Mary (Woman) Labor Pains (Rev. 12)

[sfp]

The Claim:
Mary did not have labor pains, since she was preserved from original sin.

The argument:
Since we as Catholics acknowledge that Mary is the “Woman clothed in the Sun” in Rev. Ch. 12, that we are contradicting ourselves, since Rev. 12 speaks of the same “Woman” having labor pains.

How do I respond?

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Since Jesus was preserved from original sin, did he experience pain? And didn’t the serpent mention the pains in Genesis?

 

[Genesis315]

In Revelation we are not seeing the literal birth of Jesus. Mary suffered greatly to bring salvation into the world–the Seven Sorrows of Mary reveal some of that suffering–and that suffering is being symbolized by the labor pains in Revelation.

 

[m134e5]

In Revelation we are not seeing the literal birth of Jesus. Mary suffered greatly to bring salvation into the world–the Seven Sorrows of Mary reveal some of that suffering–and that suffering is being symbolized by the labor pains in Revelation.

All suffering is a result of original sin, and Mary suffered at least emotionally. If emotionally, why not physically?

 

[sfp]

Since Jesus was preserved from original sin, did he experience pain? And didn’t the serpent mention the pains in Genesis?

Genesis 3:15 states that as punishment for Eve’s sins, women will now experience “labor” pains. It does not speak of “pain” in general, so I don’t see the relevance of your quote above.

Please explain.

 

[newbie1234]

The Claim:
Mary did not have labor pains, since she was preserved from original sin.

The argument:
Since we as Catholics acknowledge that Mary is the “Woman clothed in the Sun” in Rev. Ch. 12, that we are contradicting ourselves, since Rev. 12 speaks of the same “Woman” having labor pains.

How do I respond?

The woman in rev12 is the nation of Israel.
That would be your best response.

 

[sfp]

All suffering is a result of original sin, and Mary suffered at least emotionally. If emotionally, why not physically?

Because if God’s punishment is labor pains to women for original sin, then someone who was preserved from original sin (Mary) would not experience this punishment. This makes sense to me, so I’m not confused on this part.

My question refers to Rev. 12.

 

[sfp]

The woman in rev12 is the nation of Israel.
That would be your best response.

No, not the “nation” Israel, but the New Israel (the Church). That’s not the point. The Woman is also (and first in the passage) referring to Mary (there are 4 characters in Rev. 12), ALL of which are “persons” first and foremost, and secondly symbolize other things such as the New Israel, (the Church), etc…

 

[calchiquita]

Here’s something I heard on the radio the other day. Gen 3:16 says

16To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will (Q)bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And (R)he will rule over you.”

Since it says I will multiply your pain, perhaps she would have had some pain in childbirth even without sin.

??? maybe

 

[Genesis315]

All suffering is a result of original sin, and Mary suffered at least emotionally. If emotionally, why not physically?

That’s not true directly. An individual does not have to be tainted by original sin to suffer. For example, when one loves someone so much, to see that other person sin would cause great suffering. Likewise, Jesus suffered without being stained by original sin.

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Let me restate my argument. Jesus was preserved from original sin. If being preserved from original sin meant that he would not experience pain, then did he suffer physically on the cross?

To me, the Mary labor pain thing is ridiculous. Maybe she didn’t suffer labor pains, but it is in no way due to the “preservation from original sin” argument. That would mean that Jesus and Mary would never be capable of feeling physical pain. Huh?

 

[sfp]

Let me restate my argument. Jesus was preserved from original sin. If being preserved from original sin meant that he would not experience pain, then did he suffer physically on the cross?

To me, the Mary labor pain thing is ridiculous. Maybe she didn’t suffer labor pains, but it is in no way due to the “preservation from original sin” argument. That would mean that Jesus and Mary would never be capable of feeling physical pain. Huh?

Sorry, but you guys are totally missing the point. This argument has “nothing” to do with “pain and suffering” in general. It has to do with the FACT that God himself promised LABOR pains to women DUE TO ORIGINAL SIN. Therefore, IF someone was preserved from original sin, then it is REASONABLE to assume that she would not have “LABOR” pains. We are not speaking of pain and suffering in general, ONLY LABOR PAINS.

 

[noma]

Sorry, but you guys are totally missing the point. This argument has “nothing” to do with “pain and suffering” in general. It has to do with the FACT that God himself promised LABOR pains to women DUE TO ORIGINAL SIN. Therefore, IF someone was preserved from original sin, then it is REASONABLE to assume that she would not have “LABOR” pains. We are not speaking of pain and suffering in general, ONLY LABOR PAINS.

I believe that Mary suffered Labor Pains (and worse, temporal suffering and death), not for our sins, but rather because she was not immaculately conceived.

I would hold that Mary committed no actual sin, but is still affected by original sin, just like the rest of us. Else, she would not be within the fallen human condition.

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Noma, I don’t agree with you. Mary was immaculately conceived. I just don’t understand the argument.

SFP, so what exactly is a result of original sin, just Labor Pains and Death? I thought all suffering, corruption, and pain was due to original sin.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Sorry, but you guys are totally missing the point. This argument has “nothing” to do with “pain and suffering” in general. It has to do with the FACT that God himself promised LABOR pains to women DUE TO ORIGINAL SIN. Therefore, IF someone was preserved from original sin, then it is REASONABLE to assume that she would not have “LABOR” pains. We are not speaking of pain and suffering in general, ONLY LABOR PAINS.

What God said was I will “greatly multiply” labor pains. (paraphrase) There is nothing there that indicates that labor would have been completely pain free prior Eve’s fall and original sin. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that Mary experienced some physical pain. I tend to think the pain described in Revelation 12 may not be physical pain, but that is just an opinion.

 

[sfp]

Noma, I don’t agree with you. Mary was immaculately conceived. I just don’t understand the argument.

SFP, so what exactly is a result of original sin, just Labor Pains and Death? I thought all suffering, corruption, and pain was due to original sin.

This verse is not speaking of “other” consequences of original sin, but rather it seems to be focusing on a particular point…that God had originally not intended for Women to be in so much pain during child birth, but that this is “one” particular consequence.

Yes, obviously those things are a consequence of original sin, but God “specifically” mentions multiplying the pain during child birth as a result of Eve’s sin. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Mary did not suffer labor pains, although this is not “official” teaching of the Church, it is a widely held belief among many Church Fathers, who lived much closer to the time of Christ than us.

Here are the verses in Genesis (RSV)…​

“15] I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

16] To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”​

First, this is the most glaring and obvious suggestion that Mary HAD to be immaculately conceived…by putting “enmity between” the Devil and Mary. IF Mary was stained by original sin, then it is utterly inconceivable that her womb would be worthy of carrying our Lord and Savior, who IS GOD, in the person of Christ.

I really don’t see why people object to this, except that it must be due to their general apathy of the Catholic faith. By denying this truth, it really suggests a lack of respect for, or understanding of, the divinity of Christ. This is precisely why we believe that there is NO WAY that Christ could be formed in a womb that was stained in ANY WAY by sin, original or actual.

This does not “venerate” Mary above Jesus, as is commonly accused by our friends, but rather it acknowledges and emphasizes Jesus’s divinity and importance. (ANYTHING and EVERYTHING good in Mary comes “from” her Son, Jesus…not the other way around.)

 

[MarkInOregon]

The Claim:
Mary did not have labor pains, since she was preserved from original sin.

Isn’t this speculation rather than Catholic Dogma? I think if you look at Genesis you will find the curse is that labor pains will increase–which leaves open the possibility that even in the pre-fallen state there may have been some pain associated with child birth. I don’t think we are required to believe there was no pain only that it was a virginal birth?

The argument:
Since we as Catholics acknowledge that Mary is the “Woman clothed in the Sun” in Rev. Ch. 12, that we are contradicting ourselves, since Rev. 12 speaks of the same “Woman” having labor pains.

How do I respond?

 

[MarkInOregon]

Sorry, but you guys are totally missing the point. This argument has “nothing” to do with “pain and suffering” in general. It has to do with the FACT that God himself promised LABOR pains to women DUE TO ORIGINAL SIN. Therefore, IF someone was preserved from original sin, then it is REASONABLE to assume that she would not have “LABOR” pains. We are not speaking of pain and suffering in general, ONLY LABOR PAINS.

God did not promise labor pains–go back and read Genesis 3:15 it is to increase or intensify the pangs of child birth–this implies that there may have been some pain involved in childbirth even before original sin. Its an increase not something new as I read that text?

The Peace of Christ
Mark in Oregon

 

[sfp]

Isn’t this speculation rather than Catholic Dogma? I think if you look at Genesis you will find the curse is that labor pains will increase–which leaves open the possibility that even in the pre-fallen state there may have been some pain associated with child birth. I don’t think we are required to believe there was no pain only that it was a virginal birth?

Yes, you are correct, this is a widely held belief of many of the Fathers of the Church, but is not Dogma.

However, I’m told that there might even be some evidence that John the apostle held this belief (I can’t back that up, though)., and we all know he “took Mary in as his own.”

It would be interesting to me to know if this has any factual basis.

 

[sfp]

God did not promise labor pains–go back and read Genesis 3:15 it is to increase or intensify the pangs of child birth–this implies that there may have been some pain involved in childbirth even before original sin. Its an increase not something new as I read that text?

The Peace of Christ
Mark in Oregon

Correct, I’m not saying she “didn’t” have labor pains, I’m just saying that the belief is not completely without merit, since the statement that He would “multiply” her pains during childbirth due to original sin does not suggest that there “was” pain before.

In fact, He goes on to say “**in pain you shall bring forth children,”******implying that there “might have” been little or no pain before.

This, in addition to the fact that early Fathers of the Church acknowledged this, lets me know that there may be some merit to it.

Again, not dogma, just makes sense in this viewpoint.