The assumption of Mary to heaven and the Queen of Heaven -the latter in revelations

[chathwood]

hi,
where was this taken from or was it an apparition that revealed this- assumption of Mary??
Is the Queen of heaven in revelations the coronation of Mother Mary or is it the Church??
please assist me with this info. i will be more than grateful.

regards,

Chathwood.

 

[bpbasilphx]

It has been the tradition of the Church in all places from the earliest times that the apostles were miraculously gathered together in Jerusalem to pray around the deathbed of the Holy Theotokos as her Divine Son came down, escorted by angels. They saw Him receive her holy soul in His arms and take it up to heaven.

A few days afterwards Thomas the Tardy showed up, having missed this great event. The apostles took him to her grave to once more behold the face of the Mother of Life–and found the tomb empty and filled with flowers.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It has been the tradition of the Church in all places from the earliest times that the apostles were miraculously gathered together in Jerusalem to pray around the deathbed of the Holy Theotokos as her Divine Son came down, escorted by angels. They saw Him receive her holy soul in His arms and take it up to heaven.

A few days afterwards Thomas the Tardy showed up, having missed this great event. The apostles took him to her grave to once more behold the face of the Mother of Life–and found the tomb empty and filled with flowers.

**This IIRC is from something called the Transitus Mariae. It has no claim to be an historical narrative. The belief may be apostolic - but the narrative is not. The Church cannot afford to put forward attractive fictions - “cleverly-devised myths”, such as the NT rejects - as arguments; otherwise, its faith becomes no more than just another ANE salvation-myth. We may not admit that a fiction is is a fiction, but not all Catholics or Christians are as unwilling to face facts. At the very least what do we lose by admitting that a narrative is a legend ? And isn’t truth better than untruth ? “God has no need of the lies of men”, however pretty, artfully-composed, or well-known or old. **​

**Nothing is more terrifying than the prospect of summoning falsehoods to the support of the Gospel, for this amounts to employing satan as an assistant to Christ; & that is to make God the Father of lies, it makes God into Satan. ****Every time the Church “loves or makes a lie”, it shows it is not of God at all; it discredits itself. **

 

[eric_sammons]

where was this taken from or was it an apparition that revealed this- assumption of Mary??

This event is not in Scripture, but it is clearly attested to early in Tradition. One of the strongest proofs is that there is no record of any of the early Christians venerating her relics. This was a common practice of the early Church, and cities were very jealous of possessing the remains of one of the apostles or companions of Christ. The remains of the Mother of Christ would have been venerated at the same level as Peter and Paul’s had she died and her body remained on earth.

Is the Queen of heaven in revelations the coronation of Mother Mary or is it the Church??

Most commentators would say that it is both. Clearly it can represent Mary, as she is the mother of the one who will “rule all the nations.” But it can also represent the Church, who is the Mother of us all and under attack at all times by the devil.

In Revelation, it is important not to insist on one interpretation, as its symbolical language can have multiple meanings.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

hi,
where was this taken from or was it an apparition that revealed this- assumption of Mary??
Is the Queen of heaven in revelations the coronation of Mother Mary or is it the Church??
please assist me with this info. i will be more than grateful.

regards,

Chathwood.

**There are several possibilities - the woman in 12 is more likely to be the Church or Israel, or some variant of these, than an individual person: the book is carefully constructed, & the author is fond of presenting **​

• **a Biblical or Christian theme **
  over against
• a parody of it
  For example:
• **“Who is like the beast ?” in Rev.13 **
  **is a blasphemous distortion of **
• the angel Michael in Rev. 12 - for “Mi-cha-El” means “Who is like God ?” (he is called this because God is Unique & Incomparable.)
  Again, the “mortal wound” of the beast is a blasphemous distortion of the mortal wounds from which Christ died: it’s the beast’s pseudo-Crucifixion.

**The second beast, AKA the false prophet, is a pseudo-Elijah: it may be significant, that whereas Elijah & the Baptist are both foreunners, the false prophet-beast follows the other instead. **

**As for the woman of 12 - as the great prostitute of 17 is a community, it is probable that the woman of 12 also is a community. The eagles’ wings she receives sound remarkably like a recollection of a picture or sculpture of a winged Victory - which would be very appropriate if the author was thinking of sculptures commemorating the Roman victory over the Jews, & adopting it for his own purposes, with an eye on Isaiah 19. **

**Mary was not given wings - nor was she endangered by a great red dragon, nor did it vomit water at her. These things are figurative - she is not: mixing the two only produces confusion. The absurdities that result if the text is taken to refer to her individually show that she in person cannot be intended. A community, by contrast, can be intended: perhaps the city of God that we read of at the end of the book. **

Hope that helps.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

The following is my summary of what I have heard from various reputable sources. It is reasonable, but I do not think it is official teaching.

Note that the division of Revelation into verses and chapters was a later innovation. It appears that the division between Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 is ill placed.

19* Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. Back to top
Chapter 12

1 And a great portent appeared in heaven, 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 she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.

The ark is being brought forth as in older times to lead the armies of God into battle. There is no reason to believe that the ark of the Old Testament was taken into heaven; so this must be a new ark of which the old was a type.

The old ark contained the tablets of the Covenant [God’s Word], the manna [Bread from Heaven] and Aaron’s staff [the power of the priesthood] -Hebrews 9:4. Since these were types for Jesus, Who Mary contained, one may regard Mary as the new ark.

If so, then it is she who is coming forth to encourage the army in the following conflict.

 

[Eucharisted]

hi,
where was this taken from or was it an apparition that revealed this- assumption of Mary??
Is the Queen of heaven in revelations the coronation of Mother Mary or is it the Church??
please assist me with this info. i will be more than grateful.

regards,

Chathwood.

The Book of Revelations is a revelation which the Apostle John received from the Lord, and which constitutes the final book of the Bible, thus ending Public Revelation.

The woman with twelve stars, shining as the sun, and the moon under her feet, who gave birth to a child that ascented to the Lord is both the Church and the Virgin Mary, for Mary is a sign of the Church. The Church, since ancient times, has been signified as a woman in labor or as a woman with outstretched arms. Mary, the Mother of God, gave birth to Jesus, who died, rose from the dead, and ascented into Heaven. The symbolism goes as follows: the twelve stars signify Israel, the radiance of the sun signifies glory, and the moon signifies paganism. Hence, the Church is seen in the Book of Revelations as the new Israel, the new Jerusalem to which we all pilgrim to, and who has triumphed over her enemies. And Mary, in the same book, is seen as the Queen of Heaven, the Queen of Christ the King, an eschatological sign of the Church (i.e., she signifies what the Church will become when the Lord returns and brings her into glory).

 

[WMM]

This IIRC is from something called the Transitus Mariae. It has no claim to be an historical narrative. The belief may be apostolic - but the narrative is not. The Church cannot afford to put forward attractive fictions - “cleverly-devised myths”, such as the NT rejects - as arguments; otherwise, its faith becomes no more than just another ANE salvation-myth. We may not admit that a fiction is is a fiction, but not all Catholics or Christians are as unwilling to face facts. At the very least what do we lose by admitting that a narrative is a legend ? And isn’t truth better than untruth ? “God has no need of the lies of men”, however pretty, artfully-composed, or well-known or old.​

**Nothing is more terrifying than the prospect of summoning falsehoods to the support of the Gospel, for this amounts to employing satan as an assistant to Christ; & that is to make God the Father of lies, it makes God into Satan. ****Every time the Church “loves or makes a lie”, it shows it is not of God at all; it discredits itself. **

What has the above to do with the Assumption of Mary into Heaven?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states"[966] Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, The Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians…"

As for the title of Queen of Heaven [and Earth], it is clear that in ancient times, the mother of an unmarried King was the Queen. Since Jesus is King of Heaven and Earth, Mary is the Queen.

 

[Axion]

All the figures in Revelation 12 are INDIVIDUALS. Strange that only ONE figure, the Woman, should be interpreted by protestants as not an individual, but a collective entity.

Rev 12: 1: A great and wondrous **sign ** appeared in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.
A woman about to give birth is referred to as “a great and wondrous sign”. This is a parallel to the passage in Isaiah 7.14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman’u-el. The woman giving birth, who is a great sign in both passages. is clearly Mary. In Revelation, she is shown crowned in heaven.

Rev 12: 3Then another sign appeared in heaven; an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth.
Verse 9 tells us that this dragon is Satan. The stars in the sky are in revelation symbols of gods Angels. The third that the devil’s tail swept out of heaven are the rebel angels who followed Satan and became demons.

Rev 12.4…And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; 5 she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,

The dragon (satan) is at enmity with the woman and her child. This refers back to the oldest reference to the Gospel in Scripture - the protogospel of Genesis 3.14 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

Here we find the same three protagonists as in Revelation 12: The woman, her seed (Jesus), and the serpent/dragon.
The dragon tries to slay the child. This is evidenced by Herod’s plot to slay the baby jesus the moment He was born. The dragon fails, both then and later - at the crucifixion - and Jesus is taken up to heaven.

Rev 126 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
In terms of Mary. She twice had to flee persecution as recorded in Scripture. Once, soon after the birth of Jesus, escaping from Herod’s assassins, or else much later as recorded in Acts at the first persecution of Christians after Stephen’s death, when all Christians had to flee Jerusalem.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What has the above to do with the Assumption of Mary into Heaven?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states"[966] Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, The Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians…"

As for the title of Queen of Heaven [and Earth], it is clear that in ancient times, the mother of an unmarried King was the Queen. Since Jesus is King of Heaven and Earth, Mary is the Queen.

The Transitus Mariae has everything to do with it. The rest of the post was explanatory. The woman can’t be taken in dependently of the chapter, & like the rest of it can be explained adequately without thinking of the BVM. An interpretation is not made wrong by not being Marian.​

**The CCC is expressing the faith of the Church - not interpreting Rev. 12. The same applies to Signum Magnum (1967). Neither publication is an exegesis of the chapter; but rather, an application of it or parts of it for homiletic purposes. **

**As for your last point, it’s fallacious, because Jesus is not a creature, & Mary is neither the God-woman (there isn’t one in Christianity) nor Goddess (ditto). IOW, your argument co-ordinates the Son, & His mother, in a misleading fashion; for we can’t apply earthly ideas to heavenly realities without some correction, otherwise all sorts of errors result - as Mormonism shows. **

**The Incarnate Word is called King by analogy, & not called so by grace: the Kingship of the Son is an NT application of OT language referring to the god of Israel. In the NT the Kingship of the Messiah (?) is dependent on that of the Father, as 1 Corinthians 15 shows - Rev. 20.1-4 is a reminder of this. **

But the Queenship of the BVM is different in kind from this. And apart from anything else, what do you understand by thinking of
**her as Queen: the term is ambiguous, because there is more than one form of Queenship. **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

All the figures in Revelation 12 are INDIVIDUALS. Strange that only ONE figure, the Woman, should be interpreted by protestants as not an individual, but a collective entity.

Rev 12: 1: A great and wondrous **sign **appeared in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.
A woman about to give birth is referred to as “a great and wondrous sign”. This is a parallel to the passage in Isaiah 7.14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman’u-el. The woman giving birth, who is a great sign in both passages. is clearly Mary. In Revelation, she is shown crowned in heaven.

Rev 12: 3Then another sign appeared in heaven; an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth.
Verse 9 tells us that this dragon is Satan. The stars in the sky are in revelation symbols of gods Angels. The third that the devil’s tail swept out of heaven are the rebel angels who followed Satan and became demons.

Rev 12.4…And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; 5 she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,

The dragon (satan) is at enmity with the woman and her child. This refers back to the oldest reference to the Gospel in Scripture - the protogospel of Genesis 3.14 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

Here we find the same three protagonists as in Revelation 12: The woman, her seed (Jesus), and the serpent/dragon.

**If Jesus is meant. This is debatable, not certain. **​

The dragon tries to slay the child. This is evidenced by Herod’s plot to slay the baby jesus the moment He was born. The dragon fails, both then and later - at the crucifixion - and Jesus is taken up to heaven.

Rev 126 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
In terms of Mary. She twice had to flee persecution as recorded in Scripture. Once, soon after the birth of Jesus, escaping from Herod’s assassins, or else much later as recorded in Acts at the first persecution of Christians after Stephen’s death, when all Christians had to flee Jerusalem.

**“Referring back”, & other uses of Biblical motifs & themes, is not the same as for them to be actual occurrences. Rev. 17 & 18 draw on Ezekiel’s lament over Tyre in Ezek. 27, but that does not mean those parts of Revelation are referring to Tyre. The fall of the GRD almost certainly refers to Isaiah 27.1 - but this imagery has different referents & purposes in the two books. The GRD is a constellation of passages and references & images. **​

**What do you make of the wings given to the woman ? And the vomiting GRD ? Those 1260 days are significant, not just there for effect. Which is as one would expect with a book of this type. **

 

[Ruthie]

where was this taken from or was it an apparition that revealed this- assumption of Mary??

According to Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, in 1946, Pope Pius XII made an official query to all the Bishops in the world, asking if the Assumption should be defined “as a proposition of faith.” When the answers were in, he promulgated it as dogma on1 Nov. 1950.

Therefore, it is an infallible teaching of the Church.

It was arrived on by reasoning from what is in the Bible. It is not spelled out there explicitly - but if the Ark which held the Old Covenant was so sacred that Uzzah died when he touched it (2 Sam 6:6-7), it doesn’t take much figuring to understand that the Ark of the New Covenant was also sacred.

Hope this helps. I’m foggy today. God bless you,

Ruthie

 

[John7]

A woman about to give birth is referred to as “a great and wondrous sign”. This is a parallel to the passage in Isaiah 7.14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman’u-el. The woman giving birth, who is a great sign in both passages. is clearly Mary. In Revelation, she is shown crowned in heaven.

But in Rev 12:1-2 the woman giving birth went through labor pains (‘travailing in birth’), labor pains being a result of the fall. Mary didn’t go through labor pains because she was free from sin, therefore how can the woman be Mary?

 

[ryanoneil]

**What do you make of the wings given to the woman ? And the vomiting GRD ? Those 1260 days are significant, not just there for effect. Which is as one would expect with a book of this type. **

After the heavenly battle the Woman primarily symbolizes the Church. The dragon hoped to kill two birds with one stone during the forty-two month trampling of Jerusalem and its Temple (Feb 67 to Aug 70 A.D.) But the salvation of God’s remnant was assured.

He found them in a wilderness, a wasteland of howling desert. He shielded them and cared for them, guarding them as the apple of his eye. As an eagle incites its nestlings forth by hovering over its brood, So he spread his wings to receive them and bore them up on his pinions. (Deut 32:10-12)

This was the Churches obedience to the warning of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse.

"When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation is at hand. Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains. Let those within the city escape from it, and let those in the countryside not enter the city, for these days are the time of punishment when all the scriptures are fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-22)

And the flood (Roman army) was swallowed. After Conquering Jerusalem, the Roman army had no energy or patience for tracking down and destroying the Church as Satan had planned.
But the dragon went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, as emperor after emperor persecuted the early Church.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

But in Rev 12:1-2 the woman giving birth went through labor pains (‘travailing in birth’), labor pains being a result of the fall. Mary didn’t go through labor pains because she was free from sin, therefore how can the woman be Mary?

From Simeon "

Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against 35 (**and a sword will pierce through your own soul **also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.

She suffered pains from the birth if not at the time of the birth.