Posted on 09/07/2010 2:10:43 AM PDT by markomalley
I understand that you believe Mary is the woman in Revelation 12 ... My question is ...
Since you believe Mary is sinless ... and actually your doctrine of “Mary didnt die she was assumed bodily” seems to be because Mary is sinless. My question is if Mary was sinless why was she cursed with pain in childbirth? Rev 12 shows she was clearly cursed with childbearing pain which was part of the penalty for sin in Genesis.
It is true that the penalty of sin is death and pain, but the scripture does not say that the very person guilty of sin is to endure pain. Rather, the scripture tells us that others, themselves freed from sin, can take the sin of some:
he hath made sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21)[I] now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church (Colossians 1:24)
There is a hypothesis in the Catholic Church, that Mary, because of her birth free from the stain of original sin, could not have suffered the pains of childbirth. However, that is not a doctrinal belief obligatory of the Catholics. If you were of the persuasion that Mary did not suffer from the pains of childbirth, you would probably hold to the belief that Mary suffered in the metaphysical sense, as indicated by Luke 2:35, but not in the physical sense of experiencing pain.
The Catholic reading of the scripture is direct. If a woman described as mother of the Christ is in the scrupture, we don't look to run away from this revealed truth. Likewise, if the scripture reveals to us that man is not saved by faith alone (James 2:24), we do not try to put some Protestant nonsense on sticks to teach the opposite. You want to be free from these convolutions, become Catholic. god bless you for your questions.
they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. [21] Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. [22] Who is on the right hand of God, swallowing down death, that we might be made heirs of life everlasting: being gone into heaven, the angels and powers and virtues being made subject to him.
Similarly, figures like Jonah, Moses or David, while historical figures in their own right, are also types of Christ insofar as they lead Israel to victory over the enemies, like Jesus lead His Church to victory over death:
as Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40)So is Mary typified by anything in the Old Testament? Surely she is. Firstly, the entire nation of Israel was chosen to God so that the Savior can be born into her:as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up (John 3:14)
he went into the house of God, and took and ate the bread of proposition, and gave to them that were with him, which is not lawful to eat but only for the priests? (Luke 6:4)
all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: [5] Tell ye the daughter of Sion: Behold thy king cometh to thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of her that is used to the yoke. (Matthew 21:5)
Secondly, the Tabernacle was a sacred vessel of the Word in the direct sense of being a box in which the scripture dictated by God was kept; but also Mary is the human tabernacle, who kept the baby Jesus, the Divine Word, in her as His mother:
[27] ...a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. [28] But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it (Luke 11)The Virgin Mary is a fulfillment of the purposes of Israel. Therefore, it is not wrong to see Israel in the woman of Revelation 12, -- better still, one should see the Catholic Church in her -- but it is mariophobic stupidity to deny the direct meaning of the sacred text, which makes a clear, albeit poetic, reference to Mary.
Note, too the precision of the prophecy: Mary appears next to the tabernacle in the temple during liturgy (Rev. 11:19); she is attacked by Satan who wants to prevent the rule of her Son (Rev 12:4-5); she is removed to safety as Archangel Michael fights Satan (vv 6-11); she is taken up to Heaven (v 14); she is slandered and hated (Rev 12:15, Rev 13:6); and the attacks on her are also attacks on the entire Church (v 17). In the figure of the dragon, in his hatred of Mary and her Church, we see a prophecy of the Reformation and the temporary triumph of the secular world (Rev 13).
It is no coincidence that the impotent anger of the Protestants focuses on Mary: it has been foretold.
That is not the issue. The Rev 12 passage says she cried out from her birth pangs ... that implies she was suffering from the Genesis curse during childbirth. If she was sinless, how could she be cursed with this? ... especially if she was spared physical death (another Genesis curse for sin) by being assumed into heaven.
We are getting way off topic ... but when the majority of the NT teaches "faith alone" ... I have an obligation to believe it. The difference is ... when I look at James 2:24 in light of the rest of the NT, the preponderance of evidence from the rest of Scripture argues against James teaching "faith plus works = salvation." I may have a difficult time explaining the passage ... but the Scripture cannot contradict itself.
Now if you take James to teach "faith plus works" ... you have a much larger task explaining the rest of the NT. I would rather be in my position than yours.
Where is Semiramis specifically mentioned by name in Scripture?
Not necessarily. It could be symbolic of the sufferings the Holy Family had in the early years of Jesus's life, flight into Egypt and all.
If she was sinless, how could she be cursed with this? ... especially if she was spared physical death (another Genesis curse for sin) by being assumed into heaven.
The Catholic Church doesn't explicitly teach whether or not she died at the end of her earthly life. That is a debate that has merits on both sides. Personally, I think she died, as why should she be spared from what her Son suffered? Also, there's the liturgical tradition of the Dormition of the Theotokos in the East.
While I find that explanation unsatisfying ... my point was to understand how Catholics think about this; and that seems to be producing some fruit. Thanks.
Well, don’t site me as an authority on Catholic theology. ;-)
Do I misunderstand the assumption? I thought it was bodily ascension prior to death.
Is there a website you frequent that could clarify?
Here's the key quote from Pope Pius XII's proclamation of the dogma: we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
It doesn't say anything about whether or not she died or not. It is interesting to note, however, that Pius XII quoted from Pope Adrian I earlier in the document: "To cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: 'Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.'"
A later quote: The holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ's faithful. They presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.
Thanks for the clarification ... it does seem clear ... that its unclear what the RCC teaches concerning Marys death. But the bodily assumption ... whether dead or alive is clearly taught.
You're right on the second part, but those quotes seem to point anyone reading it to the conclusion that Mary did indeed die.
> “Where is Semiramis specifically mentioned by name in Scripture?”
.
Not by name but by title: “Queen of Heaven”
.
Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead [their] dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
.
Jer 44:17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for [then] had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.
.
Jer 44:18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all [things], and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.
.
Jer 44:19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?
.
Jer 44:25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows.
.
The worship of a woman in place of God is the essence of pagan idolatry. The association of Semiramis to the titles “Queen of Heaven” and “Mother of God” is rampant in historical writings of the first millenium BC.
“The Two Babylons” by Alexander Hislop is an excellent treatise on the subject.
Thank you for confirming what I earlier suspected. Hislop was the 19th century version of Jack Chick, and even non-Catholic Christians have refuted his nonsense.
You’re a dreamer!
Nothing in “The Two Babylons” has ever been refuted. It is one of the solidest historical texts on papism that has ever been written.
I would encourage you to look outside of such books for your history of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
The “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” is not the Roman Catholic Church; it is the mystic Body of Christ, consisting mostly of groups of two or three believers at a time, as the Lord said.
He rejected the nicolaitanism of the Roman Catholics three centuries before they formed their “church.”
.
Ah, more pseudo-history of the "Da Vinci Code" type.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.