Who is the woman in Rev.12?

[Aulef]

I believe most of the Book of Apocalypse illustrates past events.

Now, even more than when it was written. Most of what was future at the time St. John wrote it has already passed. So there is only one part left (IMO). Hence the end times are coming (but not in our lifetime).

For instance, the vial of the wrath of God that was poured upon the sun already happened. And it was a living hell to those who suffered it. A well deserved punishment, for their sins were terrible in the eyes of God (fornication, allowing being seduced by prophetesses and idolatry of false gods).

 

[guanophore]

I think it is time that this thread be wound up as every body else is clinging to the view that it is Mary and also since it started to raise allegations against the O.P.

This demonstrates that you have not read or understood the posts in the thread. In fact, the two posts above this one give an accurate and specific answer as to why we understand those images to represent more than one thing at a time.

It is ok, though, it is a great resource for those who are open minded enough to accept what God has revealed to the Church.

There will always be some who cling to their own erroneous ideas, thinking them to be superior to what God has revealed.

My view ,which I still hold( I suppose it is not a sin)

What may be potentially sinful is claiming to be a devote (sic) Catholic, and yet rejecting what the Church teaches. The paragraphs from the Catechism are posted just above your post in # 78. Perhaps you have read them, and don’t understand them, so you have chosen to cling to your erroneous ideas. Or, perhaps you read them and reject them, and have chosen apostasy rather than submitting to the Church.

My view ,which I still hold( I suppose it is not a sin) is that like all other chapters and as said in the beginning itself,the vision in ch.12 is about some thing yet to happen and consequently it is neither Mary’s delivery of Jesus nor the birth of the church as these have already happened.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. They are as ubiquitious as belly buttons.

Anyhow it is not of much difference whether it is Mary or not…

Certainly not. Especially for those who reject Catholic teaching!

 

[Cathoholic]

joseie . . .

My view ,which I still hold( I suppose it is not a sin) is that like all other chapters and as said in the beginning itself,the vision in ch.12 is about some thing yet to happen and consequently it is neither Mary’s delivery of Jesus nor the birth of the church as these have already happened.

joseie. You mentioned you think Revelation 12 concerns . . .

is about some thing yet to happen . . .

.

Me too. (But I don’t LIMIT it to that.)

.

The birth of Christ and the birth of the Church do not negate what happened to Christ.

And likewise it does not negate what WILL happen to the Mystical Body of Christ (the Church) either.

.

CCC 675a Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” i. . .

.

Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church, must follow in the footsteps of Christ.

.

CCC 677a The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. 579 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then . . .

.

The persecution comes via political messianism by the way or as the Church says . . . “the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.”.

That means politics is our “deliverer”, instead of Jesus. (And for those that think this way, politics BECOMES their religion sooner or later, it ultimately is “a religious deception”–CCC 675.)

That’s part of the reason WHY it is so disconcerting to hear people think more Government will deliver the planet from its problems.

We are only one tax increase, a few more regulations, and a couple more Government programs away from “utopia”.

That plays right into this error of political messianism.

I am not saying we don’t need good governance. We do.

But it all needs to be kept in the proper perspective that’s all.

Anyway. Back to your Revelation 12 showing something in the future.

Hang on to that.

But don’t deny other dimensions of this too.

Affirm them ALL.

There is even another possible dimension or PART of that dimension to all of this (in my opinion at least).

An INDIVIDUAL dimension. The moral sense.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[lilypadrees]

brian_custer isn’t belittling the Virgin Mary, joseie. He was quoting you when you referred to “that woman’s delivery.”

“That woman” is the Blessed Virgin Mary. The only one I see belittling her is yourself.

 

[lilypadrees]

Are you a member of the Catholic Church, Joseie? If so, why diss our belief that the woman in Revelation 12 is the Blessed Virgin Mary?

If you aren’t Catholic, who did your denomination’s pastor teach that the woman was/is?

 

[Aulef]

In addition, the Book of Apocalypse teaches us many important lessons that are valid always. And the Holy Church has been teaching them for centuries.

It really is a masterpiece. I just love it. Actually, St. John writings have a direct link to my heart

 

[joseie]

If the woman is not Mary(Don’t misunderstand-I am using the word Mary for brevity sake.It means our Blessed Virgin Mary only!),where is the question of belittling her ?Is it necessary that if any good women is mentioned in Rev. ,we.should immediately jump to the conclusion that it represent Mary only?

 

[joseie]

Be assured that I am a devoted Catholic( I earlier used the word ‘devote’ which is also correct,as it is used in adjective form also though not commonly now) and also one among the very few in our parish who attend mass daily:grinning:

 

[joseie]

Too nice to read but evidently not a genuine claim.Tell frankly:Except some limited aspects which can be kept in mind from the advice given to the 7 churches relevant at that time,what important lessons you have learned from Rev. which is not already there elsewhere in the Bible?

 

[Mintaka]

The implication of Rev. 11-12 is that the “great sign seen in Heaven,” “the woman clothed in the Sun,” is the same as “the Ark of the covenant” seen inside the heavenly Temple.

So yeah, not very likely to be a future human woman.

OTOH, Israel/Daughter Zion is an ark of the covenant, because the Temple was located in Israel, on Mount Zion. And Mary is an Ark of the Covenant, because she bore Jesus. Likewise, the Church is an Ark of the Covenant, because she also carries Christ.

Look, there are many internal indications that the narration of Revelation is not going straight from beginning to end, but is constantly going back, recapping, and then moving forward again. Any good Revelation commentary will talk about this. It is almost a “timey-wimey” book, and recent academic presentations have been known to make lots of bad Doctor Who jokes about recapitulation.

 

[guanophore]

Are you a member of the Catholic Church, Joseie? If so, why diss our belief that the woman in Revelation 12 is the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Joseie claims to be a devot (sic) Catholic.

If you aren’t Catholic, who did your denomination’s pastor teach that the woman was/is?

I think joseie has fallen prey to an anti-Catholic source .

It means our Blessed Virgin Mary only!

Clearly you are unable to grasp the nature of Apocalyptic literature.

where is the question of belittling her ?I

Calling the blessed Virgin Mary “that woman” seems to belittle her.

Is it necessary that if any good women is mentioned in Rev. ,we.should immediately jump to the conclusion that it represent Mary only?

You are the only one who takes this position, joseie. The rest of us all can accept that there are several possibilities. It is a quality of fundamentalistic thought that one can only see things from a single point of view. Fundamentalists usually need to have “either/or” and cannot accommodate “both/and” ways of thinking.

Be assured that I am a devoted Catholic

If this were true, then you would accept what the Catechism teaches, which you don’t. You have imagined somehow that you are Catholic, but you don’t hold Catholic faith. It sounds like you are a Protestant masquerading as a Catholic. Does father know you have rejected Catholic faith? Persons who have embraced heresies should not be receiving the Eucharist.

Except some limited aspects which can be kept in mind from the advice given to the 7 churches relevant at that time,

So, perhaps you can accept that parts of Revelation refer to events that have already occurred?

 

[joseie]

If you go through the Rev.carefully you will find that it goes strictly in a chronological order.All the visions are given in the order in which they will happen.No exception.Most of the chapters are undoubtedly the continuation of the previous one and are about what happens next.The other chapters begins with the words"And “Then” etc.to dispel any doubt.

 

[joseie]

To expose your true nature about which I already mentioned,I will just deal only with the last part of your reply.
I posted a reply to Aulef as below:

“Nice to read but evidently not a genuine claim.Tell frankly:Except some limited aspects which can be kept in mind from the advice given to the 7 churches relevant at that time,what important lessons you have learned from Rev. which is not already there elsewhere in the Bible?”
You have responded to this as below quoting only a part my sentence and leaving the rest.

“So,perhaps you can accept that parts of Revelation refer to events that have already occurred?”
What was my reply /question to him and what you answered! Typical evasive approach.Even otherwise also,as I had already posted,mentioning in the Rev.about some past things and say how it should be corrected ,does not in any way show that the visions in the Rev.itself include past things.Almost a cheat approach.And such persons questioning my belief!OMG,forgive them!
…

 

[Benadam]

You have been given the information required to convince any reasonable person that the woman in Rev. 12 at the very least ‘could’ be Mary. Yet you stand on no ground and insist it is impossible. I’m convinced you aren’t here to learn whether or not Mary can be the Woman. You are here to convince everyone of your heresy.

 

[joseie]

I said based on several reasons why it could not be Mary.It appears that nothing convincing but only some superficial and evasive comments are given against this.As I already said this (whether it is Mary or not) need not be of much concern and does not affect our basic belief.

 

[Aulef]

Oh. I know many lessons that I am aware are from there. Most of them I learned from the Church. Here are three examples.

First and most obvious, which I already mentioned, are the prophecies. Things that are still going to be are there as seen by Saint John, including the Last Judgement.

Second, the teachings of the Church regarding the seven deadly sins and how to fight them (spiritual combat) is derived from The Book of Apocalypse.

Third, it is from there that the canon of the Bible could be more easily defined by the Church.

 

[joseie]

Lesson learnt 1: What is any new lesson to be learnt from this? Last judgement- already said by Jesus when he was alive here.
2.This I already said
3.Vague.
Still, what you had said looks nice to read:joy:

 

[Aulef]

Lesson 1: beware of very specific errors that are to come, and be prepared for them

Lesson 2: what did you say exactly?

Lesson 3: looks like your definition of “vague” is flawed; what part of defining the canon of the bible you didn’t get?

 

[joseie]

1 . This Jesus did not tell directly?
2. This was what I said:
“So nice to read but evidently not a genuine claim.Tell frankly:Except some limited aspects which can be kept in mind from the advice given to the 7 churches relevant at that time,what important lessons you have learned from Rev. which is not already there elsewhere in the Bible?”
3.I said vague because you you did not say as to what exactly was the lesson you got from the Rev.for easily defining the canon of the church.

 

[guanophore]

“So,perhaps you can accept that parts of Revelation refer to events that have already occurred?”
What was my reply /question to him and what you answered! Typical evasive approach.

We have been trying to demonstrate to you that your concept of prophetic literature is too narrow. But it is good you can see that the letters are a response to events that have already occurred. That gives one a ray of hope!

,does not in any way show that the visions in the Rev.itself include past things.

The book is complex, and references events in the past, present and future. In some images, symbols of each are present, as with the Ark and the woman. One cannot understand apocalyptic literature if one is unable to get out of the linear mindset in which we live. For God, past, present and future are all present at once.

Almost a cheat approach.

I am not sure by what standard? You have imposed standards on the text that theologians do not, such as the idea that prophesy is only about telling the future, and that the image cannot represent more than one thing at a time.

And such persons questioning my belief!OMG,forgive them!

There are many people who have departed from the Catholic faith, but don’t even realize it. Some have become Protestant in their minds and hearts and don’t know that what they believe is not Catholic.

Perhaps you were never Catholic in your understanding of the book.

I said based on several reasons why it could not be Mary.

Yes, you did. All of them based on false assumptions, and all of them a departure of the Catholic faith.

It appears that nothing convincing but only some superficial and evasive comments are given against this.

Honestly, if you cannot accept what the Church teaches, I don’t think there is anything we can say that can help you.

Matthew 18:17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

A person who will not listen to the Church has separated themselves from her.