I forget that many Protestants seem to think that Catholics believe that Mary gave birth to the eternal Godhead.
We don’t.
Yet Catholics are right in calling her The Mother of God, since Jesus is God and she is His Mother, It’s as simple as that. We are not responsible for Protestant misperceptions of Mary’s titles.
Mary is also the Queen of Heaven, as Scripture clearly indicates.
If you remove the artificially-imposed chapters and verse numbers in Scripture, these verses appear consecutively:
“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm. A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.”
This is the woman whose Son (Jesus) would rule with an iron rod.
We see through typology that the Ark AND this crowned woman in heaven is Mary.
The Ark contained Aaron’s staff, representing the priesthood, manna, the “bread from heaven,” and the 10 Commandments, all of which serve as types for Jesus, who is eternal High Priest, the bread of life (John 6), and the Eternal Word. The Ark itself is a type for Mary, since she contained Jesus.
***
The title of Co-Redemptrix is correct, when properly understood, but confusing to the ignorant, for the reasons that the pope specified. What does that prove?
Uh...
Just WHO 'imposed' them?
MORE about Mary: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3055679/posts
Hyperbole for sure, but considering the uncritical use of the "mother of God" (Rm. 9:5 even clarifies "according to the flesh" in regards to the Lord coming forth from Israel ) and the extra-Scriptural and un-Scriptural supererogatory exaltation and adulation of Mary, one can understand how we can see her almost being held as a 4th person of the Trinity.
Yet Catholics are right in calling her The Mother of God, since Jesus is God and she is His Mother...
You are merely repeating the polemic and not interacting with my response which deals with that very argument, and its logical extension.
If you remove the artificially-imposed chapters and verse numbers in Scripture, these verses appear consecutively:
Is this interpretation something good RCs can disagree with? Is this teaching "according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.? If not, then it is simply one example of the great liberty RCs have to interpret the Bible in order to support Rome, even though Scriptural substantiation is not the real basis for assurance of doctrine for an RC. In any case, i disagree with this and multitude other like extrapolative exaltations of holy Mary above what is written.
The title of Co-Redemptrix is correct, when properly understood, but confusing to the ignorant, for the reasons that the pope specified. What does that prove?
It "proves" there is sound reason not to use it even from a rather notable RC authority.
OMG, Thomas, I do not even know where to begin!
Wow, just wow!
And I am growing to like you, but this is sheer nonsense.
http://www.thebereancall.org/content/who-woman-clothed-sun
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/all-women-bible/Woman-Clothed-Sun