flip Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 check it. Mary didn't have orginal sin. so that means, according to the curse of Eve, that she would not have child birth pains, when birthing Christ, right? well, in Revelation 12, the scripture that usually alludes to Mary, the mother of Christians, the woman has birth pains when birthing the child that the dragon tries to devour... it is after this passage where this exact woman is crowned in heaven. can someone explain the Church teaching / apologetics behind the conundrum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 You noticed that the woman is crowned in heaven. Mary was not crowned in heaven when she gave birth to Christ at Bethlehem. Many interpret the birth pangs to be the sufferings of the early Church. In its Mariological aspect it means Mary's sufferings in giving birth to the whole Christ. She brought forth the infant Jesus in a painless way. But her participation in bringing forth the Body of Christ was very painful. It began with the prophecy of Simeon, the finding in the temple, etc.. The culmination being her sufferings at the foot of the cross where her vocation as Mother of the Church blossomed. But her role as Mother of the Church did not stop with her assumption but rather attained its fullness. Understanding it in a way such as this makes more sense of the verses that do not fit with the actual birth of Jesus in Bethelehem, also it takes into account more of Scripture. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmerf Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Hey, good answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flip Posted July 22, 2004 Author Share Posted July 22, 2004 yeah...good answer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 I was taught that the child might be the Church (symbolized by John, whom Jesus gave to her on the Cross). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Jul 22 2004, 03:08 PM'] I was taught that the child might be the Church (symbolized by John, whom Jesus gave to her on the Cross). [/quote] Much of the symbolism in Rev. is polyvalent. The symbols in Rev 12 often switch meanings from verse to verse. So the image of the child can refer to Christ Himself at one point and then suddenly the Church (the Body of Christ) or both simultaneously though in different aspects. Rev 12 is a tough chapter, but the more I study it the more it makes sense to me and is ever so Catholic! God bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 I love places that mean more than one thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Wait a minute ... It's the teaching of the Church that Mary lacked original sin. But does the Church really teach that she didn't have labor pains? I mean, although neither she nor Jesus had original sin, they weren't exempt from pain and suffering. And Jesus died, which is another effect of original sin. And although the Church doesn't teach one way or another on this, Mary may have died before her Assumption. Now I'm not saying Mary did or didn't have birth pangs. Rather, what I'm saying is that if she wasn't exempt from other effects of original sin despite her lack of it, why would she have been exempt from this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Flip, there is another answer: The phrase "labor pains" is, I believe, used multiple times in the bible to denote extreme suffering. Thus, the Queen in Heaven, Mary, DID go through a sort of "labor pains" (read: extreme suffering) when she watched her son and Lord die on the cross. - Your Brother in Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurkeFan Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Anyhow, the passage in Genesis, I believe, said that the woman's labor pains would be increased ("I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions. In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children..." Gen 3:16). Sorrow cannot be multiplied if there was none to begin with. This is not to say that everything that has been said before is false, because it isn't, but just another angle on the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Now I'm not saying Mary did or didn't have birth pangs. Rather, what I'm saying is that if she wasn't exempt from other effects of original sin despite her lack of it, why would she have been exempt from this one?[/QUOTE] First of all could you explain which effects you are refering to? But I believe that the only effects that she encountered were the ones that others "inflicted" upon her. And since She was concieved by the Holy Spirit there would be no original sin influence. This is all kind of guessing but thought I would post it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 I also would like to get some clarification on that point. To the best of my knowledge, Mary was unaffected by concupiscence, which is the effect of Original Sin on the human soul. Moreover, I am under the impression that she lived perpetually in a state of Sanctifying Grace, won for her though the mercy of God that was anticipating Christ's sacrifice. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now