Could Mary have sinned?

[EphelDuath]

If so, do you have any examples of how she did so or was helped in resisting the devil?

Revelation 12:1-6
And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried travailing in birth: and was in pain to be delivered. And there was seen another sign in heaven. And behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns and on his heads seven diadems. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered: that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. And her son was taken up to God and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her, a thousand two hundred sixty days.

The bold passage shows that this passage indeed refers to Mary and Jesus. Do you contest that the dragon is Satan?

 

[justasking4]

EphelDuath;3220523]Revelation 12:1-6
And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried travailing in birth: and was in pain to be delivered. And there was seen another sign in heaven. And behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns and on his heads seven diadems. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered: that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. And her son was taken up to God and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her, a thousand two hundred sixty days.

Here is a quote from catholic scholars on this passage:
Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.

They make the best case from a scholarly position on this passage.

The bold passage shows that this passage indeed refers to Mary and Jesus. Do you contest that the dragon is Satan?

No.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I like to cite a Catholic priest Fr. Saunders, he wrote:

First, let’s refresh our memories with the passage from the Book of Revelation (11:19 - 12:6): “Then God’s temple in heaven opened and in the temple could be seen the Ark of the Covenant. There were flashes of lightning and peals of thunder, an earthquake and a violent hailstorm. A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Because she was with child, she wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. Then another sign appeared in the sky: it was a huge dragon, flaming red, with seven heads and ten horns; on his heads were seven diadems. His tail swept a third of the stars from the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, ready to devour her child when it should be born. She gave birth to a son — a boy destined to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and to his throne. The woman herself fled into the desert, where a special place had been prepared for her by God; there she was taken care of for 1260 days.”

Since the time of the early Church fathers, this image of “the woman clothed with the sun” has had a threefold symbolism: the ancient people of Israel, the Church and the Blessed Mother. Regarding the ancient people of Israel, Isaiah described Israel as follows: “As a woman about to give birth writhes and cries out in her pains, so were we in your presence, O Lord” (Is 26:17). Of course, one must remember too that it is from the ancient people of Israel that both Mary and the Messiah came.

The “woman clothed with the sun” may also represent the Church. Later in verse 17, we read, “Enraged at her escape, the dragon went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep God’s commandments and give witness to Jesus.” The “offspring” being the baptized children of God, the members of the Church. Pope St. Gregory posited, “The sun stands for the light of truth, and the moon for the transitoriness of temporal things; the holy Church is clothed like the sun because she is protected by the splendor of supernatural truth, and she has the moon under her feet because she is above all earthly things” (Moralia, 34, 12).

 

[Mannyfit75]

Finally, the woman can be identified with the Blessed Virgin Mary. Mary gave birth to our Savior, Jesus Christ. St. Bernard commented, “The sun contains permanent color and splendor; whereas the moon’s brightness is unpredictable and changeable, for it never stays the same. It is quite right, then, for Mary to be depicted as clothed with the sun, for she entered the profundity of divine wisdom much, much further than one can possibly conceive” (De B. Virgine, 2).

In identifying the image of “the woman clothed with the sun” as our Blessed Mother Mary, the fullness of the imagery of the ancient people of Israel and the Church emerges. Consider the ancient people of Israel. When the Archangel Gabriel appeared to Mary, he declared (as translated in the New American Bible, 1968), “Rejoice, O highly favored daughter! The Lord is with you. Blessed are among women” (Lk 1:28). Then continuing, he said, “Do not fear, Mary. You have found favor with God. You shall conceive and bear a son and give him the name Jesus. Great will be His dignity and He will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give Him the throne of David His father. He will rule over the house of Jacob forever and His reign will be without end” (Lk 1:30-33). These statements reflect the prophecy of Zephaniah regarding the ancient people of Israel and the coming of the Messiah: “Shout for joy, O daughter Zion! Sing joyfully, O Israel! Be glad and exult with all your heart, O daughter Jerusalem! The Lord has removed the judgment against you, He has turned away your enemies. The King of Israel, the Lord is in your midst, you have no further misfortune to fear. On that day, it shall be said to Jerusalem: ‘Fear not, O Zion, be not discouraged!’” (Zep 3:14-16). Therefore, Mary, the mother of the Messiah, as the “woman clothed with the sun” represents the fulfillment of the prophecy given to the people Israel.

Likewise, Mary, again seen as “the woman clothed with the sun,” rightfully represents the Church, for Mary is the Mother of the Church. St. Paul is his Letter to the Galatians asserted, " … When the designated time had come, God sent forth His Son born of a woman, born under the law, to deliver from the law those who were subject to it, so that we might receive our status as adopted sons" (4:4-5). Expounding upon this point, the Vatican Council II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), teaches, "At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: “the Church indeed … by receiving the Word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life” (No. 64). Moreover, the Vatican Council II continued, that in her glorious assumption, Mary “is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come” (No. 67). Finally, at the end of the third session of Vatican Council II, November 21, 1964, when Lumen Gentium had been promulgated, Pope Paul VI declared, “We proclaim the Most Blessed Virgin Mary Mother of the Church, i.e. of the whole people of God, faithful and pastors, and we call her most loving Mother.” Therefore, the Blessed Mother represents the fulfillment of the image of the Church: she who is the mother of the Savior who founded the Church, is a spiritual mother to all who through baptism are the adopted children of God and members of the Church.

Here it is worth citing the teaching of Pope St. Pius X in his encyclical, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum (1904): “Everyone knows that this woman signified the Virgin Mary … John therefore saw the most Holy Mother of God already in eternal happiness, yet travailing in a mysterious childbirth. What birth was it? Surely it was the birth of us who, still in exile, are yet to be generated to the perfect charity of God, and to eternal happiness” (24).

At this point, we will pause and continue our discussion next week, examining other reasons why the woman “clothed with the sun” refers to our Blessed Mother.

catholicherald.com/saunders/04ws/ws040826.htm

 

[justasking4]

catholicherald.com/saunders/04ws/ws040826.htm

So who do you think the woman of Revelations 12 is since there are a number of different views in your church?

 

[MariaG]

Are you saying Mary was born without a sin nature i.e. original sin?

Yes. While we were born with original sin, but redeemed after, Mary was redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice in a unique manner.

If it is Mary who is at complete emnity with Satan, did she also somehow resist the temptations of the devil throughout her entire life as Jesus did?

It is the belief of the Catholic Church that by the grace of God, Mary did in fact resist the temptations of the devil her entire life.

I believe the Orthodox leave open the possibility she sinned, at least sins that are not deadly, also called venial sins.

If so, do you have any examples of how she did so or was helped in resisting the devil?

None that you accept:shrug:

I personally like the ones from the Early Church fathers which speak of Mary being the New Eve. But to go there, one first needs to realize that nowhere in scripture does it teach about scripture alone.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Mannyfit75]

So who do you think the woman of Revelations 12 is since there are a number of different views in your church?

All four, the Church, Israel, Eve, and Mary. All interpretation are correct. None of them is wrong. You have to bear in mind that the Book of Revelation can be interpreted in both literal and spiritual sense of Scripture.

Of course, like a Non-Catholic Christian Evangelical Protestant, you just want to dismiss these interpretations. Catholics theologians and scholars find neither these interpretations as incorrect.

For one the woman is Church because her offsprings are believers in Christ through our baptism.

The woman is Eve because she is the mother of all things, and became Eve and the serpeant have become enemies.

The Church is Israel because the Male-Child is descendant of Jacob.

The woman is Mary because she gave birth to the male-child who will rule the nations with an iron rod. Jesus will will all nations with an iron rod.

We also happen to find the male-child was taken up to heaven and to his throne. Sounds like the Ascension and we know Jesus is at the throne of God, his right hand.

 

[justasking4]

MariaG;3221146]Yes. While we were born with original sin, but redeemed after, Mary was redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice in a unique manner.

It is the belief of the Catholic Church that by the grace of God, Mary did in fact resist the temptations of the devil her entire life.

I believe the Orthodox leave open the possibility she sinned, at least sins that are not deadly, also called venial sins.

This is where speculations lead to this kind of thinking. You have given no evidence or proof that she was “redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice in a unique manner” nor have any proof that she resisted the devils temptations her entire life. Without any evidence (scripture never claims this about her) you must believe this on blind faith i.e. no evidence.

None that you accept:shrug:

I personally like the ones from the Early Church fathers which speak of Mary being the New Eve. But to go there, one first needs to realize that nowhere in scripture does it teach about scripture alone.

No need to get into sola scriptura here. I think we both know by now that the scriptures don’t teach these kinds of things. It seems you must put your faith in what your church tells you to believe even though there is no evidence for it.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3221206]All four, the Church, Israel, Eve, and Mary. All interpretation are correct. None of them is wrong. You have to bear in mind that the Book of Revelation can be interpreted in both literal and spiritual sense of Scripture.

Huh? How can all views be correct if they are saying different things?

Of course, like a Non-Catholic Christian Evangelical Protestant, you just want to dismiss these interpretations. Catholics theologians and scholars find neither these interpretations as incorrect.

Raymond Brown would not agree with you. He dismisses many of the interpretations you give here.

For one the woman is Church because her offsprings are believers in Christ through our baptism.

The woman is Eve because she is the mother of all things, and became Eve and the serpeant have become enemies.

The Church is Israel because the Male-Child is descendant of Jacob.

The woman is Mary because she gave birth to the male-child who will rule the nations with an iron rod. Jesus will will all nations with an iron rod.

We also happen to find the male-child was taken up to heaven and to his throne. Sounds like the Ascension and we know Jesus is at the throne of God, his right hand.

 

[MariaG]

This is where speculations lead to this kind of thinking. You have given no evidence or proof that she was “redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice in a unique manner” nor have any proof that she resisted the devils temptations her entire life. Without any evidence (scripture never claims this about her) you must believe this on blind faith i.e. no evidence.

There has been much scriptural evidence supplied for Mary’s immaculate conception provided here and in other threads you have been in.

I saw no reason to list them here again, when I know that you reject them. But for you to again claim there is no basis without any evidence from scripture is a lie. You disagree with the interpretation but there is scripture on the subject of Mary’s immaculate conception.

Just because you haven’t had this truth revealed to you by the Holy Spirit through scripture as I have, does not give you the right to tell me that I base this on blind faith for that is just an outright lie. I spent much time studying scirpture on this.

No need to get into sola scriptura here. I think we both know by now that the scriptures don’t teach these kinds of things. It seems you must put your faith in what your church tells you to believe even though there is no evidence for it.

We both know by now?

What I know is that you continually reject the truth, the scripture and make false claims about my faith. That is what I know.

My faith is in Christ, His word and in His Church, in that order as was given to me by the Holy Spirit.

There is much scripture on this subject that you continually reject. I had hoped by now you would at least admit that I believe these beliefs are scriptural, while disagreeing with the interpretation rather than make blatant lies about other people’s faith

 

[justasking4]

MariaG;3221320]There has been much scriptural evidence supplied for Mary’s immaculate conception provided here and in other threads you have been in.

I saw no reason to list them here again, when I know that you reject them. But for you to again claim there is no basis without any evidence from scripture is a lie. You disagree with the interpretation but there is scripture on the subject of Mary’s immaculate conception.

Has your church ever infallibly interpreted the verses used by you and others to say that she was without sin?
Keep in mind what is at stake here. If Mary was without sin then it contradicts what the scriptures clearly teach that all men born from human parents are sinners.

Just because you haven’t had this truth revealed to you by the Holy Spirit through scripture as I have, does not give you the right to tell me that I base this on blind faith for that is just an outright lie. I spent much time studying scirpture on this.

This is not about the Holy Spirit revealing something but what do the scriptures teach. We can study all the texts related to this doctrine and never come to the conclusion that she was without sin.

We both know by now?

What I know is that you continually reject the truth, the scripture and make false claims about my faith. That is what I know.

What i reject is what your church seemingly teaches because the scriptures don’t teach such a thing about her.

My faith is in Christ, His word and in His Church, in that order as was given to me by the Holy Spirit.

The word of Christ does not support the idea she was without sin though.

There is much scripture on this subject that you continually reject. I had hoped by now you would at least admit that I believe these beliefs are scriptural, while disagreeing with the interpretation rather than make blatant lies about other people’s faith:

I have read quite a bit on this from catholic sources. We both cannot be right. One is telling the truth the other is not. Let the Scriptures decide who is speaking the truth and who is not. I stand on the Scriptures.

 

[Deana]

She never sinned. She was preserved from sin. She had neither original sin or personal sin because of God’s grace. The grace which she received is far greater than what we have. She accepted the grace and decided by her own free will not to sin. Many of the ECF believe this, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church declare Mary as sinless. So to answer the question, could Mary have sinned?

No. She could but decided not to because she is like she said in the Gospel of Luke. “My soul magnify the greatness of the Lord.”

Manny, you have explained it to a ‘T’. The Graces given to her for her roll in Gods plan are far more advanced than what we get. Thank you so much for your wording.

 

[guanophore]

Huh? How can all views be correct if they are saying different things?

Are you really so narrow minded that you cannot see more than one understanding of a saying? Do you not have the mental ability to look at something from different perspectives, or different angles?

Raymond Brown would not agree with you. He dismisses many of the interpretations you give here.

Good thing Jesus didn’t put him in charge of Teaching official Catholic doctrine!

 

[Good_Fella]

Are you saying Mary was born without a sin nature i.e. original sin?

By the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus has revealed to His Church that Mary was born without a sinful nature, having been preserved free from the stain of original sin at the moment of her conception when her soul was fashioned by God. The Church Fathers, Popes, and Councils have consistently and unanimously taught this truth throughout the centuries with its declaration as dogma by Pope Pius lX in 1854. The earliest extant fragment of an ECF with respect to the Immaculate Conception may be ‘Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me’, of Hyppolytus, keeping in line with an Apostolic Tradition originating with the Christian community in Jerusalem, acknowledged by Luke:

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle (Mary) was exempt from putridity and corruption.” (ante A.D. 235)

From earliest times the Catholic Church has understood and taught that Mary had an incorruptible human nature like her Son, for she was chosen to conceive and fashion God’s Only-begotten Son in her womb and bear him. So God made her nature sinless.

The Catholic Church, which is clearly the early Church, having kept the traditions of an unbroken historical Christian faith, has been given the gift of infallibilty when teaching about faith and morals. The bride of Christ is taught directly by her Lord, and so she cannot err in her doctrines and dogmas. The Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit - the Helper promised to her by Jesus. It is not the apostles and their validly ordained successors who speak of divine truths, but Jesus himself through them. This is why he founded his One Holy Catholic Church on the Apostles and continues to build her on the foundation of the apostolic teaching authority of the Church.

‘A highway will be there, called the holy way; No one unclean may pass over it, nor fools go astray on it.’ {Isaiah 35, 8}

“But this I do admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors and I believe everything that is in accordance with the law and the prophets.”
{Acts 24, 14}

“For it will not be you who speak but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.”
{Matthew 10, 20}

“For the Holy Spirit will teach you at that moment what you should say.” {Luke 12, 12}

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it.”
{John 14, 16}

“But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.”
{John 16, 12-13}

One of those things is the infallible truth of the Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin Mary. :yup:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Mannyfit75]

**

Huh? How can all views be correct if they are saying different things?

**

They are correct because of the reasons I pointed out. I think the major problem you have about these interpretation is because you are stuck with the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura and you are reading these passages through a Protestant lenses.

To me that is your problem. I also like to point out that if you can convince me that the male-child in Revelation 12:1-5 **is not Jesus **only then I can dismiss the woman clothed with the sun is Mary.

So far you have not convince me otherwise.

Raymond Brown would not agree with you. He dismisses many of the interpretations you give here.

He isn’t the Magisterium. His statements are no more infallible than your own.

I have done my part and like I expected you dismiss my interpretation completely rather than try to understand.

 

[Good_Fella]

If it is Mary who is at complete emnity with Satan, did she also somehow resist the temptations of the devil throughout her entire life as Jesus did? If so, do you have any examples of how she did so or was helped in resisting the devil?

“Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you.”
{Luke 1, 28}

And Mary said, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word.” And with that the angel left her.
{Luke 1, 38}

“Blessed are you among women ‘and’ blessed is the fruit of your womb.” Blessed are you for believing; the message that was brought to you from the Lord shall be fulfilled."
{Luke 1, 42, 45}

“My soul does magnify the Lord. My spirit rejoices in God my saviour.”
{Luke 1, 46}

While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts that nursed you.” He replied, “Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.”
{Luke 11, 27-28; cf. 1, 28, 38, 42-45, 46}

We have no scriptural account of Mary ever having inclined herself against doing the will of God. On the contrary, Luke affirms what the Church has always believed in from the beginning: Mary was one who constantly heard the word of God and kept it. When the angel Gabriel greeted Mary with the peculiar appellation “full of grace” or “highly favoured”, he was not simply referring to her exceptional privilege of having been chosen by God to conceive and bear his Only-begotten Son. The divine messenger had something more significant in mind as did Jesus and Elizabeth with reference to Mary. The angel Gabriel addressed Mary according to her perpetual state of sanctifying grace in which she was constantly in God’s favour. Eve incurred God’s disfavour and fell from his grace by refusing to believe God and believing in the words of Satan instead over that matter with the forbidden fruit on the tree. Unlike Mary, our ancestral mother rejected the word of God and disobeyed him, whereas our Lord’s mother heard the word of God and “kept” it. Luke 11 draws our attention to the more important significance of the angel Gabriels greeting to Mary.To be in a state of grace is to be in a state of holiness and justice (in God’s favour). For Mary this state of sanctifying grace was permanent and ongoing from the moment of her conception. She was fashioned to be a perpetual “yes” to God’s will together with her Son who in turn was fashioned in her immaculate womb.

Divine grace is a free gift from God which elevates and perfects human nature, granting us participation in the divine nature of God, making us capable of acts which merit the eternal beatitude of heaven. Although the supernatural gift of grace does not belong to human nature, man was created in the beginning in a state of sanctifying grace. Man also possessed certain preternatural gifts (gifts not pertaining to human nature) which were lost along with sanctifying grace by the sin of Adam and Eve. Since Mary was preserved free from original sin and conceived in a state of sanctifying grace, not unlike the Son of Man, and retained the original preternatural gifts, which the rest of us have lost and must try to repossess by responding to God’s actual graces, she was incapable of succumbing to temptation and sinning. The difference between Jesus and Mary is that the Son of Man’s human nature was formally sanctified by the substantial and uncreated union of the Word (his divine nature) with his human nature. Mary’s formal sanctity was created at the moment God fashioned her soul at her Immaculate Conception.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Old_Scholar]

Wow!

I had no idea the cajolery and inveiglement was so bad in the RCC. You guys believe anything that comes your way…

Get rid of your Bibles, you surely don’t need them as you don’t believe them.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3222236]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Huh? How can all views be correct if they are saying different things?
guanophore
Are you really so narrow minded that you cannot see more than one understanding of a saying? Do you not have the mental ability to look at something from different perspectives, or different angles?

i’m really not that bright and quite dense as you and others have alluded to many many times. :dancing:
When someone writes something we must assume that the author has only one meaning in mind to communicate. Thats the challenge in understanding not only Scripture but all literature. You can claim that a passage has more than one meaning but that does not mean you have the true understanding of the passage.

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;3222581]"
While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts that nursed you.” He replied, “Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.”
{Luke 11, 27-28; cf. 1, 28, 38, 42-45, 46}

This actually counts agains the catholic interpretation. This would have been a perfect time for Jesus to point to His mother as the catholic church does and yet He does not. He never exalts Mary in the gospels.

We have no scriptural account of Mary ever having inclined herself against doing the will of God. On the contrary, Luke affirms what the Church has always believed in from the beginning: Mary was one who constantly heard the word of God and kept it.

Would you happen to have a verse for this claim–“Mary was one who constantly heard the word of God and kept it”?

When the angel Gabriel greeted Mary with the peculiar appellation “full of grace” or “highly favoured”, he was not simply referring to her exceptional privilege of having been chosen by God to conceive and bear his Only-begotten Son. The divine messenger had something more significant in mind as did Jesus and Elizabeth with reference to Mary. The angel Gabriel addressed Mary according to her perpetual state of sanctifying grace in which she was constantly in God’s favour.

When you look at the definition for this you don’t see this claim that she was in a perpetual state of sanctifying grace in which she was constantly in God’s favour.

Eve incurred God’s disfavour and fell from his grace by refusing to believe God and believing in the words of Satan instead over that matter with the forbidden fruit on the tree. Unlike Mary, our ancestral mother rejected the word of God and disobeyed him, whereas our Lord’s mother heard the word of God and “kept” it. Luke 11 draws our attention to the more important significance of the angel Gabriels greeting to Mary.

To be in a state of grace is to be in a state of holiness and justice (in God’s favour). For Mary this state of sanctifying grace was permanent and ongoing from the moment of her conception.

Again, go back to the defintion and see if it says anything about what you claim here. It says nothing about a person being in a “state of sanctifying grace was permanent and ongoing from the moment of her conception”. This is reading catholic doctrine into the definition.

She was fashioned to be a perpetual “yes” to God’s will together with her Son who in turn was fashioned in her immaculate womb.

How could a daughter of Adam and Eve through which she inherited original sin be able to say yes to God at all times?
If she did not have human parents then you might have some grounds to make a claim like this but its impossible for the reason i have given.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3222541

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Huh? How can all views be correct if they are saying different things?
Mannyfit75
They are correct because of the reasons I pointed out. I think the major problem you have about these interpretation is because you are stuck with the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura and you are reading these passages through a Protestant lenses.

We all have our biases. I have mine you have yours.

To me that is your problem.

Its yours also.

I also like to point out that if you can convince me that the male-child in Revelation 12:1-5 is not Jesus only then I can dismiss the woman clothed with the sun is Mary.

So far you have not convince me otherwise.

The child would be Jesus. However in such a book as Revelations which by far is the most metaphorical etc book of the NT it requires us to keep this in mind when seeking to understand it. Saying the the woman is Mary has some serious problems with the rest of the texts as Brown points out.

Quote:justasking4
Raymond Brown would not agree with you. He dismisses many of the interpretations you give here.
Mannyfit75
He isn’t the Magisterium. His statements are no more infallible than your own.

Unless your Magisterium has infallibly interpreted this passage it won’t help you here. What we are forced to do is to deal with the passage itself and compare it with your understanding that it is Mary and see if it fits. Raymond Brown clearly shows that it does not fit for Mary for the reasons he gives.

I have done my part and like I expected you dismiss my interpretation completely rather than try to understand.

I don’t see you engaging Brown but just dismissing him because he is not the Magisterium. That won’t do. You need to fit for example 12:6 to Mary. That verse alone is enough to tell us its not Mary.