R
rlg94086
Guest
Could you make your point and quit making the uncharitable assumption that we haven’t read the whole chapter? (or the Bible for that matter)
- Status
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
It’s not taught. The Papal Document Ineffabilis Deus which announced that Mary is the Immaculate Conception bears no mention of Mary immune from giving birth pains.
It is rather silent.
Ineffabilis Deus states on Mary the following:
Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.
Source of the document: papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
There will be Catholic theologians who will debate whether she did suffer birth pains, and there will be those who say that didn’t. I myself was taught Mary probably did suffer birth pains, and that she was a always a virgin, that she was Immaculate Conceived, that she assumed into Heaven, and that she is the Queen of Heaven base on Revelation 12:1, as well as mediating on the rosary.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I have read the Revelation 11:19 to Rev 12:17, and I am conceived as ever that the woman is Mary.
G
Ginger2
Guest
OK then, I thought Mary was assumed into heaven sometime after Jesus ascended - not still on Earth.
But if that is what you believe, so be it.
But if that is what you believe, so be it.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I believe Mary during the course of her life probably 40 years after the ascension of her son, willing accepted to die naturally in Ephesus. When she was dying the Apostles gathered. Three days later when they came to see her again, she was gone. God has raised her from the dead, and assumed her into heaven.
J
jmcrae
Guest
St. John did, in the Book of Revelation, chapter 12.Did somebody say Mary experienced labour pains? Is it in the Bible, or is she just speculating?
People are disputing that he could have been referring to Mary. (But who else gave birth to Jesus? He is speaking of the one who gave birth to Jesus.)
J
jmcrae
Guest
Because at that point in the passage, after having given birth to Jesus, after having been exiled in Egypt, and after His crucifixion and ascension, which St. John describes using allegorical language, Mary is now giving birth in a spiritual manner to the Church, and the pain she is experiencing is the pain of the martyrs who died for the name of Christ.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Mannyfit,
Great post.
However, there are some in the Church that teach that Mary didn’t experience pain. Including, apparently, Jimmy Akin. From the article we both quoted regarding Revelation 12:
Robert
Great post.
However, there are some in the Church that teach that Mary didn’t experience pain. Including, apparently, Jimmy Akin. From the article we both quoted regarding Revelation 12:Pax,
Robert
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Whether or not Mary experience pain or not, it is not defined by the Magisterium. Catholic Theologians can debate on that. I do think she did suffer pains. Jesus suffer pains of the cross. Mary also have internal when the Simeon said, “and a sword shall pierced your own soul.”Mannyfit,
Great post.
Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah.
Pax,
Robert
If you say she didn’t suffer pains and Jesus suffer pains by having his body being scourged. It would just put Mary above her own son.
Yes, Mary was immaculately conceived. That doesn’t necessary means she was excempt from pain. Let me put it simply this way. Mary is a human creature. Like us, she has nerves. Nerves as you know are often give us signal to the brain when something we touch is dangerous or just too much to handle for our body.
The discussion whether or not Mary suffer pains or not, is up to theologians to discuss. As a lay Catholic, I am free to believe that Mary did suffer pains.
I have read certains saints who claim she didn’t but these Saints don’t speak infallibly.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I agree with you. I was just correcting your statement that “it’s not taught.” That is inaccurate. It is not defined dogmatically by the Magisterium, but that doesn’t mean “it’s not taught.”
By the way, no one says Mary didn’t experience any pain, only the pain of childbirth. The reasoning has to do with Original Sin. One of the consequences of Original Sin is the pain of childbirth (Gen 3:16). Since Mary was conceived without Original Sin, the theory is that she therefore did not experience pain when giving birth to Our Lord.
It is logical, but as you and I both agree, not dogmatically defined.
Pax,
Robert
By the way, no one says Mary didn’t experience any pain, only the pain of childbirth. The reasoning has to do with Original Sin. One of the consequences of Original Sin is the pain of childbirth (Gen 3:16). Since Mary was conceived without Original Sin, the theory is that she therefore did not experience pain when giving birth to Our Lord.
It is logical, but as you and I both agree, not dogmatically defined.
Pax,
Robert
M
MariaS
Guest
The woman meantioned in the passage could not have been Israel, as an entire nation of Isreal did not “flee in the desert” aftet “giving birth to a son.” It was the Virgin Mary that fled into the desert with Joesph and baby Jesus because Isreal was trying to kill Jesus.
M
MariaS
Guest
And whether or not Mary felt pains…I understand the Immaculate Conception part, and it does makes sense that she wouldn’t I suppose. But I honestly believe it did cause pain. And also read this:
“And to the woman He said, I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing, in pain shall you bring forth children.” -Genesis 3:16
This is just my opinion but it sounds like childbearing might have hurt in the begginning, just nowhere near like it does now. So perhaps Mary’s labor, since she had no original sin, was less painful?
But that’s just my :twocents:
“And to the woman He said, I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing, in pain shall you bring forth children.” -Genesis 3:16
This is just my opinion but it sounds like childbearing might have hurt in the begginning, just nowhere near like it does now. So perhaps Mary’s labor, since she had no original sin, was less painful?
But that’s just my :twocents:
G
Ginger2
Guest
So you are saying Rev. 12 is not in chronological order. Then I can’t dispute - if the order of events can be rearranged, it can take on many different meanings depending on each new arrangement.
M
MariaS
Guest
If your refering to me, then how did I take it out of chronological order? I quoted only those parts out of the book to show why I thought it was Mary and not Israel.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, what is being suggested is that the writings on the walls REFLECT the Christian doctrines, just as do the manuscripts, prayers, liturgies, and other historical evidence from the period. The persons charged with preservation of the Apostolic Teachings would never have allowed any doctrine that contradicted that Sacred Tradition.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
It isn’t chronological order. There are passages in such as the two witness, many Bible scholars believe them to be Moses and Elijah.
There is also a passage of a city where they “crucified the lord” (Rev 11:8).
Scott Hahn made a Biblical commentary of the Book of Revelation.
members.aol.com/johnprh/whore2.html
J
justasking4
Guest
Are you aware that this was not the belief of the church for centuries? Have you read this passage carefully because there are a number of things in it that don’t apply to Mary?
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Most of the ECF acknowledge the woman as the Church which is correct because you can interpret the Book of Revelation in literal and symbolic terms. The Book itself is difficult to interpret, but if you interpret it in the light of the teachings of the Church, it fits perfectly.
I have no doubt that the male child is Jesus and knowing the fact the Mary gave birth to Jesus. I know the woman to be Mary. If you can find another woman who gave birth to Jesus, then I would not believe the woman in Revelation 12:1 is Mary. However, I have pointed time and time again that the male child is Jesus.
Do you** deny the male child is Jesus**, yes or no?
If yes, then you have to acknowledge that the woman is Mary because the child is Jesus.
If no, then you have to** show me that another woman gave birth to Jesus**.
J
justasking4
Guest
Why would you think that these writings on the walls “REFLECT the Christian doctrines”? I can understand someone who is a bishop making some statement that has some authority behind it because he is a bishop but to think that what is written on a wall by someone unkown as a reflection of what the entire church believed goes far beyond the breaking point in believabilty.
A
apophasis
Guest
(1) Are each of the writings on the walls dated? (2) How do you know that they’re Apostolic in origin? (3) Do they actually quote the Apostles?
So you’re suggesting that those “doctrinal preservation policemen” would have inspected the walls periodically and erased anything there that was not in conformity to Apostolic tradition? Were these inspectors hand picked by the Apostles themselves? Did they too have “successors?”
Interesting theory, G. Kinda “off the wall” I’d say, but interesting nonetheless.
.
- Status