Is Mary the queen of heaven?

[proclaim]

Unless The Word Of God Says That She Is The Queen Of Heaven Then She Would Be…but I She Was The Mother Of Jesus…but The Word Of God Dosent State Any Scripture Or Verse To Mary As The Queen Of Heaven…but Jesus Is The Prince Of Peace…amen

 

[JSmitty2005]

proclaim:

Unless The Word Of God Says That She Is The Queen Of Heaven Then She Would Be…but I She Was The Mother Of Jesus…but The Word Of God Dosent State Any Scripture Or Verse To Mary As The Queen Of Heaven…but Jesus Is The Prince Of Peace…amen

proclaim, now don’t take this the wrong way but I’d like an honest answer.
Is English your first language?

 

[vz71]

proclaim:

but The Word Of God Dosent State Any Scripture Or Verse To Mary As The Queen Of Heaven…but Jesus Is The Prince Of Peace…amen

I am uncertain how you could get around the fact that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Since Jesus is the prince, that would have to make Mary the Queen.

Z

 

[Atreyu]

Why is it that it is so difficult to read a post where every single word (near enough), is capitalised? Strange.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Atreyu:

Why is it that it is so difficult to read a post where every single word (near enough), is capitalised? Strange.

I don’t know, but it’s sure givin’ me a headache. :whacky:

 

[vz71]

proclaim:

Unless The Word Of God Says That She Is The Queen Of Heaven Then She Would Be…but I She Was The Mother Of Jesus…but The Word Of God Dosent State Any Scripture Or Verse To Mary As The Queen Of Heaven…but Jesus Is The Prince Of Peace…amen

I had not noticed.

Maybe I should go back to bed.

Z

 

[JSmitty2005]

Here is a pretty good article that can be found in The Catholic Answer which is published by Our Sunday Visitor. It is entitled, “Why Call Mary Queen?” by Edward Sri, and it can be found here.

Why Call Mary Queen?
by Edward Sri

Catholics are often asked by other Christians, “Why do you treat Mary like a queen?” After all, the Scriptures don’t seem to tell us anything about this simple woman from Nazareth having a royal position in Christ’s kingdom. Besides, Mary is not the wife of the King, Jesus. She is just His mother!

A closer look at Scripture, however, shows us that it is precisely from a biblical perspective that Mary’s queenship makes perfect sense. For in ancient Israel, it was the king’s mother who reigned as queen, not the king’s wife.

Most kings in this period had large harems. King Solomon, for example, had 700 wives and 300 concubines (see 1 Kgs 11:3). It would have been impossible to bestow the queenship on 1,000 women! Yet, since each king had only one mother, the queenship was typically given to her.

The queen mother was given the title “Great Lady,” and we can see her importance in a number of passages from the Old Testament. For example, when the books of First and Second Kings introduce a new king in the Kingdom of Judah, they almost always mention the name of the king’s mother alongside her royal son. The queen mother also is portrayed as a pre-eminent member of the royal court, wearing a crown on her head (see Jer 13:18) and heading the list of palace officials in the kingdom (2 Kgs 24:12-15).

Furthermore, the queen mother had a real share in her son’s reign, helping in his mission to shepherd the people (see Jer 13:18-20) and serving as a trusted counselor (Prv 31). But most of all, the queen mother served as an advocate for the people, hearing their petitions and presenting them to the king.

Queen Bathsheba

The Old Testament woman who illustrates the queen mother’s royal prerogatives most clearly is Bathsheba. Consider what happens when she transitions from her role as the wife of king David to her role as queen mother after her son Solomon assumes the throne.

While her husband, David, still reigns as king, Bathsheba enters the royal chamber, and she approaches him like most subjects in the kingdom would: She bows with her face to the ground, pays him homage and says, “May the lord, King David, live forever!” (1 Kgs 1:31).

However, after David dies and her son Solomon becomes king, she is treated very differently, for now she is queen mother. Immediately a man from the kingdom recognizes Bathsheba’s role as advocate and asks her to take a petition to the king. Expressing great confidence in her powerful intercession, he says: “Ask King Solomon, who will not refuse you” (1 Kgs 2:17).

Bathsheba agrees to go to the king. But this time, when she enters the royal chamber, she finds herself receiving royal treatment. The king stands up to greet her and bows before her. He then orders a throne to be brought in for her, and she is seated at his right hand, the position of authority (see 1 Kgs 2:19-20; see also Ps 110:1). Nowhere else in Scripture does the king honor someone to the degree that Solomon honors the queen mother in this scene.

Even more remarkable is how King Solomon affirms his commitment to the queen mother’s intercessory role in the kingdom. After Bathsheba mentions she has a request to present, Solomon responds, “Ask it, my mother, for I will not refuse you” (1 Kgs 2:20).

(Cont…)

 

[JSmitty2005]

Mary As Queen

All these Old Testament passages serve as important background for understanding how the New Testament portrays Mary, the mother of Jesus, as queen mother in Christ’s kingdom.

For example, in St. Luke’s account of the Annunciation, the angel Gabriel tells Mary she will become the mother of a royal Son who will fulfill Old Testament hopes about the Messiah’s everlasting kingdom (see for example, 2 Sm 7; Ps 2, 72, 89). The angel says:

“Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Lk 1:31-33).

If ancient Jews heard of a woman giving birth to a new Davidic king, they would easily conclude she was a queen mother. And that’s exactly the vocation Mary receives at the Annunciation. She is the royal mother of the king who will sit on “the throne of David his father” and of whose “kingdom there will be no end.”

Mary’s royal office is made even more explicit in the next scene of Luke’s Gospel, the Visitation. Here, Elizabeth greets Mary, saying, “And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43).

This title, “mother of my Lord,” is packed with great queenly significance. In the royal court language of the ancient Near East, the title “my Lord” was used to address the king (see 2 Sm 24:21). Therefore, “mother of my lord” would mean “mother of the king,” or, in other words, queen mother. In using this particular title to address Mary, Elizabeth recognizes the great dignity of Mary’s royal office.

Another passage that sheds light on Mary’s queenship is in Revelation 12: “A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child” (Rv 12:1-2).

Who is this mysterious woman of the Apocalypse? While some interpreters suggest the woman symbolizes Israel or the Church, she also can easily be seen as Mary, the mother of Jesus. Indeed, Revelation portrays this woman as the mother of the Messiah. In Revelation 12:5 the woman’s son is attacked by the devil, taken up to heaven, seated on a throne and destined to “rule all the nations with a rod of iron,” alluding to a prophecy about the Messiah- King (see Ps 2:9). If the child is Christ — the Messiah — then who is this mother of Christ? Clearly, the woman would be Mary.

Our Lady thus appears in Revelation 12 with royal splendor, reigning in heaven as the mother of the King. Like the queen mothers of old, she wears a crown on her head, reflecting her royal office. The 12 stars on her crown symbolize her reign in the Church, which was born from the 12 tribes of Israel and is founded on the 12 apostles. She is “clothed with the sun,” radiating God’s glory, and even the moon’s placement “under her feet” points to her royal authority — since “under the feet” imagery symbolized royal power and defeat of one’s enemies (see, for example, Ps 8:6; 110:1).

Just like the “Great Lady” of the Davidic kingdom, Mary continues to serve as an advocate for the people in God’s kingdom today. As queen mother, she is the most powerful intercessor in Christ’s kingdom, presenting our needs before His throne. Let us approach our queen mother with confidence, then, knowing that she faithfully carries our petitions to her royal Son — who responds to her as Solomon did to Bathsheba, saying: “I will not refuse you” (1 Kgs 2:20). TCA

“Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 966

 

[JSmitty2005]

Della:

While the title of Mary as Queen of Heaven has been believed for centuries and is celebrated by the Church, it is not a doctrine of the Church.

It’s in the Catechism.^

 

[joshua_b]

I believe Della may be technically correct, if we diferentiate between “doctrine” and “Dogma”. It is however, still a teaching of the Church none the less. As far as the “Word of God” not saying so, my response is that the Word of God is not limited to the printed words of a book. The Word of God existed long before the Bible, and although the Bible is the Word of God, the Word of God is much more than just the Bible. A scrupulous examination of what Christians believed before the New Testament was written, and what they believed as it was being compiled pretty much speaks for itself. Mary is proclaimed the Queen of Heaven now, just as she has been for two millenia. “To become deep in history is to cease to be Protestant .”

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Was David’s Mother a queen?

 

[swnunley]

imroc:

Is the Virgin the Queen of Heaven? Dang right she is! Is she the Mother of God? Dang right she is! Is the idea of her NOT being such new? Dang right! She is the mother because she gave birth to the Savior. She is not older, nor did she come before Him. She is the simple earthly being that was created by Him to give birth to Him. All generations shall call me blessed, she exclaimed and He holds her dear and in deep to this day with honor. Why would God break his own commandment, “Honor thy Mother and Father”?

:clapping: AMEN, Brother! PREACH IT! GLORY, GLORY! :clapping:

Thanks for the backup, imroc!

 

[Della]

Daniel Marsh:

Was David’s Mother a queen?

She may have been deceased by the time David took the throne. Remember, he was the youngest of 7 brothers, all adults when he was anointed to be the next king of Israel.

But, we do have this from 1Kgs.2:19 “So Bathshe’ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni’jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right.”

So, it would appear that Solomon regarded his mother as the “gebirah,” the queen-mother, which is significant for our discussion.

 

[jben]

I am going to pick up this thread to ask my question, because it is the closest thing that I can find in my search of the forums.

Here is why I always hesitate to bring up the thing that Dr. Sri mentions about First Kings (1st Kings 2:20). Please see that above.

I totally see what Dr. Sri is saying, right through the end of verse 20 of 1st Kings chapter 2. Now in Verse 21 she says, “Ok, how about giving this woman to your brother? That way he can marry her.” In verse 22 Solomon says, “well you may as well make him the king if you want that!” From this point all hell seems to break loose. I read over the rest of the chapter, and I don’t understand everything but it sure seems that some sort of insurrection needed to be put down, and it all seems to stem from this request of this Queen Mother in court.

Now what is going on here? Please explain it to me, because I am extremely tentative to rely on 1st Kings 2:19-20 when talking to my protestant brothers. I can say to them, “look at 1st Kings 2:20. See? Bathsheba became Queen Mother, established the office, and Solomon said he’d give her anything that she wanted. As for her so for Jesus’ mother.”

But then I anticipate them coming right back at me with, “Yeah, but he didn’t give her what she asked for, now did he? Look at the rest of the chapter. She asked for Adoni’jah to marry this gal and Solomon had Adoni’jah purged instead of granting the request. Some advocate!”

While that reply doesn’t totally eradicate the claim that there was an office of the Gebirah, or that it was an office of an advocate, it does do a lot of violence to the claim.

What else do I need to know, and how do I answer this reply?

 

[Philthy]

Do Catholic believe her to be queen of heaven?

BB

“Queen of Heaven and Earth, Angels and Saints, so that she may rule over hearts in both time and eternity.”
And just to clarify the Assumption, I dont beleive that the Church states that Mary ever died - it says that "when her earthly life had ended she was Assumed - body and soul - into heaven

 

[jben]

Yeah, I do believe her to be the Queen of Heaven. All of the evidence presented to me points directly at Mary as the Queen of Heaven. This isn’t the only verse that does it. There is Luke for example, which I think is the real clincher, and there is the listing of Davidic Kings always listed with their mothers, etc. Also there is “negative evidence” so to speak, such as the prophets fussing about everything the Davidic Line does except the Gebirah.

But with this particular argument, Bathsheba in First Kings, I feel as if I am trying to divert attention away from some weakness. We need to be really rigorous when we use scripture to defend our “claims,” and we need to adhere closely to it’s fourfold sense, and to keep it in context, and to not let interpretations from one part of scripture contradict other parts of scripture (i.e. the unity of all the scripture), etc.

So I am not able to resolve this riddle.

And as I said, the best I can do is “well you can’t win them all, and Mary might not get everything she asked for either. Especially if she asked for people to be let out of hell, or stuff like that.” But I really want to say, “See? The Queen Mum asks and it is granted. She’s an advocate, so you can ask her to bring stuff to Christ and and he’ll grant the petition just as Solomon granted Bathsheba’s petitions.”

Except that I can’t point to any such example of Solomon doing that.

It’s an irritatingly loose thread at the end of my argument. If Solomon had said, “ok, sure!” and if everything had turned out allright then I’d point right to that part of scripture with a real big grin. But at the moment, the best I can do is to mention 1st Kings 2:20 in passing and hope that they don’t ask me what I see as the obvious question. I’m way out of position, off balance, and out of breath when that one comes back at me.

One more thing. On multiple readings of this it looks less like Bathsheba kicked off an actual insurrection and more like this began the purgings to prevent an insurrection. Fine point. As a student of political science it doesn’t surprise me to see a rival for the throne purged, his ally, the high cleric, defrocked and slaughtered, etc. There are several people dying throughout the second part of Chapter 2, all of them present or former rivals of Solomon. That is typical of many changes of power, but still…it isn’t the happy picture that I’m hoping for.

So what is going on here?

 

[Fidelis]

I am going to pick up this thread to ask my question, because it is the closest thing that I can find in my search of the forums.

Here is why I always hesitate to bring up the thing that Dr. Sri mentions about First Kings (1st Kings 2:20). Please see that above.

I totally see what Dr. Sri is saying, right through the end of verse 20 of 1st Kings chapter 2. Now in Verse 21 she says, “Ok, how about giving this woman to your brother? That way he can marry her.” In verse 22 Solomon says, “well you may as well make him the king if you want that!” From this point all hell seems to break loose. I read over the rest of the chapter, and I don’t understand everything but it sure seems that some sort of insurrection needed to be put down, and it all seems to stem from this request of this Queen Mother in court.

Now what is going on here? Please explain it to me, because I am extremely tentative to rely on 1st Kings 2:19-20 when talking to my protestant brothers. I can say to them, “look at 1st Kings 2:20. See? Bathsheba became Queen Mother, established the office, and Solomon said he’d give her anything that she wanted. As for her so for Jesus’ mother.”

But then I anticipate them coming right back at me with, “Yeah, but he didn’t give her what she asked for, now did he? Look at the rest of the chapter. She asked for Adoni’jah to marry this gal and Solomon had Adoni’jah purged instead of granting the request. Some advocate!”

While that reply doesn’t totally eradicate the claim that there was an office of the Gebirah, or that it was an office of an advocate, it does do a lot of violence to the claim.

What else do I need to know, and how do I answer this reply?

The answer is in understanding (and explaining) the difference between the Old Testament **type **and the reality that it foreshadows. All Old Testament types are imperfect foreshadowings; the New Testament realities that they foreshadow are perfect fulfilments. Just like there is not a one-to-one correspondence between the OT types of baptism (for example, circumcision and Noah’s Ark) and the sacrament of baptism, there is not a one-to-one correspondence between Queen Mother Bathsheba and Queen of Heaven Mary. The OT types were meant to instruct and prepare the NT people for the glorious reality, not to be the exact same earthly, imperfect thing.

For an intro to typology, see the following:
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3959

 

[jben]

The answer is in understanding (and explaining) the difference between the Old Testament **type **and the reality that it foreshadows. All Old Testament types are imperfect foreshadowings; the New Testament realities that they foreshadow are perfect fulfilments. Just like there is not a one-to-one correspondence between the OT types of baptism (for example, circumcision and Noah’s Ark) and the sacrament of baptism, there is not a one-to-one correspondence between Queen Mother Bathsheba and Queen of Heaven Mary. The OT types were meant to instruct and prepare the NT people for the glorious reality, not to be the exact same earthly, imperfect thing.

For an intro to typology, see the following:
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3959

Ok, I guess that we are really making two arguments to our Protestant Brothers and Sisters (OPBaS) when we discuss this Queen of Heaven topic.

1. Praying to Mary does not bug Jesus or detract from his glory, but rather delights him and glorifies him.
2. She’s an effective advocate.

The explanation of the Queen Mother office, the Gebirah, especially as presented by Dr. Sri in his article above, pretty much cinches it for Item #1. Whenever I explain this to my PBaS they have lightbulb moments. They are very much more comfortable with the title “Mary, Queen of Heaven.” They begin to see that proclamation, not as a glorification of Mary (subtracting glory from Jesus), but as a glorification of Jesus as King (another way of saying “Jesus is Lord”).

Yet this only gets them part of the way there. They still are very hesitant to avail themselves of the opportunity of the rosary or of any prayer to Mary. It is here that #2 comes in.

We have to effectively argue to OPBaS that they can take their concerns in prayer to Jesus as well as to Mary. And you know OPBaS. They want it in black and white! And while they really need to begin thinking in terms of oral teaching as well as written teaching, it is good to give it to them in black and white when possible.

Enter 1 Kings 2:19-20. To point out this scripture is really to say to OPBas “using the Queen Mum as your advocate is good and pleasing to the Lord, he likes this and approves of it. Just see here where Adoni’jah goes to Solomon via Bathsheba, his advocate, and Solomon is ready to give her anything she wants.”

Unfortunately for our logic, we are presented with the unsightly spectacle of Adoni’jah’s slaughter only five verses later. This is alarming! This is not going to convince even the most eager-to-believe skeptic that this advocacy approach through Mary is a good idea.

They are going to say, “When Adoni’jah tried this he got himself killed! So why is it a good idea now, with Jesus, and with Mary? and with me?”

It is not going to be enough to say, “well let me tell you about biblical types…they don’t work the same way every time. But don’t fret, my good man. Just because Adoni’jah met a messy demise doesn’t mean that you’ll go to Hell if you pray to Mary.” Such an argument will simply fail to convince.

We have to be able to say, “well, in Adoni’jah’s case he was actually trying to trick Solomon, this was actually a murder plot against Solomon, this was a sure sign of an impending coup de’ tat, and so Solomon had to deal with that in this way. But let me direct your attention to verse 20 where Solomon was willing to do anything for his dear ol’ mom. That is what applies, and the purge of Adoni’jah, well…that was unfortunate but it doesn’t apply to your case.”

We have to use some sort of *condicio sine qua non *argument. We have to be able to say “but for some condition King Solomon would have granted the request, and that is how your situation differs from Adoni’jah’s. That condition is missing in your case.” We have to show that the second part of the chapter, the demise of Adoni’jah, differs from OPBaS’ situation, where as everything up through verse 20 is identical to our PBaS’ situation.

So what is our counter argument?

 

[JoeyWarren]

homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_mary.html

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yes.