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

International Business Times ^ | 09/17/2014 | Tanya Diente

[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.

[daniel1212]

Who had his own personal opinions. It doesn't make him "no less than a Protestant authority".

As an Episcopalian who was much Catholic, and as an architect he can easily be charged with bias in his views on Protestant aversion to outward material display of faith. But which one could charge Moses and the Jews with if one was looking for a reason to denigrate them, while the NT can only be seen to allow art by the absence of censure of it, seeing the Greeks abounded with it.

But Luther certainly loved music and is attributed with being behind a positive enhancement in that area, while aversion to art is best seen as based on theological Scriptural basis, and an over reaction against paganism Rome often incorporated, and her unScriptural ostentatious displays.

In any case, if this is meant to impugn evangelicals who are Rome's greatest enemy (for despite being the most conservative, they actually threaten Rome's coveted preeminence and predominance, versus liberals), it hardly is worth much, as by making Scripture supreme then they can reject both Catholic holdovers of the incomplete Reformation, as well as overreactions of it.

Another Protestant presents a more scholarly and balanced view i think.

The art and music of the Reformation rejected the Catholic and Renaissance forms because the movement was theological at its root. Reformation forms were theocentric, placing their emphasis on God as He is, and His works as they really are. There was an abrupt cease to the portrayal of biblical themes with theatrical flair among Reformation painters, and a turn to realism resulting from the artist's private interpretation of Scripture. Musicians and artists of the Reformation sought to portray man as being in need of God's grace because of sin, thus they sang about passing from death to life and painted themes of redemption and hope through a very human, as well as divine, Christ. Rather than attempting to idealize the cre- ation of God, the Person of Jesus, the obedient of Scripture, or the crucifixion of Christ, artists inspired by the theology of the Reformation were eager to be true to the world, to mankind, and to God.

Rookmaaker wrote that the artists of the Reformation, especially Dutch art- ists, "Painted life and the world realistically, without idealizing or glorifying the creature but, instead, showing things as they really were and are, not glossing over sin but not exalting it either .... "8 Francis Schaeffer stated, "At its core, therefore, the Reformation was the removing of the humanistic distortions which had entered the church" (emphasis original).9 Gene Veith maintained that in Reformation art, "There are still some religious pichlres-madonnas, nativities, and crucifixions, but they are strikingly different from those of the Middle Ages; the gold leaf is gone."IO In the spirit of the Reformation, artists and musicians were not attempting to instruct the laity through their work as those of the Catholic church, nor did they have an agenda to dramatize the Scriptures or idealize the world. They were painting and composing music for the sake of the beauty of their themes. Their work was itself an act of worship designed to aid the church in worship.

Moreover, their audiences would not need their works to teach them the Scriptures, because they were counting on the laity to interpret Scripture as they read it in their own language-just as the artists and musicians themselves were doing when they por- trayed biblical themes. The Reformation, then, impacted the art and music of the day not only in the styles and forms of the various pieces, but also in their produc- tion and intended reception by those who would hear and see them.

Given that the musicians and painters of the Reformation were thus affected, what attitude did Luther and Calvin take toward art? While it is certainly true that the Reformation had a positive impact on the art of the period, it is also true that many Protestant churches across Western Europe, in their zeal to cleanse them- selves of the perceived idolatry of the Catholic church, dedicated much art work to destruction. Calvin sought to purge the church of images that fostered idolatry, but did not have a negative view of art on the whole. He wrote, "1 know the com- mon proverb, that images are the books of unlettered folk, and that St. Gregory hath thus spoken: but the Spirit of God hath judged otherwise" and that "all that men learn of God through images is frivolous and even abusive."ll

At the same time, he saw art as a gift of God that should be encouraged, as long as it glorified Him and did not seek to supplant His authority or majesty. He said, "1 am not so scrupulous as to judge that no images should be endured or suffered .... Therefore men should not paint nor carve anything but such as can be seen with the eye; so that God's Majesty ... may not be corrupted by fantasies which have no true agreement therewith."12

For Calvin, faith in the gospel through the preached Word was what the Christian ought to allow-to draw him heaven- ward. Those churches that did destroy their art did so sometimes with pure inten- tions of rooting out idolatry. Often, however, they destroyed their art with either a wrong motive or a wrong understanding of what Calvin was teaching. Luther had a much friendlier attihlde toward visual art, especially music. He believed that art should always be -used to glorify God and did not ban any form of art, even images. His interpretation of Scripture allowed for art to be used in churches and in private homes to assist in the worship of God. He wrote, "I would fain see all arts, and especially that of music, serving Him who hath created them and given them unto us .... "13

Luther's love of music came second only to his love of theologyY His un- derstanding of music was advanced, and he had an accomplished tenor voice. He and his choirmaster, Johann Walther, produced a hymnbook entitled the Wittenberg Gesangbuch. The book was the first of its kind. It contained a great variety of hymns, among them the famous "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, "15 which was a product of both Luther's musical talent and theological insight. l6

For the first time, the laity took a practicing role in the worship of God, and music was one of the vehicles by which they were able to do this. This is what set Reformation practice apart from the earlier Catholic style. As Durant wrote, "The people became the Church, the clergy became their ministers, the language of the service was to be the vernacular of the nation, the music was to be intelligible, and in it the congregation would take an active, finally a leading, role."l7 Luther, then, was instrumental in the later de- velopment of Protestant music, much more so than he (or any other Reformer) was in visual art. His profound influence on Bach will be shown in the next section. - The Impact of the Reformation on the Fine Arts John D. Wilsey Liberty University [B.A., Furman University; M.Div., Ph.D., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. At LU since 2009], http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&context=sor_fac_pubs

[metmom]

As long as the Catholic church gives them communion and Catholic funerals, it is accepting them as Catholics.

Anyone who disagrees with that is at odds with what the Catholic church practices the by its actions, condones.

[mlizzy]

As long as the Catholic church gives them communion and Catholic funerals, it is accepting them as Catholics. Anyone who disagrees with that is at odds with what the Catholic church practices the by its actions, condones.

Too much time is wasted spent on Nancy Pelosi (and her sins or not as the case may be). It distracts one from the draw of the Catholic Church, the reception of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. I receive the Host most every day; how does the priest not know my sins are like scarlet? He doesn't. Yet I'm accepted as a Catholic. And how does a priest know for sure Nancy didn't go to confession right before receiving? He probably doesn't. The funerals seem ridiculous, of course, but again, the deceased could have repented at their last breath. The Catholic Church spells out the situation here:

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. -CCC

So as Catholics, we must try not "to restrict the scope of mercy." For instance, maybe the woman depicted, is praying for [not cursing; criticizing the Church because of] Nancy Pelosi.

[vladimir998]

“With all due respect, vlad, no, you do not.”

Read the thread. I made a mistake. I admitted it. You have made a number of mistakes and have yet to admit any of them.

[vladimir998]

“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:”

Name for me the pope who spoke the words “Roman Catholic” IN ENGLISH before the Reformation. Oh, wait, you can’t BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED.

[vladimir998]

“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.”

False. The term Protestantism became established in languages with protest against the practice of the Catholic Mass among Catholics in suddenly sectarian regions. Thus, the antecedent doctrines which helped bring about what we call Protestantism (i.e. sola fide, sola scriptura) set Protestants apart whether they like it or not. If you believe in Protestant doctrines, you’re a Protestant. Thus, it is still only up to Catholics to decide who is and is not Catholic. Protestants do in fact define themselves by the heretical doctrines they adhere to.

[vladimir998]

“From among the most ancient of texts in our shared ecclesiastical tradition, comes this;”

I am not a Jew who practices Old Testament sacrifices. Thus, an Old Testament stricture about the making of altars does not apply for it is not part of the moral law but part of OT practice which has found fulfillment in Christ.

[vladimir998]

“You’ve learned to avoid the MindReading charge.”

Apparently you have not. To assume I have learned something is to “mind read” is it not?

[boatbums]

... we can't impose the connotations that a word has in our own language on another. Huh? And then he goes on to IMAGINE what an different word MIGHT mean or be understood as meaning! Great analysis!

[boatbums]

No, they [Pelosi and her ilk] are not examples of the fruit of Catholicism, because they don't follow the faith. If someone went to an exercise club once in a while on Sundays, watched their TV, gabbed around, rode the stationary bike for a bit, would you say they were examples of the fruit of the club as they waddled out to their car? Stop looking in mud puddles to battle a point!

Stop looking in magic mirrors to make undesired results go away!

How many times are we told in Scripture, "by their fruits shall you know them"? How many places are Christians admonished to be examples to each other and to the world of what being "in Christ" means and how a "bad" testimony can cause what one says to be disqualified? How many places are we taught to be IN the world but not OF the world?

IF Ms. Pelosi and her ilk are allowed - for all practical purposes - to continue to identify AS Roman Catholics and the hierarchy does nothing but wring it's hands instead of correcting, admonishing, rebuking and, ultimately, if necessary, withdrawing the hand of fellowship, then how can you expect your religious brand to show it is any different than any other religion that does likewise? Jesus said the world would know we are His followers by our love for one another and by the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

Metmom's point was that more than a few FRoman Catholics here, as well as online "apologetics" sites, trash ALL those they term Protestants based on the sins they accuse Martin Luther of committing. Luther NEVER did anything near what the list of notorious Popes did. He wasn't perfect - nobody but Jesus is - but he was a stellar example of Christianity to his world and, had he done anywhere near what the "bad" popes did, he would NOT have had the effect he did. He would have been rejected by everyone. That's why it smacks of hypocrisy to read Catholics trash all non-Catholic Christians because of what they think Luther did but they turn a blind eye to their own miserable examples.

[metmom]

You go, girl.

[paladinan]

Hi, everyone,

I’ve been pondering how to follow up, here (in my small bits of free time), and my reaction is mixed.

Metmom, we’ve had our tangles, but you’re a decent lady; I wish I had the opportunity to reply point-by-point (though we’ve gone through most of this already, in past threads)... but—and I mean this with all due respect, with no animus toward anyone, and no wish to offend—I don’t think it’s possible to do so on this particular forum.

I have every reason to believe that the RM (again, who seems like a decent fellow) is sincere; but the preponderance of the data suggests that he seriously “sees the necessity” of giving the lion’s share of the disciplinary “boom-lowerings” (warnings, deleted posts, etc.) to Catholics, while being noticeably lighter on the “boom” buttons with Evangelicals. As I mentioned before: it’s his forum and Jim’s, not mine; he’s free to do so as he sees fit, regardless of how anyone feels. I understand that. I guess I’ve just gotten used to forums (such as the Hannity forum) where the RM was much more inclined to say to both sides, “Guys... put on your big-boy pants, work this out like adults, and get some slightly thicker skins; I’m a moderator, not a babysitter!” Neither Protestants nor Catholics nor Mormons nor Jehovah’s Witnesses were disciplined/deleted/banned for any perceived “offenses against particular sensibilities of others”. Call someone a [expletive, expletive, etc.], sure—you’ll get chewed out, and banned if you refuse to apologize. But not for nebulous reasons which could be stretched to mean almost anything, and which (again, probably with no malice, and with all sincerity) are not evenly applied.

That’s the only sort of forum where I think I could do justice to the topic material; these posts take a long time to write (and research), and an uneven playing field isn’t going to make them worthwhile. So I think I need to bid at least the religion forum of FR “adieu”, at least for now. If anyone wants to know my positions and arguments on these points, they can click on my name and “search in forum”; I and others have discussed most of them before.

God bless you all; you’ll be in my prayers... and thanks for the chats (yes, even the exasperating ones)!

[boatbums]

Thanks for that information. In their zeal to dismiss and denigrate all "Protestants", some FRoman Catholics never imagine there is more than their own view of the world and history.

Personally, I never DID like the opulent, gaudy and ostentatious style of the Middle Ages - especially that which was and still is found at the Vatican.

[boatbums]

Prove by the way you live that you have repented of your sins and turned to God. (Jesus, in Matthew 3:8)

[boatbums]

Name for me the pope who spoke the words “Roman Catholic” IN ENGLISH before the Reformation. Oh, wait, you can’t BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED.

Oh how typically Vlad! Did I say that any Pope before the Reformation used the term Roman Catholic IN ENGLISH? No, I didn't. Perhaps you should read the link and argue against what is said there and not just a few words you pick out and quibble over? Do you think nobody is wise to that tactic?

[mlizzy]

Stop looking in magic mirrors to make undesired results go away! How many times are we told in Scripture, "by their fruits shall you know them"?

As far as "magic mirrors," I'm not trying to make Nancy Pelosi (or her results) go away. She reflects poorly upon herself, not the Eucharist. If the Catholic Church started slaying everyone who didn't follow doctrine, it would be a blood fest. Possibly she's been spoken to regarding her life stance (and everything else unsavory) by her priest, a bishop, etc. I don't really know, but the Church does try to employ mercy at all times. Remember, it's God who does the ultimate judging, and if she dies without repenting, Catholics can only pray for her soul.

Luther NEVER did anything near what the list of notorious Popes did. He wasn't perfect... That's why it smacks of hypocrisy to read Catholics trash all non-Catholic Christians because of what they think Luther did but they turn a blind eye to their own miserable examples.

Although I was a Lutheran for 33 years, Luther is not my area of expertise. I did, however, just recently return to my church for a service; I wanted to bring back some good memories when we worshiped as a family. And while I did enjoy invoking the past, returning only further sealed my love for the Catholic Church, all the avenues to Christ it supplies, the forgiveness it imparts, and most especially the Eucharist. My better half, a cradle-Catholic, wrote on Luther (and Corapi) at the following links: If interested, read the first link first; the second one responds to the first.

http://www.fightingirishthomas.com/2011/07/corapi-corrupted-part-v-orthodox.html
http://www.fightingirishthomas.com/2011/07/corapi-corrupted-part-vi-stepping-up-to.html

[daniel1212]

Personally, I never DID like the opulent, gaudy and ostentatious style of the Middle Ages - especially that which was and still is found at the Vatican.

Esp. mostly naked men, and then you have art lovers of Hell:

Gargoyles of Notre-Dame de Paris

Gargoyle Notre-Dame d'Amiens, France

A gargoyle on the Basilica of the Sacré Cœur, Paris, France, showing the water channel

Gargoyle at the St.-Petrus-en-Pauluskerk, Ostend, Belgium

Gargoyle in form of a lion Cathedral Saint-Etienne de Meaux

[vladimir998]

“Oh how typically Vlad! Did I say that any Pope before the Reformation used the term Roman Catholic IN ENGLISH? No, I didn’t.”

If he didn’t say “Roman Catholic” then he didn’t say “Roman Catholic”. Look at what the OED says. It makes it clear that “Roman Catholic” - an English expression - is a Protestant term.

“Perhaps you should read the link and argue against what is said there and not just a few words you pick out and quibble over?”

Unless the link is about the use of the ENGLISH phrase “Roman Catholic” then it is irrelevant.

“Do you think nobody is wise to that tactic?”

Tactic? Are we not posting in ENGLISH about an ENGLISH expression invented by ENGLISH Protestants just as the OED CONFIRMS? Yes, yes, we are. That’s not a tactic. That’s just a fact.

[Gamecock]

Personally, I never DID like the opulent, gaudy and ostentatious style of the Middle Ages - especially that which was and still is found at the Vatican.

Well, considering the Pope's little fundraising effort was one of the triggers for the Reformation I would have to agree.

[vladimir998]

You posted from wikipedia the following:

“The term Roman Catholic appeared in the English language...”

Oh, ENGLISH. Imagine that.

“at the beginning of the 17th century, to differentiate specific groups of Christians in communion with the Pope from others; comparable terms in other languages already existed. It has continued to be widely used in the English language ever since, although its usage has changed over the centuries.[1]”

“USED WIDELY IN ENGLISH”

“The terms “Romish Catholic” and “Roman Catholic”, along with “Popish Catholic”, were brought into use in the English language...”

ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

“Like the term Anglican, the term Roman Catholic came into widespread use in the English language only in the 17th century.[8]...”

ENGLISH LANGUAGE.