Hail Holy Queen

  • Thread starter Thread starter maurin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PC_Master said:
Stating that something is so does not make it so. Claiming an analogy doesn’t make the analogy an actual and real one. Don’t simply say “this is how it is – if you can’t see that, you’re stupid”. Instead, support your argument with real logic.
Click to expand...
Here’s something I did for our class at Church one time:
The Typology begins with the first news of the Gospel in the Old Testament. Can anyone tell me where the earliest news of the coming of the Messiah is in the Bible? It’s called the ProtoEvangelium and it occurs in Genesis 3:15. God is chastising the serpent (Satan) for his part in the Fall of Adam. “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall crush your head, and you shall strike at His heel.” Remember how God refers to Eve – “The Woman”. That’s a key to the rest of this presentation. Who is the person that will strike at the head of Satan? Of course, it’s Jesus. Jesus will strike at Satan’s head when he dies on the Cross and redeems us of our sins, just as Satan strikes at Jesus on the Cross.
Click to expand...
But the key phrase here is the term “***enmity… ***between your seed and her Seed”. It’s interesting that God refers to the woman’s seed, especially when you consider the Greek word used for seed is “Sperma”. This is why the ancient Israelites tracked the seed through the man. There is only one person in all the Bible that could be referred to being sprung from a woman’s seed. Jesus! So the woman referred to in Genesis 3:15 is not pointing at Eve, for her children were Adam’s seed. No, it’s pointing at Mary! This is one of the reasons that the Catholic Church has always referred to Mary as the New Eve. Christians since the first century have looked at this Bible Passage and seen a prophecy of the Virgin Birth of the Messiah.
Click to expand...
Another clue is the term enmity. It refers to two people being enemies – mortal enemies in the Hebrew usage, and this enmity is “put” by God (I will put enmity between…). This verse has led the Church to the doctrine of Mary being Immaculately conceived. If Mary was conceived with original sin, there couldn’t be the perpetual enmity promised by God himself between the seed of the woman and the serpent. To the contrary, if Mary was conceived with original sin, the serpent would be victorious, subjecting the woman to his power. If this were the case, God’s promise would prove to be untrue.
Click to expand...
But this clearly is not what God intended in putting enmity between the woman’s seed and the serpent’s. Rather, it appears that Mary, the woman promised in the beginning, must be born outside of Satan’s power in order to fulfill God’s promise of absolute enmity.
Click to expand...
Let’s fast forward to the Gospel of John. As we’ve previously discussed, the Gospel of John begins with the same theme as Genesis. It starts out with, “In the Beginning….”, and it uses the same themes seen in Genesis, using Light, Darkness, Life, etc. John continues with this theme by describing 7 days of the New Creation, just like Genesis begins with 7 days of creation. On the 7th day in Genesis, we have a wedding between Adam and Eve. On the 7th day of John’s Gospel, we also have a wedding. Although the wedding is not between Jesus and Mary, it’s interesting to note that there are only two names given at the wedding – Jesus (the new Adam) and Mary (the New Eve). We see this further when Jesus refers to Mary just as God did to Eve in Genesis. “Woman, what has this to do with me?”
Click to expand...
 
And PCMaster, we can see that “HailMary” didn’t invent this Typology.
**Justin Martyr - **Around the A.D. 155, St. Justin Martyr wrote in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew that the Holy Scriptures teach us concerning Christ,
“'that He became Man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent, might be also the very course by which it would be put down. For Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent, and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that … the Holy One being born of her would be called the Son of God.”
Click to expand...
**
St. Justin Martyr therefore parallels the Virgin Mary with the Virgin Eve. Just as the word of the serpent bore fruit through the Virgin Eve, so the word of God came into the world through the Virgin Mary. Eve believed the word of an evil angel and death was brought into the world, while Mary believed the word of a good angel and Life Himself was brought into the world.
Click to expand...
**Irenaeus - **Now let’s look at another passage: around the A.D. 190, St. Ireneus, in his masterwork, Against Heresies, writes,
Click to expand...
“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey… having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race… Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.”
Click to expand...
**
So again we see the second century fathers contrasting Mary and Eve, saying that the evil done through Eve was undone through Mary.
Click to expand...
 
NotWorthy said:
And PCMaster, we can see that “HailMary” didn’t invent this Typology.

Quote:
Justin Martyr - Around the A.D. 155, St. Justin Martyr wrote in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew that the Holy Scriptures teach us concerning Christ,
“'that He became Man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent, might be also the very course by which it would be put down. For Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent, and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that … the Holy One being born of her would be called the Son of God.”

St. Justin Martyr therefore parallels the Virgin Mary with the Virgin Eve. Just as the word of the serpent bore fruit through the Virgin Eve, so the word of God came into the world through the Virgin Mary. Eve believed the word of an evil angel and death was brought into the world, while Mary believed the word of a good angel and Life Himself was brought into the world.

Irenaeus - Now let’s look at another passage: around the A.D. 190, St. Ireneus, in his masterwork, Against Heresies, writes,

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey… having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race… Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.”

So again we see the second century fathers contrasting Mary and Eve, saying that the evil done through Eve was undone through Mary.
Click to expand...
[SIGN]Bless your heart for that reference![/SIGN]
Hail Holy Queen!
 
PC_Master said:
There’s a difference between being in heaven (for indeed the angels are there), and being “Queen of Heaven”.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there is a difference with us being on earth here too, and not being a king or queen. It still doesn’t make one a diety! Don’t you think thee are any PEOPLE in heaven?
PC_Master said:
You think too linearly in regards to time and space. Prophecies of heaven almost certainly cannot be seen in a linear agreement with time here on earth.
Click to expand...
I guess you have to take that up with Jesus. He was the one that promised that His apostles would sit on thrones in heaven.
PC_Master said:
That’s right – even pagan Rome, which martyred many Christians, was allowed by God to exist. Likewise, Marian devotion, which only takes focus away from Christ, even if of Satan, was allowed by God.
Click to expand...
Clearly it would be best if you avoided any Marian devotions. Since you cannot grasp her role in salvation history, you cannot understand that she only points to Christ. If, for you, she is a distraction, I beg that he will be merciful to you for ignoring her. For those of us that do understand the role of the mother of the King in ancient Israel, we know that she will never distract us from our Lord.
PC_Master said:
Yes, I’m sure you’ll now say “Mary only points to Jesus, so she adds to focus on him, not takes away from”. This is specious.
Click to expand...
Clearly, for you, this is the case. It is regrettable, but each one can only proceed with the amount of illumination one has been given, and you are in the dark on this one!
PC_Master said:
A true example of pointing to Jesus is John the Baptist. Jesus came, John said “Behold the Lamb of God”, and the disciples following him left John the baptist and started following Jesus. No longer did they look to John the Baptist, nor did they focus on him, but instead focused solely on Jesus. Mary doesn’t accomplish that.
Click to expand...
In the New Covenant, the least is greater than John, Blessed though he is.
PC_Master said:
No, but the apostles weren’t called “Queen of Heaven” either.
Click to expand...
My point is that people are in heaven, and they have exalted roles as elders, and judges. That does not make them dieties, any more than Mary is a diety.
PC_Master said:
Of course not. Sure, Mary’s the mother of Christ. What I was saying, fairly clearly is that the example in Revelation does not establish the “woman” to be the mother of Christ, nor does it establish her to be Mary in name, so I don’t see where you can state that it’s her.
Click to expand...
Personally I don’t. I can see a type of Mary there, but I also see the figure could be Israel, or the church. It is a polyvalent symbol.
 
NotWorthy said:
Well, we all know that if you were alive back then, you would have been the one to popularize this teaching!!!
Click to expand...
Speaking of being alive back then. I wonder about the proponents of sola scriptura and the extreme need to see every thing stated explicitly in the Bible, and the rejection of any implicit interpretations of Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church.

If these people were alive when Jesus was teaching His parables. Would they have said to Him, “I don’t see where Moses said that in the Torah!”

You can sure see the results of the enmity alive and well today with all the attacks the Blessed Mother takes. That enmity is real and present.
 
cranster said:
Speaking of being alive back then. I wonder about the proponents of sola scriptura and the extreme need to see every thing stated explicitly in the Bible, and the rejection of any implicit interpretations of Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church.

If these people were alive when Jesus was teaching His parables. Would they have said to Him, “I don’t see where Moses said that in the Torah!”
Click to expand...
What are you doing over here? If you think like this, I need you back on the thread that you started:
 
JoeyWarren said:
Will you please respond to this thread?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2776136#post2776136
Click to expand...
Being the OP of that thread, I am as is everyone else still waiting JA4?

Can you prove from the Bible since that is your soul authority that Moses wrote Genesis? Since you have remained silent I am going to have to conclude that you can’t. That seriously damages the rest of your straw man claims against Mary taken from your sola scriptura interpretation of the Bible, and rejection of the implicit teachings that have been repeated ad nauseum.

Please feel free to answer on the other thread since that is the appropriate thread.
 
cranster said:
Being the OP of that thread, I am as is everyone else still waiting JA4?

Can you prove from the Bible since that is your soul authority that Moses wrote Genesis? Since you have remained silent I am going to have to conclude that you can’t. That seriously damages the rest of your straw man claims against Mary taken from your sola scriptura interpretation of the Bible, and rejection of the implicit teachings that have been repeated ad nauseum.

Please feel free to answer on the other thread since that is the appropriate thread.
Click to expand...
Read the repsonses on that thread and as you can see there are some that agree with me.
 
It is likely that Moses compiled the first five books of the Bible- However, the story of Adam and Eve was probably an oral legend, rather than a divine revelation.

It is, of course, impossible that Moses wrote all five books of the Pentateuch (Torah), as one of the books records his death. However, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are generally attributed to Moses.

How redundant was this?😃 😉
 
Tim_Kirchoff said:
It is likely that Moses compiled the first five books of the Bible- However, the story of Adam and Eve was probably an oral legend, rather than a divine revelation.
Click to expand...
So what if it was oral before written? How does that make it any less divinely revealed?
 
I think we also need to remember that when most of the New Testament was written, the Virgin Mary had not even been assumed into heaven yet, the event which truly revealed the extent of honour given to her by Christ and the degree to which her life truly glorified the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Scripture reflects the Christian community of the time in which it was written. When scripture was written the full implications of Mary’s life had not been diseminated widely. That is why we rely on the oral tradition which picks up were scripture left off.

Also, scripture was not written to expound everything that could possibly be said about the emerging Christian religion. It had one specific goal in mind, converting the people to faith in Christ. Paper was expensive in the ancient world, the Evangelists had to write the essentials, what was neccesary to be transmited. We can’t expect them to have said everything we ever wanted to hear about Christ (so never mind his Mother)

If scripture does not contain all the acts and words of Christ (John 20:30) why would we expect it to contain everything about His community, His Apostles and His Mother?
 
justasking4 said:
Keep in mind that it is only in the NT that we know of her.
Click to expand...
That’s incorrect. We know historical information about Mary from sources other than the Bible. For instance, we know her mother’s name was Ann, even though Ann isn’t mentioned in the Bible.
 
PC_Master said:
There’s a far more simple question to be asked here…

If God is king of heaven, and Mary is queen of heaven, then doesn’t that place Mary on a sort of deity level? Sounds like an incorporation from Mithraism and Tammuz worship to me.
Click to expand...
No. In Hebrew culture the King’s mother was Queen. It was a position of respect and honor, but the King held all the power and authority over the kingdom. That is the sense in which Mary is Queen of God’s kingdom.
 
Gamera said:
That’s incorrect. We know historical information about Mary from sources other than the Bible. For instance, we know her mother’s name was Ann, even though Ann isn’t mentioned in the Bible.
Click to expand...
How do you know this is correct? When was this first mentioned?
 
Jordan Francis;2789559]I think we also need to remember that when most of the New Testament was written, the Virgin Mary had not even been assumed into heaven yet, the event which truly revealed the extent of honour given to her by Christ and the degree to which her life truly glorified the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Scripture reflects the Christian community of the time in which it was written. When scripture was written the full implications of Mary’s life had not been diseminated widely. That is why we rely on the oral tradition which picks up were scripture left off.
Click to expand...
What oral tradition are you referring to? Mary’s assumption is not mention until 377 A.D. That’s almost 4 centuries after the supposed fact.
Also, scripture was not written to expound everything that could possibly be said about the emerging Christian religion. It had one specific goal in mind, converting the people to faith in Christ. Paper was expensive in the ancient world, the Evangelists had to write the essentials, what was neccesary to be transmited. We can’t expect them to have said everything we ever wanted to hear about Christ (so never mind his Mother)
Click to expand...
So how does this help you? If its not written down you have no grounds to believe it then. That’s why protestants have such an advantage by limiting ourselves to what the Scriptures teach alone.
If scripture does not contain all the acts and words of Christ (John 20:30) why would we expect it to contain everything about His community, His Apostles and His Mother?
Click to expand...
That may be. This actually hurts these various beliefs in Mary so powerfully since there is no evidence for them in Scripture nor history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top