Perpetual virginity → Woman in Rev 12 is not Mary.
Mary is the woman in Rev 12. The woman is also the Church and Israel.
Please see #69, 77, 78 above. I did not allude to sin/pain connection.
Dear Manny:
It’s not a pop up.
I see. It is just designed to look like a pop up. I see. Worked good. Deceived me. No problem. What I can do is simply block your user name and then it won’t pop up.
I have read those threads but none of your conclusion that Mary isn’t the Woman Clothed with the Sun is not very accurate. The woman in Revelations has three symbolic meanings, Mary, The Church, and Israel.
Much better. Thank you for removing the phony pop up. sorry to be touchy about it but big blaring things grate you know.
If Mary can hear all of our prayers simultaneously, she must be at least omnipresent.
It seems this would not be limited to Mary but apply to all the saints as well. One of the wonderful things about Catholicism you know is the immediacy of the Heavenly Court.
Umm, no.
:yup:Unfortunately scriptural basis for Mary’s heavenly queenship is at best indirect, and at worst an eisegesis.
I do not get the sense that you have read these posts! You said something to the effect that if Mary is the “Greatest Saint”, then she must be omiscient… Catholics do not believe this… As a Catholic I believe that she is much closer to Jesus than am I… Jesus listens to her pleas, her requests, because thou shall honour thy mother and thy father… I do not pray to Mary! I ask for her intercession, just as she interceded at Canaa (sp?) I trust in her to intercede for me as long as it is God’s Will… because that is the only thing Mary wants
I don’t think the Church teaches that Mary or any Saint is omnipotent or omniscient. Those qualities only belong to God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I love St. Thomas Aquinas as much as the next guy, but he also held the opinion that male fetuses didn’t have souls till 40 days after conception, and for females 80. Doctors are not infallible.And we are ALL entitled to the opinion of the Doctors of the Church who carry more weight then idle speculation. From the Summa:
"On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. [Supposititious), addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: “In conceiving thou wast all pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain.”
I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (28, 2, Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man “was born into the world,” according to Is. 35:1,2: “Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise.”
Reply to Objection 1. The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from the mingling of the sexes. Wherefore (Genesis 3:16) after the words, “in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children,” the following are added: “and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power.” But, as Augustine says (Serm. de Assumpt. B. Virg., [Supposititious), from this sentence we must exclude the Virgin-Mother of God; who, “because she conceived Christ without the defilement of sin, and without the stain of sexual mingling, therefore did she bring Him forth without pain, without violation of her virginal integrity, without detriment to the purity of her maidenhood.” Christ, indeed, suffered death, but through His own spontaneous desire, in order to atone for us, not as a necessary result of that sentence, for He was not a debtor unto death.
Reply to Objection 2. As “by His death” Christ “destroyed our death” [Preface of the Mass in Paschal-time, so by His pains He freed us from our pains; and so He wished to die a painful death. But the mother’s pains in childbirth did not concern Christ, who came to atone for our sins. And therefore there was no need for His Mother to suffer in giving birth."
Mary had no birth pains since first her pains did not concern Christ and second-there was nothing to be gained by her pain.
I like this opinion from the Church much better than mine or yours.
It’s three things: ancient Judea, Mary and the Jerusalem Church. We must remember that the Book of Revelation is a Liturgical book and has many metaphors, it’s mostly not a literal writing.FWIW, I don’t think the BVM is hinted at in Rev. 12. As the book is an apocalypse, ISTM to make more sense to understand the passage of the Jerusalem Church, not of an individual person: especially as the woman in 17 is not an individual.