About Immaculate Conception

[jamil_joseph02]

is Mary refered to in Rev 12 which says

**Rev 12
1.And a great sign 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 pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth.
3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. **

well, Protestants in our local forums argue in this verse that since we Catholics have an image of Mary with the moon under her feet her head with 12 stars, there’s no doubt the verse refers to Mary.

and since as the verse says she was “crying out in birth pains”, there’s no truth about Immaculate Conception since if Mary was sinless, then she would not suffer pain giving birth to our Lord Jesus. But then it says clearly that “she was crying out in birth pains”?

So what’s the Church stand on this?

 

[DavidFilmer]

and since as the verse says she was “crying out in birth pains”, there’s no truth about Immaculate Conception since if Mary was sinless, then she would not suffer pain giving birth to our Lord Jesus.

I think you will have a hard time demonstrating this point.

You refer to Genesis 3:16:

To the woman he said: "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.

For starters, the passage says “intensify” (some translations say “increase” or “multiply”) the pangs of childbearing. Since the pain is “increased,” one may presume that childbearing would still be painful to some (unknown) degree even without the Fall. Since we do not know how painful it would have been otherwise, we cannot draw any conclusions from the passage in Revelation.

My wife assures me that childbearing is “really, really, really painful.” So maybe it would have been only “really painful” without the Fall. But that might yet be enough to cause a woman to cry out. My wife cries out when she stubs her toe (I’ll never know how she managed to endure childbirth without drugs).

But, for sake of argument, let’s suppose that childbirth would have been only mildly uncomfortable. You still have no basis to assert that a subsequent human who was immaculately conceived would be automatically immune from the consequences imposed upon Adam and Eve. After all, Mary did not live in the Garden of Eden. She lived in the “cold, hard world” (by your same argument, Mary should have been in Eden). Why should she be exempt from the pangs of childbirth, any more than she should be exempt from living outside Eden? There was no suffering in Eden, but Mary was not IN Eden. Why should Mary not suffer? After all, even Jesus suffered.

(and you will find further spiritual insights in recognizing that Jesus was the “new Adam” and Mary was the “new Eve” - but that’s another discussion).

And, furthermore, I think it is risky to take a highly allegorical text such as Revelation and attempt to interpret parts of it in strictly literal terms. For example, one might argue that the pains of giving birth for Mary were mystically a part of her pain of motherhood (“A sword shall pierce your heart also”). It wasn’t physical pain, but spiritual pain. I don’t buy that myself, but it cannot be debunked due to the highly allegorical nature of the source material.

 

[jamil_joseph02]

well I guess its too risky when it comes to explaining your interpretation of Revelation to Protestants.

Well, I don’t want to back out on the local forums, in their own territory. I’m now standing in the midst of thousand Protestants and I really need a lot of answers. So I really need help.

 

[DavidFilmer]

well I guess its too risky when it comes to explaining your interpretation of Revelation to Protestants.

Woah, what do you mean? I offered NO interpretation of Revelation. I offered a possible - and purely hypothetical - interpretation, which I said I don’t agree with (but which cannot be debunked from a Biblical and allegorical perspective).

Well, I don’t want to back out on the local forums, in their own territory. I’m now standing in the midst of thousand Protestants and I really need a lot of answers. So I really need help.

What are you talking about? You live in a country (according to your profile) that is 80% Catholic. You are in one of the most Catholic nations on earth. Catholics should OWN the “local fourms.” What is wrong here?

What more help do you need? I have given you three different vectors to demolish this bogus “Mary would not have had childbirth pain” nonsense. What else can we do for you?

 

[jamil_joseph02]

Woah, what do you mean? I offered NO interpretation of Revelation. I offered a possible - and purely hypothetical - interpretation, which I said I don’t agree with (but which cannot be debunked from a Biblical and allegorical perspective).

well, I simply mean I would be in the risk of explaining these vectors you have given. I’m sorry I didn’t tell you that I was too busy I forgot to read your post.

What are you talking about? You live in a country (according to your profile) that is 80% Catholic. You are in one of the most Catholic nations on earth. Catholics should OWN the “local fourms.” What is wrong here?

I joined a forum owned by Protestants, and I couldn’t find a forum owned by any Catholic organization, although there are now websites and blogs about the Catholic faith explained in our language. Yes, Philippines is 80% Catholic, but then the problem is that, there are still hundreds of thousands of Catholic Filipinos who are not engaged in Catholic apologetics. What I mean is that Apologetics here is still an “infant”. Catholics here are just starting to know what Catholic apologetics is all about.

apologies for some misclarification

 

[Randy_Carson]

is Mary refered to in Rev 12 which says

Rev 12
1.And a great sign 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 pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth.
**3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. **

well, Protestants in our local forums argue in this verse that since we Catholics have an image of Mary with the moon under her feet her head with 12 stars, there’s no doubt the verse refers to Mary.

and since as the verse says she was “crying out in birth pains”, there’s no truth about Immaculate Conception since if Mary was sinless, then she would not suffer pain giving birth to our Lord Jesus. But then it says clearly that “she was crying out in birth pains”?

So what’s the Church stand on this?

Revelation 12:2 - Birth Pains of the Woman

---

Some non-Catholics attempt to deny the Immaculate Conception of Mary by juxtaposing passages from Revelation 12 and Genesis 3. They argue that because the woman in Revelation 12:2 cried out in labor pain, she could not have been free from sin because of God’s punishment of Eve found in Genesis 3:16. However, this passage should be read carefully:

Genesis 3:16
16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

In order for something to be increased, it has to be present to a lesser degree to begin with. After Eve’s disobedience, God didn’t suddenly invent labor pains for her to experience; he increased the pain that was already intended for her even in her unfallen state.

Therefore, if Mary cries out in Revelation 12 due to physical pain, this could be because she is experiencing the level of labor pain that was originally intended for all women prior to the fall in the Garden of Eden. Because Mary was without sin, the pain she experienced was less than that endured by women who have the stain of original sin, but it was unpleasant nonetheless.

Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

---

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

 

[jamil_joseph02]

In order for something to be increased, it has to be present to a lesser degree to begin with. After Eve’s disobedience, God didn’t suddenly invent labor pains for her to experience; he increased the pain that was already intended for her even in her unfallen state.

I get it. So God really planned to increase the pain of childbearing even if the Fall would not occur?

And since this is related to the Immaculate Conception, well, does the Church teaches that since Mary was immaculately conceived then she would not suffer pain in giving birth to our Lord Jesus?

well I guess a simple No is the answer?

 

[mardukm]

Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

This is how I’ve always understood it. The Church has always viewed Mary poetically as representative (or “microcosm,” in the words of HH JP2 the Great of thrice-blessed memory) of the Church, and as such is regarded as the spiritual mother of all Christians. So the pangs of birth are not in relation to her physical bearing of Jesus (as Isaiah predicted), but in relation to her spiritual bearing of Christians.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

I get it. So God really planned to increase the pain of childbearing even if the Fall would not occur?

And since this is related to the Immaculate Conception, well, does the Church teaches that since Mary was immaculately conceived then she would not suffer pain in giving birth to our Lord Jesus?

well I guess a simple No is the answer?

It is a theologoumenon that Mary did not suffer the pains of childbirth. One can believe it or not either way. But to answer your question more directly, whether Mary suffered the pains of childbirth or not absolutely does not affect the dogma of the IC.

There is something here that needs to be stated that I don’t think a lot of people (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) understand about the dogma of the IC.

The dogma of the IC teaches that the IC affected the Theotokos only SPIRITUALLY. That is, she was preserved from the SPIRITUAL effects of original Sin; it does NOT teach that she was preserved from the PHYSICAL effects of original Sin. In the language of the dogma, she was preserved from the “stain of original sin,” this “stain” being the spiritual effects, not the physical consequences, of original sin. So to believe that Mary died, or that she suffered the increased pains of childbirth, or that she was subject to sickness, grief and other emotional maladies, etc., in no way contradicts the dogma of the IC.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_Dawson]

is Mary refered to in Rev 12 which says

Rev 12
1.And a great sign 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 pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth.
3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems.

well, Protestants in our local forums argue in this verse that since we Catholics have an image of Mary with the moon under her feet her head with 12 stars, there’s no doubt the verse refers to Mary.

and since as the verse says she was “crying out in birth pains”, there’s no truth about Immaculate Conception since if Mary was sinless, then she would not suffer pain giving birth to our Lord Jesus. But then it says clearly that “she was crying out in birth pains”?

So what’s the Church stand on this?

Hi, Jamil.

It is important, in considering the issues raised by you, to carefully strive for technical accuracy in considering the words of Scripture.

For example, Randy Carson assures us that Isaiah 66:7’s prophecy of a birth without labor pains “is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.”

Yet look at Isaiah’s own words in the next two verses: To achieve Randy’s interpretation, we must carefully contradict those verses…

** 8 Who ever heard of such a thing, or saw the like? Can a country be brought forth in one day, or a nation be born in a single moment? Yet Zion is scarcely in labor when she gives birth to her children.** Here Isaiah and the Holy Spirit assure us that the child being referred to is a country.

9 Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD; Or shall I who allow her to conceive, yet close her womb? says your God. Isaiah 66:8-9. Here Isaiah and the Holy Spirit assure us that the womb of the mother giving birth here shall be “open,” not “closed.” The Church itself teaches that Mary’s womb remained closed.

Similarly, in considering John’s Revelation, note John’s title for the mother in Revelation 12: “Woman.”

John was surely familiar with Genesis, and was aware that he was giving to the mother of Jesus, in Revelation 12, the same title, “woman,” given to the Eve, the sufferer of INTENSE labor pains. In other words, the “woman” title, and intense labor pains, go together.

We see John applying the “woman” title to Mary at two other points, in John’s gospel, at John 2:4 and John 19:26.

Also, note well: John lived with Mary, after the cross. Of all of the Apostles, John was in the best position to learn the details of things like Mary’s giving birth to Christ.

I think that Revelation 12 does indeed describe the intensely painful birth of Christ.

Peter

 

[jamil_joseph02]

John was surely familiar with Genesis, and was aware that he was giving to the mother of Jesus, in Revelation 12, the same title, “woman,” given to the Eve, the sufferer of INTENSE labor pains. In other words, the “woman” title, and intense labor pains, go together.

Well Peter, thanks for the idea. But then I quite didn’t get it. I’m kinda lost in that part. So what does that mean if the “woman” title and intense labor pains go together?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Well Peter, thanks for the idea. But then I quite didn’t get it. I’m kinda lost in that part. So what does that mean if the “woman” title and intense labor pains go together?

In John’s gospel, John very carefully assigns the “woman” title to Mary.

This connects the “woman’s” enhanced labor pains in Genesis 3 to Mary. This connects the wailing woman of Revelation 12, screaming aloud in labor, to Mary.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

There is nothing in scripture that indicates that child birth would have been pain free if not for the fall. It only says that one of the consequences of the fall was that child birth pangs would intensify. The fact that Mary was sinless does not mean that the birth of our Lord would have been painless. To be fair, many Catholics have believed over the centuries that the Lord’s birth was pain free because of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. But scripture does not support that understanding if you read the Gen 3 carefully. She certainly could have felt physical pain while giving birth. She also may have felt a spiritual or emotional pain as well. Rev 12 may not be literally referring to physical pain-- the entire book is filled with symbolism. Anyway, the bottom line is that the protestants have no argument against the Immaculate Conception using Rev 12 and Gen 3.

If you are interested, here is an in depth analysis of Revelation 12. Actually, this whole site is awesome, however, I’ve only linked the study on chapter 12 of Revelation. But you can click on the Bible Studies link up at the top of the page and you will see many topics worthy of study (including all of Revelation).

 

[jamil_joseph02]

If you are interested, here is an in depth analysis of Revelation 12. Actually, this whole site is awesome, however, I’ve only linked the study on chapter 12 of Revelation. But you can click on the Bible Studies link up at the top of the page and you will see many topics worthy of study (including all of Revelation).

yeah that was a great site I was convinced that Mary was the woman referred to in Genesis 3.

 

[jamil_joseph02]

Anyway, do we Catholics have an image of Mary “clothed with the Sun, the Moon under her feet and 12 stars her crown”? Well, what do you call that image of our Mother? I can’t find it in the internet.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Anyway, do we Catholics have an image of Mary “clothed with the Sun, the Moon under her feet and 12 stars her crown”? Well, what do you call that image of our Mother? I can’t find it in the internet.

She is called “Our Lady of Guadalupe.” There are more than 12 stars, though, but that is acceptable, because 12 symbolizes “all of the tribes of God’s people.”

 

[jamil_joseph02]

well, I have read the answers and it seemed that Mary did suffer pain in giving birth w/ our Lord Jesus. So I answered yes to the question raised by them of whether Mary did suffer pain in giving birth w/ our Lord.

But then I was struck when a Protestant showed the link of the Catholic answers tract about the Mary: “Full of Grace”

catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

well, looks like the Church fathers goes opposite with my answer to them, especially like in the Ascension of Messiah

“[T]he report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain’” (Ascension of Isaiah 11 [A.D. 70]).

He also showed me the First Lateral Council about this.

“If anyone does not, according to the holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was begotten of God the Father, and gave birth to Him without injury, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned.”

he cited no source.

well what now?

 

[jamil_joseph02]

By the way, I simply answered yes. I’m not yet explaining to them that whether yes or no it in no way contradicts the Immaculate Conception. But then I’m still bothered at the quotes of the early Fathers (and the First Lateral Council, if ever he could cite the source).

 

[jamil_joseph02]

Ah, no need for answers for my last two posts. My opponent ran away. He changed the topic of the discussion. However he left me with this.

1. dont get confused about virgin conception and immaculate conception. they are different.

• virgin conception focuses the discussion on the nativity of christ/ his nature, how he was conceived and such. this is biblical- meaning it is in the bible thoroughly discussed by the gospel writers.

• immaculate conception focuses the discussion about mary. this mean simply mary- not jesus- was conceived without sin /preserved from sin. This even before she herself conceived jesus from her womb. Its all about Mary sonewhat similar to jesus sinless nature - except that mary was agreed to be conceived from normal sexual relations. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception )

this story or belief is not biblical. the gospel writers never talk about mary’s birth or conception only christ.

in light of lack biblical witness, the immaculate conception belief is an assumption regardless of how old or how thorough it was formed in dogma. the gospel writers never talk about it, the apostles and writer of the new testament are also silent. its just not emphasize, for the possible main reason that is not true nor a politically correct story.

1. with regards to the issue, RC theology uses a circular reasoning based on an assumption. meaning new assumptions are made from a basic assumption (e.g. Immaculate Conception) and therefore a lack credibility in sound reasoning or argument.

Mary is sinless or free from sin (immaculate conception). this concludes therefore that she is free from pain, since pain is the curse of sin- therefore being sinless, she is free from the consequences of sin and thus proving she is truly immaculate.

There is a very big problem with the ‘pain free’ attribute of Mary. It makes her unreal. She is 100% human but not more than 100%human. A human that does not experience pain. She is a daughter of eve, but she is the new Eve- as many RC proponents would assert. Free from sin, free from guilt, free from pain, free from death.

The most important argument against a ‘pain-free’ mary is no other than christ himself who was her son. He was was subject to all sorts of physical and emotional pain and he felt it!, tempted on all sides yet remained sinless. A god-man who experience pain and death (like all humans such as we), whereas mary who neither experienced such.

There is only one conclusion to the mystical, and non-biblical dogma of the Immaculate Conception - Docetism.

so how do I refute this?

 

[ziapueblo]

and since as the verse says she was “crying out in birth pains”, there’s no truth about Immaculate Conception since if Mary was sinless, then she would not suffer pain giving birth to our Lord Jesus. But then it says clearly that “she was crying out in birth pains”?

So what’s the Church stand on this?

I have also heard this to be interpreted that the Virgin Mary suffered figuratively, from the prophecy, “(and a sword will pierce through your own soul also) . . . (Luke 2:35),” as well as her heart being pierced at the Crucifixion.

The Woman of Revelation 12