Non Catholic view of Mariology II

[PRmerger]

Let me amplify that: statements about her should be in accordance with Scripture and should not contradict Scripture.

Yes.

Additional statements we should be free to believe or not believe. What that means is that if a solid Scriptural case for the IC can be built, for example, locking out all alternatives, we should believe it on that basis, as opposed to believing it because the Church says we must.

This prompts 2 comments/questions:

-why must a solid case be limited to what’s in Scripture? Shouldn’t we take the Word of God in its entirety, rather than just one side of the coin?

Rather, what we ought to be saying is: if a solid case for the IC can be supported by the Word of God, then we should believe it on that basis.

-why should the IC be any different, as far as “believing it because the Church says we must”, when all Christians believe in the 27 books of the NT because “the Church says we must.”

IOW: why take the Catholic Church’s word for it on the canon of the NT, but doubt she got it right when proclaiming the IC?

We should also recognize in Paul’s argument in Romans 14 that Christians will have disagreements on beliefs and practices and love one another. We do and will disagree about her, but we can walk in love together despite that. We see through a glass darkly, now, but one day face to face.

Indeed.

But truth matters. And an impoverished understanding of Mary leads to an impoverished understanding of Christ.

And I take historical records as history, believable. Lazarus is buried on the island of Cyprus, I am told, having died a bishop at the end of his natural life span. I have no reason to doubt that. There Church tradition (Tradition?) and history are fused. The Catholic and Orthodox argument is that they are always fused. The problem is that there are also pious legends about all these things that have sprung up, some of which are simply unbelievable. So we measure legend, tradition and history against the Scriptures to determine what is true.

No, this is not part of Church Tradition.

Also, noting that Lazarus was said to have died a bishop prompts this question: do you believe that there were indeed bishops in the early church? If so, why do you not have bishops in your church? Or do you recognize your elders as “bishops”?

 

[Tomyris]

Yes.

This prompts 2 comments/questions:

-why must a solid case be limited to what’s in Scripture? Shouldn’t we take the Word of God in its entirety, rather than just one side of the coin?

Rather, what we ought to be saying is: if a solid case for the IC can be supported by the Word of God, then we should believe it on that basis.

-why should the IC be any different, as far as “believing it because the Church says we must”, when all Christians believe in the 27 books of the NT because “the Church says we must.”

IOW: why take the Catholic Church’s word for it on the canon of the NT, but doubt she got it right when proclaiming the IC?

Indeed.

But truth matters. And an impoverished understanding of Mary leads to an impoverished understanding of Christ.

No, this is not part of Church Tradition.

Also, noting that Lazarus was said to have died a bishop prompts this question: do you believe that there were indeed bishops in the early church? If so, why do you not have bishops in your church? Or do you recognize your elders as “bishops”?

9000 threads around here on SS. Thank you but I will pass.

I recognize elders as 'bishops, the word ‘episcopos’ in Greek being translated as ‘overseer’ and the word ‘presbyter’ being translated as ‘elder’, from which Greek words we get ‘bishop’ and ‘priest’, but also ‘Episcopalian’ and ‘Presbyterian’. I think in the early church the one word described the office and the other the individual in the office, and gradually the head pastor became pastor over a number of churches with one elder in each church. I’ve heard that not so long ago Catholic priests tended to live in community with other Catholic priests and so there was a sort of elder-board in each parish or close group of parishes, and you did not have the current phenomenon of isolated and overworked priests. I note the rise of ‘parish councils’ today that seem to be a re-creation of multiple leadership that is found throughout the NT in local churches, and I sort of suspect the Catholic church may be coming around to more of a presbyterian system at the local level, which I am totally sold on, because it really, really works, is solid Biblically, and was there in the beginning. ‘Presbyterian’ relates to how churches are organized and does not imply the adoption of Reformed theology.

What does this have to do with the topic? I think Mary’s last mention in the NT narrative is in Acts 2 at Pentecost but she is not mentioned as at the Council in Acts 15. The Revelation references in chapter 12 are debatable. Ah hah! Something on topic. Is the woman Mary? The Church? Israel? I read something sometime by an Orthodox scholar insisting the answer is yes, because there is a complex relationship between the three that I cannot recall, but I thought it was interesting that he said such a thing. And that passage has been done to death on CAF.

 

[PRmerger]

9000 threads around here on SS. Thank you but I will pass.

Dern!

I recognize elders as 'bishops, the word ‘episcopos’ in Greek being translated as ‘overseer’ and the word ‘presbyter’ being translated as ‘elder’, from which Greek words we get ‘bishop’ and ‘priest’, but also ‘Episcopalian’ and ‘Presbyterian’. I think in the early church the one word described the office and the other the individual in the office, and gradually the head pastor became pastor over a number of churches with one elder in each church. I’ve heard that not so long ago Catholic priests tended to live in community with other Catholic priests and so there was a sort of elder-board in each parish or close group of parishes, and you did not have the current phenomenon of isolated and overworked priests. I note the rise of ‘parish councils’ today that seem to be a re-creation of multiple leadership that is found throughout the NT in local churches, and I sort of suspect the Catholic church may be coming around to more of a presbyterian system at the local level, which I am totally sold on, because it really, really works, is solid Biblically, and was there in the beginning. ‘Presbyterian’ relates to how churches are organized and does not imply the adoption of Reformed theology.

Interesting.

And just a little tweak on what you said. The phenomenon of overworked, isolated priests is limited mainly to the US. You will note that in other areas of the world this is not so much the case.

What does this have to do with the topic? I think Mary’s last mention in the NT narrative is in Acts 2 at Pentecost but she is not mentioned as at the Council in Acts 15.

Also interesting.

Did you know that Jesus is not mentioned, not even once, in an entire book of the NT?

Point being made is, of course, the number of times that someone is mentioned is not of great import. In fact, Mary is on every page of the Bible, just like Jesus is.

 

[PRmerger]

As such, the Scriptures reflect out doctrines, not the other way around. SS gets it exactly backwards in attempting to glean doctrine from the written Word. The Word of God was proclaimed first through Sacred Tradition, through the Church, and then part of it was contained on papyrus.

“out” should be “our”.

 

[nmgauss]

False.

Also false.

Could you please tell us what beliefs are necessary to the Christian faith, and what Scripture verses tell you that it’s a necessary belief?

There is no supporting citation in your “False”. If these “False”'s are to be respected, actual scripture to prove your points would be helpful.

 

[nmgauss]

Did you know that Jesus is not mentioned, not even once, in an entire book of the NT?

Which book is that?

Point being made is, of course, the number of times that someone is mentioned is not of great import. In fact, Mary is on every page of the Bible, just like Jesus is.

Do you mean on every page of the NT? Also, a page is meaningless because originally scripture was on scrolls. When the Bible came out in Codex form, the size of the print determined how many words are on each page?

 

[nmgauss]

-why must a solid case be limited to what’s in Scripture? Shouldn’t we take the Word of God in its entirety, rather than just one side of the coin?

Rather, what we ought to be saying is: if a solid case for the IC can be supported by the Word of God, then we should believe it on that basis.

Is the Word of God written down in any other canonized book?

No, this is not part of Church Tradition

Are the words of St. Augustine, St. Gregory, and St. Thomas Aquinas regarded as the Word of God or have they been accepted as part of Church Tradition as the result of Councils or proclamations by popes?

Also, noting that Lazarus was said to have died a bishop prompts this question: do you believe that there were indeed bishops in the early church? If so, why do you not have bishops in your church? Or do you recognize your elders as “bishops”?

Supposedly, St. Paul sent his epistles to bishops even before the Gospels appeared. Were they really bishops or just local church leaders?

 

[pablope]

I think that is the first time I have seen Sola Scrptura framed in terms of Catholic apologetics.

Interesting.

 

[joe371]

It is protestants who hold to the formal suffiency of Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

It is protestants who hold to the formal suffiency of Scripture.

I think Tomi means that “formal sufficiency” is a Catholic term for what (some) Protestants believe.

Sadly, she has said, though, that she is not wanting to engage in a SS dialogue.

All your arguments, however, are and will give much benefit to the lurkers.

 

[PRmerger]

Is the Word of God written down in any other canonized book?

The Word of God is Jesus Christ. The written Word of God is Scripture. The rest of the Word of God is contained in Sacred Tradition.

Are the words of St. Augustine, St. Gregory, and St. Thomas Aquinas regarded as the Word of God or have they been accepted as part of Church Tradition as the result of Councils or proclamations by popes?

Neither. When their words/teachings are consonant with the Faith, given once for all to the Apostles, then we say that what they are teaching is the Catholic faith. However, we do not assign the nomenclature of the Word of God to their texts.

Supposedly, St. Paul sent his epistles to bishops even before the Gospels appeared. Were they really bishops or just local church leaders?

Anyone who was ordained by an Apostle was a bishop. And anyone who was subsequently ordained by these bishops was a bishop. And anyone who was subsequently ordained by these bishops was a bishop…fast forward 2000 years…to our current bishops who were ordained by these bishops.

 

[PRmerger]

Which book is that?

3 John.

And St. Paul never mentions the Virgin Birth. Kind of another interesting tidbit for those who want to claim that the inspired writers must mention things a bunch of times in order for it to be considered an “essential” belief.

Do you mean on every page of the NT?

No, in every page of the Bible, OT and NT. She is foreshadowed, alluded to, spiritually represented in the obedience of the holy men and women, heralded as the Woman, pointed to, portended, and promised to us.

Also, a page is meaningless because originally scripture was on scrolls.

Must. Not. Roll. Eyes.

Gack! I can’t restrain myself. Your comment so warrants this:

 

[PRmerger]

There is no supporting citation in your “False”. If these “False”'s are to be respected, actual scripture to prove your points would be helpful.

Fair enough

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives. source

 

[KathleenGee]

PR, on another post regarding the IC, I commented on the use of the oil bottled emptied, and would the Heavenly Father allow His Son to be conceived and carried in such a soiled womb.
I wish I had better computer skills to transfer it to that thread.

Catholics understand Scripture through the heart of the Church through Tradition that is the understanding of Christ through the actual witness of the Apostles preserved by the Holy Spirit.

Just because the Catholic Church is very big does not mean the people who profess it are some big institutional blob. Every Catholic believer has a sensitive soul to Christ and His Word, be it the pope and bishops, down to believers in the pew.

Our understanding is communal, not fragmented and individual. The true reflections of Sacred Scripture always lead us to Christ more fully and to our fellow believer and neighbor in communion, not disunity and dissension. That is ego and defiance in refusing the authority Christ gave to the Apostles from the very beginning.

Likewise because we follow the apostolic teachings doesn’t mean we have a monopoly on holiness. The world is very quick to point out scandals and failings in the Church. But nevertheless, as I always state, Christ did not pass out Bibles to the Apostles. Instead He taught, healed, corrected, and died for us.

Our faith is more centered on Jesus Christ Himself Who is the only Holy One. We have nothing of ourselves.

The self-will and its lack of faith has done the greatest damage to Christian fraternity.

If you reduce Christ down to book form, then you have lost out on His authority, His understanding of the Word, and the sacraments, the Word Made Flesh. Written text is most susceptible to error. Reading something and then facing someone who is teaching you the same material is different, this Oral Tradition. if you have a question, the teacher can immediately correct and guide you into the true form.

 

[nmgauss]

Our understanding is communal, not fragmented and individual. The true reflections of Sacred Scripture always lead us to Christ more fully and to our fellow believer and neighbor in communion, not disunity and dissension. That is ego and defiance in refusing the authority Christ gave to the Apostles from the very beginning.

The self-will and its lack of faith has done the greatest damage to Christian fraternity.

It’s interesting that you emphasize being communal. I interpret this as being communal amongst people in Christian church circles. This is a vital part of defusing disagreements.

Comparing this to the Islamic world, Muhammad had this communal goal in mind amongst the Arabs as he had observed its benefits among the Christians. However, his people were not used to thinking along these lines, and are, to this day, still not used to thinking this way. Indeed among Muhammad’s first four successors (rashidun) three were murdered. Even Muhammad’s grandson was murdered. Two civil wars erupted within the first few decades after Muhammad’s death.

What do Christians do to settle their differences? They meet in councils. What do Muslims do? They start wars. After all, this has been the tradition among Arab tribes, even before the days of Abraham. Today, we see civil war in Syria, and violence over political disputes in Egypt to see who can win.

Of course, I am not counting the violence between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, which was more political than religious. Also the Huguenots were persecuted in France. These are minor compared with the level of violence seen among Muslims today.

 

[SteveVH]

Fair enough

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives. source

PR, next time why don’t you get prepared? Seriously, I’m saving the whole thing. Thanks for putting this together. You’re amazing.

 

[KathleenGee]

Ditto, PR…I hope those who have been indoctrinated to think we worship Mary or give her undue attention, will take these passages to heart.

The Church is in essence communal. But we have set beliefs and practices, and we adhere to the apostolic tradition of faith.

Christ is the source of our unity, not man’s interpretation that can only to division and what is worse, anti-Christianity among Christians themselves.

In America, Christianity is the biggest voting block in the country, but due to the spirit of the world or private interpretation or individuals getting tax breaks to call themselves a church, America is the greatest source of individual interpretation of Christian faith and we are reaping its effects.

 

[Thinkingaloud]

Christ is the source of our unity, not man’s interpretation that can only to division and what is worse, anti-Christianity among Christians themselves.
.

I’ll agree with this

 

[nmgauss]

In America, Christianity is the biggest voting block in the country, but due to the spirit of the world or private interpretation or individuals getting tax breaks to call themselves a church, America is the greatest source of individual interpretation of Christian faith and we are reaping its effects.

Are you saying that Catholics, Mormons, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, constitute a unified voting block in regard to politics? This de-emphasis of politics among Christians is the main reason we turn to religion mainly on the Sabbath and not the rest of the week.

This is in contrast with Muslims, in which politics is a major cause and pervades their devotion every waking moment. Muhammad wanted politics to prevail over piety. That is the main thrust of the spread of Islam from its origins in Arabia.

 

[Thinkingaloud]

Fair enough

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives. source

Most of these verses assume the Ark is a type of Mary., however I made a post before with objections to why I am not convinced. I was interested to see in a list of the early church fathers here., the oldest quote from Hippolytus interpreted the ark as a type of Christ.