'The woman' in Revelation 12. Officially Mary?

[Path_Finder]

LivingWord Unity:

Now, in my opinion, the 1st post could be one of those that can make Catholics appear to emphasize Mary too much, “is their an official proclamation that Mary is the woman in Revelation 12”, no there is no such official proclamation. That is all my point is, no one doubts that the truth is Mary, Israel, the Church or people of the Church could be the woman in Revelation 12 however, that is not the question.

---

Furthermore, to another post on page I, I forget how it was worded but something was said that such did not need to be defined, every Bible verse does not need to be defined. True however, we do have the 4 Marian dogmas, the Church thought that was important enough to define.

 

[rcwitness]

Furthermore, to another post on page I, I forget how it was worded but something was said that such did not need to be defined, every Bible verse does not need to be defined. True however, we do have the 4 Marian dogmas, the Church thought that was important enough to define.

Yes the Church has felt it important to Teach these things about Mary.

The prophecy in Revelation 12, when looked at through the rest of Church Teaching, is evident enough to see Mary within the meaning.

Mary is the more direct and intimate person who individually fullfills this prophecy. But to exclude all those who were given the promise of the Messiah, and then all those with and after her had believed and kept His commands as she had, is greatly mistaking the unity which the Church is fashioned.

So the reason Mary is prominent enough to be specifically seen in the vision, is really reasonable… She actually fullfilled in herself (by the grace of God’s will and her assent of faith to submit her will) the role of “faithfull Israel” who was given the Word made flesh, which through belief and obedience became the Church. So if there was no other person after her who believed, the Church would still be fullfilled through her, yet it was not the will of God that she was alone, but a type of mother for the new man, in Christ.

 

[Path_Finder]

Yes the Church has felt it important to Teach these things about Mary.

The prophecy in Revelation 12, when looked at through the rest of Church Teaching, is evident enough to see Mary within the meaning.

Mary is the more direct and intimate person who individually fullfills this prophecy. But to exclude all those who were given the promise of the Messiah, and then all those with and after her had believed and kept His commands as she had, is greatly mistaking the unity which the Church is fashioned.

So the reason Mary is prominent enough to be specifically seen in the vision, is really reasonable… She actually fullfilled in herself (by the grace of God’s will and her assent of faith to submit her will) the role of “faithfull Israel” who was given the Word made flesh, which through belief and obedience became the Church. So if there was no other person after her who believed, the Church would still be fullfilled through her, yet it was not the will of God that she was alone, but a type of mother for the new man, in Christ.

I don’t disagree and there is no official proclamation by the Catholic Church that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary as is the premise of this thread.

We can read things like the above in any number of books, Mary My Hope, Dictionary of Mary, Imitation of Mary, writings of St. Maximilian Kolbe and so on but that doesn’t change the answer to the OP…

I don’t think the question in the OP is “Is Mary the woman of the Apocalypse, Revelation 12”?

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t disagree and there is no official proclamation by the Catholic Church that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary as is the premise of this thread.

We can read things like the above in any number of books, Mary My Hope, Dictionary of Mary, Imitation of Mary, writings of St. Maximilian Kolbe and so on but that doesn’t change the answer to the OP…

I don’t think the question in the OP is “Is Mary the woman of the Apocalypse, Revelation 12”?

I think we’ve already established this. My point is that its kinda silly to exclude any of the three (Israel, Church, Mary) in its meaning.

 

[livingwordunity]

Apocrypha is used in the document defining the Assumption as well. The statement does say “scholastic Doctors”.

The Church uses Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition when defining a dogma. When She is using Sacred Tradition She is referring to the oral teaching that has always been a part of the deposit of faith given to the apostles by Jesus Christ. It is not the same as using Apocrypha. The Holy Bible is the part of Sacred Tradition that was written down. Why are you are quick to accept what is said in a Bible commentary about Revelation 12 but reluctant to accept what it says about it in the dogma of the Assumption?

 

[livingwordunity]

LivingWord Unity:

Now,** in my opinion, the 1st post could be one of those that can make Catholics appear to emphasize Mary too much**, “is their an official proclamation that Mary is the woman in Revelation 12”, no there is no such official proclamation. That is all my point is, no one doubts that the truth is Mary, Israel, the Church or people of the Church could be the woman in Revelation 12 however, that is not the question.

There’s nothing in what I said that overemphasized the Virgin Mary. You appear to have a problem with the Virgin Mary. Are you a former Protestant? I’m a convert, but I wasn’t a Christian before converting to the Catholic Church. So, I never had a problem with any of the dogmas the Church has about the Virgin Mary. People who think that the Catholic Church overemphasizes the Virgin Mary don’t realize that this aversion to her was taught to them by someone. So it’s something that has to be unlearned for many who convert to Catholicism from Protestantism.