http://assets.amuniversal.com/1ff19a300fb401329831005056a9545d
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.
That’s awesome. Thanks.
Did ALL of God enter into Jesus and live on the earth for 33 years?
Jesus died. God didn't die.
However, I see your point.
If Mary the mother of Jesus = Mary the mother of God, then it could easily be concluded that when Jesus died that God died.
Catholics don't see the nasty mess they make of things when they mess with Scripture and create their own theology.
I would agree with you regarding the mental/spiritual drift on the part of many Catholics towards attributing to Mary a higher station than what is actually the case.
Ironically, I had just posted a some what sarcastic statement on another thread(the orphans of Mary thread) regarding this notion of some Catholics treating Mary as part of the God head when this article got posted. I had not seen this article prior to my posting so when I saw this article and thread something inside me went “bingo” when I remembered my previous posting on the other thread. God is working way ahead of us...as he always does!
Why would you post such a deeply stupid article?
To the extent that the Godhead could have died, it died there on the cross thru the person of Jesus Christ. God the Father,Son, and Holy Spirit are one in purpose and unity and shared the experience of that death in that exact instance. Christ said the Father and I are one. It didn’t stop being that way, despite Christ’s death cries of “Father why have you forsaken me!” I believe the whole of the Godhead shared that one wild fear and hopelessness in an extraordinary unity of consciousness...Christ crying out and the heart of the Father breaking as the Spirit rushed to and fro as the graves of various patriarchs were opened and the dead in them were raised and seen of men! It is finished, It is Finished!!!
Did not the earth shake and the sky grow dark and the temple veil tear in two? The ark angels that support and surround the Throne of God must have quaked at the strain! The effects were universal...
The debt was paid and the cry of God now beckoning and pleading...”All men can now come to me, blood cleansed and into my Holy of Holies...and I will give you rest!”
http://assets.amuniversal.com/1ff19a300fb401329831005056a9545d
Jesus knows what Elsie prays before they are spoken* . It stands to reason that He doesn't need His mom to handle His mail for Him.
* Isaiah 65:24
Jesus knows what Elsie prays before they are spoken * . It stands to reason that He doesn't need His mom to handle His mail for Him.
* Isaiah 65:24
How many MILLIONS of prayers have been sent through MARY to Jesus about ABORTION; and STILL this abomination is in place in America!
Methinks thou needest a more accurate tagline!
Sorry for the delay; I’ll try to jump in when work calms down, a bit. I’m not trying to ignore those who’ve written!
Wouldn’t it stand to reason He doesn’t need Mary and those so called saints?
No. This is not settled, other than in your own imagination perhaps.
But as for changing anything, I was pointing out where you were mistaken, and had been from the onset in the way you misrepresented the words of others as displaying "ignorance".
Start there. Correct that error of having accused others of being guilty of one thing, when they were doing yet another and that other justifiably so, as explained.
That would be a refreshing change-- if you were to own up not only to your own words, but their usages and intents.
Then--deal with the fact that this "new Eve" concept can not be derived from, extrapolated from the writings of Paul, being in fact an addition to the Gospel as Paul wrote of the matter, with such additions "or different gospel" explicitly prohibited by himself also. Need I trot out that particular prohibition yet again?
Much less can it (concept as Mary as new Eve) be alleged to be quotable from Paul, as Bergoglio basically did when he alluded to Paul having written of Mary as "new Eve".
I will leave it up to others to make excuses for his misstatement.
Also ---show me the word "new" in Paul's discussion of Christ as the last Adam -- or admit that cannot be done either, for that precise word is not used by Paul.
That is not of the same level of difference as attempting to find the precise word Nazarene in the OT, but as technicality of the sort in which you frequently depend upon in supporting your own arguments as being "right" and everyone else wrong, can qualify as much the same.
Carefully chosen semantics...used here by yourself as others have long done so, yourself in this instance while exploiting a difficulty found in Matthew, to leverage opening for insertion of cunning argumentation to provide covering and excuse for the allegedly justifiable extrapolation which was long ago engaged in to reach the place where Mary is to be regarded as "new Eve" whom "loosened the knot" as Ireneus imaginatively wrote, is what I am seeing here...
It is just more continuance of the errors began long ago...protecting those from closer examination six ways from Sunday, lest the beginnings of the long drawn out over the centuries progression of Marionism can be more clearly seen as to how that has become intertwined (even replacement for?) that which was once spoken of as being the sect of the Nazarene.
But which you say is the same process of extrapolation used by Matthew for that writer to include mention of past prophets being said to say (not necessarily write) that the Messaiah shall be called a Nazarene.
You said it is the same. Show the process the writer of Matthew used, then let us examine the process of extrapolation that is used to term Mary "new Eve".
If further assistance is required, make the effort to be rational and actually discuss some point or another rather than feed me just more of your own personal opinions concerning myself.
All of that latter sort of thing is just so much NOISE.
We are not dealing with REASON at all; but EMOTION.
Wouldn’t it stand to reason He doesn’t need Mary and those so called saints?St. Gemma Galgani, of modern times, one day was interceding with Our Lord for the soul of a certain sinner. As Gemma pleaded for mercy, the Savior recounted one by one the person's frightful and abnormal sins. After the Savior had refused three times, St. Gemma Galgani said: "Then I shall ask Your Mother." Our Lord answered: "In that case, I cannot refuse." An hour later the sinner in question came to the confessor of the saint and made his full confession. -Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, "The World's First Love: Mary, Mother of God"
Revelation 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Your statement makes no sense at all, as this was my first comment on this subject.
Apparitions are the enemy.
First off, nobody dickers for another's soul with Jesus. They come to Him themselves and he would NEVER refuse anyone who came to Him.
Second, it's all fairy tales that Jesus cannot refuse a request from His mother. We are not to pray to dead people anyway. We have never been instructed to pray to anyone but God.
Whoever this person was conversing with. It wasn't Jesus.
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.