Mary as having authority as the "Queen Mother"?

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t agree. The originators of the Gospels knew very well how to distinguish between brothers, sisters and other kin. They did so in many other parts of Scripture.

That’s because they were there, and you were not. So when they indicated brother or sister, they knew which were blood related and which were from the same tribe not blood related. The only one that gives us the truth of these, are the apostles and from their Traditions they handed down to their successors in the Catholic church. Other than that, you yourself have no way of knowing by what relation scripture is speaking, except to protest Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture handed down through the Catholic church.

 

[SIA]

The only one that gives us the truth of these, are the apostles and from their Traditions they handed down to their successors in the Catholic church

Can you prove that to me from Scripture?

 

[guanophore]

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.

No, I just disagree with you. I don’t see that anything taught by the Apostles contradicts anything that is written in the scripture. I don’t see how it can be, since it all comes from the same Source. The NT is comprised of what the Church believed and taught, it reflects the single deposit of faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints. They did not write things there that were not being taught.

My request was simple.  Prove all of these so called Truths that cannot be found in Scripture.  The Marian doctrines, the papacy etc.

I understand your request. I am saying that it is not possible to “prove” articles of faith. They are not derived from science, where proofs originate, but from Divine Revelation. I cannot even “prove” to you that there is a God! You are asking me to do something that is not possible.

 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.

The Dogmas are declarations of faith. There are many dogmas of th eChurch that are not found in scripture, one of them being the table of contents of Scripture. This comes from a Source outside the Bible, as does the word Trinity, the custom of celebrating the Lord’s Day on Sunday, the hypostatic union, and many other foundations of the Christian faith. You accept that you NT is an accurage dogma, yet you reject other dogmas that came from the same source. If you cannot trust the source, then you have no basis for believing that the NT is accurate or authoritative either.

You accept the NT by faith, not by “proof”.

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

Are you saying that you never have understood the difference between a Source of knowlege acquired through Divine Revelation, and the source of knowledge acquired through science?

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.

I agree with you completely. I don’t think there is anything recorded in writing that is in any way “removed” from the truth that they taught.

However, I think the root of the problem is not in Catholicism, but in your lack of understanding of it, and of the Scripture that was produced by Catholics.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Can you prove that to me from Scripture?

Sure where should I begin from the Old testament prophecies? or the fulfillment in the Gospels? or from Acts, and the Epistles?

How about a quick summary? Jesus was the only begotten Son of God. Does that suffice you?

Funnny how you want a 2000 year old Catholic bible study, but you are not able to prove your own private interpretation of Jesus tribal relatives between family blood relatives. As if you started your own bible traditional belief’s without being present in the first century, now that is not in the bible.

 

[SIA]

No, I just disagree with you. I don’t see that anything taught by the Apostles contradicts anything that is written in the scripture. I don’t see how it can be, since it all comes from the same Source. The NT is comprised of what the Church believed and taught, it reflects the single deposit of faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints. They did not write things there that were not being taught. But your church practices and teaches things that were not taught and also things that are contrary to the Gospels and Epistles. That’s the point.

I understand your request. I am saying that it is not possible to “prove” articles of faith. They are not derived from science, where proofs originate, but from Divine Revelation. I cannot even “prove” to you that there is a God! You are asking me to do something that is not possible.

The Dogmas are declarations of faith. There are many dogmas of th eChurch that are not found in scripture, one of them being the table of contents of Scripture. This comes from a Source outside the Bible, as does the word Trinity, the custom of celebrating the Lord’s Day on Sunday, the hypostatic union, and many other foundations of the Christian faith. You accept that you NT is an accurage dogma, yet you reject other dogmas that came from the same source. If you cannot trust the source, then you have no basis for believing that the NT is accurate or authoritative either.

You accept the NT by faith, not by “proof”.The source is Christ. He is the crystal fountain of faith. He alone is the way the truth and the life. He is the author and finisher of life. He gave Peter the leadership role in his Church. He didn’t give the power to man to invent truth.

Are you saying that you never have understood the difference between a Source of knowlege acquired through Divine Revelation, and the source of knowledge acquired through science?

 

[guanophore]

Can you prove that to me from Scripture?

No. Scripture was never intended to be used as “proof” of the doctrines of the faith. Our faith is based upon Jesus Christ, the fullness of God’s revelation to man.

However, were I to attempt to demonstrate anything to you by using the Scripture, we would first have to agree on just what
“Scripture” is. You would have to “prove” that the 27 books you know of as the “new testatment” are authoritative,and why they have any more merit than the Didache, or the Epistle of Barnabas.

 

[guanophore]

But your church practices and teaches things that were not taught and also things that are contrary to the Gospels and Epistles. That’s the point.

I know it seems that way to you. I think it cannot appear otherwise. Those who have rejected the Apostolic Succession are generally limited to the small amount of Truth they can glean from their own on the Scriptures. Such a state also leaves on interpreting scriptures without the mindset of those who wrote them, further sundering them from what the Apostles actually believed and taught.

The source is Christ. He is the crystal fountain of faith. He alone is the way the truth and the life. He is the author and finisher of life. He gave Peter the leadership role in his Church. He didn’t give the power to man to invent truth.

I am glad we are in agreement on these points.

 

[mpernot]

I don’t agree. The originators of the Gospels knew very well how to distinguish between brothers, sisters and other kin. They did so in many other parts of Scripture.

I respectfully say that this is simply not true. A very interesting and worthwhile point is that there were not words in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic for close family relationships such as uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, or cousin. The words used to describe all these relationships, in the absence of those terms, were brother and sister. A Scriptural example of this can be found in Genesis:

Gen 14:14 - “Which when Abram had heard, to wit, that his* brother Lot *was taken…”

Lot is described as Abram’s brother here. Contrast with Gen 11:27:

Gen 11:27 - “And these are the generations of Thare: Thare begot Abram, Nachor, and Aran. And Aran begot Lot.”

The geneology clearly shows that Lot is Abram’s nephew, as we would call that relationship today. The word “nephew” didn’t exist back then, so the writer used the word “brother” to describe this relationship.

Skip ahead to the new testament in Mark:

Mar 6:3 - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us?”

In light of that language restriction just pointed out, this use of the words “brother” and “sister” doesn’t definitively prove that Mary gave birth to any other children to literally and bilogically give Jesus brothers and sisters. In fact, it seems reaonable that Mary the mother of James and Joseph is not the same Mary as Mary the mother of Jesus when the following is considered:

Mark 15:40 - “And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph…”

We know that these women are not Jesus’ mother because Scripture is very clear about Mary the mother of Jesus being right at the foot of the cross:

John 19:25-27 - “Now there **stood by the cross **of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.”

In addition, consider that Jewish custom at the time was that care of the mother after the father’s death would go to the sons; first the oldest, and then the others. I believe St. Joseph had passed on by this time. So, if you believe that Jesus had biological brothers and sisters, you also believe that one of His last actions before He died was to severely offend His surviving brothers by entrusting care of their mother to St. John. It would have been a huge slap in the face to them for this happen. After that tremendous display of love and sacrifice He showed for all humanity on the cross, do you really think that he would choose to offend His surviving family members? It doesn’t make sense if Mary the mother of Jesus had any other children.

The likely explanation is that the James and Joseph described in the verses cited were born of another Mary aside from Jesus’ mother and were His cousins. As shown above, Scripture does not clearly prove that Mary *did not *remain a perpetual virgin when interpreted in context. It also does not prove that Mary did remain a perpetual virgin, but then again, we agree that doctrine is not counter to Scripture simply because it is absent from Scripture (remember, we agree that there can be truth outside of Scripture).

And so I say again, just as countless others have here, nothing in the Catholic faith (including Marian beliefs) is counter to Scripture. You have to be open to the fact that your interpretation of Scripture may be flawed, just as I do (unless I’m in agreement with an infallible interpretation, that is ) If I were you, I’d stop attacking Mary and concentrate on apostolic succession - that’s what it really comes down to, no matter what side you’re on.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t agree. The originators of the Gospels knew very well how to distinguish between brothers, sisters and other kin. They did so in many other parts of Scripture.

In addition to what mpernot has skillfully shown, one must be mindful that the Hebrews were a tribal people. Just as tribes do today, there are strict mores about marriage and kinship. All relatives too close to marry are called brother and sister. This applies to many near kin of which there were no specific Hebrew words, such as cousin, uncle, aunt, etc. It was required to marry outside of one’s tribe (close blood relatives).

 

[SIA]

In addition to what mpernot has skillfully shown, one must be mindful that the Hebrews were a tribal people. Just as tribes do today, there are strict mores about marriage and kinship. All relatives too close to marry are called brother and sister. This applies to many near kin of which there were no specific Hebrew words, such as cousin, uncle, aunt, etc. It was required to marry outside of one’s tribe (close blood relatives).

You’ve proven nothing except to twist and try to form what simply isn’t there. Scriptures clearly shows but yet you people refute and refuse it for what you try to pass off as succession to the Apostles. Please!

 

[guanophore]

You’ve proven nothing except to twist and try to form what simply isn’t there.

It is there, SIA. There are strict prohibitions in the OT about marriage between near relatives, and the custom of referring to those within this blood circle as “brothers and sisters”. I do not understand why it is so important to insist that Mary had other children. Is it because it is part of the “debunking” of the Catholic Church?

Scriptures clearly shows but yet you people refute and refuse it for what you try to pass off as succession to the Apostles. Please!

We understand what the Scriptures mean because we read them in the light of the faith of those who produced them. Yes, this has been preserved through the Apostolic Succession. Why is it so hard to beleive that God is able to preserve His word in this way?

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.” 1 Cor 11:2

We have followed the Apostolic instructions, and maintained the traditions, just as they were handed on. One of these is that Jesus was the only child of Mary.

 

[ncgolf]

You’ve proven nothing except to twist and try to form what simply isn’t there. Scriptures clearly shows but yet you people refute and refuse it for what you try to pass off as succession to the Apostles. Please!

I love being a part of the group known as “you people” … it shows we have to be on the right track.

If anyone reads and interprets Scripture then you are making a claim to being authorative on the subject matter, your knowledge must be more reliable than the one you are debating. Remember this is not opinion. No one is asking your opinion but when you say Mary is not Queen Mother … you are making a statement of fact. The Catholic position of Scripture + Apostolic Succession gives at least a semblence of legitimate authority. If you claim the methods and results of Catholic interpretation of what the authors intended in Scripture are wrong … then give us a reason why you are more correct … why you do not make opinions but statements of fact. A claim to knowing what God wants us to understand from Scripture is not to be taken lightly … you have to be absolutely confident in your results … you really cannot be afford to be wrong. If you are even incorrect on one interpretation then you really cannot be trusted.

It is logicial if the son is the King of Kings then His mother is just no ordinary mother … she is at minimum a Queen. It is not Mary’s authority or status or state that we see but Jesus’s glory and honor reflected in Mary. Mary is nothing without Jesus, Mary is a created creature but created without sin and whose child happens to be God himself … that alone exalts her above any of God’s other earthly created creatures.

The silly part is we probably cannot see an iota of her glory … and if we cannot see that then how less we really perceive Jesus’s glory.

 

[ron77nyc]

Catholicism does not teach the worship of the Blessed Mother but people can’t stop doing it. Latin American and Italian Catholics still do it today.

ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/COLLYRID.TXT
Most of the early heresies were Trinitarian and Christological in nature, but Collyridianism stood alone as a heresy that sought to deify the Blessed Virgin Mary. Little is known about the movement’s theology. Not even the names of the group’s leaders are mentioned by writers of the time. This sect’s excessive Marian devotion developed into the idolatry of Mary worship. This aberration grew out of the Church’s rightful veneration of Mary as ever-virgin, Mother of God, and powerful heavenly intercessor, but crossed the line of orthodoxy when certain Christians began to worship Mary as divine.

It was idol worship in the Old Testament. Do you see any similarities?

usccb.org/nab/bible/jeremiah/jeremiah7.htm
Jeremiah 7:17 Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah, in the streets of Jerusalem?
18 4 The children gather wood, their fathers light the fire, and the women knead dough to make cakes for the queen of heaven, while libations are poured out to strange gods in order to hurt me.
19 Is it I whom they hurt, says the LORD; is it not rather themselves, to their own confusion?

**Footnotes **
4 [18] Queen of heaven: the Assyro-Babylonian Ishtar, goddess of fertility, whose worship was introduced under King Manasseh and was revived after Josiah’s death. Cakes shaped like stars (Ishtar was identified with the planet Venus) were offered in her honor.

 

[guanophore]

Catholicism does not teach the worship of the Blessed Mother but people can’t stop doing it. Latin American and Italian Catholics still do it today.

Let us be clear, such persons are not Catholic, which forbids such behavior as a violation of the first commandment. They may call themselves Catholic, but that does not make it so. They are Pagans.

It was idol worship in the Old Testament. Do you see any similarities?

Of course!

usccb.org/nab/bible/jeremiah/jeremiah7.htm
Jeremiah 7:17 Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah, in the streets of Jerusalem?
18 4 The children gather wood, their fathers light the fire, and the women knead dough to make cakes for the queen of heaven, while libations are poured out to strange gods in order to hurt me.
19 Is it I whom they hurt, says the LORD; is it not rather themselves, to their own confusion?

**Footnotes **
4 [18] Queen of heaven: the Assyro-Babylonian Ishtar, goddess of fertility, whose worship was introduced under King Manasseh and was revived after Josiah’s death. Cakes shaped like stars (Ishtar was identified with the planet Venus) were offered in her honor.

Mary is not a goddess. Furthermore, the existence of a counterfiet Queen of Heaven does not nullify the real one. There were many false Messiah’s too, but none of them discount the Real One.

 

[ron77nyc]

Let us be clear, such persons are not Catholic, which forbids such behavior as a violation of the first commandment. They may call themselves Catholic, but that does not make it so. They are Pagans.

Maybe they are not all pagans. There is very little difference between the meanings of worship, revere, venerate and adore.

worship 1 : to honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power 2 : to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion intransitive verb : to perform or take part in worship or an act of worship

synonyms see reveresynonyms revere , reverence , venerate , worship , adore mean to honor and admire profoundly and respectfully. revere stresses deference and tenderness of feeling . reverence presupposes an intrinsic merit and inviolability in the one honored and a similar depth of feeling in the one honoring <reverenced the academy’s code of honor>. venerate implies a holding as holy or sacrosanct because of character, association, or age . worship implies homage usually expressed in words or ceremony . **adore **implies love and stresses the notion of an individual and personal attachment .

 

[mpernot]

You’ve proven nothing except to twist and try to form what simply isn’t there. Scriptures clearly shows but yet you people refute and refuse it for what you try to pass off as succession to the Apostles. Please!

This is a pretty vague and unsupported statement. If by “what simply isn’t there” you mean Marian doctrines, no one ever said that all of them were in Scripture. But I just showed you, using Scripture and without too much effort, that three of the four doctrines you had issues with in post 79 are not counter to Scripture. The fact that they aren’t there doesn’t make those doctrines counter to Scripture; remember what you said in post 73:

“I don’t believe everything that is truth is contained in Scripture, but I do believe that everything in the Bible is truth.”

If your quote took issue with the explanation of familial relationships given in ancient Hebrew, go find a friend that knows ancient Hebrew and/or look it up for yourself. Consider the totality of truth (written and unwritten), not just a few verses taken out of context. Really mean that “everything” part of what you said in post 73.

As for your dig on apostolic authority, sorry if you don’t see it but that’s how it is. You really have two main choices regarding organized religion in this life: follow the Church that Jesus Christ established with His authority to worship Him, or follow another church that someone else established of their own authority in order to worship Jesus. I know which one I want, and I think you do too. Everyone searching for Jesus should feel the same way; it’s not about trading accusations over the internet, it’s about searching for truth.

Also, I’m starting to think you don’t actually want a real dialog but rather an outlet to make accusations without having to support them. All the Scripture myself and others have cited, and I haven’t seen you produce any Scriptural examples of how certain Marian doctrines are counter to Scripture. You keep claiming this without proof. In fact, I had to infer what Scriptures you might use in your arguments in order to disprove your claims! These doctrines “clearly” being counter to Scripture must be a subjective thing, because it’s certainly not clear to me.

 

[mpernot]

Catholicism does not teach the worship of the Blessed Mother but people can’t stop doing it. Latin American and Italian Catholics still do it today.

Individuals’ sins do not condemn Church teaching. This should be all the more apparent considering that the Catholic Church made the effort to condemn the movements cited as heresies. People have free will, they can make the choice to turn their backs on truth or follow it.

It was idol worship in the Old Testament. Do you see any similarities?

Yes… they have the same name. Other than that, they are completely unconnected. Are you implying that Catholics using the term “Queen of Heaven” to describe our Blessed Mother is worship simply because idolators used the same name for their false goddess? This logic is even thinner than razor thin. If that’s true, we as Christians should find another name for God because the word “God” was used by idolators in the Old Testament to describe their gods. Does this really make sense?

It makes even less sense when one understands Mary’s title of “Queen of Heaven”, which unexpectedly gets us back on topic with the OP’s initial question. It has to do completely with her relationship as Queen Mother to Jesus, the King of Kings, and the power He allows her. Everything about Mary sends people to her Son, not herself.

 

[ron77nyc]

Everything about Mary sends people to her Son, not herself.

Do you find anything in these quotes that would mislead people?

“Whoever bears the mark of devotion to Mary, God recognizes as His own.”- Saint Alphonsus Liguori. (1696 - 1787)

“Do you know the surest way to learn the will of God ? It is the way of prayer to our good Mother Mary !” - Saint John Vianney (1786 - 1859)

“Some people are foolish enough to believe that they can get through their whole life without any help from the Blessed Virgin Mary.” - Saint Padre Pio (1887 - 1968)

" If you want to grow in perfection, you cannot advance by yourselves - you need a guide. Hence, when you go to God, go through Mary and with Mary !" - Saint Maximilian Kolbe (1894 -
1941)

"My Immaculate Heart shall be your refuge and the road that shall lead you to God " - Our Lady of Fatima, 1917

We must unite ourselves to Jesus through Mary - this is the characteristic of our devotion; therefore, Saint Louis De Montfort asks that we employ ourselves in acquiring a knowledge of the Blessed Virgin.

 

[guanophore]

Maybe they are not all pagans. There is very little difference between the meanings of worship, revere, venerate and adore.

There is for Catholics. For Catholics, to worship and adore anyone or anything other than the Holy God is idolatry. Therefore, those who do such things are not Catholic.

worship 1 : to honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power 2 : to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion intransitive verb : to perform or take part in worship or an act of worship

synonyms see reveresynonyms revere , reverence , venerate , worship , adore mean to honor and admire profoundly and respectfully. revere stresses deference and tenderness of feeling . reverence presupposes an intrinsic merit and inviolability in the one honored and a similar depth of feeling in the one honoring <reverenced the academy’s code of honor>. venerate implies a holding as holy or sacrosanct because of character, association, or age . worship implies homage usually expressed in words or ceremony . **adore **implies love and stresses the notion of an individual and personal attachment .

I am not sure what you are using for your source of definitions, but it is not a theological source. Catholics use terms defined by the Magesterium. We do not succumb to the modern viscissitudes of language to define our faith practice. If you wish to understand or dialogue with Catholics about Catholic practice, then I urge you to use Catholic definitions for the terms, rather than those from the modern American dictionary, which will not likely reflect the meaning ofthe theological terms very well. At least find fault with what is really taught, rather than a misunderstanding of what is taught.

 

[guanophore]

Do you find anything in these quotes that would mislead people?

“Whoever bears the mark of devotion to Mary, God recognizes as His own.”- Saint Alphonsus Liguori. (1696 - 1787)

“Do you know the surest way to learn the will of God ? It is the way of prayer to our good Mother Mary !” - Saint John Vianney (1786 - 1859)

“Some people are foolish enough to believe that they can get through their whole life without any help from the Blessed Virgin Mary.” - Saint Padre Pio (1887 - 1968)

" If you want to grow in perfection, you cannot advance by yourselves - you need a guide. Hence, when you go to God, go through Mary and with Mary !" - Saint Maximilian Kolbe (1894 -
1941)

"My Immaculate Heart shall be your refuge and the road that shall lead you to God " - Our Lady of Fatima, 1917

We must unite ourselves to Jesus through Mary - this is the characteristic of our devotion; therefore, Saint Louis De Montfort asks that we employ ourselves in acquiring a knowledge of the Blessed Virgin.

No. Do you? Do you imagine that the handmaid of the Lord will mislead people? Do you think she points to anyone but her own Divine Son?