The Importance of Mary in Catholicism

[Pax]

…

The woman described in the heavenly “portent” simply is never seen in heaven. She remains on the earth; only the male child is caught up to God and to His throne. It’s all right there in the text.
…

MD in Christ,

The text says:

AND A great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;

The great portent which is the woman appeared in heaven. The text denies your claim.

Moreover, it says the woman has the moon beneath her feet and that she is clothed with the sun. Likewise, the woman has a crown of twelve stars upon her head. This is all heavenly language and not language that would indicate that the vision is an earthly one.

Henry’s Concise Biblical Commentary( a non-Catholic source) interprets the passage as a reference to the Church and says this:

…a woman, the mother of believers, was seen by the apostle in vision, in heaven.

Please notice that the woman is **in heaven **according to that respected non-Catholic source.

There is another indication that the woman is in heaven and that is in verses 3-4 where it says:

And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth;

The language in reference to Satan being in heaven is the same as that used about the woman being in heaven. Likewise, the reference to the dragon’s tail sweeping down a third of the stars of heaven is a reference to the fallen angels that followed Lucifer. That rebellion to place in heaven. You simply need to think about all of this with an open mind.

God bless.

 

[panevino]

AGAIN,. the woman described in the heavenly SIGN is always seen ON EARTH. She does not give birth to a male child in heaven. But it’s the male child she bears that is “caught up” to God and His throne - not the woman. NOWHERE in the SIGN is the woman caught up to sit on a heavenly throne, much less ever called a Queen. She remains ON EARTH.

Now go back and read it for real, Pan.

Where was the dragon when he stood in front of the woman in rev 12:4?
I think the answer is in rev 12:4 & rev 12:7-9

What about rev15:1
1 **And I saw another sign in heaven, **great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.

Are they “in heaven” or only seen from heaven?

See rev15:6
6 And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.

 

[moondweller]

MD in Christ,

The text says: AND A great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars

The great portent which is the woman appeared in heaven.

No, my friend, read it again. “And a great portent appeared in heaven.” The content of that heavenly portent (sign) describes a woman. But EVERYTHING connected to that woman occurs ON EARTH. Her description is that of national Israel with its 12 tribes (Gen. 37:9-11) It’s the nation that’s described here as giving birth to a male child (her Messiah).

The text denies your claim.

The text confirms my claim.

Moreover, it says the woman has the moon beneath her feet and that she is clothed with the sun. Likewise, the woman has a crown of twelve stars upon her head. This is all heavenly language and not language that would indicate that the vision is an earthly one.

It’s FIGURATIVE language, not “heavenly” language. And everything that the “portent” describes as happening to that woman is earthly.

Henry’s Concise Biblical Commentary( a non-Catholic source) interprets the passage as a reference to the Church and says this:

Yes, and his interpretation as the woman being the church is totally wrong.

Please notice that the woman is **in heaven **according to that respected non-Catholic source.

He’s respected but he’s wrong.

There is another indication that the woman is in heaven and that is in verses 3-4 where it says:

What is says is “And another portent appeared in heaven;…”

The language in reference to Satan being in heaven is the same as that used about the woman being in heaven. Likewise, the reference to the dragon’s tail sweeping down a third of the stars of heaven is a reference to the fallen angels that followed Lucifer. That rebellion to place in heaven. You simply need to think about all of this with an open mind.

That dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth. The woman didn’t give birth to the male child in heaven, Pax. But the male-child she gave birth to was caught up to God and to His throne. While the woman remains on earth and the dragon which is thrown down to the earth (vss. 9, 12-13) persecutes and pursues the woman who flies (more figurative language) to the the wilderness, on earth.

The heavenly sign told of earthly events, past and future, which center around national Israel. Not Mary, not the church.

 

[moondweller]

Where was the dragon when he stood in front of the woman in rev 12:4?
I think the answer is in rev 12:4 & rev 12:7-9

No, my friend. The woman didn’t give birth to the male child in heaven but on earth. It goes on to say that the male child which she gave birth to was caught up to God and His throne. Hence, the birth does not take place in heaven. Your argument is silly.

What about rev15:1
1 **And I saw another sign in heaven, **great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.

Are they “in heaven” or only seen from heaven?

“And I saw another sign in heaven…”

 

[Pax]

No, my friend, read it again. “And a great portent appeared in heaven.” The content of that heavenly portent (sign) describes a woman. But EVERYTHING connected to that woman occurs ON EARTH. Her description is that of national Israel with its 12 tribes (Gen. 37:9-11) It’s the nation that’s described here as giving birth to a male child (her Messiah).The text confirms my claim.It’s FIGURATIVE language, not “heavenly” language. And everything that the “portent” describes as happening to that woman is earthly.Yes, and his interpretation as the woman being the church is totally wrong.He’s respected but he’s wrong.What is says is "And another portent appeared in heaven;…"That dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth. The woman didn’t give birth to the male child in heaven, Pax. But the male-child she gave birth to was caught up to God and to His throne. While the woman remains on earth and the dragon which is thrown down to the earth (vss. 9, 12-13) persecutes and pursues the woman who flies (more figurative language) to the the wilderness, on earth.

The heavenly sign told of earthly events, past and future, which center around national Israel. Not Mary, not the church.

MD in Christ,

Would you like me to provide some other well respected non-Catholic theologians and Commentaries that agree with Henry’s Concise Commentary? There are many, but of course, you are right and all others are wrong! You have got to be kidding!

And yes, the language is figurative but it is also heaven centered and not earth centered as you pretend it to be.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

…
…
"That dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth. The woman didn’t give birth to the male child in heaven, Pax. But the male-child she gave birth to was caught up to God and to His throne. While the woman remains on earth and the dragon which is thrown down to the earth (vss. 9, 12-13) persecutes and pursues the woman who flies (more figurative language) to the the wilderness, on earth.

The heavenly sign told of earthly events, past and future, which center around national Israel. Not Mary, not the church.

No one is claiming that the woman gives birth to the male child in heaven as opposed to earth. You’re simply viewing this in an obtuse fashion. Let me illustrate the solution to understand this by way of an example that will be analogous to the biblical scene under consideration.

I saw a vision on TV of the Football Hall of Fame. There was a great sign in the form of a player clothed in a red jersey with the number 16, and wearing a gold helmet with the letters SF printed on it, and he gave birth to many fans. I also saw another great portent that appeared as an opposing line backer with many followers. The line backers were attacking the famous quarterback in droves but could not catch him.

Now please note that we can easily see that this is a reference to Joe Montana in the Hall of Fame, and what is found in tribute to him at the hall of fame, including eluding line backers on a blitz. This scene is a replay of history but it is done while beginning with the headline point that Joe Montana is in the hall of fame and that this is where the information is coming from. Even a child that never witnessed Joe Montana play can get a great deal of information about him at the Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio.

The same simple and obvious logic occurs in the recollection in Revelation 12. The woman’s heavenly place is recognized first and then the prior events surrounding her follow in the narrative.

Got it?

God bless.

 

[panevino]

No, my friend. The woman didn’t give birth to the male child in heaven but on earth. It goes on to say that the male child which she gave birth to was caught up to God and His throne. Hence, the birth does not take place in heaven. Your argument is silly.

“And I saw another sign in heaven…”

Where was the dragon that stood before the woman in rev 12:4? do you say he was on earth in this verse? consider rev 12:8-9

Where were the 7 angels in rev 15:1? sign or not - are they in heaven or earth in this verse? consider rev 15:6

Rev 12:5 says the child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. which are obviously within the temple and that temple is within heaven (see rev11:19 & 2 Thess 2:4)

Rev 12:5 does not negate the ability to see the woman/dragon in rev 12:4 to be within heaven (ie: but not in the temple or rather the throne within it) , with the child then taken to the throne which is in the temple.

for what its worth I see the woman as Israel, the church (body of christ) and Mary.
with each being a fullfillment/sign/reflection of the other.

got to get to work.

 

[moondweller]

The same simple and obvious logic occurs in the recollection in Revelation 12. The woman’s heavenly place is recognized first and then the prior events surrounding her follow in the narrative.

Got it?

According to the content of the “portent,” the woman never goes to heaven. Got it? Only the child she bore is caught up to God and His throne. It’s quite simple and straightforward. There’s nothing complicated about it. It’s a prophetic scenario and it’s all about national Israel.

 

[StTommyMore]

According to the content of the “portent,” the woman never goes to heaven. Got it? Only the child she bore is caught up to God and His throne. It’s quite simple and straightforward. There’s nothing complicated about it. It’s a prophetic scenario and it’s all about national Israel.

In your mind, yes, but not in the mind of the Church. Your hermeneutic of doubt is really wearing thin.

 

[zz912]

According to the content of the “portent,” the woman never goes to heaven. Got it? Only the child she bore is caught up to God and His throne. It’s quite simple and straightforward. There’s nothing complicated about it. It’s a prophetic scenario and it’s all about national Israel.

As I posted earlier, your personal interpretation falls apart when Revelation says the woman and her other children (Christians). National Israel is not the mother of Christians. Could you care to discuss this fallacy and hole in your personal interpretation?

 

[Philthy]

It certainly does. You simply refuse to accept the difference. IOW, you refuse to believe it.

Like I said - grasping at straws and confusing a justifiable rejection of your argument for a failing to “believe”. What I believe, MD, is that you are simply mistaken on this issue.

Notice, “accept” here is in reference to “believing” the truth which is told to you. It has nothing to do with one giving his “consent” to the truth. The “truth” here is not based on your “consent.” Likewise, Mary did not give her “consent” to the things spoken to her by Gabriel, but “believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord” (Lk. 1:45).

She both believed and consented. Nothing you have said, and no matter how many times you repeat it, refutes that simple fact.

“Saved” in the Biblical sense always means to bring someone out of the desperate situation he/she is presently in.

Agreed.

When Jesus healed someone and said “your faith has saved you,” that person was “saved” out from the infirmity that had presently inflicted him. In the same way when one is “saved by grace through faith” in the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ he/she is brought out from their present, dire state of sin and Divine condemnation.

Got it.

But one is not “spared” future judgment until one is first saved from the sinful estate they were in.

Im sure you will get your point soon.

Can you show me one place where Jesus “saved” someone “from” a sickness they never had?

Nope.

Where it is taught that through His sacrificial work on the cross men are “saved” out from the sinful estate which was never theirs in the first place?

I never claimed it was taught.

Such a concept of “saved” is not found in the Scriptures. Mary called the Lord her Savior.

And your point would be, what? You never quite pulled it all together, Im afraid. You attempted to extrapolate a number of realities from the NT regarding Jesus - at a point 30 odd years after the events of Luke 1 and Mary’s comment - in order to apply them to Mary’s comments (at a time decades earlier). The first problem is that Mary isn’t referring to"Jesus" when she makes her comment in Luke 1:45. In fact, she specifically says “my soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my savior.” Mary referred to God as her Saviour - not Jesus. That is a significant problem with your position, and it isnt the only one. We also need to understand how - even if what you claim were true - she could call Jesus her Saviour when he hadnt actually saved her yet! The cross is still 34 years away! Unless, MD, you are prepared to say that Mary was saved prior to the atonement Christ offered on her behalf. Is that your position??

No, Phil, I’m not grasping at straws.

Not only are you gasping at straws, but you are revealing a fairly petty side of yourself in the process: you cannot distinguish a legitimate intellectual disagreement with your position from some one not “believing” a revealed truth of God. Get over yourself already! I have plenty of good reasons to question anything you put forth based upon your prior failings. You have demonstrated clear weaknesses in your understanding of a number of issues:

• How grace can still be grace even if conditions are attached by God
• How the context of James 2 is salvation as evidenced by his introductory and closing comments
• How salvation and the Kingdom of God are treated separately in various parts of the NT
• How Abraham was justified on more than one occasion
• How Genesis 15:6, Gen 22 and James 2 reveal that the “credit of righteousness” spoken of was not “a completed event” in Gen 15
• And most recently, How there actually is a list of mortal sins in the NT.

You ran away awfully fast from that thread as soon as that little issue came up…only to start this thread. So like I said last thread, you can accuse me of not “believing” the word of God, but you might wish to take a good, long look in the mirror before doing so. It is you I dont believe.
IMHO your OP was a foolish, useless, motive-driven, speculation that you created as a platform to preach your unwelcomed opinions, not as a means to discussion, but merely because you wish to impose them on others. As it turns out, though, it will be used for good and for that I am grateful.

I do wish God’s blessings for you

 

[moondweller]

Where was the dragon that stood before the woman in rev 12:4? do you say he was on earth in this verse?

Of course! There was no heavenly birth.

Where were the 7 angels in rev 15:1? sign or not - are they in heaven or earth in this verse? consider rev 15:6

Different “sign,” different prophetic scene.

Rev 12:5 says the child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. which are obviously within the temple and that temple is within heaven (see rev11:19 & 2 Thess 2:4)

There’s no throne either in the heavenly temple or the temple on earth. In 2 Thess. the antichrist takes his SEAT (not sets up a throne) in the temple of God in Jerusalem displaying himself to be God.

Rev 12:5 does not negate the ability to see the woman/dragon in rev 12:4 to be within heaven (ie: but not in the temple or rather the throne within it) , with the child then taken to the throne which is in the temple.

(1) The birth happened ON EARTH. (2) There’s no throne set up in the temple. (3) The male child to which she gives birth on earth is caught up to God and to His throne (which is where Christ is now; Rev. 3:21; Heb. 1:3).

for what its worth I see the woman as Israel, the church (body of christ) and Mary. with each being a fullfillment/sign/reflection of the other.

Well, personally, that interpretation isn’t worth much. It just tells me you’re confused about the whole thing so you cover all bases.

 

[moondweller]

The first problem is that Mary isn’t referring to"Jesus" when she makes her comment in Luke 1:45.

Never said she did.

In fact, she specifically says “my soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord my spirit rejoices in God my savior.” Mary referred to God as her Saviour - not Jesus. That is a significant problem with your position, and it isnt the only one.

“Lord” (Lk. 1:46) and “God” (Lk. 1:47) are the same Person. She proclaims the greatness of the LORD who is GOD her Savior. Israel always referred to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as “the Lord:” Deut 6:4 ¶ *"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! *.

And Elizabeth said: Luke 1:45 “And blessed {is} she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.” She didn’t mean Jesus.

You made an issue out of absolutely nothing.

 

[Pax]

According to the content of the “portent,” the woman never goes to heaven. Got it? Only the child she bore is caught up to God and His throne. It’s quite simple and straightforward. There’s nothing complicated about it. It’s a prophetic scenario and it’s all about national Israel.

MD in Christ,

You did not refute what I gave you. A simple repetition of your position is not a refutation. I gave you a simple analogous outline to show how the chapter should be read, but alas that was an exercise in futility because you simply choose to ignore it.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

MD in Christ,

I posed a simple question to you which you have repeatedly refused to answer. I will therefore explore the question myself to illustrate quite clearly the implications for your position. Hopefully, you will get some benefit from the effort.

You asked: *Is there was a Catholic religion without Mary? *

In response to this I asked you: Is there a gospel of Luke without Mary?

It is clear that my question is not simply rhetorical. My question jeopardizes all that is in your question and reveals that you are attempting to use what boils down to some form of intellectual subterfuge.

It is obvious that if we were to remove everything in the gospel of Luke that concerns Mary that we would not have the gospel of Luke. We would, instead, have something else. This would have a ripple effect through the NT and the Bible as a whole because they too would be incomplete and unlike what we actually have in scripture.

If we removed everything concerning Mary in the gospel of Luke, we would still have the rest of the NT. Most of the truths revealed to us would remain, but certainly not all of them.

These facts show that neither scripture nor the Catholic religion(or Christianity at large) can be the whole truth without Mary. If we remove Mary from the Catholic religion we would be doing the same thing that we would be doing by removing Mary from the gospel of Luke.

Let all of this sink in. I suspect that the implications of my question already came home to roost and that you refused to answer the question for that reason. You never should have posed the question that you presented, and you should admit the mistake.

God bless.

 

[Philthy]

Never said she did.“Lord” (Lk. 1:46) and “God” (Lk. 1:47) are the same Person. She proclaims the greatness of the LORD who is GOD her Savior. Israel always referred to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as “the Lord:” Deut 6:4 ¶ "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!.

And Elizabeth said: Luke 1:45 “And blessed {is} she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.” She didn’t mean Jesus.

You made an issue out of absolutely nothing.

That’s funny, because that is precisely what I was thinking about your having started this thread - you have made an issue out of absolutely nothing.
Apparently, you didnt understand my issue. I will try to explain: You were the one who attempted to link Mary’s use of the word “saviour” to the saving acts of Jesus in the NT and then extrapolate that her use of the term implies that the nature of her salvation must follow that NT pattern. But as it turns out, Mary’s use of the word “saviour” is a reference to “God” the Father, and is not a reference to Jesus at all. And so one can only wonder what your point is exactly in bringing up the nature of how Jesus “saved” people in the NT. What WE understand NOW about the Trinity cannot be inserted into Mary’s comment to justify your position. That was my point.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Well Catholics in this thread, Moondweller has arrived at the conclusion that Mary is in fact “Mother of God” via his own argument. He says “Lord” and “God” are the exact same and rightly so; therefore, Luke 1:43 means that Mary is Mother of God. It only took 32 pages of arguments but who cares how long it took! One step at a time!

About her Assumption and Queen of Heaven, I am curious to see how Moondweller interprets all of Revelations 12 as Israel. Considering the VERY literal interpretation, I am curious how Israel can be in the sky, be clothed with the sun and with the moon under her feet, be crowned, be hurled down to the earth, give birth, get wings, fly, get help from the earth and have offspring.

Gray clouds in the sky is a sign. Is Moondweller saying that they are not really gray clouds? Or that the rain is not really rain and is a symbol for something else? Either way it is ridiculous. Mary, Queen of Heaven, is much more reasonable and is in accordance with Old Testament prefigurements.

 

[moondweller]

As I posted earlier, your personal interpretation falls apart when Revelation says the woman and her other children (Christians). National Israel is not the mother of Christians. Could you care to discuss this fallacy and hole in your personal interpretation?

Can you show me where the word “Christians” is in Rev. 12?

 

[moondweller]

Well Catholics in this thread, Moondweller has arrived at the conclusion that Mary is in fact “Mother of God” via his own argument. He says “Lord” and “God” are the exact same and rightly so; therefore, Luke 1:43 means that Mary is Mother of God. It only took 32 pages of arguments but who cares how long it took! One step at a time!

Mary is Theotokos: God-bearer. I have no problem with that. When literally (and properly) translated, “God-bearer,” the emphasis is on the Child, not the mother. BIG difference, my friend, BIG difference. Improperly translated, “Mother of God,” and the emphasis goes on the mother. The council up-held the deity of Christ. Its purpose was not to elevate Mary.

 

[moondweller]

That’s funny, because that is precisely what I was thinking about your having started this thread - you have made an issue out of absolutely nothing.
Apparently, you didnt understand my issue. I will try to explain: You were the one who attempted to link Mary’s use of the word “saviour” to the saving acts of Jesus in the NT and then extrapolate that her use of the term implies that the nature of her salvation must follow that NT pattern. But as it turns out, Mary’s use of the word “saviour” is a reference to “God” the Father, and is not a reference to Jesus at all. And so one can only wonder what your point is exactly in bringing up the nature of how Jesus “saved” people in the NT. What WE understand NOW about the Trinity cannot be inserted into Mary’s comment to justify your position. That was my point.

And your “point” makes no sense at all. “For GOD so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…” God, through the Person and work of Jesus Christ, is Mary’s Savior. As is the Child she bore (Acts 4:12). She eventually learned that truth.