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.

[Elsie]

Sigh...

Elsie getting the Blessed number is PROOF that GOD loves him!

[vladimir998]

“Roman Catholic” is an ENGLISH expression invented by Protestants - as shown in the OED.

[vladimir998]

“Bingo!”

Exactly. . . because it would only worry me if my religion were invented by a German monk on the cloaca. Oh, wait. That’s your religion.

[vladimir998]

“Did you make this up; or do you have some PROOF that you’ll post verifying it?”

No, I did not make that up. Do you have any proof against it?

[mlizzy]

I ♥ Jesus.

Yes! We love Jesus too. That is Who we have in common with our Christian friends from other faith beliefs. Out of respect for our friendships (and their love for Jesus), we have attended their services (quite a few actually), which include Assemblies of God, West Suburban Church (a non-denom), Lutheran, and one that I can't remember the name of but it's held in a small college classroom. We've been to services held out of movie theaters too, and one thing could readily be observed, outside of their love for Jesus, and that was their fellowship was very strong. My better half and I agreed, though, it needed to be, to fill the gap because something [someOne] is missing, the Eucharist.

[Elsie]

No, I did not make that up. Do you have any proof against it?

AGAINST?

You get to use BOTH sides of the coin?

Where is YOUR proof OF it?

[Elsie]

My better half and I agreed, though, it needed to be, to fill the gap because something [someOne] is missing, the Eucharist.

See there; we agree on most everything!

(We have reasons...)

Acts 1:11
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

---

The only BODY of Christ is found in His believers.

HE is STILL in Heaven; NOT residing in some wafer, no matter HOW it's made or HOW it's prayed over.

---

1 Corinthians 12:27
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

[boatbums]

It's becoming obvious that when some people assert they alone have the "fullness of the faith", they aren't really talking about fullness but engorgement - the kind that comes from filling up on the wrong stuff and scrimping on the expedient stuff.

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. (I Cor. 10:23)

As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. (I Timothy 1:3-5)

[Syncro]

I proudly accept the label “Infidel” given me and all other non-Islamists.

In fact I have a few shirts with the word in large letters.

Of course we are seen as heretics by those who wish to propagate their denomination as the 1 Tru Church in spite of what the Bible teaches.

[Syncro]

Remarkable, sweetest, holiest, lady I've ever met, though, who drew scores of people reciting the rosary (holding candles) in her back yard as she lay dying. I'll never forget her, and look forward to seeing her in the future.

It's sad to see everyone in the backyard rolling beads for Mary when some of them could have been at the dying woman's bedside, holding her hand and praying with her to Jesus.

And your other post to me:

In fact the post of yours that I am replying to was actually addressed to a saint!

I should have been clearer and said "Catholic" saint. Unless metmom reverts, she would miss the first qualification. Also, of course, I'm not the judge who becomes a saint or not; my friend's cause would have to be looked into, and it's not likely it would as there's no backing for it. Hopefully, though, I'll find out later...... :)

I think you will be hard pressed to find a joyful born again Christian who wants to "refert" to a denomination that God has freed one from.

We go by Christian Biblical qualifications not denominational ones.

Being a saint is automatic when one becomes a dedicated born again follower of Christ, as pointed out many times in Scripture. I'd be glad to show you the verses if need be.

I find it interesting in that link you posted to me that in your post there you mention that you pray to this person whose death you speak about.

So is it your contention that all people that have died can be prayed to and be asked to pray for us?

Christians are Christians are saints. Pretty cool huh?

In fact the post of yours that I am replying to was actually addressed to a saint!

I should have been clearer and said "Catholic" saint. Unless metmom reverts, she would miss the first qualification. Also, of course, I'm not the judge who becomes a saint or not; my friend's cause would have to be looked into, and it's not likely it would as there's no backing for it. Hopefully, though, I'll find out later...... :)

[mlizzy]

It's sad to see everyone in the backyard rolling beads for Mary when some of them could have been at the dying woman's bedside, holding her hand and praying with her to Jesus.

Dying is not easy; people who sincerely want to help don't intrude on family time. You're proving a point! Catholicism is a more complete (and possibly compassionate?) faith. Those who take part in its Sacraments (and sacramentals) frequently, would never say what you just said. I'm not going to address the rest of your post. God love (and forgive) you.

[Syncro]

It's sad to see everyone in the backyard rolling beads for Mary when some of them could have been at the dying woman's bedside, holding her hand and praying with her to Jesus.

Dying is not easy; people who sincerely want to help don't intrude on family time.

Substituting intruding in place of compassion?

Going through the "Second Trinity, At Godhead Level" Mary instead of the only mediator between God and man, Jesus, is ineffective.

I wasn't saying everyone should barge in and cause a scene, just that someone should pray to Jesus with the dying woman, declared as a saint that can be prayed to after death (per the link YOU provided). Of course she is a saint, as are all Christians according to the Bible.

But asking (praying ) any of the millions of Christians that have passed away as a mediator is one step away from praying to Jesus. God wants us to go directly to Him.

Catholicism is a more complete (and possibly compassionate?) faith.

Really, better than being a Biblical born again Christian (the faith your response is substituting Catholicism for?)

God does love and forgive me, but no need to be forgiven for stating the truth.

May God love (and forgive) YOU. Especially for inferring that an Ex Catholic cannot be a saint.

But I do apologize for offending you, that was not my intention.

May God richly bless you, mlizzy.

[boatbums]

“Roman Catholic” is an ENGLISH expression invented by Protestants - as shown in the OED.

No, it wasn't. But I guess you had better scold all the Popes that have used the term in their encyclicals, declarations and "official" documents for using a "Protestant" invented expression.

Popes have on several occasions in different contexts during the 20th and 21st centuries used the term "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to the whole church in communion with the Holy See. Example encyclicals include Divini Illius Magistri of Pope Pius XI in 1929 and, Humani generis of Pope Pius XII in 1950.[76]

Pope Paul VI used the term "Roman Catholic Church" in the joint declarations he signed with Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople in 1965 and 1967.[77] He also used that term in the declarations he signed with Patriarch Mar Ignatius Yacoub III of the Syrian Orthodox Church on 27 October 1971 and with Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggan on 29 April 1977.

Pope John Paul II referred to himself as "the Head of the Roman Catholic Church" (29 September 1979). He called the Church "Roman Catholic" when speaking to the Jewish community in Mainz on 17 November 1980, in a message to those celebrating the 450th anniversary of the Confessio Augustana on 25 June 1980, when speaking to the people of Mechelen, Belgium on 18 May 1985, when talking to representatives of Christian confessions in Copenhagen, Denmark on 7 June 1989, when addressing a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople on 29 June 1989, at a meeting of the Ukrainian Synod in Rome on 24 March 1980, at a prayer meeting in the Orthodox cathedral of Bialystok, Poland on 5 June 1991, when speaking to the Polish Ecumenical Council in Holy Trinity Church, Warsaw 9 June 1991, at an ecumenical meeting in the Aula Magna of the Colégio Catarinense, in Florianópolis, Brazil on 18 October 1991, and at the Angelus in São Salvador da Bahia, Brazil on 20 October 1991.

Pope Benedict XVI called the Church "the Roman Catholic Church" at a meeting in Warsaw on 25 May 2006 and in joint declarations that he signed with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams on 23 November 2006 and with Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople on 30 November 2006.

[boatbums]

Yipes! Ugly! Disrespect?

Selective outrage. I guess you would say calling people "mouth breathers" is merely a comment about their allergies?

[vladimir998]

“No, it wasn’t.”

Yes, it was. The OED confirms that.

“But I guess you had better scold all the Popes that have used the term in their encyclicals, declarations and “official” documents for using a “Protestant” invented expression.”

They generally use it in relation to non-Catholics.

“Example encyclicals include Divini Illius Magistri of Pope Pius XI in 1929 and, Humani generis of Pope Pius XII in 1950.”

Pope Pius XI’s Divini Illius Magistri used this term: “Sancta Ecclesia Catholica Romana”. In case you didn’t know, that’s Latin. When translated, that could just as easily be rendered as: “Holy Roman Catholic Church” or “Holy Catholic Roman Church”. It was not a definitive statement about the name of the Church. It was a statement about the qualities of the Church: Holy, Roman, Catholic, and the Church. That is not “Roman Catholic” as Protestants invented it or as they used it. And in any case it was almost 350 years after Protestants invented the term “Roman Catholic” in English so it proves exactly nothing.

In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII used the term “Ecclesiam Catholicam Romanam” in reference to the corpus Christi mysticum et Ecclesiam Catholicam Romanam unum idemque esse where he is clearly using the term to make absolutely sure what institution he is referring to as the mystical Body of Christ being one and the same as the Catholic Church. In any case, he wasn’t using it as Protestants have used it and he was using the term in Latin, not English, and he used it 350 years after Protestants invented it.

“Pope Paul VI used the term “Roman Catholic Church” in the joint declarations he signed with Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople”

Yep. In shared declarations with NON-CATHOLIC churches the use of “Roman Catholic Church” has become standardized because so many Christians around the world have adopted the English Protestant practice of using the term. The same for recent popes.

Protestants invented the term. The term never gained any general currency in the Catholic Church until the last 50 years and is used almost exclusively when dealing with NON-CATHOLIC churches or Protestant sects.

[Syncro]

Interesting, the Catholic denomination continues to be “hijacked” by Protestants.

The more they pick up from non Catholic sources (Protestants and other born again Christians who are not Protestant) the closer they can come to Christ and replace Him for Mary as the center of the “Church.”

[BlueDragon]

I am not a Jew who practices Old Testament sacrifices. Thus, an Old Testament stricture [sic] 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.

Oh, but it does apply and remains illuminating, the Spirit of the law being unchanging.

"To read Holy Scripture in the light of grace is to unite it. If one reads it according to the flesh as Jews read it, the law stands as a second entity besides the New Testament; but if it is read according to the spirit, it becomes itself a gospel" -- M. Pontet, as cited by Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology p. 136

I notice too that again you failed to touch the question "who is the Church" as posed, in context to your own remarks.

Remember --- the question came about concerning the "important distinction" as you put it, between what you referred to as being The Church, and more simply or merely individuals associated and involved with that same.

I raised another issue when I spoke of altars.

I shall try again, showing the two subjects, the "question" and the altar, though not the same, are still related -- with the important thing then being that in this relationship identities need to remain distinct, for you did speak of important distinctions calling those necassary and proper. It is to that aspect which I here write.

Thus, an Old Testament stricture [sic] 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.

Not part of...the moral law..?

Then you have just made the letter of the Law to be immoral, for it being other than moral.

The separation you indulged in by setting what was fulfilled apart from itself (by reducing it to merely being "OT practice") is illogical, and while I was citing the text itself, I was not speaking towards the letter, but the spirit, which was obvious enough.

why must you always resist the spirit? Acts 7

The letter of the law itself is not without morals, showing inner truths in it's outward forms, truth in the things of God down to the very furniture of the Holy of Holies.

We are not speaking here of Targum or Hebrew written works (which are not devoid of discussion of "spirit" of the law for that grew into becoming their precise point) that are themselves mere discussions of the Law which early forms in turn served to produce other, later "OT practice(s)" but a passage from Exodus, attributed to being spoken Word of the Creator which itself revealed how one is to approach (His) Holiness -- and more importantly how not to.

Christ fulfilled both, with those two (Spirit & letter) though distinct from on another in one sense, that sense must be remain aware and conscious of the truth, which is; that it was not and is not the Spirit which is derived from the Letter (albeit the Spirit can be discerned in the letter) but is instead the letter of the Law which came from the Spirit.

Surely you agree with that proposition?

Christ fulfilled the Law -- not did away with it...or merely fulfill "moral aspect" of that same. He is Holy, all aspects of Himself in harmony, there being not one Word of His which does not ring forevermore.

Christ speaking for Himself, and as God (who's own Son he truly was and still is) Matthew 24:

35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

The Creator's full intents in regards to instructions on how to build altar to Him (and how not) cannot be now artificially restricted to apply only to Hebrew OT sacrifices made unto Him for Christ did not come to break (or overturn, either) the Law, nor did in the slightest aspect fulfill the Spirit outside the Letter...and unto this day, there still are altars upon which some do seek to provide offering to God from upon, for is not Christ Himself in Roman rite said to be offered up to God, along with prayers to God?

Is not God Himself said to be unchanging, immutable, the same as He was yesterday, is today, and will forever be?

What yet then this Christ we speak of? His words spoken on the cross, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do" did not stave off the over-throwing of the Temple (not one stone left upon another, for those were cut stones after all, were they not?).

What is the altar but place for offering -- yet now, through Christ a place of reception for us where we offer thanks... with identities in this simplest approach needing to remain as they had, remaining throughout whom and what they were, yet ourselves hopefully all the same changed to conform more towards His own likeness and being. Through Moses The Creator spoke to the children of Israel (Jacob, of lineage Abraham-Isaac-Jacob, who became Israel) telling them of His Law, God's Word unto them.

Centuries later the own known as Jesus, speaking forcefully in Matthew 23 to those whom by both the laws given to them and their own traditions concerning those would manipulate for their own gain all parties involved with the altar, said to them;

19"...For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 20 Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. 21 He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells[e] in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.

In regards to the altar, there are three things which are distinct one from each of the others by turn. There is the one who places offering upon the altar, the offering placed thereon, and the altar itself. There is a fourth party, too. The Great I Am, as He answered to Moses when that prophet asked "who should I say sent me?"

Going back to the near beginnings of the written Law;
Not of altars foremost, for those are placement of sacrifice for sins in payment/appeasement for not following Law, even the Spirit of the law (obedience being better than sacrifice) Moses telling what God told to himself, Dueteronomy 5;

29 Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever! 30 Go, say to them, “Return to your tents.” 31 But as for you, stand here by Me, that I may speak to you all the commandments and the statutes and the judgments which you shall teach them, that they may observe them in the land which I give them to possess.’

with that which Moses given in total of course included instructions for altars and how to approach them as I provided to you in previous from Exodus 2

From Deuteronomy 6:

6 “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.

Echoed in Deuteronomy 11:18-19 ("..You shall therefore lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul.."), Deuteronomy 29:9,

Deuteronomy 30:14 (which nestled among all the rest is killer-primo support for sola scriptura, killer for those who deny the importance, and primo for those whom see how the principle in spirit need apply !

But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

Deuteronomy 32:46 (teach them to your children), again the echo continues in Joshua 1:

8 This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.

How many times does He say it?

And yes, He can and does speak to us through the written word, as He does by Spirit also, but what is heard by Spirit is subject always to the spirit of the entire Word which has come before (even that which is filtered through church teachings!) for that is the important test, even if God can seemingly over-ride what a man thinks of the Law (at any one time in salvation-history) as He did with Peter and Peter's own concept of the Law, telling him "arise Peter, kill and eat!" curiously enough being way the Lord opened up to Peter what was His own heart's desire, using there too the figures of "unclean beasts" from the Law itself to indicate the distinction that salvation, even by the Spirit of the Law which had been fulfilled by Christ, was to go out to gentile nations and peoples beyond and outside Israel.

Psalm 119

11 I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.

15 I will meditate on your precepts and fix my eyes on your ways.

42-43 then shall I have an answer for him who taunts me, for I trust in your word. And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth, for my hope is in your rules

"Tempt not the Lord", for it is written man lives not by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Three times in succession when resisting the devil's cunning Matthew 4 Christ affirms the written word, both the letter and Spirit, standing upon the strength of it, arguing not His own personal authority beyond what had been revealed to the Hebrews was Word of God, as it is written.

Psalm 119: KJV 105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

97 Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day.

Proverbs 3:

1 My son, do not forget my teaching, but let your heart keep my commandments,

John 14:

21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”

Signed, Jesus

Matthew 7:

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

and 24

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock."

A wise man’s heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man’s heart directs him toward the left.

Proverbs 25:

2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

[mlizzy]

May God love (and forgive) YOU. Especially for inferring that an Ex Catholic cannot be a saint.

::sighs:: Right off the bat, you misquote (or misunderstood?) me. Anyway, first things first: It's disrespectful for any non-family member to ask to pray with a dying woman. The family will request your presence if they really want it. Cheryl was humbled regarding the show of folks praying the beads. (I'd be thrilled if only one person stopped by for my demise.) Hover over Cheryl's picture; see her own words in regard to Mary. As far as not getting anywhere with intercessory prayers to Mary, that's not true at all. Read up; there's testimony after testimony in books and online. These prayers go straight to Jesus from Mary. It's not a bad deal at all. :) He listens to her; she's his mother!

There are numerous references to saints in the Bible, as long as one realizes that all of these are simply to 'God's people' and especially in the New Testament to Christian believers. There are no references to saints in the sense understood by the Roman Catholic church.

Catholic saints lived extra-extraordinary lives for Christ — they are not deemed saints until after they have died and a painstaking process ensues making sure they were worthy of the honor, and certain criteria has been met. Here's some of the things these saints went through in life, I repeat, for Jesus: joking while being cooked like a pig on a spit; telling executioners just where they'd like to be beheaded so their head rolls off well; ceaseless work for the poor and downtrodden; being eaten by lions; levitating; bearing the stigmata; bi-locating; burned at the stake; offering to be killed for another. The list goes on and on. There are over 10,000 Catholic saints!

And, yes, I ask Cheryl to pray for me. Why not? She's closer to Jesus than I am, and if I get some of my hearing back (my request), maybe they'll open up her cause for sainthood. It's the least I could do. ♥

And an ex-Catholic cannot be a Catholic saint. For future reference, when a Catholic speaks of a saint, they are usually referring to a canonized one.

Now ................ if you didn't debate with Catholics online regarding their beliefs, you'd have more time to work on being a [lower case] saint, no? — or do you think you already have that in the bag?

God be with you!

[boatbums]

Protestants invented the term. The term never gained any general currency in the Catholic Church until the last 50 years and is used almost exclusively when dealing with NON-CATHOLIC churches or Protestant sects.

The term Roman Catholic appeared in the English language 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.[ "Everyone claimed to be 'catholic' and 'evangelical' and (eventually) 'reformed', but now each of these became a denominational label. The name 'Roman Catholic' conjoined the universality of the church 'over the entire world' with the specificity of 'only one single see'" ([1]) Jaroslav Pelikan, 1985, The Christian Tradition: Volume 4, Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) (Section on The Roman Catholic Particularity). University of Chicago Press ISBN 0-226-65377-3 pages 245–246]

It's been used BY Roman Catholics for hundreds of years. Why don't you just admit you don't personally like the term instead of declaring it is a derogatory invention of "Protestants"??? History doesn't back you up.

[metmom]

Ever feel like this in trying to prove something to a Catholic using facts?