Emily, I haven't had time to read your thread on the Catholic forum.

On the Revelation passage:

I just want to point out that Catholics believe that Mary gave birth without pain, (http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp)

but Revelation 12:2 contradicts this belief,

"And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered"

I believe there is a problem of interpretation and inconsistency of beliefs if we ignore the context and just assume this women refers to Mary.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004

Answers

bump

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

The Catholic Church made no official proclamation that Mary gave birth without pain. (See the Catechism on Mary -- it's not there, I checked.)

What you cited are merely human opinions about Mary. Human opinions (eg. the writings of the Church Fathers) are just that -- human opinions. They are accounts from the time of the apostles and Early Church, but they are not considered inerrant as the Scriptures are.

God gave the authority to the Church (not the Church Fathers) to interpret the Scriptures and declare the Truth. I understand why this is a difficult concept to grasp from a Protestant mindset, because in Protestantism, all opinions are equally valid and authoritative. So when someone writes a book, they can be seen as representing the views of some group. This is not so in Catholicism. God gave the authority of proclaiming Truth to the Church alone. This is not arrogance, but a gift of God's love and care, so that the Truth could be carefully preserved.

David said: I believe there is a problem of interpretation and inconsistency of beliefs if we ignore the context and just assume this women refers to Mary.

So David, whose interpretation is more authoritative, mine or yours? I am not ignoring the context. The woman is symbolic of several things, as has been previously mentioned, and one of those things is Mary.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

Revelation 12 is never about Mary. The first clue is that the woman is only a symbol to represent something else

v1 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars...

v3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads...

This means that the woman is not a literal woman, and the dragon isn't a literal dragon.

v6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

This "woman" did not flee until after the birth of the child, indeed not until after the child was taken up to Heaven. This disproves the belief that v6 is in reference to Mary and Joseph fleeing to Nazareth before the birth of Jesus.

vs 13,14 Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent.

When did Mary ever fulfill such a prophecy? Never. Time and Times and half a time is repeated many times referring to a period of 3 1/2 years. Jesus referred to this as a time of great tribulation. Such an event has yet to happen. Is Mary going to come back to Earth to be persued by Satan only to be swept to a place of nourishment? No.

v17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

There isn't any other place in Scripture implying that Christians are sons and daughters of Mary. We know Mary had other children, but are these the offspring the dragon pursues? Those who are born again are also sons and daughters of God, brothers and sisters of Christ, heirs of the throne. Those who are born again hold the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The woman in the sky of Revelation 12 is about Israel, not Mary. The twelve stars probably represent the twelve tribes of Israel. Israel gave birth to the male Child who was swept up to heaven as promised by God and spoken by the Prophets. Those who believe in Christ are also sons of Abraham, children of Israel, the offspring. Satan has pursued both Israel and Christians, and will continue to do so until the end.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), July 02, 2004.

The whole argument boils down to just *who* is Christ's church--His body??

Is it the Roman Catholic religion or is it every true believer that has ever accepted Christ as their Savior?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 02, 2004.

Emily,

It was your fallible decision to enter the Roman Catholic church. How do you know you made the right choice?

Are you familiar with the Jehovah's Witnesses claim? Their church acts as a divinely appointed and attested guide. They claim Scripture cannot be understood today without their interpretation. Why didn't you choose to be a Jehovah's Witness?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) claims Divine authority. They believe they are the only true and restored Church on earth and claim to be the only ones to clarify Scripture.

Perhaps you weren't informed about the Internation Churches of Christ? They also believe they are the "one true church" of God.

Fact is, The Church of Rome is just ONE out of many and it is up to a fallible person to choose to follow it or not.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

Then, David, we have painted ourself into a corner with no escape. Who has the truth? We are all fallible people, then how in the world can we figure out the truth? If all of the denominations and churches in this world are wrong, what chance of a snowflake in Rio Grande Valley does it have that you or I or them have the truth? I don't like gambling. If the Catholic Church is wrong, then I am sunk, there is no God, no Christ, and no Salvation. All we have is a gut feeling and our feeble attempts to understand the Scriptures in order to work out our "personal" Salvation. Every man on his own, fire at will. Somehow, I cannot believe that God would be so cruel to have the blind leading the blind. Yet, you cannot prove that you have the truth and that your system of faith is the one and only true church. If you can say that, I'll drop what I'm doing and we'll go out and preach the doctrine to all the nations of the world.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 06, 2004.

Emily, do you really think the Roman Catholic church is united? And is free from the "chaos" of "Protestantism"??

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

Emily,

Was Vatican II an infallible council?

http://www.romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.html

http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/debates/sippo/

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

Does James Akin (Work-Law, Paul- law) agree with Robert Sungenis (W orks of the Law) on the significance of the law?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

Here is Dave Armstrong against Mark Shea & Greg Krehbiel

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ50 6.HTM

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

Shawn McElhinney vs. Traditionalist Roman Catholicism

http://matt1618.free yellow.com/shawn.html

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

Mario Derksen vs. the Novus Ordo Mass

http://www .cathinsight.com/apologetics/asgoodas.htm

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

Yes, there is in-house debate, David. So what? Is there a Church of Mark Shea? Is there a Church of Dave Armstrong? Is there a Church of James Akin? That is what Protestants do, David, they leave the church they are in and form their own little splinter denomination. WHICH is precisely what is condemned in Corinthians.

If any of the above-mentioned gentlemen defect from the Church and form their own little private group then they will simply be a Protestant.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004.

The claim of unity is an illusion.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

Fr. W. Most vs. Feeneyite Roman Catholics

http://www.ewt n.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

Emily (and anyone else),

Demonstrate that you picked the "true" church from among all the other "true" churches that say you can’t rightly understand the Bible and church history without their help, such as the Eastern Orthodox church, the Watchtower Society, Mormonism, and every other cult that exists (remember, you can’t use private judgment for this since you are fallible).

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus,18(A.D. 393),in GCC,51

"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani,5(A.D. 395),in GCC,78

"Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished" Augustine,To Glorius et.al,Epistle 43:7(A.D. 397),in NPNF1,I:278

"If the lineal succession of bishops is to be considered with how much more benefit to the Church do we reckon from Peter himself,to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock I will build my church,and the gates of hell shall not conquer it!' For to Peter succeeded Linus, Clement... Damsus, Sircius, Anastasius. In this order of sucession no Donatist bishop is too be found." Augustine,To Generosus,Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400),in GILES,180-181

"The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today." Augustine,Against the Letters of Petillian,2:51(A.D. 402),in GCC,78

***********

I belong to the same Church that Augustine belonged to! Glory be to God! Can the Mormon say that? No. Can the JW say that? Absolutely not!!!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004.

Gail, you did exactly what I asked you not to do. You trust your own fallible understanding of church history

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

David, I have no idea what you mean "Do not use private judgment." I have to use my mind to even make the decision to answer your challenge. What are talking about?

My decision to become Catholic was based not only the Holy Spirit's wooing of me, but on the HISTORICAL RECORD. What do you want me to say: "The Lord came to me one night in a dream and told me to become Catholic?" Are you asking for something totally subjective?

What gives, Dude David?

Gail the Gal

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004.

Emily,

Roman Catholics always bring up the usual rhetoric about the "doctrinal chaos" Protestantism is.¹

I have to say, the "tens of thousands" of churches that hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura are far more unified than the tens of thousands of churches² that hold to the Bible plus an infallible interpreter doctrine.

Just look at Faith and I as an example. I (most likely) will be joining a Presbyterian³ church soon, and Faith is... well, let's just say Baptistic.⁴

Now compare yourself (Roman Catholic) to a Mormon.

Faith and I hold to Sola Scriptura while the Mormon and you hold to the Scripture plus an infallible interpreter doctrine.

There is far more unity between Faith and I than there can ever be between you and the Mormon.

Can you call a Mormon your brother? No. Likewise, he, and any other person that holds to this doctrine of Scripture plus an infallible interpreter⁵, will reject each other as heretics.

Can I call Faith my Brother? I mean, Sister? Yes, I can.

While we (Faith and I) have very similar beliefs⁶ and can call each other brothers/sisters in Christ, you and the Mormon will reject each other as heretics and disagree on almost EVERY point of doctrine!

The doctrine of Scripture plus an infallible interpreter is the one that really creates doctrinal chaos and "anarchy".

The Roman argument about the Protestant "chaos" compared to the "unity" of the Church of Rome is a completely false comparison. What he/she is doing is comparing a single entity within the collective body of entities that holds to the doctrine of Scripture plus an infallible interpreter doctrine to the collective body of entities that hold to Sola Scriptura. Would it be fair of me to say there is more unity in Assemblies of God than those that hold to Scripture plus an infallible interpreter doctrine?⁷ No, in order to make a true comparison one has to pick an single entity from one rule of faith (Say, Assemblies of God - "Sola Scriptura") and compare it to a single entity from the other rule of faith (say, Rome - "Scriptura plus an infallible interpreter").

Even then, there is MORE unity in Assemblies of God than there is in Rome! Don't believe me? Ask some Roman Catholics if Vatican II was an infallible council. Ask *which* Scripture has been infallibly defined by Rome. Ask if the "works of the law" that Paul says cannot justify a person works of merely ceremonial law or all works period. Ask if the Pope approves "evolution". Ask about the Novus Ordo mass. Ask who are the *real* Catholics.

As you can see, this alleged "unity" of Rome is a flat out lie. The Assemblies of God are far more united than Rome.

Rome fails the unity test.

Note:

¹ Eugene C. 021223,"...you only had been given true interpretations of scripture, you wouldn't have broken up into 30,000 lost, free-lance sects."

Gail 021124, "...what else can Protestantism do, there is NO remedy for the doctrinal divisions BUT yet more divisions!"

Ian B. 030414, "...we would not have 35,000 separate denominations, each preaching their own bespoke religion..."

John G. 021220, "When the spoken Word is ignored, the result is 30,000+ protestant denominations."

Paul M. 031204, "...the theology of Protestantism is in a state of absolute chaos..."

² Rome, Eastern Orthodox Catholic, Jehovah's Witnesses, Churches of Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), ICC, etc. Rome is *one* out of many.

³ Presbyterian Churches in America, http://www.pcanet.org/

⁴ Faith, I don't know the name of your church, but you are Pretrib, Premill, believe Baptism is a symbolic, Eternal Security, etc, so I think it's safe to say your are Baptistic. However, I think you prefer non-denominational.

⁵FYI, EOC believes Rome is heretical.

⁶ Trinity, Sola Scriptura, Salvation by Grace through Faith, Resurrection of Christ, The Gospel, Deity, etc, the essential doctrines. Non-essential issues are Eschatology, Predestination/Election, and Worship on Saturday/Sunday, etc.

⁷This is the same argument Roman Catholics use, but reversed. The argument is false because it compares a rule of faith to a denomination. To make a true comparison, one has to one rule of faith (Scripture Alone) to another rule of faith (Scripture plus an infallible interpreter) or compare one denomination (as I mentioned earlier, Assemblies of God) to another denomination (Rome). Either way, Rome fails the unity test.

P.S. I decided to use these "notes" because I did not want to clutter my message.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 19, 2004.

Rome has not failed the unity test.

Regarding Apocolypse (Revelations) Chapter 12, the reference to the woman is in it's most proper sense refering to the Church. The chapeter deals primarily with an aspect of the attack of Satan from within the Church detailed in Chapter 11. The Sun indicates the doctrinal light of God. The stars refer to the clergy; the heavens, the hierarchy. The male child which the Church gives birth to in pain is a pontiff.

As for argument by fractionalization: if one points to you and says "look at you... you Protestants are splintered into an ever- increasing number of factions" and you point back and say "well, look at you Catholics, so are you!"...

...what have you concluded? Can you successfully argue that the lessor of two fractionalized groups is the true Church?

I think not. But if you could, Rome would still win.

But that's an aside. The argument doesn't work in principle.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 19, 2004.

"Rome has not failed the unity test."

Because... you say so?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 19, 2004.

Hippolytus

"By the woman then clothed with the sun, he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father's word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the 'moon under her feet' he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, 'upon her head a crown of twelve stars,' refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded. And those, 'she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered,' mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. 'And she brought forth,' he says, 'a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;' by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man- child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, 'her child was caught up unto God and to His throne,' signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also declared of old when he said, 'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.' 'And the dragon,' he says, 'saw and persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.' That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church, which flees from city to city, and seeks conceal-meat in the wilderness among the mountains, possessed of no other defence than the two wings of the great eagle, that is to say, the faith of Jesus Christ, who, in stretching forth His holy hands on the holy tree, unfolded two wings, the right and the left, and called to Him all who believed upon Him, and covered them as a hen her chickens. For by the mouth of Malachi also He speaks thus: 'And unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings.'" (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 61)

http://www.conventhill.com/endtimes/hippolytus.htm

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 19, 2004.

Methodius

"The woman who appeared in heaven clothed with the sun, and crowned with twelve stars, and having the moon for her footstool, and being with child, and travailing in birth, is certainly, according to the accurate interpretation, our mother, O virgins, being a power by herself distinct from her children; whom the prophets, according to the aspect of their subjects, have called sometimes Jerusalem, sometimes a Bride, sometimes Mount Zion, and sometimes the Temple and Tabernacle of God. For she is the power which is desired to give light in the prophet, the Spirit crying to her: 'Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and His glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about, and see; all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.' It is the Church whose children shall come to her with all speed after the resurrection, running to her from all quarters." (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 8:5)

http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante- Nicene/Methodius/view.cgi?file=anf06-116.htm&size=20

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 19, 2004.

Victorinus

"The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people....And the crown of twelve stars signifies the choir of fathers, according to the fleshly birth, of whom Christ was to take flesh." (Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, 12:1- 2)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 19, 2004.

Does that women refer to Mary? Are you sure your not just reading your interpretation into it?

How does Revelation 12:17 fit with Roman theology?

"And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Rev 12:17 KJV

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 19, 2004.

Keith Piper writes:

"a) Genesis 37:9, 10 shows this woman to be the Israelite nation, with the sun representing Jacob, the moon representing his wife Rachel, and the 12 stars representing the 12 tribes of Israel. Christ was born of Israel. The Israelite nation is often referred to as a woman in Isaiah 54:5, "thy mother is thine husband" and Jeremiah 31:32, "although I was a husband unto them."

b) This woman cannot be Mary, because this woman is on earth during the tribulation, whereas Mary's spirit is in heaven at that time.

c) This woman is persecuted on earth during this time, yet Mary in heaven cannot be persecuted on earth."

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 19, 2004.

David,

How do you decide what is an essential doctrine and what is not an essential doctrine?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 19, 2004.