Apologetics help, please! Mary's "Omnipotence'

[Axion]

To Todd Easton & Red Bandito:

Calling Mary the “Ark of His convenant” is a Catholic interpretation but not found in any Apostolic teachings in the N.T. You guys still have to deal with the FACT that the woman in Rev. 12 is never seen in heaven.

What? Read again.

Rev 12:1, A great and wondrous 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."

She is seen in heaven. This is our introduction to Mary as she is NOW. Then comes a recap of her role in Salvation history. The birth of Jesus, satanic opposition, flight, motherhood of Christians etc.

She does not follow her Son into heaven when He is caught up to God and to His throne. INSTEAD it is stated (symbolically) that two wings of the great eagle are given to her in order that she might fly into the wilderness. That’s not heaven, guys! Nope, no heavenly throne for her.

Wrong again. We have already seen Mary in heaven. The wings of the eagle refers symbolically to the flight into the wilderness of Mary on two occasions. One on the Herodian persecution, when she fled to Egypt.
Two when the persecution of the Church began after Jesus’s ascension and the martyrdom of Stephen, and all Christians had to flee from Jerusalem.

As for Israel, it was doing the persecuting of Christians, not being persecuted.

The fact that she wears a crown does not mean she is a literal queen.

In your opinion.

 

[cygnusdei]

If the woman in Revelations 12 is Mary, then we must accept that Mary experienced birth pains (Rev 12:2).

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Why are you even discussing comments Saints have made. They are not infallible, and must be understood within the context of the Churches understanding of the faith.

This must be stressed or else once you resolve this discussion they have now have an understanding it is ok to take every comment made by Catholics from the Pope to everyday dissenters and use that to attack the true faith.

If they do think a comment places Mary above God then tell them that Catholic understanding of the faith never places Mary above God. We must defend what Catholicism really is and not get distracted with strawmen.

God Bless
Scylla

Yes, but before the Church delcares someone a Saint, they do extensive reasearch on their wirtings to make sure that none of them contain heresies etc. So this would have been expalined already I am sure.

(This is why it’ll tkae time for John Paul II the Great to be cannonized, our late Holy Father was a PROLIFIC writer)

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

If the woman in Revelations 12 is Mary, then we must accept that Mary experienced birth pains (Rev 12:2).

That is not a problem. There is not an official teaching of the Church that says anything about Mary’s birth pains. If you are referencing the fact that the pain of birth is due to original sin, take a look at Genesis again. It says that God would greatly multiply the pains of child birth. It does not say that there were not going to be pains at all, had Eve not sinned. So, if Mary experienced birth pains it is not problem at all with other teachings about her. Although, I might add, the pangs and anguish for this birth (as described in Rev 12:2) may have a different meaning all together.

 

[cygnusdei]

That is not a problem. There is not an official teaching of the Church that says anything about Mary’s birth pains. If you are referencing the fact that the pain of birth is due to original sin, take a look at Genesis again. It says that God would greatly multiply the pains of child birth. It does not say that there were not going to be pains at all, had Eve not sinned. So, if Mary experienced birth pains it is not problem at all with other teachings about her. Although, I might add, the pangs and anguish for this birth (as described in Rev 12:2) may have a different meaning all together.

How do you reconcile these:

1. Mary retained virginal integrity
   (vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm#II)
   but
2. Mary had birth pains

 

[tequilamac]

How do you reconcile these:

1. Mary retained virginal integrity
   (vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm#II)
   but
2. Mary had birth pains

I reconcile it thusly:

We know Jesus was born of a virgin. We know that He was born of Her who was perpetually virginal.

The idea that Mary did or did not have birth pains is purely speculation and the Gospel is silent.

Therefore for me it is an irrelevant thought.

Mary had no birth pains.

 

[cygnusdei]

I reconcile it thusly:

We know Jesus was born of a virgin. We know that He was born of Her who was perpetually virginal.

The idea that Mary did or did not have birth pains is purely speculation and the Gospel is silent.

Therefore for me it is an irrelevant thought.

Mary had no birth pains.

Then you can’t accept that Mary is the woman in Rev 12:2

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

If the woman in Revelations 12 is Mary, then we must accept that Mary experienced birth pains (Rev 12:2).

The woman in Rev. 12 symbolizes three things: 1) Mary the Mother of God. 2) The Church. 3) Israel (not the modern day State of Israel, but ancient Judea).

It’s not a doctrinal matter whether or not Mary experienced birth pains when giving birth to Jesus. I would say that she more than likely did, and can’t see why she wouldn’t have.

 

[cygnusdei]

The woman in Rev. 12 symbolizes three things: 1) Mary the Mother of God. 2) The Church. 3) Israel (not the modern day State of Israel, but ancient Judea).

It’s not a doctrinal matter whether or not Mary experienced birth pains when giving birth to Jesus. I would say that she more than likely did, and can’t see why she wouldn’t have.

Let me know where my reasoning breaks down:
(1) Mary retained virginal integrity (dogma)
(2) Therefore Mary did not have birth pains
(3) The woman in Rev 12:2 had birth pains
(4) Therefore she couldn’t be Mary

 

[tequilamac]

The woman in Rev. 12 symbolizes three things: 1) Mary the Mother of God. 2) The Church. 3) Israel (not the modern day State of Israel, but ancient Judea).

It’s not a doctrinal matter whether or not Mary experienced birth pains when giving birth to Jesus. I would say that she more than likely did, and can’t see why she wouldn’t have.

Well, actually I am not sure it is extremely important theologically. But I would have to say being a woman myself and having children, that if Mary really had birth pains it is unlikely she remained a virgin in regards to what we usually consider a physical proof of virginity? That would be odd indeed. But I don’t know that she had birth pains and I do know the church states clearly that she was perpetually virgin so I will stick with no birth pains.

If we stipulate that Mary was ever virgin from the stand that ever virgin means never having carnal relations that is fine and then we can easily say Mary had or did not have birth pains. But if we stand by ever virgin from the point of view of physical anatomy alone then we must say she definitely had birth pains. Because of the hymen.

Therefore I would say everyone back up and define first what you actually mean by “ever virgin”.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Let me know where my reasoning breaks down:
(1) Mary retained virginal integrity (dogma)
(2) Therefore Mary did not have birth pains
(3) The woman in Rev 12:2 had birth pains
(4) Therefore she couldn’t be Mary

1, 2, 3 & 4. No where in Sacred Scripture does it state that woman would have NEVER experienced birth pains had Eve not sinnned. Genesis states that Eve’s sin INCREASED birth pains. You are arguing against stuff that Catholics don’t even believe in or have in our deposit of faith.Eve is not the reason that women experience birth pains, she is the reason that women experience MORE birth pains. The Scripture states that even if Eve had not sinned – she would have experienced pains when

 

[cygnusdei]

1, 2, 3 & 4. No where in Sacred Scripture does it state that woman would have NEVER experienced birth pains had Eve not sinnned. Genesis states that Eve’s sin INCREASED birth pains. You are arguing against stuff that Catholics don’t even believe in or have in our deposit of faith.Eve is not the reason that women experience birth pains, she is the reason that women experience MORE birth pains. The Scripture states that even if Eve had not sinned – she would have experienced pains when

My arguments have nothing to do with Eve or sin. Please reconsider.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

My arguments have nothing to do with Eve or sin. Please reconsider.

I thought your argument (against something Catholics don’t even believe) had to do with the correlation of birth pains & original sin? Hence the reason why I explained to you the Church’s position. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[tequilamac]

Then you can’t accept that Mary is the woman in Rev 12:2

Not so. No one on this thread including you has yet defined what meaning you are giving “ever virgin”. Do you mean she never had carnal relations as is the usual definition concerning Mary as ever virgin, or the physical hymen was unbroken, which is the medical definition of ever virgin? Which one are you using? They are not the same.

As far as the Church goes, I think that in Rev. 12:2 it is a safe bet that the Church has never had carnal relations.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Well, actually I am not sure it is extremely important theologically. But I would have to say being a woman myself and having children, that if Mary really had birth pains it is unlikely she remained a virgin in regards to what we usually consider a physical proof of virginity? That would be odd indeed.

The Virgin Birth was ‘odd’.

tequilamac:

But I don’t know that she had birth pains and I do know the church states clearly that she was perpetually virgin so I will stick with no birth pains.

I don’t think it really matters theologically as long as you recognize that this is your personal opinion, and that I am entitled to mine per the Church’s teaching on this topic.

tequilamac:

If we stipulate that Mary was ever virgin from the stand that ever virgin means never having carnal relations that is fine and then we can easily say Mary had or did not have birth pains. But if we stand by ever virgin from the point of view of physical anatomy alone then we must say she definitely had birth pains. Because of the hymen.

We cannot know what God’s plan for woman was before the fall. Mary is the New Eve. Genesis interlopates that Eve would have had birth pains, but that her rebellion against God increased the birth pains for women. Original Sin didn’t cause birth pains – it increased them.

tequilamac:

Therefore I would say everyone back up and define first what you actually mean by “ever virgin”.

My definition is the Church’s defintion and my viewpoint on the subject is merely mine. You are entitled to yours.

 

[tequilamac]

The Virgin Birth was ‘odd’.

I don’t think it really matters theologically as long as you recognize that this is your personal opinion, and that I am entitled to mine per the Church’s teaching on this topic.

We cannot know what God’s plan for woman was before the fall. Mary is the New Eve. Genesis interlopates that Eve would have had birth pains, but that her rebellion against God increased the birth pains for women. Original Sin didn’t cause birth pains – it increased them.

My definition is the Church’s defintion and my viewpoint on the subject is merely mine. You are entitled to yours.

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.

 

[cygnusdei]

Not so. No one on this thread including you has yet defined what meaning you are giving “ever virgin”. Do you mean she never had carnal relations as is the usual definition concerning Mary as ever virgin, or the physical hymen was unbroken, which is the medical definition of ever virgin? Which one are you using? They are not the same.

As far as the Church goes, I think that in Rev. 12:2 it is a safe bet that the Church has never had carnal relations.

This is from the catechism (vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm#II):

(499) The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.(154) In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” (155) And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”. (156)

Here Mary’s perpetual virginity specifically refers to the event of Christ’s birth (not subsequent relations with Joseph). So the perpetual virginity dogma must mean physically intact hymen.

 

[cygnusdei]

I thought your argument (against something Catholics don’t even believe) had to do with the correlation of birth pains & original sin? Hence the reason why I explained to you the Church’s position. Correct me if I am wrong.

I’m merely trying to establish a corollary that is:
Perpetual virginity dogma → Woman in Rev 12 is not Mary.

OR

Woman in Rev 12 is Mary → Perpetual virginity dogma is wrong

But perpetual virginity cannot be wrong because it is dogma.

 

[tequilamac]

I’m merely trying to establish a corollary that is:
Perpetual virginity dogma → Woman in Rev 12 is not Mary.

OR

Woman in Rev 12 is Mary → Perpetual virginity dogma is wrong

But perpetual virginity cannot be wrong because it is dogma.

The Woman in Rev. 12 again according to Catholic understanding anyway is defined thusly:

The woman in travail is a personification of the synagogue or the church. Her first-born is Christ, her other seed is the community of the faithful.

Concerns for Mary’s perpetual virginity are not relevant to Revelation 12.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

How do you reconcile these:

1. Mary retained virginal integrity
   (vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm#II)
   but
2. Mary had birth pains

A miracle of God, of course.