaching, as "He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips." (Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means")
"in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent." — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council lhttp://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html
But the church did not begin under the RC premise, but upon Truth claims being established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Doctrines can have both explicit texts for support, as well as the weight of Scriptural substantiation that disallow the contrary conclusion. Seeing what is both explicitly and or manifestly substantiated by Scriptural substantiation eliminates that which is not as having warrant as doctrine, while teaching what is at best only conjecture or speculation (i.e. Mary being bodily assumed) as doctrine is itself a false doctrine.
The Trinity has texts clearly calling Christ God as well as ascribing uniquely Divine attributes and glory to Him and the Spirit, which renders God being a Trinity of persons having the same nature, with an order within it, as a logical necessity.
Homosexuals will argue that nowhere are "loving, monogamous homosexual relationships condemned," and that only those which are associated with idolatry are condemned. But such a hermeneutic would also allow "loving, monogamous bestiality relationships," while disallowing the 10 commandments as well as most all others, as they usually are contrasted some place with the immorality of idolators.
Moreover, nowhere is motive a determining factor in proscriptions against illicit sexual partners. and God only sanctioned sexual unions btwn opposite genders, which the Lord Jesus also specified, (Mt. 9:4-6) that being by marriage, leaving all others as fornication. Meanwhile Scripture only condemns homosexual unions wherever they are manifestly deal with, both by precept and in principle, by design and decree, showing man and women being created uniquely compatibly and complimentary, and uniquely joined in marriage.
. Going from this, it would appear the issue is not that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the new Eve. . At best the issue is that the Catholic Church claims one must believe it.
That Mary was/is the New Eve, as meaning all what Rome attributes to her as the Mother of the whole Christ and the Church who continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ, (CCC 975) " is not only unwarranted by Scripture but as a whole is contrary to it.
The Holy Spirit characteristically mentions exceptions to the norm among notable persons, from great age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), devotion (Anna), diet (John the Baptist), to the supernatural transport of Phillip, the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, and the surpassing labor and suffering of Paul, etc., etc. to John the Baptist "being" Elijah, and Christ being sinless and the prophesied Messiah and Divine. But Mary is nowhere presented as being a sinless perpetual virgin and highest created being in virtue, titled the mother of God and bodily assumed into Heaven and crowned as its Queen, with authority over angels, and hearing virtually infinite amounts of prayer from earth addressed to her, etc.
And in contrast, Scripture teaches that God can use impure vessels to convey that which is pure, as He did with His words, and that if Mary was sinless, then her parents were not, nor Israel "of whom Christ came as concerning [like Mary] the flesh," [Rm. 9:5) a distinction Catholicism fails to make, though Catholics even stress Jesus owes His Precious Blood to her.
And instead of Mary being the greatest created being as the New Eve, as RCs assert, at the time of Mary, according to the Lord Jesus Himself John the Baptist was the greatest created being born of women, and with Paul bringing forth more spiritual children. If Mary is credited with being the mother of the church due to her instrumentality in bring forth Christ, then her parents were the grandparents, while Scripture points to Israel as being the root which enabled the Gentiles and hence the "one new man" church to be grafted in. (Rm. 11:17,24)
In addition, Scripture only teaches that the crowning of resurrected saints takes places at the Lord's return, while nowhere is anyone but pagans shown praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, and that being able to hear virtually infinite amounts of prayer from earth is a uniquely Divine attribute.
To this can be added multitude other Catholic teaching which think of Mary "above that which is written," but is explicitly or implicitly sanctioned. And which rest upon arguments from silence and egregious extrapolation, which places one in the realm of cults.
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.