Mary...and pain

[arabic_catholic]

I have a question about Mary

according to bible , the original sin will let women feel pain when giving birth

we know from early writings that Mary didn’t feel pain when she give birth to Jesus (I read that in Jimmy Akin’s book)

however , one might say that Catholics interpret the woman in REV , as Mary, the woman in REV had pain when she gave birth to the Child , therefore Mary is not that Woman

I read the answer in one of scott hahn’s books , but I forgot it . I wish someone would tell me how can I say that the woman in Revelation is the Virgin Mary when the woman had pain ?

God Bless

 

[bmullins]

The woman not only represents Mary, but also represents the church. The church is STILL in birth pains for us, as we are definitely not an easy child to bear.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I have a question about Mary

according to bible , the original sin will let women feel pain when giving birth

we know from early writings that Mary didn’t feel pain when she give birth to Jesus (I read that in Jimmy Akin’s book)

however , one might say that Catholics interpret the woman in REV , as Mary, the woman in REV had pain when she gave birth to the Child , therefore Mary is not that Woman

I read the answer in one of scott hahn’s books , but I forgot it . I wish someone would tell me how can I say that the woman in Revelation is the Virgin Mary when the woman had pain ?

God Bless

It is complex.
The first 5 books of the Bible cannot be interpreted literally.
Adam and Eve never existed. They are a midrash, a tale with a meaning.
Please see this site which is short and if you want, read it slowly:

FOUR-SOURCE THEORY OF THE TORAH

There is much more information but it is more complex. You may read slowly as you like. I did not quote Wikipedia, which i very good for many people hate it.
If you need help, just write to me.

 

[bmullins]

Adam and Eve never existed. They are a midrash, a tale with a meaning.

I disagree and this is not church teaching. They are a tale with a meaning, but a tale about literal people nonetheless. The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr Ludwig Ott (Tan, 1974, pps. 94 - 96) confirms the Catholic Church teaching that Adam and Eve were two actual historical personages. They did exist.

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . . divine life”.​

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.​

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.​

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.​

411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam. Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.​

417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.​

635 Christ went down into the depths of death so that “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” Jesus, “the Author of life”, by dying destroyed “him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.” Henceforth the risen Christ holds “the keys of Death and Hades”, so that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.”​

Today a great silence reigns on earth, a great silence and a great stillness. A great silence because the King is asleep. The earth trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began. . . He has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him - He who is both their God and the son of Eve. . . “I am your God, who for your sake have become your son. . . I order you, O sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be a prisoner in hell. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead.”

766 The Church is born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. “The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus.” “For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.’” As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross.​

2361 “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.”​

Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” And they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I have a question about Mary

according to bible , the original sin will let women feel pain when giving birth

we know from early writings that Mary didn’t feel pain when she give birth to Jesus (I read that in Jimmy Akin’s book)

however , one might say that Catholics interpret the woman in REV , as Mary, the woman in REV had pain when she gave birth to the Child , therefore Mary is not that Woman

I read the answer in one of scott hahn’s books , but I forgot it . I wish someone would tell me how can I say that the woman in Revelation is the Virgin Mary when the woman had pain ?

God Bless

I don’t think the Church has an official doctrine on whether or not Mary experienced pain during birth (someone correct me with a citation if I’m wrong). There may well be a pious opinion that it is the case, and it also may be true, but I am not aware the Spirit has revealed that as a high doctrine.

Also, think of it this way, if birth pangs are a consequence of original sin, does that necessarily mean anyone who experiences birth pangs does so as a result of original sin? Logic says no. If fatigue is a consequence of running a marathon, does that mean therefore that anyone who experiences fatigue does so as a result of running a marathon? Of course not. Take another example. The rule is, students caught talking in class have to stay after school. Let’s say Billy is caught and gets a detention. But Suzie gets a ride home with Billy. If Suzie also stays after school then, does that mean Suzie is staying after school as a result of being caught talking in class? Of course not.

In the same way, death was a consequence of original sin. As in Adam all die, as Scripture says. Yet Christ died. Did he experience death as a result of original sin? No. So whether or not Mary had birth pangs does not tell us one way or the other if she had original sin.

Also, there are a number of theologians that equate the “pains of birth” as an emotional pain as prophecied by Simeon to her in Luke 2:34-35 about how a sword would pierce her heart in solidarity with her son.

 

[Cristiano]

I don’t think the Church has an official doctrine on whether or not Mary experienced pain during birth (someone correct me with a citation if I’m wrong). There may well be a pious opinion that it is the case, and it also may be true, but I am not aware the Spirit has revealed that as a high doctrine…

There is no discussion of pain associated with the dogma of the virgin birth. The Schoolmen theorized that Mary did not suffer pain. The thinking would make sense because the source of pain was not present in the case of Mary. However, when dealing with miracles and God’s will the normal rules do not always apply.

 

[promethius]

I have a question about Mary

according to bible , the original sin will let women feel pain when giving birth

we know from early writings that Mary didn’t feel pain when she give birth to Jesus (I read that in Jimmy Akin’s book)

however , one might say that Catholics interpret the woman in REV , as Mary, the woman in REV had pain when she gave birth to the Child , therefore Mary is not that Woman

I read the answer in one of scott hahn’s books , but I forgot it . I wish someone would tell me how can I say that the woman in Revelation is the Virgin Mary when the woman had pain ?

God Bless

There is no discussion of pain in the birth of Jesus that is any way doctrinal. In other words, the church does NOT teach that she had or did not have birth pains. It also does not define that the birth pains of the woman in revelation are necessarily PHYSICAL pains.

However, even if they were physical pains and Mary did experience them, this would do nothing to the doctrine of the immaculate conception. Jesus was without sin, and somehow still managed to die anyway… another case where an immaculate person took on a punishment contracted by original sin. To think that Mary’s experience as a human would be any different or better is… well… silly.

 

[Mintaka]

Um, guys… hate to tell you, but “birth pangs show that the Woman in Revelation isn’t Mary, or isn’t just Mary” was a very early argument. Primasius of Adrumetum and St. Caesarius of Arles both talked about this. However, Oecumenius/Oecumenios was an early-ish Eastern commentator on the Mary side with a vengeance. He goes through all the types. (And obviously, Caesarius and Primasius wouldn’t have to argue against the Woman being Mary if people hadn’t been teaching that it was Mary.)

I think the best way to look at it is that the Woman in Revelation is a type or picture of Mary, just like the “male child” is a type or picture of Christ. But it’s a picture of Mary giving birth to Christ that’s “really” about the Church bearing Christ to the world, and the Church giving birth to new believers. (Because Christ has an iron rod, but He also promises an iron rod to Christians who are victorious over the world, in the Seven Letters to the churches.)

This doesn’t mean that Mary isn’t the Ark; it just means that Mary and the Church reflect each other and the Ark, just as Christ and Christians reflect each other and can be represented by similar symbols. In fact, it shows that people knew that Mary could be represented by the Temple, by the closed Temple gate, by the Tabernacle, and by the Ark (all four of which images show up very early in early Christian literature), even though the Temple, the Altar of Sacrifice, the Tabernacle, and the Ark were also common symbols of the Church. (And sometimes these symbols were used for other figures, too, like the Apostles.)

(Oh, and the shekhinah glory cloud comes into play a lot for both Mary and the Church, and sometimes for bishops, apostles, et al.)

The Book of Revelation has a lot of images that have multiple meanings, even more than usual in the Bible.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I disagree and this is not church teaching. They are a tale with a meaning, but a tale about literal people nonetheless. The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr Ludwig Ott (Tan, 1974, pps. 94 - 96) confirms the Catholic Church teaching that Adam and Eve were two actual historical personages. They did exist.

If they existed, there were 5000 years old.
Science shows that that is impossible.

They existed, OK, but they are us, you and me. Just interpret the Cathecism.

If they existed and they had 2 sons, who did they reproduce? If they had daughters, would be incest?

No. There are other interpretations. Adam and Eve is a BEAUTIFUL midrash.

 

[kepha1]

Gen. 3:16

To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,…

This verse implies that some pain in childbirth was part of the design before the Fall. Pain would have to exist in some form in order for it to be greatly multiplied. I think it is a safe deduction that Mary, who was conceived in a pre-Fall state, may have had minimal pain in child bearing as it was originally designed. Scot Windsor also holds this view. But the only person who really knows for sure is Mary.

 

[Cristiano]

Gen. 3:16

To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,…

This verse implies that some pain in childbirth was part of the design before the Fall. Pain would have to exist in some form in order for it to be greatly multiplied. I think it is a safe deduction that Mary, who was conceived in a pre-Fall state, may have had minimal pain in child bearing as it was originally designed. Scot Windsor also holds this view. But the only person who really knows for sure is Mary.

I think that you are making a good point, or at least I like it. Pain is part of our physicality and we can overcome pain only when we have a glorified body that is completely subject to the will. Adam and Eve did not have glorified bodies and so we can assume that they could have been able to suffer some form of pain.