Quote:
There are several patron saints of marriage and aspects of marriage. The patron saints of marriage include:
Saint Adelaide of Burgundy (second marriages)
Saint Gengulphus of Burgundy (difficult marriages)
Saint Joseph (married people)
Saint Monica (married women)
Saint Priscilla (good marriages)
Saint Rita of Cascia (difficult marriages)
Saint Thomas More (difficult marriages)
Saint Valentine (happy marriages)
Zobel said:
I asked a rhetorical question because the answer was obvious.
You say here that you can ask someone for prayer but you don't know if they do it. Are you suggesting we should not ask other people to pray for us because we don't know if they will?
I want to add, physical actions are not the only tools available to us. Prayer is a powerful tool. God acts in the world through us - yes - and that includes prayer. A person may be sick and go to a doctor and the doctor may be successful healing that person, but that might have happened by God's grace and action through someone's prayer. In other words, God's will can be done through prayer - He can choose to accomplish His ends and actions through us, the picture of synergy / co-working St Paul presents.Quote:
So by the prayer request the requestee become the Hands and Feet of Jesus
Zobel said:
You suggested it.
" As you pointed out, we can ask someone for prayer, but we have no idea if anybody read it or did anything about it....kind of like the saints..."
That's as true as an in person prayer request as on a forum.
Thaddeus73 said:
If saints in heaven present our prayers to God, then they can hear us...
Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;
If they are our witnesses, then they can hear us...
Hebrews 12:1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us,
If they are partakers in the divine nature, then they can hear us.
2 Peter 1:4: by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.
If they become one spirit with Jesus, then they can hear us...
1 Corinthians 6:17:But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.
Quote:
Quodvultdeus (+454) combined the ecclesiastical and mariological views to identify the woman as Mary, who is a figure of the church in the mid fifth century. This dual typological view was also held by Cassiodore (+583) and Ambrose Autpertus (+760).
So there is witness to both views going back to ancient times indeed.
Since in the church tradition - hymnography and iconography - the Theotokos is frequently used as a type of the church I see no conflict.
I do note that St Andrew of Caesarea - his interpretation is essentially what removed the skepticism over Revelation in the east and prompted its broad acceptance - says "some had understood this woman entirely to be the Theotokos...but the great Methodios took to be the holy Church" (emphasis mine) and he indicates his support for this view. However, I would say that the error is saying she is entirely the Theotokos, over and against her as the church.
I'm in the "porque no los dos" camp.
Yukon Cornelius said:
I'm reading through ante-nicene fathers. This is from Hippolytus. Just came across this today. This by no means excludes your interpretation as things can be multifaceted but here is a very early church fathers take on the woman in Revelation 12.
61. By the "woman then clothed with the sun," he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father's word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by "the moon under her feet" he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, "upon her head a crown of twelve stars," refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded. And those, "she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered," mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. "And she brought forth," he says, "a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;" by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, "her child was caught up unto God and to His throne," signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also declared of old when he said, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." "And the dragon," he says, "saw and persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent." That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church, which flees from city to city, and seeks conceal-meat in the wilderness among the mountains, possessed of no other defence than the two wings of the great eagle, that is to say, the faith of Jesus Christ, who, in stretching forth His holy hands on the holy tree, unfolded two wings, the right and the left, and called to Him all who believed upon Him, and covered them as a hen her chickens. For by the mouth of Malachi also He speaks thus: "And unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings."
Quote:
This is from the "Ancient Christian Commentaries volume 29" of the multi-volume set. The formatting was rough and I did my best to clean it up to be readable. I googled for the dates for all the authors.
The evidence seems pretty consistent that the early commentaries saw Revelation 12 as about the Church. The implication
THE CHURCH IS ADORNED WITH HEAVENLY GLORY. HIPPOLYTUS (170-235):
By the "woman clothed with the sun,' he meant most manifestly the church, endued with the Father's Word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by "the moon under her feet," he referred to [the church] being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words "upon her head a crown of twelve stars" refer to the twelve apostles by whom the church was founded.
ON THE ANTICHRIST 61.
THE ANCIENT SAINTS WILL RISE. VICTORINUS OF PETOVIUM (250-304):
This is the ancient church of the fathers and the prophets and the holy apostles. For they experience the groans and torments of their desire until that which was long since promised was fulfilled out of their own people and according to their own flesh. That [the woman] was "clothed with the sun" signifies the hope of the resurrection and the promise of glory. The "moon" refers to the fall of the bodies of the saints on account of their irreversible debt to death which can never fail. For just as the life of people is diminished and so again is increased, so also the hope of the sleeping is never utterly extinguished, as some think, but in their darkness they will have light as of the moon. The "crown of twelve stars" indicates the [crown] of the fathers " from whom the spirit' was to assume flesh, according to the birth of the flesh.
COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE 12.1."
THE CHURCH LABORS TO BRING FORTH A PERFECT NEW BIRTH. METHODIUS (?? - 311):
The woman who "appeared in heaven . . . clothed with the sun" and crowned with "twelve stars," having the moon for her footstool, and being with child, and travailing in birth, is certainly, according to the accurate interpretation, our mother, . . . a power by herself distinct from her children, whom the prophets, according to the aspect of their subjects, have called sometimes Jerusalem, sometimes a Bride, sometimes Mount Zion, and sometimes the Temple and Tabernacle of God. For she is the power mentioned by the prophet which the Spirit urges to give light, crying to her: "Arise, shine; for your light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon you. For, behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon you, and his glory shall be seen upon you. And the Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising. Lift up your eyes round about, and see; all your children gather themselves together, they come to you: your sons shall come from far, and your daughters shall be nursed at your side." '" It is the church whose children shall come to her with all speed after the resurrection, running to her from all quarters. She rejoices receiving the light which never goes down, and clothed with the brightness of the Word as with a robe. For with what other more precious or honorable ornament was it becoming that the queen should be adorned, to be led as a Bride to the Lord, when she had received a garment of light, and therefore was called by the Father? Come, then, let us go forward in our discourse, and look on this marvelous woman as on virgins prepared for a marriage, pure and undefiled, perfect and radiating a permanent beauty, wanting nothing of the brightness of light. Instead of a dress, she is clothed with light itself. And instead of precious stones, her head is adorned with shining stars. For instead of the clothing which we have, she had light; and for gold and brilliant stones, she had stars. But not stars such as those which are set in the invisible heaven, but better and more resplendent, so that our own may rather be considered as their images and likenesses.
Now the statement that she stands on the moon, I think, denotes the faith of those who are cleansed from corruption by baptism, because the light of the moon has more resemblance to tepid water, and all moist
substance depends on the moon. The church, then, stands on our faith and adoption, under the figure of the moon, until the fullness of the Gentiles come in," laboring and bringing forth natural people as spiritual people; for which reason she is also a mother. For just as a woman receiving the unformed seed of her husband, within a certain time brings forth a perfect child, in the same way, one should say, the church conceives those who flee to the Word, and, shaping them according to the likeness and form of Christ, after a certain time produce them as citizens of that blessed state. Thus it is necessary that she should stand on the laver, bringing forth those who are washed in it. And in this way the power which she has in connection with the laver is called the moon, because the regenerate shine being renewed with a new ray, that is, a new light. Hence, also, they are by a descriptive term called "newly-enlightened," the moon [church] always showing forth anew to them the spiritual full moon, namely, the period and the memorial of the passion," until the glory and the perfect light of the great day will appear.
SYMPOSIUM 8.5-6.~"
THE CHURCH OF THE HERETICS IS NOT GLORIFIED BY CHRIST'S PRESENCE. Tycontus (~380):
"And a great sign was seen in heaven." We now see that which has occurred in the church, God has taken form in man. "A woman," it says, "clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet." We have already noted that a genus may divide into many species. For what [in one passage] is heaven, here signifies the temple placed in heaven. In the woman he indicates the church who in the purification of baptism puts on Christ, the I as the apostle Paul testifies, "As many as were "sun of righteousness, baptized into Christ have put on Christ."** However, in this passage the moon is described as placed under the feet of the woman and so indicates the church of the heretics that the "sun of righteousness," that is, Christ, does not allow to be illumined by his presence. Yet, since everything which is found in the Scriptures concerning the church may be interpreted in a twofold way, we can also interpret the moon in a good sense and compare it with the church. As it is written in the psalms, "Once I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David. His seed shall endure forever. His throne [will endure] as the sun before me and as a full moon forever. The witness in the skies is sure." And again, "Bright as the sun and fair as the moon in her beauty." " "And on her head a crown of twelve stars." He is indicating the twelve apostles whom Christ placed as a crown over the twelve tribes of Israel upon the head of his church and adorned her with spiritual gems.
COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE 12.1."
THE CHURCH OVERCOMES ALL THAT Is MUTABLE. PRIMASIUS (~560):
This is what now appears in the church, namely, that by the operation of the Holy Spirit the human nature is joined to the Wisdom of God and that from the two the selfsame Christ becomes the mediator of God and humanity and is so proclaimed and believed. As he himself said, "Destroy this temple, and in 3! and the Evangelist said, "He was speaking of three days I will raise it up, the temple of his body." ** "A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet." It is frequently said that a genus is divided into many species which are the same thing. For what was heaven itself is now a temple in heaven and now is the woman clothed with the sun and having the moon under her feet. Namely, this is the church who has put on Chris and on account of her love is trampling upon every mutable thing. For [the church] is not enraptured by these changeable things who, clinging to the immoveable good, says truthfully, "But for me it is good to be near to God." ** From this fact comes those expressions which we read concerning 4 and again, "as the full the church, "fair as the moon, bright as the sun, moon forever, and the witness in the heaven is true." *' He aptly says that the church is a sojourner, for after the human birth of Christ we see many false opinions expressed by heretics. For concerning this temple the heresiarchs, falsifying as they willed, taught variously, Valentinus saying one thing and Bardesanes another, Apollinaris yet another and Nestorius another, Eutyches another and Timothy Aelurus another. It was as though truth sprang from the earth and controversies followed. And from all of this the orthodox and faithful acquired their reward, while by evil ideas concerning the incarnation of Christ, the heretics incurred the punishment of eternal damnation.
COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE 12.1.
THE MOTHER OF GOD PORTRAYED AS A CITIZEN OF HEAVEN. OECUMENIUS (6th or 7th century):
The vision intends to describe more completely to us the circumstances concerning the antichrist. . . . However, since the incarnation of the Lord, which made the world his possession and subjected it, provided a pretext for Satan to raise this one up and to choose him [as his instrument]for the antichrist will be raised to cause the world again to fall from Christ and to persuade it to desert to Satanand since moreover his fleshly conception
and birth was the beginning of the incarnation of the Lord, the vision gives a certain order and sequence to the material that it is going to discuss and begins the discussion from the fleshly conception of the Lord by portraying for us the mother of God. What does he say? "And a sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun and the moon was under her feet." As we Said, it is speaking about the mother of our Savior. The vision appropriately depicts her as in heaven and not on the earth, for she is pure in soul and body, equal to an angel and a citizen of heaven. She possesses God who rests in heaven"for heaven is my throne," it saysyet she is flesh, although she has nothing in common with the earth nor is there any evil in her. Rather, she is exalted, wholly worthy of heaven, even though she possesses our own human nature and substance. For the Virgin is consubstantial with us. Let the impious teaching of Eutyches, which makes the fanciful claim that the Virgin is of another substance than we, be excluded from the belief of the holy courts together with his other opinions. And what does it mean that she was clothed with the sun and the moon was under her feet? The holy prophet, Habakkuk, prophesied concerning the Lord, saying, "The sun was lifted up, and the moon stood still in its place for light," gospel, the "sun of righteousness. calling Christ our Savior, or at least the proclamation of the *7 When he was exalted and increased, the moonthat is, the law of Moses"stood still" and no longer received any addition. For after the appearance of Christ, it no longer received proselytes from the nations as before but endured diminution and cessation. You will, therefore, observe this with me, that also the holy Virgin is covered by the spiritual sun. For this is what the prophet calls the Lord when concerning Israel he says, "Fire fell upon them, and they did not see the sun."** But the moon, that is, the worship and citizenship according to
the law, being subdued and become much less than itself, is under her feet, for it has been conquered by the brightness of the gospel. And rightly does he call the things of the law by the word moon, for they have been given light by the sun, that is, Christ, just as the physical moon is given its light by the physical sun. The point would have been better made had it said not that the woman was clothed with the sun but that the woman enclothed the sun, which was enclosed in her womb. However, that the vision might show that the Lord, who was being carried in the womb, was the shelter of his own mother and the whole creation, it says that he was enclothing the woman. Indeed, the holy angel said something similar to the holy Virgin: "The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you."~ For to overshadow is to protect, and to enclothe is the same according to power.
COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE
------------------------
I did take the time to also google trying to find other fathers who were early writers who may have supported the idea of Revelation 12 being about Mary
It seems the very first person to propose the idea was Quodvultdeus in the 5th century. I couldn't find his writings to see what the context is. What I could find suggest it may be have been a "types and shadows" book vs true interpretation.
Epiphanius is another one mentioned. I can't find his source documents, but while some said he did support it, there's also this which leads me to believe he at minimum was presenting ideas, but didn't necessarily believe them:
Against the Antidicomarians - Section 78:
If any think <I> am mistaken, moreover, let them search through the scriptures and neither find Mary's death, nor whether or not she died, nor whether or not she was buried--even though John surely traveled throughout Asia. And yet, nowhere does he say that he took the holy Virgin with him. Scripture simply kept silence because of the overwhelming wonder, not to throw men's minds into consternation. For I dare not say--though I have my suspicions, I keep silent. Perhaps, just as her death is not to be found, so I may have found some traces of the holy and blessed Virgin In one passage Simeon says of her, "And a sword shall piece through thine own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." And elsewhere the Revelation of John says, "And the dragon hastened after the woman who had born the man child, and she was given the wings of an eagle and was taken to the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize her." Perhaps this can be applied to her; I cannot decide for certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am I affirming that she died. For scripture went beyond man's understanding and left it in suspense with regard to the precious and choice vessel, so that no one would suspect carnal behavior of her. Whether she did, I don't know, and [even] if she was buried, she never had carnal relations, perish the thought! Who will choose, from self-inflicted insanity, to cast a blasphemous suspicion [on her], raise his voice, give free rein to his tongue, flap his mouth with evil intent, invent insults instead of hymns and glory, hurl abuse at the holy Virgin, and deny honor to the precious Vessel? (The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide [2d ed.; trans. Frank Williams; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2013], 624-25)
-----------
So my takeaway, is that the most common interpretation is that the woman is seen at the Church (whether it be some combination of the Jews/Gentiles/Christians/people of God). It's the earliest and most prevalent view.
Is there a minority view that this could be about Mary? Sure. It develops later and really only picks up steam once the Pope establishes it's authority in the West.
Does this view find support in the earliest Church Fathers? No we can't say that.
Does the view eventually start to show up? Sure, from a typological perspective, anybody can see some of the parallels.
---------------
And that is where I land on it. The most straight forward interpretation is this is about the Church and the parallels to the OT are too obvious to ignore. Given how much of Revelation is based on the OT, it's the most consistent interpretation.
Could you draw some loose interpretation to Mary and potentially a secondary or third meaning? Sure, but to try and make a doctrinal point based off of that is really bad theology.
Yukon Cornelius said:
How does one worship God today? What sacrifices?
Bearpitbull said:Yukon Cornelius said:
How does one worship God today? What sacrifices?
Is worship about sacrifice or intentionality? If I am intentional about loving God and loving others, that is not sacrifice. Sacrifice, if it is happening is short term, meaning taking the time to stop and help. I'm sure Jesus even wrestled for a moment with stopping to wash the feet of the poor, but who gained more? Loving your neighbor is almost selfish it comes with so many rewards.
Zobel said:
I think that is getting into a modern understanding of sacrifice though. Which, while true, is also burdened with a whoooole lot of stuff that is piled on top the ancient understanding.
We use the word sacrifice to mean something lost or destroyed for exchange in our vernacular. "He sacrificed for his goals" or "it was a big sacrifice". It has a kind of fundamentally negative connotation, which comes out of a specific understanding of the sacrifice of Christ in view - death for exchange. But I think that is taking a certain theology and reading backwards.
That view is not in the OT, because many of the sacrifices didn't involve death, and for those that did death was incidental and not ritualized. The actual killing or death of the animal wasn't part of the ritual, it was just a necessary step in order to offer the animal as food. So death isn't really part of sacrifice. Nor is loss.
Instead if we read the word sacrifice as gift you get a lot better understanding of all of it. In modern English we would never describe a birthday or wedding gift as a sacrifice, but that is exactly what they are. The implication matters. Sacrifices were hospitality, and particularly food (see: hospitality of Abraham), which culminate in a shared meal that usually re-experiences or re-actualizes an experience (remembrance). That's why in the ancient world they were done at specific times and places, remembrances of particular events and encounters that happened. The sacrifices of the tabernacle were no different. The Israelites offered incense as hospitality daily, and offered a wide range of sacrifices to God - gifts - to either deepen relationship, share in the good things at harvests, or to heal the relationship after a breach (with repentance). The idea is kind of one of mutual gift-giving in an ever increasing, deepening spiral of gifts and hospitality.
If we take that and read it forward onto the Cross, we see the ultimate expression of offering a pleasing gift to God. The gift of a perfect human, joined with divinity, voluntarily submitting to death to save all mankind, to bridge God and man. And, in the Eucharist we re-experience and re-actualize this event, and participate in it, and are joined to it. So the nature of the Cross becomes not a kind of defeat and loss for exchange, but a victory and voluntary offering of a gift. The ultimate wedding gift, the ultimate hospitality, the ultimate first-fruit, the ultimate thanksgiving to God for the good things He's given us, the ultimate healing of the breach between God and Man.
And we can take that and read it onto the sacrifice of almsgiving and good works - not loss for exchange, but gifts offered to God by offering them to His image in our fellow man. This is why "If anyone says, 'I love God,' but hates his brother, he is a liar." Understanding of sacrifice as gift completely recasts the Cross and the good works of the Christian life.
Yukon Cornelius said:
After a lot of thought about some of things in this thread, reading and prayer I will admit I have changed my previous opinion. So I want to thank you all for your posts, options and criticisms.
Mother Mary is a very important aspect of who Jesus is and the Protestant church does a massive disservice of not highlighting her role enough.
I now believe the role in which she served was incredibly vital however not to exalt mother Mary or her womb as I believe some do. But to exalt Jesus who HUMBLED Himself so drastically to the point of being in a womb. No doubt she was blessed and Holy. But the focus of the story or the relationship between the two should primarily be on Jesus for humbling Himself, the Word of God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Great I Am to such a lowly position of a fetus, a new born, a baby, a child etc etc.
I think without some focus on Mary the Protestants lose part of the story or the profoundness of Jesus' humility.
Anyways just my current 2 cents.
Yukon Cornelius said:
After a lot of thought about some of things in this thread, reading and prayer I will admit I have changed my previous opinion. So I want to thank you all for your posts, options and criticisms.
Mother Mary is a very important aspect of who Jesus is and the Protestant church does a massive disservice of not highlighting her role enough.
I now believe the role in which she served was incredibly vital however not to exalt mother Mary or her womb as I believe some do. But to exalt Jesus who HUMBLED Himself so drastically to the point of being in a womb. No doubt she was blessed and Holy. But the focus of the story or the relationship between the two should primarily be on Jesus for humbling Himself, the Word of God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Great I Am to such a lowly position of a fetus, a new born, a baby, a child etc etc.
I think without some focus on Mary the Protestants lose part of the story or the profoundness of Jesus' humility.
Anyways just my current 2 cents.
Yukon Cornelius said:
Need? Nothing. But I think, at least in my own experience, the Protestants which I am one undersell the enormity of the humility on display by leaving Heaven and entering a womb.
I am confused. You're talking about the humility of Christ which I have no issue with. I thought you were talking about the more prominent position that Mary is taking in your faith?Yukon Cornelius said:
Need? Nothing. But I think, at least in my own experience, the Protestants which I am one undersell the enormity of the humility on display by leaving Heaven and entering a womb.
First, I commend you for your approach on the subject, and your open-mindedness to consider a new perspective. That can be difficult for all of us, and it is refreshing to see on this board. Thank you for that, and for the courage to admit to adjusting your views on the subject a little.Yukon Cornelius said:
I probably did a poor job communicating my thoughts. I think in a similar way the cross was paramount for the death of Jesus, and the tomb for the resurrection… Mary for the birth. I believe the exaltation or focus should be on Jesus for such a humble act to enter a womb. When you really think about it is there a greater act of humility? The creator subjects Himself in the most VULNERABLE state, a fetus, to His creation. But without the womb you have no birth. So as far as it is necessary to highlight the humility of Jesus is the focus of Mary but not to exceed Jesus. Nor lose sight of Jesus.
We are often presented two extremes in life and given the deception we must choose one of the options. I believe that is somewhat in play. On one hand you have Protestants that barely acknowledge Mary and then the other hand the focus is too much on Mary. The truth lies somewhere in between those two extremes.
Yukon Cornelius said:
After a lot of thought about some of things in this thread, reading and prayer I will admit I have changed my previous opinion. So I want to thank you all for your posts, options and criticisms.
Mother Mary is a very important aspect of who Jesus is and the Protestant church does a massive disservice of not highlighting her role enough.
I now believe the role in which she served was incredibly vital however not to exalt mother Mary or her womb as I believe some do. But to exalt Jesus who HUMBLED Himself so drastically to the point of being in a womb. No doubt she was blessed and Holy. But the focus of the story or the relationship between the two should primarily be on Jesus for humbling Himself, the Word of God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Great I Am to such a lowly position of a fetus, a new born, a baby, a child etc etc.
I think without some focus on Mary the Protestants lose part of the story or the profoundness of Jesus' humility.
Anyways just my current 2 cents.
jrico2727 said:Yukon Cornelius said:
Need? Nothing. But I think, at least in my own experience, the Protestants which I am one undersell the enormity of the humility on display by leaving Heaven and entering a womb.
First of all want to give thanks and praise to God that he may be glorified by our discourse on his blessed mother.
I would 2nd your observation, as St Paul said he became poor that we might be rich. I would also add when thinking on the incarnation, perhaps include that his humanity and flesh came entirely from Mary, and as science has shown a mother retains part of her child within her always so there is that eternal bond. Thus as it is written in scripture we bless the fruit of her womb, not her womb itself.
If we Christians are to be brothers in Christ, we are also sons of the Father, and Mary as well.
