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

International Business Times ^ | 09/17/2014 | Tanya Diente

[RegulatorCountry]

Adam “drew his flesh” from Adama, the red clay of Israel, and the breath of life from God himself.

[ronnietherocket3]

Earlier metmom posted
"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."
in post 159.

If I understand this correctly, the bible has within it everything that a Christian must believe in order to be saved and go to heaven. I think it is reasonable to expand this to include "it also contains everything a Christian must not believe in order to be saved". This in turn creates a third category, everything else is permissible to believe, but not required. To list them:

1) Everything that is required is listed in the bible, e.g., Christ died on the cross for everyone.
2) Everything that one way not believe is listed in the bible, e.g., worshipping Mary as a God
3) Everything else (not listed in the bible) is permissible but not required.

However, I frequently read things similar to
"So, "New Eve" or "Second Eve" was not invented from whole cloth? There is a scriptural basis for it? Please do direct us all to the Biblical source for this Roman Catholic doctrine, and lay the whole matter to rest."
from individuals who advocate Sola Scriptura. Demanding Scriptural basis for everything would make it 2 not 3 categories. Everything is either required or forbidden; there is nothing that is permissible but not required.

It would appear that the belief that Mary is the Second Eve does not fall into the first category (i.e. listed in the Bible as required belief) but I can find nothing that makes it fall into the third category (i.e. listed as forbidden). So it would appear that it falls into the second category, permissible but not required. Going from this, it would appear the issue is not that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the new Eve. At best the issue is that the Catholic Church claims one must believe it.

Perhaps the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that the third category is everything must have an explicit scriptural basis.

[Boogieman]

“You seem to be trying to separate them which cannot be done.”

No, I am not trying to separate them. I am saying that God is rational, He does things for a reason, so if He wrote separate verses, speaking of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit separately, doing different things, then it must have been for a reason.

If you ignore that fact, not only are you implicitly asserting that God is irrational, you are risking misinterpreting the verses, and you are also risking stepping into heresy (monarchianism).

“Saying that I thought you were not listening to the Holy Spirit was not meant to be an insult. I simply took your comments at face value about not needing the Holy Spirit to do “mundane tasks”. My point was that if you realized that those tasks are indeed often directed by the Holy Spirit.”

This is not the context of the discussion I have been having though. I have never said that we don’t need the Holy Spirit. Let me restate the issue, again, to try to clarify. There are two competing assertions:

a) We cannot arrive at a spiritual understanding of the Bible without the Holy Spirit.

and

b) We can arrive at a spiritual understanding of the Bible through the Holy Spirit alone.

Those are two different ideas, and one is illogical and demonstrably false. I believe in a, but not in b.

(Of course I must make the exception of special cases where some may receive some direct, special revelation from God. Other than those, in the general sense, b is false)

[Boogieman]

“If Christ pre-existed the world (as the New Testament teaches with in-your-face clarity) then Mary as Mother (and therefore creator of) of his Divinity also pre-existed the world. This all falls right into the muslims’ complaint that Christians believe God has sexual relations with other beings. What a mess.”

It gets even worse when you toss in the Catholic title “Queen of Heaven”. After all, Christ is King of the Kingdom of Heaven, so if Mary is Queen, there is an additional incestuous implication. The Catholics try to avoid this by saying they mean something like the British term “Queen Mother”, but the title by itself is troubling and creates unnecessary implications.

[RegulatorCountry]

Doctrine in a Christian church requires a scriptural foundation. Individual beliefs not necessarily found in scripture but not in contradiction of it or forbidden by it are acceptable but are not to form the basis of doctrine. As an example, look to the typical treatment of the Apocrypha by the authorized King James Bible as well as quite a number of early, notable Christian figures. Good for edification but not for doctrine. Not forbidden, but they do not rise to the level of inspired scripture, in other words.

[ronnietherocket3]

The issue comes with the statement "Mary as Mother (and therefore creator of)"

How does a woman become the mother of a child? In the modern world we understand mother in the sense that the mother of a child gives the egg cell, gives birth to and raises a child. However, the first one, the mother gives the egg cell could not have applied 2000 years ago since the human egg cell was only discovered in the 19th cent. However it was well understood that a child took shape in his/her mother's womb. So it would be reasonable to say that the ancient understanding would be the mother of a child is the woman in whose womb the child formed, gave birth to and raised.

It is in the latter sense that the phrase Mother of God can be understood without claiming that Mary created God. Jesus was born of her and raised by her (to the extent that one can say Jesus was raised by a human).

[kinsman redeemer]

Placemarker

[daniel1212]

"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.)

It refers to both, lacking Scriptural substantiation or being contrary to Scripture. It is possible Mary parted the Sea of Galilee and had 6 fingers on each hand, but neither are Scriptural truths, in which the Holy Spirit is careful to provide notable details of characters, esp. exceptions the norm.

While to have her already crowned in glory and able to hear virtually infinite amounts of prayer in Heaven from earth, which is an attribute only God is shown having, is both utterly absent from Scripture and contrary to what it does teach.

And there are many more such.

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:..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,

That is not a problem for a RC, as he can claim this in such a way that disallows "certain equality" as violating actual equality, but can refer to a unique state of relationship, in which like Christ, she is given certain powers otherwise unique to God, and likewise receives a level of devotion only seen given to God. And which is indeed claimed as was shown.

But the more appropriate word would be affinity, and perhaps there is a translation issue involved here with source.

As Mother of God, says Lepicier, Mary contracts a certain affinity with the Father ; The pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father, which has fitted her to pour out into the world the everlasting light which issues from that loving Father.

But the title of “Daughter” may not sufficiently bring home to us the influence which her relation to the Father exerts on us who are His children and her children. “He has communicated to her His fruitfulness as far as a mere creature was capable of it, in order that He might give her the power to produce His Son and all the member of His Mystical Body”... The Father...communicates no graces but by her. (St. Louis-Marie de Montfort)

True Devotion to Mary requires the formal entry into a compact with Mary whereby one gives to her one’s whole self, with all its thoughts and deeds and possessions, both spiritual and temporal, past, present, and future, without the reservation of the smallest part or lightest little thing. In a word, the giver places himself in a condition equivalent to that of a slave possessing nothing of his own, and wholly dependent on, and utterly at the disposal of Mary. - http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/msynthesis.htm

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.

There is no secret, conspiratorial knowledge at all, and rather than whole cloth, it is shown out in the open for all to see . No creature is seen having all the attributes ascribed to Mary, and devotion called for, and who cannot be honored to excess (with that fine ambiguous line btwn hyperdulia and worship), which are absent from Scripture, and contrary to its warning not to think of men above that which is written, (1Cor. 4:6) and the reticent praise it gives to men, and the manner of powers and position they are shown having.

Indeed, as i have said before, one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer.

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.)

I referred to "sanctioned and uncensored Catholic teaching," and my list was prefaced, "it is taught by Catholics," and which is usually properly stamped with Nihil Obstat + Imprimatur, and even if not CCC level teaching, this "almost almighty demigoddess" is indeed what is taught by Catholics in sanctioned and uncensored teaching by them. Including,

“The power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but unlimited. — (St. Tharasius, Orat. in Praesentatione) ‘the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts.’ (On Off. Graec., 8 Dec.).” Pope Leo XIII, in Adiutricem (On the Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 5, 1895, #8. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13adiut.htm

When therefore we read in the writings of Saint Bernard, Saint Bernardine, Saint Bonaventure, and others that all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin, they mean that the authority which God was pleased to give her is so great that she seems to have the same power as God. Her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands in the sense that he never resists his dear mother’s prayer because it is always humble and conformed to his will.... — St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, #27, 246. http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM

The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. — Iucunda Semper Expectatione, Pope Leo XIII, 1894

According to Eadmer (A.D. 1060–1124), an English monk and student of Anselm, “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus...[who] does not at once, answer anyone who invokes him, but only does so after just judgment. But if the name of his mother Mary is invoked, her merits intercede so that he is answered even if the merits of him who invoked her do not deserve it.” Through her “the elements are renewed, the netherworld is healed, the demons are trodden underfoot, men are saved and angels are restored.” — Andrew Taylor, “Three medieval manuscripts and their readers,” University of Pennsylvania press; page 173

But by her compassion for her Divine Son she had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin. It was not only during the Passion that Jesus and Mary suffered for our sins, for all their lives that heartrending vision was before them in every detail, and never for a moment forgotten. — The Reign of Mary, Vol. 40; Issue 48

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...

But which is just the kind of unScriptural elevation of men that is condemned. Where do you ever see the Holy Spirit saying that God owed anything to man? But in Catholic teaching we see an emphasis on God owing Mary! And then exercising Divine powers, even paralleling Christ unlike any other mortal, and receiving a level of devotion and dedication from believers that only God receives. This is not how the Holy Spirit treats man or Mary in Scripture.

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:

Rather, you mean you found one example of a misattributed quote by which you seek to disallow the whole work with your bombast. Your problem is that the author is yours truly who is neither confused or delusional about Mary being basically made into a demigoddess - partly divine and partly human - as any impartial observer can see

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.

Indeed you will not find that quote therein, as it is an error resulting from editing, and the p. 83 refers to last previous source, "Ten Series of Meditations on the Mystery of the Rosary,” by John Ferraro. I apologize for the error, since rectified, and an older version of the page is correct, and am glad that you caught it, as i always try to provide the source listed, most here being provided by Catholic sites i believe.

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)

Which is an example of the variety of statements seen in Catholic teaching. For in so much other teaching it is not the difference btn Mary and God that is emphasized, but he exalted status, power and glory. Besides what has been show, you have,

Mary is the sealed fountain and the faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit where only he may enter...She is the sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity...the holy City of God, the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived...her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands...because it is always humble and conformed to his will, the dispenser of all he possesses...What immeasurable greatness...Mary has authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven...God gave her the power and the mission of assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels who fell away through pride....all the angels in heaven unceasingly call out to her...They greet her countless times each day with the angelic greeting, "Hail, Mary", while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests...The whole world is filled with her glory,... — St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, miscl. http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/docs/true.doc

.."Limitless is the difference between God's servants and His Mother...Your honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation; your greatness places you above the angels...from her union with Christ she attains a radiant eminence transcending that of any other creature; from her union with Christ she receives the royal right to dispose of the treasures of the Divine Redeemer's Kingdom; — Ad Caeli Reginam, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_11101954_ad-caeli-reginam_en.html

The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. — Iucunda Semper Expectatione, Pope Leo XIII, 1894

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?

Wrong. I nowhere said 'almost a goddess" but "an almost almighty demigoddess," and "the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary," and which is not "aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated," but which is meant to be accurate and means just what it says and the quote substantiate.

The problem is that Caths will not admit that the manner of attributes ascribed to Mary and the level of exaltation and devotion do indeed make her into "an almost almighty demigoddess" in "the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary," who cannot be honored to excess, as long as they do not cross the invisible line that allows a believer to bow down and beseech an invisible person in Heaven who can order angels around and hear virtually infinite streams of prayer, etc, yet not engage in what Scripture only shows as worship!

Meanwhile, even a pope says, “The power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but [almost] unlimited. How unerringly right, then, are Christian souls when they turn to Mary for help..."?

All but unlimited is certainly "a very dramatic-sounding statement, while you do quite well with your accusation ofb "secret, conspiratorial knowledge," and being a bald-faced liar, or delusional."

But such is the recourse to RCs in the face of evidence that exposes their departure from Scripture.

[ronnietherocket3]

One other thing to add to this is that it was Jesus (both God and Man) who died on the cross. John 19:25-26 (NIV) has “Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there”.

[roamer_1]

[vladimir998:] Eve drew her flesh from Adam.

... and Mary drew her flesh from?

More to the point, believers are the Body, and believers are also the Bride - Hence the Bride 'draws her flesh' from Messiah, and the 'type' is a direct parallel to Adam/Eve.

[BlueDragon]

"If I had known you were ignorant about this ancient Christian idea..."

Neither of the persons whom you addressed were displaying "ignorance" of the idea of Mary as a "new Eve".

What they were doing more precisely was expressing incredulity towards Bergoglio's remark that Paul had said such a thing.

For you to declare of yourself in subsequent postings on this thread that you have been right all along, would be to neglect the instances where you have not, as exampled in the above here highlighted misrepresentation of what you alleged others "displayed", for they could otherwise have known well enough about the "New Eve" sort of rhetoric, even likely enough knowing a bit about how that sort of concept first developed such as exemplified by the quote brought to these pages from Ireneus, with that sourced from that man (not Paul) yet leaving the attachment of the concept as allegedly portion of Gospel and theology associated with that, ancient perhaps, but not *quite* ancient enough.

Certainly not ancient enough to have been attributed to Paul, other than by a form of imposition of that additional concept onto the text and additionally on top of the theology which was expounded upon by Paul.

As for the rather extensive(?) writings of Ireneus, it will serve us all well to take a moment to consider the wider context.

Below is a portion of Introductory Note to Irenæus Against Heresies in Ante-Nicene Fathers;

Irenæus had manifestly taken great pains to make himself acquainted with the various heretical systems which he describes. His mode of exposing and refuting these is generally very effective. It is plain that he possessed a good share of learning, and that he had a firm grasp of the doctrines of Scripture. Not unfrequently he indulges in a kind of sarcastic humour, while inveighing against the folly and impiety of the heretics. But at times he gives expression to very strange opinions. He is, for example, quite peculiar in imagining that our Lord lived to be an old man, and that His public ministry embraced at least ten years. But though, on these and some other points, the judgment of Irenæus is clearly at fault, his work contains a vast deal of sound and valuable exposition of Scripture, in opposition to the fanciful systems of interpretation which prevailed in his day.

[bolding for emphasis added]

After dealing with all the "fanciful systems" which Gnostics and various other speculators of religious matters employed, I suggest at place where Ireneus was pressing the case that the Messiah of Israel ("Jesus Christ" as known in the English language) had come to the world in the flesh, born of the virgin Mary surely enough (as the Synoptic Gospels testify, and as the Church widely testified from the very beginnings) that; Ireneus himself at this juncture became a bit too wound up in his own reasoning in regards to both Eve and Mary when he went to the lengths which he did in comparing them.

Compared to what Paul wrote concerning how sin entered the world, and how the Redeemer by his own self alone "by one man", established righteousness gifting that same to we who have none of our own (or if anything much -- not nearly enough) all the "extra" later expansion of Mary's role has made of her singularly above all other "saints" into being a name under heaven by which we may be saved, beginning with Ireneus own expansion.

There is only one name under heaven by which we may be saved. It is not spelled "Mary" nor either is it spelled Roman Catholic Church, with this latter, according to Bergoglio and hosts (hordes?) of other [Roman] Catholics being both mother figures, the RCC having for centuries now proclaimed Mary as being each Christian's mother, then in the next breath proclaim themselves THE "mother church" when in now distant past centuries the Church of Rome was spoken of as being but one "mother church" and was indeed something of a daughter herself to Greek proto-missionaries whom did their own works "of the church" in the territories which later came to be seen as included within the later developing "patriarchate" of the bishop of Rome, with this last mention (Greek missionaries) sourced from Paul Johnson in his book The History of Christianity a copy of which I have presently in my possession.

Rome wasn't built in a day, as the saying goes...

[Cronos]

“Supposedly”? we’re arguing about “supposedly” when it’s plainly obvious he didn’t say anything of that sort. sheesh

[BlueDragon]

If Pope Francis made the comment at all, he made it much the same way Matthew cites the prophets in Matthew 2:23.

The fact remains that Paul said no such thing, calling Mary the new Eve.

Yet even though it is plain that Paul himself said no such thing, you contend that one can claim that Bergoglio can claim Paul said so, in the same way Matthew cites prophets in Matthew 2:23, persisting it be but by extrapolation?

Go ahead, establish the process of how Matthew extrapolated to reach the prophets having spoken of a one whom would be called a Nazarene apply to the Messiah, then let us see if that can be compared to how the Pope just said that Paul (not some unnamed prophets, but the Apostle Paul himself) said that Mary was the new Eve.

You did say the processes were the same.

Let us examine the processes to see if they are actually comparable (as you say they are).

As Jerome explained, Matthew did not in all instances alluded to of "as prophets spoke" (multiple prophets) need fully to "extrapolate" but in at least one instance (one of several prophet "speakers") used root forms (no pun intended?) of the meanings of the words as were written with it becoming straight away clearer in the Hebrew text.

The onus is upon yourself to prove that no one has been putting particular words into Paul's mouth (as seen in his writings) as Bergoglio obviously did when he said Paul spoke of Mary as "new Eve", for one simply cannot "extrapolate" from Paul, when he wrote of Jesus as the last Adam, that Paul was writing there also of Mary as "new Eve" without fully engaging in imposition upon both Pauline text themselves and the theology espoused therein.

Not also that Paul nowhere in Romans 5:12-20 & 1 Corinthians 5:45-49 uses the precise term "new" when speaking of Christ compared to Adam (you are a stickler for particular words are you not?) but instead speaks of Jesus as the last Adam (1 Co. 15:45) and when referring to his own comparison, refers to the Christ as the second man [in the comparison of two men, Adam & Jesus].

In 1 Co. 5 Paul writes of the first Adam being made of the dust. As sons of Adam in a sense, we are all of us "made of the dust" including Mary.

It was not Mary who came down from the heaven, but was instead the son which she bore in her own flesh, which flesh was "of the dust".

46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, [a]earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, [b]we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

Ourselves as bearing the image of the heavenly is by adoption by the Father, not adoption by the earthly mother Mary whom herself has no "heavenly mother" but is one of those (we would all like to freely assume) whom is also herself adopted by the Heavenly Father, even as she herself did bear the Christ as child, giving natural physical birth to the hypostasis which was the Messiah, him being both fully man and fully God -- after the tradition of the Hebrews the son being equal to the father.

"New" you say, as in "new Adam" ? Ok, the word "new" is workable when applied to Jesus as new Adam, causing no real injury, although it is slightly different from what Paul's own choice of words.

Yet you've been hanging your hat on "being right" when using that precise word, all while also demanding of others they show you yet another precise word, declaring victory for yourself in being "right" when all along you were a bit wrong in using the word "new" --- if we would be applying the same rigidity of standard equitably across the board.

In light of the texts which I have linked to written by Paul, there is no room for Ireneus in his own otherwise honest and correct efforts in asserting that Christ was indeed born a man by the virgin Mary, to then go further and to assign blame for sin entering the world upon Eve, which Ireneus does in the very same paragraph in which is found that which you brought of Ireneus, wherein at the end of that paragraph he speaks of Mary loosening the knot of Eve's disobedience.

Included in the reasoning employed to reach that conclusion, Ireneus wrote ;

"...But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,” inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation both to herself and the whole human race..."

Do I really now need to go to Paul, and from Romans 5 repeat Paul writing of how it was by one man that sin entered the world, and by one righteous act (Romans 5:18) one man's obedience (verse 19) resulted in the justification by which we are made righteous?

If there is any way to derive from the Apostle Paul him discussing a "new Eve", or even making room for such concept to then lead to justification [wink] for Ireneus to have written that Mary as "new Eve" became CAUSE OF SALVATION?

If so, then show how that occurs, and I'll show you an invention of Ireneus.

[metmom]

Treating matrimony and motherhood as if the very notion of marital relations between herself and her lawful husband Joseph was somehow sinful, viewing it as fornication I suppose, dishonors Mary. If she actually were sinless, marital relations with her husband would not have made a sinner of her. It’s all just so convoluted.

I've encountered that mentality about Mary having sex with Joseph in marriage from Catholics before. They do equate her sinlessness with her perpetual virginity.

Catholics in general have some weird ideas about sex, like it's somehow bad. It shows up in the Mary stuff and the way they laud virginity and celibacy as being a superior lifestyle and more honorable and pleasing to God, somehow.

[metmom]

It’s not a linear typology.

It's not even a legitimate typology at all.

[metmom]

The whole issue is settled if we stick to what the Holy Spirit called Mary in Scripture, that is *mother of Jesus*.

That leaves no room for confusion and heading into error by implying that Mary was the mother of the Godhead.

The Catholic excuse for calling Mary *mother of God* was allegedly to correct error about the deity of Christ, but that is best done by Scripture rather than changing Mary’s title into something that says something different.

Calling Mary *mother of God* does NOT correct errant teaching about the nature of Jesus. It DOES create more confusion and error about who Mary is.

[metmom]

(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.)

The CCC gives her attributes that belong to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. It deifies her.

From the Catechism of the Catholic church....

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm

969 “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”510

Names of God from the Bible. Compare them to the names given to Mary in the above prayer.

Jesus

Hope (our) - 1 Timothy 1:1

Counselor - Isaiah 9:6

Advocate - 1 John 2:1

Mediator - 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 12:24

Holy Spirit

Comforter - John 14:26

Helper – John 14:16

[mdmathis6]

Nope...not trying make it too personal, that’s as far as I’ll ever go.

[mdmathis6]

I’m thinking the website mangled or deliberately mistranslated one of the pope’s sermons. The problem with any top down pyramidal organization is the inability of the top guy to control how his supporting bureaucracy spreads his message. You can be sure a few wolves in the fold would not be above changing a few phrases or words to mischaracterize and mistranslate the top guy’s message in an attempt to push the organization in a direction the wolves saw fit.

I would need more evidence that the pope actually meant what the web site claims he said. Now while I think SOME(not all!) Catholics treat Mary as practically a 4th member of the Godhead(a QUADRINITY?) and I have said that before, but I don’t think that is the true position of the Catholic Church.

[BlueDragon]

Didn't say what?

That Mary was a fourth part of the Trinity, thus there be a second trinitarian theology?

If that was what you are referring to, then you are indeed correct.

Bergoglio did not say those words...and the question as seen at the heading of the article topping this thread as found at the more original source FWIW Is Pope Francis Preparing To Declare The ‘Virgin’ Mary To Be 4th Part Of The Trinity? is both provocative and I would say at this point, to be answered in the negative (if we are thinking he would do so any time soon, at the very least).

Yet why would anyone in their right mind do such a thing when having "Mary" in effect, conceptually function much like an adjunct to the Holy Spirit, but as "mommy" presently?

Why change anything...like be upfront of how the change to the concept began long ago?

Denying that to be true, while holding out for both the more original Trinity being still valid (and no one can quite reach the second person of the Trinity except through their offices of "priesthood", or if so just barely) while there is this side-door sort of access to heavenly & "spiritual" things through "Mary" also at the same time which let's them have things both ways --- or would it be better said, theologically all ways, whatever can be gotten away with (and if caught in the act deny-deny-deny until the cows come home).

They've got a good gig going on with it, as it is.

The writer was being provocative as a way to draw attention to how the RCC, in the person of Bergoglio as front-man, is presently milking it for all it's worth, though he of course is not the first to do so...

Not every Catholic considers her in that way, but some do, seeing her as co-mediator co-redemtrix and far more (the label/titles for "Mary" go on for days, one could scarcely read them all lest they go blind)

Got milk? and Jesus is still just a baby.

Everyone else is "the grown ups" ever notice that? Or when He is adult, then most often in torment.

The JW's make Jesus out to be always smiling. Surrounded by young and old, all circled 'round listening to Him gently speak.

To the Temple Mormons (who know and abide by all the "secrets" Joseph Smith "restored"(!)) Jesus has a spirit brother named Lucifer. Or is it Satan? I forget. Oh, but God the Father was once a man too, just as we are, but through being righteous enough, "doing all he could do" was exalted. And became God. Uhm, er, a God, but they have Jesus as their savior too (since the last world war or so) and as they would like to tell you -- are the only people on the planet with "the Holy Spirit" since every other "church" is reprobate. But getting back to becoming a god --- Mormons (if they do all they can do) get to do the same thing,just like the one some call God did, after he got to become a God by his own righteousness (and clean living). We were all spirit children birthed long ago and far, far away...sent here to earth to do all we can do so we too can then be exalted and continue on (procreating) with our families in heavenly realms, as Gods in our own right (our own planets too [maybe?] -- just think about it!)

Somebody please tell me ---what happened to Christianity?

NKJV

22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks[a] foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.