Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Remember that the Catholic Church existed before one Word of the New Testament was written. When text was chosen by the Catholic Church any text that did not conform with Catholic teaching was rejected. Many truths, such as the Holy Trinity, are not explicitly stated in the Bible but are supported by Holy Scripture. The Angel Gabriel addresses Mary with the title of kecharitōmenē, of which there is no exact English translation. It means Mary was, in the past, embued with a full and everlasting grace. This supports the fact she is sinless. In Genesis the woman is associated with the crushing of the head of the Serpent (Satan) and we see that fulfilled in Revelation. Mary is an important part of salvation history. The first Eve sinned, the "new Eve," Mary, did not.

To call someone a name is a Jewish idiom, an expression, that identifies the essence of what a person is. I have remarked before about how many misinterpretations are caused by a lack of understanding of Jewish idioms. It makes no sense that Paul and Abraham would be referred to as spiritual "fathers" if the Word of God banned it. Let me ask, in the following passage, who do you think the word "fathers" refers to?

1 John 2:13-14 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. 14 I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one. RSVCE

We are not to use the word "father" as a title for someone other than an earthly paternal father. In 1 John 2:13-14, the word "fathers" is not being used as a title. John is not addressing someone as "Father" like one might address a Catholic priest as "Father" or "Father Bill." The prohibition against using "father" is as a title for those who are seeking respect due to an office or position of authority they hold. I will not address a Catholic priest as "father." I will simply use his name without a title. It is to guard against pride and presumption. It would be like me insisting everyone address me as "John Doe, Phd." It was given against the backdrop of the Pharisees insisting on being addressed with honorary titles and wearing fancy robes all to gain attention and demand respect. A true servant of the Lord doesn't care about titles. I can recall being at a hospital fundraiser for a Catholic hospital and the local bishop was there. They introduced him as something like "His Holy Reverend Bishop so-and-so." There is no need for such pomp.

As for Gabriel's greeting to Mary, the Greek word has been debated over and over again with Catholics seeing a different meaning in it that most others do.
Most of Catholic reasoning on Mary is just that - reasoning as opposed to Scripture. Huge emphasis is placed on this one Greek word and Jerome's Latin translation of it. Most non-Catholic scholars would NOT agree it means Mary was "in the past, embued with a full and everlasting grace." To build a doctrine that flies in the face of Scripture on one word is highly dangerous. I will hear quote what one scholar has written about that word:

the assertion that Mary was “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace” is what is being refuted by the able Doctor Luginbill,

Excerpts from responses:

Response #2
In Greek, any given verb can potentially have hundreds of different forms (depending upon how one counts these). Therefore in any highly inflected language – like Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and virtually all of the ancient languages – trying to carry this concept which rightly belongs to core words over to individual forms is ludicrous. The word charitoo is not a true "hapax" in the Bible because it occurs more than 'once' (which is what hapax means), and because of the wide variety of forms any verb or substantive in Greek can manifest it makes no sense to apply this term to an individual form of a word and call it a "hapax"
...
1) "all possible grace" - there is nothing in the root of the verb to introduce the idea of "all possible", and the perfect tense most assuredly does not lend to the base meaning of a verb the idea of perfection implied in the words "all possible".
2) "past present and future" - the perfect tense doesn't say anything about the future; it expresses a present result based upon past action, that is all; the past action does not have to begin at 'the earliest possible time', just prior to the point in question, and, indeed, there is nothing in the verb form to indicate the time of commencement (just as in English, "I have been studying Greek" could mean a week or a decade – but certainly doesn't necessitate one to understand "from conception");
3) "The reason Bible Scholars both Catholic and Protestants translate the way they do is so the translation is flowing" – there is quite a difference between "highly favored" and "Having been Graced with all Possible Grace both past present and future." No version, no dictionary, no serious scholar would ever dream of even interpreting kecharitomene in this way, let alone translating it that way. To do so would be to place one's only speculation in place of what the Greek actually says.
Response #5
Paragraph 1: charitoo is not an "intensified form". When a root is turned into a verb using the omicron contract suffix, it makes the root factitive (i.e., to "make/cause" the idea in the root), not "intensive"; e.g., a mastinx in Greek is a "whip"; mastigoo means "to whip". Hence, since charis means "favor", charitoo means "to bestow favor". In the passive voice as we have in Luke 1:28, it means "having been the recipient of favored bestowed"; as this is an infelicitous phrase in English, the various versions both ancient and modern have attempted smooth out the expression in various ways but, sadly, have often contributed to the misunderstanding of the passage. What this participle means is that Mary "has been the recipient of divine favor". Now it is beyond question a wonderful compliment to be addressed as someone characterized by God's grace/favor, but 1) the passive voice and perfect tense make clear that this is a gift coming from God, not some inherent quality for which she is being recognized; and 2) doesn't have anything to do with sin whatsoever, either the presence or the lack of it – that concept is just not present at all as anyone with a dictionary can easily determine.
...
Paragraph 3: ... there are hundreds upon hundreds of perfect tense forms in the NT alone, and none of them does anything similar to what correspondent is claiming for this one. To use correspondent's specious analogy, saying a building "has been built" does not mean that the building is "perfect and free from fault in any way" (the structural equivalent of being immaculate) – not to mention the fact that a building is a unit of which we have a certain expectation of completeness which is not true of most other things so that any idea of completeness comes from your correspondent's clever choice of vocabulary and not from the verb form. If I "have been loved" by someone, for example, that in no way would even suggest to any rational person that I had been the recipient of "perfect love". Likewise, the Greek perfect merely indicates a present state: "You, Mary, who are the current beneficiary of God's grace". This is a wonderful thing, but does not make Mary singularly unique (and certainly not sinlessly perfect).
Paragraph 4:.. There is and remains not the slightest indication from word kecharitomene of any trace of sinlessness, at least not in text of Luke 1:28. That issue is simply not to be found anywhere in the context, the word, the root, the tense, the voice or the form of the verb in question – or anywhere else in the Bible.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

No, I've proved that "all" does NOT refer to every individual in this case. Newborns have NOT sinned. It is simply a way of speaking, as with all of Judea going out to see John the Baptist. The point of that Biblical passage is not to say that every Roman official in Judea went to see John the Baptist and was baptized. Nor the passage about none being righteous, there are righteous people in the Bible. I understand you were taught Mary sinned, but if you can look at it objectively you will realize there is no support of that claim in the Bible.

That is your contention, yes, but you have only proved it to yourself. I have already provided my counter. Newborns are counted as sinners. They don't have to actually sin by an act of the will. They are born sinners. "All have sinned" is not a general way of speaking as your other references are. It is a very specific statement about the sinful state of man from birth.

 

[Valletta]

That is your contention, yes, but you have only proved it to yourself. I have already provided my counter. Newborns are counted as sinners. They don't have to actually sin by an act of the will. They are born sinners. "All have sinned" is not a general way of speaking as your other references are. It is a very specific statement about the sinful state of man from birth.

Newborns have not sinned. The Bible says "have sinned" not "are sinners." Don't try and change the Word of God. You consider "all have sinned" as not being a general statement yet "none are righteous" is not a general statement to you. In summary, you are willing to change the actual Word of God to comply with your belief and also take similar statements and have one statement (and not the rest) be 'specific" in order to comply with your belief.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Newborns have not sinned. The Bible says "have sinned" not "are sinners." Don't try and change the Word of God. You consider "all have sinned" as not being a general statement yet "none are righteous" is not a general statement to you. In summary, you are willing to change the actual Word of God to comply with your belief and also take similar statements and have one statement (and not the rest) be 'specific" in order to comply with your belief.

“I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm 51)

How could David have been "brought forth in iniquity" and "in sin" if he had not yet sinned? David is not merely saying he was born with a sin nature. He is saying he was born guilty of sin. Why? We have all sinned in Adam.

Turn to Romans chapter 5. Read the entire chapter. Verse 12, sin entered the world through one man - Adam. Sin and death came to "all people, because all sinned." This includes babies. Verse 14, "death reigned...even over those who did not sin by breaking a command..." (emphasis mine). Back to verse 12, sin leads to death and death comes to all people. Verse 14, death comes to even those who did not sin which includes babies. Why? Verse 12 again, "sin entered the world through one man." Adam brought sin upon the entire human race. All men are born in sin. It not only applies to babies but to Mary as well.

You have to interpret that verse in the context of all of Scripture.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

It's an office. The presidency of George Washington is a lot different that the presidency of today, you could say it changed, a better word than "evolved," although the Constitution AUTHORITY is very much the same. Now an underground Catholic Church persecuted by the Roman Empire
is quite a change from a Catholic Church allowed to freely practice religion, for example, calling a council would no longer be a problem. Thus controversies could more easily be settled.



Jesus used words paralleling Isaiah 22 in giving Rock (Peter) the keys of the kingdom. In Isaiah, when the office of prime minister is vacant a new prime minister is chosen:
Isaiah 22:15-25 Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: 16 What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock? 17 Behold, the Lord will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you, 18 and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house. 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. 25 In that day, says the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken.” RSVCE

Also when the Apostle Judas died a new Apostle was chosen in his place:
Acts 1:12-26 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away; 13 and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. 14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.[a]
15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. 18 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong[b] he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel′dama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘Let his habitation become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;
and‘His office let another take.’
21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”[c] 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab′bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi′as. 24 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi′as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles. RSVCE

I have written about the "keys" before:

The account in Isaiah is about a real person who was being elevated in his role due to the failures and attitude of his predecessor. It was a government position as you described. The "key" he was given was nothing new. It was the normal responsibilities that went with that office.

Nothing in this account ties it to Peter and nothing in the Matthew account ties it back to this account except for the mention of keys. If there is a tie to anyone it is to Jesus as seen in Revelation 3:7. It is Jesus who has the key of David, not Peter. Keys can also be used in a non-judicial or administrative sense as I believe is the case in Matthew.

To me (and many others), the understanding of the passage in Matthew is as follows. Peter was the first of the Apostles to understand and confess that Jesus is the Messiah something Jesus credits to God revealing it to him. That profession of faith, and what it implies, is the "key" or basis to becoming a believer. Peter, and the Apostles, disciples, and all of us, have the "key" to opening heaven to unbelievers. That key is the proclamation of the Gospel of which Peter and the other Apostles were the first to use. Peter, due to his great faith, was the first of the Apostles to preach the Gospel to the Jews (on the Day of Pentecost) and the first to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles (to Cornelius and his family). While he was first, the other Apostles were soon doing the same as the "key" was given to all. Peter was in many ways the leader of the Apostles but not in any formal way. In the same way we see the "loosening and binding" extended to all the Apostles.

In 1 Peter, Peter introduces himself as "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ...The elders therefore among you I exhort, who am a fellow elder." He does not introduce himself as the head of the church or the highest-ranking Apostle. He says he is a "fellow elder" not putting himself any higher than the men he is writing. I can't imagine any priest or bishop today publicly rebuking the Pope yet Paul did so to Peter when he was being a hypocrite. If Peter was in such an office as you imagine, Paul would certainly not have rebuked him publicly. He might have voiced concern privately but not in front of all to hear. That would show disrespect for Peter's office yet Peter does not charge Paul with disrespect. It was James who was the first bishop of Jerusalem, not Peter. We are not even certain Peter ever went to Rome but even if he did that doesn't mean he was ever the bishop of Rome. I cannot imagine such an important office being created and there is not one mention of it by any of the other books in the NT. Similar to Mary's supposed role. How can such important roles go unmentioned?

There are dozens of references in Scripture to Christ being "the rock." Christ Himself said the church was built on the foundation of the prophets and the Apostles with Himself being the chief cornerstone. He did not declare Peter to be the foundation of the church. Peter warned those he wrote who were in leadership not the lord their authority over others. Yet the Pope is addressed as "Holy Father" and Catholics kneel before him and kiss his ring (some his feet). Cardinals are addressed as "Your Eminence." Bishops as "Your Excellency." Jesus most often referred to Himself as the "Son of Man" though He could have rightly referred to Himself with any number of royal titles. We see no instructions in Scripture that the Apostles had to bow before Jesus and kiss His hand or feet. Some no doubt did prostrate themselves before the Lord, but because He is God and worthy of our worship. I will not even address a priest as "father." We are told in Scripture to not call anyone father except God or our earthly father. It is not to be used as a title yet it is what the Catholic church calls their priests. Paul wrote about deacons and elders, never priests. That's because priests were tied to the old sacrificial system which was done away with in Christ (read the book of Hebrews). We don't have priests anymore. I think that title was likely adopted because in so many pagan religions and in the OT you have priests. Some felt it was important to reuse that title to gain respect. When I address my pastor, I call him Steve which is his first name. I don't even say "pastor Steve." I have total respect for him and he does not take my calling him Steve as a slight. Where do you read of Peter or Paul wearing robes when teaching or among the faithful? In the OT, the robes and vestments were all part of the symbology done away with in Christ. We may see such things again in heaven, but they are not needed here on earth.

The "key" Peter and the Apostles were given, was the key to unlock heaven through the Gospel. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for having such a key and failing in their use of it. We have no mention of Peter having a special role in the early church. None of the NT writers, including Peter himself, refer to such a role. The Catholic church is overreaching in trying to use one small passage found in one Gospel (and can certainly be understood in other ways) to teach that Peter was installed in an office of the Pope and there are no instructions given that such an office be passed on to successors. I don't believe Catholics believe in the sign gifts like speaking in tongues. Those gifts were used in the birthing of the church but (I don't believe) as an ongoing gift. Peter might have had a prominent role among the Apostles, and also for the birthing of the church. We now have the Scriptures. They are the foundation of our faith and practice. It was men who invented or reused these other titles not found in Scripture. It was men who reinstituted a sacrificial "mass" when Jesus was the once and for-all sacrifice. Heaven is depicted as having twelve stones representing the twelve Apostles. No one stone is higher than the others or given more prestige. Peter was not the first Pope and there is no office of pope in the Bible. He was a godly man, with faults, but whom we can all relate to. He was a humble man who did not dress differently or was addressed by a title and no one had to kneel and kiss anything on him. These are pomp and ceremony added by men when we see nothing like it in the NT. A lot changed with Constantine. Suddenly the bishop of Rome wanted to act like an empower with titles and armies and getting involved in politics. Hardly like the Lord or Peter.

The account in Isaiah 22 is a prophecy concerning a change of office holders. A corrupt and prideful man will be replaced by a godly man named Eliakim. He is told he will have the "key of the house of David" layed on his shoulder. "So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open."

In the Matthew account, Jesus says he will "give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Take note of Isaiah 22:22, as Christ quotes it in the letter to the church at Philadelphia: “The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; so he shall open, and no one shall shut; and he shall shut, and no one shall open.” Eliakim's authority to “open . . . and shut” results from “the key of the house of David” being put “on his shoulder.” We can compare this with Isaiah 9:6-7, another Messianic prophecy:
For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (Emphasis ours throughout.)
The key of the house of David, then, represents God's governance, specifically His governance over Israel. The Bible even names the royal throne—the throne on which David and Solomon sat—as “the throne of the LORD” (I Chronicles 29:23; see II Chronicles 9:8)! God has sworn that David would always have an heir to sit on that throne (Jeremiah 33:17).
Thus, the key on Eliakim's shoulder represents the power of the government that would ultimately rest on the Messiah's shoulder. It involves the royal line of David and all the authority that resulted from God's covenant and promises to him. The Messiah would come from that same line, and He will sit on that throne when He returns and establishes His Kingdom (Isaiah 9:7).
In his position as second-in-command, Eliakim served as the ultimate gatekeeper, granting or denying access to the house of David at his discretion. He could open the door, and no one could shut it. Having the door opened meant access to the king's presence, and thus to the God-given authority and blessings of the royal line, as well as to all the resources of the treasury and storehouse. But if the steward shut the door, he blocked all of that access, and no one could overrule his decision.
It was a significant position. It is no wonder that God would not tolerate the likes of Shebna in it, who was more interested in his legacy and earthly pomp than fulfilling his office with gravity and faithfulness.

David C. Grabbe
The 'Open Door' of Philadelphia

Eliakim's office was a foreshadowing of Christ's office as the Messiah. In Revelation 3, the key of David is seen as being Christ's:

7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.
8 “ ‘I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut.

It is the Lord who is opening and shutting doors with the key of David. Not Peter. The question in the Matthew passage is what does that key represent? Keys can open many things. Just because Eliakim was in an office like a prime minister does not establish that any reference to a key must relate to that type of office. The clear tie is between Isaiah and Revelation where Eliakim is a sort of prefigure of the Messiah. Jesus told the Apostles (not just Peter) that they had the power to loosen and bind which is different than opening and shutting though both represent authority. In context, Peter is being given a key to opening and shutting heaven by the proclamation of the Gospel. There is no indication he is being given broader powers that apply only to him. Such an understanding would require additional Scriptural support. As pointed out previously, we have not a single additional verse confirming Peter had such powers. He is never depicted as being the head of the early church. No other NT writer describes him as having such authority. Catholics are building an entire theology around one word that lacks additional description and support. It lacks support in the NT.

 

[Valletta]

We are not to use the word "father" as a title for someone other than an earthly paternal father. In 1 John 2:13-14, the word "fathers" is not being used as a title.

Do you think he is only referring to biological fathers?

John is not addressing someone as "Father" like one might address a Catholic priest as "Father" or "Father Bill." The prohibition against using "father" is as a title for those who are seeking respect due to an office or position of authority they hold. I will not address a Catholic priest as "father." I will simply use his name without a title.

Most of Catholic reasoning on Mary is just that - reasoning as opposed to Scripture. Huge emphasis is placed on this one Greek word and Jerome's Latin translation of it.

1 Corinthians 4;14-15, “I am not writing this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

As I have explained, it is a Jewish idiom. That idiom portrays the essence of a person. This is why "father" is used in such cases as the aforementioned passage. I know you are serious. To me, a Catholic, your explanation that other usages are just fine but the way Catholics use it is not, is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It is sad that so much effort goes into somehow trying to prove Catholics wrong.

As for Gabriel's greeting to Mary, the Greek word has been debated over and over again with Catholics seeing a different meaning in it that most others do.
Most of Catholic reasoning on Mary is just that - reasoning as opposed to Scripture. Huge emphasis is placed on this one Greek word and Jerome's Latin translation of it. Most non-Catholic scholars would NOT agree it means Mary was "in the past, embued with a full and everlasting grace." To build a doctrine that flies in the face of Scripture on one word is highly dangerous. I will hear quote what one scholar has written about that word:

It is a complex word with multiple modifiers, so there is no exact translation, but any credible Protestant scholar, perhaps reluctantly, would admit that the root word means "grace." I am sure there are multiple opinions, but know that the word is used only once in the Bible--unique within the Bible as Mary is unique as the New Eve who did not sin and was involved in the defeat of the Serpent. Catholics and our Catholic Church take the whole of the Word of God into account. Theologians use the mind God gave them to prayerfully, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to best interpret the Word of God. It is not secret that Protestants came up with thousands of difference interpretations for the Word of God--hence so many denominations. I have also posted on how the Bible states that Mary was particularly blessed because she did God's will, and on Mary's role as the New Eve, first depicted in Genesis and finally in Revelation. Saint Irenaeus wrote of this around 180 A.D.:

"In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word. Luke 1:38 But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise they were both naked, and were not ashamed, Genesis 2:25 inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty" Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 22) circa 180 A.D.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.22 (St. Irenaeus)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

 

[David Lamb]

I understand, you think in terms of saving those who have sinned, In Mary's case she was saved, but not from an sins she committed, she was saved by God preventing her from sinning.

Jude 24-25 Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, 25 to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. Amen.
RSVCE

As has been noted, the Bible speaks of the "woman" in Genesis and later in Revelation:

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her seed;
he shall bruise your head,[a]
and you shall bruise his heel.” RSVCE

Revelation 12:1-5 [a]And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. 3 And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. 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; 5 she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. RSVCE

Yes, you understand correctly that I believe Jesus saves people from their sins. That was what the Angel said to Joseph, that His name would be Jesus because He would save His people from their sins. We don't read of anybody not having any sins to be saved from because Jesus has prevented them from sinning. You have to assume that Mary was sinless to believe that when she said "my Saviour", she meant "the One Who has kept me from ever sinning." Those verses from Jude were not written to Mary, and nor are they saying that the people to who they were addressed were sinless. Yes, the verses from Genesis speak about the seed of the woman, but the seed is Jesus Himself, not Mary. Those verses say nothing about Mary being sinless.

The verses from Revelation don't mention or allude to Mary being sinless.

 

[Valletta]

Yes, you understand correctly that I believe Jesus saves people from their sins. That was what the Angel said to Joseph, that His name would be Jesus because He would save His people from their sins. We don't read of anybody not having any sins to be saved from because Jesus has prevented them from sinning. You have to assume that Mary was sinless to believe that when she said "my Saviour", she meant "the One Who has kept me from ever sinning." Those verses from Jude were not written to Mary, and nor are they saying that the people to who they were addressed were sinless. Yes, the verses from Genesis speak about the seed of the woman, but the seed is Jesus Himself, not Mary. Those verses say nothing about Mary being sinless.

The verses from Revelation don't mention or allude to Mary being sinless.

In Genesis Eve falls to sin, in Revelation the "new Eve" does not.

 

[David Lamb]

In Genesis Eve falls to sin, in Revelation the "new Eve" does not.

In Revelation, there is no mention of a "new Eve". Anyway, I don't know which particular part of Revelation you are referring to, but a lot of the book deals with things happening in heaven, where there is no sin. The people who go to heaven are sinners who have been saved by Jesus Christ.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

In Genesis Eve falls to sin, in Revelation the "new Eve" does not.

"In accordance with this design,
Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word. Luke 1:38 But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise they were both naked, and were not ashamed, Genesis 2:25 inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation , both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty"
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 22) circa 180 A.D.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.22 (St. Irenaeus)​

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.
www.newadvent.org

This quote from Irenaeus reflects the Catholic belief that Mary is the "New Eve." They see Mary as fulfilling that which Eve did not. By doing so they are seeking to make Mary a part of God's plan of redemption alongside Christ who is the "Second Adam."

The Bible does not use the term "the New Eve" nor is Mary called anything like that. Such a concept is not taught in Scripture and suffers from many flaws. Irenaeus' quote is representative of the forced nature of the parallels the Catholic church attempts to make between Mary and Eve.

They draw a parallel between Eve and Mary both being virgins when a test of faith was before them. Eve's test was to obey God and specifically not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Mary's test was to believe Gabriel and cooperate with God's plan for her. Irenaeus calls them both betrothed to a man. This is a bit disingenuous as the Jewish custom of betrothal came about thousands of years later. Adam and Eve had no marriage ceremony as there were only the two of them and God. They are written of as the first marriage but the customs surrounding Jewish marriage had not yet developed. There was as yet no nation of Israel or such a thing as a Jew. To say Eve was betrothed to Adam is to assign to her a Jewish custom that would not exist for centuries. Yes, they were both virgins but that, in and of itself, does not constitute a parallel between them. That they were in a relationship (Adam and Eve) prior to the verse that calls them married also means nothing as they were the only two people on earth and both located in the Garden. Calling that a betrothal is an argument of convenience to try and force a parallel.

To say Mary obeyed where Eve disobeyed is comparing apples to oranges. Eve disobeyed a general command given to both her and Adam. Mary's obedience was to a message given directly to her. Eve actively disobeyed God. Mary really didn't have a choice to make. God had already planned for her to become pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Her's was a choice of faith much like Sarai believing that God would allow her to bear a son in her old age. For those of us who don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, Mary would have no doubt sinned many times in her life prior to her encounter with Gabriel so why does this one response of faith make her a success where Eve failed? They both failed to avoid sin.

Irenaeus depicts Eve's disobedience as being the downfall of humanity yet the Bible focuses on Adam's sin as the downfall of humanity. He bears the blame for his and his wife's sin and it is through Adam mankind is fallen. The Bible does not ascribe that to Eve. The Bible calls Christ the "Second Adam" but calls no one the "Second Eve." It is the Second Adam who redeems us. Not a "Second Eve."

Eve was Adam's wife. Mary was not Jesus' wife. No parallel there. The Catholic church is trying to force parallels where there are none.

The Catholic Church also teaches that Mary is the woman depicted in Revelation 12. Let's look at the passage:

12 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. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”[a] And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

My first observation is that this passage says nothing about a "New Eve." Whoever you think the woman of Revelation 12 is, it doesn't call her a "New Eve." There have been different thoughts on who this woman is, but many scholars think the woman represents Israel, not Mary. The woman of Revelation 12 spends 1260 days "in the wilderness." Some parallel this with Mary and Joseph going to Egypt to avoid Herod. We don't know where they went in Egypt would be considered wilderness, but scholars' best estimate is that they were in Egypt 2-3 years or less. 1260 days is 4.9 years. Doesn't seem to be a parallel to Mary.

This passage says nothing about a "New Eve." It makes no reference to the first Eve.

These are attempts to paint Mary as being a "co-redemptrix." Note what Irenaeus wrote:

"by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation , both to herself and the whole human race."

Mary is not the "cause of salvation!" Only Jesus can save us:

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

Luke is referring to Jesus, not Mary. Mary is not the cause of salvation for herself or the whole human race! Her giving birth to Jesus does not make her the "cause of salvation."

Catholics don't care that they cannot establish these doctrines from Scripture as evidenced in this quote from Catholic Answers:

"Challenges that we must “prove” all Catholic doctrine from scripture shouldn’t worry us because we reject the unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura. When Cardinal Newman preached on the Mary’s Assumption and Immaculate Conception he gave evidence for those doctrines but he also said “I am not proving these doctrines to you, my brethren; the evidence of them lies in the declaration of the Church. The Church is the oracle of religious truth, and dispenses what the apostles committed to her in every time and place.”
(Is Mary the Woman in Revelation 12? | Catholic Answers Magazine)

This is the bottom line for Catholics. Scripture is what the Catholic church says it is and means what they say it means. They claim the Catholic church existed before Scripture did. No. The Christian church, which began on the day of Pentecost, existed before Scripture did but the Catholic church came centuries later and slowly departed from Scripture.

 

[Valletta]

"In accordance with this design,
Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word. Luke 1:38 But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise they were both naked, and were not ashamed, Genesis 2:25 inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation , both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty"
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 22) circa 180 A.D.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.22 (St. Irenaeus)​

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.
www.newadvent.org

This quote from Irenaeus reflects the Catholic belief that Mary is the "New Eve." They see Mary as fulfilling that which Eve did not. By doing so they are seeking to make Mary a part of God's plan of redemption alongside Christ who is the "Second Adam."

The Bible does not use the term "the New Eve" nor is Mary called anything like that. Such a concept is not taught in Scripture and suffers from many flaws. Irenaeus' quote is representative of the forced nature of the parallels the Catholic church attempts to make between Mary and Eve.

They draw a parallel between Eve and Mary both being virgins when a test of faith was before them. Eve's test was to obey God and specifically not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Mary's test was to believe Gabriel and cooperate with God's plan for her. Irenaeus calls them both betrothed to a man. This is a bit disingenuous as the Jewish custom of betrothal came about thousands of years later. Adam and Eve had no marriage ceremony as there were only the two of them and God. They are written of as the first marriage but the customs surrounding Jewish marriage had not yet developed. There was as yet no nation of Israel or such a thing as a Jew. To say Eve was betrothed to Adam is to assign to her a Jewish custom that would not exist for centuries. Yes, they were both virgins but that, in and of itself, does not constitute a parallel between them. That they were in a relationship (Adam and Eve) prior to the verse that calls them married also means nothing as they were the only two people on earth and both located in the Garden. Calling that a betrothal is an argument of convenience to try and force a parallel.

To say Mary obeyed where Eve disobeyed is comparing apples to oranges. Eve disobeyed a general command given to both her and Adam. Mary's obedience was to a message given directly to her. Eve actively disobeyed God. Mary really didn't have a choice to make. God had already planned for her to become pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Her's was a choice of faith much like Sarai believing that God would allow her to bear a son in her old age. For those of us who don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, Mary would have no doubt sinned many times in her life prior to her encounter with Gabriel so why does this one response of faith make her a success where Eve failed? They both failed to avoid sin.

Irenaeus depicts Eve's disobedience as being the downfall of humanity yet the Bible focuses on Adam's sin as the downfall of humanity. He bears the blame for his and his wife's sin and it is through Adam mankind is fallen. The Bible does not ascribe that to Eve. The Bible calls Christ the "Second Adam" but calls no one the "Second Eve." It is the Second Adam who redeems us. Not a "Second Eve."

Eve was Adam's wife. Mary was not Jesus' wife. No parallel there. The Catholic church is trying to force parallels where there are none.

The Catholic Church also teaches that Mary is the woman depicted in Revelation 12. Let's look at the passage:

12 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. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”[a] And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

My first observation is that this passage says nothing about a "New Eve." Whoever you think the woman of Revelation 12 is, it doesn't call her a "New Eve." There have been different thoughts on who this woman is, but many scholars think the woman represents Israel, not Mary. The woman of Revelation 12 spends 1260 days "in the wilderness." Some parallel this with Mary and Joseph going to Egypt to avoid Herod. We don't know where they went in Egypt would be considered wilderness, but scholars' best estimate is that they were in Egypt 2-3 years or less. 1260 days is 4.9 years. Doesn't seem to be a parallel to Mary.

This passage says nothing about a "New Eve." It makes no reference to the first Eve.

These are attempts to paint Mary as being a "co-redemptrix." Note what Irenaeus wrote:

"by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation , both to herself and the whole human race."

Mary is not the "cause of salvation!" Only Jesus can save us:

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

Luke is referring to Jesus, not Mary. Mary is not the cause of salvation for herself or the whole human race! Her giving birth to Jesus does not make her the "cause of salvation."

Catholics don't care that they cannot establish these doctrines from Scripture as evidenced in this quote from Catholic Answers:

"Challenges that we must “prove” all Catholic doctrine from scripture shouldn’t worry us because we reject the unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura. When Cardinal Newman preached on the Mary’s Assumption and Immaculate Conception he gave evidence for those doctrines but he also said “I am not proving these doctrines to you, my brethren; the evidence of them lies in the declaration of the Church. The Church is the oracle of religious truth, and dispenses what the apostles committed to her in every time and place.”
(Is Mary the Woman in Revelation 12? | Catholic Answers Magazine)

This is the bottom line for Catholics. Scripture is what the Catholic church says it is and means what they say it means. They claim the Catholic church existed before Scripture did. No. The Christian church, which began on the day of Pentecost, existed before Scripture did but the Catholic church came centuries later and slowly departed from Scripture.

Actually the Catholic Church has formally stated positions on Biblical passages over the almost 2000 years of the Church a number of times which is in the single digits. A common Catholic approach, which I make a habit of when picking up a Bible, is to first pray to the Holy Spirit for discernment. Not too many years ago I attended a class on the Book of Job at our parish. The deacon gave us the historical background, and once we read the homework passages we came back for discussion groups and I was struck by the extremely wide versions of interpretations. Certainly not all Catholics should be lumped together for Bible interpretation. While the early Gospels were used by Catholics at mass not long after they were written, other books used for mass readings varied from location to location. The Catholic Church set out to determine which books were God-breathed, and the process, which spanned centuries, was not completed until the 300s, when the canon of 73 books was established. You are correct in that the Catholic Church never adopted sola scriptura. In the 1300s William of Ockham and Marsilius of Padua followed an Arab theologian who taught the Kuran was the authority for the Muslim religion. Ockham and Marsilius promoted the concept of ceding power tp the Bible, this "Bible-only" concept, instead of having the final authority for decisions be the Catholic Church Magisterium. It eventually became quite popular among Protestants. As for Revelation, the term "woman" was used back in Genesis, and there is a strong connection between Genesis and Revelation. Almost all Christians can see Jesus depicted, the identity of the mother of Jesus who is depicted brings disagreement from a number of Christians such as yourself. The primary meaning to me is obviously Mary. Mary is a real woman and the real mother of Jesus, she wears clothes, and as the queen mother in the Davidic kingdom appropriately wears a crown. While there are twelve Apostles, I think the twelve stars in the crown also represent the twelve tribes of Israel. For me, there is enough to say that Israel is a second meaning. Such other layers of meaning do occur within the Bible. Those who can't see Mary at all make me wonder if that is because of an unconscious anti-Catholic bias.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Actually the Catholic Church has formally stated positions on Biblical passages over the almost 2000 years of the Church a number of times which is in the single digits. A common Catholic approach, which I make a habit of when picking up a Bible, is to first pray to the Holy Spirit for discernment. Not too many years ago I attended a class on the Book of Job at our parish. The deacon gave us the historical background, and once we read the homework passages we came back for discussion groups and I was struck by the extremely wide versions of interpretations. Certainly not all Catholics should be lumped together for Bible interpretation. While the early Gospels were used by Catholics at mass not long after they were written, other books used for mass readings varied from location to location. The Catholic Church set out to determine which books were God-breathed, and the process, which spanned centuries, was not completed until the 300s, when the canon of 73 books was established. You are correct in that the Catholic Church never adopted sola scriptura. In the 1300s William of Ockham and Marsilius of Padua followed an Arab theologian who taught the Kuran was the authority for the Muslim religion. Ockham and Marsilius promoted the concept of ceding power tp the Bible, this "Bible-only" concept, instead of having the final authority for decisions be the Catholic Church Magisterium. It eventually became quite popular among Protestants. As for Revelation, the term "woman" was used back in Genesis, and there is a strong connection between Genesis and Revelation. Almost all Christians can see Jesus depicted, the identity of the mother of Jesus who is depicted brings disagreement from a number of Christians such as yourself. The primary meaning to me is obviously Mary. Mary is a real woman and the real mother of Jesus, she wears clothes, and as the queen mother in the Davidic kingdom appropriately wears a crown. While there are twelve Apostles, I think the twelve stars in the crown also represent the twelve tribes of Israel. For me, there is enough to say that Israel is a second meaning. Such other layers of meaning do occur within the Bible. Those who can't see Mary at all make me wonder if that is because of an unconscious anti-Catholic bias.

Of course, one will give thought to Mary when reading that passage but regardless it does not make her a "New Eve" nor do any parallels between Genesis and Revelation. There is no "New Eve" nor a need for one. All there is, and all we need, is the "Second Adam" - Jesus Christ.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Actually the Catholic Church has formally stated positions on Biblical passages over the almost 2000 years of the Church a number of times which is in the single digits. A common Catholic approach, which I make a habit of when picking up a Bible, is to first pray to the Holy Spirit for discernment. Not too many years ago I attended a class on the Book of Job at our parish. The deacon gave us the historical background, and once we read the homework passages we came back for discussion groups and I was struck by the extremely wide versions of interpretations. Certainly not all Catholics should be lumped together for Bible interpretation. While the early Gospels were used by Catholics at mass not long after they were written, other books used for mass readings varied from location to location. The Catholic Church set out to determine which books were God-breathed, and the process, which spanned centuries, was not completed until the 300s, when the canon of 73 books was established. You are correct in that the Catholic Church never adopted sola scriptura. In the 1300s William of Ockham and Marsilius of Padua followed an Arab theologian who taught the Kuran was the authority for the Muslim religion. Ockham and Marsilius promoted the concept of ceding power tp the Bible, this "Bible-only" concept, instead of having the final authority for decisions be the Catholic Church Magisterium. It eventually became quite popular among Protestants. As for Revelation, the term "woman" was used back in Genesis, and there is a strong connection between Genesis and Revelation. Almost all Christians can see Jesus depicted, the identity of the mother of Jesus who is depicted brings disagreement from a number of Christians such as yourself. The primary meaning to me is obviously Mary. Mary is a real woman and the real mother of Jesus, she wears clothes, and as the queen mother in the Davidic kingdom appropriately wears a crown. While there are twelve Apostles, I think the twelve stars in the crown also represent the twelve tribes of Israel. For me, there is enough to say that Israel is a second meaning. Such other layers of meaning do occur within the Bible. Those who can't see Mary at all make me wonder if that is because of an unconscious anti-Catholic bias.

Actually Augustine, born in 354 AD, quoted Jerome in saying:

I admit to your Charity that it is from those books alone of the Scriptures, which are now called canonical, that I have learned to pay them such honor and respect as to believe most firmly that not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all. If I do find anything in those books which seems contrary to truth, I decide that either the text is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it. But, when I read other authors, however eminent they may be in sanctity and learning, I do not necessarily believe a thing is true because they think so, but because they have been able to convince me, either on the authority of the canonical writers or by a probable reason which is not inconsistent with truth. And I think that you, my brother, feel the same way; moreover, I say, I do not believe that you want your books to be read as if they were those of Prophets or Apostles, about whose writings, free of all error, it is unlawful to doubt. (emphasis added)

Augustine put the written word above any other writings or teachings. This was a thousand years before Ockham but does not tell us if Jerome originated the belief. Sola Scriptura did not start in the 1300s as an idea borrowed from a Muslim. Since both Catholics and Protestants believe the Bible to be the Word of God and inerrant, it must be the test of all teaching as Jerome said. Catholics like to argue from silence, namely that not everything the Apostles taught was written down and the Catholic church alone is the depository of these unwritten teachings and when they contradict Scripture we are told to believe the RCC since they alone have the authority to interpret and teach Scripture. With the Reformers, I protest.

Quotation above from:

Parsons, Wilfrid, ed. (1951). Letters, Volume 1 (1-82). Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. p. 392. ISBN 9780813215563.

 

[Valletta]

Actually Augustine, born in 354 AD, quoted Jerome in saying:

I admit to your Charity that it is from those books alone of the Scriptures, which are now called canonical, that I have learned to pay them such honor and respect as to believe most firmly that not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all. If I do find anything in those books which seems contrary to truth, I decide that either the text is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it. But, when I read other authors, however eminent they may be in sanctity and learning, I do not necessarily believe a thing is true because they think so, but because they have been able to convince me, either on the authority of the canonical writers or by a probable reason which is not inconsistent with truth. And I think that you, my brother, feel the same way; moreover, I say, I do not believe that you want your books to be read as if they were those of Prophets or Apostles, about whose writings, free of all error, it is unlawful to doubt. (emphasis added)

Augustine put the written word above any other writings or teachings. This was a thousand years before Ockham but does not tell us if Jerome originated the belief. Sola Scriptura did not start in the 1300s as an idea borrowed from a Muslim. Since both Catholics and Protestants believe the Bible to be the Word of God and inerrant, it must be the test of all teaching as Jerome said. Catholics like to argue from silence, namely that not everything the Apostles taught was written down and the Catholic church alone is the depository of these unwritten teachings and when they contradict Scripture we are told to believe the RCC since they alone have the authority to interpret and teach Scripture. With the Reformers, I protest.

Quotation above from:

Parsons, Wilfrid, ed. (1951). Letters, Volume 1 (1-82). Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. p. 392. ISBN 9780813215563.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church expresses it this way:
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

 

[Valletta]

Of course, one will give thought to Mary when reading that passage but regardless it does not make her a "New Eve" nor do any parallels between Genesis and Revelation. There is no "New Eve" nor a need for one. All there is, and all we need, is the "Second Adam" - Jesus Christ.

Mary is referred to as "woman" a number of times in the Bible, pointing back to Genesis and Eve. Remember how John 1 points back to Genesis? John 2 then begins:

1 On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; 2 Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. 3 When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me?[a] My hour has not yet come.” RSVCE

Remember that ALL of Scripture is profitable. With that in mind, note Jesus doesn't call Mary "mother" or even "Mary," Jesus calls her "woman." And Jesus uses the Jewish idiom "What have you to do with me?" which shows deference and respect to Mary.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Mary is referred to as "woman" a number of times in the Bible, pointing back to Genesis and Eve. Remember how John 1 points back to Genesis? John 2 then begins:

1 On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; 2 Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. 3 When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me?[a] My hour has not yet come.” RSVCE

Remember that ALL of Scripture is profitable. With that in mind, note Jesus doesn't call Mary "mother" or even "Mary," Jesus calls her "woman." And Jesus uses the Jewish idiom "What have you to do with me?" which shows deference and respect to Mary.

Jesus addressing Mary as "woman" was, as you say, not a sign of disrespect but a common way of addressing women at that time and in that language. To claim it as a reference back to Genesis is a stretch. The Genesis passage is using the term "woman" (and in a different language) to indicate that the person being spoken of would be a woman (i.e. female). That is totally different that addressing an individual with a name as "woman." The second case is an address in Aramaic that came about centuries later. You cannot equate an Aramaic way of addressing a woman with a gender designation in Hewbrew thousands of years earlier and call that a parallel.

It is interesting what some early church fathers wrote on this passage:

Ver. 4.—And Jesus saith, What is it to Me and to thee, &c. Meaning, What have I to do with thee in this matter? (Quid mihi tecum in hac re est negotii?) Observe, the Blessed Virgin did not out of ostentation, or in an untimely, unbecoming, or indiscreet fashion ask this miracle of her Son, as St. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius think: but out of necessary charity and piety, as SS. Cyril, Bernard, and others say. Therefore there was no blame attaching to her. Therefore Christ did not really blame her. And yet He seems to reprove her, that He might teach, not her, but us, that in things pertaining to God, and miracles, parents have no right or authority. They must not be done in accordance with their affections and desires, but only for God and charity’s sake. The meaning, therefore, is this,

Thou, O Mother, in this matter, art not My Mother, but as it were another woman. For, from thee I have received human nature, not Divinity. It belongs to My Divine nature to work this miracle, not in accordance with thy desires, and those of relations, but in accordance with the will of God My Father. According to that will I shall work, when the hour and time decreed by God shall come.

Hear St. Augustine on this passage:

The word woman is used simply to express the female sex.

Euthymius says:

He, as God, said not ‘Mother,’ but ‘woman.’

St. Bede says:

He means that He had not received in time from His Mother the Divinity by which He was about to perform a miracle, but that He had It eternally from the Father.

The Interlinear Gloss says:

He means to say, “What is there in common between My Divinity and thee My Mother according to the flesh?”

St. Augustine says:

Thou didst not beget, or produce (genuisti) My Divinity, which works the miracle.

St. Chrysostom adds:

He speaks thus, lest the miracle should seem to be the result of collusion. He should have been asked by those who needed the wine, not by His Mother.

Of course, these are just their opinions but their comments bear two interesting observations. One, they see in Jesus' words a reminder that He is divine and His divinity does not come from her therefore it is not up to her when He exercises His divine powers. These are early church writers who see a clear distinction between what Mary provided, Jesus' humanity, and what the Holy Spirit provided, His divinity. His divine nature came not from Mary which eliminates any need for her to have been sinless. Second, as Augustine said, the term "woman" is often used simply to refer to one's gender which argues against the term being a title throughout Scripture used to describe the same person (i.e. Mary).

Those are the words and thoughts of men which I do not put on par with Scripture but the RCC often refers back to early church writings (at least ones they agree with) as evidence they continue the Apostolic teaching. Here are some of those same early writers weakening one such RC position.

Quotes from: Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, S.J Commentary on John

 

[Valletta]

As I said, John is using language pointing back to Genesis, and continues with Mary being addressed as "woman," just like Eve in Genesis. He used a Jewish idiom in deference to Mary. You see, Mary is an important part of salvation history. Jesus calls Mary "woman" not just again in Revelation, but also when Jesus is on the cross. The first Eve sinned by eating from the tree, at the cross Jesus is raised up on a tree to save us all.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

As I said, John is using language pointing back to Genesis, and continues with Mary being addressed as "woman," just like Eve in Genesis. He used a Jewish idiom in deference to Mary. You see, Mary is an important part of salvation history. Jesus calls Mary "woman" not just again in Revelation, but also when Jesus is on the cross. The first Eve sinned by eating from the tree, at the cross Jesus is raised up on a tree to save us all.

As I previously wrote, in Genesis and Revelation, the word "woman" is used to denote a female:

"And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.” (Genesis 3:15)

The woman in Genesis 3:15 is Eve and it is an offspring of hers (though generations later) that will crush Satan. God could have said "I will put enmity between you and Eve..." but God never addresses Eve by name. She is always referred to as "the woman." In fact, it is not until verse 20 we are told Adam named his wife Eve. So how else would God have referred to her? She did not yet have a name.

"A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun" (Genesis 12:1)

All we are told is that a woman appeared in heaven. She is not named. John could have said "Mary clothed with the sun" but does not identify the woman. John knew Mary and could have named her but only says "a woman." Naturally, it would be a woman, even if said metaphorically, because only women give birth. One could just as convincingly argue that Israel "gave birth to a son" (i.e. the Messiah). Revelation is full of imagery and figurative language.

“Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem." (John 4:21)

Here, Jesus addresses the Samaritan woman at the well as "woman." I hear no one suggesting she is Mary, or this ties her back to the "woman" in Genesis or the "woman" in Revelation. It was a common way to address a woman and not as harsh as it might sound to our ears today. In fact, Jesus addresses a woman as "woman" 7 times in the NT including Mary his mother (twice), Mary Magdalene, the woman caught in adultery, the Samaritan woman at the well, the crippled woman in Luke 13:10-17, and the Canaanite woman in 15:21-28. Calling his mother Mary "woman" is hardly a unique occurrence nor does that tie it to the gender designation in the Genesis and Revelation passages. This attempts to draw a parallel where there is none in Scripture. It may be RC teaching that these passages tie together but that cannot be established from Scripture.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

As I said, John is using language pointing back to Genesis, and continues with Mary being addressed as "woman," just like Eve in Genesis. He used a Jewish idiom in deference to Mary. You see, Mary is an important part of salvation history. Jesus calls Mary "woman" not just again in Revelation, but also when Jesus is on the cross. The first Eve sinned by eating from the tree, at the cross Jesus is raised up on a tree to save us all.

Also, the fact that even sinned by eating the fruit of a tree and Jesus died on a cross made from the wood of a tree is not proof of any parallel. Most fruit grows on trees and wood has long been a common building material. The Romans could have constructed crosses out of metal but that would have been too costly and metal was needed for more important things. There is no certain symbology here.

 

[JoeT]

So why did she need a Saviour? In the "Magnificat" she said:

“My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.” (Lu 1:46-47 NKJV)

You don't have a sin nature nor did Mary. Given her justification at conception (kecharitomene, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." according to Blass and DeBrunner,), she never knew sin. Thus she never experienced 'disordered desires'.

JoeT