Mary, Queen of Heaven?

[apophasis]

Zooey:

am going to resist the temptation to reference a specific person’s posts, out of the need to hold my not-inconsiderable Celtic temper.

Why do you give Celtics a bad name?. That’s not fair. Your temper is your own doing.

However, simply as a general observation, let me say this:
I never fail to be amazed & shocked at the antics of some of the non-Catholic Christians in this world. After a lifetime of seeing/hearing the same, it is my considered opinion that, if the Catholic Church were to announce that Mary is NOT the Queen of Heaven sometime in the night, that a largenumber of said non-Catholic Christians would be here at CAF the first thing tomorrow morning–to declare & prove that, by jove, she is so the Queen of Heaven, & that all Catholic Christians are going straight to perdition if they don’t up & give the title back to her again.

Actually, if all Catholicism, Western and Eastern, and some Protestantism, discarded all its nonbiblical Marian doctrines, this would be our response: :clapping: with, BRAVO! BRAVO!

 

[dcdurel]

But instead the woman continually remains on earth and is afterward pursued and persecuted by the dragon - both she and her “offspring” (a reference to Israel at the end of the age, just prior to the Christ’s return to this present earth, Matt. 24:3ff).

There are so many errors that I cannot answer them all at once.

Lets do one at a time, using a protestant bible, the NIV.
No where does the bible say the woman continually remains on earth. If that were so, then Mary would be the oldest living person on earth, and nearly 2000 years old. She is already shown to be in heaven, with a crown of 12 stars, the moon under her feet, etc.
Lets read the passage, " 1 A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head."
Notice, the woman is IN HEAVEN.

There are three persons in this vision, the Woman, who gave birth to Jesus, Jesus and the devil. While it is true that the woman could be seen as Israel or the Church, these are only secondary to the primary meaning that the woman is Mary.

1. Because no where in the bible is a nation personified, thus the woman must be seen primarily as Mary, if we are to follow the biblical pattern.
   In the vision, Jesus and the devil are persons. Thus, to follow the pattern, the woman must be seen primarily as a person also, and not as a collection of people, such as the Church.
2. The woman gave birth to Jesus and opposed the devil. Thus, in the primary sense the woman must be Mary, for Israel did not give birth to Jesus (nations do not give birth to persons, persons are born from people in nations) and second, Israel opposed Jesus, and killed Him and all the prophets before Him ( this is death, the opposite of giving birth). Thus, the woman cannot be Israel. The woman cannot be seen primarily as the Church, because in the vision the woman gave birth to Jesus. The Church did not give birth to Jesus, but Jesus gave birth to the Church in a figurative sense. Thus, I repeat, in the primary sense the woman must be Mary.

 

[marlo]

She is the queen of heaven and she is the highest creation of GOD.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_11101954_ad-caeli-reginam_en.html

AD CAELI REGINAM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
ON PROCLAIMING THE QUEENSHIP OF MARY
TO THE VENERABLE BRETHREN, THE PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY SEE

Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Blessing.
From the earliest ages of the catholic church a Christian people, whether in time of triumph or more especially in time of crisis, has addressed prayers of petition and hymns of praise and veneration to the Queen of Heaven. And never has that hope wavered which they placed in the Mother of the Divine King, Jesus Christ; nor has that faith ever failed by which we are taught that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, reigns with a mother’s solicitude over the entire world, just as she is crowned in heavenly blessedness with the glory of a Queen.

The Regina Cœli (Queen of Heaven) is an anthem of the Roman Catholic Church which replaces the Angelus at Eastertide (from Holy Saturday until the Saturday after Pentecost); it is named for its opening words in Latin:
Regina coeli laetare, alleluia,
Quia quem meruisti portare, alleluia,
Resurrexit sicut dixit, alleluia.
Ora pro nobis Deum, alleluia.
Queen of Heaven rejoice, alleluia;
For the Son thou wast privileged to bear, alleluia;
Is risen as He said,alleluia:
Pray for us to God, alleluia.

I am having trouble finding the answer to this. Do we Catholics call Mary the Queen of Heaven? People of other denominations say she is a pagan goddess? and that the Queen of Heaven is a devil. What’s the truth?

 

[dcdurel]

1. The offspring of the woman, who is Mary, are referred to those who “keep the commandments”, (present tense, today) not only those who will keep the commandments and who “hold to the testimony of Jesus”. Israel, as a nation, was known for NOT keeping the commandments and for rejecting Jesus, killing Him and the prophets. Thus, her offspring are those today, who keep the commandments and “hold the testimony of Jesus”. Thus, Mary is the mother of all believers who obey the commandments and “hold the testimony of Jesus”
   That is one reason we call Mary our mother.

We could go on and on about your errors, but I don’t have the time right now.

Did you notice that you proceed with the assumption that all protestants, (even though they agree on nothing) cannot be wrong, thus the Church cannot be right. Then you try to interpret passages to fit your belief.
If you start off logically, (since protestants agree on nothing, they always must teach error) then lets start off with the assumption they are probably wrong about this also, (like everything else, since they can’t agree on anything) and lets be objective about all this and lets take the bible in the most literal sense. In this case the Catholic Church’s understanding will make the most sense.

And last of all. Jesus said those who believe the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached would be saved. Mark 16:16 Jesus did not say that salvation comes from believing the Gospels the apostles wrote. Of course we must believe the four Gospels, narratives of the life of Jesus, but again, Jesus says salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles preached, not wrote.
Now, no where in the entire bible does it claim to have a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. There is no book of the bible, no chapter of the bible that claims to be a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. Yet, Jesus says we MUST believe this Gospel to be saved. (Mark 16:16)
How do we know the content of this Gospel? It is easy. We know exactly what the Christians in the first and second centuries believed. They all believed the same teachings of the Church today. They were Catholic. And all those who believed these Catholic Church teachings said they learned them from the apostles. Thus, the Gospel the apostles taught and preached was the Catholic Faith.

 

[Eileen_T]

Hey, NW your right about the OT using it on a heathen, It is a shame you guys attach this same name to our Saviours human mother.

I remember reading about the man who founded the Salvation Army being criticised for setting his songs to popular music.

He retorted, “Why should the devil have all the best tunes?” (…or something along those lines…)

The title “Queen of Heaven” should be reserved for the one woman in all creation that God deemed worthy to bear the Incarnated Son. Christians should reject that title being used for anyone other than Mary, and at least give her the veneration given her by God.

I am a mere human. I love my mother. Anyone who dares to disrespect my mother will earn my severest displeasure and animosit.

Consider this: The commandment that God gave, regarding “honouring thy mother and they father”, was observed by Jesus.

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe Jesus would be more tolerant of people who “dissed” His mother than I would be of someone who “dissed” my mother. Beause I can tell you straight that if someone put my mother down in any way, I would cut them out of my life. End of story!

And my mother, like myself, has many flaws and lapses. Mary was “full of grace.”

Hey, NW your right about the OT using it on a heathen, It is a shame you guys attach this same name to our Saviours human mother.

The shame is that the title was ever mis-used for a pagan deity.

 

[Zooey]

Why do you give Celtics a bad name?. That’s not fair. Your temper is your own doing.

How can I be unfair to the blood flowing in my own veins?? You need to read your ancient history. You’d find that my ancestors would no doubt of it, think I’m a terrible wimp, actually…We weren’t invaded by the Roman army, after all, because they were scared silly of us!! Not because we held our tongues…
The Celts of the world are not, I promise you, in need of your defence…(We’re all too busy preparing the Wicker Baskets for the Bonefire).
And it’s: Celts, Celts, Celts.(The Celtics are an athletic team. And they don’t even pronounce the word right!!!)

Actually, if all Catholicism, Western and Eastern, and some Protestantism, discarded all its nonbiblical Marian doctrines, this would be our response: :clapping: with, BRAVO! BRAVO!

Ah, yes, you say that now, but that’s because they haven’t been discarded. For which we may well be grateful; always nice to know that somebody is:thumbsup: resisting the impulse to be politically correct…
As I said: contrarians…

 

[LilyM]

.Actually, if all Catholicism, Western and Eastern, and some Protestantism, discarded all its nonbiblical Marian doctrines, this would be our response: :clapping: with, BRAVO! BRAVO!

Your response maybe. I think Jesus and Mary, not to mention those Christians who really understand both their Bible and their Christianity, as it was taught by the Apostles themselves and for more than 1500 years after them, would hate to see Mary, the mother of your and my Redeemer and God, so ignored, disrespected and insulted.

 

[LilyM]

Your response maybe. I think Jesus and Mary, not to mention all Christians who really understand both their Bible and their Christianity, as it was taught by the Apostles themselves, would disagree.

 

[NotWorthy]

But your proof text was based on Adonijah’s words, fueled by his own conniving thoughts.

Not that it really matters, since Bathsheba was David’s wife and not his mother, but would you please provide for me the actual text where David says those exact words to Bathsheba?

Oooooh!!! Right Church, wrong pew!!!
I should have stated you called Solomon a fool. It was his words that echoed

  	 				*  "****“Then Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, and the king stood up to meet her and paid her homage. Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king's mother, WHO SAT AT HIS RIGHT.****  There is one small favor I would ask of you," she said. "Do not refuse me." "Ask it, my mother*," the king said to her, "for I will not refuse you” (2nd Kings 2:19-20).

I wasn’t aware the NT writers HAD to teach this. You’re imposing your Sola Scriptura rules on a Church that doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura. You show me where the Bible says that all teaching truth has been revealed in the Bible and I’ll give you this arguement.

You never confront this important issue.If she, as intercessor/advocate for the people (as you assert),

You’ve never addressed where Jeremiah shows that God recognizes the queenly role, even acknowledging that the Gebira has a crown and authority.

possesses full understanding (omniscience) of the Lord’s own mind concerning the needs of the people,

With my foot already inserted, there’s hardly enough room in my mouth for you to put words there. No one claims that she is omniscient

then she has become far more than human. You have, in fact, made her equal with the Son.

No, you’ve interpreted our teaching to fit your pre-conceived notion that we worship Mary, maybe?

It is one thing for an individual creature to enter into a constant, holy communion with the Lord, yet ever learning more about Him (which all true believers will enter into for all eternity), but quite another to assign a divine attribute (omniscience) to a mere creature. Predicating to her not only plenary knowledge of even the motives behind the millions of prayers addressed to her, but a plenary knowledge of the mind of the Son Himself. This, my friend, whether you want to admit it or not, is equality.Actually, you fail to address many of the issues I bring up, but mostly ignore them. But I’ll answer you anyway. No it doesn’t. It’s only a recognition that the office (which Solomon instituted) wielded power in that corrupt, Southern kingdom, and the Lord was about to bring it downJer 13:18 "Say to the king and the queen mother, "Take a lowly seat, For your beautiful crown Has come down from your head."This in no way means God sanctioned the office. As I said, if this was an office established by God, then He would have begun with having Nathan the prophet anoint David’s mother “Queen.” But the fact remains, neither David’s mother or Solomon’s were Divinely anointed to such a position. It was all Solomon’s idea.Yes, not of this “cosmos,” that is, not of this world system.

I never claimed that God institued this role. I never claimed God institutued the role of, say the prime minister, but yet we see God recognizing this role in Isaiah, just as God recognized the role of the Gebira. If God didn’t recognize her role, then she wouldn’t have been mentioned, or the claim “false crown” may have used. Remember, the role of queen mother was constant throughout the Ancient Near East. All kingdoms praticed polygamy, hence all kingdoms practiced the queen mother. And just because the bible is silent on Saul’s and David’s mother, doesn’t deny the role in Israel. Why did God inspire the authors of KIngs and Chronicles to list the mothers name in nearly every kingdom?

When Christ returns as “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16) He will remove all ungodliness, bind Satan for 1000 years (Rev. 20) and set up His Kingdom on earth. It will be as the Hebrew prophets describe: a Kingdom of peace and righteousness; and in answer to the ancient prayer, “Your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.” Very unlike this present hostile world system.Did I not say just that? I think I specifically used the word “inadvertently,” which means “without knowledge or intention.” But as you can see, error begets error.

You’re losing me and getting off topic.

 

[apophasis]

There are so many errors that I cannot answer them all at once.

Lets do one at a time, using a protestant bible, the NIV.
No where does the bible say the woman continually remains on earth. If that were so, then Mary would be the oldest living person on earth, and nearly 2000 years old. She is already shown to be in heaven, with a crown of 12 stars, the moon under her feet, etc.
Lets read the passage, " 1 A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head."
Notice, the woman is IN HEAVEN.

I’ll address this one point, but then I have to go.

The text states that a great SIGN appeared in Heaven. It doesn’t say a great woman appeared in Heaven. All of the actions of the woman within the SIGN are performed ON EARTH.
The SIGN never places the woman in Heaven. Only the son to whom she gives birth is caught up to God. The woman flees to the wilderness. The “wilderness” is not Heaven.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’ll address this one point, but then I have to go.

The text states that a great SIGN appeared in Heaven. It doesn’t say a great woman appeared in Heaven. All of the actions of the woman within the SIGN are performed ON EARTH.
The SIGN never places the woman in Heaven. Only the son to whom she gives birth is caught up to God. The woman flees to the wilderness. The “wilderness” is not Heaven.

Most people that are clothed with the sun, with the moon under their feet, and a crown of twelve stars would not be considered earth-bound. That certainly sounds like they are part of the heavens.

After all the dragon began in the sky, and then came down to earth. This woman, with the moon under her feet, seems to repeat this same action.

 

[mikeledes]

The fact that the book of Kings lists every Gerbira by name is a clear indication that God recognized this office. Why would the author, guided by the Holy Spirit, mention the reigning Gebirah along side with the reigning king if God did not recognize this office?

God Bless

 

[dcdurel]

I’ll address this one point, but then I have to go.

The text states that a great SIGN appeared in Heaven. It doesn’t say a great woman appeared in Heaven. All of the actions of the woman within the SIGN are performed ON EARTH.
The SIGN never places the woman in Heaven. Only the son to whom she gives birth is caught up to God. The woman flees to the wilderness. The “wilderness” is not Heaven.

Please read the scripture verse carefully.  It says

“A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.”
Notice the WOMAN was the SIGN. The Woman and the Sign are the same. Thus, the Woman was IN HEAVEN. The woman was NOT on earth, in the vision of the sign. The woman was Mary, as she gave birth to Jesus. The other passages describe parts of her live when she was on earth. But, in the present tense of the vision, John saw Mary in heaven, as a sign. Mary does not live on earth anymore. Your theology is pure nonsense. Even the bad theologians don’t hold that Mary is living on earth and is almost 2000 years old.
This again shows how ant-Catholic Protestants are not objective, but stretch and stretch the sacred passages of scripture to fit their own pre-conceived opinions.

 

[Zooey]

Please read the scripture verse carefully. It says
“A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.”
Notice the WOMAN was the SIGN. The Woman and the Sign are the same. Thus, the Woman was IN HEAVEN. The woman was NOT on earth, in the vision of the sign. The woman was Mary, as she gave birth to Jesus. The other passages describe parts of her live when she was on earth. But, in the present tense of the vision, John saw Mary in heaven, as a sign. Mary does not live on earth anymore. Your theology is pure nonsense. Even the bad theologians don’t hold that Mary is living on earth and is almost 2000 years old.
This again shows how ant-Catholic Protestants are not objective, but stretch and stretch the sacred passages of scripture to fit their own pre-conceived opinions.

 

[apophasis]

Most people that are clothed with the sun, with the moon under their feet, and a crown of twelve stars would not be considered earth-bound. That certainly sounds like they are part of the heavens.

After all the dragon began in the sky, and then came down to earth. This woman, with the moon under her feet, seems to repeat this same action.

Not even the sun and moon are in Heaven.

Obviously Mary was never clothed with the sun, and the moon was never under her feet. So we know the description is not literal, but poetic.

Often times the Bible interprets the Bible. Please see Gen. 37:9-11. There Joseph has a dream that the sun, moon and eleven stars were bowing down to him. His father, Jacob, rightly interprets it as Joseph’s father, mother and brothers coming to bow before him. And that’s exactly what happened when Joseph became second in command of Egypt.

Now the woman clothed with the sun, and with a crown of twelve stars is national Israel (Jacob and his twelve sons) which, figuratively, gives birth to the Messiah who, after the national rejection of Him, is subsequently caught up to God’s throne.

The SIGN goes on to describe national Israel’s time of distress at the end of this age: The “Tribulation” period, the beginning of the “Day of the Lord,” as graphically described by the O.T. Hebrew prophets concerning national Israel.

The sign has nothing to do with Mary, but is prophetic concerning national Israel and events at the end of the age (Read Matt. 24:3ff).

 

[apophasis]

dcdurel:

Please read the scripture verse carefully. It says
“A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.”
Notice the WOMAN was the SIGN. The Woman and the Sign are the same.

No they’re not. I think you’re quoting the NIV, right? Notice the colon after the word “heaven?” This means that the sign is now being described. The sign seen in heaven is describing a “woman” on earth who gives birth to male child. The child (not the woman) is caught up to God’s throne.

And yes, often a nation is figuratively referred to as giving birth to a person. That’s a very common figure of speech used even today.

Mary does not live on earth anymore. Your theology is pure nonsense. Even the bad theologians don’t hold that Mary is living on earth and is almost 2000 years old.

Of course not. It’s not about Mary. But, against all odds Israel is back as a nation today and in her ancient homeland after 2000 years. Even speaking her ancient tongue, Hebrew. Doesn’t that tell you something?

This again shows how ant-Catholic Protestants are not objective, but stretch and stretch the sacred passages of scripture to fit their own pre-conceived opinions.

It has nothing to do with being anti-Catholic. You have a persecution complex. Nor am I stretching this passage to fit my theology. The interpretation I provided you with fits in beautifully with all Biblical prophecy. But you must study it to understand it.

 

[NotWorthy]

Not even the sun and moon are in Heaven.

Obviously Mary was never clothed with the sun, and the moon was never under her feet. So we know the description is not literal, but poetic.

So true, but using heavenly symbols in apocalyptic, or poetic as you put it, literature certainly implies that we are talking about a queen in heaven. Don’t forget the preceding verse. And a great sign appeared in heaven. I don’t think I’m making a great leap of faith, here.

Often times the Bible interprets the Bible. Please see Gen. 37:9-11. There Joseph has a dream that the sun, moon and eleven stars were bowing down to him. His father, Jacob, rightly interprets it as Joseph’s father, mother and brothers coming to bow before him. And that’s exactly what happened when Joseph became second in command of Egypt.

Now the woman clothed with the sun, and with a crown of twelve stars is national Israel (Jacob and his twelve sons) which, figuratively, gives birth to the Messiah who, after the national rejection of Him, is subsequently caught up to God’s throne.

The SIGN goes on to describe national Israel’s time of distress at the end of this age: The “Tribulation” period, the beginning of the “Day of the Lord,” as graphically described by the O.T. Hebrew prophets concerning national Israel.

The sign has nothing to do with Mary, but is prophetic concerning national Israel and events at the end of the age (Read Matt. 24:3ff).

The sign has three meanings, and this has been accepted by Catholics throughout the ages and non-catholic christians throughout their history:

The woman represents:
Mary, Israel, and the Church.

Your conclusion that the woman is Israel in no way dis-proves my conclusion that the woman is Mary.

 

[NotWorthy]

Also, using the analogy of an earlier post, the woman in heaven with the crown is obviously the pagan goddess worshipped by the heathens.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Revelation: The 2nd Coming (scroll down to program 8)

**Program 8 ** has to do with the “The sign of the women” Revelation chapter 12. I thought you all would like to “hear” what someone else has to say re: “the women”. Enjoy.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Addressing the premise of your question: That if the Bible doesn’t say something is true it isn’t true. I guess Airplanes don’t fly then and the Trinity isn’t true.

Secondly, you are not supposed to go by the Bible alone, you are supposed to go by the Traditions of the Apostles (2 The 2:15, 2 The 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2), and obey your bishops (Hebrews 13:17, Acts 20:28, Titus 1:7) and Scriptures (Rom 4:3).

Try again.

This is a complete misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. Any view looks inane, if it’s not fairly treated.​

Sola Scriptura includes a denial that that any other source of teaching is of the same authority or finality - other sources do not have the God-given, God-breathed, inspired authority of the Word of God - which is why in Reformed theology ideas of theologians, the Reformers included, are subject to correction by God Who speaks through the words of Scripture.

That is why there are subordinate standards for faith - such as Confessions of Faith, catechisms, and other works of godly men which have been undertaken to strengthen & nourish the Body of Christ. But useful as they are, they are neither equal to Scripture, nor can they supplement it, nor be equal in honour to it, because they are not inspired, but are the fruits of the grace of the Redeemer in His Church, nothing more.

What is not in Scripture, or at least derivable from it “by good and necessary consequence”, can therefore not be taught as doctrine or enforced as doctrine. So the Fathers, useful as they can be, cannot be heeded when they teach a doctrine which obscures the Gospel in any way - so their sacramental teaching is not acceptable when (say) they witness to more than two sacraments, these being the Lord’s Supper and Baptism - because these two alone are clearly taught in the Word of God.

So infant baptism is defended, even though not mentioned in the Word, because it is derivable from it by good and necessary consequence - for example, certain things are revealed, & from these follow various conclusions. An example: God works with His Church covenantally - so this fact, attested by Scripture, is put together with others, such as that the children of believing parents are sanctified by them. So children can be in a covenant relationship with God by way of the faith of their parents - baptism is the Scriptural replacement for circumcision, by which infants entered into the old covenant, so, children may lawfully receive baptism. Everything is a revealed Scripture truth, except the conclusion - and as its premises are revealed, so is it.

The same is not true of the Assumption or the Perpetual Virginity - there are pointers to both in Scripture, but nothing more certain. So Calvinists don’t accept either. They respect Mary, but they don’t hold doctrines which could, after all, be completely haywire. The Resurrection is a certainty, because Scripture proclaims it, which means that God does. The Assumption is not in Scripture - therefore God does not Will that it should be believed. How do we know what we are to believe ? Scripture contains it. And the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth by witnessing with our spirits confirms the authority of the Scriptural witness to us.

As for traditions mentioned in the Bible, there is no way to know what they are - it is perfectly possible that they were made into parts of the NT. Unless Catholics are:
a) in a position to know know otherwise
b) able to show how they know that they know otherwise

• they are expressing a doctrinal position without being able to say how they know both that they are right & that those who disagree are wrong. People cannot say “belief X is in Tradition”, unless they know what the belief is, & whether it is in tradition or not. And to say all that, they have to know those things, otherwise they are not talking with knowledge at all, but saying what means nothing. Otherwise, anything at all can be said to be in Tradition: Highland Dancing, cooking rabbits, computer science.

So far, I haven’t seen a reason why we cannot say that Jesus taught the Apostles how to build aeroplanes. There is no evidence for it - but there is none for a number of theological ideas, which are believed nonetheless. This is back-to-front, as well as unorthodox, because it implies that infallibility can after all create truths, instead of being a response to them. But that would corrupt the faith. It makes the faith subject to the bright ideas current at the time, instead of being a witness to a determinate, explicit faith. It becomes a nose of wax, as stable as the tides of the sea.

Whatever the uncertainties about Scripture, there are things it cannot mean. Some uncertainties (over Baptism, say) are compatible with Protestant faith; others, are not. ##