not according to john who saw the woman in revelation.
What things in the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox church teachings of TODAY are NOT in the Early Church Fathers' Teachings?
- Thread starter Matt-Slick
- Start date
- Status
1Thess521
Well-known member
Revelation 11
A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet. By this woman, interpreters commonly understand the Church of Christ, shining with the light of faith, under the protection of the sun of justice, Jesus Christ. The moon, the Church, hath all changeable things of this world under her feet, the affections of the faithful being raised above them all. --- A woman: the Church of God. It may also, by allusion, be applied to our blessed Lady [the Virgin Mary]. The Church is clothed with the sun, that is, with Christ: she hath the moon, that is, the changeable things of the world, under her feet; and the twelve stars with which she is crowned, are the twelve apostles: she is in labour and pain, whilst she brings forth her children, and Christ in them, in the midst of afflictions and persecutions. (Challoner) --- On her head....twelve stars, her doctrine being delivered by the twelve apostles and their successors. (Witham)
-Haydock Bible Commentary
read that again:
the common interpretation is it is the Church of Christ
it MAY be an allusion to Mary
ramcam2
A possible allusion (differing from the most common interpretation) SHOULD NOT be used as a proof text.
Now what else do you have?
Last edited:
John says it is Mary?
jonathan_hili
Well-known member
John says it's the mother of the messiah.
organgrinder
Well-known member
You need to read the scripture more carefully and not just what your church says. You will find that after chapter 3 of Revelation, the "church" is no longer mentioned. Why? It isn't because of the false doctrine of replacement theology which your church espouses. See Romans 9, 10 and especially 11 to see what God does with Israel. The rest of the book is about Israel. Now look at the woman you think is Mary. You will see in context it is actually Israel in the tribulation period. Mary is long gone. This event is in the (very near) future. The vision John has is extremely similar to the one Joseph had.
How is your list coming along, sir?
I believe both RCC and EO churches teach a form of "sola ecclesia" in lieu of "sola scriptura." (And I'm hoping not too many ECFs taught S. E.!)
--Rich
jonathan_hili
Well-known member
It's true that Israel is certainly a valid interpretation of the woman in this passage; however, like many symbols, it is a polyvalent one and likewise relates to Mary. In fact, this woman who gives birth to the Messiah is also identified as the ark of the covenant, which fits Mary quite well. It's an allusion Luke makes in his Gospel and the early Church Fathers saw it too.
jonathan_hili
Well-known member
Revelation 12:
[1] 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;
[2] she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.
[3] And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads.
[4] 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;
[5] she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,
[6] and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
organgrinder
Well-known member
You greatly misunderstand. The woman is Israel who brought forth the Messiah. The Messiah was caught up into heaven. Mary was not. The woman fled into the desert prepared by God for 1,260 days. Mary did not. Do you have a clue what that means? It is the same as 3.5 years (360 days in a Jewish year). That equals one half of the Tribulation period. which would accurately be called the time of Jacob's Trouble. Get yourself a concordance and do a word search for three and a half years (one half of Daniel's final week) and 1,260 days. I realize Catholics really don't do in-depth Bible studies, but the Bible does explain itself.
When I was a Catholic I was not encouraged to read the Bible let alone study it. I am so glad I rebelled against that stupid attitude once I became born again by faith in Jesus. And I am so glad I quit buying into replacement theology which is as false as a $3 bill.
jonathan_hili
Well-known member
I agree that Israel is a legitimate interpretation but the imagery is polyvalent. I'm sorry you weren't encouraged to read or study the Bible as a Catholic. That's not my experience at all.
Allusion is a figure of speech, in which an object or circumstance from unrelated context is referred to covertly or indirectly. It is left to the audience to make the direct connection. Where the connection is directly and explicitly stated by the author, it is instead usually termed a reference... wiki
i am wondering where to find the word 'possible' in the bible commentary you posted or you just add that yourself. other allusions are israel and eve. later christians including protestant writers agree that the woman is obviously mary but they hesitate because of the other three allusions. concepts like 'israel' or 'the church' which methodius in his 'banquet of the 10 virgins' identifies terms like 'mother', 'virgin,' 'temple', and 'tabernacle of god') are perfectly symbolized in the person of mary, or as larry heyler, a protestant puts it, the virgin mary typifies or embodies the true people of god'. as heydock's commentary says 'the church of christ'. this is no other than the church jesus established, made up of the true people of god. mary is the mother of god, the mother of all believers.
A catholic commentary - just more of the same you get from the RCC.
why not put your own protestant commentary?
1Thess521
Well-known member
Rev 11
By this woman, interpreters commonly understand the Church of Christ,
"It may also, by allusion," be applied to our blessed Lady [the Virgin Mary
is not a proof text for Mary's Assumption
1Thess521
Well-known member
When is the last time your living infallible authority settled and issue on faith and morals?
Churchmouse
Member
LOL! What makes your answer laughable is that I keep asking you "HOW do you know if you, being a fallible man, can know with infallible certainty that Rome is truly infallible" and you just keep repeating the same assertion you can never prove. You say you have "a living infallible (on faith and morals) authority" but you're a fallible man who believes a claim coming from a group who claims infallibility. You're a fallible man who believes an interpretation you can never prove. You're going to have to face it. You are in the same boat you claim non-Catholics are in, but the problem is that you're oblivious to it. You can't answer the question ramcam2 and you never will.
it is through faith that i believe what jesus promised his church... the guidance of the holy spirit, the gates of hell will not prevail, and that he will be with her till the end of time. it is also through faith that i believe what the bible says... 'If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church;' and ' the church is the pillar and foundation of truth'
proof of my assertion is my belief that the written word is the inspired word of god. why so, because the church as guided by the holy spirit through her councils, infallibly determined which books are inspired making up the canon of my bible.
on your part, since you are fallible... how can you prove that your personal understanding of the written word is the correct one and the others are all wrong?
1Thess521
Well-known member
how can you prove that your personal understanding of the Catholic teaching is the correct one and the others are all wrong?
Do you agree with Jimmy Akin's personal understanding of Trent?
https://jimmyakin.com/library/justification-by-faith-alone
"Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2).
We might rephrase the canon:
“If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.”
"So Trent does not condemn the (better) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required. The canon only condemns “sola fide” if it is used “so as to understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required” to attain justification. Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fide formula and not the formula itself"
so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.”
"So Trent does not condemn the (better) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required. The canon only condemns “sola fide” if it is used “so as to understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required” to attain justification. Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fide formula and not the formula itself"
Last edited:
1Thess521
Well-known member
Your personal interpretation of that verse doesn't even align with what your Catholic Church says is its meaning.
The USCB states https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/16
"Church: this word (Greek ekklēsia) occurs in the gospels only here and in Mt 18:17 (twice). There are several possibilities for an Aramaic original. Jesus’ church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation. That function of Peter consists in his being witness to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hadēs, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death."
how can you prove that your personal understanding of the written word is the correct one and the USCCB is wrong?
Last edited:
- Status