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.

In order to expose the unScriptural nature of certain RC teaching, you do not have to engage in the manner of egregious extrapolation of words that RCs often engage in trying to support traditions of men from Scripture.

"Unscriptural?" Could you clarify your term? Do you mean "cannot be found in Scripture", or do you mean "contradicts Scripture"? (I've heard it used in both senses, and I want to be sure I understand you correctly.)

The elevation of Mary to a "certain equality with the Godhead" is well evidenced by sanctioned and uncensored Catholic teaching.

I'm rather familiar with Catholic teaching, FRiend... and not only do I not see anything even remotely of the sort, but I see explicit condemnation of it:

The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 971)

By what "secret, conspiratorial knowledge" do you claim that the Church is lying, here, and that Catholics are secretly adoring the Blessed Virgin as a Goddess? Forgive me, but it seems as if you're conjuring dramatic-sounding accusations (inherited from past anti-Catholics) out of whole cloth.

That is not too far once you start with a sinless perpetual virgin who is also made into an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

We start with a sinless and perpetual virgin, yes. Your further wording, "an almost almighty demigoddess" is raw (and borderline hysterical) opinion, based on nothing real in Catholic teaching. (Please do cite any official Catholic teaching to which refers to the Blessed Virgin as "almost almighty" or "demigoddess", and I'll readily concede my error.) Re: the idea that Jesus "owes His Precious Blood" to the Blessed Virgin, that's as true as the fact that you owe your DNA to your earthly mother and father; it's a simple fact of biology... and it'd make very little sense to say, "Nonono! You owe everything to God alone!" Of course, we do (in the ultimate sense)... but the two are not mutually exclusive, since God chose to work *through* your parents and their cooperation in your conception. (I.e. the "You owe everything to God" part is completely true; the "Nonono!" part is silly and wrong.)

Re: your (*ahem*) "source" (i.e. "The Mary of Catholicism")... I'm afraid the kindest thing I can say about it is that the author is hopelessly confused. I'm trying very hard not to say that he's a bald-faced liar, or delusional. For example: he claims the book "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", by Dr. Ludwig Ott, says that, on p.83: "As Mother of the Word Incarnate, Mary was elevated to a certain equality with the Heavenly Father." (You cited this, in your own "laundry list".)

I happen to have a copy of that book (electronic); I looked on p.83... and I looked through the entire chapter on Mary... and I did a text-search of the entire book. Nothing. I did, however, find this:

"The measure of grace of the Mother of God falls as much short of Christ's fullness of grace as the dignity of the Mother of God falls short of the Hypostatic Union." (Ott, p.198, sec. 2b)

I'll leave it to your own intellect to see that this is the flat contrary of what the website actually claimed.

Let me add one more point: your own post was using (no offense intended) what are commonly known as "weasel words"--qualifiers which allow a very dramatic-sounding statement (which could fool less-than-careful and/or ignorant readers), while leaving an escape hatch when the burden of proof becomes too great to bear (e.g. "Hey, hey... I said 'ALMOST a goddess', didn't I? I didn't say 'DEFINITELY a goddess'!"). Could you re-cast your argument so as NOT to use those?

Commentary at the article agrees with you:

I don't understand why IBTimes is not scrapping this piece of gibberish! Are hits, page views more important than the reputation of this company?...How did this article go past an editor. None of it even makes sense. Forget bad reporting, this is misquoting and insulting to the Catholic community and the pope who did not say any of what the author has interpreted! Right from the headline!....Either publicly apologize for this or shut down this site that produces crap week after week. Read the reviews about IBTimes and it's terrible. They hire writers in bulk just to churn out articles and get hits. Filthy company and this "created" news has reached several people already...Shame on you IBTimes. Aren't 1000 reviews about bad reporting...enough to tell you how terrible you are? -Joanna

Hello again, metmom! (I have to say, chatting with you is an adventure; I can go from pulling my hair out to giving you a standing ovation! :) Ah, well...)

You wrote:

And where is phrase *sacred tradition* found in Scripture?

It isn't, per se (though it's referenced in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6, 1 Corinthians 11:2, etc.), and I have no problem with that... or with the specific fact that the specific phrase "sola Scriptura" isn't found explicitly in the sacred text, either. That wasn't my point. I was, however, insisting that the DOCTRINE of "sola Scriptura" be taught explicitly in the Bible. It isn't. Not anywhere. That's a problem for those who believe "sola Scriptura", I think.

The same principle applies to your list of ideas in comment #136.

But as long as you brought it up, let me ask: in your list of "terms to which Catholics cling", you mentioned the Trinity and free will; did you just inclide those for the sake of listing lots of ideas not found explicitly in Scripture, or do you reject the Trinity and free will, personally?

Incidentally, your list is inaccurate on at least one point: "mortal sin" is definitely mentioned in Scripture (and contrasted with non-mortal sin); see 1 John 5:16-17:

"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal.

There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. (RSV)

“He relied upon the understood meaning of prophetic language in the Old Testament,”

That’s an extrapolation about an extrapolation.

“...as your very own St. Jerome so eloquently attested. He did not invent anything from whole cloth, as in the instance of the RC Church referring to Mary as the Second Eve based upon Paul referring to Jesus Christ as the Second Adam in I Corinthians, when no such concept exists under any reading of words contained within scripture.”

I can’t take you seriously. No where in the text does it say “Nazarene”. No where. Matthew was extrapolating. No where does it say New Eve, but it does say new Adam. “Nazarene” is far more of an extrapolation than is “New Eve”. You keep making my point. Matthew had no actual text that actually said “Nazarene”. None. Zero.

That wasn't my point. I was, however, insisting that the DOCTRINE of "sola Scriptura" be taught explicitly in the Bible. It isn't. Not anywhere. That's a problem for those who believe "sola Scriptura", I think.

Well, I suppose that's a matter of interpretation as there are many, myself included, who think that Scripture DOES teach it.

There are these verses.

John 20:30-31 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

According to John, what he alone wrote in just that gospel is alone sufficient for someone to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus.

And Paul, in his letter to Timothy, states the sufficiency of Scripture in THOROUGHLY equipping the man of God to be COMPLETE for every good work.

Npr did Paul appeal to tradition to Timothy for more equipping, and there was his perfect opportunity to do so, if it was needed.

And there's the fact that Jesus quoted Scripture authoritatively on many occasions.

He clearly appealed to the authority of Scripture and did it in many cases to validate Himself. He never appealed to tradition. Matter of fact, most of what HE had to say about tradition was not very complimentary.

That alone would prove the sufficiency of Scripture.

So including the terms *trinity* and *free will* was simply to point out that many of the things that Catholics adhere to are not listed by name in Scripture, which is the argument that Catholics use AGAINST sola Scriptura.

I find it, shall we say, inconsistent, to reject the *doctrine* of sola Scriptura based on the argument that it isn't listed specifically by name but is based on proof texts, and yet accept a whole plethora of other doctrines, which also are not listed specifically by name but are supported by proof texts.

The same standard ought to be applied to both. If proof texts are enough and specific words are not needed for that list, then the same standard ought to be applied to EVERYTHING, not picking and choosing based on seemingly nothing more than whether someone likes the doctrine or not.

Incidentally, your list is inaccurate on at least one point: "mortal sin" is definitely mentioned in Scripture (and contrasted with non-mortal sin); see 1 John 5:16-17:

Depends on the translation.

Here's a link to 1 John 5:16 and there's not one translation that uses the term *mortal sin*, including the Douay-Rheims Bible.

http://biblehub.com/1_john/5-16.htm

There's a tab at the top of the page that links to the Greek and there is no word in the Greek that translates to *mortal sin*. There are separate words for the words *sin* and *death*.

We're admonished repeatedly throughout scripture to test everything against it and to adhere to what is written.

Hang on. "Admonished repeatedly" is glomming several ideas together (and being very vague, to boot), and I think you're being a bit inaccurate, here.

Just to get you onto the specific point: where does Scripture insist that it must be used ALONE in such cases? If I say that my car needs gas to run, that doesn't therefore imply that it *doesn't* need oil, inflated tires, a charged battery, etc... right? If you say that "Scripture is important, and we must check spiritual ideas against it," I'll agree with you wholeheartedly (as would any faithful, well-informed Catholic). But I'm waiting for a clear and unambiguous reference to where Scripture forbids us to use anything ELSE. Can you supply chapter and verse, to that effect?

Doctrine or tradition that contradicts scripture is not Biblical.

:) No one could argue with that, I suppose... since the Bible = Scripture!

It does not belong.

Doesn't belong *where*? In Scripture? In life? In the beliefs of a Christian?

The purpose of scripture is to serve as an anchor of truth that remains true to the unchanging Word Of God.

That's one of its main purposes, yes. But you'll have to show that Scripture requires us to use ONLY Scripture, in matters of faith, salvation, etc.

Embracing traditions that are not supported Biblically and especially those that go against scripture, is error.

Hold on: you've said two very different things, here; I agree with the second (if something goes against Scripture, it is error), but the first makes no sense at all... and nowhere does the Bible give a blanket condemnation of all tradition. It condemns BAD tradition (e.g. Mark 7), and it praises GOOD tradition (e.g. 2 Thes 2:15); and you can't simply say "all good tradition is that which is already found in the Bible!"... because the Bible doesn't say that, and you'd (ironically) be "going beyond what is written" in order to support your point. Do you see?

Well, I suppose [the idea that Scripture doesn't teach "sola Scriptura"] is a matter of interpretation as there are many, myself included, who think that Scripture DOES teach it.

All right: you think so. Can you *prove* it (i.e. prove that your interpretation is right, and mine is wrong, using the Bible alone--i.e. using your own principle)?

According to John, what he alone wrote in just that gospel is alone sufficient for someone to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus.

I don't see the word "alone" in John 20:30-31, nor do I see "sufficient". Where are you getting those ideas? They don't seem to be coming from the text of Scripture...

And Paul, in his letter to Timothy, states the sufficiency of Scripture in THOROUGHLY equipping the man of God to be COMPLETE for every good work.

First, St. Paul says nothing about the "sufficiency" of anything, in 2 Tim 3:14-17; he never uses that word, and the text doesn't even suggest it. (I could easily say, "Fill up your car with gas, that you may be able to drive to Chicago"; it would be silly to suggest that "gas alone" is sufficient [without oil, air in tires, transmission fluid, etc.] to get someone to Chicago, simply because I didn't mention anything else in that sentence!)

And if you're hung up on specific words (and I am not--I'll explain below), you might have a difficult time with James 1:4:

And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

Interesting, that St. James claims "steadfastness" to be able to make one "perfect" (an even stronger word than in 2 Timothy) and "complete, lacking in NOTHING". Odd, that Scripture wasn't mentioned...

My point is this: I don't for a minute believe that St. Paul wanted us to use "the Bible alone" (which wasn't fully written and compiled at that point, anyway) and not use steadfastness, nor do I think that St. James is using steadfastness as a replacement for Scripture! I believe that both were emphasizing different NECESSARY (but not sufficient) elements of the life of a "complete" Christian. One needs faith, yes--but also hope, love, steadfastness, obedience, etc. One needs Scripture, yes--but also Tradition, an infallible teaching authority, an open heart, obedience, etc.

And there's the fact that Jesus quoted Scripture authoritatively on many occasions.

He did. That proves (beyond reasonable doubt) that Scripture is authoritative, and even necessary. But nowhere does Scripture say that Scripture ALONE is sufficient for the Christian walk.

Re: "proof texts"... again, I wasn't looking for exact wordings; for example, "sin which leads to death" is substantially identical to "mortal sin" (what else did you think "mortal sin" meant? It's not a magical incantation; it's a technical term used to describe a type of "deadly sin"--much as a "mortal wound" describes a "wound which leads to death"...). I also wasn't insisting that the exact words "sola Scriptura" appear in the Latin text (much less the English text) of the Scriptures. I merely wanted to see where the Scriptures clearly and unambiguously insisted that the Scriptures ALONE were to be used in salvific matters, and that the use of anything else was not only unnecessary, but "bad".

You also noticed that "BibleHub" doesn't use the RSV? I'm not sure of your point, here.

>>Okay, explain what prophet’s writing Matthew is relying on in Matthew 2:23.<<

That's not a very good "gotcha" if that's what your trying.

Jesse was the father of David. The prophecy in Isaiah, previously cited, is a prophecy that a Rod would come out of Jesse through David to give rise to the Messiah. Jesse was the stem, from which came Jesus, the Branch. The Hebrew word translated "Branch" is netser (pronounced, nay'tser). Nazareth was named after this Hebrew word. A Nazarene was a person from Nazareth. In Matthew 2:23, it is written: And He dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene." There is no Old Testament prophecy corresponding to this verse, although Matthew may have inferred his statement from Psalm 22:6, Isaiah 11:1, and Isaiah 53:3. Followers of the Messiah, Who was from Nazareth, were first called "the Nazarenes" (that is, "the followers of the Nazarene"), before they were called "Christians" from the Greek Christos (the Christ, which is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew HaMashiach, or Messiah). To be called "a Nazarene" was considered by most Jews to be a name of shame or an insult because Nazareth had such a lowly reputation. A very liberal, paraphrased translation of Matthew 2:23 might read: "And Jesus lived in a city called the Branch, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called the Branch." [http://www.prophecyfulfillment.com/olivetrees.html]

Perhaps if you would study scripture with the council and help of the Holy Spirit instead of Catholicism with the help of fallible man you wouldn't try little "gotchas" that don't work so well.

Differing witnesses to the same Biblical events are going to cite events according to slants of personality and temperament...weighting some words differently or remembering other things others don’t. That they endeavored to write these things down as faithfully as they could remember them was a work between each witness and the Holy Spirit.

You cite Jude which cites a passage from the book of Enoch. Jude was put into canon which in turn puts Enoch or at least parts of it into play as being inspired by the Holy Spirit. A read of Enoch is fascinating because if there is any truth at all in that book then the whole history of the times of Noah need to be re-examined in light of that book as well as the apparent power of fallen angels to change their forms and to literally physically interact with females. I think the meaning of Enoch as well as other things revealed to John and Daniel remain sealed to our knowledge until God says it’s time for us to know them.

The books we have of Enoch seem incomplete as though they were scattered bits and pieces put together from a lost source. There may be yet a lost complete book of Enoch that God isn’t ready for us to have yet. The writer of the letter of Jude was certainly aware of Enoch as would the councils had been aware that put our present canon together.

As for the Holy Spirit....the only thought and sense I get is....”Just wait...when the truth is fully revealed everyone will be totally shocked and amazed at just what has been going on. A human being’s framing imagination would pale at the full reality of Heaven and the person of Jesus Christ and his or her mind will have no reference points to even handle the truth when it is fully revealed”!

In short, prepare to be totally “blown away!”

Scripture does NOT forbid us to use anything else, but that does not give anyone license to simply make stuff up as they go along and say that just cause Scripture doesn’t state that something didn’t happen, we ca presume it did and teach it as truth.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3059418/posts?page=828#828
Here is a good definition of what is meant by Sola Scriptura.

“First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

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.