Revelation 12:6
Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
Where was this place, and did she go alone?
That Christ is the is the child who is to rule with an iron rod" is clear, but which does not make Mary to be the women, and the typology fits Israel. And he [Joseph] dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me. And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth? (Genesis 37:9,10) As said, the sun represented Jacob (Israel) and the moon Rachel, and the 12 stars on the woman’s head represents the 12 patriarchs, “and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rm. 9:5) And which was and will be persecuted, but God keeps her through it. And Israel is likened to being a women and mother:
For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers. (Jeremiah 4:31)
Now why dost thou cry out aloud? is there no king in thee? is thy counsellor perished? for pangs have taken thee as a woman in travail. Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the Lord shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies. (Micah 4:9-10)
I have likened the daughter of Zion to a comely and delicate woman. (Jeremiah 6:2)
The women of Rv. 12 travailed (ōdinō: (cf. Gal. 4:19, 4:27) in birth and tormented (basanizō: cf. Mat. 8:6;Rev. 9:5; Rev. 20:10; Mat. 8:29; Mar. 5:7; Luk. 8:28; Mar. 6:48; Mat. 14:24; 2Pe. 2:8) to be delivered of her child, which was Christ, but which women cannot be the Mary of Rome, as it teaches that since she was sinless,
just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother's womb without injury to her maternal virginity...To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain. - CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT PART 1: THE CREED; Article III. http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed03.htm
In the preface of the votive Mass in honor of Mary at the foot of the cross, we read the words: “She who had given Him birth without the pains of childbirth was to endure the greatest of pains in bringing forth to new life the family of the Church.” http://www.cst-phl.com/marian.html
“In conceiving you were all pure, in giving birth y ou were without pain.” (St. Augustine, Sermone de Nativitate )
Thus to take this as the women literally giving birth then you must contradict RC teaching that Mary had no anguish and pain of birth. In addition, no where is Mary said to uniquely be the mother of all Christians, but as said, Christ makes all such disciples
In addition, while the women can be seen to be Israel and thus consequently, the church, Rev. 7:4-8; cf. 14:1-4 also shows John's focus is on Israel, that of the remaining descendants of Abraham during the tribulation which turn to the Lord, whose coming the CCC teaches awaits his recognition by all Israel, whose acceptance means life from the dead, and that this full inclusion of the Jews will be in the wake of the full number of the Gentiles being saved.
Scripture clearly teaches that,
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (Romans 11:25-27)
Thus Rev. 7:14 speaks of a remnant of these in the tribulation period, and to which other prophecies relate:
And I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out. And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face. Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the Lord God. And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant: (Ezekiel 20:34-37)
And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall bring you into the land of Israel, into the country for the which I lifted up mine hand to give it to your fathers. And there shall ye remember your ways, and all your doings, wherein ye have been defiled; and ye shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for all your evils that ye have committed. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have wrought with you for my name's sake, not according to your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt doings, O ye house of Israel, saith the Lord God. (Ezekiel 20:42-44)
The nations that persecute the remnant of Jews who turn to Christ are led by the devil, and which God protects by providing a place in the wilderness for 3.5 years, while in the end the Lord wuill destroy these persecuting peoples.
And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. (Zechariah 12:9-10)
the interpretation I gave (which makes perfect sense, given the context--i.e. the child is Jesus, and the mother is His mother) is true, along with other (more symbolic) meanings.
Which is contrary to that of your NAB Bible and The New Catholic Answer Bible commentary and other RC sources, so why believe you over them?
The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Genesis 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 Isaiah 50:1; 66:7; Jeremiah 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. ; http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/. . P12V.HTM#$54O
Raymond Brown interprets Revelation 12 as, “The woman clothed with the sun, having the moon under her feet and on her head the crown of twelve stars, represents Israel, echoing the dream of Joseph in Gen. 37:9 where these symbols represent his father (Jacob/Israel), his mother, and his brothers (the sons of Jacob who were looked on as ancestors of the twelve tribes)” [Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p.790].
Roman Catholic theologian Father Hubert J. Richards agrees that the Revelation 12 woman refers to Israel. In his book, “What The Spirit Says to the Churches: A Key to the Apocalypse of John,” (Nihil obstat and Imprimatur), Richards writes:
The vision proper, then, begins with the figure of a Woman clothed with the sun and the stars. We think naturally enough of our Lady, to whom this description has traditionally been applied. After all, we say, of whom else could John be thinking when he speaks of the mother of the Messiah? However it is clear from the rest of the chapter that this interpretation will stand only if the verse is isolated: what follows has very little relevance to our Lady. Nor is it any honor to Mary to apply any and every text to her without thought.
Who then is she? The source to which John has turned for his imagery throughout this book is the Old Testament. There, the Woman, the bride of God which brings forth the Messiah is Israel, the true Israel, the chosen people of God. It is quite certain that this is what is in John's mind when he begins his description with a quotation from Gen. 37:9-10 where the sun and the moon and the twelve stars represent the twelve-fold of Israel.
This Woman will later be contrasted with the Harlot (the collective personality of Rome, opposed to the true Israel) and will be specified at the end of the book, again appearing in the light and splendour for her marriage with the Lamb as the twelve-gated Jerusalem which forms the new Israel. In fact the number twelve occurs so frequently in the Apocalypse in reference to Israel that it cannot have a different meaning here. All the early fathers of the church interpreted these verses as about the Israel of God. - http://www.eternal-productions.org/PDFS/Revelation12Woman.pdf
..It is not until the fifth century (in Quodvultdeus) and the sixth century (in Oecumenius) that we find positive evidence for seeing, respectively, Mary as a secondary referent unintended by the author of the Revelation and Mary as the primary referent in the interpretation of this text. In any case, the Marian interpretation was never the majority opinion in the early church. The majority viewed the 'woman' as the people of God, both the ancient church and the New Covenant church." (Eric Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? [Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 2001], pp. 231-232)
And where does Rome officially teach that is the only interpretation of that verse?
Why, exactly, would you care?
Why? Because whether you realize it or not, the veracity of doctrine for a RC does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, lest they be as evangelicals, but its rests upon the premise of the ensured magisterial veracity of Rome. Thus the RC conclusion of what Scripture assuredly means is determined by what Rome says.
Thus when RCs attempt to substantiate their tradition with Scripture and are refuted, then their recourse is to assert that their church gave us the Bible, meaning it therefore knows what it means. RCs even teach that one cannot know for sure what Scripture consists of and means without an infallible interpreter.
Therefore the faithful RC is not to seek to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth. And while they condescend to us in appealing to Scripture as if were their supreme authority, yet their ultimate goal is to be bring us to cease to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of Scripture, but to render implicit assent to Rome.
..having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation?"
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."
“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit... Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense? — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm)
Thus i can spend weeks exposing the errors of Rome via Scripture, but since that is not the basis for the veracity of their doctrine, any more than it is for cultists, then they can just dismiss it.
Therefore unless your interpretation is official doctrine, then it is only an interpretation that you cannot be sure is the right one as a RC. And as your interpretation of Scripture fails to warrant your conclusions, then i also must submit to Rome in order to believe it.
However, if you want to allow establishing the veracity of RC teaching based upon the weight of Scriptural evidence, then you must do so with all her traditions, beginning with the claim of perpetual ensured magisterial veracity, since my assent to that much be your ultimate goal.
But as to your question: "Rome" does not subscribe to the "either/or" mentality which permeates much of Evangelical Fundamentalism;
Actually Rome holds to "sola ecclesia," or more precisely, "sola Roma," as ultimately Scripture etc. only consists of and means what she says it does.
And where does this interpretation enjoy the unanimous consent of the fathers?
That would be wonderful, granted (there is no unanimity, on this point)... but since when is that any sort of absolute requirement? And why would you (a Protestant) care, even if they did?
Because you are a RC, whose basis for Truth is Rome, and (as Scripture fails to actually provide what they want) which invokes church “fathers” for support, as do RCs, as if they were actually unanimous, and the bishop's creed of V1 states,
Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/firstvc.htm)
But the term itself of “unanimous consent” of the fathers is misleading.
The Fathers are unanimous in many things which Protestants reject (e.g. the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the perpetual virginity and sinlessness of Mary, etc.)
That also is misleading, as has been shown here, while even the term “Real Presence” apparently came from the Anglicans to describe its different concept.
so I'm not sure why you're offering this; it seems to smell of "red herring".
Because again, while these pious ancients are not determinative of doctrine for me, as a RC instead your conclusion of what Scripture means must be determined by what Rome says, and thus your basis for Truth must be consistent with her, who invokes the church “fathers” etc.. However, ultimately the evidence only assuredly means what she says it does.
As Manning's classic quote states:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation”
As Keating asserts,
And thus as Keating asserts, The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true. ” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.[http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption]