Mary as mediatrix?

[kisstheson]

Jesus is our only redeemer, it was He alone whose death and resurrection brought reconciliation between man and God. Mary did play a role in our redemption by her obedience to God's will and we honor Mary and seek to imitate that obedience. But to say that it took two to fall and two to redeem is a misrepresentation of Church doctrine. The Church does not nor ever has, equate Mary's participation in our redemption with the saving work of Jesus. The term co-remptrix is ambiguious and leads to misunderstanding by Catholic and non-Catholic alike. As the post by Joab states, the title has not been defined by the Church and therefore is not dogma and does not bind we the faithful. In fact as BA has stated the Church holds that we cannot use a title that takes way from the effacy of Christ as the only mediator and redeemer. The Church teaches that we are saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus and only Jesus and to Him goes the glory.

At the same time the Church does recognise Mary's role in God's saving plan and for that we honor and venerate Mary, but the role she played is not equal to that of Jesus. Mary is more than just the vessel by whom God became man, when I see her refered to this way it saddens me, and as such we do give her such titles as Mother of God, the New Eve and the New Ark of the Covenant. All of these are titles given to Mary to reflect the truth of who Jesus is, they define Jesus as God.

God Bless,
Nancy

That's good to know.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Kisstheson, honouring Mary as Christ's Mother is not "taking our eyes off Jesus", but in fact she leads us closer to Him. In my experience, I have gotten to know Jesus better ever since I started having a devotion to Mary. (that's evidence right there..) I was also going to say that the term "Co-Redemptrix" does not mean that Mary is a Redeemer - that's a common misunderstanding..it means that she is involved in HIS work of redemption - because of the Incarnation, and her intercession.. actually we ALL are involved in His work of salvation every time we pray for sinners. This doesn't take anything away from Christ, because it's always HIS work, and He's the Redeemer and Mediator.
I really think that you are misunderstanding Catholic doctrine sis. You're against something that doesn't exist.

I hope that you'll think about what we're trying to tell you here and consider it.. NO ONE is telling you to worship Mary or that she's equal to Christ.. so I don't really understand why you keep on saying that cause no one here has ever said that she's equal to Him.

 

[kisstheson]

Monica,

If you read back through this thread there are a few of you brethren who agree with me that co-redemptrix and not a good term and some do place mary in too lofty a position.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Monica,

If you read back through this thread there are a few of you brethren who agree with me that co-redemptrix and not a good term and some do place mary in too lofty a position.

Good thing co-redemptrix is not a term the Church applies to Mary.

Even if some people decided they wanted to celebrate the Eucharist with beer and pizza, that doesn't mean that it would be something that the Church would embrace. Same with this term, whatever TLF has to say about it.

Anyway, when I made this thread, I didn't want to turn into something like this. I just wanted to know about the "mediatrix" term. If a mod could close 'er down, I'd appreciate it.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Monica,

If you read back through this thread there are a few of you brethren who agree with me that co-redemptrix and not a good term and some do place mary in too lofty a position.

I don't think that Co-Redemptrix is a good term (cause it's misleading), but there's nothing wrong with the concept behind it because it does not mean that Mary is a Redeemer. I don't think that anyone here is placing Mary in a "too lofty position", because no one here is saying that she is equal to God in any way. If you think that Co-Redemptrix is too lofty, then maybe you have just misunderstood the term..because as I said, it doesn't imply that Mary is a Redeemer. It's related to the Incarnation, Mary's intercession, and the Church's teaching on redemptive suffering, participation in Christ's work of salvation, etc. (in other words, it's complex, and I'm not saying I understand it totally either)
And, as Veritas said, it's not an official teaching of the Church anyway.
Peace

 

[kisstheson]

tee hee...I beg to differ..calling mary The Root of Jesse, the Tree of Life is a little too much for me. and what I don't undertsand is why people don't honor me simply for wanting to focus on Jesus?(except for a few here did say that) Instead I was told that I'm thinking inside a bubble etc. If anything people should be encouraged to go to the Church to find Jesus and not be frowned upon because they don't regard Mary as the Tree of of Life.

And that I need to prove, where in scripture does it say that Jesus is the Tree of Life as well as the cross? I thought the RCC is about glorifying Jesus?

 

[thereselittleflower]

tee hee...I beg to differ..calling mary The Root of Jesse, the Tree of Life is a little too much for me. and what I don't undertsand is why people don't honor me simply for wanting to focus on Jesus?(except for a few here did say that) Instead I was told that I'm thinking inside a bubble etc. If anything people should be encouraged to go to the Church to find Jesus and not be frowned upon because they don't regard Mary as the Tree of of Life.

And that I need to prove, where in scripture does it say that Jesus is the Tree of Life as well as the cross? I thought the RCC is about glorifying Jesus?

Come now kisstheson. If you are going to hold things we claim to being explicitly found in the bible, then you need to hold the things you claim to the same standard.

That was my point which you have been sidestepping.

You can't find the scriptures stating that Jesus is the Tree of Life or that the Cross is the Tree of Life, so you can't validly claim that is wrong to call Mary the Tree of Life too simply because the scriptures don't call her the Tree of Life.

So it is evident the scriptures are not what control who is or is not referred to as the Tree of Life.

Tradition is - for that is where Jesus is called the Tree of Life, it is where the Cross is called the Tree of life, and it is also where Mary is also called the Tree of Life.

Anyone who holds their beliefs to one standard and ours to another is being hypocritical.


So we derive the title for Mary Tree of Life from the same source you derive the title for Jesus Tree of Life and the Cross Tree of Life - TRADITION.


And please understand that simply because something is too much for you where you are today has nothing to do with whether or not is is true.

I understand and respsect that it is too much for you today. When it is time, if you remain open to the truth, God will help you to understand.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

tee hee...I beg to differ..calling mary The Root of Jesse, the Tree of Life is a little too much for me. and what I don't undertsand is why people don't honor me simply for wanting to focus on Jesus?(except for a few here did say that) Instead I was told that I'm thinking inside a bubble etc. If anything people should be encouraged to go to the Church to find Jesus and not be frowned upon because they don't regard Mary as the Tree of of Life.

And that I need to prove, where in scripture does it say that Jesus is the Tree of Life as well as the cross? I thought the RCC is about glorifying Jesus?

Kisstheson, I have already answered your question about this.. I said that the reason Mary is called the Tree of Life by some in this thread is because she is the Mother of Jesus, who is the "fruit of [her] womb". The fruit comes from the tree, etc. that sort of logic. NOT because eternal life comes from her, or whatever. If the symbolism doesn't work for you, then you don't have to use it. No one here is saying that Mary is the origin of eternal life, so conceptually there's not disagreement!! The only disagreement is in the use of terms and symbolism, not in the actual ideas that we're talking about. That's why I said that words don't matter that much.

You asked why people don't honour you for wanting to focus on Jesus. Well you see sis, I'm sure all of us acknowledge that! I know that you love Jesus very much and just want to serve Him. But you see, we focus on Jesus too!! Mary is no obstacle to that! She's His Mother, she leads us to Him. And that's what I've been trying to tell you. I'm not sure, sorry if I'm wrong, but it sometimes sounds like you're saying that we consider Mary to be equal to Jesus or something...but that is not true. That's like what many Protestants think but they're mistaken. If they really took the time to understand Catholic theology, they'd see that too.

Peace

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Kisstheson, let's look at the passage we're discussing here

The River of Life

1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life [THE HOLY SPIRIT], as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God [THE FATHER] and of the Lamb [JESUS] 2down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations."

Do you see how the Tree can't be Holy Spirit, Father, or Jesus, cause they're already covered in that verse?? Soo some people think it's Mary.
I don't think this is official Catholic Church doctrine anyway (someone correct me if I'm wrong), so if the symbolism doesn't work for you, that's not SUCH a big deal.

what do you think?

 

[thereselittleflower]

I don't think that Co-Redemptrix is a good term (cause it's misleading), but there's nothing wrong with the concept behind it because it does not mean that Mary is a Redeemer. I don't think that anyone here is placing Mary in a "too lofty position", because no one here is saying that she is equal to God in any way. If you think that Co-Redemptrix is too lofty, then maybe you have just misunderstood the term..because as I said, it doesn't imply that Mary is a Redeemer. It's related to the Incarnation, Mary's intercession, and the Church's teaching on redemptive suffering, participation in Christ's work of salvation, etc. (in other words, it's complex, and I'm not saying I understand it totally either)
And, as Veritas said, it's not an official teaching of the Church anyway.
Peace

Mary's role in redemption is official teaching - it is doctrine. It is simply not elevated to the level of Dogma. People seem to think that if something is not dogma they are free not to believe it.

That is not true.

ALL Doctrine is to be believed - doctrine is not optional. The difference is the level of assent that is to be given to it.


There is nothing more lofty about callilng Mary Co-Redemptrix then there is in calling her Mediatrix which is an officially recognized title of Mary in Vatican II.


The moon can never outshine the sun, has no light of its own, but simply reflects the light of the sun to us on earth.


Mary is the moon and Jesus is the sun.

Mary can never outshine Jesus, she has no light of her own, but simply reflects the light of Jesus to us on earth.


This is the relationship these titles declare.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Kisstheson, let's look at the passage we're discussing here

The River of Life

1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life [THE HOLY SPIRIT], as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God [THE FATHER] and of the Lamb [JESUS] 2down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations."

Do you see how the Tree can't be Holy Spirit, Father, or Jesus, cause they're already covered in that verse?? Soo some people think it's Mary.
I don't think this is official Catholic Church doctrine anyway (someone correct me if I'm wrong), so if the symbolism doesn't work for you, that's not SUCH a big deal.

what do you think?

There is no official Church interpretation of this verse, as there are no official interpretations of most verses in the bible. But suchinterpretation is in keeping with the teaching of the Church, it does not contradict it in any way.

I am glad someone is understanding the symbolism.

To say that Mary can't be called the Tree of Life because Jesus is also is called the Tree of Life is no different than saying Mary can't be called the Ark of the Covenant because Jesus is also called the Ark of the Covenant.

But in Like we see clear reference to Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant from the way Luke compares the events surrounding the Ark with the events surrounding the conception to birth of Jesus.

Yet both Jesus and Mary are referred to as the Ark of the Covenant by the ECF's and Church.

 

[kisstheson]

There is no official Church interpretation of this verse, as there are no official interpretations of most verses in the bible. But suchinterpretation is in keeping with the teaching of the Church, it does not contradict it in any way.

I am glad someone is understanding the symbolism.

To say that Mary can't be called the Tree of Life because Jesus is also is called the Tree of Life is no different than saying Mary can't be called the Ark of the Covenant because Jesus is also called the Ark of the Covenant.

But in Like we see clear reference to Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant from the way Luke compares the events surrounding the Ark with the events surrounding the conception to birth of Jesus.

Yet both Jesus and Mary are referred to as the Ark of the Covenant by the ECF's and Church.

Is a big deal because I don't like the idea both Jesus and Mary being called the same thing. Mary doesn't give life and she doesn't heal people.This is speaking about future tense where the focus will be on the Godhead and not Mary. This is why I especaily don't think John meant Mary in this passage about the Tree of Life.

 

[kisstheson]

Kisstheson, let's look at the passage we're discussing here

The River of Life

1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life [THE HOLY SPIRIT], as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God [THE FATHER] and of the Lamb [JESUS] 2down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations."

Do you see how the Tree can't be Holy Spirit, Father, or Jesus, cause they're already covered in that verse?? Soo some people think it's Mary.
I don't think this is official Catholic Church doctrine anyway (someone correct me if I'm wrong), so if the symbolism doesn't work for you, that's not SUCH a big deal.

what do you think?

No I don't see it at all. Jesua is a lot of things in the book of revelations. He's the sun that lights uo the city. He's a lamb. He's a the King of Kings. The four living creatures in front of the throne reperesent the four gospels. they are covered with eyes represents that God is all knowing. He's also the Tree of life because he is omnipresent. Mary doesn't heal the nations. She points to her son, not to herself. Yes its a big deal and it it makes me mad that you would wnat to call her the Tree of Life and believe that her leaves heal the nations. Jesus is the fruit bearing tree in every season. wow...

"1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life [THE HOLY SPIRIT], as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God [THE FATHER] and of the Lamb [JESUS] 2down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations."

BTW you are adding "The Holy Spirit" and 'The Father" and "Jesus." As I said The Godhead is omnipresent and fills all of Heaven therefore He is all of these things, the river of life and the tree of life.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Mary's role in redemption is official teaching - it is doctrine. It is simply not elevated to the level of Dogma. People seem to think that if something is not dogma they are free not to believe it.

That is not true.

ALL Doctrine is to be believed - doctrine is not optional. The difference is the level of assent that is to be given to it.


There is nothing more lofty about callilng Mary Co-Redemptrix then there is in calling her Mediatrix which is an officially recognized title of Mary in Vatican II.


The moon can never outshine the sun, has no light of its own, but simply reflects the light of the sun to us on earth.


Mary is the moon and Jesus is the sun.

Mary can never outshine Jesus, she has no light of her own, but simply reflects the light of Jesus to us on earth.


This is the relationship these titles declare.

I agree about the sun and the moon that's a good analogy.

Is a big deal because I don't like the idea both Jesus and Mary being called the same thing. Mary doesn't give life and she doesn't heal people.

sis, no one is saying that Mary gives life or heals people! (by her power, apart from Jesus) You see, calling Mary the Tree of Life does NOT mean that eternal life comes from her - as I've tried to explain..in my other posts. It really seems like your problem here is more to do with the terminology than with the concepts.. I think conceptually, we all agree! (maybe)

This is speaking about future tense where the focus will be on the Godhead and not Mary.

I think it's talking about eternity, not future tense.. hmm.. Mary is already in eternity. It's true that all focus is on the Trinity BUT if you look at the passage...does it say that all the focus is on the Tree of Life? no.. soo..no conflict there..? There's no problem in mentioning Mary, because ..she glorifies God.. no competition..

This is why I especaily don't think John meant Mary in this passage about the Tree of Life.

I'm sure that God put a lot of things in the Bible that the apostles didn't intend or even understand at the time John simply wrote down what he saw..

Peace

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Please read this on the Catholic view of Mary and clarification of Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, etc.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_mediatrix_co-redemptrix.htm

http://www.newman99.com/15.html

 

[thereselittleflower]

Is a big deal because I don't like the idea both Jesus and Mary being called the same thing.

If christianity was about what we like and don't like, so we could pick and choose, there would be no such thing as heresy or error or anything. It would ba whatever we wanted it to be.

Christianity is not determined by what we like or don't like. It is determined by truth, and so the same is with Catholicism for it is fully christian.

Catholicism is not about what we like or don't like.

It is about truth, whether one accepts it or not. Tuth is not dependent on what we like or don't like.​

Mary doesn't give life and she doesn't heal people.

Does a mother give life to her children? God is the ultimate source of that life, but it is given through the mother. The child comes into this world because the mother participated in the childs conception and developing life. The child is born because the mother cooperates and permits the child to be born (she doesn't abort it).

So yes, a mother does give life. And when we say that, we understand that she is not the ultimate source of life, but its immediate, earthly source.

So if we can say a mother gives life to her children, then why the cognitive dissonance in denying that Mary does not give life in the same way a mother gives life to her children?

Did not Mary give life to Jesus, God the Son made flesh?

We call her Mother of God because this is true in the immediate sense, but not in any eternal, ultimate sense.

If we can say Mary is the Mother of God and this takes nothing away from God, then what is the problem with recognizing Mary in these ways?

Do you also have trouble with the title, Mary Mother of God?

Do you have trouble with saying a mother gives life to her children?


Mary is the mother of the Church - this is Church teaching. As has been repeated stated in this thread, the Church teaches on Mary's motherly role to all christians. Do you have trouble with this too?


Nothing we say about Mary confers on her the power to be ethe ultimate source of anything, no more than saying a mother gives life to her children makes her the ultimate source of her children's life.

Mary is like the moon and Jesus is like the sun . . . the moon has no light of its own. Everything comes from the sun. The moon brightly reflects the light of the sun, but in comparison to the sun, it is nothing.

The same is true of Mary.


This is all we are saying, this is what we believe.

This is speaking about future tense where the focus will be on the Godhead and not Mary. This is why I especaily don't think John meant Mary in this passage about the Tree of Life.

Where is it speaking of anything in the future tense?

Where is the future tense used at all?

Rev 22:1¶And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
​

"he showed me" is not in the future tense - it is in the aorist tense which is without regard to time.


"proceeding" is in the PRESENT tense .. not future

Rev 22:2In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations.
​

"which bare" is in the PRESENT tense, not future

"yielded" is in the PRESENT tense, not future



And these are the only words with tense in these two verses.


It is present -- not future.


Revelation is not a book that foretells the future. It is apocryphal, one of many apocryphal works at the time of John.

Apocrypha is a genre of books popular at the time this was written that dealt with the ultimate triumph of good over evil in a highly symbolic fashion. This apocryphal work by John was written to those of John's time, it is a symbolic work regarding the ultimate triumph of good over evil from a Christian perspective.

It is not what you were taught it was. I was very much into dispenationalist theology when I was protestant. That theology is simply a resurection of the ancient heresy of chiliasm, also known as millenialism with a modern twist. I have researched this very deeply, and found there is no valid basis for treating Reverlation as a prophetic book predicting future events.

So there is nothing future about these 2 verses. As the tenses show, they are indeed of the present.

 

[kisstheson]

No the Book of revelations specifically says "I will show you what is to take place in the future." Its about eternity in the future when all the saints are in Heaven. mary does not support Jesus in the future (your idea concerning the Tree of Life) She did so on earth but not in the future. Why would the Godhead need to plant Mary as the tree of life in the future? She points to christ and christ will fill all things. This has absolutely nothing nothing to do with mary. The nations will come directly to Jesus. there will no need to go through mary. (actually they don't need to ho through Mary to Him now), but especially in the future. So you see there is a conflict. please think about what I am saying. first off, the Book of Revelation is about the future.


Monica you said, "I think it's talking about eternity, not future tense.. hmm.. Mary is already in eternity. It's true that all focus is on the Trinity BUT if you look at the passage...does it say that all the focus is on the Tree of Life? no.. soo..no conflict there..? There's no problem in mentioning Mary, because ..she glorifies God.. no competition.."

 

[MoNiCa4316]

what TLF said: yea, I agree

the Father is the ultimate source of life.. but He used Mary to give life to Jesus (I'm talking about His body here..not His spirit)
this doesn't make her the source of life..but the one through whom life was given.

Now, Mary is our Mother. so, just like she was used to give birth to Jesus, who is the source of our life, God used her to bring us life. She brought us Jesus so that we may have life in Him. That's what "mediatrix" means. HE is the source of it all, not Mary.

You might say..but isn't Jesus the one through whom we receive life.. well, yes!! He is both the source of life (being part of the Trinity), and the sole Mediator between us and the Father! Mary is the "mediatrix" in a SECONDARY way. It goes..from the Father, through the Son, to us. Mary participates by her intercession, role in Incarnation, etc.

hope that makes sense..

 

[MoNiCa4316]

No I don't see it at all. Jesua is a lot of things in the book of revelations. He's the sun that lights uo the city. He's a lamb. He's a the King of Kings. The four living creatures in front of the throne reperesent the four gospels. they are covered with eyes represents that God is all knowing. He's also the Tree of life because he is omnipresent. Mary doesn't heal the nations. She points to her son, not to herself. Yes its a big deal and it it makes me mad that you would wnat to call her the Tree of Life and believe that her leaves heal the nations. Jesus is the fruit bearing tree in every season. wow...

I don't really understand how the Tree of Life means omnipresence..

Mary heals the nations by bringing us to her Son!! that's why the Rosary is said to bring peace to the world.. because she brings peace by bringing us to Him. It's not Mary vs. Jesus.. it's Mary, leading us to Jesus.

You see, no one here is saying that Mary points to herself

"1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life [THE HOLY SPIRIT], as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God [THE FATHER] and of the Lamb [JESUS] 2down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations."

BTW you are adding "The Holy Spirit" and 'The Father" and "Jesus." As I said The Godhead is omnipresent and fills all of Heaven therefore He is all of these things, the river of life and the tree of life.

to be honest with you, I don't think it's a good idea to debate Revelation; what means what, try to explain every little thing.. the Revelation is highly symbolic, as we know, and very complex.

It's enough to say that someday, we would see.

We all know that life comes from Jesus, so I really don't know what we're talking about anymore.. are you trying to prove to us that life comes from Jesus and that He heals? well sis, we already agree soo I think we're just going around in circles, each trying to find little bits of evidence for our positions in this argument.. frankly I'm kinda tired, because I think this is pointless. We already agree that life ultimately comes from Jesus, not from Mary.

the symbols in Revelation are there to help us understand the big picture.. that is their purpose. I don't think another purpose was ever intended for them (though I may be wrong, of course)

No the Book of revelations specifically says "I will show you what is to take place in the future." Its about eternity in the future when all the saints are in Heaven. mary does not support Jesus in the future (your idea concerning the Tree of Life) She did so on earth but not in the future. Why would the Godhead need to plant Mary as the tree of life in the future? She points to christ and christ will fill all things. This has absolutely nothing nothing to do with mary. The nations will come directly to Jesus. there will no need to go through mary. (actually they don't need to ho through Mary to Him now), but especially in the future. So you see there is a conflict. please think about what I am saying. first off, the Book of Revelation is about the future.

What I meant is that eternity takes place outside of time, and "future" is within time. We're not in eternity yet, that's why it says "the future": that's from our point of view. From God's point of view, it's "now".

Please try to understand that we believe that Mary points us to Jesus! That's exactly what I've been saying all along. So if you're arguing that point, keep in mind there's no argument we already agree there.

However, since she leads us to Jesus, we DO go 'through' her..with her..whatever you like to call it.

I'm sorry if I sound frustrated.. I just think we're going around in circles here..

 

[kisstheson]

TLF,

Yes I do believe mary is the mother of God but she is not the Tree of life spoken about in Revelations. You asked me about tense. lets took at the verse in context:



Revelation
Chapter 221 Then the angel showed me the river of life-giving water, 1 sparkling like crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of its street. On either side of the river grew the tree of life 2 that produces fruit twelve times a year, once each month; the leaves of the trees serve as medicine for the nations. 3 Nothing accursed will be found there anymore. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. 4 They will look upon his face, 3 and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 Night will be no more, nor will they need light from lamp or sun, for the Lord God shall give them light, and they shall reign forever and ever. 6 4 And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true, and the Lord, the God of prophetic spirits, sent his angel to show his servants what must happen soon." 7 5 "Behold, I am coming soon." 6 Blessed is the one who keeps the prophetic message of this book. 8 It is I, John, who heard and saw these things, and when I heard and saw them I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me. 9 But he said to me, "Don't! I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers the prophets and of those who keep the message of this book. Worship God." 10 Then he said to me, "Do not seal up the prophetic words of this book, for the appointed time 7 is near. 11 Let the wicked still act wickedly, and the filthy still be filthy. The righteous must still do right, and the holy still be holy." 12 "Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." 8 14 Blessed are they who wash their robes so as to have the right to the tree of life and enter the city 9 through its gates. 15 Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the unchaste, the murderers, the idol-worshipers, and all who love and practice deceit. 16 "I, Jesus, sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the root and offspring of David, 10 the bright morning star." 17 The Spirit and the bride 11 say, "Come." Let the hearer say, "Come." Let the one who thirsts come forward, and the one who wants it receive the gift of life-giving water. 18 I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book. 20 12 The one who gives this testimony says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen! Come, Lord Jesus! 21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all.

The book of revelations is a prophetic book as John clearly says in verse 19. It is a book about the future. This is what the word "prophetic" means. In revelation 4 the angel says "Come I will show you the things that are to take place." Actually what this chapter is talking about is the new Jerusalem which comes down out of Heaven as a bride prepared for her husband. Look up the previous chapter. It talks about God wiping every tear from our eyes so this is clearly talking about the future. As I already pointed out to Monica, which I'm waiting for her to address, there wil be no need for mary's intercession. We will not need to go to mary to bring us to Jesus That's why she can't be the tree of life in revelations. people will be comeing directly to Christ.There is no need for mary to "support" or "Bear" Christ because the fulness of Jesus is there.

Now THAT is the truth. Now whose picking and choosing what to believe?