Your opinion is certainly not authoritative for me (sorry!) -- nor mine for you, I'm sure --- and of course any discussion that simmers down to "opinion vs opinion" will end in frustration. But since we are interested in evidence, let me offer this:
Note that the Woman gives birth to a male child who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron. Who, in our opinion, is this male child? That’s a reference to the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 2, where we read:
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron [Ps. 2:8-9].
Jesus fulfilled this Messianic prophecy.
The fact that the male child is caught up to the throne of God is a reference to Jesus’ Ascension into heaven, so we have another confirmation that the male child is Jesus.
And since the Woman who gives birth to him is his Mother, we could infer that the Woman here is Jesus’ mother, the Virgin Mary.
This does not exclude the insight that the Woman also represents Israel, since the "sun and moon and (11 or 12) stars recalls where Joseph (in Genesis) says he's dreamed that his mother and father, and brothers (the heads of the tribes of Israel)--- represented by sun, moon and stars---- will down down o him. SO, Israel is represented by this Woman.
She has, moreover, other offspring, those who are faithful to the testimony of Jesus (Revelation 12:17). So she is Ecclesia (as John would say, Elect Lady), the mother of the faithful. This may surprise you, but the Catholic Church does not have "official" dogmatic interpretations for most of the Bible, verse by verse. We have scholars who publish commentaries, and the commentaries vary from person to person, just like amongst the Protestant, Evangelical and Reformed brethren. The whole thing has not been dogmatized. There is much that is quite mysterious.
I have always appreciated the multiple-meaning approach of the more symbolic things in Revelation.
DMO,
“Your not seeing Mary as the Great Sign in heaven (Revelation 12) may be due to a certain unawareness that images can have multiple significance, since they work on the symbolic and not necessarily in the literal level.”
Well, no. I’m a seminary graduate. I understand symbolism in prophetic scripture.
“Your opinion is certainly not authoritative for me (sorry!)”
I understand that an RC must submit to whatever the magisterium comes up with. It is unfortunate. I am not under that limitation.
“But since we are interested in evidence, let me offer this:
“Note that the Woman gives birth to a male child who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron. Who, in our opinion, is this male child?”
I believe the male child is Christ, as Genesis 3:15 sets the stage for this war - the descendent of eve, versus satan. Israel is the seed of the woman and gave birth to Messiah.
“And since the Woman who gives birth to him is his Mother, we could infer that the Woman here is Jesus’ mother, the Virgin Mary.”
Well, no MDO. Your inference starts with a belief that Mary is that woman and from there seeks to find evidence. It remains an inference that ignores the context.
“This does not exclude the insight that the Woman also represents Israel, since the “sun and moon and (11 or 12) stars recalls where Joseph (in Genesis) says he’s dreamed that his mother and father, and brothers (the heads of the tribes of Israel)-— represented by sun, moon and stars—— will down down o him. SO, Israel is represented by this Woman.”
This is correct by both the description and the context from Genesis to Revelation.
“This may surprise you, but the Catholic Church does not have “official” dogmatic interpretations for most of the Bible, verse by verse.”
Frankly, I find this to be “convenient.”
“There is much that is quite mysterious.” There are portions of the Scriptures that have several possible meanings. There are a couple passages that no one has much of an idea of what is meant. Those are quite small. Language, structure, culture and context all go into choosing among the alternatives. The important doctrines are clear and a child can understand them.
Your post is offered in your usual classy, heart-felt way, which I always appreciate. I will be candid as to a friend here. It is an inference that brought Mary into the passage with you. She isn’t there in the context. This common catholic Mary-sighting in Revelation has a purpose - it is used to elevate her to “queen level”, in order to justify beliefs and opinions that do not arise out of Scripture, nor the Apostles tradition, nor in the NT Church. God never calls her a queen, or immaculate or most other things that are discussed on this thread. It is enough that HE favored her by choosing her to bear Messiah.
Best and Merry Christmas to you my friend.