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

[Valletta]

Jesus also told us to "Go and make disciples" which involves teaching more than the Gospel. The reason I favor teaching through whole books of the Bible is that all of Scripture is profitable for everyone. I don't want to pick and choose what people hear and are taught. T

Jesus and his Apostles picked and chose what people needed to be taught. There is nothing wrong in trying to follow this example. You choose where to start when you open up the Bible. Now the Catholic Church set the order of the books of the Bible and as your tradition you have adopted the Catholic order for your Bible. But you don't always start at the beginning. It just seems to me like you work very hard to find fault with all kinds of Catholic approaches. There in no one "right way." In an attempt to read the whole Bible I personally prefer to start with the New Testament, if I start with the OT I tend to lose focus in Numbers.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Jesus and his Apostles picked and chose what people needed to be taught. There is nothing wrong in trying to follow this example. You choose where to start when you open up the Bible. Now the Catholic Church set the order of the books of the Bible and as your tradition you have adopted the Catholic order for your Bible. But you don't always start at the beginning. It just seems to me like you work very hard to find fault with all kinds of Catholic approaches. There in no one "right way." In an attempt to read the whole Bible I personally prefer to start with the New Testament, if I start with the OT I tend to lose focus in Numbers.

The order of the books is not important, and many different orders have been proposed and found in different manuscripts. I don't consider the order established by the RCC, but again, the order is not important, and I don't always read the books in order. I have read the NT more times than I have read the OT, but I have read the OT completely at least 4-5 times. I have read some books of the OT many more times. Since we are no longer under the ceremonial law, reading through the detailed instructions is no longer of great value, although they are important for historical context and understanding some references in the NT, which is why I have read through them 4-5 times.

I am not advocating that every time you open the Bible, you have to start in Genesis and read through to Revelation. I do believe it is profitable for every Christian to do that at least once in their life. I mostly advocate that you read the Bible and whole books as often as possible to get the whole of each author's message. If you were to just read Romans 8, without reading the chapters that preceded it, you might miss Paul's argument and get sidetracked. There are many other examples like that.

My main concern with the RC approach is that they do not teach all of Scripture and focus mostly on application (which is great) but tend to skip over doctrine. The same is true of some Protestant churches. In terms of personal preference, I do not like liturgical approaches. I understand their value in the centuries before the printing press and the general availability of personal Bibles, but now nearly everyone can own a Bible. As you wrote, there is no "one right way," so I favor flexibility and variety. Instead of always sticking to the same order of things and using the same prayers and written words, vary it. The Our Father was a sample prayer meant to illustrate the important elements of prayer. A million or billions of different prayers could follow its formula. We remember it because it is a prayer the Lord spoke, but He meant it as an example for His disciples who asked him to "teach us how to pray." That is why I previously said a Catholic priest could pray in their own words and still convey the same meaning of the prayers they read. While the prayers they read have a long history, there is nothing sacred about the exact words. I have visited Protestant liturgical churches and not cared much for the formality and adherence to structure, but they still tend to feature more in-depth teaching than you get in the RCC, which I think is vital.

Most Catholics I know never pick up a Bible or have read it in its entirety or even read the entire NT. Many don't even own a Bible. We are blessed to live in a day and age where the Bible is readily available. You can easily buy one or even read it online. I go to church, and most people carry a Bible and follow along in their Bibles during the sermon. We are taught a love for the Word of God and encouraged to read it on our own and study it. Paul commended the believers in Berea for being "noble-minded" and checking out his teaching to make sure it was accurate and true to the OT. You have to know your Scriptures to be able to do that. They did not all own personal copies of the OT. They could hold Paul accountable because they heard the OT Scriptures so many times and studied them. Today, we have the ability to do even better, as we own a Bible. We can read along in church and go back over what was taught at home and judge if the preacher was teaching the truth.

My issues with the RCC are not it's approaches but its theology.

 

[rturner76]

Whatever people's afterthought religion tells them Mary is the Queen of heaven having given birth to the risen Christ. Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Respect that.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Whatever people's afterthought religion tells them Mary is the Queen of heaven having given birth to the risen Christ. Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Respect that.

Mary is never called the "Queen of Heaven" nor does her being the mother of Jesus make her that. There is no queen in heaven. Just a king.

 

[Jan001]

"Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us." - the same could be said of Stephen.

Stephen "being full of grace"
Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.

And in Stephen's case it is not just "full of grace" but "full of grace AND power"!

And what is true of Christ is that He was incarnated -- not procreated. Which is true of Christ alone - not any other human.

This is not a slam against Mary, or Stephen or Jesus. It is just what the Bible teaches.

Those who suggest that Christ could not be sinless unless His mother was born sinless - somehow grant His mother to be sinless without her mother having to also be sinless. Have they thought that through? Is something missing from their proposal?

Good thing we have Mary calling Christ her Savior. It is sinful humanity that needs a Savior - and praise God we have one.

Christ's response to being confronted with "blessed be Mary" was... "on the contrary"
Luke 11:27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried You, and the breasts at which You nursed!” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and follow it.”

================================

BTW - It is not very helpful to claim that anyone who differs with this post is attacking Mary, or Jesus or Stephen. That kind of statement proves nothing.

In order for Jesus to be sinless, his mother had to be sinless. She cannot give her son what she does not have.

God saved Mary from inheriting Adam's sin at the instant of her conception so that her DNA would be as pure as Eve's was at the time of her creation. Mary's DNA had to be pure in order for Jesus' DNA to be pure.

 

[Jan001]

Mary is never called the "Queen of Heaven" nor does her being the mother of Jesus make her that. There is no queen in heaven. Just a king.

Jesus is the last and therefore eternal King in the line of David, and so his mother as all mothers of kings in the line of David were before her, automatically the queen of all her son's kingdom for as long as he is the king. Mary is now sitting at the right hand of Jesus as queen of all his kingdom.

1 Kings 2:19 So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. The king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right.

 

[Jan001]

My issues with the RCC are not it's approaches but its theology.

First of all, the official name of our church is "Catholic Church." I belong to the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. There are several different rites in communion with the Catholic Church. Most people today do call the largest rite of the Catholic Church the RCC, even Catholics.

I agree that there are many lazy Catholic Christians who do not read the Bible and some do not live a godly life. Shame on them!

Our home had Bibles in it when I was growing up. I will always remember the first time I read the Book of Revelation. It was during a thunderstorm. Scary!

What CC, Roman Rite (RCC) theology do you have issues with?

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

In order for Jesus to be sinless, his mother had to be sinless. She cannot give her son what she does not have.

God saved Mary from inheriting Adam's sin at the instant of her conception so that her DNA would be as pure as Eve's was at the time of her creation. Mary's DNA had to be pure in order for Jesus' DNA to be pure.

Our sin nature is not a "thing" nor is it contained within our DNA. Our spirit comes from God. Not from our parents. Jesus' spirit is unique because it is divine. Besides, if Mary's DNA had to be pure for Jesus to be born without the ability to sin, then why didn't Mary's parents have to have pure DNA? If God could save Mary from inheriting Adam's sin at the instant of her conception, then why couldn't He have saved Jesus in the same way? You are claiming God made a special exception for Mary because no Catholic claims her parents were without sin. By your logic, one could ask how Mary's parents could give their daughter what they did not have. Sin, though, is not genetic. It is not contained in the human DNA. After Adam and Eve sinned, God did not change their DNA to pass on a sin nature. Sin is not a tangible or physical thing. Sin is a failure to obey God. It is spiritual, not physical. Humanity was tainted by Adam's sin, but while Jesus is fully human, His spirit is divine. He does not have the same spiritual nature the rest of us do. Since our spiritual nature does not come from our parents, Mary's spiritual nature had no bearing on Jesus'.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

First of all, the official name of our church is "Catholic Church." I belong to the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. There are several different rites in communion with the Catholic Church. Most people today do call the largest rite of the Catholic Church the RCC, even Catholics.

I agree that there are many lazy Catholic Christians who do not read the Bible and some do not live a godly life. Shame on them!

Our home had Bibles in it when I was growing up. I will always remember the first time I read the Book of Revelation. It was during a thunderstorm. Scary!

What CC, Roman Rite (RCC) theology do you have issues with?

I differ with the Catholic (or RCC) church on salvation, the doctrines about Mary, the belief in Saints and praying to them or Mary, on transubstantiation, on penance, on Purgatory, on the Sacrament of Reconciliation, on infant baptism and what it means to Catholics, on Confirmation, and other things. I was born to a Catholic mother and was baptized and had First Communion and Confirmation. I attended the church for most of 24 years. I went to Catechism classes for every grade they had them.

We had an oversized gold soft-cover Catholic Bible on our coffee table in the living room. My Mom filled out the section reserved for writing down important dates for births, baptisms, etc. Other than that it was never opened or used. It sat there collecting dust until I opened it in the 9th grade and proceeded to read it cover-to-cover four times in a row. No one else in my family ever touched it.

 

[Jan001]

Our sin nature is not a "thing" nor is it contained within our DNA. Our spirit comes from God. Not from our parents. Jesus' spirit is unique because it is divine. Besides, if Mary's DNA had to be pure for Jesus to be born without the ability to sin, then why didn't Mary's parents have to have pure DNA? If God could save Mary from inheriting Adam's sin at the instant of her conception, then why couldn't He have saved Jesus in the same way? You are claiming God made a special exception for Mary because no Catholic claims her parents were without sin. By your logic, one could ask how Mary's parents could give their daughter what they did not have. Sin, though, is not genetic. It is not contained in the human DNA. After Adam and Eve sinned, God did not change their DNA to pass on a sin nature. Sin is not a tangible or physical thing. Sin is a failure to obey God. It is spiritual, not physical. Humanity was tainted by Adam's sin, but while Jesus is fully human, His spirit is divine. He does not have the same spiritual nature the rest of us do. Since our spiritual nature does not come from our parents, Mary's spiritual nature had no bearing on Jesus'.

Mary was perfected in every way at the instant of her conception as a special gift from God because she alone was chosen to give human life to his Son. Mary had to be without sin and without concupiscence at her conception in order for Jesus to be without sin and without concupiscence at his conception. A parent cannot pass down to her children what she herself does not possess.

Adam's sin had both spiritual and physical consequences.

Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. He was subjected to temptations just as we are today. He did not ever sin. We do sin.

Mark 1:13 He was in the wilderness for forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way, yet without sin.

Regarding DNA, Adam's DNA was damaged by his sin. That is why his descendants physically die even if they do not choose to die. Jesus chose to die as the reparation for Adam's sin in order to restore humanity to God. Jesus was not subject to death like we are. John 10:11, John 10:15, John 10:17

We all inherited concupiscence from the fall of Adam; however, Mary and Jesus did not.

concupiscence: Improper or illicit desire; sensual appetite; especially, lustful desire or feeling; sensuality; lust.​

Before the fall of Adam and Eve:

Genesis 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

After the fall of Adam and Eve:

Genesis 3:8-10 They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ 10 He said, ‘I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.’

​

 

[Jan001]

I differ with the Catholic (or RCC) church on salvation, the doctrines about Mary, the belief in Saints and praying to them or Mary, on transubstantiation, on penance, on Purgatory, on the Sacrament of Reconciliation, on infant baptism and what it means to Catholics, on Confirmation, and other things. I was born to a Catholic mother and was baptized and had First Communion and Confirmation. I attended the church for most of 24 years. I went to Catechism classes for every grade they had them.

We had an oversized gold soft-cover Catholic Bible on our coffee table in the living room. My Mom filled out the section reserved for writing down important dates for births, baptisms, etc. Other than that it was never opened or used. It sat there collecting dust until I opened it in the 9th grade and proceeded to read it cover-to-cover four times in a row. No one else in my family ever touched it.

It seems to me that you did not actually ever learn the Catholic faith.

If I had to go by what I learned in catechism classes, I'd know pretty much nothing about the Catholic Church/faith. In college, I took a world religions class and after studying all the main ones, I knew that I needed to truly learn more about Catholicism before I jumped ship.

This is what I know now:

First of all, Jesus founded his Church to preach/teach his gospel. He founded/built his Church upon Peter [Matthew 16:18], and the apostles and the prophets. [Ephesians 2:19-21] Jesus did not found a Bible. He did not command that his Church's leaders write a NT Bible. Jesus commanded them to make disciples by baptizing them and to teach them to obey his gospel/commandments throughout the world. [Matthew 28:19-20]

Later, the apostles and disciples, after asking for the help of the Holy Spirit, compiled the NT Bible for themselves and their successors to use as a tool to help teach Jesus' gospel. However, the Bible cannot ever supersede/replace his apostolic Church and its leaders. Also, many things that Jesus taught were not included in the NT Bible. Some things were taught by word and by example such as their Sunday worship practices. John 21:25, 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Just as the pot is not greater than the potter, the NT Bible is not greater than its creator, Jesus' Church. It is his apostolic Church which has the authority to interpret its own Scriptures. 2 Timothy 2:2 I do not have this authority. I can say what I think the Scriptures mean, but I can be mistaken and I have been mistaken in my interpretations of some of the Scriptures in my studies.

Infant baptism: Baptism removes Adam's sin from the infant's soul and reconciles the infant spiritually to God by giving the infant the Holy Spirit to dwell within him or her. Acts 16:15, Acts 18:8

Just as circumcision makes a male infant a Jew in the Old Covenant, baptism makes an infant a Christian in the New Covenant.

The baptism commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 22:16, and Acts 2:38 results in sanctification for the infant because it removes Adam's sin from the infant's soul and thereby makes the infant's soul a suitable temple for the Holy Spirit to live in. Romans 5:12

Baptism removes Adam's sin and all our own sins on our souls at the time of our baptism. Baptism sanctifies us and justifies us/makes us in right relationship with God because it is the Holy Spirit's presence within our souls which first sanctified us and continues to sanctify us.

Baptism washes away all the sins on our souls at the time of Baptism. Baptism makes us a suitable dwelling for the Holy Spirit and so he enters into our souls to dwell. His presence continues to sanctify us and his presence within us is what make us righteous/justified/reconciled with God.

1 Corinthians 6:11 And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Mary was perfected in every way at the instant of her conception as a special gift from God because she alone was chosen to give human life to his Son. Mary had to be without sin and without concupiscence at her conception in order for Jesus to be without sin and without concupiscence at his conception. A parent cannot pass down to her children what she herself does not possess.

Adam's sin had both spiritual and physical consequences.

Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. He was subjected to temptations just as we are today. He did not ever sin. We do sin.

Mark 1:13 He was in the wilderness for forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way, yet without sin.

Regarding DNA, Adam's DNA was damaged by his sin. That is why his descendants physically die even if they do not choose to die. Jesus chose to die as the reparation for Adam's sin in order to restore humanity to God. Jesus was not subject to death like we are. John 10:11, John 10:15, John 10:17

We all inherited concupiscence from the fall of Adam; however, Mary and Jesus did not.

concupiscence: Improper or illicit desire; sensual appetite; especially, lustful desire or feeling; sensuality; lust.​

Before the fall of Adam and Eve:

Genesis 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

After the fall of Adam and Eve:

Genesis 3:8-10 They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ 10 He said, ‘I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.’

​

Adam and Eve's DNA may have changed to allow for death and disease but our sin nature is not found or passed by DNA. It is not a genetic trait. Our spiritual nature is not contained in our DNA.

 

[Valletta]

Mary is never called the "Queen of Heaven" nor does her being the mother of Jesus make her that. There is no queen in heaven. Just a king.

According to the Bible Mary is a Davidic queen because she is the mother of Jesus. Revelation shows her wearing a crown.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

According to the Bible Mary is a Davidic queen because she is the mother of Jesus. Revelation shows her wearing a crown.

The “Woman” of Revelation 12: Is She Mary? - Christian Research Institute

This article first appeared in the Practical Hermeneutics column of the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, volume 38, number 03 (2015). The full text of this article in PDF format can be obtained by clicking here. For further information or to subscribe to the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL go to...

www.equip.org

 

[David Lamb]

According to the Bible Mary is a Davidic queen because she is the mother of Jesus. Revelation shows her wearing a crown.

Some of the Old Testament mothers of kings were called "queen mother" in the bible, but nowhere is Mary called a queen. Revelation does not particularly mention Mary. Maybe you were thinking of this verse:

“Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars.” (Re 12:1 NKJV)

None of the commentators I have read interpret the verse as referring to Mary. For example, Matthew Poole wrote: "A woman clothed with the sun; I find all valuable interpreters agreeing, that this woman represented the church, well enough compared to a woman."

 

[Valletta]

Some of the Old Testament mothers of kings were called "queen mother" in the bible, but nowhere is Mary called a queen. Revelation does not particularly mention Mary. Maybe you were thinking of this verse:

“Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars.” (Re 12:1 NKJV)

It's widely accepted that Jesus is being spoken of in Revelation, and so it is a matter of who His mother is. I don't recall every having seen the translation as "garland." Here are the various translations from Bible hub:

Revelation 12:1 - The Woman and the Dragon

And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed in the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

biblehub.com

Beginning with Solomon, the mother of the king in the Davidic kingdom was the queen mother.

None of the commentators I have read interpret the verse as referring to Mary. For example, Matthew Poole wrote: "A woman clothed with the sun; I find all valuable interpreters agreeing, that this woman represented the church, well enough compared to a woman."

That's from the Protestant reformation rejection of so many things Catholics. Quite a difference among Catholics. My local parish is St. Pius X, named after a pope who lived over a hundred years ago, and Pius said, my emphasis:
"No one of us does not know that that woman signifies the Virgin Mary, who brought forth our Head with her virginity intact. But the Apostle continues: 'And being with child, she cried out, laboring in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. ' Therefore John saw the Most Holy Mother of God already enjoying eternal happiness, and yet laboring from some hidden birth. With what birth? Surely ours, we who, being yet detained in exile, are still to be brought forth to the perfect love of God and eternal happiness." Ad diem illum. ASS 36. 458-59:

I do think most Catholics providing an opinion recognize secondary meanings (certainly not the only Bible passage where there are multiple meanings) such as allusions to Israel. I do.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

It seems to me that you did not actually ever learn the Catholic faith.

If I had to go by what I learned in catechism classes, I'd know pretty much nothing about the Catholic Church/faith. In college, I took a world religions class and after studying all the main ones, I knew that I needed to truly learn more about Catholicism before I jumped ship.

This is what I know now:

First of all, Jesus founded his Church to preach/teach his gospel. He founded/built his Church upon Peter [Matthew 16:18], and the apostles and the prophets. [Ephesians 2:19-21] Jesus did not found a Bible. He did not command that his Church's leaders write a NT Bible. Jesus commanded them to make disciples by baptizing them and to teach them to obey his gospel/commandments throughout the world. [Matthew 28:19-20]

Later, the apostles and disciples, after asking for the help of the Holy Spirit, compiled the NT Bible for themselves and their successors to use as a tool to help teach Jesus' gospel. However, the Bible cannot ever supersede/replace his apostolic Church and its leaders. Also, many things that Jesus taught were not included in the NT Bible. Some things were taught by word and by example such as their Sunday worship practices. John 21:25, 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Just as the pot is not greater than the potter, the NT Bible is not greater than its creator, Jesus' Church. It is his apostolic Church which has the authority to interpret its own Scriptures. 2 Timothy 2:2 I do not have this authority. I can say what I think the Scriptures mean, but I can be mistaken and I have been mistaken in my interpretations of some of the Scriptures in my studies.

How can you say Jesus did not "found" a Bible when you later say there were "many things that Jesus taught that were not included in the NT Bible." Maybe one of those things was a command to write the Scriptures.

While Jesus may not have explicitly ordered them to write the Scriptures, we do know that the Holy Spirit inspired them to do so.

So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Peter 1:19-21)

Since Jesus is God, as is the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit moved them to write, then that is the same as Jesus commanding them to write. As a side note, while Catholics will contend these verses teach that individual believers should not have their own private interpretations of Scripture, the best explanation of the Greek is that it means the prophets did not make up their own prophecies. Verse 21 is the key as it says their prophecies were not an act of human will but came about by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The writers were moved by the Holy Spirit to write, not by the direction of a church. The reason they were moved to write the Scriptures is so that future generations would have a reliable record of the key teachings of Jesus. Oral traditions can change over time. It's like the children's game of putting a group of children in a circle and telling a story to the first child who whispers it to the second child and so on around the circle. The final child then repeats the story they were told to the group and it is compared to the original story and it's always interesting how much has changed. Jesus promised the disciples that the Holy Spirit would bring to mind all the things He taught them. The promise was to them, not to a church.

2 Timothy 2:2 says nothing about interpretation. It only addresses the need to pass on the teaching to faithful men who could be trusted to pass it on faithfully while the church awaited the completion of the Scriptures.

Saying there are many things Jesus said that were not written down is not a license to claim any teaching you come up with is one of them. Secondly, since we know the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and other teachings must be tested against the Scriptures. The "Apostolic church and its leaders" must be tested against Scripture, not the other way around. They are the sure Word of God, not the words of men.

Infant baptism: Baptism removes Adam's sin from the infant's soul and reconciles the infant spiritually to God by giving the infant the Holy Spirit to dwell within him or her. Acts 16:15, Acts 18:8

Just as circumcision makes a male infant a Jew in the Old Covenant, baptism makes an infant a Christian in the New Covenant.

The baptism commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 22:16, and Acts 2:38 results in sanctification for the infant because it removes Adam's sin from the infant's soul and thereby makes the infant's soul a suitable temple for the Holy Spirit to live in. Romans 5:12

Baptism removes Adam's sin and all our own sins on our souls at the time of our baptism. Baptism sanctifies us and justifies us/makes us in right relationship with God because it is the Holy Spirit's presence within our souls which first sanctified us and continues to sanctify us.

Baptism washes away all the sins on our souls at the time of Baptism. Baptism makes us a suitable dwelling for the Holy Spirit and so he enters into our souls to dwell. His presence continues to sanctify us and his presence within us is what make us righteous/justified/reconciled with God.

1 Corinthians 6:11 And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Baptism does not bring about justification or start sanctification. Faith does. In the Scriptures, faith always refers to our own faith, not the faith of our parents. An infant cannot possess faith.

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1)

Therefore the Law has become our guardian to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:24)

Faith brings about justification, not baptism. Baptism follows regeneration. It is an outward testament to our saving faith. 1 Cor 6:11 refers to having been washed of our sins by faith. Baptism represents the change that has already taken place by faith.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

It's widely accepted that Jesus is being spoken of in Revelation, and so it is a matter of who His mother is. I don't recall every having seen the translation as "garland." Here are the various translations from Bible hub:

Revelation 12:1 - The Woman and the Dragon

And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed in the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

biblehub.com

Beginning with Solomon, the mother of the king in the Davidic kingdom was the queen mother.

That's from the Protestant reformation rejection of so many things Catholics. Quite a difference among Catholics. My local parish is St. Pius X, named after a pope who lived over a hundred years ago, and Pius said, my emphasis:
"No one of us does not know that that woman signifies the Virgin Mary, who brought forth our Head with her virginity intact. But the Apostle continues: 'And being with child, she cried out, laboring in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. ' Therefore John saw the Most Holy Mother of God already enjoying eternal happiness, and yet laboring from some hidden birth. With what birth? Surely ours, we who, being yet detained in exile, are still to be brought forth to the perfect love of God and eternal happiness." Ad diem illum. ASS 36. 458-59:

I do think most Catholics providing an opinion recognize secondary meanings (certainly not the only Bible passage where there are multiple meanings) such as allusions to Israel. I do.

I too believe the woman in Revelation 12 represents the church and not Mary. I also do not see a secondary meaning.

The reference to mythology cannot be ignored, however, for it invites comparison with the mythological goddess who was known as Queen of Heaven - the Egyptian Isis. She was entitled Our Lady, Queen of Heaven, and Immaculate Virgin. According to Chaldean beliefs, Semiramis (the wife of Nimus or Nimrod), was exalted to divinity with the title "Queen of Heaven". As the Christian church gradually took over temples of Isis and the image of the Earth Mother, complete with the Mother and Child statues, it appeared as if those became incorporated into the Catholic religious system – but not by all Christians. Many early-century groups refused to go there.

The prophecy that said the Messiah would sit on the throne of David does not require that every aspect of human kingship is practiced in heaven. It may have been common practice for a queen mother of an earthly king was called a queen but that doesn't mean the same holds true in heaven. I have read some Catholic writers say Mary will sit at Jesus' right hand yet Jesus said:

"But to sit on My right or on My left is not Mine to give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” (Mark 10:40)

This would have been an opportune time for Jesus to say Mary would sit at his right hand but He leaves it a mystery. The Catholic argument for Mary being "Queen of Heaven" is based on the assumption that human royal court practices will be the same in heaven and that the woman in Revelation 12 is in fact Mary when the best explanation is that it is the church. I think the Catholic church is overreaching and forcing a reference to Mary in order to give her a heavenly status that Scripture does not.

I don't know where Mary will appear in heaven and if she will be seated near Christ. Heaven does not have a queen. Heaven does not need a queen. God does not have a mother. Jesus did but that does not mean there will be a queen in heaven.

 

[RileyG]

Mary was more than just a "good person," she was the human vessel that would bring forth the human incarnation of the true and living God in the form of his son. God (the Holy Spirit) is his father and Mary is his mother. God would not just choose any "good person," but a woman who is worthy above all other women on the Earth. So I think she was a bit more than just a good person.

God the Father is Jesus’s Father, not the Holy Spirit.

 

[RileyG]

I understand the RCC having grown up in it. I don't hate the RCC. I only hate false teaching from any church.

Per your posts, you don’t seem to understand the Church’s teaching at all. Maybe read the catechism instead of CARM.