Catholics, what is the Protestant response to Revelation 12?

[lil_flower_luv]

Hi there! I’m sure this has been asked before, but…

Revelation 12 *A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems. Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne. The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.

Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back, but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.  The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it.

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have salvation and power come, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Anointed. For the accuser of our brothers is cast out, who accuses them before our God day and night.

They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; love for life did not deter them from death.

Therefore, rejoice, you heavens, and you who dwell in them. But woe to you, earth and sea, for the Devil has come down to you in great fury, for he knows he has but a short time."

When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.  But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year.  The serpent, however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current.  But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth.  Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus.  It took its position on the sand of the sea.*

~Do Protestants deny this woman is Mary, Queen of Heaven and Earth?

~What, indeed, do they believe about this passage?

~Do we, as Catholics, believe this passage talks not only of Mary, but of Mother Church? (i.e. “Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring…”)

Thank you very much.
God Bless, Therese

 

[geometer]

Hi there! I’m sure this has been asked before, but…

Revelation 12 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems. Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne. The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.

Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back, but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.  The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it.

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have salvation and power come, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Anointed. For the accuser of our brothers is cast out, who accuses them before our God day and night.

They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; love for life did not deter them from death.

Therefore, rejoice, you heavens, and you who dwell in them. But woe to you, earth and sea, for the Devil has come down to you in great fury, for he knows he has but a short time."

When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.  But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year.  The serpent, however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current.  But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth.  Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus.  It took its position on the sand of the sea.

~Do Protestants deny this woman is Mary, Queen of Heaven and Earth?

~What, indeed, do they believe about this passage?

~Do we, as Catholics, believe this passage talks not only of Mary, but of Mother Church? (i.e. “Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring…”)

Thank you very much.
God Bless, Therese

As a catholic you seem to believe that the gospel is about being born of Mary. Why is being a child of Mary such a great prize?

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Hello geometer!

As a catholic you seem to believe that the gospel is about being born of Mary. Why is being a child of Mary such a great prize?

“Belonging to Mary is a privileged means of belonging to Christ.”(John F. Murphy, The Immaculate Heart)
I am proud to call her my Heavenly Mother because I am all the more closer to her Son.

 

[geometer]

Hello geometer!

“Belonging to Mary is a privileged means of belonging to Christ.”(John F. Murphy, The Immaculate Heart)
I am proud to call her my Heavenly Mother because I am all the more closer to her Son.

isn’t pride on of the seven deadly sins???

 

[lil_flower_luv]

isn’t pride on of the seven deadly sins???

Isn’t trying to derail a thread against forum rules?
If you do not have answers for my questions, I don’t think there is much you can add, my friend.

God Bless

 

[graceandglory]

As a catholic you seem to believe that the gospel is about being born of Mary. Why is being a child of Mary such a great prize?

You say you are a theosopher, and I can’t tell if you have taken the identity of a Christian from your post.

If you are interested in a good, educated read on what orthodox (right thinking) protestant Christians believe on Mary, read this:
firstthings.com/article/2009/10/do-whatever-he-tells-you-the-blessed-virgin-mary-in-christian-faith-and-life

 

[crazzeto]

You say you are a theosopher, and I can’t tell if you have taken the identity of a Christian from your post.

If you are interested in a good, educated read on what orthodox (right thinking) protestant Christians believe on Mary, read this:
firstthings.com/article/2009/10/do-whatever-he-tells-you-the-blessed-virgin-mary-in-christian-faith-and-life

He’s not Christian, this was established in the Septuigant thread (do a search of this forum). It’s unfortunate that he still feels compelled to debate Christian theology, as he isn’t a Christian. He hasn’t admitted what faith he belongs to, but close examination of his posting reveles that the most likely answer is Jewish.

 

[geometer]

He’s not Christian, this was established in the Septuigant thread (do a search of this forum). It’s unfortunate that he still feels compelled to debate Christian theology, as he isn’t a Christian. He hasn’t admitted what faith he belongs to, but close examination of his posting reveles that the most likely answer is Jewish.

Look I ask honest questions and I get stonewalled every time. The catholics never defend anthing that they say. I am not telling everyone that they are wrong. But you openly dismiss my questions. You do not believe that non catholics should be treated with respect.

It has been very discourteous of you to treat me as less than human, by ignoring my questions. My questions may be difficult to answer, but that means there is all the more to learn in the effort of making an honest reply.

 

[Nicholas_II]

I think the Protestant position is that the “woman” of Revelations 12 is the Church or Israel. I dont think this contradicts the Catholic position. It just doesn’t see Mary in it.

Another case of Protestants claiming we are christianity plus and us claiming they are catholicism minus!

Moreover, Catholics could claim their typology is further supported by the end of the proceeding chapter citing the Ark of the Covenant. Only seperated by the later added verses and chapter numerics.

 

[Cachonga]

lil_flower_luv:

~Do Protestants deny this woman is Mary, Queen of Heaven and Earth?

~What, indeed, do they believe about this passage?

~Do we, as Catholics, believe this passage talks not only of Mary, but of Mother Church? (i.e. “Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring…”)

I strongly recommend that you do not believe the folks who signed onto the “Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together” as representing the belief of all protestants. The reformed position (as I understand it) is that the woman represents the Old Testament Church, out of which came the Messiah (Jesus Christ), and the New Testament Church is the children. I have been told that the idea that this is Mary is the “constant teaching of the Church for 2,000 years”, but when I look for evidence, it’s not there. I did find a commentary from the late 3rd, early 4th century that confirms what I have said (you can check it out here). In fact, Victorinus only mentions Mary once in his entire commentary, and that is in Chapter 4 (verses 7-10), in which he indicates that the genealogy found in Matthew is Mary’s (doesn’t that contradict the “traditional” name of Mary’s father?).

Another problem with treating the woman as Mary is that she was in pain in giving birth, but the Church says Mary had no pain in childbirth. At this point, other explanations are offered, such as the pain she endured when Jesus was crucified. The arguments and explanations show an incredible double standard that goes way beyond the scope of this thread.

As a former Catholic, I would say that the Church does accept multiple interpretations for the Scriptures, and they do allow you to believe that this is Mary (and is used as a proof of her assumption), as well as that it refers to the Old Testament/New testament Church.

As far as going back to Rev 11 and the Ark, again, I point out that this is not found in the earliest commentary I could find. While the Church allows you to believe it or not, I am left wondering how the Catholic claim that this is Mary is not a tradition of men.

For the record, I do acknowledge that Mary is the most blessed woman in the history of the world, and that she is an example for us.

 

[geometer]

As a former Catholic, I would say that the Church does accept multiple interpretations for the Scriptures, and they do allow you to believe that this is Mary (and is used as a proof of her assumption), as well as that it refers to the Old Testament/New testament Church.

This scripture does not say that she went to heaven. Her child went into heaven.

 

[Cachonga]

geometer:

This scripture does not say that she went to heaven. Her child went into heaven.

I’m not sure if this is am observation or a question. On the chance that it’s a question, I will say that many Roman Catholic Apologists claim that the woman of Rev 12 is Mary, and use it as a “proof” that she was bodily assumed at the end of her life (Mary’s bodily assumption is a dogma of the Church, and pronounces the anathema on anyone who doesn’t believe it, though I’ve been informed that the anathema has been removed (which makes me wonder how infallible the anathema was to begin with)). That’s what my aside was addressing.

If this was simply an observation, I agree (though I also believe that Mary is now in heaven, with or without her body).

 

[COPLAND_3]

The common interpretation from Protestants is either the church or Israel, and most dispensationalists would say Israel since they tend to exalt Israel as a nation and God’s primary concern even above the Church.

Here is my commentary on Revelation 12, which is a Marian interpretation litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Chapter+12

 

[geometer]

I’m not sure if this is am observation or a question. On the chance that it’s a question, I will say that many Roman Catholic Apologists claim that the woman of Rev 12 is Mary, and use it as a “proof” that she was bodily assumed at the end of her life (Mary’s bodily assumption is a dogma of the Church, and pronounces the anathema on anyone who doesn’t believe it, though I’ve been informed that the anathema has been removed (which makes me wonder how infallible the anathema was to begin with)). That’s what my aside was addressing.

If this was simply an observation, I agree (though I also believe that Mary is now in heaven, with or without her body).

Well, thanks. Have you had to make an explanation for no longer being catholic?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Nicholas and Copland are correct, Protestants say it is the Church or Israel depending who you ask. Typically they say that since it is one of these, it therefore CANNOT be Mary. Protestants often will adhere to a “one-meaning-only-is-permitted” from a passage of Scripture.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I’m not sure what the connection is, but Our Lady of Guadalupe is standing on the moon and has stars around her robe and the Christ Child is holding up the moon. She seems very similar to the Heavenly Mother in Revelation 12. Or is it just coincidental?

 

[Nicholas_II]

I’m not sure if this is am observation or a question. On the chance that it’s a question, I will say that many Roman Catholic Apologists claim that the woman of Rev 12 is Mary, and use it as a “proof” that she was bodily assumed at the end of her life (Mary’s bodily assumption is a dogma of the Church, and pronounces the anathema on anyone who doesn’t believe it, though I’ve been informed that the anathema has been removed (which makes me wonder how infallible the anathema was to begin with)). That’s what my aside was addressing.

If this was simply an observation, I agree (though I also believe that Mary is now in heaven, with or without her body).

I think most catholic apologists take the overall picture of the typology. At least I have never seen or heard or read any claim it is not the Church or Isreal. So your comment is a bit sweeping and doesnt give the full picture.

For myself, it is hard for me to comprehend, St John, “who took Mary into his home” after the crucifixion, penning Revelations and not identifying Mary with this woman who would" give birth to a Son" who himself would “rule with an Iron rod” (Psalm 2) obviously Jesus.

But then again maybe Im biased.

Interestingly the strongest early Marian traditions seem to me also to come from John’s disciples and their subsequent hearers. Polycarp, Iraneaus.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

The common interpretation from Protestants is either the church or Israel, and most dispensationalists would say Israel since they tend to exalt Israel as a nation and God’s primary concern even above the Church.

Here is my commentary on Revelation 12, which is a Marian interpretation litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Chapter+12

That is a very good interpretation.

Thank you all for your responses…most of you have responded to # 2 of my questions…I would like to hear an in-depth explanation to the connection of Mary and Mother Church. Thank you.

Therese

 

[COPLAND_3]

lil_flower_luv

~Do we, as Catholics, believe this passage talks not only of Mary, but of Mother Church? (i.e. “Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring…”)

Yes, many if not most Catholic theologians believe that it is reference to the Church, and have adopted that interpretation mainly because they have had trouble dealing with the birth pangs as I mentioned in my commentary, but as I pointed out I believe that “the pain that Mary suffered was not physical pain but emotional” because the Devil was positioned to kill her son. I do believe that the Church can be understood as the woman in a typological sense, but I believe with all my heart that it literally refers to Mary.

An Early Church writer named Oecumenius interpreted the anguish to be Mary’s sorrow disposition she had while being betrothed the Joseph and his perception that he had of her being pregnant, that is until the angel revealed why in his dream.

 

[Cachonga]

MarcoPolo:

Nicholas and Copland are correct, Protestants say it is the Church or Israel depending who you ask. Typically they say that since it is one of these, it therefore CANNOT be Mary. Protestants often will adhere to a “one-meaning-only-is-permitted” from a passage of Scripture.

It does depend on who you ask. For myself, I recognize that Revelations uses figurative language, and there could be more than one meaning to any given image. However, it must be kept in mind that John was describing what he was being shown by God, and he does not mention Mary by name anywhere (certainly he would recognize her if he saw her).

CHRISTINE77:

I’m not sure what the connection is, but Our Lady of Guadalupe is standing on the moon and has stars around her robe and the Christ Child is holding up the moon. She seems very similar to the Heavenly Mother in Revelation 12. Or is it just coincidental?

You’d probably have to ask the artist to get a definitive answer on this.
Nicholas II:

I think most catholic apologists take the overall picture of the typology. At least I have never seen or heard or read any claim it is not the Church or Isreal. So your comment is a bit sweeping and doesnt give the full picture.

For myself, it is hard for me to comprehend, St John, “who took Mary into his home” after the crucifixion, penning Revelations and not identifying Mary with this woman who would" give birth to a Son" who himself would “rule with an Iron rod” (Psalm 2) obviously Jesus.

But then again maybe Im biased.

Interestingly the strongest early Marian traditions seem to me also to come from John’s disciples and their subsequent hearers. Polycarp, Iraneaus.

I’m sure they hold that position as well, but whenever they talk about the bodily assumption, they tend to point to the woman of Rev 12 as an “indication” that she was bodily assumed.

As for John having her in mind when he wrote this, that doesn’t seem to fit with what is going on (remember, he was writing down the vision as God gave it).

Could you please give me the specific references from Polycarp and Iranaeus.
COPLAND 3:

An Early Church writer named Oecumenius interpreted the anguish to be Mary’s sorrow disposition she had while being betrothed the Joseph and his perception that he had of her being pregnant, that is until the angel revealed why in his dream.

Could you please give the reference for this. And when did he write this?