Is there any possible position higher than Queen of Heaven?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheNeutral
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What benefit did God have for us to put someone impossibly above us? How does it benefit me that I am “inferior” to Mary?
What benefit did God have for us to put someone impossibly above us? How does it benefit me that I am “inferior” to Paul, Enoch, and Elijah?
 
Wasn’t The Bosom of Abraham not only not Heaven itself, predated Christ’s resurrection and was a parable, not literal? Your spirit and your body --your real, human but glorified body, like Christ’s, not a ‘spirit body’–will be united after the Second Coming. Until then, I believe the Church teaches that souls who have died and gone to heaven will be spirits but will not have a ‘spirit’ body. And since Heaven is ‘outside’ time and space it is more than probable that a person who dies (whether it is a cave person, a 10th century BC Egyptian, a 4th century AD Christian, a 17th century Buddhist, a 20th century agnostic, a ‘24th century’ Captain Kirk, etc. etc. to the end of time) will experience at the time of the personal judgment not simply his soul’s ascension but will experience that Second Coming and the reunification of soul and body then. Possible, I do not say it is something the Church teaches. But then again, I do not believe the Church teaches we will have temporary ‘spirit bodies’ either.

Mind you, the idea of some kind of temporary ‘spirit body’ is intriguing, but wholly unnecessary. Since our souls and bodies are meant for eternity and since we’re told that they will be united at the Second Coming, wouldn’t it kind of defeat the purpose to have a ‘spirit body’ temporarily? If it is necessary for abiding in Heaven, why would it not be permanent? If it is going to be exchanged for a permanent one, why didn’t we get the permanent one to start?
 
That only strengthens my argument; As far as Michael knew, he could’ve been the king (or at least heir) of everything “had [he] won”. Additionally, Michael must’ve also surely been aware of Jesus’ future birth through Mary; Their God was going to become an “inferior” species through an even more inferior virgin (so the logic goes), however Michael the Archangel remained humble and steadfast by God’s side. Even though we know the result of Satan’s rebellion now (he lost, and is yet losing), there’s no indication the Angels would’ve known this. Certainly if the brightest of them all (both in light and intelligence) dared rebel against God, there “must’ve been a chance” after all. Even if Michael didn’t become the highest, at least give the position to someone who actually had to work for it. Mary essentially stood there as her son got crucified and somehow that translates to “She made the hardest decision in accepting her son’s fate”? Mothers have children who die all the time; should they all, then, be exalted to some position in Heaven, regardless of their works for Christ? What about fathers? Joseph probably had some legal connection to Jesus, and surely he must have known him well enough that his death would also be devastating. Should he then become a co-king of Heaven?

Another curiosity is that God made man to represent him closest; they were made first and hold most important roles on Earth–yet it is the woman who was exalted over us. Essentially, this is a testimony that all men are inferior to women, or, at the very least–the greatest non God-Man, is inferior to the greatest woman. As much as I hate Satan, this is perhaps the one area where his anger isn’t so absurd: It’s humiliating.
 
Last edited:
Wasn’t The Bosom of Abraham not only not Heaven itself, predated Christ’s resurrection and was a parable, not literal? Your spirit and your body --your real, human but glorified body, like Christ’s, not a ‘spirit body’–will be united after the Second Coming. Until then, I believe the Church teaches that souls who have died and gone to heaven will be spirits but will not have a ‘spirit’ body. And since Heaven is ‘outside’ time and space it is more than probable that a person who dies (whether it is a cave person, a 10th century BC Egyptian, a 4th century AD Christian, a 17th century Buddhist, a 20th century agnostic, a ‘24th century’ Captain Kirk, etc. etc. to the end of time) will experience at the time of the personal judgment not simply his soul’s ascension but will experience that Second Coming and the reunification of soul and body then. Possible, I do not say it is something the Church teaches. But then again, I do not believe the Church teaches we will have temporary ‘spirit bodies’ either.

Mind you, the idea of some kind of temporary ‘spirit body’ is intriguing, but wholly unnecessary. Since our souls and bodies are meant for eternity and since we’re told that they will be united at the Second Coming, wouldn’t it kind of defeat the purpose to have a ‘spirit body’ temporarily? If it is necessary for abiding in Heaven, why would it not be permanent? If it is going to be exchanged for a permanent one, why didn’t we get the permanent one to start?
Well what kinda bodies Angels and Demons have, there isn’t any reunification for them.
 
Last edited:
Mind you, the idea of some kind of temporary ‘spirit body’ is intriguing, but wholly unnecessary. Since our souls and bodies are meant for eternity and since we’re told that they will be united at the Second Coming, wouldn’t it kind of defeat the purpose to have a ‘spirit body’ temporarily? If it is necessary for abiding in Heaven, why would it not be permanent? If it is going to be exchanged for a permanent one, why didn’t we get the permanent one to start?
Saul and the Medium at Endor

Saul then said to his attendants, “Find me a woman who is a medium, so I may go and inquire of her.”

“There is one in Endor,” they said.

So Saul disguised himself, putting on other clothes, and at night he and two men went to the woman. “Consult a spirit for me,” he said, “and bring up for me the one I name.”

But the woman said to him, “Surely you know what Saul has done. He has cut off the mediums and spiritists from the land. Why have you set a trap for my life to bring about my death?”

Saul swore to her by the Lord, “As surely as the Lord lives, you will not be punished for this.”

Then the woman asked, “Whom shall I bring up for you?”

“Bring up Samuel,” he said.

When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!”

The king said to her, “Don’t be afraid. What do you see?”

The woman said, “I see a ghostly figure coming up out of the earth.”

“What does he look like?” he asked.

“An old man wearing a robe is coming up,” she said.

Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.

Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”

1 Samuel 28
 
Last edited:
What benefit did God have for us to put someone impossibly above us? How does it benefit me that I am “inferior” to Mary?

Also: To those saying “So you’re saying Jesus isn’t God…” Nice way to dismiss my statements. Honestly, the question is silly; Of course I believe that Jesus is God. I believe all three of them are, however he’s almost always referred to as “Jesus (Christ”, not “God”. The title “God” is often used to refer to his Father. With this in mind, when one says Mary is the “Mother of God”, yes, it could, in a sense, be technically correct, but what it sounds like in light of current associations for these words is that Mary is, in fact, being exalted as the “Mother of the Father”. The name is very deceitful in nature and is quite prone to misleading those who have anything less than a full knowledge of it’s “true” meaning. Why not just call her the “Mother of the Son”, or the “Mother of Jesus”? Does that not sound powerful enough for your liking? That is my problem with the name; Through misconception, it exalts Mary to a position (even if unintentionally) which she shouldn’t (and couldn’t) ever be in.
The Reason we say Mother of God and not “Mother of the Son” or “Mother of Jesus” (though we do say “Mother of Jesus” sometimes, but that’s not a title) is because of the reason for Title.

Again, the title Mother of God has NOTHING to do with Mary. It has EVERYTHING to do with the identity of Jesus.

When we are say Mary is the Mother of God we are 100% saying that Jesus is God. We are emphasizing that Mary gave birth to our Lord, Jesus Christ - who is God.

NOW, let’s move away from Christology for a moment and use an analogy. Let’s say there is a family in your neighborhood called the Smiths. And the Smiths have 5 kids. You are in the store one day with a friend and your see Mrs. Smith on the other side of the store. You say to your friend, “she’s the mother of the Smiths.” Would that mean that she’s the mother of every single Smith in the world? No, there is a context… we are speaking about the Smith children in your neighborhood and we are OBVIOUSLY not talking about their father, her husband. No one would assume that you were claiming that she was the mother of her husband.

My point… if you think about it, jumping to the conclusion that the title Mother of God means that Mary is mother to God the Father is illogical. How many women do you know who are both mother and grandmother to the same person?

Finally, the reason why BOTH Catholics and Orthodox call Mary the Mother of God is because some heretics were claiming that Mary did not give birth to a Divine person.

If you study the Christology heresies regarding the nature of Jesus, you will understand why we gave Mary that title.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
That only strengthens my argument; As far as Michael knew, he could’ve been the king (or at least heir) of everything “had [he] won”. Additionally, Michael must’ve also surely been aware of Jesus’ future birth through Mary; Their God was going to become an “inferior” species through an even more inferior virgin (so the logic goes), however Michael the Archangel remained humble and steadfast by God’s side. Even though we know the result of Satan’s rebellion now (he lost, and is yet losing), there’s no indication the Angels would’ve known this. Certainly if the brightest of them all (both in light and intelligence) dared rebel against God, there “must’ve been a chance” after all. Even if Michael didn’t become the highest, at least give the position to someone who actually had to work for it. Mary essentially stood there as her son got crucified and somehow that translates to “She made the hardest decision in accepting her son’s fate”? Mothers have children who die all the time; should they all, then, be exalted to some position in Heaven, regardless of their works for Christ? What about fathers? Joseph probably had some legal connection to Jesus, and surely he must have known him well enough that his death would also be devastating. Should he then become a co-king of Heaven?

Another curiosity is that God made man to represent him closest; they were made first and hold most important roles on Earth–yet it is the woman who was exalted over us. Essentially, this is a testimony that all men are inferior to women, or, at the very least–the greatest non God-Man, is inferior to the greatest woman. As much as I hate Satan, this is perhaps the one area where his anger isn’t so absurd: It’s humiliating.
You still don’t get it. Let me tell you a story…

There was once a King who was single, he had no parents. But he did have a Brother and many other relatives who are made up the line of succession.

Then one day, the King starts to date a commoner, who is “lower” than the Royals who are in line for succession. The Royals are enraged by this and cannot fathom the idea of a commoner becoming Queen.

The King, then marries her and the nightmare that the Royals were having has finally come true, the commoner has become their Queen. While, she is not next in line for succession, she is still the Queen and HER son will become the next king.

(to be continued)
 
(continued from previous post)

So the King’s brother has to accept that his future King will be the son of a commoner. The brother doesn’t want to accept this and tries to lobby the King to remove the son from the line of succession. The king’s brother, a royal prince by birth, simply will not accept the fact that his future King will be the son of a commoner. So he tries to disgrace the Queen to prevent the birth of her son.

The King finds out and casts his brother out of the kingdom.

A few years later, after the Queen gives birth to a baby boy, the king dies. The kingdom is passed on to the infant son, with the Queen calling the shots with an adviser.

The King’s brother comes back and tries to kill the Queen and the Son, but is stopped every time.

And even though the King is a baby, he’s still the king and his mother is still Queen. And she remains Queen for 25 years, until the 25 year old King finds a wife.

Now, the commoner Queen gets a new title… Queen Mother.

What’s the point of this story… Mary is the Queen of Heaven because Jesus is her son and because she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She will remain the Queen for ever because Jesus has no wife, as His spouse is the Church.

God Bless
 
Mind you, the idea of some kind of temporary ‘spirit body’ is intriguing, but wholly unnecessary. Since our souls and bodies are meant for eternity and since we’re told that they will be united at the Second Coming, wouldn’t it kind of defeat the purpose to have a ‘spirit body’ temporarily? If it is necessary for abiding in Heaven, why would it not be permanent? If it is going to be exchanged for a permanent one, why didn’t we get the permanent one to start?
There He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. Suddenly Moses and Elijah appeared before them, talking with Jesus.…

Matthew 17:2
 
So Mary’s “married” to the Holy Spirit? Isn’t that kinda blasphemous? That would be like saying God the Father has a spouse; Some things just don’t happen.

There are two ways to change the situation at hand here;
  1. Jesus simply “appears” as a child and his life plays out the same (Please correct me if I’m wrong)
  2. Jesus, not being bound by neither standards nor conventions, simply makes Mary a normal servant in Heaven in consideration of the saints (Again, if this is somehow impossible, correct me).
I honestly see no flaws in the second one. Mary gets to be perfect on Earth due to her role, yet Jesus also remembers the other saints (even if they’re “lesser”), and their greater struggles (internal temptation, original sin, etc.) and makes them equal out of love.

Instead, we just have some “Mary’s better because haha I said so” installed. And while we obviously cannot do something about this (and I don’t want to go to hell trying), it seems like a disregard of the other saints, and a contradiction of “the last will be first”, which is mentioned quite a few times in the Bible.
 
Angels–and fallen angels, or devils. . .are pure spirit. No body as we know it.
 
Old Testament imagery. Not a spirit body.

Will you take the testimony of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, if you think I am speaking wrongly?

1051 Every man receives his eternal recompense in his immortal soul from the moment of his death in a particular judgment by Christ, the judge of the living and the dead.

1052 “We believe that the souls of all who die in Christ’s grace . . . are the People of God beyond death. On the day of resurrection, death will be definitively conquered, when these souls will be reunited with their bodies” (Paul VI, CPG § 28).
 
So Mary’s “married” to the Holy Spirit? Isn’t that kinda blasphemous? That would be like saying God the Father has a spouse; Some things just don’t happen.

There are two ways to change the situation at hand here;
  1. Jesus simply “appears” as a child and his life plays out the same (Please correct me if I’m wrong)
  2. Jesus, not being bound by neither standards nor conventions, simply makes Mary a normal servant in Heaven in consideration of the saints (Again, if this is somehow impossible, correct me).
I honestly see no flaws in the second one. Mary gets to be perfect on Earth due to her role, yet Jesus also remembers the other saints (even if they’re “lesser”), and their greater struggles (internal temptation, original sin, etc.) and makes them equal out of love.

Instead, we just have some “Mary’s better because haha I said so” installed. And while we obviously cannot do something about this (and I don’t want to go to hell trying), it seems like a disregard of the other saints, and a contradiction of “the last will be first”, which is mentioned quite a few times in the Bible.
OK - but here’s the thing… it’s not our concern where we are ranked in Heaven. The saints are just happy to be there. No saint is jealous of where he is “seated” in relationship to Christ or in relationship to the other saints.

Anyone spirit who would be jealous is not in heaven.

Anyway, Revelation 12 has some of the best imagery of Mary as the Queen of Heaven, as do the Old Testament books that talk about the Queens of the Kingdom of Israel (who were all the King’s mom).

 
So basically you’re saying that the Church has no authority to give Mary the Title of Queen of Heaven. That you don’t accept that with Christ as her Son, she is the queen. That even if she were, that others MUST be ‘above her’ because according to you, she really didn’t do all that much. And while you’re careful to bring in somebody like St Peter or St. Paul, I notice that you’ve had statements like, "Other mothers have lost their children, are they so special in heaven? in which you’re actually stating that Mary being the mother of God (yes she is, because Jesus is who He is) is no big deal, nothing special, and it isn’t fair to put her first.

What a lot of chutzpah. ‘A normal servant in Heaven’.

I’m glad I’m not your mother, child. Seems to me there’s quite a bit of a young adult, “My parents aren’t the boss of me now, especially not my mother” in the tone of your posts. . .
 
Nothing was said about Moses and Elijah having bodies. Peter, James and John had not ever SEEN Moses or Elijah and there weren’t any oil paintings or polaroids back then. How would they know who Moses and Elijah were? The description you will note is not of any bodily parts but the ‘dazzling white clothing’ they wore. A dazzling 'whiteness and hearing voices, but no real mention of a bodily appearance, a sense “This presence is Moses, this presence Elijah”.
 
052 “We believe that the souls of all who die in Christ’s grace . . . are the People of God beyond death. On the day of resurrection, death will be definitively conquered, when these souls will be reunited with their bodies” (Paul VI, CPG § 28).
Right, the people in Heaven only have their spirit bodies until the end of the world.Do you think people in Heaven are just floating Orbs?
 
Last edited:
There are no ‘spirit bodies’ in heaven.
There are no floating orbs either.
There are souls.
Do you know what a soul looks like? Why assume it’s an orb?
Did you read the passage from the catechism? Souls will be united with bodies at the Second Coming.
Not before.
 
There are no ‘spirit bodies’ in heaven.
There are no floating orbs either.
There are souls.
Do you know what a soul looks like? Why assume it’s an orb?
Did you read the passage from the catechism? Souls will be united with bodies at the Second Coming.
Not before.
Well if they are not floating orbs what are they?
 
They are souls.
Read the catechism.
We have mortal bodies.
They die.
When Christ comes again, we will have spiritual (not spirit, spiritual) bodies. Not before.
Read St. Paul. he talks about it.
You tell me. What kind of bodies do we get at the Second Coming?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top