Hail Holy Queen......

[cove]

ahimsaman72:

I could refute every bit of that information by using sources such as Matthew Henry’s Commentary.

Wait a minute. Who is this Matthew Henry? Aren’t you the one who said – “Generally, folks here know their stuff. But, regrettably, there are those who have no idea. They have read the books, listened to the lectures - but when it comes to verifying what you just experienced - they don’t take the time. They point to another source without using their own God-given intelligence and ability to think for themselves.”

 

[cove]

ahimsaman72This is empty rhetoric.:

Most of what I have read in your posts is imo “empty rhetoric”. I have heard or seen it all before.

Just pointing out a few facts from my observations. This is an open forum. I am allowed to do this. Don’t like? Don’t comment.

 

[ahimsaman72]

cove:

ahimsaman72This is empty rhetoric.:

Most of what I have read in your posts is imo “empty rhetoric”. I have heard or seen it all before.

Just pointing out a few facts from my observations. This is an open forum. I am allowed to do this. Don’t like? Don’t comment.

We shall leave on good terms, no? Yes, of course it is a free country. Sorry, just pointing out a few observations of my own.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

cove:

Wait a minute. Who is this Matthew Henry? Aren’t you the one who said – “Generally, folks here know their stuff. But, regrettably, there are those who have no idea. They have read the books, listened to the lectures - but when it comes to verifying what you just experienced - they don’t take the time. They point to another source without using their own God-given intelligence and ability to think for themselves.”

I was showing the reality that anyone can say anything and say they are right. That’s my point.

I don’t have all the answers. When I need to check my thinking, I refer to commentaries and other sources to get an idea of what others are thinking.

Peace…

 

[Catholic_Tom]

ahimsaman72:

The big writing was hurting my eyes so I had to tone it down a bit. What you provided was a pre-formed essay chock full of information that (again) cannot possibly be looked at and discussed. Are you prepared to discuss these point by point? You claim that you have given me tons of evidence. Just because you posted alot of information doesn’t equate to evidence.

I could refute every bit of that information by using sources such as Matthew Henry’s Commentary. I want YOU to plead your case for “Queen of heaven”, not a plethora of information you got from somewhere. Your very first post of “evidence” spoke about Mary being the Ark!

Your thread is titled, “Hail Holy Queen”. You’ve done nothing in relation to your topic.

Peace…

Sorry about the big writing…I wasn’t looking to debate, which again if you read my first post, you would have realized that. I, with full and humble admission, do not know everything there is to know about every point. However, someone has done the work and it is irrelevant if it is ME or HIM or HER, its the information that’s relevant.

What I have done is given you the scriptural versus. I have given you the Historical back up. What this “debate” that you are looking for (which by the way, you should have probably started your own thread if thats the case) is really on, is the issue of Sola Scriptura, which you well know that Catholics believe that Scripture is MATERIALLY SUFFICIENT and FORMALLY INSUFFICIENT. I could provide you with all the scripture versus in the world, but using your private interpretation, you gain a different understanding, and of course you would without the guidance and wisdom of 2000 years of church teaching (and yes, I know you’ve heard it before but there is no escaping that fact).

So, if you wouldn’t mind, back to the topic at hand. Thanks. God Bless. I’m glad you are here by the way ahimsaman72, because that means you are searching.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic Tom:

Sorry about the big writing…I wasn’t looking to debate, which again if you read my first post, you would have realized that. I, with full and humble admission, do not know everything there is to know about every point. However, someone has done the work and it is irrelevant if it is ME or HIM or HER, its the information that’s relevant.

What I have done is given you the scriptural versus. I have given you the Historical back up. What this “debate” that you are looking for (which by the way, you should have probably started your own thread if thats the case) is really on, is the issue of Sola Scriptura, which you well know that Catholics believe that Scripture is MATERIALLY SUFFICIENT and FORMALLY INSUFFICIENT. I could provide you with all the scripture versus in the world, but using your private interpretation, you gain a different understanding, and of course you would without the guidance and wisdom of 2000 years of church teaching (and yes, I know you’ve heard it before but there is no escaping that fact).

So, if you wouldn’t mind, back to the topic at hand. Thanks. God Bless. I’m glad you are here by the way ahimsaman72, because that means you are searching.

Thanks for making me welcome. God bless you too.

Peace…

 

[cove]

ahimsaman72:

I was showing the reality that anyone can say anything and say they are right. That’s my point.

I don’t have all the answers. When I need to check my thinking, I refer to commentaries and other sources to get an idea of what others are thinking.

Peace…

But the Church is not “anyone”. Those getting their references from Church sources are referencing the “truth”. That is my point.

If you don’t like my answer, adieu is fine with me.

 

[ahimsaman72]

cove:

But the Church is not “anyone”. Those getting their references from Church sources are referencing the “truth”. That is my point.

If you don’t like my answer, adieu is fine with me.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[cove]

ahimsaman72:

Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

You seem to have a hard time beholding “truth”. What was that that Pontius Pilate said to Jesus? He had a hard time with that one, too.

Peace!

 

[Mary3]

ahimsaman72:

I love philosophy. I just don’t use it to prove a point. I use it as a tool to help me get to the point.
And what makes you think that God’s eternal plan would hinge on one human’s acceptance of His will? Please explain this kind of a position. God needs no one to fulfill His divine plan.

ahimsaman72:

He surely doesn’t interfere with our free will, which makes Mary’s fiat

all the more beautiful and worthy of our appreciation. Did God NEED for Jesus to accept His mission in order for God’s plan to be fulfilled?

ahimsaman72:

If he can make a donkey speak, I don’t think it would be too much to choose another woman.

ahimsaman72:

Are you using philosophy to help you get to the point? If God can make a donkey speak, might He be able to make the mother of the King of Heaven be the Queen of Heaven?

ahimsaman72:

Either there’s a low view of God/high view of man or high view of God/low view of man. I take the second.

ahimsaman72:

I take the second as well, recognizing that lowly man is made in God’s own image. I don’t think I’ve ever met any Christian with a higher view of man than of his Creator.

ahimsaman72:

I was under the impression that Jesus Christ was the perfect human masterpiece.

ahimsaman72:

Well, not exactly. Jesus was most certainly perfect, but not merely a human. Fully human, fully divine. Mary on the other hand was fully human. Were Adam and Eve perfect (without sin) before the fall? If God made perfect humans once, I guess He could do so twice.

ahimsaman72:

This is the fallacy in this type of thinking. It never glorifies Christ. It glorifies another human. There’s no human alive now or has ever been that can compare to the perfect, sinless Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Being privileged, chosen and prepared does not equate to Queenship of heaven. Please give some shred of evidence beyond your logic and philosophy to support your position.

ahimsaman72:

It is a false dichotomy to say that one either glorifies Christ or glorifies another human. Jesus is God, second person of the holy Trinity. The greatest saint in heaven (who Catholics say is Mary) is nothing compared to Him. Yet, she is worthy of our acknowledgment of the unique and high position given to her by God. Affirming Mary’s identity always protects and affirms our Lord’s identity. By saying that Mary is Mother of God, we affirm that Jesus is God. By saying that Mary is Queen of Heaven, we affirm that Jesus is King. Like us, Mary is a mere human child of the Father. Unlike anyone else, she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit and mother of God the Son. Recognizing and venerating (dulia)

that enormous dignity in no way diminishes the adoration and worship (latria) due to God alone.

The posters in this thread have given you plenty of Scriptural evidence, logic, philosophy and historical Christian understanding to defend Mary as the Queen of Heaven. While you seem adept at proof texting Scripture, you also seem to lack insight into the whole 2000 years of Christian history. I mean that charitably, as a former Protestant and one who suffered the same knowledge gap. The Catholic view of Mary makes much more sense than the Protestant minimalizing view once you learn more about our history.

Don’t blindly trust everything that the Baptist church has taught you about Christian history. Search out original documents from the 2nd through 16th centuries, and make up your own mind.

*Pax Christi… *

 

[MaggieOH]

ahimsaman72:

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…

Why do you expect Jesus to reign in a temporal kingdom? This to me is one of the major problems that some Protestants face, and it is a major obstacle to the conversion of modern day Jews.

The symbolism in the Book of Revelation is really quite clear. If you are not willing to use a Catholic commentary on the subject, then I recommend the William Barclay commentary, because he has set out the historical aspects of the symbolism in a very clear way.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

ahimsaman72:

I was showing the reality that anyone can say anything and say they are right. That’s my point.

I don’t have all the answers. When I need to check my thinking, I refer to commentaries and other sources to get an idea of what others are thinking.

Peace…

How do you know that the commentaries that you are checking are correct? It could be that the commentator is in serious error or that he or she is biased.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

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…

Actually what you are expressing indicates to me that you have a rather confused idea about the purpose of Salvation History. It seems that you want to separate the Divine part of Jesus from His Body (flesh).

At a guess I suspect that your knowledge of the prophets and of the Old Testament is sadly lacking. That is not your fault because it is the same with many Catholics too.

Why do you seek from the New Testament what is obvious by type and (sense) in the Old Testament.

Tell me, did Jesus come to establish an earthly Kingdom or a Heavenly Kingdom? Did God promise that the earthly kingdom would be renewed, or is that just a human interpretation of the real promise?

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

ahimsaman72:

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…

The reason that you cannot see what is happening in the Scripture is that you are thinking in terms of Jesus ruling in an earthly kingdom, and therefore you are applying the false dichotomy of either/or. That is why you cannot see what is plain as the nose on your face.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

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.

Peace…

Jesus also came to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament.

Also, I think that you misinterpret St. Paul’s letter to the Romans when you state that the new law is the Spirit of life. Rather this is what Paul is stating:

“So on one side is Sin: its reward, death; on the other side is God; He gives us by GRACE, life everlasting in Christ Jesus Our Lord.” (Romans 6:23)

This is only a portion of what is a really deeply theological discourse from Paul. There is a lot to consider so that we get a better understanding of what is meant by Eternal Life (which does not just depend upon the letters of St. Paul)

Maggie

 

[ahimsaman72]

MaggieOH:

How do you know that the commentaries that you are checking are correct? It could be that the commentator is in serious error or that he or she is biased.

Maggie

Everyone is biased.

 

[ahimsaman72]

MaggieOH:

Actually what you are expressing indicates to me that you have a rather confused idea about the purpose of Salvation History. It seems that you want to separate the Divine part of Jesus from His Body (flesh).

At a guess I suspect that your knowledge of the prophets and of the Old Testament is sadly lacking. That is not your fault because it is the same with many Catholics too.

Why do you seek from the New Testament what is obvious by type and (sense) in the Old Testament.

Tell me, did Jesus come to establish an earthly Kingdom or a Heavenly Kingdom? Did God promise that the earthly kingdom would be renewed, or is that just a human interpretation of the real promise?

Maggie

Honestly, I don’t see why we are traveling this path. Are you equating salvation history as rolled up and directly related to Mary as Queen of Heaven? If so, I’m afraid I would have a lot of reading to do. I’m astonished that so much is made of this.

I’m afraid I don’t see the correlation and really feel we’re getting off topic. Let’s stick to “hail, holy Queen”, shall we?

And, by the way, you assume from my posts that I don’t have much knowledge of “salvation history”. I understand (in a nutshell) that God has woven his plan of salvation from Genesis throughout the Bible to Revelation and that He has used people, places and events to work in accordance with His plan of returning His creation to what He intended it to be.

It would take us years to justifiably work our way point by point through “salvation history” to see what we both believe and then to have meaningful dialogue. This is way beyond the scope of this thread (I believe) and not practical in this setting.

Peace…

 

[MaggieOH]

ahimsaman72:

Honestly, I don’t see why we are traveling this path. Are you equating salvation history as rolled up and directly related to Mary as Queen of Heaven? If so, I’m afraid I would have a lot of reading to do. I’m astonished that so much is made of this.

I’m afraid I don’t see the correlation and really feel we’re getting off topic. Let’s stick to “hail, holy Queen”, shall we?

And, by the way, you assume from my posts that I don’t have much knowledge of “salvation history”. I understand (in a nutshell) that God has woven his plan of salvation from Genesis throughout the Bible to Revelation and that He has used people, places and events to work in accordance with His plan of returning His creation to what He intended it to be.

It would take us years to justifiably work our way point by point through “salvation history” to see what we both believe and then to have meaningful dialogue. This is way beyond the scope of this thread (I believe) and not practical in this setting.

Peace…

As I said, you do not have a good grasp on how it all comes together. You stop short when you say that God uses people, places and event according to His plan of Salvation. The mere fact that you cannot see the relevance indicates to me that the understanding that you have of the Incarnation is somewhat lacking in detail.

This is not off topic because it all boils down to the Woman who was chosen by the Father to become the mother of the Messiah. That woman is Mary. Jesus is the King of kings, both here on earth and in Heaven. The Eucharistic Kingdom has been established. Mary, who is His Mother, who was given special privileges and graces to carry out her role, is the Queen of Heaven because she is the Mother of the King.

In this prayer, we say:

Mother of Mercy: who is Mercy? Jesus.
Hail our Life: what is Life? the Holy Spirit
Hail our Hope: who is the Hope? the Father.

Maggie

 

[mayra_hart]

Mary’s Coronation in Heaven

2 Tim 4:8 - Paul says that there is laid up for him the crown of righteousness. The saints are crowned in heaven, and Mary is the greatest saint of all.

James 1:12 - those who endure will receive the crown of life which God has promised. Mary has received the crown of life by bringing eternal life to the world.

1 Peter 5:4 - when the chief Shepherd is manifested we will receive the unfading crown of glory.

Rev. 2:10 - Jesus will give the faithful unto death the crown of life. Jesus gave Mary His Mother the crown of lifeWis. 5:16 - we will receive a glorious crown and a beautiful diadem from the hand of the Lord. Mary is with Jesus forever crowned in His glory santa maria madre de dios ruega por nosotros.

 

[MaggieOH]

ahimsaman72:

Everyone is biased.

The response did not answer my question. I ask again, how do you know that the commentaries that you are reading are free from bias?

Maggie