The Importance of Mary in Catholicism

[Pax]

My pleasure. I don’t know Greek at all, but it’s amazing what Google will find if you look for it.

I’ll leave it to others to determine whether this article demolishes Moondweller’s “aorist” issues. For my part, I am satisfied that major translations (including the very biased NIV) do not support Moondweller’s theory and that no Protestant apologists that I am aware of have attempted to make the same argument.

IOW, he seems to think he has found the fatal flaw in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception…but I don’t find that he has any credible support even among professional anti-Catholics.

I’m sure he’ll correct me if he knows of any.

I have had some back and forth with people on delving into the Greek. I believe it can be profitable, but I made a decision not to study Greek for some of the reasons you cite. I agree with you about the importance of English translations for purposes of understanding what is meant by the original Greek. I’ve studied some foreign language and it has become abundantly clear to me that accurate translation of scripture should be left to the professional scholars and translation committees that provide our English translations. I have around ten different English translations at my disposal. I personally believe that I will get a better understanding of what the scripture actually says than I would by delving directly into the Greek myself. I can handle learning a foreign language, but I will never be as good at that language as I am at my native tongue. The scholars help me overcome those deficiencies by giving it to me in extremely well presented English versions.

There certainly is value in understanding the original Greek, and there have been some nuances revealed to me on occasion that I have found quite compelling. Interestingly enough, none of them ever contradicted the English translation.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Greetings StTommyMoore, Scripture can be confusing at times to interpret but that it doesn’t mean it’s impossible either. When these scriptures are looked at in the light of other prophetic scriptures their meaning is revealed.

As to this verse it is given a specific time frame, the beginning of the great tribulation which gives definition to its interpretation. Interpretation should not be what we can make it say but what it is really saying to us apart from our prejudices. According to your thought process the woman in Rev 12 could be Eve also.

jericho777 in Christ,

Our logic and reasoning on this issue in no way suggest that the woman in Revelation 12 could in any way be portrayed as Eve.

God bless.

 

[StTommyMore]

Greetings StTommyMoore, Scripture can be confusing at times to interpret but that it doesn’t mean it’s impossible either. When these scriptures are looked at in the light of other prophetic scriptures their meaning is revealed.

As to this verse it is given a specific time frame, the beginning of the great tribulation which gives definition to its interpretation. Interpretation should not be what we can make it say but what it is really saying to us apart from our prejudices. According to your thought process the woman in Rev 12 could be Eve also.

Revelation is not linear. Once you realize this, you will see clearly that the woman is Mary.

 

[moondweller]

Mary knew she had been “saved” by God from ever falling into sin.

And you know this intimate knowledge of her how?

Mary’s words do not “prove she was conscious of her sinful estate [sic].” It proves she was conscious of the fact that God had preserved her from the sin that others are heir to.

And you know this how? She certainly doesn’t state it. Nor does anyone else in Scripture.

So, tell me, when people are baptized as a Catholic are they suddenly given intimate knowledge about Mary that no one else possesses except Catholics? Was that your personal experience?

All this personal, but extrabiblical, knowledge about Mary only you Catholics claim to possess is another reason I ask if there can be a Catholicism without Mary.

 

[moondweller]

Take a look at Revelation 12. Many calvinists deny that Mary is a queen in Heaven. Yet Revelation 12 states:

Now here’s a strange case indeed. A woman you claim is Queen of Heaven is, in that vision, never seen in heaven. The male child she bears, who is to rule the nations, is caught up to God and His throne, but the woman herself remains on earth.

What’s strange indeed, as well, is that you use this as your proof-text. When the text itself actually proves she is NOT as you claim. The woman in that vision is given no heavenly throne - only a place prepared for her in the wilderness ON EARTH. Hummm. very strange, very strange, indeed.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Jericho,
Just let me say thank you for not holding false ideas on our beliefs and sticking to rationale, logic and reasoning in your arguments against us. We may not agree (obviously) but we do appreciate the unbias attacks on us. And thank you for not telling us what we believe. This is how discussion ought to be. Just thought I should let you know that.

Moondweller,
Two things are comical: 1. We need 1 or 2 Catholics to correct you on our beliefs about our Church; 2. We need about 6 Catholics to refute your arguments in order for you to respond to one. Anyway, Randy is not claiming to have all knowledge about Scripture. Mary said that she had a Savior and we can ONLY presume that she knew she was saved from sin.

1. You should really read over your material and ask yourself, “Does this make sense? Do I have a clear understanding of their belief? Do my arguments assume my position on their belief or theirs?”
2. Nice use of “extrabiblical” without any proof. I would not expect anything else.
3. No Catholic claims to have all knowledge of Mary.
4. So, I guess you interpret “appeared in the sky” as “ON EARTH” in Revelations 12. Come on, Moondweller. This is why we use faith AND reason, so we do not fall into the many untruths which you have fallen into JUST so you can make a futile attempt to prove the Church wrong.

Get off your pedistal and come down have a rational discussion with us like Jericho. He presents reasonable arguments and have been different every single time. He makes us think. I doubt you will read this or even respond to it but it is worth a waste of time.

 

[Pax]

Now here’s a strange case indeed. A woman you claim is Queen of Heaven is, in that vision, never seen in heaven. The male child she bears, who is to rule the nations, is caught up to God and His throne, but the woman herself remains on earth.

What’s strange indeed, as well, is that you use this as your proof-text. When the text itself actually proves she is NOT as you claim. The woman in that vision is given no heavenly throne - only a place prepared for her in the wilderness ON EARTH. Hummm. very strange, very strange, indeed.

MD in Christ,

Rev 12:1 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 scripture does indeed indicate that the woman, Mary, is seen in heaven.

God bless.

 

[moondweller]

MD in Christ,

Rev 12:1 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 scripture does indeed indicate that the woman, Mary, is seen in heaven.

God bless.

Do you know what a “portent” is, Pax. It’s the SIGN (the “portent”) that appeared in heaven. Now go on and read the content of that heavenly SIGN. You’ll see that only the male child that the woman bears is caught up to heaven and the throne of God. The woman herself remains on earth throughout the heavenly SIGN.

It’s all right there, you just have to read it. It’s not intended for the readers to stop at verse one and build their dogma on that one verse alone.

It’s quite evident that the woman is symbolic for national Israel (the twelve tribes) and that it’s a prophetic SIGN regarding that earthly nation in the latter days. The SIGN states nothing about Mary directly or that she’s Queen of Heaven. In fact, the heavenly SIGN nowhere states that the woman is a Queen, much less Queen of Heaven - especially since she’s always seen on EARTH.

Now, if you’re going to insist that the woman is Mary, then you’ll have to deny her “assumption” into heaven since the woman in Rev. chapter 12 is always seen on earth.

 

[panevino]

Posted by moondweller
…Do you know what a “portent” is, Pax. It’s the SIGN (the “portent”) that appeared in heaven. Now go on and read the content of that heavenly SIGN. You’ll see that only the male child that the woman bears is caught up to heaven and the throne of God. The woman herself remains on earth throughout the heavenly SIGN. …

rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. Rev 12:11 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

I assume u agree the temple, ark are “in heaven”
What about the dragon who stands before the woman? In rev 12:3

Rev12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Rev12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.

The throne I assume is in the temple within heaven per rev11:19
To me rev Rev12:5 does not negate the ability to see the woman to be “in heaven” during rev 12:1
Rev 12:5 seems to be merely saying the child is caught up to a certain part of heaven (ie the throne)

 

[moondweller]

rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. Rev 12:11 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

I assume u agree the temple, ark are “in heaven”
What about the dragon who stands before the woman? In rev 12:3

Rev12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Rev12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.

The throne I assume is in the temple within heaven per rev11:19
To me rev Rev12:5 does not negate the ability to see the woman to be “in heaven” during rev 12:1
Rev 12:5 seems to be merely saying the child is caught up to a certain part of heaven (ie the throne)

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.

 

[StTommyMore]

Do you know what a “portent” is, Pax. It’s the SIGN (the “portent”) that appeared in heaven. Now go on and read the content of that heavenly SIGN. You’ll see that only the male child that the woman bears is caught up to heaven and the throne of God. The woman herself remains on earth throughout the heavenly SIGN.

It’s all right there, you just have to read it. It’s not intended for the readers to stop at verse one and build their dogma on that one verse alone.

It’s quite evident that the woman is symbolic for national Israel (the twelve tribes) and that it’s a prophetic SIGN regarding that earthly nation in the latter days. The SIGN states nothing about Mary directly or that she’s Queen of Heaven. In fact, the heavenly SIGN nowhere states that the woman is a Queen, much less Queen of Heaven - especially since she’s always seen on EARTH.

Now, if you’re going to insist that the woman is Mary, then you’ll have to deny her “assumption” into heaven since the woman in Rev. chapter 12 is always seen on earth.

If the child is an individual (the Messiah) and the Dragon is an individual (Satan), does it not make sense that the Woman is ALSO an individual. This is what I call “Scriptural contortionism”–you are twisting the Scriptures into a pretzel just to make sure your interpretation works.

 

[moondweller]

If the child is an individual (the Messiah) and the Dragon is an individual (Satan), does it not make sense that the Woman is ALSO an individual.

No.

This is what I call “Scriptural contortionism”–you are twisting the Scriptures into a pretzel just to make sure your interpretation works.

What is being twisted and contorted is your view of the woman by placing her in heaven (even on a throne) when clearly THE TEXT ITSELF DOES NOT. The whole scene of the heavenly vision (sign) is earthly. Only the male child is caught up to God and His throne. The woman remains on earth and is persecuted and then pursued by the dragon which was thrown to the EARTH.

Read it for real, STM.

 

[roelblomsma]

Now here’s a strange case indeed. A woman you claim is Queen of Heaven is, in that vision, never seen in heaven. The male child she bears, who is to rule the nations, is caught up to God and His throne, but the woman herself remains on earth.

What’s strange indeed, as well, is that you use this as your proof-text. When the text itself actually proves she is NOT as you claim. The woman in that vision is given no heavenly throne - only a place prepared for her in the wilderness ON EARTH. Hummm. very strange, very strange, indeed.

Well, first of all. Yes the place in wilderness is a part I don’t understand. If you could shed some light on that part then I would be most grateful. But surely, the woman is Mary, now in heaven and crowned with the crown of twelf stars (that might represent the apostols or ‘thru faith’)

Let me know. I’m eager for your answer.

 

[zz912]

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.

A woman on earth clothed in the sun and moon??? How is Israel clothed in the sun and moon?

And your personal interpretation falls apart as well when you consider that Israel is not the mother of Christians, but Christians are called the woman’s children.

 

[StTommyMore]

No.What is being twisted and contorted is your view of the woman by placing her in heaven (even on a throne) when clearly THE TEXT ITSELF DOES NOT. The whole scene of the heavenly vision (sign) is earthly. Only the male child is caught up to God and His throne. The woman remains on earth and is persecuted and then pursued by the dragon which was thrown to the EARTH.

Read it for real, STM.

What do you have to back your interpretation up? I have the historical interpretation of the Church, who has spent the better part of two millenia studying this. How long have you spent? Furthermore, what authority do you have? Biblical interpretation cannot be separated from the Church. In fact, separating the Boble from the Church transforms the Bible from the Word of God into a heterogamous collection of historical documents. (see The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, 1985, for a fuller explanation of this concept)

 

[Pax]

Do you know what a “portent” is, Pax. It’s the SIGN (the “portent”) that appeared in heaven. Now go on and read the content of that heavenly SIGN. You’ll see that only the male child that the woman bears is caught up to heaven and the throne of God. The woman herself remains on earth throughout the heavenly SIGN.

It’s all right there, you just have to read it. It’s not intended for the readers to stop at verse one and build their dogma on that one verse alone.

It’s quite evident that the woman is symbolic for national Israel (the twelve tribes) and that it’s a prophetic SIGN regarding that earthly nation in the latter days. The SIGN states nothing about Mary directly or that she’s Queen of Heaven. In fact, the heavenly SIGN nowhere states that the woman is a Queen, much less Queen of Heaven - especially since she’s always seen on EARTH.

Now, if you’re going to insist that the woman is Mary, then you’ll have to deny her “assumption” into heaven since the woman in Rev. chapter 12 is always seen on earth.

MD in Christ,

You are simply wrong about all of this…read all of our posts over again and try doing so with an open mind.

Once again, you are demanding somethingh from us but not of yourself. Apocalyptic literature demands interpretation. Ours is actually much better than yours because it takes everything into consideration and appreciates the layers. Your interpretation fails to do so and utterly fails to appreciate the nature of apocalyptic literature in scripture. Moreover, you apply a standard to us, but not to yourself. You expect a certain word or set of words of “your individual” design to be there in order for our interpretation to stand, but you do not demand the same level of literal language for your interpretation.

Now…answer my question concerning Mary and the gospel of Luke…I’m starting to get impatient which is causing me to doubt your sincerity for purposes of true discussion.

God bless.

 

[moondweller]

What do you have to back your interpretation up?

The TEXT. The original source. Can’t get better than that. The woman is never seen in heaven, only the male child is caught up to God and His throne.

 

[moondweller]

MD in Christ,

You are simply wrong about all of this…read all of our posts over again and try doing so with an open mind.

Once again, you are demanding somethingh from us but not of yourself. Apocalyptic literature demands interpretation. Ours is actually much better than yours because it takes everything into consideration and appreciates the layers. Your interpretation fails to do so and utterly fails to appreciate the nature of apocalyptic literature in scripture. Moreover, you apply a standard to us, but not to yourself.

I don’t hold you to any other “standard” than I hold myself to. And that is to allow the Divine text to speak for itself. There’s no need for some kind of “layered” interpretation here. 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.

Now…answer my question concerning Mary and the gospel of Luke…I’m starting to get impatient which is causing me to doubt your sincerity for purposes of true discussion.

Pax, if you want to start another thread asking this question then by all means go ahead. But that’s not the question of this thread. If you want to make a statement about Luke’s account and Mary, then, fine. But that’s not the question.

 

[StTommyMore]

The TEXT. The original source. Can’t get better than that. The woman is never seen in heaven, only the male child is caught up to God and His throne.

Unfortunately, the Scriptures divorced from the Chruch, are no longer the voice of God.

 

[Pax]

I don’t hold you to any other “standard” than I hold myself to. And that is to allow the Divine text to speak for itself. There’s no need for some kind of “layered” interpretation here. 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.Pax, if you want to start another thread asking this question then by all means go ahead. But that’s not the question of this thread. If you want to make a statement about Luke’s account and Mary, then, fine. But that’s not the question.

MD in Christ,

You asked all kinds of questions on this thread including the one that I am going to harp on until I get an answer from you. You asked if there was a Catholic religion without Mary(?). That’s not the question on this thread either. Again…you are attempting to use a double standard which appears to be your common practice.

You are contending that there is no need to see the layers with the book of Revelation in order to get all of the meaning out of it. Please show me in scripture where it says that. Likewise, show me any credible source of well respected scholarship that makes that absurd claim about apocalyptic scriptural texts.

You’re going from the ridiculous to the absurd by denying what you are doing while doing that very thing as you put fingers to the keyboard.

Now please answer the question. It is a perfectly legitimate inquiry and is directly related to the exchanges on this thread. Please, no more excuses…just get on with it.

God bless.