'The woman' in Revelation 12. Officially Mary?

[po18guy]

So you don’t have an official proclamation. Okay.

If I even intimated that I did possess such, it was most clumsy of me. What I recommend is paying attention to Della’s words.

 

[Path_Finder]

I wanted to know if the Catholic Church has officially stated that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary. Many believe so but I was curious if there was an official proclamation?

No, there is no official proclamation but it would be the Roman Catholic Church’s position that Mary is the woman in the Apocalypse, Revelation 12:

Douay Rheims:

12 And 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:

2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered.

Other places call this in Revelations 12:2 as “being in labor”; I would just be a bit careful with this verse. I fully understand that with this verse, we can assign any such pains as possibly being due to other elements, a spiritual suffering for the Church or Her people or for the Nation of Israel for example.

thesacredpage.com/2007/12/did-virgin-mary-experience-pains-of.html

This essay seems to cover the subject well. I see there have already been a number of threads covering Revelation 12:2.

 

[Hockeygurl]

BUT… this is what the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has to say…

[12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster.

Which can be found at: usccb.org/bible/rev/12:07

 

[po18guy]

BUT… this is what the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has to say…

But, these are the horrible, (non-binding on the faithful) modernist footnotes that were composed using the discarded-by-protestants historical-critical method. Many secular theologians were involved in those notes. I would pay no attention to them!

 

[Hockeygurl]

But, these are the horrible, (non-binding on the faithful) modernist footnotes that were composed using the discarded-by-protestants historical-critical method. Many secular theologians were involved in those notes. I would pay no attention to them!

Ok, I am confused. Why would the USCCB promote garbage on their website?

 

[Path_Finder]

I agree that their can be a Marian interpretation to Revelations 12 and that interpretation is likely true. However, going from saying that the Church implicitly believes this to calling this an “official proclamation” as we have with the definition of the Assumption seems to be a leap for me. Furthermore, we have recognized these great attributes and merits of Mary through the 4 dogmas given to her, we honor her, Divine Motherhood, Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Is it now fair to just usher this in that it is an official proclamation that She is the woman of the Apocalypse? Are we not getting ahead of ourselves? Isn’t this putting the cart ahead of the horse a bit?

More helpful reading on the subject.

 

[Della]

BUT… this is what the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has to say…

[12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12.

This is one interpretation of this passage but not the only one. Footnotes are only that. They are not official teaching, but comments made by scholars. That the Church uses this passage for Marian liturgies is sufficient to see that she approves of a Marian interpretation as well as others, as I have already stated in this thread.

This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster.

Which can be found at: usccb.org/bible/rev/12:07

And why is that myth widespread? It’s because humankind was anticipating one who would give birth to its savior as predicted by the OT prophets starting with God’s promise to Adam and Eve. C. S. Lewis talked about myth as fractured versions of the truth embedded in human history.

 

[Della]

I agree that their can be a Marian interpretation to Revelations 12 and that interpretation is likely true. However, going from saying that the Church implicitly believes this to calling this an “official proclamation” as we have with the definition of the Assumption seems to be a leap for me. Furthermore, we have recognized these great attributes and merits of Mary through the 4 dogmas given to her, we honor her, Divine Motherhood, Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Is it now fair to just usher this in that it is an official proclamation that She is the woman of the Apocalypse? Are we not getting ahead of ourselves? Isn’t this putting the cart ahead of the horse a bit?

More helpful reading on the subject.

It is NOT an official proclamation. There is NO official Church interpretation for this passage. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nil. The Church refers to it in her Marian liturgies and the saints and bibical scholars, especially the Early Church Fathers saw Mary in it, but the Church has NEVER made any kind of official proclamation about it one way or the other. Okay?

 

[Path_Finder]

[New Advent:

Church Fathers: Commentary on the Apocalypse, Chapter 12:1-2](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm)

1. “And there was seen a great sign in heaven. A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried out travailing, and bearing torments that she might bring forth.” The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people. Moreover, being clothed with the sun intimates the hope of resurrection and the glory of the promise. And the moon intimates the fall of the bodies of the saints under the obligation of death, which never can fail. For even as life is diminished, so also it is increased. Nor is the hope of those that sleep extinguished absolutely, as some think, but they have in their darkness a light such as the moon. And the crown of twelve stars signifies the choir of fathers, according to the fleshly birth, of whom Christ was to take flesh.

Surely, New Advent, Catholic Encyclopedia, will not be seen as one of the prior posts was.

 

[po18guy]

Ok, I am confused. Why would the USCCB promote garbage on their website?

Great question that many have asked. I try to keep in mind that the USCCB is a 501c3 organization that has a certain number of activists in it that are not Bishops. As an organization, its activities have been called into question in recent years: reformcchdnow.com/

If you were to generally examine the footnotes in the bible that immediately preceded the current one (the 1941-1969 Confraternity Bible), you would wonder if it was the same religion.

 

[Della]

[New Advent:

Church Fathers: Commentary on the Apocalypse, Chapter 12:1-2](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm)

Surely, New Advent, Catholic Encyclopedia, will not be seen as one of the prior posts was.

Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary has this:

Ver. 1. A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet. By this woman, interpreters commonly understand the Church of Christ, shining with the light of faith, under the protection of the sun of justice, Jesus Christ. The moon, the Church, hath all changeable things of this world under her feet, the affections of the faithful being raised above them all. — A woman: the Church of God. It may also, by allusion, be applied to our blessed Lady[the Virgin Mary]. The Church is clothed with the sun, that is, with Christ: she hath the moon, that is, the changeable things of the world, under her feet; and the twelve stars with which she is crowned, are the twelve apostles: she is in labour and pain, whilst she brings forth her children, and Christ in them, in the midst of afflictions and persecutions. (Challoner) — Under the figure of a woman and of a dragon, are represented the various attempts of Satan to undermine the Church. — On her head…twelve stars, her doctrine being delivered by the twelve apostles and their successors. (Witham)

Here we see that this passage has more than one interpretation. But, all interpretations point to the same thing–the triumph of Christ and his Church of which Mary is an integral part for her fiat and her life of faith. We celebrate Mary as Queen of Heaven in our liturgies, citing this passage, as well. The passage refers to all these things, not just to one, just like many verses in Scripture do, as well.**

 

[po18guy]

Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary has this:

Ref. post # 5, did I accidentally beat you to the punch?

 

[rcwitness]

You seem to be missing the point–no doubt my fault. The Church does not have an official proclamation about this passage. Why? Because it’s not necessary. Why isn’t it necessary? Because the Church does not use the Bible as a proof text, which is what you are trying to make it into, whether you know it or not. The Bible is one of the main witnesses to Christ, his Church, and Church teaching (which is Christ’s teaching) not proof of what the Church teaches. We don’t scour verses for proof for this or that teaching. Rather, this passage (like others) may be interpreted as Mary, which the Church recognizes, but it can (like other passages) also be interpreted other things, in this case as Israel or the Church. The Church doesn’t need to define every verse in the Bible as dogma, rather this passage (as does every verse in Scripture) supports Church teaching–not the other way around.

This is what the footnotes from the RVS Catholic Editions states:

Footnotes:
a.12.1-6 The child brought forth is the Messiah; the dragon is the devil; the woman who gave birth to the Messiah is Israel, and then becomes the Christian church, which continually gives birth to the faithful.
b.12.14 a time, and times, and half a time: This is the three and a half years of 11.2.
c.12.17 Mary, the mother of the Messiah, must also be included in the meaning.

Now, as po18guy has mentioned, footnotes are NOT NECESSARILY official Church Teaching. Yet, this is a very reliable Traditional Catholic interpretation of the passage.

Technically, there are only 12 passages in the NT which the Church has interpreted its prophetic meaning for. The Church does not exclude other meanings which do not contradict the principal prophecy Confirmed through her authority. This passage of Rev. 12, however, is not one of the 12.

Considering these things, it is worthy of belief that the Woman is all three. After all, Mary was an Israelite woman, whom was the mother of Christ and both physically gave birth to Jesus, and was given to the apostle as his mother. Jesus told us His true mother’s are those who are His disciples. We know that Mary was His first believing disciple who was with Him from the beginning, nurtured Him, petitioned for His first public miracle, remained with Him to the cross, and was praying with the Church in the upper room. She kept all these things in her heart.

Mary is the Church in singular form. She is already brought into the perfection of His Bride, which all who follow Jesus and His commandments will be offspring of. The Spirit and the Bride say,“Come.”

 

[Path_Finder]

BUT… this is what the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has to say…

[12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster.

Which can be found at: usccb.org/bible/rev/12:07

This is very fine to read. I can’t believe anyone would disparage what was put up at the UCSSB website hence I posted what is at NewAdvent as well.

Nobody is doubting that the Woman of the Apocalypse can be interpreted as Mary and probably is but all the same, it is interpretation only to do so and there is nothing official.

 

[rcwitness]

I wanted to know if the Catholic Church has officially stated that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary. Many believe so but I was curious if there was an official proclamation?

Do you have an opinion?

 

[Della]

This is very fine to read. I can’t believe anyone would disparage what was put up at the UCSSB website hence I posted what is at NewAdvent as well.

To understand that one needs an understanding of the changes that took place after Vatican II and the upheavel in some quarters by theologians and liturgists. But we won’t go into all that here.

Nobody is doubting that the Woman of the Apocalypse can be interpreted as Mary and probably is but all the same, it is interpretation only to do so and there is nothing official.

Indeed, it is only an interpretation, but it is a valid one, nonetheless, :tiphat: since the Church uses it for Marian liturgies. Indeed the Bible itself was compiled for the main purpose of having a unified text of Scripture for the Churuch’s liturgies, so that fact that it is used within liturgies carries considerable weight.

po18guy:

Ref. post # 5, did I accidentally beat you to the punch?

Yup. I missed that.

 

[Path_Finder]

To understand that one needs an understanding of the changes that took place after Vatican II and the upheavel in some quarters by theologians and liturgists. But we won’t go into all that here.

Indeed, it is only an interpretation, but it is a valid one, nonetheless, :tiphat: since the Church uses it for Marian liturgies. Indeed the Bible itself was compiled for the main purpose of having a unified text of Scripture for the Churuch’s liturgies, so that fact that it is used within liturgies carries considerable weight.

I haven’t seen a post here saying this is not the Church’s interpretation of Revelations 12 along with other understandings of these verses.

What if this thread was called this instead and maybe I should do this:

’The woman’ in Revelation 12. Officially the Church (or in turn, Israel)?

I wanted to know if the Catholic Church has officially stated that the woman in Revelation 12 is the Church (or Israel). Many believe so but I was curious if there was an official proclamation?

I would assert that the Catholic Church sees this woman as the Church but I’m not sure if it could be found in an “official proclamation”, merely saying some Doctors of the Church say this in an official document may not be enough.

New American Bible:

1* A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman* clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.a

• [12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah

 

[po18guy]

This is what the footnotes from the RVS Catholic Editions states:

Footnotes:
a.12.1-6 The child brought forth is the Messiah; the dragon is the devil; the woman who gave birth to the Messiah is Israel, and then becomes the Christian church, which continually gives birth to the faithful.
b.12.14 a time, and times, and half a time: This is the three and a half years of 11.2.
c.12.17 Mary, the mother of the Messiah, must also be included in the meaning.

Now, as po18guy has mentioned, footnotes are NOT NECESSARILY official Church Teaching. Yet, this is a very reliable Traditional Catholic interpretation of the passage.

Technically, there are only 12 passages in the NT which the Church has interpreted its prophetic meaning for. The Church does not exclude other meanings which do not contradict the principal prophecy Confirmed through her authority. This passage of Rev. 12, however, is not one of the 12.

Considering these things, it is worthy of belief that the Woman is all three. After all, Mary was an Israelite woman, whom was the mother of Christ and both physically gave birth to Jesus, and was given to the apostle as his mother. Jesus told us His true mother’s are those who are His disciples. We know that Mary was His first believing disciple who was with Him from the beginning, nurtured Him, petitioned for His first public miracle, remained with Him to the cross, and was praying with the Church in the upper room. She kept all these things in her heart.

Mary is the Church in singular form. She is already brought into the perfection of His Bride, which all who follow Jesus and His commandments will be offspring of. The Spirit and the Bride say,“Come.”

As with virtually all things in the faith, it is a case of “both/and” rather than “either//or.”

 

[livingwordunity]

I would assert that the Catholic Church sees this woman as the Church but I’m not sure if it could be found in an “official proclamation”, merely saying some Doctors of the Church say this in an official document may not be enough.

The woman of Revelation 12 is the Virgin Mary, Israel, and the Church. It’s wrong (and modernist) for a bible commentary to omit Our Lady from this.

 

[Path_Finder]

The woman of Revelation 12 is the Virgin Mary, Israel, and the Church. It’s wrong (and modernist) for a bible commentary to omit Our Lady from this.

Thank you for the interpretation…

She is primarily interpreted as the Virgin Mary by the Catholic Church not only officially but also dogmatically.
“Moreover, the scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom John the Apostle contemplated on the Island of Patmos.” - Munificentissimus Deus - Defining the Dogma of the Assumption (November 1, 1950)

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

Very good posts.