Mary as having authority as the "Queen Mother"?

[OneTrueCathApos]

**JESUS CHRIST AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS, IN HIS LAST DYING BREATH GAVE HIS MOTHER TO THE WHOLE WORLD.

“ALL GENERATIONS WILL CALL ME BLESS-ED”

Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee,
Blessed art thou, amongst women, and Blessed is the fruit
of thy womb JESUS.
Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death. Amen.**

 

[mpernot]

You are way ahead of yourself here. The Catholic church wrote the Bible? I think you better take a look at history my friend. The RCC doesn’t corner the market on God and everything else, sorry.

The Catholic Church is not the author of the Bible (God is), but she did compile it for the world so that you would not have to decide for yourself which books are inspired word of God. If you doubt this, please tell me what other Christians were around in the late 300’s to do this. And, oh yeah, they would have to have authority directly traceable to the authority given to the 12 apostles by Jesus, or else this compilation would be subjective.

And the point remains that Mary is not mentioned past the book of Acts. Don’t just simply dismiss that or pretend that it doesn’t mean anything.

Are you implying that Mary is not important because she is not mentioned in the book of Acts? Does that mean Abraham, Noah, etc. are also not important because they don’t appear in this book? Does Acts have the market cornered on importance or something?

Having said that, who do you think is being talked about when “Mary the mother of Jesus” in mentioned in Acts 1:14?

You are falsely accusing me. I never said anything contemptuous about Mary. I said that Mary is being held to a false level of divinity in the Catholic church. That isn’t insulting to Mary and in fact, it is respectful to Mary because it is the truth. Your methods of trying to paint someone who will not raise Mary to a level of diety as being insulting to her is really getting old and worn out.

There is a big difference between disagreeing with someone and purposely promulgating misinformation - I fear you are doing the latter. Many posters *within this thread * have said that the Catholic church does not teach any sort of divinty of Mary. Mary is a creature who was given a special place by God - any power and honor that is hers was given to her by God to lead the faithful to her Son. I don’t want to hear you continue this divinity of Mary nonesense unless you can provide a passge from the Catechism indicating that this is a church teaching. Disagree with what we really believe, not what you think we believe.

 

[guanophore]

You are way ahead of yourself here. The Catholic church wrote the Bible?

You are right. Only the NT was written by Catholics.

I think you better take a look at history my friend.  The RCC doesn't corner the market on God and everything else, sorry.

I never said that it did. I said that the Catholic Church wrote the NT, preserved, compiled, and promulgated the Bible.

And the point remains that Mary is not mentioned past the book of Acts.

Well, we read it differently.

Catholics read scripture according to the mindset of those who wrote it, so we understand it in the light of the Aposotlic Teaching.

Don't just simply dismiss that or pretend that it doesn't mean anything.  The Mary of Catholic theology is not the Mary of the Bible.

This is not a problem for Catholics, and although I disagree with you, I can also say that the Catholic faith is not " bible based". All of Catholic teaching comes from Jesus, and was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. The NT reflects the Catholic faith, but is not the Source of it.

Plain and simple.

It seems that maybe you are the one who is missing out on some history.

Mary restored happiness to us? That’s blasphemous. Jesus Christ alone is our joy and our happiness. You come up with your mother and your queen on your own. Scripture doesn’t tell us that. Pretty dangerous attributes you are throwing around.

Jesus is never “alone”. In fact, He chose to include very many of His people in the miracle of His salvation, starting with the beginning of creation. All of the prophets who longed to see Him, John the Baptist, etc. etc. Mary’s obedience to God does bring us happiness.

Scripture does tell us that She is the Queen Mother, because He is the King, and she is his mother. Simple.

 

[guanophore]

You are falsely accusing me. I never said anything contemptuous about Mary. I said that Mary is being held to a false level of divinity in the Catholic church.

You are pandering lies against those who follow the commandments of her Son. How is that not disrespecful to her?
What mother does not take it personally when lies are told about her Son, and His friends?

That isn’t insulting to Mary and in fact, it is respectful to Mary because it is the truth. Your methods of trying to paint someone who will not raise Mary to a level of diety as being insulting to her is really getting old and worn out.

Well, you are the one trying to “paint” her as a diety, not the Catholic Church. Why would you do that?

Are there not enough truths about Catholicism for you to pick at, that you have to invent non-Catholic notions, then accuse us of holding them?

 

[SIA]

You are pandering lies against those who follow the commandments of her Son. How is that not disrespecful to her?
What mother does not take it personally when lies are told about her Son, and His friends?

Well, you are the one trying to “paint” her as a diety, not the Catholic Church. Why would you do that?

Are there not enough truths about Catholicism for you to pick at, that you have to invent non-Catholic notions, then accuse us of holding them?

You obviosly love to rant and carry on instead of simply putting your money where your mouth is. Prove what you are saying to be true. That’s all I ask. Show me all of these truths that are not contained in Scripture as Catholic teaching has it. Show me where Mary is all of what Catholicism says that she is. One thing is for sure, you can’t use a Bible to do it.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

You obviosly love to rant and carry on instead of simply putting your money where your mouth is. Prove what you are saying to be true. That’s all I ask. Show me all of these truths that are not contained in Scripture as Catholic teaching has it. Show me where Mary is all of what Catholicism says that she is. One thing is for sure, you can’t use a Bible to do it.

Er…Because she is the Mother Of The Most High, namely Jesus Christ??
"ALL GENERATIONS WILL CALL ME BLESS-ED"

 

[guanophore]

Prove what you are saying to be true.  That's all I ask.  Show me all of these truths that are not contained in Scripture as Catholic teaching has it.  Show me where Mary is all of what Catholicism says that she is.  One thing is for sure, you can't use a Bible to do it.

This demand does not make any sense. You seem to be asking me to show you all these truths that are not contained in scripture, then you say I can’t use scripture.

I agree, I cannot “prove” matters of faith. I cannot “prove” most of the elements of my faith. I can’t prove to you that there was a person named Jesus, that He died for our sins and rose again. I cannot “prove” that by grace we are saved through faith, and that He sets His seal in our hearts. I cannot prove that Mary is all that Catholicism says she is. This is one reason they are called “articles of faith”, instead of “articles of proof”.

 

[mpernot]

Show me all of these truths that are not contained in Scripture as Catholic teaching has it. Show me where Mary is all of what Catholicism says that she is. One thing is for sure, you can’t use a Bible to do it.

First of all, to answer your challenge, all you have to do is pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church and look up our Blessed Mother. This book speaks for the Catholic Church more authentically than any of us laity can.

Having said that, show me where the Bible says that everything we as Christians need to know about our faith must come only from Sacred Scripture. If this is what you believe, you ought to be able to find a verse from Scripture that backs this up. Can you do this?

If you can, then I will agree that the Catholic view of Mary is counter to Scripture simply because not all Catholic beliefs about Mary are explicitly mentioned in Scripture. I think this is what you’re getting at.

If you can’t, then I will maintain to you that the Catholic teachings on Mary are not counter to Scripture simply because they aren’t explicitly mentioned. You then will have to acknowledge (even if it is only to yourself) that even those who believe that everything we need to know as Christians must come from the Bible don’t actually believe that every single thing we need to know must come from the Bible. After all, if the Bible doesn’t explicitly call out the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, it must have come from somewhere else…

 

[guanophore]

You obviosly love to rant and carry on instead of simply putting your money where your mouth is.

It is not about money, but about honor. The commandments tell us to honor our father and our mother. Jesus honors His mother, and we follow His example.

Prove what you are saying to be true. That’s all I ask.

I cannot “prove” articles of faith to you. That is why they are called articles of faith, not articles of “proofs”. What we know about God comes through His revelation of Himself. It is not always subject to scientific “proofs”. I cannot “prove” that Jesus was fully man, and fully God in One Person, either, but I believe it because this is the teaching handed down to us from the Apostles. Likewise, He is the Son of David, a King. As such, his Mother is the Queen Mother. I think it is not possible to understand the meaning of this without familiarity of the role of the Queen Mother in the Davidic Kingdom.

Show me all of these truths that are not contained in Scripture as Catholic teaching has it. Show me where Mary is all of what Catholicism says that she is. One thing is for sure, you can’t use a Bible to do it.

I think this will not be possible, SIA. You deny that the evidence exists, or that it is valid. You are limited in your apprehension of the Truth by the doctrine of SS. The Catholic faith does not emanate from Scripture, but from Jesus, through the Apostles. The faith was whole and entire before a word of the NT existed. If you do not belive that this faith still exists in the Church by the guardianship of the HS, then you will not be able to “see” the Kingdom.

 

[Ruthie]

Here are some Biblical reasons for giving Mary high status. (No, she is not a god, and we do not give her what only God can receive.) Only the last one is direct proof, but you probably do not interpret it the same way we do.

I assume there is no need to convince you of Jesus being the son of David, and King of the Jews.

Beginning with David, and continuing through Kings and Chronicles, the Queen was the mother of the King, not one of his wives or concubines.

“So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. 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.” 1 Kings 2:19 (RSV)

Solomon’s mother is seated at his right hand – the position of honor and power. (Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father.)

“And also Maachah his mother, even her [Asa the king] removed from being queen, because…” 1 Kings 15:13 (KJV) Also see 2 Chron 15:16.

“So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign… His mother’s name was Athaliah… He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, for his mother was his counselor in doing wickedly.” 2 Chron 22:1-3 (RSV) Emphasis mine.

Lists of Kings of the Tribes, all containing the mention “his mother’s name was…”

1 Kings 11:26, 14:21, 22:42
2 Kings 8:26, 12:1, 14:2, 15:2, 15:33, 18:2, 21:1, 21:19, 22:1, 23:31, 23:36, 24:8, 24:18
2 Chron 12:13, 13:2, 20:31, 24:1, 25:1, 26:3, 27:1, 29:1
Jer 52:1

So you can see that in Davidic tradition, the “ruling” Queen was always the King’s mother.

There is no mention of Mary as Queen in the New Testament, except in Rev. 12:1. “…a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars…"

Mary, being sinless, would also be perfectly humble. That’s why we see so little of her in the Gospels and Acts.

Wishing I was perfectly humble,

Ruthie

 

[SIA]

It is not about money, but about honor. The commandments tell us to honor our father and our mother. Jesus honors His mother, and we follow His example.

I cannot “prove” articles of faith to you. That is why they are called articles of faith, not articles of “proofs”. What we know about God comes through His revelation of Himself. It is not always subject to scientific “proofs”. I cannot “prove” that Jesus was fully man, and fully God in One Person, either, but I believe it because this is the teaching handed down to us from the Apostles. Likewise, He is the Son of David, a King. As such, his Mother is the Queen Mother. I think it is not possible to understand the meaning of this without familiarity of the role of the Queen Mother in the Davidic Kingdom.

I think this will not be possible, SIA. You deny that the evidence exists, or that it is valid. You are limited in your apprehension of the Truth by the doctrine of SS. The Catholic faith does not emanate from Scripture, but from Jesus, through the Apostles. The faith was whole and entire before a word of the NT existed. If you do not belive that this faith still exists in the Church by the guardianship of the HS, then you will not be able to “see” the Kingdom.

You are totally missing it and I think that is creatively by design. My whole premise here is that Catholicism makes claims of truth that are not just absent from Scripture, but also contrary to Scripture. My request was simple. Prove all of these so called Truths that cannot be found in Scripture. The Marian doctrines, the papacy etc. Dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were admitted by a Catholic priest at one time to be called truths by the RCC not by Scripture. I’m simply asking you how you can prove these things to be true.

 

[SIA]

I cannot “prove” articles of faith to you. That is why they are called articles of faith, not articles of “proofs”.

That sounds very removed to me. I never once thought like this even when I was Catholic.

 

[SIA]

First of all, to answer your challenge, all you have to do is pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church and look up our Blessed Mother. This book speaks for the Catholic Church more authentically than any of us laity can. **Problem: The Bible is the inherant Word of God. The Catechism of the Catholic church isn’t. **

Having said that, show me where the Bible says that everything we as Christians need to know about our faith must come only from Sacred Scripture. If this is what you believe, you ought to be able to find a verse from Scripture that backs this up. Can you do this? **I don’t believe everything that is truth is contained in Scripture, but I do believe that everything in the Bible is truth. Think about that. **

If you can, then I will agree that the Catholic view of Mary is counter to Scripture simply because not all Catholic beliefs about Mary are explicitly mentioned in Scripture. I think this is what you’re getting at.

If you can’t, then I will maintain to you that the Catholic teachings on Mary are not counter to Scripture simply because they aren’t explicitly mentioned. You then will have to acknowledge (even if it is only to yourself) that even those who believe that everything we need to know as Christians must come from the Bible don’t actually believe that every single thing we need to know must come from the Bible. After all, if the Bible doesn’t explicitly call out the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, it must have come from somewhere else…

The writings of the Bible are authored by St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, Jesus Christ, etc. etc. Why would anything they believed to be truth be so far removed from what was recorded in their writings? This is kind of getting at the root of the problem with Catholicism.

 

[AshleyBelle]

You are totally missing it and I think that is creatively by design. My whole premise here is that Catholicism makes claims of truth that are not just absent from Scripture, but also contrary to Scripture. My request was simple. Prove all of these so called Truths that cannot be found in Scripture. The Marian doctrines, the papacy etc. Dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were admitted by a Catholic priest at one time to be called truths by the RCC not by Scripture. I’m simply asking you how you can prove these things to be true.

Care to elaborate on what teaching of the church is actually “contrary” to scripture?

 

[AshleyBelle]

The writings of the Bible are authored by St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, Jesus Christ, etc. etc. Why would anything they believed to be truth be so far removed from what was recorded in their writings? This is kind of getting at the root of the problem with Catholicism.

Again, I challenge you to show how anything the church teaches is “so far removed” and “contrary” to scripture.

You’re also forgetting, that it was the church which God used to determine that the books in our Bible were in fact authored by Paul, Peter, James etc… The book of Mark couldn’t even be traced to Mark as the author, and so it was the tradition of the church which determined it’s authenticity.

So… can you provide an example of a teaching that is “contrary” to scripture? It has been my experience that every teaching of the church is supported by scripture, or somehow may be USED to support scripture… If there’s a teaching that actually goes against the holy word of God, then I guess I have a problem, don’t I?

 

[SIA]

This demand does not make any sense. You seem to be asking me to show you all these truths that are not contained in scripture, then you say I can’t use scripture.

I agree, I cannot “prove” matters of faith. I cannot “prove” most of the elements of my faith. I can’t prove to you that there was a person named Jesus, that He died for our sins and rose again. I cannot “prove” that by grace we are saved through faith, and that He sets His seal in our hearts. I cannot prove that Mary is all that Catholicism says she is. This is one reason they are called “articles of faith”, instead of “articles of proof”.

You are misunderstanding me. I am challenging you to use Scripture to prove Mary’s Assumption into Heaven body and spirit and all of the other dogmas that cannot be shown in Scripture. I am asking you to prove that these are true.

 

[SIA]

Again, I challenge you to show how anything the church teaches is “so far removed” and “contrary” to scripture.

You’re also forgetting, that it was the church which God used to determine that the books in our Bible were in fact authored by Paul, Peter, James etc… The book of Mark couldn’t even be traced to Mark as the author, and so it was the tradition of the church which determined it’s authenticity.

So… can you provide an example of a teaching that is “contrary” to scripture? It has been my experience that every teaching of the church is supported by scripture, or somehow may be USED to support scripture… If there’s a teaching that actually goes against the holy word of God, then I guess I have a problem, don’t I?

This is completely not true. I gave many examples of things contrary to Scripture with no sound rebuttals. How is it that you say Paul and James and the such are Roman Catholic? Can you prove that? The early Church was not the Roman Catholic church. If it were, Paul would have expounded in his writings when he was in Rome around 25AD that Peter was Pope of Rome and that he was persecuted and martyed for the Roman Church. Fact: He didn’t! The Scriptures are totally silent on this supposed fact. You cannot convince me that it is not abjectly bizarre that this would not be in any of Paul’s letter.

 

[AshleyBelle]

This is completely not true. I gave many examples of things contrary to Scripture with no sound rebuttals. How is it that you say Paul and James and the such are Roman Catholic? Can you prove that? The early Church was not the Roman Catholic church. If it were, Paul would have expounded in his writings when he was in Rome around 25AD that Peter was Pope of Rome and that he was persecuted and martyed for the Roman Church. Fact: He didn’t! The Scriptures are totally silent on this supposed fact. You cannot convince me that it is not abjectly bizarre that this would not be in any of Paul’s letter.

I am simply asking for an example of a church teaching that is, as you say, “contrary to scripture.”

 

[SIA]

I am simply asking for an example of a church teaching that is, as you say, “contrary to scripture.”

Mary as co-Redemptrix with Christ.

Mary as co-Mediatrix with Christ.

Mary as perpetually virgin.

Mary remaining without sin for her entire earthly life.

Each can be Clearly refuted by using Scripture.

 

[AshleyBelle]

Mary as co-Redemptrix with Christ.

Mary as co-Mediatrix with Christ.

Mary as perpetually virgin.

Mary remaining without sin for her entire earthly life.

Each can be Clearly refuted by using Scripture.

Each is clearly, supported by scripture

Each is meant to affirm the person of Jesus Christ. In a deeper understanding of Mary, we come to a more full understanding of the two part nature of Christ and His work of salvation.

These are examples of teachings that are held in order to SUPPORT scriptures, and to help us understand the word of God, which is Christ Himself.

Please explain how these ideas are contrary to scripture, because I am not seeing it.