Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary

[Terrapin97]

Please help me understand the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Was that picture of Mary inspired from some divine vision that someone or some people had? What was the basis for that image? Thanks

 

[Ron_Obvious]

Please help me understand the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Was that picture of Mary inspired from some divine vision that someone or some people had? What was the basis for that image? Thanks

This may help.

ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/meditations-on-the-rosary-the-coronation-of-mary-as-queen-of-heaven

 

[zz912]

There was one person who had a vision, St. John.

Rev 11:19 Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm. 12:1 A great sign appeared in the sky,** a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.** 2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems. 4 Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne

 

[jericho777]

There was one person who had a vision, St. John.

Rev 11:19 Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm. 12:1 A great sign appeared in the sky,** a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.** 2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems. 4 Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne

You neglected to include Rev 12:13-17 in your interpretation which when added in context to Rev 12:1-5 changes the meaning totally. It shows this is a future event taking place at the end of days not during the life of Mary. This is actually Israel being protected by God 3 ½ years during the tribulation.

Rev 12: 13-17 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

 

[JohnR77]

defendingthebride.com/ma3/MaryQueensm3.jpg

John

 

[DavidFilmer]

It shows this is a future event taking place at the end of days not during the life of Mary.

You mean during Mary’s earthly life? Nobody teaches that. I’ve never even heard of such an idea (and I’ve heard of quite a lot).

Scripture describes an image attributed to Mary already wearing a crown - it does not describe how or “when” she got the crown. I think the consensus is that she got it when she entered heaven. Why put it off?

 

[betsybug354]

You neglected to include Rev 12:13-17 in your interpretation which when added in context to Rev 12:1-5 changes the meaning totally. It shows this is a future event taking place at the end of days not during the life of Mary. This is actually Israel being protected by God 3 ½ years during the tribulation.

Rev 12: 13-17 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

Sounds like someone has been watching Hal Lindsey.

 

[jericho777]

You mean during Mary’s earthly life? Nobody teaches that. I’ve never even heard of such an idea (and I’ve heard of quite a lot).

Scripture describes an image attributed to Mary already wearing a crown - it does not describe how or “when” she got the crown. I think the consensus is that she got it when she entered heaven. Why put it off?

It is clear from scripture these are yet to take place because this is a prophecy. These events take place during the end of days. Rev 1:3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
If this is a past event, why is Mary carried into the wilderness for 3 ½ years? She is already in heaven when this book is written. Also when this event takes place Satan and his angels are thrown from heaven to the earth and he pursues the woman. This clearly has not happened. This more closely is Israel because of the twelve stars which are the twelve tribes of Israel. Please show me how your interpretation fits scripture?

 

[DavidFilmer]

It is clear from scripture these are yet to take place because this is a prophecy. These events take place during the end of days. Rev 1:3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

A prophet cannot foretell the future. A “prophet” is someone who speaks for God (the word “prophet” is derived from a Latin phrase meaning “speak for”). A prophet speaks what God tells him to speak. That might happen to be some future event. But a “prophecy” is a divinely revealed truth, not necessarily a truth about the future. The Roman soldiers tormented Jesus, and demanded, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?” (Matt 26:58). They were asking him to prophesy about a past event.

If this is a past event, why is Mary carried into the wilderness for 3 ½ years?

What does this have to do with her coronation? She went to a place prepared for her by God (Rev 12:6). In heaven, we will ALL do likewise. If I say that Mary received her crown upon entering heaven (that’s what a coronation is - receiving a crown), how does that affect any other images? A person can wear a crown in the wilderness, especially if that wilderness has in it a place prepared by God. What does one have to do with the other? I see no relationship between having a crown and being in a place prepared by God.

Also when this event takes place Satan and his angels are thrown from heaven to the earth. This clearly has not happened.

You are the first person I have ever known who does not think that Satan and his angels (who would become demons) have not “already” been cast out of heaven. Satan and demons are clearly mentioned in Scripture, but you say it has “clearly” not happened. Where are you getting THAT from?

This more closely is Israel because of the twelve stars which are the twelve tribes of Israel.

So what? Yes, the twelve stars represent the twelve tribes. So? What does this have to do with her coronation? I see no relationship.

In fact, I am not even sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that Mary has not “yet” received her crown? (I put words like “yet” in quotes, because we cannot understand how “time” works in heaven). Are you saying she will receive it “sometime” in the “future,” presumably “before” St. John the Divine sees this vision? “When” do you think she will receive her crown?

What are you trying to say?

 

[jericho777]

A prophet cannot foretell the future. A “prophet” is someone who speaks for God (the word “prophet” is derived from a Latin phrase meaning “speak for”). A prophet speaks what God tells him to speak. That might happen to be some future event. But a “prophecy” is a divinely revealed truth, not necessarily a truth about the future. The Roman soldiers tormented Jesus, and demanded, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?” (Matt 26:58). They were asking him to prophesy about a past event.

I was not suggesting John was speaking on his own accord. Only true prophecy comes from God. He is saying this whole book is a prophecy for the future. As verse 1 says “to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass”.

What does this have to do with her coronation? She went to a place prepared for her by God (Rev 12:6). In heaven, we will ALL do likewise. If I say that Mary received her crown upon entering heaven (that’s what a coronation is - receiving a crown), how does that affect any other images? A person can wear a crown in the wilderness, especially if that wilderness has in it a place prepared by God. What does one have to do with the other? I see no relationship between having a crown and being in a place prepared by God.

You are the first person I have ever known who does not think that Satan and his angels (who would become demons) have not “already” been cast out of heaven. Satan and demons are clearly mentioned in Scripture, but you say it has “clearly” not happened. Where are you getting THAT from?

Again your interpretation does not jibe with scripture. The details in Rev 12:13-17 do not have anything to do with Mary. There is a specific time given 3 ½ years of protection in the wilderness. Was Mary in the wilderness 3 ½ years and did Satan send a torrent of water after her that the earth swallowed up? Please tell me when this occoured?

Satan is the accuser of the brethren Rev 12:10b for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. When do you suggest this event took place?

So what? Yes, the twelve stars represent the twelve tribes. So? What does this have to do with her coronation? I see no relationship.

In fact, I am not even sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that Mary has not “yet” received her crown? (I put words like “yet” in quotes, because we cannot understand how “time” works in heaven). Are you saying she will receive it “sometime” in the “future,” presumably “before” St. John the Divine sees this vision? “When” do you think she will receive her crown?

What are you trying to say?

I’m saying these verses cannot be referring to Mary because of the context in which they are written. Instead they are pointing to Israel.

 

[po18guy]

It is clear from scripture…

The first words out of the mouths of each disagreeing denomination.

The Church applies Rev. 12 primarily to the early Church, and to Mary by allusion. However, are you claiming that God’s infinite, multi-faceted word has only a single inflexible meaning in this case?

As to the allusion, do you believe that the mother of Jesus is not in heaven? Does not wear a crown of glory? If so, I must then ask for chapter and verse in support.

 

[jericho777]

The first words out of the mouths of each disagreeing denomination.

The Church applies Rev. 12 primarily to the early Church, and to Mary by allusion. However, are you claiming that God’s infinite, multi-faceted word has only a single inflexible meaning in this case?

As to the allusion, do you believe that the mother of Jesus is not in heaven? Does not wear a crown of glory? If so, I must then ask for chapter and verse in support.

I’m not here to argue denominations but the accurate interpretation of scripture. Please show how your interpretation fits the facts of history and when these verses were fulfilled?

Don’t put words in my mouth, if scripture allows for a deeper meaning then that’s permissible but not because someone wants to do contort the word to their own ends. Let’s stick to the facts at hand about these verses.

Is Mary in heaven? Yes.

The bible shows many people in heaven with crowns of glory. So I would say she has one also if that is not being presumptuous of me…

 

[Ron_Obvious]

I’m not here to argue denominations but the accurate interpretation of scripture. Please show how your interpretation fits the facts of history and when these verses were fulfilled?

If you’re looking for the “accurate interpretation of scripture” then you should be looking to the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth, rather than to a self appointed pastor who on his/her own authority decides for himself/herself the “accurate interpretation of scripture”.

The woman in Revelation 12 is Mary. The child is Jesus, To suggest that Mary never fled into the wilderness is to ignore Matthew 2, where they were they went to Egypt fleeing Herod. If you’re going to argue that the child is Jesus and “The Woman” cannot possibly be Mary, then you are exposing your own bias in your interpretation. When scripture talks about “The Woman” (Gen 3:15, John 2, John 19:26), it is referring to Mary, just as in Rev 12:1. Where in scripture is “The Woman” Israel. I am not denying that Israel could be a valid interpretation, but what I am saying is that you are imposing your will on the text by denying The Woman in Rev. 12 being Mary.

 

[jericho777]

jericho777;11686218:

I’m not here to argue denominations but the accurate interpretation of scripture. Please show how your interpretation fits the facts of history and when these verses were fulfilled?

If you’re looking for the “accurate interpretation of scripture” then you should be looking to the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth, rather than to a self appointed pastor who on his/her own authority decides for himself/herself the “accurate interpretation of scripture”.

The woman in Revelation 12 is Mary. The child is Jesus, To suggest that Mary never fled into the wilderness is to ignore Matthew 2, where they were they went to Egypt fleeing Herod. If you’re going to argue that the child is Jesus and “The Woman” cannot possibly be Mary, then you are exposing your own bias in your interpretation. When scripture talks about “The Woman” (Gen 3:15, John 2, John 19:26), it is referring to Mary, just as in Rev 12:1. Where in scripture is “The Woman” Israel. I am not denying that Israel could be a valid interpretation, but what I am saying is that you are imposing your will on the text by denying The Woman in Rev. 12 being Mary.

This book is about future events not past. Rev 1:1b says “to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass”. This book was written in 95 AD +/- so your analogy about Mary in Egypt was nearly 100 years prior to the writing of Revelations does not fit here. Why Satan would pursue her and she needs to be protected in the wilderness 3 ½ years. Also Satan will spew water out of his mouth to try to kill her and the earth will swallow it up. To me your interpretation does not fit the facts at hand.

 

[Ron_Obvious]

Ron_Obvious;11686710:

This book is about future events not past. Rev 1:1b says “to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass

”. This book was written in 95 AD +/- so your analogy about Mary in Egypt was nearly 100 years prior to the writing of Revelations does not fit here. Why Satan would pursue her and she needs to be protected in the wilderness 3 ½ years. Also Satan will spew water out of his mouth to try to kill her and the earth will swallow it up. To me your interpretation does not fit the facts at hand.

If you are going to argue that this book is only about future events and the woman cannot be Mary, then are you going to say the male child in Rev. 12:5 is not Jesus? Consistency demands you concede this. If the male child is Jesus whom the woman gave birth to, then John would be describing an event in the past.

If the interpretation that the woman is Mary doesn’t make sense to “the facts at hand”, perhaps it is because you are trying to fit the entire book of Revelation into a Futurist only interpretation. I’m not trying to discount that the Book talks about future events, but you shouldn’t discount the possibility that much of what John is talking about has already happened. In other words, maybe you should be looking at both/and rather that either/or. By denying the Woman to be Mary, it shows a bias in your interpretation. As Scott Hahn put it, “when reading the Apocalypse, we must always fight the temptation to strain for the extravagant, while denying the obvious.”

There are numerous references in Scripture which I have already alluded to where “The Woman” is Mary (Gen 3:15, John 2: John 19:26), yet not one scriptural reference where “The Woman” is Israel. You didn’t address any of them because your bias has already told you the book of Revelation is future only.

In CCC 1138, the Church refers to Mary, the Mother of God, as “The Woman”. Yet you deny this because it doesn’t jibe with your personal interpretation of “the facts at hand”. Does your scholarship on the matter surpass a 2,000 year old Church?

 

[po18guy]

I’m not here to argue denominations but the accurate interpretation of scripture. Is Mary in heaven? Yes. The bible shows many people in heaven with crowns of glory. So I would say she has one also if that is not being presumptuous of me…

Good. Here is but one interpretation of Rev 12. Please keep in mind that, in Catholicism, except for heaven or hell, virtually nothing is an either/or proposition. In Catholicism, it is a both this and that situation. For Catholics, the Church (via the guidance of the Holy Spirit) is the only authentic interpreter of the scriptures. To assert any other source inevitably ends up with rampant division in the Body of Christ - each and every disagreeing source claiming to be lead by the Holy Spirit. How is this possible?.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I’m saying these verses cannot be referring to Mary because of the context in which they are written. Instead they are pointing to Israel.

So what does that MEAN? WHAT are you trying to say?

Mary was a Jew. Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles were all Jews. What are you trying to say, that contractions anything that the Catholic Church teaches?

 

[zz912]

You neglected to include Rev 12:13-17 in your interpretation which when added in context to Rev 12:1-5 changes the meaning totally. It shows this is a future event taking place at the end of days not during the life of Mary. This is actually Israel being protected by God 3 ½ years during the tribulation.

Rev 12: 13-17 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the Book of Revelation. The book is a vision given to John. It is of Heaven, which is outside time. And the book contains many visions that apply to multiple periods of time. Just as many of the prophesies in the OT were fulfilled in those times, AND fulfilled by Christ when He came. That is why in the very first chapter John mentions that the events will take place soon.

The vision was given around the 60’s AD, when John was on Patmos. (Some scholars argue the book was written in the 90’s, but I think a dating in the 60’s is more plausible.) Many of the great tribulations were fulfilled when the Romans conquered and destroyed Jerusalem.

As to the “woman” in ch 12. There are four people/things this has been understood to be, Mary, Eve, Israel, and the Church. Each has a differing level of applicability, and none really fit perfectly. Mary fits the best of all. Mary gave birth to the Child who will rule, and she was pursued into Egypt. She is the Ark of the New Covenant in the last verse of ch 11 (remember, there were no chapter and verse until Catholic monks created them to aid in copying the Bible). As to the torrent of water, this could be understood as the Massacre of the Innocents by Herod. And all baptized Christians are offspring of Mary because we are made part of the family of God.

Israel can fit loosely, in that Jesus was fully Jewish, and is the decendent of David, and will sit on his throne. But the offspring of Israel are NOT those who bear witness to Jesus.

The Church fits because the Church was and will be persecuted and chased by the devil, but he will never conquer the Church. And we are the offspring of the Church. But the Church did not give birth to Jesus, Jesus built the Church.

Eve fits in a very loose sense because Jesus did come from her line as well, as we all did, and we are all her offspring.

So you can see that these visions are exactly that, visions. So there is multiple understandings of every single vision and sign.

Also, if you want to understand Revelation (especially parts you haven’t really considered thoroughly) you may want to read The Lamb’s Supper by Scott Hahn, where he shows that understanding the Mass is the key to understanding Revelation, as much of the imagery is in the Mass, and we can fully appreciate it when we understand the the Mass is the same worship we see in the Heavenly court in Revelation.

 

[zz912]

Satan is the accuser of the brethren Rev 12:10b for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. When do you suggest this event took place?

Luke 10:17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.”** 18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. **19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

“Saw”, past tense.

Maybe your personal opinion and interpretation of Revelation is flawed?

 

[jericho777]

jericho777;11686850:

If you are going to argue that this book is only about future events and the woman cannot be Mary, then are you going to say the male child in Rev. 12:5 is not Jesus? Consistency demands you concede this. If the male child is Jesus whom the woman gave birth to, then John would be describing an event in the past.

If the interpretation that the woman is Mary doesn’t make sense to “the facts at hand”, perhaps it is because you are trying to fit the entire book of Revelation into a Futurist only interpretation. I’m not trying to discount that the Book talks about future events, but you shouldn’t discount the possibility that much of what John is talking about has already happened. In other words, maybe you should be looking at both/and rather that either/or. By denying the Woman to be Mary, it shows a bias in your interpretation. As Scott Hahn put it, “when reading the Apocalypse, we must always fight the temptation to strain for the extravagant, while denying the obvious.”

There are numerous references in Scripture which I have already alluded to where “The Woman” is Mary (Gen 3:15, John 2: John 19:26), yet not one scriptural reference where “The Woman” is Israel. You didn’t address any of them because your bias has already told you the book of Revelation is future only.

In CCC 1138, the Church refers to Mary, the Mother of God, as “The Woman”. Yet you deny this because it doesn’t jibe with your personal interpretation of “the facts at hand”. Does your scholarship on the matter surpass a 2,000 year old Church?

Hello friend,

My futurist view comes from the author’s own words telling us it is something that will happen in the future. To me that is obvious.

Rev 12:1-6 is a sign in the second heaven, visible to the whole earth. Maybe something in a constellation or something like that, but a sign in heaven none the less. The reason I say second heaven is because “her child was caught up to God” which is in the third heaven. The woman in Rev 12:1-6 is the same woman in Rev 12:13-17. So how will the second part be fulfilled if it is Mary? In Gen 37:1-11 you will see how this is Israel.

Gen 3:15 would be Mary because women don’t have seed. The overshadowing of her by the Holy Spirit is the only way this could be accomplished.

I take it you are referring to 2 John 1:1? The elect lady is the church of Jesus Christ.

John 19:26 Jesus calls his mother “woman” at the cross. In verses Mat 15:28, Lk 13:12, John 4:21, John 8:10, John 20:13 and John 20:15 Jesus calls women other than His mother “woman”. What does that prove?

Israel in the OT is likened to a woman. Remember Hosea marrying Gomer the harlot? Unfortunately Israel’s feminine typology is usually associated to its infidelity to God. Female typology in scripture usually represents a system of beliefs. Ie the harlot of revelations, bride of Christ and Israel as a harlot.