Hail Holy Queen......

[Dan-Man916]

In the Kingdom of Israel, the Queen(Mary) is the Mother of the King(Jesus), not the King’s wife.
See 1Kings 2:19-20 for this illustration.
So to deny Mary’s Queenship, is to implicitly deny Christ’s Kingship. So we see again, that every truth about Mary, always leads us to Christ.

---

As we see in Israel, the King never ignored the pleas and requests of the Queen Mother. The queen always interceded for the needs of the people on their behalf. The Queen always had the ear of the King.

Since Jesus honored his Mother by the 4th commandment, and since John 2 shows how Mary intercedes for us, therefore, Jesus, loving His Mother, never refuses a request from her.

That is exactly what an advocate is.
Catholics didn’t put Mary in the position as advocate to the King, God did when He chose her before all time to bear God.

 

[tuopaolo]

ahimsaman72:

From the modern-day protestant point of view, Mary as Advocate (capitalized) is the biggest problem that I see. According to Scripture, we have one advocate with the Father - Jesus Christ.

That’s not what scripture says. Scripture, indeed Jesus himself, says that the Holy Spirit is another advocate. And Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit would share in that advocacy.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Church Militant:

Ahimsaman72 said:

You miss some very important points about Mary’s position as intercessor for God’s people. I suggest that you do a Hebrew word study on the term “Giberah” and see that since Jesus is the Messiah, the king of Israel, and The King of Kings and Mary is inarguably His mother, that this position is scripturally and traditionally hers. A position that she amply began to demonstrate at the wedding feast in Cana.

Sure, I will look at that. Thanks for pointing it out.

BTW…and off topic: Your signature says “Perfect Buddha, Perfect Christ” could you perhaps open a new thread to explain that because Buddha was just a man…Jesus was God incarnate and both 100% God and man in one person. BIG dif.

Actually, the quote is “Living Buddha, Living Christ”. It’s a book written by a Vietnamese Zen Master Buddhist monk named Thich Nhat Hanh. In this book, he seeks to build a bridge of communication between Buddhism and Christianity.

His philosophy/views are identical to the Christian mystic Thomas Merton. They are friends and in Merton’s words, “we see things in exactly the same way”. Although the writings would be hard for you to stomach at first, it is nevertheless an interesting perspective of Christianity from a Buddhist standpoint.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

tuopaolo:

That’s not what scripture says. Scripture, indeed Jesus himself, says that the Holy Spirit is another advocate. And Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit would share in that advocacy.

But you are connecting the two in your mind. Because this is - that is. Most posters I have seen here have used either logic (such as you) or philosophy or from symbolic, “hidden” passages of Scripture.
And, if you look at the passage you are (probably) referring to - the Holy Spirit is not really referred to in such a way.

Peace…

 

[tuopaolo]

I would read what St Alphonsus Ligouri writes here:

sanpiodapietrelcina.org/english/glories.htm

I think this Saint and Doctor’s commentary on the Hail Holy Queen would be better than any offered here.

On the subject of Mary Most Holy as our hope, in addition to reading what Saint Alphonsus says, what St Maximilian Kolbe says here might be helpful too. From p. 120 of The Kolbe Reader:
Sometimes when reading I grow irritated because the author takes such special pains to stress that our Lady is our whole hope “after Jesus.” Evidently this can be understood in a correct sense. However, the exaggerated scruple not to omit that “saving clause” – no doubt out of veneration of Jesus – is something I consider rather offensive to him.
Let’s argue from an example. When the flatbed presses proved insufficient, we got a rotary press; and we can rightly affirm that to print the Knight on time we put all our hope in the rotary press. But if every time someone were to add immediately, as though he were worried about it, “Yes, but only after the company that built it,” he would thereby show his belief that the machine might fail, and that we might need to have recourse to the firm [as our “hope”]. All this would show that the company had not build the machine as solidly as it ought to have done; and this would hardly be a compliment to the manufacturers.
So denying that Mary is our hope, rather than complimenting Jesus would actually be insulting Him.

 

[tuopaolo]

ahimsaman72:

But you are connecting the two in your mind. Because this is - that is. Most posters I have seen here have used either logic (such as you) or philosophy or from symbolic, “hidden” passages of Scripture.
And, if you look at the passage you are (probably) referring to - the Holy Spirit is not really referred to in such a way.

Peace…

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you forever” (John 14:16)

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Fidelis]

ahimsaman72:

Hello dear Fidelis,

I like your approach to this [refering to Post #8]. However, it is plain to see that the words in parenthesis are not part of the text of the Hail, Holy Queen. If they were there would be less misunderstanding.

Peace…

There definitely would be less misunderstanding if it were worded differently, but many things are misunderstood until they are explained. For example, in many older Catholic writings, the word worship is used as a word of devotion toward Mary. A non-Catholic Christian would have a knee-jerk reaction to this unless you explain that the word worship was, in times past, used to mean “give honor to.” For example, look at the King James rendering of Luke 14:10:

But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

Does Jesus mean that we will be worshiped in the sense that we give honor to God alone? Of course not, and the meaning of the text can be explained as an archaism.

My point (and I do have one!) is that, rather than dumb down or stop using a word or phrase or prayer because people might misunderstand it, give them the benefit of the doubt for being an intelligent person who will listen to an explanation like the one above. If they still object, you are not dealing with a completely rational person, but one that is working from a pre-supposition, laziness in thinking things out, or – in the rarer case-- is being obstinate in their bigotry and hate of anything distinctively Catholic.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Dan-Man916:

In the Kingdom of Israel, the Queen(Mary) is the Mother of the King(Jesus), not the King’s wife.
See 1Kings 2:19-20 for this illustration.
So to deny Mary’s Queenship, is to implicitly deny Christ’s Kingship. So we see again, that every truth about Mary, always leads us to Christ.

As we see in Israel, the King never ignored the pleas and requests of the Queen Mother. The queen always interceded for the needs of the people on their behalf. The Queen always had the ear of the King.

Since Jesus honored his Mother by the 4th commandment, and since John 2 shows how Mary intercedes for us, therefore, Jesus, loving His Mother, never refuses a request from her.

That is exactly what an advocate is.
Catholics didn’t put Mary in the position as advocate to the King, God did when He chose her before all time to bear God.

Thanks for your insightful post. But, regrettably, you are using an Old Testament text and earthly reign of the Kingdom of Israel and applying it to the New Testament spiritual reign of Christ. Of course, Christ was the rightful King by his ancestry in His human body, but there is no language in the New Testament that speaks the theology you are espousing here.

Peace…

 

[Dan-Man916]

ahimsaman72:

Thanks for your insightful post. But, regrettably, you are using an Old Testament text and earthly reign of the Kingdom of Israel and applying it to the New Testament spiritual reign of Christ. Of course, Christ was the rightful King by his ancestry in His human body, but there is no language in the New Testament that speaks the theology you are espousing here.

Peace…

your statement has no basis. i don’t understand how you can fail to see the parallels drawn between the Kingdoms.
If you read Revelation, it talks about a lot more than a spiritual reign.

 

[ahimsaman72]

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you forever” (John 14:16)

Seems pretty clear to me.

Here is the KJV text:

1. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.

It is not clear at all. I suppose it depends on the text you ascribe to.

Still, given your translation, you build the bridge over water that doesn’t exist (in my humble opinion).

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Dan-Man916:

your statement has no basis. i don’t understand how you can fail to see the parallels drawn between the Kingdoms.
If you read Revelation, it talks about a lot more than a spiritual reign.

I can see parallels. I cannot see transferrance of OT rulership of Israel with NT rulership with Christ as ruling King (He never ruled the Kingdom of Israel while living, did He???) and with His mother as Queen. What I get from Revelation is a lot of confusing, symbolic messages that clearly no one claims to understand well - whether protestant or Catholic. I would hesitate to use Revelation (the Apocalypse) for doctrinal evidences. That’s just me.

Peace…

 

[alyssa]

So now, are both of those translated from the same word in the origional, and is it the same word which refers to Jesus as Advocate?

 

[Church_Militant]

ahimsaman72:

Sure, I will look at that. Thanks for pointing it out.

Actually, the quote is “Living Buddha, Living Christ”. It’s a book written by a Vietnamese Zen Master Buddhist monk named Thich Nhat Hanh. In this book, he seeks to build a bridge of communication between Buddhism and Christianity.

His philosophy/views are identical to the Christian mystic Thomas Merton. They are friends and in Merton’s words, “we see things in exactly the same way”. Although the writings would be hard for you to stomach at first, it is nevertheless an interesting perspective of Christianity from a Buddhist standpoint.

Peace…

Merton, though great in some of his writings was also not someone I would base my spirituality upon and was just a man. There are some very unorthodox things in his writings. Commonality of message does not then equate with validity of same my friend. Any way , this is off topic so , if you could do that other thread…it might spur some good discussion.
Pax tecum

 

[ahimsaman72]

Fidelis:

There definitely would be less misunderstanding if it were worded differently, but many things are misunderstood until they are explained. For example, in many older Catholic writings, the word worship is used as a word of devotion toward Mary. A non-Catholic Christian would have a knee-jerk reaction to this unless you explain that the word worship was, in times past, used to mean “give honor to.” For example, look at the King James rendering of Luke 14:10:

Does Jesus mean that we will be worshiped in the sense that we give honor to God alone? Of course not, and the meaning of the text can be explained as an archaism.

My point (and I do have one!) is that, rather than dumb down or stop using a word or phrase or prayer because people might misunderstand it, give them the benefit of the doubt for being an intelligent person who will listen to an explanation like the one above. If they still object, you are not dealing with a completely rational person, but one that is working from a pre-supposition, laziness in thinking things out, or – in the rarer case-- is being obstinate in their bigotry and hate of anything distinctively Catholic.

Yes, I agree about wording. I used to get so caught up in certain words and would learn their original meanings and usages and it is very time consuming and rather hard on the mind (like mine). So, really we have to get past words and concepts. They only lead us to the reality. They can’t accurately describe reality.

Peace…

 

[MaggieOH]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Dan ,I thought Jesus held the title ADVOCATE.[1john 2 vs 1 God Bless

The Advocate in that respect is the Holy Spirit.

However, we can and do have other advocates. To give an example in the Justice system the lawyer who represents us is our advocate.

In other words I do not think that the title Advocate is strictly applied to the Holy Spirit.

Maggie
[/quote]

 

[ahimsaman72]

Church Militant:

Merton, though great in some of his writings was also not someone I would base my spirituality upon and was just a man. There are some very unorthodox things in his writings. Commonality of message does not then equate with validity of same my friend. Any way , this is off topic so , if you could do that other thread…it might spur some good discussion.
Pax tecum

What kind of thread do you want me to begin? What is the topic you would like to see? (See how cooperate I am?)

Peace…

 

[Fidelis]

ahimsaman72:

Thanks for your insightful post. But, regrettably, you are using an Old Testament text and earthly reign of the Kingdom of Israel and applying it to the New Testament spiritual reign of Christ. Of course, Christ was the rightful King by his ancestry in His human body, but there is no language in the New Testament that speaks the theology you are espousing here.

Peace…

This is only a problem if one is a strict dispensationalist and does not recognize the concept of types in the Bible, or how the New Covenant is a fulfillment of the Old. This of course is an erroneous way of viewing the Scriptures. As St. Augustine noted: “The New Testament is hidden in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New.”

Regarding types, the Catechism says:

**The unity of the Old and New Testaments **

128 The Church, as early as apostolic times,104 and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God’s works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.

129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself.105 Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament.106 As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.107

130 Typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when "God [will] be everything to everyone."108 Nor do the calling of the patriarchs and the exodus from Egypt, for example, lose their own value in God’s plan, from the mere fact that they were intermediate stages.

104 Cf. 1 Cor 10:6,11; Heb 10:l; l Pet 3:21.
105 Cf. Mk 12:29-31
106 Cf. 1 Cor 5:6-8; 10:1-11.
107 Cf. St. Augustine, Quaest. in Hept. 2,73L 34,623; Cf. DV 16.
108 1 Cor 15:28.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

ahimsaman72:

Thanks for your insightful post. But, regrettably, you are using an Old Testament text and earthly reign of the Kingdom of Israel and applying it to the New Testament spiritual reign of Christ. Of course, Christ was the rightful King by his ancestry in His human body, but there is no language in the New Testament that speaks the theology you are espousing here.

Peace…

He came to fufill the law,you are trying to dismiss the old Testament,you cannot do that.God Bless
PS When you speak of Mary in Revelations as symbolic,it is really a stretch on your part,Revelation is full of symbolism,but those verses are quite in your face.God Bless

 

[serendipity]

Many Protestants feel that parying to saints and Mary for intercession is blasphemous because it implies that we recognize intercessors other than Jesus to God, and the Bible clearly states that Jeuss is the only way to God in many verses, but that most prominantly used to contradict the communion of siants idea is “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ,” (1 Tim: 2:5). However Catholic teaching does not use the communion os saitns to bypass Jeuss, but rather to ask for our friends in heaven to join with us in our prayers to Jesus.
I think any Prostestant wil have disagreements with prayers to Mary, or any other saints, as blasphemous, if they don’t understand the idea of the communion of saints; that Catholics believe that the righteous dead may pray for us to Jesus, just as friends on earth may pray for us.

The Bible also says that “The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful,” (James 5:16). “Our life, our sweetness and our hope” represents the admission that Mary is a far more righteous person than any other human, as as such her prayers are more powerful than any other human, living or dead, which is why we have greater hope when she joins us in prayers for our intentions than we do praying alone. The Bible says many times that there is strenght in numbers, sorry I can’t think of exact quotes now (when two or more are gathered in my name…maybe that some how ties in).

Patrick Madrid’s book Any Friend of God’s is a Friend of Mine is an excellent resource to explain the Protestant misconceptions and suggest arguments to correct them. It is fauirly short, relatively inexpensive, and entirely accessible so that it can be easily read in a day.

 

[Church_Militant]

ahimsaman72:

Thanks for your insightful post. But, regrettably, you are using an Old Testament text and earthly reign of the Kingdom of Israel and applying it to the New Testament spiritual reign of Christ. Of course, Christ was the rightful King by his ancestry in His human body, but there is no language in the New Testament that speaks the theology you are espousing here.

Peace…

Sorry, but that’s just plain wrong…: Just for instance I suggest Matthew 25: 31-46 I don’t have to point out the obvious fact that Jesus refers to himself as the king in question here, or that this is just one of many such passages.

"31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting. "

Besides, EVERY person that prays for another or asks for another is an advocate.