Protestant versus Catholic

[guanophore]

Luke 1
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

The letters to Timothy were written later in Paul’s ministry, so it is possible that Paul may have seen part of them. They may be contained in “the parchments” that he asked to be brought to him. However, when Paul refers to Scriptures, these references are to the Old Testament. Luke learned most of the gospel he wrote from Paul, who got it from the kerygma.

Acts 1
1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

Are you suggesting that Paul used the book of Acts?

What? Are you talking Jesus - GOD’s WORD or are you talking Bible -GOD’s Word?

Why should that matter? Why do you think God is less able to preserve His Word in His Church as He is in writing? What is it about God that you think makes Him too weak to overcome the frailties of man?

 

[guanophore]

I also believe in the Real presence as a non-catholic and know for a fact that there are Catholics out there that do not believe in the Real Presence. I was told most from this one specific congregation, but of course there are probably no statistics on this.

I have not seen stats on it either, but I agree. I think the vast majority of American Catholics don’t believe.

IWhat I wonder - if a Catholic does not believe in the Real Presence does he worship the Eucharist with the congregation when Catholics worship it during Mass? Does this present a problem?

Worship is, by definition, purposeful/intentional. Therefore, it is not possible to worship against one’s will, or without faith. A person who participates in Eucharist when they don’t believe the Body and Blood is present is committing a fraud and a sacrilidge, but not an idolatry. They are practicing a form of godliness without the power thereof.

I think it still presents a problem. They have excommunicated themselves, but don’t realize it.

 

[Brandon72]

I believe that Catholics must truly admit that the Scriptures overwhelm their notion to say that Mary was a perpetual virgin and that she had no other children besides Jesus. Scripture never gives the idea that Joseph and Mary had anything other than a normal marriage.

They admit it, but ignore it because the RCC says it’s so. Whether she was a virgin or not doesn’t matter in a salvation sense. What matters most is making Mary sinless and making her a god like Christ. And the RCC can tell me all they want that they don’t “worship” Mary, but that’s what it is. Some RCC actually put Mary before Christ, I’ve seen it and it can’t be denied. RC are flocking in the thousands to see apparitions of her and listen to what she has to say. People kneeling at her statues, praying to her instead of God.

Matthew 11:11
Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Why doesn’t the RCC pray to John or make statues of him? Jesus Christ himself said that John is greater than anyone born of a woman.

It boils down to we shouldn’t put any saint in God’s way. No one who lived on earth or no angel in Heaven should get any praise or worship, God is jealous and He gets it all.

Exodus 20:4-5 says, “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God…” Notice that God is jealous when someone gives to another something that rightly belongs to Him (prayer, time, worship, statues, following so called apparitions)

And how would a RC explain Matt 12:46-50?

[46] While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. [48] But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” [49] And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! [50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

What a slap in Mary’s face if she is the Queen of Heaven!

 

[guanophore]

I believe that Catholics must truly admit that the Scriptures overwhelm their notion to say that Mary was a perpetual virgin and that she had no other children besides Jesus. Scripture never gives the idea that Joseph and Mary had anything other than a normal marriage.

I see your point, but the reason Catholics cannot “admit” this modern heresy is because we are not a “bible based” church. Our Church was founded by Christ, and the Bible was produced by that Church. The NT is entirely Catholic, written by, for, and about Catholics. It was never intended to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it. We know that it was never intended to function as a full compendium of the faith, or to contain all the doctrine. The function of the Church, founded by Christ, fully functional before a word of the NT was ever written, was designed to be a full compendium of the faith, and to hold right doctrine.

So, we don’t extract our doctrine from the pages of the text, as do some of our separated brethren. We RECEIVE the doctrine from the successors of the apostles to whom Christ committed it, and we see that doctrine REFLECTED in the Holy Scriptures, produced by the same Source. Since both the Sacred Tradition (the Word of God committed to the Church) and the Sacred Writings come from the same Source, there is never any disagreement or contradiction. If we understand what is written correctly, then it will be in agreement with the kerygma, and vice versa.

For the record, though I agree with you. The Marian doctrines cannot be “proved” with Scripture. It think there is as much opportunity to read the passages differently, especially when one is separated from the Apostolic faith.

 

[guanophore]

They admit it, but ignore it because the RCC says it’s so.

No, Catholics do not “ignore” any scripture. What we “ignore” is the false notions that all of the doctrines of the faith are contained with their entirety in scripture. Such an outcome was never the purpose of Scripture. The doctrines of our faith do not require that they be spelled out in detail in the Scripture, since all the doctrines of the Catholic faith were whole and entire prior to a word of the NT ever being written.

Whether she was a virgin or not doesn’t matter in a salvation sense.

This is a man made tradition that will not be found in scripture, either. Such a statement is a good example of the hypocrisy of the exigetical standards that are applied to Catholics. But Catholics can say with impugnity that our traditions do not need to be found in scripture. Non-catholics throw out these man made traditions as if they had the authority of scripture.

Who are you oto day it doesn;'t matter? Are you God?

What matters most is making Mary sinless and making her a god like Christ.

Indeed, making Mary a God is idolatry, a grievous sin and violation of the first commandment.

As far as being sinless, God wants to make all of us that way, so she is a good role model for all of us.

Or do you think God wants you to continue in sin?

And the RCC can tell me all they want…but thats what it is…

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? What you are saying is that you are going to cling to your misunderstandings, rather than accept the Truth.

And the RCC can tell me all they want that they don’t “worship” Mary, but that’s what it is.

You have some misunderstanding about worship, Brandon. Worship is done by individuals, and must be conscious, and deliberate. It doesn;t make any sense to say “the RCC worships Mary”.

You can find no official documents from the Catholic Church that say any such thing. I would encouarge you to read the Catechism on this point, to see what the Church actually believes and teaches.

Some RCC actually put Mary before Christ, I’ve seen it and it can’t be denied.

Perhaps you woold like to give an example? Mary has nothing that did not come from God.

RC are flocking in the thousands to see apparitions of her and listen to what she has to say.

Why is that a problem? All Judea flocked out to see John the Baptist. There is nothing inherintly wrong with wanting to see/hear those who speak God’s message.

People kneeling at her statues, praying to her instead of God.

In such a context, prayer must means “to ask”. No one asks anything of Mary “instead of God”. The only power anyone has to grand requests comes from God.

Matthew 11:11
Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Why doesn’t the RCC pray to John or make statues of him? Jesus Christ himself said that John is greater than anyone born of a woman.

Clearly you have very limited experience of Catholicism.

It boils down to we shouldn’t put any saint in God’s way.

Well, no Catholics do that, so as long as you don’t do that, you will be ok.

The saints work in, with, and through God, their saviour. They are never in His way, becuase their will is to do His will. They have died,a nd their lives are hidden with Christ in God.

No one who lived on earth or no angel in Heaven should get any praise or worship, God is jealous and He gets it all.

This is an anti-scriptural statement.

Exodus 20:4-5 says, “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God...” Notice that God is jealous when someone gives to another something that rightly belongs to Him (prayer, time, worship, statues, following so called apparitions)

Yes. It is essential that none of these things take the place that only rightly belongs to HIm.

And how would a RC explain Matt 12:46-50?

[46] While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. [48] But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” [49] And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! [50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

What a slap in Mary’s face if she is the Queen of Heaven!

You are reading your modern notions of the degrading of women into this passage. From your point of view, it is a slap in the face even if she were not the Queen of Heaven. On the contrary, Jesus upholds HIs mother as twice blessed, chosen by God to play a role in salvation that no one ever had before, or ever will again, to be the Mother of God.

He is offering the same familial status to all His disciples, if they obey Him as she did. She is our role model because she heard the word of God, and obeyed it.

 

[Cranmer2010]

They have excommunicated themselves by such acts. Once the Teachings of the Church have been rejected, if one receives the Sacrament, they do so at their own peril, and eat and drink condemnation upon themselves.

What do you want? Public floggings?

I want it to be realized that this is no different than Protestants who do not adhere to the teachings of their own church. There is no difference other than some Protestants such as WELS Lutherans do excommunicate for certain dissentions.

 

[Cranmer2010]

I see your point, but the reason Catholics cannot “admit” this modern heresy is because we are not a “bible based” church. Our Church was founded by Christ, and the Bible was produced by that Church. The NT is entirely Catholic, written by, for, and about Catholics. It was never intended to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it. We know that it was never intended to function as a full compendium of the faith, or to contain all the doctrine. The function of the Church, founded by Christ, fully functional before a word of the NT was ever written, was designed to be a full compendium of the faith, and to hold right doctrine.

So, we don’t extract our doctrine from the pages of the text, as do some of our separated brethren. We RECEIVE the doctrine from the successors of the apostles to whom Christ committed it, and we see that doctrine REFLECTED in the Holy Scriptures, produced by the same Source. Since both the Sacred Tradition (the Word of God committed to the Church) and the Sacred Writings come from the same Source, there is never any disagreement or contradiction. If we understand what is written correctly, then it will be in agreement with the kerygma, and vice versa.

For the record, though I agree with you. The Marian doctrines cannot be “proved” with Scripture. It think there is as much opportunity to read the passages differently, especially when one is separated from the Apostolic faith.

I believe what you are saying to be more of an invention of the Catholic church rather than a direct line straight back to the Early Church. There are many Catholic things that did not come from Scripture nor the Early Church but yet it calls them Traditional or of the Magisterium. This is what my biggest problem is with Catholicism.

 

[Roy5]

Okay. Bear in mind that many millions of Protestants are not sola scriptura. They often are labeled ‘liberal Protestants’. This means essentially that they are not dogmatic when it comes to dogma.

Take as an example the question of the Virgin Birth. Some will believe it. Some will be skeptical, though they may accept it in a figurative sense. Others simply reject it.

Or, consider Biblical literalism. Most liberal Protestants look upon, say, the first eleven chapters of Genesis as legend mixed in with folklore and myth. Many also would reject the idea that Joshua was ordered by God to murder every inhabitant of Jericho, Ai and other cities. Or, that Saul was commanded by Jehovah to kill every surviving Amalekite.

Why do they reject such stories? Well, they conflict completely with the Ten Commandments as well as the Sermon on the Mount.

As for Jesus, they revere him, try to emulate him, give special attention to the Sermon on the Mount, but many would be skeptical of, say, feeding the 5000 with only a few loaves and fishes. They also would likely doubt that Jesus met with Moses and Elias in the Transfiguration. They would say that a whole lot of imagery, symbolism or maybe even some paganism worked its way into early Christianity. 

Two of the main characteristics of liberal Protestants are that (1) they are content to live with large areas of uncertainity and (2) they are respectful of diverse views. Many I have known enjoy vigorous dialogue on religious matters, but often say - 'fine, if you can believe that go ahead'.  They put considerable emphasis on independent thinking and what they regard as reasonable religion uncluttered by ancient superstitions that could be taken seriously before we had superb telescopes and microscopes but need to be discarded today.

So, when one thinks of Protestants it's important to remember that many of its major branches - Methodism, Presbyterianism, UCC, Episcopalianism, etc. - are 'big tent' denominations that welcome people of different viewpoints.

 

[guanophore]

I want it to be realized that this is no different than Protestants who do not adhere to the teachings of their own church. There is no difference other than some Protestants such as WELS Lutherans do excommunicate for certain dissentions.

The difference we are talking about does not lie in those who do not accept the teachings, but in the Teachings themselves. The CC has ONE doctrine that transcends all cultures and languages.

Our separated brethren have a plethora of ecclesial communities, one saying the other is missing the mark, many of them claiming mutually exclusive doctrines.

Along with this there is the myth of “essentials”, which is defined differently by every community.

Yes, the CC has disobedient members. However, if they leave, and go start another Church, as has been happening with disobedient Catholics since the Reformation, they do not espouse the doctrines of the Apostolic faith. These denominations are defined according to which parts, and how much of Catholicism they reject.

 

[guanophore]

I believe what you are saying to be more of an invention of the Catholic church rather than a direct line straight back to the Early Church. There are many Catholic things that did not come from Scripture nor the Early Church but yet it calls them Traditional or of the Magisterium. This is what my biggest problem is with Catholicism.

Yes, there are many “Catholic things” that did not come from Scripture or from the Early Church. Doctrine, however, cannot be changed, and must be traced back. There are disciplines and devotionals that were not used by the early church, such as the Rosary. Such things are not part of the doctrine of the faith.

 

[Brandon72]

guanophore;No, Catholics do not “ignore” any scripture. What we “ignore” is the false notions that all of the doctrines of the faith are contained with their entirety in scripture. Such an outcome was never the purpose of Scripture. The doctrines of our faith do not require that they be spelled out in detail in the Scripture, since all the doctrines of the Catholic faith were whole and entire prior to a word of the NT ever being written.

Were these part of the church before Paul, Peter, or Luke wrote? If so, how would I find that?

Members must accept the church as having the fullness of revelation, and according to Roman Catholic catechism is the only Christian body that is “holy, universal and apostolic”​

Apostolic succession is key in the faith, saying that the pope and bishops have varying degrees of authority from Jesus.​

Penance and the Eucharist are required at least once a year​

This is a man made tradition that will not be found in scripture, either. Such a statement is a good example of the hypocrisy of the exigetical standards that are applied to Catholics. But Catholics can say with impugnity that our traditions do not need to be found in scripture. Non-catholics throw out these man made traditions as if they had the authority of scripture.

Who are you oto day it doesn;'t matter? Are you God?

I say it doesn’t matter because the Apostles and Jesus Christ never taught it. Salvation comes from the grace of God through faith, so that no man can boast. It is not because of anything that we do, it’s a free gift of His choosing. That is backed up in Scripture my friend, not Mary staying a virgin her whole life for our salvation. Show me I’m wrong.

Indeed, making Mary a God is idolatry, a grievous sin and violation of the first commandment.

As far as being sinless, God wants to make all of us that way, so she is a good role model for all of us.

Or do you think God wants you to continue in sin?

The burden of proof is on you. Show me from any writings you can find from the first 12 Apostles or Luke, that Mary was sinless.

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? What you are saying is that you are going to cling to your misunderstandings, rather than accept the Truth.

Like I said, the burden of proof is on you. I have the truth because I have the Spirit living in me and telling me"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness". For whatever reason, God granted me repentance and faith and now I live for Him. Don’t know what else to tell you. I won’t put my faith in anything else except what is written in the Holy Scriptures.

You have some misunderstanding about worship, Brandon. Worship is done by individuals, and must be conscious, and deliberate. It doesn;t make any sense to say “the RCC worships Mary”.

Another discussion I guess.

You can find no official documents from the Catholic Church that say any such thing. I would encouarge you to read the Catechism on this point, to see what the Church actually believes and teaches.

Perhaps you woold like to give an example? Mary has nothing that did not come from God.

Why is that a problem? All Judea flocked out to see John the Baptist. There is nothing inherintly wrong with wanting to see/hear those who speak God’s message.

John was alive at the time. No one went out to see or listen to a spirit talk. Probably because God condemned it.

In such a context, prayer must means “to ask”. No one asks anything of Mary “instead of God”. The only power anyone has to grand requests comes from God.

Why not pray to God directly? He tells us to ask the Father anything we want and if it’s His will He will grant it.

Clearly you have very limited experience of Catholicism.

Not really. I have more experience than I want.

This is an anti-scriptural statement.

Show me please.

Yes. It is essential that none of these things take the place that only rightly belongs to HIm.

You are reading your modern notions of the degrading of women into this passage. From your point of view, it is a slap in the face even if she were not the Queen of Heaven. On the contrary, Jesus upholds HIs mother as twice blessed, chosen by God to play a role in salvation that no one ever had before, or ever will again, to be the Mother of God.

He is offering the same familial status to all His disciples, if they obey Him as she did. She is our role model because she heard the word of God, and obeyed it.

I’m not reading into it, I’m reading what it says. If you are one of God’s elect you to are equal with His mother and brothers. Mary was blessed that she was selected by God to be the one to give birth and mother our Lord while He was here on earth, but she is no better in the Kingdom of God than other saints. Whoever does His will is his mother or brother! AMEN!!!

 

[Cranmer2010]

Were these part of the church before Paul, Peter, or Luke wrote? If so, how would I find that?

Members must accept the church as having the fullness of revelation, and according to Roman Catholic catechism is the only Christian body that is “holy, universal and apostolic”​

Apostolic succession is key in the faith, saying that the pope and bishops have varying degrees of authority from Jesus.​

Penance and the Eucharist are required at least once a year​

I say it doesn’t matter because the Apostles and Jesus Christ never taught it. Salvation comes from the grace of God through faith, so that no man can boast. It is not because of anything that we do, it’s a free gift of His choosing. That is backed up in Scripture my friend, not Mary staying a virgin her whole life for our salvation. Show me I’m wrong.

That’s also very Biblical.

 

[guanophore]

Were these part of the church before Paul, Peter, or Luke wrote? If so, how would I find that?

The Sacred Tradition (Teaching of the Apostles) is found preserved infallibly in the Catholic church. The most accessible and readable document is the Catechism, which you can get searchable online.

It might also help you to look up a history of the dates of authorship of your NT, if they are not in your bible.

# Members must accept the church as having the fullness of revelation, and according to Roman Catholic catechism is the only Christian body that is "holy, universal and apostolic"

Apostolic succession is key in the faith, saying that the pope and bishops have varying degrees of authority from Jesus.​

Penance and the Eucharist are required at least once a year​

Does this have something to do with Mary being ever virgin, or are these other objections you have to Catholicism?

I say it doesn’t matter because the Apostles and Jesus Christ never taught it.

YOu are saying this because you are assuming that everything they taught is written in the NT. This is a false assumption. It was self evident to all the Apostles that Mary had only One Child. What need was there to “teach it”?

That is like saying “the bible never records Jesus and the Apostles going to the bathroom, so it must not have happened”.

Salvation comes from the grace of God through faith, so that no man can boast. It is not because of anything that we do, it’s a free gift of His choosing. That is backed up in Scripture my friend, not Mary staying a virgin her whole life for our salvation. Show me I’m wrong.

If you are satisfied with your abbreviated version of the gospel message, then I commend you to it. I am not interested in trying to “prove” anything to you. If you don’t wish to receive the fullness of the faith passed down to us from the Apostles, that is your perogative.

The burden of proof is on you. Show me from any writings you can find from the first 12 Apostles or Luke, that Mary was sinless.

Actually, it is not. It is not a matter of “proof” at all, but a doctrine of the FAITH. We RECEIVE the faith from those to whom it was committed, and we accept it BY FAITH, not by “proof”. Proofs are for the realm of science. If you prefer not to accept the Apostolic faith, it is ok.

Like I said, the burden of proof is on you. I have the truth because I have the Spirit living in me and telling me"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness".

Great.

Sounds like all your needs are met.

For whatever reason, God granted me repentance and faith and now I live for Him. Don’t know what else to tell you. I won’t put my faith in anything else except what is written in the Holy Scriptures.

So, what brings you here to CAF?

John was alive at the time. No one went out to see or listen to a spirit talk. Probably because God condemned it.

Are you trying to say that the appearances of Mary are condemned by God?

Why not pray to God directly? He tells us to ask the Father anything we want and if it’s His will He will grant it.

For the same reason I call up my friends and ask them to pray for me.

Not really. I have more experience than I want.

I am sorry that you got a warped perception of the catholic faith. Perhaps being here on CAF can heal some of that, and correct the misperceptions you have.

Show me please.

It does not appear that you believe in angels, or the communion of saints. To say that no one deserves any praise but God indicates that you have a very truncated understanding of praise. Also, saying that God is jealous because we value the work He has done in others indicates a warped perception of God’s plan for mankind.

Rom. 2:29Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God.

Obviously God is not to jealous to give praise to men.

   I'm not reading into it, I'm reading what it says. If you are one of God's elect you to are equal with His mother and brothers. Mary was blessed that she was selected by God to be the one to give birth and mother our Lord while He was here on earth, but she is no better in the Kingdom of God than other saints. Whoever does His will is his mother or brother! AMEN!!!

Mary has a special place in God’s plan of salvation. He chose her from among women, and raised her up. Her soul magnifies the Lord, that is why looking at Him through her lets us see him larger! He has done great things for her.

She is the Ark of the New Covenant, the New Eve. That is why Jesus called her “woman”.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Mary has a special place in God’s plan of salvation. He chose her from among women, and raised her up. Her soul magnifies the Lord, that is why looking at Him through her lets us see him larger! He has done great things for her.

If I may interject here, I don’t believe what you saying is supported by Scripture. The Assumption comes from where?? Scripture tells us of Elijah being taken into Heaven body and soul but not Mary. Where do you get that from? Just curious.

She is the Ark of the New Covenant, the New Eve. That is why Jesus called her “woman”.

??

 

[Padrej]

If I may interject here, I don’t believe what you saying is supported by Scripture. The Assumption comes from where?? Scripture tells us of Elijah being taken into Heaven body and soul but not Mary. Where do you get that from? Just curious.

??
I think this is a bit of a stretch from this verse: John 2:4 *“Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”” *
and John 19: 25 26 *“When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!”” *
EVERY commentary I have ever read on these verses say the term “woman” is a term of endearment. I have NO idea where you get that because Mary is the “new Eve” that this is the reason for calling her “woman.”

 

[rinnie]

If I may interject here, I don’t believe what you saying is supported by Scripture. The Assumption comes from where?? Scripture tells us of Elijah being taken into Heaven body and soul but not Mary. Where do you get that from? Just curious.

??

If you need proof that the Blessed Mother is in heaven body and soul just look it up in revelations. In Chapter 12 it begins with a Women robed with the sun standing on the moon…

Continue on and its says the women was delivered of a boy the son who was to rule all nations with an iron sceptre and the child was taken straight up to God and to his throne.

Now think about it. How did she Get THERE? SImple just as the RCC teaches she had fallen asleep in Christ and taken up BODY and SOUL! Now who was the Women who gave brith to a Boy and who delivered Jesus. Pretty simple would you not agree?

How did she get there if not by God the Father. ANd if you do not agree that it was the Blessed Mother who had the boy who was to rule all nations who do you claim this women is?

And the only reason we use the scripture if Elijah to compare it to, is to prove that you can get to heaven Body and Soul. That in heaven your body and soul do indeed exist.

 

[qui_est_ce]

??
I think this is a bit of a stretch from this verse: John 2:4 *“Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”” *
and John 19: 25 26 *“When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!”” *
EVERY commentary I have ever read on these verses say the term “woman” is a term of endearment. I have NO idea where you get that because Mary is the “new Eve” that this is the reason for calling her “woman.”

Genesis 3:15

 

[Padrej]

Genesis 3:15

OK, If “woman” was not a term of endearment then why would Jesus say in Matthew 15:28 to the woman with a demon possessed daughter. “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour."
Or in John 20:15 "Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” She, supposing Him to be the gardener, said to Him, “Sir, if You have carried Him away, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” "
So by the logic of what you are saying here is because Jesus referred to Mary as “Woman” that she is the new Eve, that by the same token Mary Magdalen and the un-named woman whose daughter was healed would have to be called “The New Eve” also.

 

[qui_est_ce]

OK, If “woman” was not a term of endearment then why would Jesus say in Matthew 15:28 to the woman with a demon possessed daughter. “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour."
Or in John 20:15 "Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” She, supposing Him to be the gardener, said to Him, “Sir, if You have carried Him away, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” "
So by the logic of what you are saying here is because Jesus referred to Mary as “Woman” that she is the new Eve, that by the same token Mary Magdalen and the un-named woman whose daughter was healed would have to be called “The New Eve” also.

Mary is the new mother. Just as sin came through Eve while she was still a virgin, so salvation came through Mary while she was a virgin. Sin was seduced by the serpent.

From John Henry Newman.

3 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

The woman in Revelation is the Mary, Mother of the Church.

 

[Padrej]

Mary is the new mother. Just as sin came through Eve while she was still a virgin, so salvation came through Mary while she was a virgin. Sin was seduced by the serpent.

From John Henry Newman.

3 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

The woman in Revelation is the Mary, Mother of the Church.

I have NO problem with what you wrote here. What I have a problem with is the taking of a term of endearment and applying it universally to Mary saying that is scriptural proof she is the new Eve. I say this especially in light of the fact that on other occasions he (Jesus) called persons other than his mother “Woman.”

BTW the command be fruitful and multiply was given prior to sin entering Eve; are you then saying that they never had ANY relations until she conceived her first born?
The punishment was only that she would have pain in childbearing.