Replies

"You can post all the links you want..." - and more texts than that - from RC sources that refute your assertion that "the Church and Israel are secondary, the “woman” in Genesis and the “woman” in Revelation, Chapter 12 is Mary", but you assert the church cannot be the primary application. Even the as for the notes of the Douay-Rheims Bible, which you affirm helps to understand the correct interpretation from the Church (though that is not your official American Bible), gives “The church of God” as the primary interpretation!

So here you are, arguing Scripture as a private Catholic apologist, while other and more credentialed RCs disagree with you (and sometimes with each other), while Scripture is not your supreme authority, but is a means to an end of submission to Rome, and whose Traditions do not depend upon the weight of scriptural warrant.

As for your interpretation of Rv. 12, that John is speaking of Mary, and the Ark of the covenant (which some RCs see the Church as being), that is simply your interpretation, rather than Christ, who is the One the apostles so often taught was the fulfillment of typology, and not Mary, who is overall rather marginal in the gospels.

And as explained,

The woman said to be clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and twelve stars are symbols drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which Joseph ”dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.” (Genesis 37:9)

The sun represented Jacob (Israel) and the moon Rachel, and the stars representing his brothers, the patriarchs of Israel, all of which bow down to him. Thus Jacob said, “Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?” The 12 stars on the woman’s head represents the 12 patriarchs, “and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rm. 9:5)

The Old Testament’s prophets also referred to Israel as a “woman” (Is. 54:5-6; Jer. 4:31; Micah 4:9-10).

In addition, the women gave birth in pain, something RCs disallow of Mary, and some even disallow that she broke her hymen. Which is just one of the numerous exceptions which they must prove, but fail to do, though the practice of the Holy Spirit is to make such manifest, as instead such Marian claims are from Tradition, not Scripture.

Furthermore, as regards the parroted "You have no authority. The Church canonized Scripture, God gave the authority to interpret Scripture to the Church" mantra, (post 103) the reality is that such was the premise of the Jewish leaders in demanding, like Roman Catholics, of a certain itinerant preacher,

By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?” (see Mk. 11:27-33)

The preachers did not have the sanction of the historical heavyweights, who, unlike Rome, had clearly stated authority, (Mt. 23:2), but like Rome, presumed a level of assured veracity and perpetuation based on Divine promises and historical decent above that which Scripture afforded them, and thus like Rome, they also presumed to teach the mere "tradition of the elders" as doctrine.

And thus they objected to John the Baptist saying God could raise up children to Abraham from stones, (Mt. 3:9) and of the Christ of whom he preached, and who called them "blind guides."

So why would seekers of Truth follow this itinerant preacher from Nazareth who turned over the tables of power? How did He establish His claims?

The answer is that, in contrast to the powers that be, the Lord Jesus established His claims on Scripture, in word and in the manifest power of God it affirms being given to the Truth, as did the apostles and early church. ( Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12)

And Scripture is abundantly evidenced to be the standard for obedience and for testing truth claims.

And the most critical aspect of this basis of authority is that the of the gospel of grace, and manifest regeneration by repentant faith in it, and which kind of living effectual faith the church relies upon for its members and for storming the gates of Hell.

And which affirms that the church is that of the living God, (1Tim. 1:15) versus the self declaration of its institutionalized counterpart, "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. " (1 Cori. 4:20) and by "manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2)

As for the "we gave you the Bible=only we have authority to interpret it" (stewardship=assured infallibility) polemic, besides Rome not having an infallible, indisputable canon until the year Luther died — over 1400 year after the last book was written — that also nukes the church, as unlike the church of Rome, Scripture specifically affirms Israel was the instrument and steward of Holy Writ;

and that most of the Divine Writing were established as Scripture before there ever was a church in Rome, and that Truth was preserved with an assuredly infallible magisterium, contrary to the premise Rome presumes to justify herself.

And like as God can raise up children to Abraham from stones, so He can raise up stones who, like Peter, effectually confess the Lord Jesus, and continue to build His church of the regenerated, even when the outwardly is more form than substance. And i need more of the latter myself.