What are the pains of the Woman in Revelation?

[MarcoPG]

Also, there are many priests that point out that Mary suffered greatly to bring forth and raise our Lord to struggling mothers to help us to understand that raising our children helps us to become like Mary.

Childbirth pains aren’t the only pains of raising children. And look, they say “raise” for a reason. I think “bring forth” is understood as “raise”, not “give birth” here. Or, they might forget this belief that Mary didn’t have these pains.
Think of Jesus lost in the Temple, and how their parents were worried. That is one.

And no one says Jesus magically appear. This is not Islam. I will look for some quotations. If you happen to have Behold, you Mother by Tim Staples, you can read them right away.

I hope you don’t think we diminish the pains of any woman. But Mary, you would agree, was special.

It is beautiful to say women are called to be like Mary, but we actually have to be like Jesus, too. First, we won’t get this kind of holiness on this earth. Second, men and woman are to be like them in faith, hope and charity. Once again, pain is a thing but not the only one. Spiritual pain is also there.

 

[MarcoPG]

catholic.com/tracts/mary-full-of-grace

Even before the terms “original sin” and “immaculate conception” had been defined, early passages imply the doctrines.** Many works mention that Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain. But pain in childbearing is part of the penalty of original sin (Gen. 3:16). Thus, Mary could not have been under that penalty.** By God’s grace, she was immaculate in anticipation of her Son’s redemptive death on the cross. The Church therefore describes Mary as “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (CCC 508).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

catholic.com/tracts/mary-full-of-grace

Even before the terms “original sin” and “immaculate conception” had been defined, early passages imply the doctrines.** Many works mention that Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain. But pain in childbearing is part of the penalty of original sin (Gen. 3:16). Thus, Mary could not have been under that penalty.** By God’s grace, she was immaculate in anticipation of her Son’s redemptive death on the cross. The Church therefore describes Mary as “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (CCC 508).

Marco if you actually investigate the references this author makes you will find he/she has a highly unbalanced interpretation of them and is bending them to his own pre-conceived and somewhat subjective view of the matter.

Gen 3:16, as many have already stated, does not say what he says it is saying. It is severe pain that is the penalty - NOT no pain.

And CCC508 says nothing to back these above opinions. All it says is that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin.
That does not mean Mary had no labour pains, that Jesus was born like Buddha (through the abdominal wall) and that Mary never died.

There is “legend” and there is “Tradition”. Do we also believe that baby Jesus blessed mud sparrows he had made and they flew away - as some of the non Canonical Gospels from ancient times clearly state?

But I get the impression you really want to believe all these spurious things so there is prob nothing we can say to assist you further in the contradictions you yourself cannot avoid being confused by.

 

[Todd977]

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 499, emphasis added)

It only makes sense that Jesus Christ, who came to ease the pain and suffering of mankind, would begin by eliminating the pain and suffering that his own mother would otherwise have experienced at his birth. Also, by preserving Mary’s virginal integrity during birth, Jesus preserved evidence of his own virginal conception.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 499, emphasis added)

It only makes sense that Jesus Christ, who came to ease the pain and suffering of mankind, would begin by eliminating the pain and suffering that his own mother would otherwise have experienced at his birth. Also, by preserving Mary’s virginal integrity during birth, Jesus preserved evidence of his own virginal conception.

“Making sense” is pretty subjective … is the small point I am making.

Many also thought and still think “it would make sense” that Mary should not die for simiilar reasons. Yet the Popes have always said she died rather than “fall asleep”.

Do you also believe, like the ancients, that Jesus was not born like any other human on earth (except perhaps Buddha who also never passed down the birth canal - though Buddhist scholars generally accept this is just a pious legend).

That made a lot of sense to the ancients (all men by the way)…does it still make sense today?

It cannot be found in the Bible. If we went by the Bible alone we would have to say that if Jesus was “born” of a woman he would be born in the usual way wouldn’t we?

And if Scripture says Jesus was like us in all things but sin … are you saying that a normal human birth is sinful? Many ancients believed that. Do we?

Why does Jesus have to ease Mary’s pain in such an extraordinary manner anyway?

So no, I am not so sure “it only make’s sense” at all.

There’s a riddle that goes… “What’s the difference between truth and fiction.”
And the answer is: “Only fiction has to make sense to be believed, reality doesn’t.”

In other words, if something makes too much sense then its generally made up by human thinking rather than what actually happens in nature or history.

 

[MarcoPG]

“Making sense” is pretty subjective … is the small point I am making.

Many also thought and still think “it would make sense” that Mary should not die for simiilar reasons. Yet the Popes have always said she died rather than “fall asleep”.

Do you also believe, like the ancients, that Jesus was not born like any other human on earth (except perhaps Buddha who also never passed down the birth canal - though Buddhist scholars generally accept this is just a pious legend).

That made a lot of sense to the ancients (all men by the way)…does it still make sense today?

It cannot be found in the Bible. If we went by the Bible alone we would have to say that if Jesus was “born” of a woman he would be born in the usual way wouldn’t we?

And if Scripture says Jesus was like us in all things but sin … are you saying that a normal human birth is sinful? Many ancients believed that. Do we?

Why does Jesus have to ease Mary’s pain in such an extraordinary manner anyway?

So no, I am not so sure “it only make’s sense” at all.

There’s a riddle that goes… “What’s the difference between truth and fiction.”
And the answer is: “Only fiction has to make sense to be believed, reality doesn’t.”

In other words, if something makes too much sense then its generally made up by human thinking rather than what actually happens in nature or history.

To die can be seen as the passage from here to Heaven, as it was meant to be for Eve hadn’t she sinned. But as you say, Popes said she died. Always? Ok, but the dogma of the Assumption doesn’t teach that she died, nor that she didn’t.

Nevertheless, on Mary’s freedom of childbirth pains:

7. Clement VIII provided an authentic explanation of the mystery of Mary’s virginity in the Motu proprio Pastoralis Romani apropos of the third article of the Creed. He taught that when it says “born of the virgin Mary”, it means that here too there is something very exceptional “since the Son of God came out of the womb of the Mother at the end of the ninth month, without pain or loss on the part of the mother herself, leaving no sign whatsoever of his emergence…and therefore it is said that the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ was virgin before the birth, in the birth and after the birth.”
(Juan Luis Bastero’s book Mary, Mother of the Redeemer, cited by Mark Shea here patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2010/12/i-stand-corrected.html)

The dormition isn’t to say she definitely didn’t die. It may be that it is falling asleep like in the Epistles or the Mass, a synonym for death, but good and holy.

We are not saying Jesus isn’t born like any other human, but rather that her Mother didn’t experiance pain.
To say the ancients believed such and such may be dangerous, since it may question the dogma of Mary ever-virgin.

If it isn’t found in the Bible, ok, even if someone here quoted Isaiah and this is not the only passage; just we have Tradition and the Magisterium to remind us that not everything is written.

Look at the Fathers: [home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/virginity(name removed by moderator)artu.htm](http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/virginity(name removed by moderator)artu.htm)

Catholic encyclopedia: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DURBIRTH.HTM

cuf.org/2004/04/marys-perpetual-virginity/

The Church has traditionally understood Mary’s virginity in partu (during birth) as meaning that Jesus passed from His Mother’s womb into the light of day without the womb being opened and consequently without the destruction of the physical signs of virginity possessed by one who is virgin in conception. Secondly, Mary’s virginity in partu involves the absence of labor pains* and usual infirmities (e.g., rupturing, bleeding, etc.) involved in gestation*

 

[sirach2v4]

Hello

Tradition tell us that Our LAdy didn’t experience pain in giving birth to the Lord. So I was intrigued by the passage of Revelation

*12
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

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

I think it is about the sufferings of the Church. Only I would like to know your thoughts on this. Not only, but also in Revelation we see Mary as Queen. Why then, seeing this same Blessed Virgin suffering in giving birth, isn’t it concluded that she did?

The typology based on Eve is an answer, but then is this only simbolic of the hardest moments of the Church?

ON the USCCB website, there is this footnote:

• [12:2] Because of Eve’s sin, the woman gives birth in distress and pain (Gn 3:16; cf. Is 66:7–14)

But it was Mary, which is sinless, then she wouldn’t bear the sin of Eve after the Fall!

Thank you

Tim Staples book on Marian doctrines, “Behold Your Mother” goes into detail on all of this, including the pain of childbearing or absence thereof - scripture and history Staples says, and he delivers. It’s $5 less online, if you look around.

 

[MarcoPG]

Tim Staples book on Marian doctrines, “Behold Your Mother” goes into detail on all of this, including the pain of childbearing or absence thereof - scripture and history Staples says, and he delivers. It’s $5 less online, if you look around.

Because I finished to read the book, I asked the question . I am not the one doubting the Virgin didn’t experince pain, or that this was fitting. But thinking of the Woman in Revelation, I was wondering what kind of pains does the Woman have, since this is the Church, but also Mary, because she has her body and is crowned.

 

[Mintaka]

The Bride and Mary are in somewhat similar states.

On the one hand, the members of the Church in Heaven are living in a state of bliss, and so is Mary.

But on the other hand, not everybody in the Church is in Heaven (and plenty of people in the Church are suffering and dying for the Faith), most of the saints except Mary are waiting to be reunited with their resurrected bodies, and Mary and the saints are always praying for us and sympathizing deeply with our problems.

So they are in glory with respect to Christ and they have crowns. But they are standing at the foot of our crosses in their capacity as “clouds of witnesses.” They are praying for us, so along with the Holy Spirit, you could say that they are “groaning” in sighs too deep for words. They are not suffering, but they are waiting and longing for the time to come, when the rest of the saints will be born into eternity, so to speak, along with the new heaven and new earth.

And yeah, there are definitely plenty of labor pains being suffered by the rest of the Church here on earth.

Usually we think of this in terms of the marriage feast of the Lamb and the Bride, but the birthing imagery is also there.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

To die can be seen as the passage from here to Heaven, as it was meant to be for Eve hadn’t she sinned.

This isn’t really mainstream Catholic theology.
Death is the separation of body and soul.
Adam and Eve, originally, did not need to have body and soul separated if God desired to also give them the gift of life with Him in heaven. There is a word for this but it escapes me.

But as you say, Popes said she died. Always? Ok, but the dogma of the Assumption doesn’t teach that she died, nor that she didn’t.

Read the Encyclical that defined the Assumption.
You will see the Pope refer to her death a number of times in the fine-print and stated it has always been taught by the Western Papacy.

Nevertheless, unlike the Assumption, Mary’s death was not dogmatically defined as well.
(No doubt giving many of the miseld Catholics of the last 200 yrs time to come to terms with this unsettling reality check).

So one would not yet be legitimately called a heretic for stubbornly sticking to the Mary didn’t die heterodoxy. But clearly the writing is on the wall.

It is strange how some modern Catholics understand the “Dormition” very differently from the Eastern Catholics who understand what their own tradition really means. It isn’t sleeping.

If you look up this topic on CatholicAnswers there have been some very fruitful debates on these topics that need not be repeated all over again here.

But the small point I am making is that on these topics, apart from affirming that Mary was ever a Virgin, considerable variance of Catholic opinion is permissable on this topic because noone seems to actually know for sure.

However, on the small point of Mary’s death be assured that she did die - but you would not yet be called heretical for denying this.

(BTW Ancient iconography makes it clear Mary’s soul was separate from her prostrate body when she was translated to heaven by the angels.

It is unfortunate that many modern Western paintings show Mary differently - rising to heaven standing erect and alive with eyes open. This was never the case, it has led many Western Catholics in the last few hundred years to believe she did not die).

 

[MarcoPG]

Originally Posted by MarcoPG
“To die can be seen as the passage from here to Heaven, as it was meant to be for Eve hadn’t she sinned.”

You say:
This isn’t really mainstream Catholic theology.
Death is the separation of body and soul.
Adam and Eve, originally, did not need to have body and soul separated if God desired to also give them the gift of life with Him in heaven. There is a word for this but it escapes me.

That is why I am saying it can be sin as a passage. I am not saying this is catholic teaching for all men, since we are not sinless. But to make it clearer, I was talking about the death or dormition of Our Lady, sinless, with how Adam and Eve would have died hadn’t they sinned.

Beatific vision?

 

[MarcoPG]

Read the Encyclical that defined the Assumption.
You will see the Pope refer to her death a number of times in the fine-print and stated it has always been taught by the Western Papacy.

Nevertheless, unlike the Assumption, Mary’s death was not dogmatically defined as well.
(No doubt giving many of the miseld Catholics of the last 200 yrs time to come to terms with this unsettling reality check).

So one would not yet be legitimately called a heretic for stubbornly sticking to the Mary didn’t die heterodoxy. But clearly the writing is on the wall.

It is strange how some modern Catholics understand the “Dormition” very differently from the Eastern Catholics who understand what their own tradition really means. It isn’t sleeping.

If you look up this topic on CatholicAnswers there have been some very fruitful debates on these topics that need not be repeated all over again here.

But the small point I am making is that on these topics, apart from affirming that Mary was ever a Virgin, considerable variance of Catholic opinion is permissable on this topic because noone seems to actually know for sure.

However, on the small point of Mary’s death be assured that she did die - but you would not yet be called heretical for denying this.

(BTW Ancient iconography makes it clear Mary’s soul was separate from her prostrate body when she was translated to heaven by the angels.

It is unfortunate that many modern Western paintings show Mary differently - rising to heaven standing erect and alive with eyes open. This was never the case, it has led many Western Catholics in the last few hundred years to believe she did not die).

I am calling no one an heretic, I am saying as you are saying that it isn’t dogma that Mary died the death that we will die The pope talks about her death, not defining what is death for a sinless human. The dormition and the death of the Virgin are the same things, seen in that perspective. As you said, it isn’t sleeping, and this I tried to show, since in the gospel, dead people are “sleeping”. But it is not death for sin, either. Surely, any Catholic may believe how he prefers on the matter.

 

[MarcoPG]

“Read the Encyclical that defined the Assumption.
You will see the Pope refer to her death a number of times in the fine-print and stated it has always been taught by the Western Papacy.”

Can you please cite the paragraph, I may have missed it.