Catholics, what is the Protestant response to Revelation 12?

[MarcoPolo]

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).

Neither does he call what he sees in Rev. 12 the “Church” or “Israel” but rather by the same name Christ called His mother when she was standing next to that very same John at the foot of the Cross, which is “woman.”

It is very difficult to interpret the words in Revelation 12: “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness…” and say “THAT’S NOT MARY!!”

The Catholic Church sees the Church, Israel, Mary, and even Eve analogized in Revelation 12.

 

[BrianH]

Is there an official Catholic interpretation of this chapter or the key parts?

 

[Cachonga]

MarcoPolo:

Neither does he call what he sees in Rev. 12 the “Church” or “Israel” but rather by the same name Christ called His mother when she was standing next to that very same John at the foot of the Cross, which is “woman.”

It is very difficult to interpret the words in Revelation 12: “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness…” and say “THAT’S NOT MARY!!”

The Catholic Church sees the Church, Israel, Mary, and even Eve analogized in Revelation 12.

I see two problems immediately. First, it seems that this is using a generic term (a woman) rather than a specific term (the woman). Second, Mary was not the only person Jesus addressed in this way. He addressed a Canaanite mother as “woman” (Matt 15:22-28); He addressed a woman He healed as “woman” (Luke 13:12); He addressed the woman at the well as “woman” (John 4:21); He addressed the woman caught in adultery as “woman” (John 8:10); even John 20:15 is addressed to Mary Magdalene (as shown by reading to verse 18). I think the thing to remember is that this is a vision from God, not a video clip on an I-Phone.

Sorry if you misunderstood what I’ve been saying. I recognize that there could be more than one meaning to a given image in Revelations. I recognize that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but I do not believe this “indicates” in any way that Mary has been bodily assumed into heaven. I have not pushed this idea because it’s not the topic of the thread, but I’ll grant that it could represent Mary in a limited way (not sure how you get Eve out of it, but that, too, is not the topic of this thread).

Finally, I join BrianH in asking, “Is there an official Catholic interpretation of this chapter or the key parts?” (I would actually back it up to Chapter 11 and cover the Ark in the question.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is there an official Catholic interpretation of this chapter or the key parts?

Only seven verses have been defined infallibly. This is not one of them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I see two problems immediately. First, it seems that this is using a generic term (a woman) rather than a specific term (the woman). Second, Mary was not the only person Jesus addressed in this way. He addressed a Canaanite mother as “woman” (Matt 15:22-28); He addressed a woman He healed as “woman” (Luke 13:12); He addressed the woman at the well as “woman” (John 4:21); He addressed the woman caught in adultery as “woman” (John 8:10); even John 20:15 is addressed to Mary Magdalene (as shown by reading to verse 18). I think the thing to remember is that this is a vision from God, not a video clip on an I-Phone.

Sorry if you misunderstood what I’ve been saying. I recognize that there could be more than one meaning to a given image in Revelations. I recognize that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but I do not believe this “indicates” in any way that Mary has been bodily assumed into heaven. I have not pushed this idea because it’s not the topic of the thread, but I’ll grant that it could represent Mary in a limited way (not sure how you get Eve out of it, but that, too, is not the topic of this thread).

Finally, I join BrianH in asking, “Is there an official Catholic interpretation of this chapter or the key parts?” (I would actually back it up to Chapter 11 and cover the Ark in the question.)

Munificentissimus Deus, the Apostolic Constitution which defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, states the following:

1. Moreover, the scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom John the Apostle contemplated on the Island of Patmos.(24) Similarly they have given special attention to these words of the New Testament: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women,”(25) since they saw, in the mystery of the Assumption, the fulfillment of that most perfect grace granted to the Blessed Virgin and the special blessing that countered the curse of Eve.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I see two problems immediately. First, it seems that this is using a generic term (a woman) rather than a specific term (the woman). Second, Mary was not the only person Jesus addressed in this way. He addressed a Canaanite mother as “woman” (Matt 15:22-28); He addressed a woman He healed as “woman” (Luke 13:12); He addressed the woman at the well as “woman” (John 4:21); He addressed the woman caught in adultery as “woman” (John 8:10); even John 20:15 is addressed to Mary Magdalene (as shown by reading to verse 18). I think the thing to remember is that this is a vision from God, not a video clip on an I-Phone.

Sorry if you misunderstood what I’ve been saying. I recognize that there could be more than one meaning to a given image in Revelations. I recognize that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but I do not believe this “indicates” in any way that Mary has been bodily assumed into heaven. I have not pushed this idea because it’s not the topic of the thread, but I’ll grant that it could represent Mary in a limited way (not sure how you get Eve out of it, but that, too, is not the topic of this thread).

Cachonga-

I can’t put my finger on it at the moment, but I’m certain that I have read that Mary and Jesus are the only two "characters’ in Revelation who are described as having bodies. The rest are all spiritual beings.

You might re-read Rev 12 to see if this is the case…sorry I can’t offer more at the moment, but I hope that helps.

 

[COPLAND_3]

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

He wrote it in his commentary on Revelation in the AD 500’s. Here is a scanned image from his commentary of Rev. 12 litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Oecumenius+Rev.+12#

 

[adriancombe]

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

Of course, this is the only place in the Bible that anyone besides Christ is explicitly called Mary’s child. So their response SHOULD be ‘O my, I guess we were wrong thinking that Jesus’ brothers were Mary’s sons!’ But unfortunately, that happens too seldom.

This verse clearly says all Christians are Mary’s children. If you make it mean ‘The Church’ you get Jesus as the Church’s Son. I am not saying there might not be a ‘layer’ of meaning there but the primary sense is clearly the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Of course, this is the only place in the Bible that anyone besides Christ is explicitly called Mary’s child. So there response SHOULD be ‘O my, I guess we were wrong thinking that Jesus’ brothers were Mary’s sons!’ But unfortunately, that happens too seldom.

This verse clearly says all Christians are Mary’s children.** If you make it mean ‘The Church’ you get Jesus as the Church’s Son.** I am not saying there might not be a ‘layer’ of meaning there but the primary sense is clearly the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Great point!

 

[adriancombe]

great point!

χάριν έχω σοι αδελφέ δια ταύτης της τιμής.

 

[Nicholas_II]

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).

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

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.

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

The point I was trying to make was the Iranaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. Thats the “chain” of tradition, and that it is not insignificant that the first writings of the church fathers about Mary comes from Iraneus, who is in this chain, coming as it does from John.

What makes this significant is that Johns Gospel also has the parable of Mary interceeding with her son at the wedding at Cana. So while I’m not refering to specific writings, Im referring to the tradition, from John, from the foot fo the cross taking her into his home, writing about the Wedding at Cana in his Gospel, in Revelation about the woman clothed with the Sun, that it is through his disciples that the catholic tradition seems to come. I doubt you will find much from Polycarp if anything about the Virgin Mary, but his disciple Iraneus who put great play on the fact that his teacher was a disciple of one of the apostles, he on the other hand seems to have taken a seed of Catholic Tradition and nurtured it to our understanding of Mary as the New Eve.

Is that tradition at work, or heresy? To me its tradition at work. Who can rule out him recieving this from Polycarp? Who can doubt the influence of John in it somehow?

Incidentally the “New Eve” tradition of Iranaeus supports the idea of the Assumption of BVM very strongly imo. Given what Paul wrote about Jesus and the New Adam in Romans.

I dont know what all this has to do with Revelations 12, Except that it was John that wrote it. And given all the subsequent tradition starting in his own Gospel, I find the assertion by Protestants that he did not have Mary in mind AT ALL when he penned Rev 12, unbelievable.

 

[COPLAND_3]

χάριν έχω σοι αδελφέ δια ταύτης της τιμής.

Αδριανος,

Σας ευχαριστώ ο μεγάλος αδελφός μου.

 

[Cachonga]

Randy Carson:

I can’t put my finger on it at the moment, but I’m certain that I have read that Mary and Jesus are the only two "characters’ in Revelation who are described as having bodies. The rest are all spiritual beings.

If you find this in the Scriptures, let me know where. I don’t think I’ve ever read any such thing anywhere in Scripture (of course, I’m not infallible, and could have missed it, but I would think if such a verse existed the Church would be very quick to point to it as proof of Mary’s assumption).
COPLAND 3:

He wrote it in his commentary on Revelation in the AD 500’s. Here is a scanned image from his commentary of Rev. 12 litteralchristianlibrary.wetp…enius+Rev.+12#

Are you sure about the date? When I look up Oecumenius, I find that he lived in the 10th or 11th century (see here), or is there another person by that name? And even with a date in the 500’s, it’s still not the earliest commentary (which does not mention Mary anywhere except chapter 4).
Nicholas II:

The point I was trying to make was the Iranaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. Thats the “chain” of tradition, and that it is not insignificant that the first writings of the church fathers about Mary comes from Iraneus, who is in this chain, coming as it does from John.

Irenaeus also claimed that Jesus was 50 years old when He was crucified, and that this was taught by the apostles. Do you believe Irenaeus is infallible? It would be helpful if you could give the specific citation you are referring to.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you find this in the Scriptures, let me know where. I don’t think I’ve ever read any such thing anywhere in Scripture (of course, I’m not infallible, and could have missed it, but I would think if such a verse existed the Church would be very quick to point to it as proof of Mary’s assumption).

Actually, I did point you to Revelation 12…verse 1 is the key; there, Mary is described physically: she has feet and a head with a crown.

Everyone else in heaven is pure spirit…only Jesus and Mary are described physically.

Is this a coincidence?

 

[adriancombe]

Αδριανος,

Σας ευχαριστώ ο μεγάλος αδελφός μου.

Ooh. You know modern Greek too? I only know the biblical stuff.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I see two problems immediately. First, it seems that this is using a generic term (a woman) rather than a specific term (the woman). Second, Mary was not the only person Jesus addressed in this way. He addressed a Canaanite mother as “woman” (Matt 15:22-28); He addressed a woman He healed as “woman” (Luke 13:12); He addressed the woman at the well as “woman” (John 4:21); He addressed the woman caught in adultery as “woman” (John 8:10); even John 20:15 is addressed to Mary Magdalene (as shown by reading to verse 18). I think the thing to remember is that this is a vision from God, not a video clip on an I-Phone.

What I am saying is that John, who wrote Revelation, was given Mary as his mother at the foot of the Cross at which time Mary was called “woman” to John. It is understandable for Jesus to refer to another woman as “woman” like the woman at the well…but He refers to His own mother as “woman”? John addressed His own mother as “woman” in John 2 as well at the Cana wedding. This is a pattern seen in the writings of John.

I can’t reconcile what you are saying with “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness…” Both Israel and Mary match this profile right down to the fleeing part, except Mary much more explicitly brings forth the child.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Are you sure about the date? When I look up Oecumenius, I find that he lived in the 10th or 11th century (see here), or is there another person by that name? And even with a date in the 500’s, it’s still not the earliest commentary (which does not mention Mary anywhere except chapter 4).

That article from the Catholic Encyclo. is outdated and unfortunately is not very good at all. First of all it says that it is a modified version of St. Andrew’s commentary, which is not taking in account that in St. Andrew’s commentary he often opposes Oecumenius’ interpretations and he set out to give what he thought was a better interpretation than Oecumenius, and St. Andrew lived in the 500’s. Another thing the article failed to consider was some of the hints that Oecumenius left us in his commentary gives us a fairly good date when it was written. Here is the commentary by Oecumenius and I have bookmarked it on the introduction books.google.com/books?id=GGpSK6yLzvUC&lpg=PP1&dq=oecumenius%20commentary%20revelation&pg=PT15#v=onepage&q=oecumenius%20commentary%20revelation&f=true

And even with a date in the 500’s, it’s still not the earliest commentary (which does not mention Mary anywhere except chapter 4).

I was not making an argument concerning it being the oldest commentary, that makes no difference to me at all, all I was doing was giving the OP’er Oecumenius’ interpretation on anguish of birth which varied from mine, but I thought it was interesting, I’m not too interested in trying to make the oldest commentaries out to be the final authority, I do believe in exegetical development, though from an orthodox minded Catholic approach.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Ooh. You know modern Greek too? I only know the biblical stuff.

I took a course in Modern Greek when I was studying Koine thinking it would help me in my Koine Greek studies, so I did learn some general phrases and grammar, but I did not go to any great length since it was not helping me nor do I ever get the chance to talk with any Greeks. I took some Modern Greek in order to speak some of it, while I learned Koine in order to read it, so I took much different approaches for each.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

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.

I believe it too. Thank you very much for responding…especially in providing that link; it was very helpful!

God Bless
Therese

 

[Nicholas_II]

Irenaeus also claimed that Jesus was 50 years old when He was crucified, and that this was taught by the apostles.

Well there you go then! Just goes to show how the church can discern tradition from Tradition.

Do you believe Irenaeus is infallible? It would be helpful if you could give the specific citation you are referring to.

St Irenaeus: “Just as the former—that is, Eve—was seduced by the words of an angel so that she turned away from God by disobeying his word, so the latter—Mary—received the good news from an angel’s announcement in such a way as to give birth to God by obeying his word; and as the former was seduced so that she disobeyed God, the latter let herself be convinced to obey God, and so the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve. And as the human race was subjected to death by a virgin, it was liberated by a Virgin; a virgin’s disobedience was thus counterbalanced by a Virgin’s obedience…” (Adv. Haer., V, 19, 1).

Not infallible.