Well, of course we can go boldly to the throne of grace. But we can also go to one another and ask for prayers, so why not Mary and the Saints? If we can ask each other,it seems a bit of a snub to ignore Mary. Yes pain in childbirth is something Mary would logically not have suffered, but there is no doubt that Mary is referenced in Apocalypse (from New Advent): In the Apocalypse (12:1-6) occurs a passage singularly applicable to Our Blessed Mother: And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems; and his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven; and cast them to the earth; and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod; and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days. The applicability of this passage to Mary is based on the following considerations: * At least part of the verses refer to the mother whose son is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; according to Psalm 2:9, this is the Son of God, Jesus Christ, Whose mother is Mary. * It was Mary's son that "was taken up to God, and to his throne" at the time of His Ascension into heaven. * The dragon, or the devil of the earthly paradise (cf. Apocalypse 12:9; 20:2), endeavoured to devour Mary's Son from the first moments of His birth, by stirring up the jealousy of Herod and, later on, the enmities of the Jews. * Owing to her unspeakable privileges, Mary may well be described as "clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars". * It is true that commentators generally understand the whole passage as applying literally to the Church, and that part of the verses is better suited to the Church than to Mary. But it must be kept in mind that Mary is both a figure of the Church, and its most prominent member. What is said of the Church, is in its own way true of Mary. Hence the passage of the Apocalypse (12:5-6) does not refer to Mary merely by way of accommodation , but applies to her in a truly literal sense which appears to be partly limited to her, and partly extended to the whole Church. Mary's relation to the Church is well summed up in the expression "collum corporis mystici" applied to Our Lady by St. Bernardin of Siena. 
This reverence of her is from the very earliest days as attested to by the Christians of the Catacombs. Were these early believers wrong? They venerated her. I am tossing my coin with them. V's wife.
posted on 12/11/2005 8:15:07 AM PST
" It is true that commentators generally understand the whole passage as applying literally to the Church, and that part of the verses is better suited to the Church than to Mary. "
You see, they admit it right there. The rest of the commentary has no Biblical support (that's why they offer no references).
But it isn't the "Church" as in the RCC. It's the "Church" like the Remnant, the Messianic community stretching back into the OT.
It's the true Israel.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson