Revelations 12

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jaguar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jaguar

Guest
If the woman mentioned is Mary, why aren’t we told in the footnotes of the New American Bible?
 
There are three possibilities : she is the people of Israel, the Church, or Mary. Traditionally, it is Mary.
 
Hellisreal said:
We do agree on this!

Its meant for “liturgical purposes” I am told.:eek:
Click to expand...
The reason for asking, is that some of my non-Catholic friends, use the New American Bible for questioning some of Catholic Church’s own teachings. Rev. 12 is one example.😦
 
Hellisreal said:
We do agree on this!

Its meant for “liturgical purposes” I am told.:eek:
Click to expand...
I think Hellisreal is correct here. It seems the NAB doesn’t get into Typology and such, at least I don’t seem to recall that it does. It simply explains what a certain term may mean today.
 
I think that the woman most likely represents “true Israel”. There are a number of comparisons that can be looked at.
A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; (Revelation 12:1)
Click to expand...
and
Now he had still another dream, and related it to his brothers, and said, “Lo, I have had still another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” He related it to his father and to his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have had? Shall I and your mother and your brothers actually come to bow ourselves down before you to the ground?”
(Genesis 37:9-10)
Click to expand...
Then there are the following:
But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she *was nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. (Revelation 12:14)
Click to expand...
and
‘You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you to Myself.
(Exodus 19:4)
Click to expand...
While I am not Catholic, and I know many Catholics feel the woman is Mary, I think there are aspects of this chapter which would appear contrary to Catholic doctrinr if the woman was Mary.

It is often claimed that Revelation 12:1 supports the Assumption. However I do not think it really does. While it is true that the vision starts with the woman in Heaven, when the dragon is thrown down to earth, he is still able to pursue the woman, which would indicate she was then on earth.

Also she suffered labor pains. Genesis tells us labor is the result of the Fall. If the Immaculate Conception is true, Mary should not have had labor pains because she had no sin.
 
Jaguar said:
The reason for asking, is that some of my non-Catholic friends, use the New American Bible for questioning some of Catholic Church’s own teachings. Rev. 12 is one example.😦
Click to expand...
Well then, you are in big trouble. I’ve looked at some of their comments and wondered if it was written by a Protestant! :confused: I can’t recall the actual verses that made me wonder this, but I do remember the questioning of it. There are numerous threads that cover some of it’s horrendous footnotes.
 
40.png
SyCarl:
While I am not Catholic, and I know many Catholics feel the woman is Mary, I think there are aspects of this chapter which would appear contrary to Catholic doctrinr if the woman was Mary.

It is often claimed that Revelation 12:1 supports the Assumption. However I do not think it really does. While it is true that the vision starts with the woman in Heaven, when the dragon is thrown down to earth, he is still able to pursue the woman, which would indicate she was then on earth.

Also she suffered labor pains. Genesis tells us labor is the result of the Fall. If the Immaculate Conception is true, Mary should not have had labor pains because she had no sin.
Click to expand...
The passage in Rev 12:1 in a Catholic point of view sees that the woman is Mary. Just because this woman in Revelation 12:1 gave labor pains** doesn’t **contradict the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. For Simeon said onto Mary, “and a sword will pierce through your own soul also” This prophetic words of Simeon indict that when Mary’s son dies, she will suffer a great pain for losing her only son.

Catholic also interpret the Bible in both literal and symbolic terms. Jesus himself who is not subject to sin died even though he had never sin nor have any stains of original sin. Jesus had to die so in dying he destroyed our death, in rising he restored our life.

Mary was preserved from original sin herself and had no actual sin. Since the moment of her conception, remain faithful to the Will of the Father. In our tradition, we believe Mary did died in Ephesus, and was taken up into heaven body and soul by her son Jesus Christ. In the East, it is called Dormition, and in the West we call it Assumption.

The Immaculte Conception is also based in Scripture.

Angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women” (St. Luke 1, 28 [Douay Rheims). She, who was to conceive the Son of God, the Holy of holies, must Herself be supremely holy, and therefore be preserved, not only from actual sin, but also from all stain of Original Sin. The Angel’s words would not have been entirely truthful had the Virgin Mary, for even one instant, been deprived of grace.

St. Luke 1, 28 continues to be a source of much controversy. Most Protestants would prefer to render the original Greek kecharitomene as “highly favoured” rather than “full of grace.” In fact, a strict translation of kecharitomene is **“thou who hast been graced.” Of the two options, “full of grace” is a more clear and definite rendering of the angel’s words than “favour.” For this conclusion there exists the authority of the Latin Fathers; the Codices of Alexandrinus and Ephrem; the Syriac and Arabic versions of the Bible; and even the writings of Protestants such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Beza.19

The Church, furthermore, asserts that God, immediately after Adam’s fall, cursed Satan and said, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head” (Gen. 3, 15). It was by the Virgin Mary’s seed, that is, Jesus Christ, that the kingdom of Satan was demolished. It was not fitting that She, who was to co-operate in the defeat of Satan, should ever be infected by his breath or a slave to his kingdom of sin. The enmity between the Virgin Mary and the serpent placed by God was Her triumph over sin, Her Immaculate Conception.
 
((continue from above))

To the contrary, however, it is asserted that the Virgin Mary again admitted that She was a sinner when She presented herself in the Temple for purification in accordance with the Law of Moses: “she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement on her behalf, and she shall be clean’” (Lev. 12, 8). The Virgin Mary observed this Law not because She believed Herself to be defiled by giving birth to Christ, but to give an example of humility and obedience by fulfilling all outward observances. For the Virgin Mary was not subject to this particular law by virtue of what God Himself had laid down in prefacing it: “If a woman having received seed shall bear a man child, she shall be unclean seven days…” (v. 2 [Douai]). The conception and birth of Christ was not due to the reception of male seed but rather to the power of the Holy Spirit. In no way can it be claimed that in conceiving, bearing and delivering Christ the Virgin Mary was made “unclean.” In fact, the opposite would have occurred, that is, She would have received an augmentation of grace.20

That God should have created the Virgin Mary in a state of holiness as He had formed Eve and the angels is also befitting the honour of God: of the Father, whose daughter She is; of the Son, whose mother She is; and of the Holy Spirit, who, in the incarnation, took the Virgin Mary to be His spouse. Further, as the “new Eve” and mother of the new Adam, the Virgin Mary cannot appropriately be anything less than the original Eve; on the contrary, as Christ excelled Adam, so the Virgin Mary (though to a lesser degree) should excel Eve. Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church has consistently and universally proclaimed the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary:

Source: theworkofgod.org/LIBRARY/Apologtc/R_Haddad/4dg2Mary.htm
 
Jaguar said:
If the woman mentioned is Mary, why aren’t we told in the footnotes of the New American Bible?
Click to expand...
Well, also, you need to know the text is multilayered. On one layer, it is Mary. But in other layers it is the People of God, which, for everything after the ascension of the child, would be the Church. It’s not like it’s only one thing to detriment of any other meanings. For example, the Whore can be apostate Jerusalem, Pagan Rome the City, as well as any society that used to love God but has fallen away.
 
spauline said:
Well, also, you need to know the text is multilayered. On one layer, it is Mary. But in other layers it is the People of God, which, for everything after the ascension of the child, **would be the **]Church
Click to expand...
. It’s not like it’s only one thing to detriment of any other meanings. For example, the Whore can be apostate Jerusalem, Pagan Rome the City, as well as any society that used to love God but has fallen away.

Mary is always the Mother in Mother Church!👍
 
Hellisreal said:
Mary is always the Mother in Mother Church!👍
Click to expand...
well, yeah, mary is now inseparable joined in love with the Church. Although Mary did not traverse the typical way of the saint because she was always without sin, where the Church proper is not without sin, and so must traverse the “purgative, the illuminative and the unitive.” For Mary never had any need for purgation, for example, because there was no sinful nature or even concupiscence to kill through severe penances. That is not to say she didn’t suffer physically, but it was not “purging” her because there was nothing purge. But the same can’t be said for the Church proper. The Church proper had to go through the purgation of pagan Rome to enter the illuminative victory, just as the Jews had to first endure Egypt before being delivered into the age of illumination (the prophets)
 
spauline said:
well, yeah, mary is now inseparable joined in love with the Church. Although Mary did not traverse the typical way of the saint because she was always without sin, where the Church proper is not without sin, and so must traverse the “purgative, the illuminative and the unitive.” For Mary never had any need for purgation, for example, because there was no sinful nature or even concupiscence to kill through severe penances. That is not to say she didn’t suffer physically, but it was not “purging” her because there was nothing purge. But the same can’t be said for the Church proper. The Church proper had to go through the purgation of pagan Rome to enter the illuminative victory, just as the Jews had to first endure Egypt before being delivered into the age of illumination (the prophets)
Click to expand...
And, the Church like Christ is not just divine (or say supernatural in the case of the Church) yet also Human.

Makes sense to me.
 
Jaguar,

re: “Revelations 12"

Any particular reason for adding an “s” at the end of Revelation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top