Hail Holy Queen......

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Tom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
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. It doesn’t make sense to “go through” Mary to be with the Son. Over and over again in Scriptures the relationship between the Father and the Son are played out. Mary is mentioned very little in Scriptures and never in relation to the Godhead itself.

Though she bore the Son of God, there’s no indication that she is more than that. The picture is always on Jesus and the Father.
Although she was/is a great holy lady, it is incredible that she is given a status by some that she never held to begin with.

Peace…
Click to expand...
To the contrary, I think that when Mary is seen in these terms you might as well not continue to claim that you believe Jesus to be the Son of God.

We always need someone to speak up on our behalf. The purpose of the motif in the Wedding Feast at Cana is that the Son granted the request of His Mother. This is an indication of the power that she has with her Son and that she will always be an advocate for us if we are willing to ask for her help.

There is plenty of indication that Mary is more than just a vessel who bore the Son of God. The evidence is in the Old Testament and tied up with the dynastic position of the mother of the king. If you are familiar with the Books of the Kings, then you should be aware that Solomon paid homage to his mother and bowed before her. Since Jesus is the King of kings, then Mary as his Mother is Queen.

Maggie
 
40.png
ahimsaman72:
Just to clear the air here…

I don’t belittle Mary at all. I honor her as the mother of the Messiah and an obedient servant of God. Honoring her in this way is a far cry from the words of the Hail, Holy Queen. I used to think little of her until I came here. I honor her now more than ever before. However, I cannot accept the terms and language of the Hail Holy Queen. There’s a lot in there that is not in keeping with the revealed Scriptures.

Now, as far as the wedding in Cana. Of course, she interceded. And Christ complied with her request. What to make of it though?
One must remember that Christ Himself performed the miracle. And He did it reluctantly. That’s why he asked her why she had to involve Him. What is your meaning of the miracle of Christ in relation to His mother? My view is that He honored her request because she was His mother and who doesn’t want to please their mother???

Peace…
Click to expand...
Jesus did not grant the request reluctantly. Unfortunately when you look at the miracle in this way you take away the depth of the significance of the whole scene.

When we studied the Gospel of John, we were given supplementary questions and we had to come up with dot points for a homily. The priest who gave us this assignment counted at least 28 homilies he could make out of all the points that we, as a small group raised based on a very small text in Scripture.

This miracle at Cana was the first miracle to be performed. Who better than Mary to reveal Her Son as God through the request that she gave Him.

Maggie
 
I don’t understand why Protestants have such a hard time seeing Our Lady for who she is. Her role is clearly printed out in the old testment and is also in the book of Revolutions. Maybe they need to reread these books and try to understand it. Also I have many protestants praying for me because I am a Catholic(?) why do they think that they for some reason are higher and closer to God that they shouldn’t pray to Our Lady and also ask her for help. At church every sunday we ask our brothers and sisters and the Virgain Mary and the all the Angels and Saints to pray for me to the Lord our God. I Know that I am so far from being perfect that I need all the help I can get, and who better than Mary to ask to pray for my lost soul. I can ask all of your help (and I sure do) for your prayers but I also ask our Lady and all the angels and saints to do this also. This is what the Hail Holy Queen is saying when we ask for prayers.

I hope this helps!🙂
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
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
Click to expand...
If the old law is not fulfilled, then we are all still under the Mosaic law. Christ did indeed fulfill the law. He fulfilled it. To fulfill = to complete. He completed. The new law is the Spirit of life.

Romans 7:6
  1. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
This is a classic disagreement between our “schools of thought”.

You will admit, friend, that Revelation is full of symbolism but will assert that those specific verses are “quite in my face”. Your logic fails.

Peace…
 
40.png
ahimsaman72:
If the old law is not fulfilled, then we are all still under the Mosaic law. Christ did indeed fulfill the law. He fulfilled it. To fulfill = to complete. He completed. The new law is the Spirit of life.

Romans 7:6
  1. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
This is a classic disagreement between our “schools of thought”.

You will admit, friend, that Revelation is full of symbolism but will assert that those specific verses are “quite in my face”. Your logic fails.

Peace…
Click to expand...
The fact that Mary is Queen is rather what I was speaking of rather than law,my bad.Revelations is in your face Who gave birth to Christ?Was she The Woman?That seems self explainatory to me.If The woman in Revelation was not Mary than who do think gave birth to Jesus?God Bless
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
Jesus did not grant the request reluctantly. Unfortunately when you look at the miracle in this way you take away the depth of the significance of the whole scene.

When we studied the Gospel of John, we were given supplementary questions and we had to come up with dot points for a homily. The priest who gave us this assignment counted at least 28 homilies he could make out of all the points that we, as a small group raised based on a very small text in Scripture.

This miracle at Cana was the first miracle to be performed. Who better than Mary to reveal Her Son as God through the request that she gave Him.

Maggie
Click to expand...
Here’s the text:

John 2
  1. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
  2. And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
  3. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
    1. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.*
  1. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
  2. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
  3. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
He did indeed do it reluctantly or else He wouldn’t have asked the question to her. If verse 4 did not exist I would agree with you. However, it does exist and your position that He did it willingly is false. He did it because He wanted to please her.

In fact, I would say that she did not have Christ’s mission on her mind. He said, “What have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.”. He didn’t want to go public with His ministry at this time, yet she *forces *Him into making this decision which was contrary to His plan.

How can you justify your assertion based on the evidence that Christ questioned her about it before actually performing the miracle???

If I said to my child - clean your room - and my child then said, “what does my room being dirty have to do with you?” I’d be pretty upset. My child questioned my command. It is the same principle here in John.

Peace…
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
The fact that Mary is Queen is rather what I was speaking of rather than law,my bad.Revelations is in your face Who gave birth to Christ?Was she The Woman?That seems self explainatory to me.If The woman in Revelation was not Mary than who do think gave birth to Jesus?God Bless
Click to expand...
Of course she is the woman. Another poster brought up the “crown on her head”. Since we both agree that Revelation is full of symbolism, why do automatically assert that this crown on her head is literal and portrays her as “Queen of Heaven”.

I don’t see the correlation very clear here. His mother Mary gave birth to Him. Scripture states clearly that the Holy Spirit came upon her and Christ was conceived. How can her being chosen and used by God as a servant to carry out His will equate to “Queenship”?

Peace…
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
To the contrary, I think that when Mary is seen in these terms you might as well not continue to claim that you believe Jesus to be the Son of God.

We always need someone to speak up on our behalf. The purpose of the motif in the Wedding Feast at Cana is that the Son granted the request of His Mother. This is an indication of the power that she has with her Son and that she will always be an advocate for us if we are willing to ask for her help.

There is plenty of indication that Mary is more than just a vessel who bore the Son of God. The evidence is in the Old Testament and tied up with the dynastic position of the mother of the king. If you are familiar with the Books of the Kings, then you should be aware that Solomon paid homage to his mother and bowed before her. Since Jesus is the King of kings, then Mary as his Mother is Queen.

Maggie
Click to expand...
But you have no text that declares what you are declaring here. You take an OT text and situation and compare it to a situation thousands of years later and come up with this theology.

Protestants are repeatedly railed upon for “coming up with doctrines” after the fact to fit their theology, yet Catholics fail to reflect on the fact that they do the same.

With all due respect - this is a lame duck.

Peace…
 
40.png
ahimsaman72:
Of course she is the woman. Another poster brought up the “crown on her head”. Since we both agree that Revelation is full of symbolism, why do automatically assert that this crown on her head is literal and portrays her as “Queen of Heaven”.

I don’t see the correlation very clear here. His mother Mary gave birth to Him. Scripture states clearly that the Holy Spirit came upon her and Christ was conceived. How can her being chosen and used by God as a servant to carry out His will equate to “Queenship”?

Peace…
Click to expand...
Because she is the Kings Mother.Why is it so hard to believe that God would honor her in that way?Why do you think Jesus who is God man would Not honor his mother?It makes no sense.You have the mind set of a man getting someone pregnant because he wanted the child and looking at her as if she is just another woman anybody could have done the same thing.God is not like that!He gave her a free will she did his will and gave birth to God,that is not a small thing.What is bothering you I think is a creature being the Queen of Heaven.With God all things are possible.God Bless
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
Because she is the Kings Mother.Why is it so hard to believe that God would honor her in that way?Why do you think Jesus who is God man would Not honor his mother?It makes no sense.You have the mind set of a man getting someone pregnant because he wanted the child and looking at her as if she is just another woman anybody could have done the same thing.God is not like that!He gave her a free will she did his will and gave birth to God,that is not a small thing.What is bothering you I think is a creature being the Queen of Heaven.With God all things are possible.God Bless
Click to expand...
It’s not hard to believe - it’s that there’s no evidence to support what you are claiming. You still - to date - have not shown anything but philosophical persuasion to validate your position. “It is because it makes sense” or “It is because I say it is” is not enough.

My mindset is not as you say. God chose Mary to be the mother and caregiver for his son. Mary was favored among women. This is all Biblical and verifiable. She was obviously a special person.

How did she go from being “favored among women” to Queen status? That’s what I’m getting at here. And you haven’t shown me anything bridges that gap.

If any person in the line of David would have faltered. If they would have died without producing seed - you would have no King of Israel. Do you understand this? So, it is not only Mary that cooperated with God’s will. It was the many people through the ages that cooperated - knowingly or not.

If for instance, my parents would have never met, married and had me - my kids would not be alive today. My “seed” would not have gone forth. Perhaps I could’ve chosen the life of a monk and chose celibacy. My children in that respect could’ve never arrived here. There are many things that had to take place for God’s will to come to fruition.

Somehow, Mary was chosen. That was part of God’s plan. She consented - as did every other person that God called to faith - Moses, Elijah, Joseph, Abraham - on down the line. But you don’t see those men given the kind of status that Mary has. Why?

Peace…
 
40.png
ahimsaman72:
It’s not hard to believe - it’s that there’s no evidence to support what you are claiming. You still - to date - have not shown anything but philosophical persuasion to validate your position. “It is because it makes sense” or “It is because I say it is” is not enough.

My mindset is not as you say. God chose Mary to be the mother and caregiver for his son. Mary was favored among women. This is all Biblical and verifiable. She was obviously a special person.

How did she go from being “favored among women” to Queen status? That’s what I’m getting at here. And you haven’t shown me anything bridges that gap.

If any person in the line of David would have faltered. If they would have died without producing seed - you would have no King of Israel. Do you understand this? So, it is not only Mary that cooperated with God’s will. It was the many people through the ages that cooperated - knowingly or not.

If for instance, my parents would have never met, married and had me - my kids would not be alive today. My “seed” would not have gone forth. Perhaps I could’ve chosen the life of a monk and chose celibacy. My children in that respect could’ve never arrived here. There are many things that had to take place for God’s will to come to fruition.

Somehow, Mary was chosen. That was part of God’s plan. She consented - as did every other person that God called to faith - Moses, Elijah, Joseph, Abraham - on down the line. But you don’t see those men given the kind of status that Mary has. Why?

Peace…
Click to expand...
Because none of the people you mentioned gave birth to Jesus.Scripture doesn’t say Trinity either but yet the Trinity exists.The Mother of any King is in fact the Queen,so you are trying to say that God would not honor his own Mother with that title,is to say she was not favored but used.God Bless
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
Because none of the people you mentioned gave birth to Jesus.Scripture doesn’t say Trinity either but yet the Trinity exists.The Mother of any King is in fact the Queen,so you are trying to say that God would not honor his own Mother with that title,is to say she was not favored but used.God Bless
Click to expand...
You still haven’t answered my question. How does she go from being his mother to being “Queen of heaven”? Using Scripture - not logic, philosophy, not heartfelt belief.

The mother of any king on earth is Queen. Yes. Christ isn’t living on the earth. His kingdom is not of this world.

Look at John 18:36-37:
  1. Jesus answered, **My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
    ** 37. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
This is the only account in the gospels that includes this saying.

On this forum, Christ is made to be King of this lowly earth (like the Jews of His time tried to do) with Mary as the reigning Queen, when in reality, the Kingdom of Christ is not of the earth. Why is this passage so oft neglected in your theology?

Peace…
 
Methinks this answers your own point…if Christ is the king in Heaven, then his mother (The Queen Mother) is accordingly the Queen of Heaven. Easy logic chain…
 
40.png
ahimsaman72:
You still haven’t answered my question. How does she go from being his mother to being “Queen of heaven”? Using Scripture - not logic, philosophy, not heartfelt belief.

The mother of any king on earth is Queen. Yes. Christ isn’t living on the earth. His kingdom is not of this world.

Look at John 18:36-37:
  1. Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
  2. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
This is the only account in the gospels that includes this saying.

On this forum, Christ is made to be King of this lowly earth (like the Jews of His time tried to do) with Mary as the reigning Queen, when in reality, the Kingdom of Christ is not of the earth. Why is this passage so oft neglected in your theology?

Peace…
Click to expand...
It is not neglected,we are in exile here,if we do not accept Christ as King here why would you think we would accept it anywhere else.Scripture does not hold all truths in the Bible that is stated in scripture.Jesus left the apostles and oral Tradition,by Christs authority.Scripture itself shows Mary being crowned you choose not to believe it,you choose to believe God zapped her and merely used her,and would not honor her for it.You ignore The Magnifiant",Revelations,Gabriel,Elizabeth.Why?It seems such a leap for you for God to Crown Mary Queen of Heaven.She is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit,The Mother of Jesus the Son,why is it such a problem to see it?That is just bizzare to me.God Bless
 
40.png
Isidore_AK:
Methinks this answers your own point…if Christ is the king in Heaven, then his mother (The Queen Mother) is accordingly the Queen of Heaven. Easy logic chain…
Click to expand...
Hi Isadore, Now I know God sits on the center throne,and Jesus sits on the right hand seat, Now who sits on the seat to the left? Any idea? :confused: God Bless
 
40.png
Isidore_AK:
Methinks this answers your own point…if Christ is the king in Heaven, then his mother (The Queen Mother) is accordingly the Queen of Heaven. Easy logic chain…
Click to expand...
Bang, there it is. Jesus is the heir to the Kingdom of David, FACT. Jesus’s kingdom is made clear in the bible that it is not of this world, FACT. If Mary is Jesus’s Mother, and he is King, she is Queen, FACT (you also need to understand how the hierarchy in kingdoms worked in their day). Evidence supporting this again, what I just described, Mary in revelation (which can have multiple interpretations but the most obvious is that being Mary in heaven with a crown). There is more, but that really is enough. This takes faith and logic. Someone earlier said that there must be Logic, Scriptural Evidence, and Common Sense as their criteria for Dogma…and given that criteria, I would say that it sure fits here…that and the testimony of the historical church who would surely have struck this down as a heresy if it was one.
 
40.png
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…
Click to expand...
The Old Testament is a precursor to the New Testament. We do not separate the Old Testament from the New Testament. One of the beautiful things we have in Scripture is what is known as typology. King David is a type of Christ. The Davidic Kingdom is a type of the Eucharistic Kingdom.

Jesus is a descendant of King David, therefore His Mother is the Queen of the Davidic and Eucharistic Kingdom.

Maggie
 
"Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus" that there is taken directly from Lk 1:42
***Mary is the mother of God, Lk 1:43 "*And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord has come to me?"
***We all should respect Mary, Lk 1:48 "*Surely all generations will call me blessed"
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Hi Isadore, Now I know God sits on the center throne,and Jesus sits on the right hand seat, Now who sits on the seat to the left? Any idea? :confused: God Bless
Click to expand...
Remember that Godhead is the Trinity (somebody jump in here if I get off in terminology please…). God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit. They are all one as they are all three. Christ is King. As is God the Father, as is the Holy Spirit. Three as one. One as three.

Hard to wrap your mind around isn’t it? Mary as the Mother of Jesus, is the mother of God. She did NOT create God (nor Jesus, as the Trinity is the only Uncreated and Eternal being), but as Jesus IS God, Mary is his human mother, and is the Queen Mother of heaven.

As to seating arrangements…I would suppose that Father, Son, & Spirit could sit anywhere they please…I’m not going to tell them where to sit (Gorillas in theaters come to mind…).
 
40.png
ahimsaman72:
But you have no text that declares what you are declaring here. You take an OT text and situation and compare it to a situation thousands of years later and come up with this theology.

Protestants are repeatedly railed upon for “coming up with doctrines” after the fact to fit their theology, yet Catholics fail to reflect on the fact that they do the same.

With all due respect - this is a lame duck.

Peace…
Click to expand...
actually the lame duck is the Protestant who denies Mary the honour that she deserves.

From the comments that you have made I take it that you have never studied theology (neither have I by the way), and that you do not understand the typology of the Scripture.

This is not something that is put together in thousands of years. I do not know where such a comment is coming from.

Looking at the conclusions that you are making, I have a few questions that need answers:
  1. Do you believe that Jesus fulfilled the Scripture?
  2. If you believe that Jesus fulfilled the Scripture, then what prophecies were fulfilled?
  3. Who is the ancestor of Jesus according to the prophet Isaiah?
  4. Who is the son of Jesse?
  5. To which Judaic tribe does Jesus belong?
I have more questions to ask but I think we better get answers for these questions before proceeding.

Maggie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top