Posted on 09/17/2014 9:07:14 AM PDT by 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.
Is it some sort of marionette or puppet, maybe? He’s certainly fond of it.
That’s interesting. It’s still black for me.
I’ll have to ask mr. mm about it when he gets home.
I just figure since many catholics see the Pope as “PaPa” the Pope's then see mary as their other half “MaMa ,( especially since they call her ‘Mother of the Church”), and why the popes show physical affection, touching, kissing, etc. toward these idol representations of their mary.
The Jesuits seem to have a special affection for their mary as well...and I think Francis is Jesuit. When reading some of the ways and mannerism's in which they speak of their mary these sound very romantic and certainly more like wishful thinking than actual worship as one might do toward God.
It's all pretty twisted no matter how any of them look at mary.
I posted this earlier. I don’t know if it was on this thread or not. I did a brief search for it here and didn’t see it so here it is again.
(Gotta go and get dinner going)
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
So that thing is supposed to represent Mary to him?
Mind reading is not allowed on the Religion Forum.
It does have a sort of voodoo doll air about it, doesn’t it?
Has anyone been able to say where Paul talks about a “new Eve” - other that what one poster called an “extrapolation” from Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15 (IIRC)?
I’m ready to learn.
Thanks.
Mind reading again.
Well, perhaps you would believe Jerome, who seems to see what I see:
Once more it is written in the pages of the same evangelist, “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” Let these word fanciers and nice critics of all composition tell us where they have read the words; and if they cannot, let me tell them that they are in Isaiah. For in the place where we read and translate, “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots,” in the Hebrew idiom it is written thus, “There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root.” How can the Septuagint leave out the word ‘Nazarene,’ if it is unlawful to substitute one word for another? It is sacrilege either to conceal or to set at naught a mystery. See NPNF2: Vol. 6, Epistle 57, To Pammachius.
Your entire premise demands that Matthew's pen wrote the word 'Nazarene', rather than the Hebrew (or Aramaic) counterpart that would make this linkage clear.
However, I do not want to dwell too thoroughly upon Isaiah alone (albeit that this verse is a keystone) - This verse in Matthew is one of only three (to my knowledge) wherein 'the Prophets' are credited corporately (in the NT) - it is far more common for a prophecy to be described with great precision, attributed to a single source (prophet, not prophets). Since the quote is attributed generically, rather than with precise attribution, how exactly are we to take the quote? Is it a 'go find it for yourself' statement? Or perhaps a generic 'all the prophets said stuff like this about me' kind of thing? or perhaps a 'This is a BIG matrix in the prophets that bears further scrutiny'... I much prefer the latter.
The 'Branch' prophecies simply blossom under this scrutiny, far more than without this light. And the Branch ties one to the branches, and how both will be despised ('notzri and notzrim' also mean something like heretic) - and the linkage is very clean... All one needs to tie it all together is 'Nazarene'. And without it, one misses magnificent brush strokes of prophecy.
The other two generic prophecies are these:
Mat 26:55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.
Mat 26:56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
(e-Sword:KJV)
Perhaps one can find a 'BIG matrix' in the prophets from these too.
Well..some are more attractive then others LOL
And interesting is this looks like one might depict the woman riding on the beast....now on the new Euro notes... "Europa, abducted by Zeus"....In Greek mythology, the 'Phoenician' princess Europa was abducted and raped by the king of the gods, Zeus.
To be fair, I haven't seen a substantiated quote, attributed to the Pope, where he says Mary is part of the Godhead.
You’ll need to reconsider the wording of your replies, paladinan. Forum rules do not allow attributing thought or motive to another in order to maintain the peace , i.e. mind reading. I’ve attempted to provide you with an opportunity to correct your error, for naught.
Ah... as I was typing, two more examples came up:
1) “caww” was nice enough to give an example of the word “idol” when speaking of Catholic veneration of statues (see #195... complete with comparisons to pagan sculptures of deities).
2) YOU, of all people, were kind enough to give one other example, where you referred to the same Catholic statues as “haveing a voodoo doll air”... and only two posts BEFORE you accuse me of “mind-reading”! Wow... now THAT’s chutzpah!
I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t take your accusation seriously, and if I restrict my chatting to those who want to discuss substance (and not lob flame-grenades). No hard feelings; it’s just that life is too short to argue with those who’ve offered iron-clad proof of resisting any and all input which they don’t like.
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.