Mary in the book of Revelation

[Sinke]

Greetings, brethern!

I would like to know whether we Catholics interpret woman from Revelation 12 as Mary. Some Catholics I met considered this true, but I find it contradictionary on several points.

For example, the woman is having pain because of giving birth ( and since Mary was exceptional from Original Sin, she had no pain when giving birth). I also find the passages describing woman’s escape to desert, and dragon’s attempts to kill her as proofs that this is not Mary.

If it is not Mary, who is she? Is it something “about to happen” , in other words, is this woman “yet to come” ?

Thank you, with wishes for God’s grace in your lifes.

 

[Franciscan]

Greetings, brethern!

I would like to know whether we Catholics interpret woman from Revelation 12 as Mary. Some Catholics I met considered this true, but I find it contradictionary on several points.

For example, the woman is having pain because of giving birth ( and since Mary was exceptional from Original Sin, she had no pain when giving birth). I also find the passages describing woman’s escape to desert, and dragon’s attempts to kill her as proofs that this is not Mary.

If it is not Mary, who is she? Is it something “about to happen” , in other words, is this woman “yet to come” ?

Thank you, with wishes for God’s grace in your lifes.

Hi sinke,
Rev 12 is about Mary and about the Church in general. As far as the pain in birth issue. One explanation is that Mary is not just the mother of Christ but of us (the Church). So the pain of birth can be related to her role as Mediatrix and Mother of us. She may experience the sorrow and pain of this spiritual motherhood. We know she was not exempt from pain in her earthly life.
As far as the dragon chasing her into the desert. I have heard an exp-lanation that theis relates to Mary and Joseph’s flight to Egypt soon after the birth of Jesus-where they stayed until Herod’s death.
There is also a connection here with Gen 3:15 the dragon = the serpent. Mary as the New eve has total enmity between her and the serpent/dragon/devil. There is always a battle between them and the devil is powerless since she is full of grace. This must drive him crazy since she is only a creature and not God.

 

[Penitus]

Let’s not forget 2 points:

1. Mary’s lack of pain in childbirth was never defined in the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. One can choose to believe Mary had pain in childbirth and still be in full communion with the Church.
2. Jesus was sinless and also experienced pain.

If you want a good article on this subject, I suggest checking out Jimmy Akin’ article here:
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705chap.asp

 

[savedsinner]

This isn’t an either/or situation.
It can be referring to Mary, to the church, and to Israel.
There can be multiple spirtual meanings scripture, especially to the book of Revelation.

 

[juliamajor]

Savedsinner is absolutely correct. Catholic theology is not a question of either/or but both-and .i.e… Mary is the Mother of God and Mother of Jesus(human).

 

[Nita]

As Franciscan noted, Mary is also the Mother of the Church. It was at the birth of the Mystical Body of Christ (the Church), which took place on Calvary, that Mary underwent the pains of a mother in labor. What agony could have been greater?

CCC #766 …“The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus.” (LG 3) “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.” (SC 5) 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.

Nita

 

[Sinke]

Greetings, all.

Franciscan,

Thank you for your answer. However, I’m still closer to believe that the Woman of Revelation is Israel, rather then Mary. The writtings of the Early Church, mostly “The Ascesion of Isaiah” and “The Odes of Solomon” ( dating from the first century ) describe Mary as a woman which gave birth without pain. ** Exodus 3:16 **claims that this pain is part of Original Sin, and since Mary was the new Eve, she did not suffer these pains. For more texts such as these, check
catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

This is quite important because the two mentioned texts are very reliable historical writtings which proove to Protestants that Early Church believed in what we today call the doctrine of Immaculate Conception and Assumption.

**Penitus, **

Thanks for your points. I’d still like to add that painless birth of Jesus Christ was a matter of reasonable consequnces. Mary was sinless, and as such she was excepted from pain which was attributed to the sin.

But your link to Jimmy Akin gave me more interpretational information, and I am very thankful for your answer.

**savedsinner, juliamajor, Nita **

You are both right. The Church teachings are very strict and concrete- but I wanted to know the full Catholic understanding of the passage since it was hard to understand certain interpretations by other brethern Catholics.

 

[Thaddeus]

Because of Revelation 12:17, I don’t think that “the Woman” could be Israel, because they do not bear testimony to Jesus as being the Son of God. If it refers to the Church, then that is even more perplexing, as Jesus created the Church, not the other way around. That leaves it to be Mary, at least to my way of thinking. Revelation 11:19 refers to John seeing the Ark of the Covenant, which is a direct reference to Mary, the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12 (especially since that is how she appeared at Guadalupe).

[17] Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.

 

[LilyM]

Thanks for your points. I’d still like to add that painless birth of Jesus Christ was a matter of reasonable consequnces. Mary was sinless, and as such she was excepted from pain which was attributed to the sin.

Jesus was sinless - yet He voluntarily took at least part of the burden of our sins (including the attached suffering) onto Himself although not deserving of any of His sufferings.

Plenty of Christians similarly take on undeserved suffering for the sake of others and in imitation of Christ.

Why would not Our Lady who followed Him so perfectly, have likewise been blessed to suffer, even in childbirth, for His sake?

 

[Sinke]

Thaddeus

Because of Revelation 12:17, I don’t think that “the Woman” could be Israel, because they do not bear testimony to Jesus as being the Son of God. If it refers to the Church, then that is even more perplexing, as Jesus created the Church, not the other way around. That leaves it to be Mary, at least to my way of thinking.

As Jimmy Akin said, it is possible that “Woman” has multiple meanings.

One of them, for example, “Woman” as Israelic heroes of The Old Testament who suffered for their faith until the birth of The Messiah.

LilyM,

Jesus was sinless - yet He voluntarily took at least part of the burden of our sins (including the attached suffering) onto Himself although not deserving of any of His sufferings.

Plenty of Christians similarly take on undeserved suffering for the sake of others and in imitation of Christ.

Why would not Our Lady who followed Him so perfectly, have likewise been blessed to suffer, even in childbirth, for His sake?

Since Mary was not harmed by Original Sin, she didn’t have to suffer. Early Christian writtings are explicit about lack of Mary’s suffering, theoretically glorifying God’s creation of Mary as the new Eve.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM,

Since Mary was not harmed by Original Sin, she didn’t have to suffer. Early Christian writtings are explicit about lack of Mary’s suffering, theoretically glorifying God’s creation of Mary as the new Eve.

Totally the contrary. All imitators of Christ have to suffer, just as He had Himself to suffer. Each Christian has to ‘make up in my flesh what is lacking in Christ’s sufferings’ as St Paul put it, or to ‘take up his cross daily’ as the Lord himself put it.

Mary too. Mary most of all after Christ Himself. Remember Simeon said ‘a sword shall pierce your heart’?? She suffered all right - and certainly in childbirth as in so many other ways. Being the most perfect of all Christ’s followers, she was also the most perfectly united to Him in gladly suffering, and the most perfectly purified and sanctified by all that she suffered.

In such circumstances, the Father would never deny her the opportunity to further unite herself to Christ’s sufferings and grow in sanctity by denying her the pains of childbirth. Paul again - ‘God chastises those whom He loves’. The more love, the more chastisement.

You can be sure Mary suffered more than any of us, in childbirth as in so many other ways, because of her purity, not less.

 

[Sinke]

You can be sure Mary suffered more than any of us, in childbirth as in so many other ways, because of her purity, not less

While I respect your opinion, I stay firm to my interpretation- both Biblical interpretation and Early Church writtings are very strong in claiming Mary had no pain while she was giving birth. That at no means lowers the value of Mary’s suffering and pain she later experienced in life because of her loyalty and love to and for Christ.

If Mary had pain when she gave birth to Jesus, that would mean she was under Original Sin- but the very fact she didn’t have pain ( as recorded by Early Christians ) prooves that she was not under penalty for Eve’s mistake. As to whether she accepted these pains on purpose, there are no known sources claiming that she did so.

 

[LilyM]

While I respect your opinion, I stay firm to my interpretation- both Biblical interpretation and Early Church writtings are very strong in claiming Mary had no pain while she was giving birth. That at no means lowers the value of Mary’s suffering and pain she later experienced in life because of her loyalty and love to and for Christ.

If Mary had pain when she gave birth to Jesus, that would mean she was under Original Sin- but the very fact she didn’t have pain ( as recorded by Early Christians ) prooves that she was not under penalty for Eve’s mistake. As to whether she accepted these pains on purpose, there are no known sources claiming that she did so.

Absolutely not. Mary having pain, even in childbirth, does NOT mean that she was under original sin. For starters the verse in Genesis talks about INCREASING or MULTIPLYING the woman’s pain, not giving her pain where there was none. So for this verse to make sense, it would have to mean that women always suffered some pain in childbirth and that this was added to.

Secondly, we are to imitate Christ, no? In everything? Then that includes imitating His suffering. And includes taking on undeserved penalties of other people’s sins. St Dominic Savio was a prime example of this - falsely accused, he accepted the punishment rather than defending himself. This was proof of his sanctity.

So it’s more than feasible, it’s almost certain, that Mary, so perfectly united to Christ in everything, also united herself to Christ in taking on herself part of the penalty for Eve’s sin, since He did not shrink from taking on that of Adam.

For heaven’s sake Aquinas and Augustine didn’t even think she WAS Immaculately Conceived, if I remember rightly, nor did a lot of eminent theologians. So I could find you plenty of theologians who would have believed without doubt that she suffered the pains of childbirth.

As for her sinlessness - how about the Angel’s greeting ‘full of grace’? How about the fact that she was Assumed into Heaven (also recorded by early Christians)? How about the fact that she was called the ark of the new Covenant - it’s even implied in Scripture where the ark is seen in heaven along with the woman. Thus was, like the old Ark, untouchably pure?

These are more than enough proof of her sinlessness for anyone, without buying into old wives’ tales about her not suffering in childbirth. If Jesus was like us in all things but sin, including pain and suffering, then so was Mary.

 

[Sinke]

Absolutely not. Mary having pain, even in childbirth, does NOT mean that she was under original sin. For starters the verse in Genesis talks about INCREASING or MULTIPLYING the woman’s pain, not giving her pain where there was none. So for this verse to make sense, it would have to mean that women always suffered some pain in childbirth and that this was added to.

I do agree with your argument abour multiplying pain, however, as I stated before, the early Church writtings- recognized and used by Catholic apologetics worldwide- are strong in saying that Mary’s birth was with at least less pain then usual.

As for pain of the saints, I already said that not experiencing birth pain in context of Scripture has nothing to do with Mary’s character and devotion to Christ- all this was according to God’s will. Saints which accepted injustice rather then making revenge experineced pain- but this pain was part of their martyrdom, while lack of Mary’s pain at childbirth was a part of reasonable circumstances which happened in the Bible. Since Mary was the new Eve, she was not under “old Eve’s” penalties.

I don’t understand your problem with accepting Mary had painless birth. As I mentioned, she had her share of suffering and lack of pain at giving birth to Jesus doesn’t mean she wasn’t arosed in Heaven or that she is less heroic character of Bible.

Here is the explanation at Catholic answers, read the last of the first paragraph :
catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp