Marian Apparitions

[Aloysius]

.......... i gotz a question

u all recognize the book of Revelation, right?

u all believe that John saw a woman clothed with the sun standing on the moon right?

u all believe that that woman symbolizes the Church, the bride of Christ, right?

how come u can't believe that say, the Fatima children saw a woman?

how come u can't believe that that woman symbolizes the Church?

wouldn't it be the same argument over it as the argument goes with Our Lady of Revelation? (i made that name up)

Pax Christi

[mulls]

I believe of the Book of Revelation because it's the Book of Revelation.

It's part of God's Word.

Fatima isn't.

I'm aware that you don't even have to believe in these apparitions. Why should I?

Do you think the lady in Revelation is Mary?

[cmotherofpirl]

yep.

[Chrysologus]

The woman in the Book of Revelation is the church and Mary because Mary represents the church.

[Aloysius]

And the Church is the Body of Christ

but Mary is the new Eve as Christ is the new Adam

and adam said "Alas, bone of my bone flesh of my flesh"

Read Dr. Scott Hahn's Hail Holy Queen

[benedict_x]

The woman in the book of revalations is definately Our Lady.

Why most protestants refuse to belive it I will never know....

[mulls]

honest question,

possibly i'm mistaken, but why does Mary not appear anywhere in the bible between the Gospels and Revelation (since you believe she is that Lady)? no other NT writer seems to mention her. if Mary is supposed to have such a magnificent influence over the Church, why is her influence via apparitions and private revelation, and not in the Word?

when was the first Marian apparition, i.e., how long after the bible was produced?

[Jake Huether]

Actually,

The "Lady" appears in the OT too!

Interesting... The Church = the Bride of Christ. Mary = the Bride of the Holy Spirit.

Wow!

[Jake Huether]

honest question,

possibly i'm mistaken, but why does Mary not appear anywhere in the bible between the Gospels and Revelation (since you believe she is that Lady)? no other NT writer seems to mention her. if Mary is supposed to have such a magnificent influence over the Church, why is her influence via apparitions and private revelation, and not in the Word?

when was the first Marian apparition, i.e., how long after the bible was produced?

Good question...

Maybe the "Word" wasn't supposed to have THAT much enphesis on it ALONE. Maybe the WRITTEN WORD (all 73 books) were supposed to be used in collaberation with the SPOKEN WORD (the Teaching of the Church of Christ).

Then it would make sence... Because although Mary isn't mentioned much in the Bible, most probably due to her not wanting to be mentioned (humble as she was), the Church has always (from the begining) held her in high esteem.

[Aloysius]

i heard someone speculate that the rest of the Bible was written while she was still alive but when Revelation was written she had already passed

come to think of it, that might not be exactly true, but it does kinda make sense that when she was alive she would have not wanted much written about her, she was veery humble

at least John hadta wait till she had been assumed till he wrote stuff about her bein in heaven.

Pax et Amo Christi!

[cmotherofpirl]

THe New Testament are the collected Catholic stories about the life and teachings of Jesus, and his Apostles.

THey are a glimpse, only a glimpse of the early Church.

Mary did not preach or teach Catholicism , she lived it. She was the yes that answered Eve's no. She was the believer who made it all possible. She had to be the one to tell Luke about the birth of Jesus. She requested the first miracle, knowing her son would comply. She was there throughout the Gospel; she was there at the Crucifixion. Jesus gave her care to his best loved disciple, at the last he took care of his mom. At this she became the mother of all Christians everywhere. She was there during Acts and Pentecost. She was probably with St John when he wrote revelations, and then his gospel. She was mom.

She was a living example of discipleship, and the Church remembers this.

Reread the Magnificat in Luke to see the importance of Mary in the Church.

[tm30]

No one has to believe in these apparitions, but if the Church puts its seal of approval on them, you can bet there's something profoundly important beneath the debate. The Church is LOATHE to approve apparitions as bona fide miracles. So much so, on the rare occasions the Church does make its approval, I am confident it's for real.

[Dave]

This article comes from Catholic Insight (a schismatic attitude pervades the site, however, so proceed with caution)

Who is the Woman of Revelation 12?

A Study of the 12th Chapter of the Apocalypse

By Jacob Michael

[Note: The Scriptural references are taken from the Protestant Revised Standard Version.]

In St. John's Apocalypse Chapter 12, we are presented with a most curious and complex vision: a woman, crowned with stars, giving birth to a child, waging war against a dragon, fleeing to the wilderness for protection, engaged in an ongoing struggle with her offspring against the dragon and his angels.

Who is this woman? Catholics are fond of identifying the woman as Mary, the Mother of Christ, while Protestants are equally fond of identifying her as anything but Mary. They propose many varying identities, some favoring Israel, some favoring Jerusalem, some favoring the Church, and still others favoring Eve. Is there any merit to these theories? Who, exactly, is this mysterious woman? That is the question we will answer in this article.

We begin by examining the text itself:

And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. (Revelation 12:1-6)

At first glance, we can conclude, along with the Protestant, that this woman is Zion/Jerusalem, from what is said of her in verse 2: "she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery." This reference to the pains of labor recall to mind two texts from Isaiah:

Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? Shall a nation be brought forth in one moment? For as soon as Zion was in labor she brought forth her sons. (Isaiah 66:7-8)

Like a woman with child, who writhes and cries out in her pangs, when she is near her time, so were we because of thee, O LORD; we were with child, we writhed, we have as it were brought forth wind. We have wrought no deliverance in the earth, and the inhabitants of the world have not fallen. (Isaiah 26:17-18)

These two texts present us with Zion as a woman in labor, giving birth to a "son," who is a figure of the entire "nation." This text, pointing forward to the New Covenant, speaks of the birth of the New Covenant people, the Church. This is clearly the allusion that is made in Rev. 12:2 and 12:5, where the "woman" gives birth to "a male child."

But look again: Zion/Jerusalem does not, in fact, fit completely with the woman of Rev. 12. First, in Rev. 12:2-5, the pains of labor culminate in the birth of a male child, yet, in the two texts from Isaiah to which Rev. 12 refers, the pains of labor and the birth of the child do not coincide. In the first text, Isaiah 66, there is a birth, but no labor pains ("before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son"). In the second text, Isaiah 26, there are labor pains, but no birth ("we have as it were brought forth wind").

Second, the "woman" in Revelation 12 brings forth not only a male child, but a male child who "is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron." This is a clear reference to Psalm 2:8-9, in which the Messiah is promised "the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession," and "You shall break them with a rod of iron." We must conclude, then, that Zion/Jerusalem is an inadequate explanation of the identity of "the woman."

Clearly, if the "male child" in Revelation 12 is the Messiah, and the reference to Psalm 2 makes it impossible to think otherwise, then the "woman" must be none other than Mary, for she alone gave birth to the Christ-child. It may be objected that the "woman" is Israel, and that Israel figuratively gave birth to the Messiah, but this proposition has no Scriptural basis. We have already seen that the Isaiah texts do not explain the mystery, since the woman of Isaiah gives birth to a nation, not to the Messiah, and that, with no birth pains. In fact, you will search in vain for any Old Testament text (or any ancient Jewish writings, for that matter) which speak of a collective nation giving birth to the Messiah. Therefore, the woman must be Mary. However, it is certain that Isaiah 66:7 is the passage being alluded to by St. John, and so we have a conundrum. Why does St. John bring Zion/Jerusalem into the picture, when it is clearly Mary that he is referring to (it would be ridiculous to suggest that St. John did not have Mary in mind, given the reference to the Messiah, and taking into account the beloved disciple's special relationship to the Blessed Mother)? We will resume this discussion momentarily.

Another possibility is that the "woman" is the Church. This view is well supported by the rest of the text in Rev. 12:

And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child. But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood. But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon had poured from his mouth. (Revelation 12:13-16)

In this text, the "woman" is empowered to fly like an "eagle" into the wilderness, where she is given special protection and nourishment by God, shielded from the attacks of the dragon. This is referred to above in vs. 6 as well, "and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days." The 1,260 days, or the "time, and times, and half a time," are a reference to Daniel 7:25-26, which tells of the fourth beast and the king that comes to power:

He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time. But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end. (Daniel 7:25-26)

The fact that this king persecutes "the saints of the Most High" refers to the future trials and tribulations of the Church, which lasts for 1,260 days, or "a time, two times, and half a time."

But the woman is given the wings of an eagle, which recalls two passages from the Mosaic literature:

You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. (Exodus 19:4)

For the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. "He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness; he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye. Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, that flutters over its young, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them on its pinions, the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no foreign god with him. (Deuteronomy 32:9-12)

Both of these passages refer to God's special protection of Israel as they traveled through the wilderness after leaving Egypt, and this protection is symbolized by the image of an eagle protecting its young. It is safe to conclude, then, linking together the reference to 1,260 days and the reference to the eagle's wings, that Rev. 12:13-16 is speaking of the Church, the New Israel, being protected against the dragon's attacks during a period of tribulation. The Church is "nourished" by God, alluding to the manna of the Exodus, and pointing to the new "manna" of the Church, the Holy Eucharist.

However, the identification of the "woman" with the Church also proves to be inadequate, since the "woman" gives birth to the Messiah (the Psalm 2 allusion) and simultaneously to the New Covenant people (the Isaiah 66 allusion). The Church does not fit this description, since Christ was born before the Church, and the Church does not give birth to herself. Yet, clearly, given the references to Daniel, Exodus, and Deuteronomy, the Church is most definitely the "woman" being spoken of, at least in vv. 13-16.

Once again we have a conundrum: the "woman" is Jerusalem, but not exclusively, and the "woman" is the Church, but not exclusively. The "woman" is certainly Mary, but not exclusively, since there are no Biblical texts that refer to Mary giving birth to a male child amidst the pains of labor. In fact, the Church teaches that Mary's labor was much like that of Jerusalem in Isaiah 66 (already referenced), in that she delivered the Christ before the pains of labor came. Being immaculately conceived (another discussion for another article), she was not subject to the curse of Eve, namely, experiencing pain in childbirth.

So if the "woman" is not Mary, Jerusalem, or the Church exclusively, how do we solve this riddle? There is one aspect we have not fully dealt with: the pains of childbirth that the woman experiences.

There is, in fact, only one other reference to the anguish of labor that would fit this passage, and it is - quite appropriately - from the pen of the same author who wrote the Apocalypse. We find in St. John's gospel the key to the riddle:

When a woman is in travail she has sorrow, because her hour has come; but when she is delivered of the child, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a child is born into the world. So you have sorrow now, but I will see you again and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you. (John 16:21-22)

With this text illuminating Revelation 12, we see a new facet: the pains of childbirth that the "woman" experiences are a reference to the Passion of Our Lord, which He Himself refers to as the "hour" of the "woman." In St. John's gospel, "the hour" that Our Lord speaks of is always a reference to His Passion, but here, for the first time, we see "the hour" linked to a "woman" who is in "travail" as she is "delivered of the child." It is not hard to see the parallels here.

If John 16 is inDouche the backdrop to Revelation 12, then we find this as the meaning: the "birth" spoken of in Revelation 12 is simultaneously the event that took place in Bethlehem and the event that took place at Calvary (which includes Easter morning). inDouche, St. Paul speaks of the Resurrection of Christ as a kind of "birth" in the book of Acts:

And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.' (Acts 13:32-33)

Notice how the "raising" of Jesus is seen as the fulfillment of Psalm 2, "today I have begotten thee." Thus, the "birth" of Jesus is linked to His resurrection, yet the "hour" of the "woman" who gives birth to a "child" in John 16:21-22 is also linked to the Passion itself.

If the "birth" of Revelation 12:5 is a reference to the Passion and Resurrection, then it should not surprise us to see the text immediately speaks of the Ascension: "her child was caught up to God and to his throne." This confirms our conjecture.

Now all that remains is for us to understand how the "woman" fits into the scheme, if the "woman" is Jerusalem, Mary, and the Church at various points in the text. The only reasonable solution to the riddle is to see in Mary the personification of both the Church and Jerusalem. We would thus read the text in this manner:

1) The Passion and Resurrection of Christ is portrayed in terms of the suffering of Mary

2) The "birth" is simultaneously Bethlehem, Calvary, Easter, and the emergence of the Church

3) Mary is the personification of Jerusalem

4) Mary is the figure of the Church, who, though she reigns victorious in heaven, yet still suffers as the Church on earth is persecuted by the dragon

As to point #1, we should have no problem accepting this conclusion, since the very same thing is demonstrated in Luke 2:34-35, where the Passion of Christ is alluded to by way of Mary's soul being "pierced" with a sword.

As to point #2, this conclusion is inescapable, if we allow the texts of Isaiah 66, Psalm 2, Acts 13, and John 16 to fully illumine the passage.

As to point #3, this conclusion is easily demonstrated to be correct. It is Jerusalem/Zion who is described thus in Isaiah 12: "Shout, and sing for joy, O inhabitant of Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel." She is described in similar terms in Zechariah 2: "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for lo, I come and I will dwell in the midst of you, says the LORD." To these could be added Zepheniah 3:15 and 17, Hosea 11:9, and Joel 2:27. Mary personifies this daughter of Jerusalem, for it was in her "midst" that the Lord came to dwell. Likewise, Habakkuk 3:18, "yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation," spoken in the person of Israel, prefigures the Magnificat of Mary, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior."

As to point #4, this too is easily demonstrated, for Mary and the Church share a rather unique combination of characteristics: the Church is a virgin (2 Corinthians 11:2), the Church is a bride (Revelation 21:2), and the Church is a mother (Galatians 4:26). Only Mary shares these descriptions all at the same time.

One final consideration: Revelation 12 clearly alludes to Genesis 3:15. The "woman" of Revelation 12 squares off against "that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan" in verse 9, an indisputable reference to the Genesis narrative. This dragon of Revelation 12 "stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth" (v. 4), just as was prophesied to the serpent in Genesis 3:15, "thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." The entire scene of the "woman" at war with the dragon is remniscent of the Genesis 3:15 prophecy, "I will put enmities between thee and the woman," and the fact that it is the "woman" of Revelation 12 who is shown as already victorious over the dragon (she wears a crown, a symbol of victory in the Apocalypse, see 2:10, 3:11, 6:2, 14:14, and she cannot be harmed by the dragon's attacks in vv. 13-16) lends great support to the Vulgate translation of Genesis 3:15, that is, "she shall crush thy head." After we see the dragon lying "in wait" for the child of the "woman," we find this same dragon at the end of the chapter waging war against "the offspring" (literally, "the seed") of the "woman," a reference to the "emnities" that would exist between "thy seed and her seed" in Genesis 3:15.

In consideration of these facts, we must also allow for the fact that the "woman" of Revelation 12 is the anti-type of Eve, as well as the personification of Jerusalem, the Blessed Virgin, and the figure of the Church. Thus, as Eve was the "mother of all living" (Genesis 3:20), so too this "woman" is the mother of all those who "keep the commandments of God" (Revelation 12:17).

What we have, then, at the end of this complicated tapestry of images, is a "woman" who must first and foremost be identified with Mary. While Jerusalem and the Church can meet some of the descriptions of the "woman," only Mary can meet the most unique descriptions (i.e., giving birth to the Messiah), and only Mary can serve as the bridge that connects Jerusalem to the Church. Because she can sum up Jerusalem and the Church in her own person, as well as fulfill the role of anti-type to Eve, she serves as the most appropriate answer to the riddle of the "woman."

Thus we conclude: the "woman" of Revelation 12 is Eve, Jerusalem, Israel, Zion, and the Church, all of these being gathered up and located in the single person of Mary, the Mother of Christ and (as Revelation 12 presents her) the Mother of the Church. The Protestant can properly identify the "woman" as the Church or as Jerusalem, but only if he leaves the Marian interpretation intact. Once she is excluded from the text, all other interpretations fail to meet the multi-faceted requirements of Revelation 12.

[Freaky Chik]

Then it would make sence...  Because although Mary isn't mentioned much in the Bible, most probably due to her not wanting to be mentioned (humble as she was), the Church has always (from the begining) held her in high esteem.

This really isn't that logical... because then you're saying that those who are mentioned in the Bible are prideful. Therefore, Jesus is prideful. Paul is prideful. etc etc etc...

And also, Im' very much sure that Mary wasn't in that prison cell when Paul wrote some of those letters... or wherever he was... so she couldn't have possibly said "Hey Paul, can you make sure you don't mention me in yer letters to the churches!"

Or maybe Im' just confused.

:)

[mulls]

dave,

everybody and their mother has written some sort of commentary about the book of revelation. i hardly believe any of it, because nobody really knows what's going to happen, or when, or what everything stands for.

why should i believe this?