As I posted to you elsehere:
Not so. As i’ve said the writers of the NT never ever refer to her as a queen.
This still falls short. If what you claim were true we would see it in the NT. Secondly if i’m not mistaken this kind of belief was unheard of for centuries. No early church father for example makes these claims.
Do we agree that there are none? No writer of the NT ever makes such a claim about her?
Were no talking about Jesus here about a claim of the catholic church in regards to Mary. Since no specific and explicit claim about her can be found in scripture we must look elsewhere. We also must look centuries after she died. This means we are speaking of the specualtions of men and not apostlolic doctrines.
Your half right. The other part is what we study is the scriptures and the scriptures don’t come close to making these claims.
Notice the date. Over 200 years later. What this is the beginnings of a myth since it cannot be supported by the scriptures. There is nothing remotely close to "fly to your PATRONAGE most holy Mother of God’.
Huh? From one quote, 250 years after she died, you think all Christians knew this? It’s going to take more than this to support your claim.
It may be logical but its certainly not scriptural for the reasons i’ve given. For your claim to be grounded, it needs to be taught in scripture which it is not. What is self-evident is that this is the thinking of men.And as I keep saying, anyone familiar with logic and monarchy can read in Scripture that Christ is King and therefore that Mary must be Queen-Mother. Self-evident and obvious
That may be for you but in reality it creates so many problems for catholics since many of the aspects of these marian doctrines cannot be grounded in the scriptures but rely on the opinions of men far removed from the time.
Since you disagree, then what does your church infallibly teach about this passage?
Major difference though. Those closest and knew her best and those in whom in God used to write His Word never knew of this doctrine.And so am I - plenty of them also saw what we DO see
I believe you are wrong. Please reread St. Luke’s gospel, Revelation, St. Matthew’s gospel, the Old Testament esp. Isaiah and the prophets, and finally the letters of St. Paul (in that order). You will see that the doctrines we believe were known to Christ’s followers and believed by them as well. They knew their “scripture” (the Old Testament). They knew what Jesus Himself said, even more than what was later ‘written down’. They knew Mary herself and they treated her as God Himself mandated His Mother be treated.
Not so. Every time Christ speaks of Himself or is spoken of by others as being a King or having a Kingdom this necessarily includes that His mother is Queen.
No. If I make the statement ‘my car is in the parking lot’ this necessarily means that its tyres are there with it! I don’t need to say, nor does anyone else need to say, ANYTHING about tyres for it to be necessarily the case that the tyres are there.
No we don’t. Again, every statement in the NT to the effect that Christ is King is automatically and necessarily also saying, although by implication, that Mary is Queen.
Different standards for claims about Jesus and Mary? Why? The same rules of evidence and logic apply to both.
So? the scriptures don’t say Christ went to the toilet so I don’t have to believe it? Rubbish. If I want to know all truth, and follow Christ who is the Truth, I’ll believe it because it MUST be true.
Again, so? The Canon of the Bible, almost 150 years later, is also a myth then, by your logic. Why do you believe that the fathers of Hippo and Carthage knew what they were doing when they included some books and discarded others?
MANY many Christians knew and prayed that prayer and still do. And many more who didn’t could use their brains to figure out that if Christ is King, Mary is Queen, and believed so.
So the laws of logic can be tossed aside in matters of religion? Absolutely not! God gave us our brains, and expects us to apply them to Scripture where we can as well as to all other areas of life.
Do you really think Scripture dropped straight from heaven? No - it TOO was written and developed and organised by MEN!!! Not by God alone. And by men further removed from the time than the one who wrote that prayer to Mary.
Revelations 11 and 12? Inasfar as there is infallible teaching on the subject, that Mary is the ark of the New Covenant, and that the woman has multiple meanings - Mary AND the Church AND Israel! Should be covered in Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus.
Who says so? John wrote of her being in heaven with the stars as her crown, he certainly knew something! Remember she was most likely still alive when most of the New Testament was written, so none of this had happened yet.
Something has been nagging me as I have been following this thread…
Found in Wikipedia::
So you see, just because Mary is Jesus’ mother it does not automatically make her Queen.
Naah - all would be Queens in fact and in terms of their influence, and more than worthy of the title even if it was never formally bestowed on them. You seriously think William would ever have not listened to Diana? Never taken her advice? Or that Abdullah doesn’t listen to and follow the advice of his mother??Something has been nagging me as I have been following this thread…
You state that since we refer to Jesus as King this automatically makes Mary the Queen, right?
So you see, just because Mary is Jesus’ mother it does not automatically make her Queen.
I am not saying that He never listened to her. What does the title Queen have to do with Jesus listening to His Mother?
The relationship has nothing to do with the title. I am not discounting the fact that Mary is the Mother of Jesus. Just the title given to her of Queen. As shown in my previous post, you can be the mother of a king but not hold the title queen.She willingly participated in the Incarnation of our Lord and Savior.
It means she had (and has) all the power, influence and rights of a Queen over her King - and over the rest of the Kingdom. Remember the OT Kings always saying to their Queens 'I’ll give you whatever you ask for, even half the kingdom"? Well, Jesus wrought his first miracle before its time for Mary.I am not saying that He never listened to her. What does the title Queen have to do with Jesus listening to His Mother?
What??? a 100% catholic didnt sound like it.Hey, I’m on your side!!
The OT Kings also shunned and killed their Queens. They also bestowed the ‘even half the kingdom’ to their step daughters.
It doesn’t mean the a woman who does not have the title be automatically assumed to have it.Because this is not her title. Not once is it given to her while Jesus was alive.
So why does He NEVER call her by Queen while on earth? Never, not once is it written that He called her by that title. In fact, except for the wedding I don’t see ANY special treatment from Jesus to her until she made sure she would be taken care of by His disciple.
Being chosen to be His mother is special treatment, I think. After all, who in history has been honored more?
True, but He still never gave her that title. The OT Kings always, as far as I can tell, addressed the Queens as such.
Who says Queenship is only about the title that is formally bestowed upon a person? It’s what you are, not just what you’re called. And I don’t think the Bible records what half of the Kings called their Queens - may have just been ‘hey you there’
He never calls her Mother either - not once. Does that mean she wasn’t his mother?
Because only those who are formerly bestowed the title are ever referred to with that title. Show me a woman who isn’t. And not Mary.Who says Queenship is only about the title that is formally bestowed upon a person? It’s what you are, not just what you’re called. And I don’t think the Bible records what half of the Kings called their Queens - may have just been ‘hey you there’
Ahhh but He does when He said ‘behold your Mother’. A round about way but still recognizing her as His mother.
You put words into my mouth. I never said He disregarded her. He even, on two occasions no doubt, made sure we knew that she was to be on the same level as us all.
Luke 11:27-28:
Yes, always honouring… but did He elevate her past her position? No.
You are correct. She is not called Queen in the NT. But, as the NT says, it is not the only authority. The Church is. The Church teaches this, and that is why I believe it.
You are catholic and so this is what you have been told and believe. I do not hold these beliefs because there would be a clue to this in the scripture. I could go and say that the sky was purple all throughout that time but since there is no way to prove it I can just say that this has been passed on through the line and so that is why I believe it. I think that if the sky had been purple back then it would mention it SOMEWHERE in scripture or even hint to it.
Prince Charles’ wife has been called ‘Queen Camilla’ often enough, and he’s not even King yet!
And you’ve read the scriptures in the original Greek and Hebrew and know every word the Kings said and know this all for a fact? Go read 2 Kings again - MANY mothers of Kings mentioned by name, all holding the position of ‘Gebirah’ (Queen Mother), as Bathsheba did, none CALLED Queen, at least not in my translation.
No - he’s saying she’s a mother to JOHN. Not saying anything about her relationship to himself, he calls her ‘woman’.Ahhh but He does when He said ‘behold your Mother’. A round about way but still recognizing her as His mother.
Not a bit of it. It would be disobedient to the command to honour His mother to suggest that she was on the same level as everyone else or to treat her just like everyone else.
And just what is the rightful position of the loyal faithful mother of the King of Heaven, do you think?
Certainly not on the same level as everyone else, that’s for certain.Hold up there, sister … You are being very judgmental about my beliefs. My beliefs come from studying Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, prayer, hope, and, yes, The One True Church that Christ Himself left us.