The Awesome story of Our Lady of the Grand Return

Post Reply New Topic

You're welcome, I see, well here's some biblical passages that can help emphasize the importance of Our Lady. First and foremost, there is the Annunciation, the Feast Day is on March 25th, the great Marian Saint, St. Louis de Montfort, identified it as the holiest of all Marian Feast Days; both because it was the day God the Son became flesh and dwelt among us, and because of something that we will see when we get into the passage:

"26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her:

Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her:

Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 And Mary said to the angel:

How shall this be done, because I know not man?

35 And the angel answering, said to her:

The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: 37 Because no word shall be impossible with God.

38 And Mary said:

Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.

And the angel departed from her."

-St. Luke 1:26 - 38 DR

Consider the fact that in this scene, we have a woman and an angel speaking. Back in Genesis, in the Garden of Eden, we also have a scene of a woman and an angel speaking, namely, Eve and Satan. In Genesis, Eve listens to Satan, the evil angel, disbelieves God and takes the forbidden fruit from the tree, which brings about the fall of the human race. In the Gospel, at the Annunciation, Mary listens to St. Gabriel, the good angel, She believes God and bears fruit that will be put on a tree, the Cross, which will bring about humanity's Redemption. The most important aspect of the Annunciation in regards to Our Lady, is what we call Her Fiat, Her "Yes!" to God: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word."

The Fathers and Doctors of the Church are clear that the fate humanity rested in Mary's hands at the Annunciation; She could have said "no," but She said "yes!" By saying "yes," She in a sense saved us, saved all of humanity, by allowing humanity to be saved.

The second passage I want to share with you, comes from the account of the Crucifixion in St. John's Gospel. It is very important to remember that this is the Crucifixion, the Holiest Act in human history, God the Son sacrificing Himself on the Cross to Redeem Humanity of their sins:

"25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. 26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother:

Woman, behold thy son.

27 After that, he saith to the disciple:

Behold thy mother.

And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own."

- St. John 19:25 - 27 DR

Now Protestants claim that here, Our Lord was simply giving His Mother to St. John for Him to look after and care for in Her old age. But as I mentioned above, this is the Crucifixion, the holiest event in human history. Why would Our Lord, in the middle of Redeeming humanity, suddenly become concerned with the temporal affairs of His Mother? There are a whole host of other problems with the Protestant interpretation of this passage as well by the way, but I think this is biggest and most important problem with this interpretation. It is far more likely that Our Lord is giving Mary to His followers through St. John to be their Mother, Our Mother; especially considering that we Catholics consider the Apostles to be the first Bishops of the Catholic Church and thus, St. John was acting on behalf of all the Faithful by accepting the gift of the Lord's Mother becoming Our Mother. (It had to be St. John, because the Pope, St. Peter, denied Our Lord three times, and he and all the other Apostles ran away. Yes, even from the very beginning we had a Pope and clergymen who weren't the best, and even an outright wicked bishop by the name of Judas Iscariot.)

So in this passage we have Mary be given to us by Christ to be Our Mother, and thus we're supposed to embrace Her as our Mother. I'd also argue that in the Annunciation, the passage mentioned above, we see Mary in a sense becoming Our Mother, (I believe I might have read this from either the writings of St. Louis de Montfort or St. Alphonsus de Liguori, but I could be totally wrong here, don't take what I say here as Church teaching or something from a professional scholar or holy person.) because Our Lord is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and Our Lady is the Mother of that Life; not mention Her Fiat, in and of itself was in a sense, a life-giving act.

Now in the final passage, we're going to look specifically at Our Lady's role as Queen of Heaven. Our Lord is the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of David, He was prophesied to restore the Davidic Kingdom, which He did, though not in an earthly sense. In this passage, we're going to see an aspect of the Davidic Kingdom that's not that well known by most non-Catholics:

"19 So Bathshe′ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni′jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right. 20 Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you.” "

-1st Kings 2:19 - 20 RSVCE

Here we see the role of the Queen in the Davidic Kingdom, the Queen is the mother of the king, not the wife, because back then, the Ancient Israelites were allowed to practice polygamy. The Queen Mother in Ancient Israel held the specific title of Gebirah which roughly translates to "Powerful Woman," (compare with El Gibor, "Mighty God," and Gabriel, "Power of God.") this is a great title for Our Lady since She truly is the most powerful woman ever, even a magazine a few years back published an addition stating as such. In this passage, notice what Queen Bathsheba is doing, she's interceding on behalf of Adonijah, this was one of the duties of the Queen-Mothers; and I've heard that the Holy Roman Empresses, and the Queens of Medieval Europe, also engaged in these acts of intercession, in imitation of Our Lady and the Davidic Queen-Mothers. If Our Lord is Messiah, the Davidic King, it only makes sense that His Mother would be Queen in Davidic fashion, interceding to the King on behalf of Her subjects.

One more bonus side-note, before I finish here, in the Davidic Kingdom, there was also the Master of the Palace, a sort of Prime Minister who looked after the Kingdom while the King was away. In the Old Testament, the Master of the Palace was given The Keys of the Kingdom, in the New Testament, Our Lord says that He's giving St. Peter the Keys of the Kingdom. Thus to this very day, the Keys of the Kingdom have appeared in the Papal Coat of Arms and flag.

Sorry if I overwhelmed you with all of this, I sometimes tend to underestimate how much information I put into my various works.

No one is claiming that Our Lady is above God, this accusation, quite frankly, reveals more about your own prejudice and lack of knowledge than it does the Truth of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Christ did not take on just human flesh, or a human body, He took on a human nature, He if fully human, fully Divine, not Divine nature possessing human flesh. Women don't give birth to natures, they give birth to persons, Our Lady gave birth to a Divine person, not His flesh, not His nature. Not to mention, your own theology would make Our Lady even more the Mother of God since according to you, She gave birth to God possessing human flesh, as opposed to the fully human, fully Divine Christ, as orthodox theology states. But regardless, all this is irrelevant since we're not even discussing the Dogma of Theotokos, we're discussing the Annunciation.

So in the middle of the Most Holy Sacrifice on Mount Calvary, Our Lord suddenly stops everything to give Our Lady over to the care of St. John. This behaviour seems to greatly contradict somethings Our Lord said in the past:

"Jesus said to him: No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

- St. Luke 9:62 DR

"The Bathsheba Story" is not the point, the point is, that this is how the Davidic Kingdom functioned, there are Queen-Mothers. And notice that after the division of the Kingdom, only the Faithful Southern Kingdom had Queen-Mothers, not the apostate north, there was only a Queen-consort, (Malkuth) who went by the name of Jezebel.

Wow, bible fight.

This is a good example of what I said in my last post. No one has to piece together Jesus for me. Most likely you could write a great deal about him and it is unlikely based on what you have said about him so far that I would question or challenge. It is all very clearly laid out in the bible. What you so far are presenting with Mary seems based on conjecture ie why would Jesus stop everything to say that? And it is not what it sounds like, which is simple strightforward and direct, but rather it rquires a rather complex and lengthy interpolation.

Well, sort of. What you have on one side is the worship of the pagan Mother Goddess, while on the other side is the worship of Sovereign G^D alone ("Sola Deo" and "Sola Deo Gloria").

The former is based on pagan traditions and distorted "interpretations" of incomplete Biblical verses taken out of context, while the latter is based solely on complete Biblical Scriptures, Gospels, and Epistles taken in context ("Sola Scriptura").

I hope the opposition understands that most of us here at WrongPlanet actually read the Bible (even if some don't believe what is says), and that we are not as gullible and ignorant as he seems to have assumed.

Oh, and for the record, I have been to Seminary, and I am an ordained Elder in a local Christian church, where we read the Bible, worship G^D, and pray in Jesus' name for the Gifts of the Holy Spirit -- gifts such as "Discernment of Spirits", "Words of Knowledge", and "Words of Wisdom".

I encourage everyone to have their Bibles handy, as this "fight" is not yet over...

I thought Devotion to Mary, was invented by Pope St. Gregory the Great in the 500s. But I guess after demolishing that claim you had to resort to the old Protestant NPC garbage of all this being old pagan traditions brought in through some mysterious dark conspiracy.

And by the way, judging by how people are acting on that other garbage thread of yours, it does appear that a lot of people on WrongPlanet are ignorant and gullible. Very disappointing I must say, I expected a lot better!

"it does appear that a lot of people on WrongPlanet are ignorant and gullible"

You have to take this in the cultural context in which it’s taking place. Liturgy was extremely important to the Old Covenant Jews, (as well as many other cultures of that time period.) the Book of Leviticus is all about the importance of Liturgy, which is probably why so many modern people have such a hard time reading it. Christ’s liturgical Act of Sacrifice cannot be and was not adulterated by earthly concern for His Mother. And again, I reassert Christ’s teaching of not looking back, Christ cannot be giving up everything in Sacrifice on the Cross one moment, and the next moment, making sure the earthly affairs of the care of His Mother is being looked after.

In the other thread, someone mentioned Bart Ehrman. Bart Ehrman argued that Jesus never claimed to be God and that the Divinity of Christ was invented. Ehrman’s argument is that if Jesus claimed to be God, why didn’t the so-called “synoptic Gospels” explicitly state that? Well the answer is that the audience of the Gospels already knew that Jesus is the Son of God and didn’t need to have fact spelled out for them. The reason St. John’s Gospel is more theological is because one of his disciples, a man by the name of Cerinthus, became a gnostic and started preaching Gnosticism, so St. John had to deal with that.

It seems to me at this time that too much is being read into that statement made by Jesus. He was up on the cross for several hours. I think it is likely he said many things that were not written down by by the authors of the synoptic gospels. Moreover John was the only one who wrote about that. Obviously because it was directed at him. And it was never brought up again after that one time in any other book of the New Testament. Jesus' status however was brought up and gone over again pretty extensively.

Your statement also seems to imply that if a man on his deathbed says something to put affairs in order that he is going against the will of God. I do not recall reading that Jesus was giving up anything. But rather that he was taking the weight of the world upon his shoulders. He who was without sin, became sin. So what I read was basically that he was taking everything on rather than giving anything up - until the very end when he said "it is finished" and "into your hands I commit my spirit".

I found it quite clear in my reading that Jesus was essentially calling himself God. "I and the Father are one" "I AM" And John 5:18 "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." as a few examples.

I'm starting seriously doubt your honesty EzraS, I just said the so-called "synoptic Gospels" and distinguished them from the Gospel of St. John.

Also, you completely misunderstand the whole point of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, it is pay for the infinite debt, humanity incurs against for original and actual sin.