Rev 12:2, did Mary suffer pains of childbirth

[ghrt]

trade9shoes.com

 

[PJM]

Revelation 12:2 says the woman, the Ark of the Covenant (Mary) “was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery”.

I have heard it said that the Church teaches that, because she was free from original sin, and therefore free from the curse of Genesis 3:16 "

Hi, I really like you’re question because it shows carefull thought and clearly points out that the bible is not entended for “self-interpetation.” That task is given to Mother Church in Mt. 16:18-20.

To believe in Mary’s perpetual moral and sexual virginity seems to me to be good and rational faith.To believe (as some say we must) that her hymen was physically intact after Our Lord passed through it, as though the normal physical process of delivery didn’t happen, seems like an impossible belief (aside from being entirely unnecessary and imprudent intrusion into the modesty of the Mother of God), and almost makes her and her Son seem to me to be less human, as though her pregnancy and birth were less than a normal human one.

Where to start? Let’s began with understanding that we are speaking of God and the very Mother of God. The same God that Created the entire Universe out of nothing and keeps it in existence today. The same God, in whose image (Gen. chapter 1) we are created, with Godly attributes of mind, reason, intellect, memory and freewill, not to mention our souls which animate and give us life, all of which are SPIRITUAL, not physical. And NOT one single human being is identical in every way to another human being.

I mention this to allow at least a slight understanding of the Power of our all good, and all perfect God. Nothing, not a single good thing is impossible for God.

Jesus REALLY and TRULY (the entire Jesus) in the Sacrament of Catholic Holy Communion for example. It is the GREATEST POSSIBLE GOOD!

Mary “Ever Virgin” gave birth without pain, by the same power and for the same basic reason as to why she is “Ever Virgin.” Namely, Mary FREELY consented to be “The Mother of God” and all that it entailed.

When Mary and Joseph presented Jesus in the Temple at 40 days, the priest who was promised by Yahweh God that he would see the Redeemer before he died, thanked God as soon as he saw Jesus, and told her:

“He can be a corner stone, and a stumbling stone for many, and a sword of sorrow will also pierce you’re heart.” [Lk. 2:30-40] Mary instantly replied: " I am the handmaiden of the Lord do with me as you will." And when the stone was rolled into place at our Lords tomb, a sword of sorrow pierced Mary’s heart. Amen!

Mary is PERFECT, made PERFECT, and kept PERFECT because GOD who too is PERFECT could, and would not accept anything less. I suggest you read Exodus Chapter 25 on what God DEMANDED from Moses for his “Ark of the Covenant.” a mere sign of the presence of the reality of the “SPIRIT of God.” PUREST GOLD was mandated!

Could that same God settle for less for the New Ark of HIS Covenant; the Mother of His Son? Not a sign or symbol but really God? Of course Not! Mary had to be made and kept perfect not for her benefit, but because of her STATURE and POSITION as MOTHER OF GOD! Nothing less would be acceptable for God! It had to be this way!

From all women throughout history, Mary alone was selected to become the Mother of God. This ** willing ** obedience, this humble “yes Lord” ** had to be rewarded. Perpetual Virginity and painfree childbirth, were little enough payment ** for saying, “yes Lord” what ever you want! "Do with me as you will!"

Am I being incredulous here?

No you are just being purely human! But friend is that all that God expects from us?

No dear friend it is not:shrug:

Isaiah 55: 6 "** For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD.For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. **

1 Tim.4: 9 “The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance. For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.”

Please take the time to read Exodus Chapter 25: I think it might help you better understand God’s expectations for us and how we relate to Him!

The reason Luke and Rev. are different are that Luke is a “historical accounting of what took place.”

Rev. was written by John in a time of severe persecution of the Church by Rome and Jews, so it is just a “Moral Story” with coded messages that would be understood by the underground Church by not by the persecutors. It is BY FAR the most difficult book to read, and it is filled with figurative and coded messages. Take great care in trying to understand it without guidance.

Love and prayer’s

Pat

 

[Drlit]

Karl,

Things to consider include that the conception of Christ in Mary was by overshadowing by the Holy Spirit, instead which is not how humans normally are conceived… yet Christ was fully Man as well as fully God.

Would a human child born via Cesarean Section and not vaginally… be fully human? Yes, the child would be fully human.

What if God provided for Mary essentially the equivalent of a bloodless Cesarean Section delivery which left no wound either, so that she was not damaged?

Good points. Yes, I see how the conception of Christ was not like a normal human conception. I might be wrong but I think that was the basis of Docetism.

Yes of course a child born by C-section is fully human. But if Jesus came into the world by way of some bloodless-other-than-vaginal-or-cesarean method it simply confuses me . . . because every week in Mass I swear that I believe he was true God and true Man. He hungered, thirsted, knew exhaustion and cried over Jerusalem. What would be the value, or the need in a miraculous and other than NORMAL human birth?
KARL

 

[MDK]

Good points. Yes, I see how the conception of Christ was not like a normal human conception. I might be wrong but I think that was the basis of Docetism.

Yes of course a child born by C-section is fully human. But if Jesus came into the world by way of some bloodless-other-than-vaginal-or-cesarean method it simply confuses me . . . because every week in Mass I swear that I believe he was true God and true Man. He hungered, thirsted, knew exhaustion and cried over Jerusalem. What would be the value, or the need in a miraculous and other than NORMAL human birth?
KARL

Did Christ have normal human multiplication of the loaves and fish? Normal human turning water into wine?

I don’t see why a supernatural conception, and supernatural birth change His being fully human, experiencing thirst, sorrow, love fully as a human. Don’t you trust Him, or do you think he “cheated” here? I also don’t see why it is necessary to make him like some average Joe. He was after all, also fully God.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

1. Leaving aside charity towards God, who can contemplate the Immaculate Virgin without feeling moved to fulfill that precept which Christ called peculiarly His own, namely that of loving one another as He loved us? “A great sign,” thus the Apostle St. John describes a vision divinely sent him, appears in the heavens: “A woman clothed with the sun, and with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars upon her head” (Apoc. xii., 1). Everyone knows that this woman signified the Virgin Mary, the stainless one who brought forth our Head. The Apostle continues: “And, being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered” (Apoc. xii., 2). John therefore saw the Most Holy Mother of God already in eternal happiness, yet travailing in a mysterious childbirth. What birth was it? Surely it was the birth of us who, still in exile, are yet to be generated to the perfect charity of God, and to eternal happiness. And the birth pains show the love and desire with which the Virgin from heaven above watches over us, and strives with unwearying prayer to bring about the fulfillment of the number of the elect.

AD DIEM ILLUM LAETISSIMUM (On the Immaculate Conception) Pope Pius X

Christ enabled Mary’s suffering to be fruitful.
Mary gave birth to all of us at the foot of the cross:
**She who gave birth to our Head, Jesus Christ, must, consequently, give birth to the entire body. **

Revelation 12:2 says the woman, the Ark of the Covenant (Mary) “was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery”.

I have heard it said that the Church teaches that, because she was free from original sin, and therefore free from the curse of Genesis 3:16 "

Read what the Holy Father teaches…this birth pain was the pain that the Blessed Virgin Mary went through during the Passion with and under Jesus. We are all born of Mary since She gave birth to all of us at the foot of the cross.

 

[Drlit]

Did Christ have normal human multiplication of the loaves and fish? Normal human turning water into wine?

I don’t see why a supernatural conception, and supernatural birth change His being fully human, experiencing thirst, sorrow, love fully as a human. Don’t you trust Him, or do you think he “cheated” here? I also don’t see why it is necessary to make him like some average Joe. He was after all, also fully God.

You do have a point. Thank you for your insights.

Karl

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

Don’t you think the virgins raped would be considered spiritually not to have broken their vow using their freedom of will, much like we don’t mortally sin unless there is consent? Yet, considered them virgins, may not be exactly the same as still being virgins physically.

The claim of Mary’s Virginity during birth, has no relation whatsoever to the false arguments about sexual immorality relating to other claims of virginity you posted. In other words, the discussion of Mary’s virginity is not at all legalistic, but seeking the truth of our faith and about our spiritual mother, the Mother of our Lord, and understanding correctly about Christ. So, are you interested in finding the truth about this, or just the lowest bar at which Mary’s virginity can be argued?

I don’t see what you’re trying to get at. I was merely stating that I do not believe, according to my understanding of it, that normal child birth would necessarily implicate loss of virginity as some here are concluding (or at least seem to conclude). Neither did I imply that our Blessed Mother had engaged in any sorts of sexually immoral actions.

 

[mary1173]

I understand that some may question such a supernatural event as the miraculous Virgin Birth of Jesus but if you understand the Divinity of Christ then it will be easier to understand His painless and supernatural birth.

I agree with you.If God can provide for Mary to conceive without the sexual act then God can certainly protect our Holy Mother from the pains of childbirth.

 

[MDK]

I don’t see what you’re trying to get at. I was merely stating that I do not believe, according to my understanding of it, that normal child birth would necessarily implicate loss of virginity as some here are concluding (or at least seem to conclude). Neither did I imply that our Blessed Mother had engaged in any sorts of sexually immoral actions.

Yes, I confirm that you didn’t see my post as it was intended. I had understood what you were getting at, and was obvious you were promoting a view of the way Mary could have still been a virgin even if there were physical breaking of the barrier during birth. In my post, I disagreed with this view. Mine was addressing the two statements you made, and the approach. For instance, using the example of the raped nuns being regarded as still virgin, really does not support a view of perpetual virginity of Mary even if there had been physical “damage” during birth. Mary was not merely considered a virgin; she is a virgin.

 

[MDK]

You do have a point. Thank you for your insights.

Karl

You’re welcome. May God bless you and all here who seek Him.

Michael

 

[Techno2000]

Revelation 12:2 says the woman, the Ark of the Covenant (Mary) “was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery”. I realise this can be understood in an eschatological way as being about the pains of penance and tribulation that the Church experiences as God brings about His eternal reign in us. All the same, doesn’t it also have a literal meaning?

I have heard it said that the Church teaches that, because she was free from original sin, and therefore free from the curse of Genesis 3:16 “in pain you shall bring forth children”, therefore Mary experienced no pain in childbirth. I’ve never actually seen this defined as dogmatic teaching, however.

To believe in Mary’s perpetual moral and sexual virginity seems to me to be good and rational faith. To believe (as some say we must) that her hymen was physically intact after Our Lord passed through it, as though the normal physical process of delivery didn’t happen, seems like an impossible belief (aside from being entirely unnecessary and imprudent intrusion into the modesty of the Mother of God), and almost makes her and her Son seem to me to be less human, as though her pregnancy and birth were less than a normal human one.

Am I being incredulous here? Please help me understand what the Church actually teaches regarding the birth of our Lord.

I think the story goes that Mary was put into a deep sleep, and when she woke up, the Baby was all ready in her arms.

 

[DL82]

I think the story goes that Mary was put into a deep sleep, and when she woke up, the Baby was all ready in her arms.

Not heard that version before.

Thank you all for your posts, it’s been very helpful.

My own personal conclusion - it wouldn’t be impossible for God to grant Mary a miraculous birth, but nor would it be beneath His dignity to be born in the normal way of man, being truly incarnate. There’s no point tearing eachother apart or insulting eachother over this, as it seems the Church has never definitively pronounced one way or the other. Whether or not Mary suffered at Bethlehem, she suffered at Golgotha, and suffers now as she brings forth the Church in perfection by her prayers. Let’s not cause any more suffering.

Peace in Christ.

DL

 

[MDK]

Not heard that version before.

Thank you all for your posts, it’s been very helpful.

My own personal conclusion - it wouldn’t be impossible for God to grant Mary a miraculous birth, but nor would it be beneath His dignity to be born in the normal way of man, being truly incarnate. There’s no point tearing eachother apart or insulting eachother over this, as it seems the Church has never definitively pronounced one way or the other. Whether or not Mary suffered at Bethlehem, she suffered at Golgotha, and suffers now as she brings forth the Church in perfection by her prayers. Let’s not cause any more suffering.

Peace in Christ.

DL

Before moving on, we must clarify that there is certainly no link between being born vaginally, via Cesarian Section, or supernatural C-Section, and His being truly incarnate. Believing those Christ sent to continue His mission (and therefore we believe Christ), that He was fully man with a human will, the issue of being fully incarnate is certainly not on the table for discussion, as it is a non negotiable fixed point. It’s not that Christ didn’t humble Himself incredibly in taking on human nature, but what we are looking for is the truth of what happened. Christ wasn’t the one who would or would not experience pain at childbirth. What is being discussed in this thread is really in regard to what was done to Mary by God, not what was done to Christ’s humanity during birth. We know that otther human’s flesh responded to God’s will when they had faith. Did a formerly lame person become less human after his flesh was instantly supernaturally healed? Certainly, Mary had faith, and was the best example of a human who was not also God, saying yes to God, and so God’s Will could work on her flesh. One can’t legitimately say that Christ became less human during birth, any more than He would at any time after the Incarnation.

Even after resurrection, He appeared in the upper room even though the door was locked. Are we supposed to think that Christ became less in order that the door remain intact? No. Yet, we must also consider that He presumably also stood on the floor of that room just like everyone else… given that He walked on the earth just like everyone else after the Resurrection, otherwise the two people on the road to Emmaus would not have thought he was anything other than a natural man. He also ate fish with His Apostles after the resurrection. No, Christ did not become less, as God is indeed the greatest Reality. All things must bend and respond to His Will, which can certainly include a fig tree, the winds at the Red Sea (and at the Sea of Galilee), a door, and human flesh.

 

[SFH]

Revelation 12:2 says the woman, the Ark of the Covenant (Mary) “was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery”. I realise this can be understood in an eschatological way as being about the pains of penance and tribulation that the Church experiences as God brings about His eternal reign in us. All the same, doesn’t it also have a literal meaning?

I have heard it said that the Church teaches that, because she was free from original sin, and therefore free from the curse of Genesis 3:16 “in pain you shall bring forth children”, therefore Mary experienced no pain in childbirth. I’ve never actually seen this defined as dogmatic teaching, however.

To believe in Mary’s perpetual moral and sexual virginity seems to me to be good and rational faith. To believe (as some say we must) that her hymen was physically intact after Our Lord passed through it, as though the normal physical process of delivery didn’t happen, seems like an impossible belief (aside from being entirely unnecessary and imprudent intrusion into the modesty of the Mother of God), and almost makes her and her Son seem to me to be less human, as though her pregnancy and birth were less than a normal human one.

Am I being incredulous here? Please help me understand what the Church actually teaches regarding the birth of our Lord.

The traditional Catholic belief is that the Blessed Virgin did not suffer the pangs of childbirth and that her hyman was intact after the birth of Our Lord. The reference to the woman clothed with the sun in the Apocolypse (Book of Revelation) is a reference to the Catholic Church that has been applied to the Blessed Virgin.

 

[adriancombe]

An decent defense of the view that this is de fide is found here:

marymediatrix.com/magazine/apologetics-and-catechetics/in-defense-of-the-virgin-birth/

 

[adriancombe]

You left out part of the verse. It says, “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.” You seem to be reading it as though God created labor pains as part of the curse. But it would be impossible to intensify something that had not already been created

Actually, this reasoning is based upon one particular English translation. However, the original Hebrew word ‘rabah’ had other meanings besides ‘multiply’ and ‘intensify’. It could also refer to simply making a lot of something. if you go to www.blueletterbible.org and look at the concordance tools on Gen 3:16, you will see what I mean.

God Bless.

 

[MDK]

An decent defense of the view that this is de fide is found here:

marymediatrix.com/magazine/apologetics-and-catechetics/in-defense-of-the-virgin-birth/

Thank you adrian, that’s a good article and also good web site.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Revelation 12:2 says the woman, the Ark of the Covenant (Mary) “was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery”. I realise this can be understood in an eschatological way as being about the pains of penance and tribulation that the Church experiences as God brings about His eternal reign in us. All the same, doesn’t it also have a literal meaning?

I have heard it said that the Church teaches that, because she was free from original sin, and therefore free from the curse of Genesis 3:16 “in pain you shall bring forth children”, therefore Mary experienced no pain in childbirth. I’ve never actually seen this defined as dogmatic teaching, however.

To believe in Mary’s perpetual moral and sexual virginity seems to me to be good and rational faith. To believe (as some say we must) that her hymen was physically intact after Our Lord passed through it, as though the normal physical process of delivery didn’t happen, seems like an impossible belief (aside from being entirely unnecessary and imprudent intrusion into the modesty of the Mother of God), and almost makes her and her Son seem to me to be less human, as though her pregnancy and birth were less than a normal human one.

Am I being incredulous here? Please help me understand what the Church actually teaches regarding the birth of our Lord.

Revelation 12:2 - Birth Pains of the Woman

---

Some non-Catholics attempt to deny the Immaculate Conception of Mary by juxtaposing passages from Revelation 12 and Genesis 3. They argue that because the woman in Revelation 12 cried out in labor pain, she could not have been free from sin because of God’s punishment of Eve found in Genesis 3:16. However, this passage should be read carefully:

Genesis 3:16
16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

In order for something to be increased, it has to be present to a lesser degree to begin with. After Eve’s disobedience, God didn’t suddenly invent labor pains for her to experience; he increased the pain that was already intended for her even in her unfallen state.

Therefore, if Mary cries out in Revelation 12 due to physical pain, this could be because she is experiencing the level of labor pain that was originally intended for all women prior to the fall in the Garden of Eden. Because Mary was without sin, the pain she experienced was less than that endured by women who have the stain of original sin, but it was unpleasant nonetheless.

 

[adriancombe]

Revelation 12:2 - Birth Pains of the Woman

---

Some non-Catholics attempt to deny the Immaculate Conception of Mary by juxtaposing passages from Revelation 12 and Genesis 3. They argue that because the woman in Revelation 12 cried out in labor pain, she could not have been free from sin because of God’s punishment of Eve found in Genesis 3:16. However, this passage should be read carefully:

Genesis 3:16
16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

In order for something to be increased, it has to be present to a lesser degree to begin with.

Therefore, if Mary cries out in Revelation 12 due to physical pain, this could be because she is experiencing the level of labor pain that was originally intended for all women prior to the fall in the Garden of Eden. Because Mary was without sin, the pain she experienced was less than that endured by women who have the stain of original sin, but it was unpleasant nonetheless.

Actually, this understanding of Gen 3:16 is based on a poor translation. See my post above. The Hebrew word ‘rabah’ could mean increase, but it has other meanings. In this context, ''In pain shall you bring forth children" implies that this pain is a new state that did not exist before. Therefore, rabah in this context is better rendered as ‘cause much pain.’

 

[Robles]

All the same, I still can’t understand (a) why it would be important to God for a physical sign of Mary’s virginity, a sign nobody would ever see or test, to remain intact (b) how human flesh could pass through human flesh to be born. That seems not super-natural but un-natural, as if Our Lord’s body was already in its’ risen glorified form, where He passed through locked doors, and not in its natural human form.

Jesus is the light of the world, and as light can pass through glass without breaking it, Jesus passed through Mary, “Vessel of honor” without any rupture. A miraculous delivery is not out of the picture…A perfect and unbroken vessel for a Perfect God! A miraculous birth for a miraculously conceived child. No less can be expected.

Remember Philip after baptizing the eunuch in the middle of the dessert instantly disappears and finds himself in Azotus (Acts 8:39-40). Philip did not have a resurrected glorified body and was still transported in a supernatural way. Have we not heard of various saints having been miraculously transported from one place to another through the power of God? If God went beyond the natural to transport his saints to places of the world where He needed them, could He not do the same with His Son?

“**The virgin **shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Emmanuel” Isaiah 7:14
She is “the virgin” after becoming pregnant…she is “the virgin” even after giving birth to a baby boy…she is still “the virgin” after bringing into the world a God who was anxious to be with us. God would not break His “vessel of singular devotion” which He had destined to be perfect and immaculate.