But what about Pope JPll message of the obligation to the Church. I mean if the Pope accepts it should’t we? He is the leader of our Church.
Yes, we have obligations of obedience to the Church, but they do not extend nearly so far as to accepting every word that falls from the lips of a bishop or priest - or even a Pope - as if it were either official teaching, or else dogma, or indeed anything else that makes it required belief. John Paul II, I am sure, didn’t expect his words to be taken as you take them - on the contrary, he states in Redemptionis Sacramentum that there are times when we will have both the right and the duty to correct our leaders, be they priest, bishop or Pope. This of necessity means that priests, bishops, even the Pope, can be and are wrong on occasion.
Popes say many many things, some of which are intended to be required belief of the faithful, many more of which are not. Some of us have a tendency to confuse the two, and think that EVERYTHING, without exception, that a Pope says must be believed. That idea is every bit as erroneous as the belief that everything a Pope says is up for question.
Remember - Pope Honorius I was rightly anathematised by the THird Council of Constantinople for tolerating, if not personally holding to, the heresy of monothelitism. Honorius’ Papal authority, and the duties of Catholics towards him as a result, didn’t exempt him or the monothelitists he tolerated - from the guilt of being in grave error.
The truth lies in between - some of what a Pope says is authoritative and must be accepted in obedience, some isn’t. Which is why Benedict XVI was so careful to say explicitly in his introduction to Jesus of Nazareth that it was NOT to be taken as official teaching, rather as his own thoughts.
The most obvious question here is - why are people answering this question as if the issues of Mary’s CORONATION and her QUEENSHIP were the same thing? They aren’t, not at all. One can believe in one without having to believe in the other.
And why are they answering this question as if it were settled and certain that the Queenship of Mary was dogma?
I’ve been taught that there are FOUR Marian dogmas, and four only - they being the Perpetual Virginity, Mother of God, Assumption and Immaculate Conception. The idea of Mary’s Queenship is not among them. Yet posters on this thread are acting as if it were.
I note the arguments of parallels with the Davidic Kingdom. Need I remind you that even though David was king, being anointed as such by Samuel, HIS mother wasn’t automatically Queen as a result. I don’t think we even know her name, let alone what became of her or any other member of David’s family after his accession to the throne. The status of the son as King DIDN’t automatically confer royalty on the parents, even in the Davidic kingdom, since if such were the case David’s father Jesse would be a king or prince, and he was neither.
While it is pleasing to think of Mary as Queen, I have seen nothing posted in this thread that convinces me that it is a necessary component of her role as Mother of God that Mary is Queen of Heaven.
