Replies

How come you go with them “supposedly” concerning who the “woman” is but reject their authority as far as the Eucharist?

How come you cannot understand my reply and instead ask the same question? I see that you have only been here less than a month, and that you evidence a lack of familiarity in apologetical debate, but this is elementary. Referencing your opponents own sources in order to show that the other party is opposed by the particular camp that he advocates, or even in affirming some truth he hopes they will accept, is a standard and justifiable practice, but such does not infer agreement with all such say. When Paul quoted a pagan poet (Acts 11:28) he was doing the former but not the latter. And when you reference Luther or Roman Catholic apologists quote certain Protestants as agreeing with them then that does not mean they affirm all that they say.

Haydock as your source, Haydock, was a devout Protestant, of course he would protest the “woman” is Mary.

Haydock was not my own only source, nor is your reasoning sound, but here again is your problem. If you determine Truth on the basis of Scriptural warrant then you are an evangelical and not a Catholic, for their real authority is not Scripture, but what their church says Truth is, under the premise of perpetual assured infallibility.

While you can attempt to debate Rv. 12 on the basis of Scriptural warrant, yet as a Catholic that is only your private interpretation, unless that is what your church officially teaches. But a problem here is that what one Catholic considers “official” or as representing official doctrine can vary (all stamped material, all encyclicals, all of Trent, all that the catechism teaches, etc.) as well as what it means (Lumen Gentium, etc.) depending on whether they agree with it. (And while infallible decrees require implicit assent of faith, whether a declaration is infallible can be open to interpretation, as well as what they precisely mean).

And thus you reject your own stamped notes in your own official Bible, as well as other weightier authorities than you, and while many other conservative Catholics esteem Haydock as supporting true Catholic teaching, you reject him under the specious reasoning that he was once a Protestant!. On this basis you must also dismiss no less a Catholic as the Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, a prime supporter of papal infallibility!

The fact is that it is not whether a Catholic source is conservative or liberal that determines your sanction, but whether they concur with you, while i can invoke such based on their own merits, or as showing the inconsistency of your supreme authority.

In addition, as regards the latter there is no unanimity in this among Catholic sources on this,

as said, the approved notes of the official Roman Catholic Bible (NAB) for America states

► “[12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster. *

[12:2] Because of Eve’s sin, the woman gives birth in distress and pain (Gn 3:16; cf. Is 66:7–14)...[12:6] God protects the persecuted church in the desert, the traditional Old Testament place of refuge for the afflicted, according to the typology of the Exodus; see note on Rev 11:2...

[12:17] Although the church is protected by God’s special providence (Rev 12:16), the individual Christian is to expect persecution and suffering.” http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/12

► Roman Catholic theologian Father Hubert J. Richards agrees that the Revelation 12 woman refers to Israel. In his book, “What The Spirit Says to the Churches: A Key to the Apocalypse of John,” (Nihil obstat and Imprimatur), Richards writes:

The vision proper, then, begins with the figure of a Woman clothed with the sun and the stars. We think naturally enough of our Lady, to whom this description has traditionally been applied. After all, we say, of whom else could John be thinking when he speaks of the mother of the Messiah? However it is clear from the rest of the chapter that this interpretation will stand only if the verse is isolated: what follows has very little relevance to our Lady. Nor is it any honor to Mary to apply any and every text to her without thought....

And as explained here,

► Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications. In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (vv. 6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.” — D’Argon J-L. “The Apocalypse.” The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy [Pontifical Biblical Commission (1972); president of the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature (1976-7) and the Society of New Testament Studies (1986-7)] (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1969)

Thus while we have shown from Scripture (our supreme authority) why the typology and the women best represents Israel and thus the persecuted Israel of God, not the virgin mother Mary, you must not only show that it is Mary but if you will argue for submission to Rome then you must establish that this is the primary interpretation of your church, and that the Catholic sources which oppose that are censored as being wrong, but which you have not done. You want to convert us to Rome but it fails to officially support you here, and reject any who oppose you.

But of course, you assert that “The smoke of Satan has infiltrated the Vatican per Pope Paul VI” and defend propagating unapproved private revelations, resulting in censure from your own, while attacking another Catholic “prophet.” Quite a church you are promoting.