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.

I’ve never moved the goalposts. I have always said “Roman Catholic” is an English Protestant invention as the OED makes clear. That’s not a ‘gotcha game’. That’s just the truth.

Your version of the "truth", maybe. I know you can't seem to let even the smallest iota of detail go in your quest to always be right about everything, but this current line of banter started when you responded to my:

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

With:

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

The "goalpost" (for THIS argument anyway) was always about the genesis of the ENGLISH term "Roman Catholic" and your insistence that it was invented by Protestants to insult Catholics and your refusal to use it because of that. The words "Romish" or "Popish" weren't brought up except by you.

Do I think Romish, Popish, Papist or Poped might be offensive terms to some Catholics? Yes, I can see how some may not like those terms. But when I can show you the term Roman Catholic used in documents that ORIGINATED with your church, Popes who have used the term, signs outside churches and general use BY Roman Catholics without any force from anyone, to continue to insist everyone is picking on Catholics is just so much noise. Such a pathetic perpetually persecuted attitude is what comes across and is out of place on an open Religion Forum thread. It is disruptive and silly to continue to press such a weak excuse for an argument.

What's the real deal here? Do you think wearing people out so that they give up trying to ever discuss anything with you is the same thing as winning an argument and making you right by default? Seriously, dude, don't you have better things to do with your time? I know I do.

I never said that so once again we see how anti-Catholics just make things up.

True; you didn't - this time.

But you DID type evidence to the FACT of it...

... 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.

We ALL know that the only TRUE Christians are CATHOLIC.

Tell you what...if I explain BD's comment, will you answer it honestly?

He ALWAYS tells the truth and never, EVER exaggerates!

You, however; a self identified MouthBreather; have been called out by him many, MANY times!

When will you REPENT!!! come to the warm, loving arms of ~~Jesus~~ Mary?

--Torquemada_Wannabe(OUT!! You damned JEWS!!!!!!)

Doesn't make sense? ha.

Try reading the paragraphs in context to one another, and then seen in light of the wider conversation.

The difference concerned dopes who "pope" and those not dopey enough to do so.

Google "receptionism" and while examining what may be found of that, consider also Calvin's description of "pneumatic presence" and the like.

As to demands for greater detail -- you are in no position to demand anything of either her or myself.

I did write a thorough explanation...and was considering inclusion of brief passage from Ratzinger writing rather esoterically tangent to how I had placed mention of himself doing so (in regards to Holy Communion, as the Anglicans call it) but have decided to send nothing until there be some apology for the recent ad hominems.

The satirization I well enough understood.

The Tiber, The Swift (where Tyndal's ashes were tossed as I made mention to you earlier this thread), Da-Nile, all of them rivers, but in contexts in which those are placed, not merely so.

SUREly there must be Something that shows that Catholics are measurably Happier and Healthier than Nons...

Data? You want facts and data!? First, let me explain my commentary. When I refer to healthier (and I said "maybe" healthier), I'm not always referring to the "physical" condition, as Catholics have been allowed great and grave sufferings for long periods of time (look to the canonized saints who bore the stigmata for instance), but there is mental and emotional health too. For instance, the percentage of divorce among couples who attend daily Mass "together" is very low; I saw a chart published when we were first married, and that was at the time the Internet was just coming into view, so this particular article would be hard to find.

As far as happier, Christ IS love, and receiving him in the Eucharist (again daily; the Host is not timed release!) and participating in frequent Confession and Adoration, will provide a heightened joy in its recipients, "strength and power," as Mother Teresa once said.

I think reading the commentary on Free Republic alone (there are so many sites where these battles take place) confirms this. Some Catholics on FR partake in the Sacraments (and sacramentals) frequently, and if you take a look at their commentary, it, for the most part, is meted out with a greater patience, than those (the nons) who battle the Church's belief system. There, of course, is unkind commentary dished out from [weak?] Catholics as well; take heart, there are "Catholics" who troll me too.

My two-hour Adoration time is coming up very soon (11-1), so I'm off to spend time with "the Boss." I'll mention the data you wish to see, and ask Him if he will provide it.

...correction, not Tyndale's ashes, but Wycliffe's ashes were cast into the Swift -- after papists had him dug up and his ashes burned, that is.

It's likely they got themselves (at least their paws) "feelthy" when doing so.

Hence the phrase, "feelthy papist"?

Sons of a different mother so often they have shown themselves to be.

But look on the bright side. No one can blame Mary (mother of the incarnate Christ) for their behaviors.

They be more as Ishmaels, but even lesser and lower than that, not able to trace fleshly bloodlines either.

“What am I...your personal interpreter???”

Nope.

“Tell you what...if I explain BD’s comment, will you answer it honestly?”

If I say anything, it will be honest. Since I have no idea what he is saying, I have no idea if I would respond.

“Your version of the “truth”, maybe.”

OED. I did not write the OED.

“I know you can’t seem to let even the smallest iota of detail go in your quest to always be right about everything, but this current line of banter started when you responded to my:”

Current? We’ve been going back and forth on “Roman Catholicism” for a few days have we not?

“The “goalpost” (for THIS argument anyway) was always about the genesis of the ENGLISH term “Roman Catholic” and your insistence that it was invented by Protestants to insult Catholics and your refusal to use it because of that. The words “Romish” or “Popish” weren’t brought up except by you.”

Does any of that change the fact that I said the English term “Roman Catholic” was invented by Protestants? Nope.

“...to continue to insist everyone is picking on Catholics is just so much noise.”

Show me where I ever said that was the case? I never did. You are saying that because I object to the term “Roman Catholic” that that means “everyone is picking on Catholics”. That’s a complete falsehood. I never once said that. I even pointed out - more than once - how the term “Roman Catholic” after being invent in English by Protestants was used by Catholics because of its use by Protestants and the FORCE OF LAW. I’m the one who pointed that out not you.

The fact that you can post things that are so patently false about what I have said or believe and not backed up by any comment I have ever posted here says a great deal don’t you think? Why would you do that?

Oh... I get to validate what you posted.

Heh. Wouldn't you regardless? Anyway, I found the divorce rate among those who use NFP. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/wils/wils_01naturalfamilyplanning2.html

And I found an article by Msgr. Pope regarding Catholics and divorce, however, it's not based at all on daily Mass Catholics which is what I was referring to, so while the divorce rate is better than Protestants, it still is not good: http://blog.adw.org/2013/10/measuring-divorce-rates-is-more-difficult-but-whatever-the-measure-practicing-catholics-fare-better/

I could get in touch with Msgr. Pope requesting the divorce rate of daily Mass Catholics who attend together, but he might answer, "What divorce rate?"

Actually, there were some on the chart I saw many years ago, but the percentage was very slim. Under 4%, more like 3 or 2 .... but again, I can't remember exactly. But look to the NFP numbers; they'll tell you what you need to know. Following Catholic teaching will allow you to be healthier and happier.

I think it is better to just let your post represent you:

“...correction, not Tyndale’s ashes, but Wycliffe’s ashes were cast into the Swift — after papists had him dug up and his ashes burned, that is.
It’s likely they got themselves (at least their paws) “feelthy” when doing so.

“Hence the phrase, “feelthy papist”?

“Sons of a different mother so often they have shown themselves to be.

“But look on the bright side. No one can blame Mary (mother of the incarnate Christ) for their behaviors.

“They be more as Ishmaels, but even lesser and lower than that, not able to trace fleshly bloodlines either.”

Aah, but here you may be failing to apply one of those distinctions you earlier insisted upon.

There could be some difference between "feelthy" papists, and papists perhaps not so filthy? no?

Try to find a sense of humor about it.

This part (feelthy papists) did come about in course of discussion regarding satire (which I allegedly failed to understand, being too stupid to get it or something -- according to you).

How about you go back through some of your recent remarks, copy/pasting them into reply & retract those kind of needless insults?

And then, how about you stop making the discussions all about individual persons here from there on out?

Every time you sneer and [figuratively] spit in the faces of others here, making a mockery of the forum guidelines while making threads all about people here and your own low opinions of them, it is as if you figuratively spit in the faces of the religion forum moderator and JimRob too.

This has been going for years now, but tolerance and human grace can have it's limits.

So knock off all the game playing -- or just leave.

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.