Replies

t. John disagrees, too, especially in the sense that he calls Mary the mother of all Christians: "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; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron [i.e. Jesus] [...] Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. (Revelation 12:4,17)

And where does John say that is Mary?

And where does Rome officially teach that is the only interpretation of that verse?

And where does this interpretation enjoy the unanimous consent of the fathers?

If #2 is not the case, then that is simply one interpretation, and which is the wrong one.

More if you can back to me.

This is another question I'd like our catholic friends to answer on any of these topics. Seems they like to pick and choose which ECF they like.

And where does this interpretation enjoy the unanimous consent of the fathers?

Seeing how we all know there is no universal agreement on any of these topics, how do catholics square this away from the pope?

In the other passages, the analogy of faith should be followed, and Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church. PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE, 1893

And where does John say that is Mary?

See my previous comment. Or are you suggesting that "the child who is to rule with an iron rod" is someone other than Jesus? And where does Rome officially teach that is the only interpretation of that verse?

Why, exactly, would you care? But as to your question: "Rome" does not subscribe to the "either/or" mentality which permeates much of Evangelical Fundamentalism; the interpretation I gave (which makes perfect sense, given the context--i.e. the child is Jesus, and the mother is His mother) is true, along with other (more symbolic) meanings. The Book of Revelation is multi-layered, and not limited to one interpretation only... nor are multiple interpretations necessarily mutually exclusive.

And where does this interpretation enjoy the unanimous consent of the fathers?

That would be wonderful, granted (there is no unanimity, on this point)... but since when is that any sort of absolute requirement? And why would you (a Protestant) care, even if they did? The Fathers are unanimous in many things which Protestants reject (e.g. the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the perpetual virginity and sinlessness of Mary, etc.), so I'm not sure why you're offering this; it seems to smell of "red herring".

If #2 is not the case, then that is simply one interpretation, and which is the wrong one.

*IS* the wrong one? Is that simple one interpretation? :)