Mary is Alive?

[Truthstalker]

Show me Biblically where the assumption of Mary was prophesied.

Something so important would have been prophesied about, either literally or symbolically.

BA

In the first statement, you again seem to have totally disregarded what I wrote.

What is your basis for your second statement?

Death has no power over someone who is without sin. If Mary had no sin, then death had no power over her.

1Co 15:55 “O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?”
1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.

In Mary grace was comprehensive (Luke 1:28). If so, then there was and is and will be no room for sin in her. If there is no sin in her, death has no hold on her.

 

[bibleapologist]

In the first statement, you again seem to have totally disregarded what I wrote.

What is your basis for your second statement?

Death has no power over someone who is without sin. If Mary had no sin, then death had no power over her.

In Mary grace was comprehensive (Luke 1:28). If so, then there was and is and will be no room for sin in her. If there is no sin in her, death has no hold on her.

Grace is not holiness, and can not be equated with a complete lack of sin.

Grace is the favor of God, and His bestowment on men is the one thing that is higher than anything else on earth… to know Him, and therefore to know yourself.

For someone to have grace is to experience the movement of God in one’s heart. And anyone who has experienced that will understand that when God moves, He does so in a way that makes you feel like you are an important, or highly favored person by God.

Of course Mary would be blessed among women, God moved in her and revealed Himself to her. The same as any other woman in history to whom God has revealed Himself. And any other woman to whom grace has been given will also be considered blessed among women.

BA

 

[water]

Of course Mary would be blessed among women, God moved in her and revealed Himself to her. The same as any other woman in history to whom God has revealed Himself. And any other woman to whom grace has been given will also be considered blessed among women.
BA

But Virgin Mary is not just any woman receiving grace - She the first to receive Jesus to her womb. She is Full of grace.

 

[Pater_Familias]

I have to say all this debating really strengthens my catholic faith.

Thanks BA your (Edited by Moderator) rantings clearly show the reasonableness and rationality of my faith

May the blessed virgin lead you ever more urgently to the truth.

God bless

Arthur
Ad Jesu per Mariam

 

[water]

I have to say all this debating really strengthens my catholic faith.

yesterday, I was thinking the same thing. Especially, how I’ve had the desire to love Virgin Mary more and more. Of course, the more you love her, the more you want to love Jesus.

 

[Zooey]

Pater Familias:

Thanks BA your (Edited by Moderator) rantings clearly show the reasonableness and rationality of my faith

 

[Zooey]

yesterday, I was thinking the same thing. Especially, how I’ve had the desire to love Virgin Mary more and more. Of course, the more you love her, the more you want to love Jesus.

:yup:

:crying: Sadly, some people seem to:crying: dislike Mary more than they love Jesus…:crying:

 

[jmcrae]

Mary is alive in Heaven. I had a spiritual vision of her one time a very long time ago. She told me that a certain man was going to save the unborn, and that I was to assist him in doing this. I do for him whatever I can - I am not very rich.

Of course I pray the Hail Mary and other prayers in her honour, and I ask her to pray for me to her Son, Jesus Christ. I have found her to be a very powerful and practical intercessor.

Any woman can know God, but only Mary has ever changed His diapers.

 

[Nicene]

Yes (sarcastically)… that is what Christianity is… just learning to interact sociologically with others of like faith.

That is very shallow.

BA

Yes Jesus was very shallow:

Mt 25:34: Then the King will say to those at his right hand, Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35: for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36: I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37: Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
38: And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
39: And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’
40: And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’

Paul was pretty shallow as well:

1 Cor 13:2: And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3: If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4: Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;
5: it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
6: it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.
7: Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Gal 5:22: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23: gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.
24: And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25: If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
26: Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another.

And Peter:

1 Pet 4:8: Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins.
9: Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another.
10: As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace:

And John was very shallow:

1 Jn 3:11: For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another,
12: and not be like Cain who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous.
13: Do not wonder, brethren, that the world hates you.
14: We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.
15: Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Of course the John (v15) seems to hold the same opinion as Jesus of those who are not shallow:

Mt 25:41: Then he will say to those at his left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42: for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43: I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44: Then they also will answer, Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’
45: Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’
46: And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Paul seems to think this as well:

Gal 5:19: Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
20: idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit,
21: envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Without the need to post the rest of the apostles on this matter, James, Peter, Jude and John all hold to the same tenet of concerning shallowness and non shallowness.

Of course as Baptists hold to the supposed “non shallow” view, well…

However it does make me wonder how Baptists don’t know what the Body of Christ is:

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Mannyfit75]

Does BA hate Mary that much? How can he hate the Mother of Jesus?

 

[HailMary]

BA,
A WOMAN APPEARED IN HEAVEN!!
How would St. John recognize the soul of Mary if her body was not present? Beats me.

Anyhow, this, like many other things, is part of Sacred Tradition. Just like you, BibleApologist, cannot prove that ANY prophets ever said the following prophecy:

Matthew 2:23:

He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets[might be fulfilled, "**He shall be called a Nazorean

."
(no where in the bible is this prophecy EVER mentioned!)

We can’t prove, scientifically, that Mary was assumed body and soul into heave: its a matter of FAITH based upon TRADITION.

I expect your reaction to Mary’s Bodily Assumption into Heaven, since you don’t believe in “extra-biblical” sources. From Matt. 2:23, the stronger case is made that the Sacred Author MOST DEFINITELY held the Catholic and Orthodox position that He believed and practiced Tradition.

God Bless

 

[Zooey]

Yes Jesus was very shallow:

Mt 25:34: Then the King will say to those at his right hand, Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35: for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36: I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37: Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
38: And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
39: And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’
40: And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’

Paul was shallow :

1 Cor 13:2: And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3: If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4: Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;
5: it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
6: it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.
7: Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Gal 5:22: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23: gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.
24: And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25: If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
26: Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another.

And Peter:

1 Pet 4:8: Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins.
9: Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another.
10: As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace:

And John :

1 Jn 3:11: For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another,
12: and not be like Cain who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous.
13: Do not wonder, brethren, that the world hates you.
14: We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.
15: Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

John seems to hold the same opinion as Jesus of those who are not shallow:

Mt 25:41: Then he will say to those at his left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42: for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43: I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44: Then they also will answer, Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’
45: Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’
46: And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Paul as well:

Gal 5:19: Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
20: idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit,
21: envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Without the need to post the rest of the apostles, James, Peter, Jude and John all hold to the same tenet of shallowness and non shallowness.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

[SIGN]http://bestsmileys.com/clapping/6.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/clapping/6.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/clapping/6.gif[/SIGN]

 

[Mannyfit75]

Of course I believe in the resurrection of the dead… but it hasn’t happened yet. And yes, Mary will be resurrected without a doubt… “some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting death”. I do believe Mary will be resurrected to everlasting life.

(And it’s Revelation… not Revelation(s) )

That was a typo on my part.

Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven… like I said earlier. But we are not told that Mary was assumed… so why believe it. Tradition doesn’t prove anything. If it was tradition that Winnie the Pooh particles existed in Atoms… I think it would be time to reconsider scientific traditions.

Nor no one can here witness that Jesus Christ risen. How can you prove out outside Scripture?

No-one has been able to find the bones of Jimmy Hoffa either, but I would be a idiot to say that he had been assumed.

The writings of the ECF and it is an early Christian belief that Mary assumed. You have not proven historically that she did not assumed.

Come on now, you know as well as I do that there were hundreds of Mary’s during that time period, and hundreds, if not thousands of graves that have the name Mary on them. How can you say for a fact that not one of them is the Mother of Jesus?

You objection to Mary is similiar to those non-Believers who claim to find Jesus bone. Could those be truly the bones of Jesus? Your claims proves the same with Mary.

You believe she was not assumed, therefore you believe just because it is not in the Bible, she did not.

I don’t have to.

If you told me that a planet existed beyond Pluto that had little people living on it, I wouldn’t have to prove to you that they didn’t exist… the burden of proof would lie with you.

And the burden of proof lies with you on the assumption of Mary also. I don’t care how many people have said in the past that she was assumed… those people are tradition believers too.

You show me the proof. And if you can’t, then why would you believe it yourself?

BA

Earlier you claim historically that there is historical proof text to support Mary’s assumption. So did you back tract on your claim?

 

[Mannyfit75]

BA,

I have show you from the writings of the ECF as early as 377 A.D that Christians believed that Mary assumed into heaven. This is based in Christian Tradition and the Scripture itself. I have show you in the Book of Revelation 12 that Mary is the woman clothed with the sun.

Who is the woman of Rev. 12? Who is called Woman in the Bible? Whenever Jesus refers to his mother, what does he call her? Woman. He calls her woman at the time of his first miracle in Cana John 2:4. He calls her Woman, behold your Son, when referring to John (John 19:27). Paul calls her the Woman in Gal. 4:4. Are all these coincidences (there happen to be no such coincidences for Israel and the term ‘woman’) or does it not show without a doubt, that the primary meaning of the Woman of Rev. 12 is Mary!!!

We have seen a striking parallel between the woman of Genesis 3:15, and the woman of Revelation 12. There is a woman who is at enmity with the Devil in both passages. Satan is at war with Jesus in both passages, and the woman is a central part in both passages. In the Genesis passage there is a promise of the victory that shows it fulfilled in Revelation 12. It is apparent that the ‘woman’ of Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12 are the same woman. The only one who fits the bill in both passages is Mary. We have looked at the alternatives given by opponents of the Marian interpretations. In Genesis 3 we saw the possibility of Eve, being destroyed by the internal evidence. Genesis 3 points not only to Jesus but also to Mary, as even acknowledged by the ‘reformers’. Martin Luther writes in reference to the Genesis 3:15 passage:

 

[Mannyfit75]

Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent’s head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing. [13]
Eve nowhere is even brought into the picture of Revelation 12. None of the Protestant interpreters saw Eve as the ‘woman’ of Revelation 12. The Protestants who deny the Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 gave us Israel as the ‘woman’. In fact we saw nowhere in the Bible was the ‘woman’ ever identified as Israel. Nowhere does Scripture ever allude to Israel being the one who specifically gives birth to the Messiah. Of course Scripture is quite clear that the one who gives birth to the Messiah is Mary. The most natural interpretation of Revelation 12, is that the ‘woman’ who gives birth to the Messiah, is actually the ‘woman’ who gives birth to the Messiah: That is Mary.
We have looked at Revelation 12 and looked at who is more likely to be identified as the ‘woman’ of Revelation 12. The ‘woman’ is one who gives birth to the Son who rules over the earth. The woman is clothed with the sun and the moon is put under her feet and she is crowned with twelve stars. All the other personages in the scene of Revelation 12 are individuals. Jesus is the Son who rules. Michael is identified. Satan is identified. Thus, in order to be consistent in interpretation the only way it can be so is by having this person identified as an individual. The only person who is an individual, who is also the Mother of the Messiah, is Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Now I am not arguing that there are not other interpretations possible. In fact many Church Fathers saw the ‘woman’ as referring to the Church, or the people of God, and varying other interpretations. There can be many senses and interpretations in various passages and indications are that the woman of Revelation 12 does not need to be limited to one interpretation. The Catholic Church indicates in its interpretation of Matthew 16:18, the ‘rock’ not only is Peter, but can also supplementarily be the confession of faith of Peter, and even indirectly Jesus as the Rock. One interpretation does not necessarily exclude other interpretations. However, the indication in this study, has shown us Mary is the ‘woman’ of Revelation 12 in a primary way. Even if some after looking at the data want to say, that she is not the primary ‘woman’, will at a minimum have to in some way admit that the mother who bears the son who rules the earth (Rev. 12:5), is indeed the ‘woman’ who bears that son. That woman is Mary. Even if only in a secondary sense. Of course I believe that this study indicates she is the woman in a primary sense.

Some of those who are not pro-Catholic who objectively look at the data will admit that the woman of Revelation 12 is indeed Mary. An opponent of the Catholic view on Mary even cites the ‘World Evangelical Fellowship’ acknowledgment of the ‘woman’ of Revelation 12 as Mary.

In the apostolic witness, there are only two references to her. Paul spoke of the seed born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), and John told of the woman clothed with the sun who brought forth the manchild (Rev 12:1). Both depict the birth of Christ.[14]
Thus, even the World Evangelical Fellowship, hardly an advocate of Catholic theology will admit that the woman of Revelation 12 is indeed Mary.
What have we seen in our study? Manelli gives a shorter and sweeter summary than I can so I will let him analyze what Scripture has pointed us to in the phrase ‘Woman’.

First, the term ‘woman’ is expressly linked in the text to Old and New Testament passages where Mary is present and acts as protagonist. Such is the prophetic text of Gen. 3:15 where the ‘Woman’, with her son, is the triumphant enemy of the serpent, seducer of our first parents. In Gal. 4:4, the ‘Woman’ - Mary is the human origin of the Word made flesh. At Cana of Galilee, Mary is the ‘Woman’ of who prepares the way for the public manifestation of the Messiah-Savior, persuading Jesus to work the first of His “signs” (Jn 2:1-11): Next beneath the Cross, at the consummation of the universal salvific mission, Mary is present as the ‘Woman’ associated with Christ, and proclaimed by Jesus as the mother of John, who represents redeemed humanity. Finally, in the text of Rev. 12, the same ‘Woman’, recapitulates and concludes the salvific plan of God already predicted at the dawn of humanity, in Genesis 3:15. [15]

Now let us go back to the end of Revelation 12: 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.

((Continue))

 

[Mannyfit75]

Now we have seen that the woman of Revelation 12 is Mary. In the above passage, where the woman is battling with the dragon, or Satan, she has some offspring who are at war with the devil. Who are her offspring? All those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. Thus, we see that those Christians who bear testimony of Jesus have this woman, or Mary as their Mother. This study has shown that Revelation 12 has Mary as the mother, and this passage in Revelation 12 indicates that those Christians who bear testimony to Jesus, also are Mary’s offspring. God didn’t give us a single parent household. He gives us his mother as Mary. Obviously these are the followers of Christ, not physical children of Mary. Just as Jesus named Mary the mother of John (Jn. 19:27), all who follow him, are her children, via Revelation 12:17. In addition to that, when we see that it is Mary who is the Woman who has the 12 crowns, we have a perfectly Biblical basis for calling her Queen mother. The fact that there are false Queen Mothers that may be referenced the Old Testament does not do away with her title and Revelation 12:1 any more than the fact that there are false messiahs, do away with the fact that there is a real Messiah!!! Thus, those who bear testimony to Jesus, also have Mary as their Mother. That is clear Scriptural truth.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Let us again focus on one part of this passage that Protestants will refer to, to prove that Mary could not be the ‘Woman‘. This is again, Revelation 12:2, given with the context.

2 she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. 3 And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; 5 she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne
The Protestant will argue, well ‘don’t you Catholics argue that pains of child birth is a direct result of original sin, and if the woman is Mary, then she wouldn’t have labor pains, and here you have labor pains, so there!”. Now, at first glance, he may seem to have a point. However, in fact, for a Protestant who is objectively looking at this passage, whether Mary is sinless is besides the point. If our look at Revelation 12 excludes Israel from being the ‘woman’, as the reasons we have given above, theoretically, the identification of Mary as Mary remains, regardless of whether she is sinless. A Protestant, who has come to see the above analysis, should not be bothered in the least that there are labor pains, because he wouldn’t consider it even essential that Mary would be sinless. Theoretically, thus, a Protestant should have no problem seeing Mary as the (or at least a primary) woman of Revelation, and still have labor pains.
Nonetheless, it is true that for a Catholic, we do have to deal with fact that there are indeed labor pains. To best answer this, I will refer to some sources that do have some valid answers. I can not pretend that I am coming up with this, and I will give citations which do seem to give cogent answers. Now, first, there is aa author, John McHugh, who sees Mary as not the primary ‘Woman’ of Revelation 12, but still sees her as the woman in a secondary manner. He sees the Church as the primary ‘woman.’ He notes the passage where she cries out in anguish, that is used by Protestants to say it couldn‘t be Mary.

The woman, we read was ‘in anguish for delivery’ (Revised Standard Version). The Greek verb here translated ‘in anguish for delivery’ (Revised Standard Version). The Greek verb here translated ‘in anguish’ is never once used in the Septuagint, the New Testament, the apocrypha, the papyri or the Fathers to denote the pains of physical birth; and this is all the more remarkable when one remembers the scene of a painful birth is alluded to in these writings. The word can perhaps best be rendered as ‘going through torment or torture’, and it is therefore a very surprising verb to encounter when one recalls the radiant description of the woman in 12:1. [16]

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thus, this passage does not show that the woman is experiencing physical labor pains, and if the author had wanted to say that, he would have used such language. Instead, it seems as though John is speaking of a double birth. Now, at Calvary, where Mary was there whereas all the apostles (except John) fled Jesus, she went into untold to suffering while she watched Jesus get tortured, and hung on the cross. Remember, Jesus said ‘Woman’ to Mary, in Jn. 19:26. Mary is undergoing suffering at that point. Thus, there is a double birth pointed to in Revelation 12:2. The pain she is suffering here, is not indicating she was suffering pain in birth, but the suffering at seeing her son’s pain and suffering on Calvary. This will eventually point to his resurrection and ascencion into heaven (Rev. 12:5). Thus, the best explanation is pointed out by Manelli, who has already given us much insight in our study:

 

[Mannyfit75]

The pains of childbirth of the “woman” seem to constitute a particular problem, if they are referred to the virginal childbirth of Mary at Bethlehem. If instead, they are referred to the childbirth of Mary on Calvary, where she is constituted “truly the mother of the members of Christ”, as St. Augustine affirms (quoted by Lumen Gentuium, no. 53), then we too can understand with other exegetes, among them D. Squillaci, that to our Lady “is to be ascribed a double childbirth: one natural and virginal, by which without pain or injury of any kind, she begot the Son of God the physical Christ: the other spiritual, by means of which on Calvary, uniting her sufferings to those of the Redeemer, she begot the Mystical Body of Christ.
According to R. Laurentin, the difficulty over the pains of childbirth on the part of the “woman” of Revelation can be eliminated by a comparison:

In Apoc (Rev. ) 5:6 Christ appears in heaven in the form of an immolated lamb (cf. Jn 19:36). The sufferings of the woman who also appears in heaven in Apoc 12:2, stands in relation to the immolation of the celestial Lamb. Thus, in the 12th chapter of Apocalypse, the reference is not to the childbirth at Bethlehem, but to the words of Christ on the cross: “Son, behold your Mother” (Jn 19:26). It is a question of the spiritual motherhood of Mary and of the compassion with which the Mother of Jesus shares in the sufferings of the immolated Lamb. Jn 12:9 and Apoc 12 are therefore, in strict relation to one another. In each passage Mary’s motherhood in relation to the disciples entails a context of suffering (Jn. 19:25; Apoc 12:2). [17]) (D Suillaci, “Maria nella Donna dell’ Apocalisse”, Mile Immaculatae 5 (1969): 151)

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thus, here John is speaking about a different type of suffering. Thus, for example, in Gal 4:19, Paul was in birth pains until Christ was formed within his readers. Also, Rom. 8:22 shows ‘All creation has been groaning in travail together until now.’ When speaking about Lot who was the only righteous one in Sodom and Gomorra, it says that ‘he was vexed by his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds). Thus, the suffering can be spiritual. So how does this relate to Mary? Mary gives birth to Christ, and his sufferings on Calvary. Well, there was a a prophecy given by Simeon, in Luke 2:34-35 that speaks to this very issue, as brought up in Rev. 12:2:
34 and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against 35 (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.”
So Mary underwent the spiritual suffering at Calvary. Her soul was pierced when she saw her Son die on the cross. There is a richness in Luke 2:34-35, which shows how Mary suffered. But not only on the cross. John McHugh notes that the traditional classical interpretation in Catholic thought is that the sword signifies the suffering felt by Mary as she stood by the cross, watching the death-agony of her son. McHugh gives alot of evidence to say that the suffering of Mary speaks to much more than that (pages 104-112 of his book), but also in Lk. 2:35:
The ‘classical interpretation’ of Lk 2:35a (that Mary was suffering watching the suffering of Christ on the cross) may therefore be restated with this perspective of Luke in mind. ‘Thou thyself, O Israel, shall feel a sword pass through they soul.’ Mary as an individual had rejoiced to be the mother of him who would fulfill the promises made to Abraham; as the Daughter of Zion, more aware than anyone else of the destiny of her child, she welcomed his coming for the joy it would bring to Israel and to the world (cf. once more the Magnificat). Yet in the course of Jesus‘ public life she had to watch the mounting opposition to her son, and knew that the leaders of Israel were thereby turning against their saviour. Her mental sufferings reached a climax on Calvary, but they had begun long before. And even at the foot of the cross, she suffered a double agony. She watched the physical torment and heard the mockery directed at Jesus, her son‘ but in addition she had the far greater sorrow of knowing that the appointed leaders of God‘s chosen people had refused the message of salvation. [18]
Thus, this directly speaks to the issue of Revelation 12. Now, we also saw in Revelation 12 that right after speaking about her suffering in v. 2, it speaks to the dragon chasing the woman and the child, seeking to devour them. Her child is caught up to the throne. Thus, it speaks to his both resurrection and ascension into heaven. This is done after the fact of her suffering. Thus, the suffering pointed to in Revelation 12:2 points exactly to the suffering that she entailed when seeing the rejection of her Son, that reached its fulfillment on the cross. In addition to this, we see her as the Spiritual mother of all of Christ’s children (Jn. 19:27, Rev. 12:17). Now, as Mary is still the only one who is Jesus’ mother, this shows a double birth, both a physical birth of Christ, and a spiritual birth, where she begets the children of Christ. That brings with it also a painful spiritual childbirth, as we have seen in other passages which show spiritual suffering (2 Pet. 2:8, Gal. 4:19, Rom. 8:22).
Now a good summary of this passage and its relation to Mary, and the suffering in Revelation 12, is again provided by Manelli:

If the whole Son of Mary is Jesus, Head and Body, Mary is shown in joy at Bethlehem as the Mother of the Head, and on Calvary as the Mother of the Body regenerated unto the supernatural life of grace. Koehler succinctly summarizes: Mary “is the Woman who in Jesus (therefore born at Bethlehem and at Calvary) gives to God mankind reborn to divine sonship.[19]