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

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.

Anyway, first things first: It's disrespectful for any non-family member to ask to pray with a dying woman.

Why?

The family will request your presence if they really want it.

Not necessarily so. Sometimes they're not in the presence of mind to think that clearly, being somewhat preoccupied.

Also, that mindset does not allow for people showing compassion nor showing the family that someone cares.

They could interpret the fact that no one is showing up as lack of concern or love.

When both my parents died, I appreciated the fact that people took the effort to reach out at a time when I NEEDED the support and encouragement. It tells them that they are important to others.

Throwing it back on the family to ask for help if they want it is totally the WRONG think to do. They have enough to deal with already.

Better to make the effort and have then say *No thanks* than to leave them alone and have them feel betrayed and abandoned at a time when they need others and as *Where were you when I needed you the most?*

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.

God is no respecter of persons. He loves you as much as anyone else on the planet and you are as close to Him from His point of view, as anyone else on the planet.

Our value to God is not based on how *holy* a life we live, or how *good* we are or what we do for Him. He doesn't need us to do anything for Him.

Our value to Him is based on the fact that we are made in His likeness and image and we have been bought with a price, the highest price anyone could pay for anything.

This idea that others are more worthy than us is just a false sense of humility and does not impress God by showing Him how humble we are by having such a low opinion of ourselves. HE doesn't have a low opinion of us. If He did, He wouldn't have paid the price He did to buy us back from the slavery we sold ourselves into.

“Roman Catholic” (noun) - 1584 - first instance in English according to Merriam Webster.

“Roman Catholic” (adjective) - 1614 - first instance in English according to Merriam Webster.

“Different variants of the “Roman” insult appeared at different times. The earliest form was the noun “Romanist” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. The next to develop was the adjective “Romish” (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. Next came the noun “Roman Catholic” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined around 1595-1605. Shortly thereafter came the verb “to Romanize” (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. Between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun “Romanism” (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a latecomer term about 1815-1825, the noun “Roman Catholicism,” a synonym for the earlier “Romanism.”” http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/when-did-the-term-roman-catholic-church-first-come-into-being

And you say:

“It’s been used BY Roman Catholics for hundreds of years.”

It was invented by Protestants in England. English Catholics grew up hearing it. They did not originally, nor even throughout most of the 16th century, refer to the Church as “Roman Catholic”. They only did so because that was now the standard term in PROTESTANT ENGLAND. This Canisius (catechism) is in Latin, but even the English-Scots version in the 16th/17th century was entitled “Catholic” and not “Roman Catholic”: https://mediatrixpress.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/canisius1.jpg Catholics among themselves usually used the term “Catholic” because they knew the term “Roman Catholic” was not their own. Only after long familiarity AND FORCE OF ENGLISH LAW did the term “Roman Catholic” becomes accepted. Hence, this 1737 edition of Thomas Ward’s famous Errata of the Protestant Bible referring to “Catholic” on the front page: https://archive.org/stream/erratatotheprote00warduoft#page/n5/mode/2up

“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.”

It absolutely does. “Romish” is a pejorative. “Popish” is a pejorative. “Roman Catholic”, likewise is a Protestant invention and was not chosen by Catholics freely.

Our value to God is not based on how *holy* a life we live, or how *good* we are or what we do for Him. He doesn't need us to do anything for Him.

Keep telling yourself that; it's the only way you can keep skating by, not showing Jesus and Mary the full respect that they deserve. You left the most incredible faith in the world. Did you ever open the box to the [frequent] beauty of its Sacraments (and sacramentals)? All of them, that is?

363 days out of the year they celebrate Mass. Did you ever attend Mass other than on Sundays and Holy Days? The champions of the faith, the foot soldiers for Jesus, are sitting in the pews every single day; these are the people who can move mountains with their prayers. These are the people who can handle disease, disability, poverty, and loss, better than anyone I know. And you gave it up for what? Sitting on forum boards telling people their [Catholic] faith is no good? If your faith has set you free, then why are you not free? Receiving Christ in the Eucharist IS Real; no one knows that better than daily Mass Catholics. Ask the thousands upon thousands of people who attend every day. Ask them why they go. Most will tell you they have come for Jesus .... his word ..... his body and blood .............

God love you, metmom; I know you suffer. So do I, but criticizing the Catholic faith won't make you any happier ......... or healthier.

http://www.masstimes.org/

Nothing you have said, ultimately, refutes the truth of what I told you; for as I said, I was not speaking of the letter but of the spirit of the law which YES -- can be found in the "srticture" also, as you insist that word be used.

Particularly in the context of altars -- the directions still apply, in spirit...regardless if what serves as altar today be wood, Portland cement, brick or stone -- that is the portion, the stricture" as you insist which does not matter so much now --- while the spirit of the matter still remains as spoken by the Creator to Moses.

Why do you resist it? Did you even see what I was driving at -- before deciding "it doesn't matter"?

There was more which I could have said concerning identities -- and how those do need to remain distinct.

And still the question asked yourself remains unanswered, just as it does every time it comes up in the same context, the answers here (as much elsewhere) which you supply that are rather besides the point(s) become as smokescreen, stringing it all along for even hundreds of comments -- putting distance between your self and the duplicities upon which your polemics are based.

Context is important.

Distinctions are important.

Yet you do appear unaware how just how thoroughly your own words undermine each and every of your own polemical positions.

It still remains also for you to establish that Bergoglio (or anyone else for that matter) can extrapolate from the writings of the Apostle Paul that "Mary" is the "new Eve". Paul provided no room or place for that -- not as it has now become conflated yet further from there to be.

Speaking of "types" and that they were of the same flesh, etc., when that is yet further extended to include support for Marionism is not scriptural extrapolation which one can find support for in Paul, but is the loosest sort of extrapolation, and in Ireneus' example which you brought a "waxing poetical" followed by re-imposition of the badly sourced derivative product onto Pauline theology.

Going further back, into Scriptures as Paul knew of them, explaining who Christ was (and is);
From Genesis 3:15 it was not written that the woman's foot would crush the head of the serpent, or that it would be her own heel that would be bruised, but that of her seed, and that seed being portrayed in the masculine.

It is of interest to note that is one scriptures which the Roman Catholic Church semi-famously altered -- and on the USCCB pages exhibits not faithful textual translation to this day -- but a theological translation in which she and him are turned into the word "they".

Look into the Greek and Hebrew texts.

One will not find the word "they" used in that context. Changing that word implies much, or can, which then helps introduce support for significantly important theological change -- if that chiefly but by addition. Salvation through Mary first, instead of through Christ alone, or a "salvation through Jesus & Mary", or "though Mary and Jesus" in whichever order, is not exactly in the liturgy now is it?

The RCC having done so with Genesis 3:15, for those who have eyes to see it, helps give away the "game" that had been played, although it took many centuries for the folk fables concerning Mary (there were plenty of those hanging 'round the peripheries of the early church) to blossom into having made her into being a 4th member of the Trinity in [almost] all but name only...with identities being mistaken, just who is who and what is what subtly shifted from as identity and role of participants are shown in the Gospel demonstrated and explained by Christ (as He fulfilled both spirit and letter of -- those coming from Spirit with a capital "S"), and as preached by Paul and the first generations following Christ and the Apostles consistently enough conveyed those things.

On other note (not having much directly to do with "Mary");
The [Roman] Catholic Church on the highest levels does not support the sort of polemics which you bring, or else they are talking out of both sides of their faces when what they say elsewhere can be clearly seen to disavow your positions and attitudes both (as that last comes across to the majority here -- including more than a few of your own fellow Roman Catholics).

It is written that God judges no one. Did you know that? But the Son will.

You are not Him.

The Church is not Him.

We are not Him, and He is not us.

Identity, identity, identity.

If those are to become as one, hid in Christ -- who asked the disciples "what will you do when I go back to where I was before"? then one could extrapolate that those who become hid in Christ (as Paul wrote), are then in the heart of the Father also.

If such be so...there need not be reason to address prayer to any but the Father, for as Christ can be see (according to NT scripture) explicitly instructing his disciples to do "when you pray, pray in this manner", etc.

Prayers to Mary and departed saints (rather than prayers of thanksgiving for them having been among us in this earthly realm) ignore that "stricture" provided by Christ --- much like you just labeled what I pointed towards in the OT as 'stricture' which you indicated can be set fully aside, saying that "does not apply" while telling me as much (in the same breath) that you can dine upon the flesh of swine.

Yeah, I can eat pork too.

I have been known to hunt them down and shoot them dead. Personally, with malice aforethought.

“The discussion wasn’t about “Romish” or “Popish” now, was it?”

They are related terms to what we are discussing. All three were invented by Protestants.

“And Anglicans NEVER considered themselves as Protestant.”

False. http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2010/05/anglicanism-protestant-or-reformed.html Your statement is so incredibly bizarre I am shocked you - a Protestant - would even make it. Do you know what the Anglican Church in America officially called itself from just after the American Revolution until the 1970s??? “Protestant Episcopal Church”. Gee, where do you think those Anglicans got the idea they were Protestants???

“But, seeing as numerous Popes, parishes, church documents, catechisms and, even, other Roman Catholics DO use the term “Roman Catholic” to identify, designate and differentiate the Latin rite from the Eastern rite and the Orthodox, contending now that they don’t do so freely - as if it is being forced upon them by the bad Protestants - is just so much to do about nothing and comical.”

See you’re already making two errors: 1) the fact that many Catholics - by force of common practice in ENGLISH and by force of ENGLISH law - call the Catholic Church (and not just always the Roman Church within it alone) the “Roman Catholic Church” in no way changes the fact that the term is a Protestant invented term; 2) the fact that Catholics use the term as a convenience with non-Catholics changes nothing about the term’s origins.

“You don’t like the term? Don’t use it.”

I rarely do.

“But you aren’t in any position to tell others they cannot or to take offense when they do.”

Sure I am. I, as a Catholic, have every right and a duty to tell the truth about the Protestant invention of the term.

“Who knows, maybe you can petition Pope Francis to tell everyone what you think they should call themselves?”

I don’t have to. He says “Catholic”. And only uses “Roman Catholic” in regard to non-Catholics although, as a Spanish speaker, the term is largely foreign to him.

“Might as well give it a try, eh?”

Again, there’s no need.

So tell us, how do you "feel" about the word "papist"?

The general principles behind the term (neutrally considered) is much what is left over as to differences, after one gives Luther his due (as Ratzinger and others have done) then followed by considerations towards men such as (the late 16th century Anglican cleric) Hooker, who upheld there being necessity of Church as institution leaves the chief remaining additional difference be form of receptionism, which Ratzinger when speaking esoterically does not appear to hold great hostility towards.

The Anglican communions which "poped" were to be allowed to retain their own liturgy -- correct?

(Or has that too now changed?)

So whattda' do we really have for the more traditional "High Church" Anglicans who don't go a-popeing, but differing view towards Holy Communion (as the Anglicans speak of such) and -- no "pope" with that rejection being as much due to the accumulated theological baggage associated with the office -- particularly as to extent "authority" should best apply.

The phrase "popeing" I've seen used by those who also talk about "swimming the Tiber".

If anyone catches sight of people who on their travels to "Rome" (to go for a swim) perchance need cross over the River Swift on their way, have 'em wave to Wycliffe for me, and tell him I said "hi" and "thanks for everything".

“The discussion wasn’t about “Romish” or “Popish” now, was it?”

They are related terms to what we are discussing. All three were invented by Protestants.

Except that wasn't what we were EVER discussing. You pitched a fit over my use of the term "Roman Catholic" and even after repeated posts with links that showed where and when and why the term came into existence you continued to assert it was WHOLLY "Protestant" originated and used in a derogatory manner. That you can claim with a straight face that Roman Catholics only use the term when they have no choice and don't do so "freely" only furthers the ridiculous nature of your argument and the hysterical claim to perpetual offense.

“And Anglicans NEVER considered themselves as Protestant.”

False. http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2010/05/anglicanism-protestant-or-reformed.html Your statement is so incredibly bizarre I am shocked you - a Protestant - would even make it. Do you know what the Anglican Church in America officially called itself from just after the American Revolution until the 1970s??? “Protestant Episcopal Church”. Gee, where do you think those Anglicans got the idea they were Protestants???

This isn't about what American Episcopals call themselves today but what the English Anglican church did in the sixteenth century and, seeing as Henry VIII wanted nothing to do with the Reformation, Luther or Protestants, I'm shocked you would try to pander THAT incredibly bizarre claim off here and now. Remember, you claimed the ENGLISH term "Roman Catholic" originated strictly as a pejorative BY the Protestants. Roman Catholics today are not "forced" by anyone to use the term but freely choose to do so anyway - even numerous Popes. I prefer to use the term because I know Roman Catholics have the tendency to claim they alone are "Catholic" - a term which originally meant "universal" or "of the whole" and DID at one time apply to the Bride of Christ. The real, TRUE, church is the spiritual house being built by God of which ALL believers are living stones. Rome cannot make such a claim.

You have no such "duty" to assert things that are half truths or false just so you can score imaginary points against Protestants. People do their homework and duplicity comes back to bite the duplicitous in the end.

And, once again, I am not a "Protestant", I am a Christian, saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. Try to remember that. Your continuous assertions that I am after my repeated corrections shows that you are using the term "Protestant" in a derogatory manner and are guilty of the SAME action you claim is done against you when people say Roman Catholic.

Thanks.

Like Peter, though I've done other things for work, I'm basically still just a fisherman at heart. Who used to do a lot hunting.

I never had a pig gore or slash me, but I have had a wounded one square off and try.

They get teed off about having someone shoot their companions too.

Though they usually break and scatter, taking off in all direction when there is a herd (it's a rush when the brush suddenly explodes with pigs) sometimes when they are not certain where the shot came from, or a little to medium-sized one is downed and squeals -- the bigger ones stand there and vocalize a long growl that raises and lowers in pitch.

They be mad, bro. Like -- seriously.

It's best then just to stand still. Don't move. (you already chambered immediately after firing --always get another round even as the gun is coming back down, and one's eyes are still on the prey). Their eyesight is not very good at all. As close as 30 yards away, if one's own outline is broken up with nearby brush -- they may not be able to see you -- if you don't move.

Then decide.

When your opponent has nothing left but to sputter and spit out insults, I’d say you thoroughly trampled him. Good job! ;o)

That is all that so many of these RC apologists have to offer, since there is no Scripture they can utilize to confirm their proclamations. They offer only a rote response as taught in their catechismal upbringing, and have never sought anything but to cling to all that they perceive as reality.

But, thank God that the Holy Spirit knows no limitations and continues to beckon and call to ALL hearts open to Him.

This is our mission field and with that comes the certainty that the enemy will do anything to keep those deceived and indoctrinated by their cult. Satan is lurking and growing stronger as the time comes near for the return of Christ. For more than a thousand years, he has clothed himself in fine garments and resided in fancy temples, deceiving millions and billions.

Christians are found throughout the world and know the sound of that inner voice speaking from the Throne. There are many on these threads who are sincerely searching for truth. The Truth is found in Scripture, not in the traditions taught by a false priesthood clinging to political power to continue to spread their uncertainty and keep minds and hearts closed to eternity.

Mark 7: “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

1 Peter 5: 5 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

5 In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because,

“God opposes the proud
but shows favor to the humble.”
6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7 Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

8 Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. 9 Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.

10 And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. 11 To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen.

I've been considering I may should begin some deeper study of Islam (beyond the Koran) to better be inside their heads, though on past occasion the Lord has given me leading to the right things to say -- and I got such a positive response I was left flat-footed when the man asked me where he could learn more.

I didn't know where exactly I should send him -- other to advise he get a bible and just read it like it was a book -- don't strain too hard, and let the words speak. Oh, but stick with it if one started getting sleepy right away, and it's ok to skim through the so-and-so begat so-and-so, for although those genealogies can hold significance particularly for the Jewish people of that time -- and have significance as to some of the prophecies -- those same prophesies concerning Christ are explained pretty well in the text as one goes along in reading.

The man's wife came out and opposed me, saying bad things about Christianity -- and some false accusations about myself too, giving me what I think is fairly typical muslim reaction of the sort which is a lot like secular worldly reactions (being as materialism/naturalism/rationalism is sort-of becoming the religion of the agnostic, the anybody but jesus atheist, even more so for the anti-theist who is really mad at Christianity, and I don't really blame them all that much even as I very much disagree with them)

The muslims can be a ripe mission field -- but beware -- wise as serpents harmless as doves was one of the pieces of advice Christians were given.

Standing in front of bulldozers may not be a good plan, to borrow a sad and unfortunate "pancake" story.

We don't have to rush martyrdom. If it is meant to find us -- it can or will?

Jesus pushed the point (pushed their buttons, but good) yet He had things He had to say.

If what we have to say is coming more from our minds and opinions then from His heart and mind it's like trying to push a rope. Frustrating.

The aa-eeAAA I KEEL YOU for insulting the "prophet" [may pork be upon him] can be encountered easily enough, but for the most part on online forums there are just trolls who will insult instead of reason.

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.