Mary, Queen of Heaven?

[porthos11]

I do not believe that Mary is Queen because of certain verses, but on the authority of the Church. Until these Bible Christians believe in the authority of an apostolic and organically-founded Church and repent from their abstractions, then we cannot really convince them. As it is said: “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.”

Actually, Augustinian, the Old Testament shows a model of how Israelite royal families worked. It is in the hardness of their hearts that they simply refuse to see that (1) Jesus is a Davidic king; and (2) His mother has to be the gebirah. Yet they twist it all around that simply say that Solomon’s throne is not David’s throne (eh? Wasn’t Solomon a Davidic king?) and his throne is the Father’s throne and not a Davidic throne, etc, and that there’s no mention of Mary as Queen of Heaven, etc, etc.

Our reasoning is simple. Jesus is the Davidic King. Mary is the Mother of the Davidic King. *Gebirah.

 

[Mommyof02green]

That really helps. Thank a bunch.

Your Welcome!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

1. The title is mediaeval, which means it is considerably later than the two chapters - Jeremiah 7 & 44 - in which it appears in the Bible.​

1. None of what Jeremiah denounced is done by Catholics
2. The QoH was a goddess - Mary is not a goddess; nor do Catholics imagine she is. Any who did, would cease to be Catholic. She is a human saint - a beautifully holy one, to be sure, but she is still only human; God Himself cannot make her more than a saint Catholicism can acknowledge One Unique Alone - & she ain’t it.
3. Identity of words does not guarantee identity of the things denoted by the words. The Romans had ships: so do modern navies - it does not follow that Roman sea-power depended on having aircraft-carriers, or that modern navies uses triremes.
4. Mary was not around when Jeremiah 7 & 44 came into being - so it is not likely that Mary is referred to.
5. Mary’s Queenship is founded upon the grace of her Divine Son & LORD - it is her sharing in the Glory of Jesus Christ the King of all creation. That she shares in the exaltation of Christ the King, her Redeemer, does not in the slightest make her more than a creature, unless receiving His grace makes us into God
6. All Christians are “kings and priests” in Christ - so why exclude Mary ? Because she is part of the Body of Christ, she cannot be excluded, any more than we can IMHO, this doctrine is perfectly in agreement with the NT. I think it does not do justice to the NT or to the realities of Christ to deny it.
7. a few quotations:

Mat 27:29 And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put [it] upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!
Mar 15:17 And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his [head],
Jhn 19:2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put [it] on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,
Jhn 19:5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And [Pilate] saith unto them, Behold the man!
1Cr 9:25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they [do it] to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
2Ti 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
Jam 1:12 Blessed [is] the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
1Pe 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
Rev 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast [some] of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
Rev 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

If His other members in the NT are
royal
hope for crowns
and may sit upon his throne - why exclude her ?

“Crown” in these places means “wreath”, AFAICR - but that doesn’t change things: a crown of any kind is still a crown. ##

 

[porthos11]

…Jewish Gebira /queen mother is the EQUIVALENT of a Queen REGNANT who is queen ‘under her own power’ instead of being a Queen MOTHER, queen BECAUSE her SON is KING.)

There indeed appears to be confusion here. This is because people tend to think European monarchy instead of Israelite monarchy.

The gebirah was actually more than just hereditary by virtue of her being the king’s mother. Scripture has an indication that gebirah was also an office. This can be found in 1 Kings 15:13, when King Asa of Judah deposed his mother as gebirah for idolatry. Deposition means the queen mother had an official position in the kingdom and an office to fill. So she was not just some ceremonial royalty, she was apparently active in the King’s court.

 

[apophasis]

Church Militant:

So then Solomon did not also share the Throne of David. Was he or was he not a Davidic King?

The key phrase here is "throne of DAVID."Luke 1:32 "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;The kingdom changed from a theocracy to a monarchy, nevertheless, the kings were still under the authority of God. When Samuel the prophet anointed Saul as king, did he also anoint his mother as Queen? When he anointed David king, did he anoint his mother as Queen? When Zadok anointed Solomon kind, did he, as God’s representative, at that time also anoint his mother as Queen? When Mary was given the revelation by Gabriel that her Son would by given the throne of His Father David, was she also told that she too would be given a throne in Heaven with Him? Negative on ALL accounts. Scripture speaks of no such anointings.

Solomon took it upon himself to set up a throne for his mother. The tradition then began with Solomon, not David, and that apart from any Divine instruction. So the idea of a “Queen Mother” is strictly the tradition of men, as is Mary’s bodily “Assumption” into Heaven and her present reign as “Queen of Heaven” today. There is absolutely no divine revelation on any of this - it began and continues in the minds of men only.

NotWorthy:

What was Bathsheba doing when she approached Solomon? She was petitioning for someone else.

Read the context of this petition, my friend. She was petitioning on behalf of Solomon’s enemy, his half-brother Adonijah. One who wanted to usurp his throne by being granted marriage to David’s concubine.

Apophasis writes: Jesus is not now reigning as King on His father David’s throne, but He is sharing His Heavenly Father’s throne in Heaven and functioning there as the believer’s High Priest and Advocate before the Father.

Church Militant replies: So Our Lord is not the Messiah? I don’t think the New Testament agrees with you here.

Did I say He is not Messiah? Does Scripture say that Jesus is now sitting on His father David’s throne in Heaven? Does Jesus refer to His Father’s throne, which He is sharing in Heaven, as “My throne” in Rev. 3:21?

The truth is, He is not now reigning as “King” in Heaven on “His father David’s throne.” So how is it then that men, according to their own traditions, have anointed Mary as “Queen of Heaven,” while the Man Christ Jesus is still awaiting to ascend His own throne here on earth. How is it then that men, according to their own traditions, have exalted Mary to a greater position in Heaven (Queen of it) than the Man Christ Jesus?

Of course you will ignore all the clear additional meaning of Revelation 12:1, 5-6, & 13-17.

Rev. 12 describes a prophetic “sign” which appears in heaven. It says nothing about the “woman” being in Heaven. In fact, when she gives birth to the male child, it is He, not her, who is caught up to God and to His (God’s) throne (vs. 5). The “sign” alludes to Mary, but the “woman” is actually national Israel who, at the end of the age, is persecuted by the dragon who was thrown “down to the earth.” The prophetic events described in this “sign” are seen in heaven, but they take place on earth.

 

[NotWorthy]

The key phrase here is "throne of DAVID."Luke 1:32 "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;The kingdom changed from a theocracy to a monarchy, nevertheless, the kings were still under the authority of God. When Samuel the prophet anointed Saul as king, did he also anoint his mother as Queen? When he anointed David king, did he anoint his mother as Queen? When Zadok anointed Solomon kind, did he, as God’s representative, at that time also anoint his mother as Queen? {/quote]I don’t know what your point is. Do you deny Israel had a Prime Minister since God didn’t anoint one? Throughout this time of Israel’s trials, if God didn’t like one of Israel’s traditions of men (i.e. worshipping in high places, etc.), then God spoke to Israel through her prophets. Show me where God condemns this tradition, and you may have a valid point. Instead, God talks to Jeremiah and explicitly acknowledges the role of the Gebira (as you saw in my eaerlier post).

When Mary was given the revelation by Gabriel that her Son would by given the throne of His Father David, was she also told that she too would be given a throne in Heaven with Him? Negative on ALL accounts. Scripture speaks of no such anointings.

Good point! And David punished the fool for his duplicity. But you’re missing the main point. Why did Adonijah go to Bathsheba in the first place? Look at Adonijah’s own words. “For he will not refuse you”.

The truth is, He is not now reigning as “King” in Heaven on “His father David’s throne.” So how is it then that men, according to their own traditions, have anointed Mary as “Queen of Heaven,” while the Man Christ Jesus is still awaiting to ascend His own throne here on earth. How is it then that men, according to their own traditions, have exalted Mary to a greater position in Heaven (Queen of it) than the Man Christ Jesus?

Who said that Mary is greater in heaven than Jesus. NO CATHOLIC makes that claim, so please don’t tell others that we do. We teach that Jesus rules in heaven and Mary is the Queen Mother.

Rev. 12 describes a prophetic “sign” which appears in heaven. It says nothing about the “woman” being in Heaven. In fact, when she gives birth to the male child, it is He, not her, who is caught up to God and to His (God’s) throne (vs. 5). The “sign” alludes to Mary, but the “woman” is actually national Israel who, at the end of the age, is persecuted by the dragon who was thrown “down to the earth.” The prophetic events described in this “sign” are seen in heaven, but they take place on earth.

There are few too many threads on this subject to get into, but the Church teaches that the woman represents Mary, Israel, and the Church.

 

[Zooey]

Luke 1:32 "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;
When Samuel the prophet anointed Saul as king, did he also anoint his mother as Queen? When he anointed David king, did he anoint his mother as Queen? When Zadok anointed Solomon kind, did he, as God’s representative, at that time also anoint his mother as Queen?

I don’t know. I wasn’t there. And neither were you, laddy!
An argument from silence means, forgive me, nothing.Indeed, one could, from the same silence, argue that because of the problems that arose during David’s lifetime–due to multiple wives–that the office of the gebirah was, indeed, divinely appointed.
Now, I’m not making that argument. I’m just pointing out, that when you set out to prove that something can’t be true, “because the Bible doesn’t say anything about that”, you are on very shaky ground as to logic.

Solomon took it upon himself to set up a throne for his mother. The tradition then began with Solomon, not David, and that apart from any Divine instruction.

Again, arguing from silence. Scripture has no problem with pointing out the faults & failings of the OT kings; silence cuts both ways.

So the idea of a “Queen Mother” is strictly the tradition of men, as is Mary’s bodily “Assumption” into Heaven and her present reign as “Queen of Heaven” today. There is absolutely no divine revelation on any of this - it began and continues in the minds of men only.

Read your Bible in toto; not in bits & pieces. Mary as Queen [Mother] of Heaven is all over the place…

Read the context of this petition, my friend. She was petitioning on behalf of Solomon’s enemy, his half-brother Adonijah. One who wanted to usurp his throne by being granted marriage to David’s concubine.

And? Even a villain knows where the power lies…The attempt to misuse the office does not make it cease to exist. (If it did, a couple of our US presidents–Nixon comes to mind–would have thrown us all back into the British Empire. It doesn’t work that way!)

The truth is, He is not now reigning as “King” in Heaven on “His father David’s throne.” So how is it then that men, according to their own traditions, have anointed Mary as “Queen of Heaven,” while the Man Christ Jesus is still awaiting to ascend His own throne here on earth.

What??? Are you serious!!! Of course He is King; He is KIng of Kings & Lord of Lords!!!

How is it then that men, according to their own traditions, have exalted Mary to a greater position in Heaven (Queen of it) than the Man Christ Jesus?

:nope: No one is doing that! On the contrary, you are downgrading the Lord Jesus Christ from His appointed place in Heaven!! (Or having a little trouble with the hypostatic union…)

Rev. 12 describes a prophetic “sign” which appears in heaven. It says nothing about the “woman” being in Heaven. In fact, when she gives birth to the male child, it is He, not her, who is caught up to God and to His (God’s) throne (vs. 5). The “sign” alludes to Mary, but the “woman” is actually national Israel who, at the end of the age, is persecuted by the dragon who was thrown “down to the earth.” The prophetic events described in this “sign” are seen in heaven, but they take place on earth.

I think you need to read the:thumbsup: Bible more, & the:tsktsk: Left Behind books less. You seem to have confused yourself with some of those :bigyikes: “traditions of men” you keep talking about…

God bless.

 

[Zooey]

I do not believe that Mary is Queen because of certain verses, but on the authority of the Church. .

And I believe in her Queenship precisely because of these “certain verses”; to me, it is as plain as the nose on your face!!
God bless.

 

[HailMary]

Mary is the Queen of Heaven, Earth, all Angels, and Saints.

It is that simple.

 

[NotWorthy]

There is absolutely no divine revelation on any of this - it began and continues in the minds of men only.

It looks to me like there was divine revelation on this.
Ezekiel 13:18-20 reads:

  	 				“***Say to the king and to the queen mother***: come down from your throne; From your heads fall your magnificent crowns.

Quote:
The cities of the Negeb are besieged, with no one to relieve them; All Judah is banished in universal exile. Lift up your eyes and see men coming from the north. Where is the flock entrusted to you, the sheep that were your glory?”

Does this mean that you will now accept divine guidance on the practice of the Gebira?

 

[The_Augustinian]

And I believe in her Queenship precisely because of these “certain verses”; to me, it is as plain as the nose on your face!!
God bless.

While these verses can be construed as pointing to the role of the Holy Virgin, this interpretation seems to be novel to me. After all, Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Ad caeli Reginam does not appeal to the role of the *gebirah *but to the witness of the Saints. Moreover, we would not have this interpretation if it weren’t for the Sacred Tradition.

So, my position is that while these verses may prophetically point to the future role of the BVM as Queen, and reassure us Catholics of the correctness of our view, the verses in themselves would probably not convince hard-core “Bible Christians” because of the fundamentally different views of both sides. As I wrote before, these sectarians need to recognize their own limitations and embrace the True Church.

 

[porthos11]

While these verses can be construed as pointing to the role of the Holy Virgin, this interpretation seems to be novel to me. After all, Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Ad caeli Reginam does not appeal to the role of the *gebirah *but to the witness of the Saints. Moreover, we would not have this interpretation if it weren’t for the Sacred Tradition.

ah, but the witness of the saints means nothing to our Protestant brethren.

So, my position is that while these verses may prophetically point to the future role of the BVM as Queen, and reassure us Catholics of the correctness of our view, the verses in themselves would probably not convince hard-core “Bible Christians” because of the fundamentally different views of both sides. As I wrote before, these sectarians need to recognize their own limitations and embrace the True Church.

These are not to be read as prophecies or foreshadowings. The passages set the historical contexts and provide the model for the present relationships. Since the gebirah was special to the Davidic king, and Jesus is a Davidic king, well, therefore… QED.

In apologetics work, Scripture still holds primacy.

 

[Zooey]

While these verses can be construed as pointing to the role of the Holy Virgin, this interpretation seems to be novel to me. After all, Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Ad caeli Reginam does not appeal to the role of the *gebirah *but to the witness of the Saints. Moreover, we would not have this interpretation if it weren’t for the Sacred Tradition.

So, my position is that while these verses may prophetically point to the future role of the BVM as Queen, and reassure us Catholics of the correctness of our view, the verses in themselves would probably not convince hard-core “Bible Christians” because of the fundamentally different views of both sides. As I wrote before, these sectarians need to recognize their own limitations and embrace the True Church.

You do know I’m the Friendly Neighborhood Methodist here at CAF??? I see the queenship of Mary all over my Bible.
Now, as a Methodist, I also look to tradition, & it does indeed provide support. But, speaking as a Protestant, I can tell you that when I look into the KJV my grandmother gave me for my 14th birthday, & I see more than enough support for Mary’s role as queen, as foreseen in the role of the gebirah in ancient Israel.
God bless.

 

[Mommyof02green]

You do know I’m the Friendly Neighborhood Methodist here at CAF??? I see the queenship of Mary all over my Bible.
Now, as a Methodist, I also look to tradition, & it does indeed provide support. But, speaking as a Protestant, I can tell you that when I look into the KJV my grandmother gave me for my 14th birthday, & I see more than enough support for Mary’s role as queen, as foreseen in the role of the gebirah in ancient Israel.
God bless.

God Bless

 

[Redeemerslove]

Apophasis,

I was reading through the posts and was anticipating posting a similar answer… I agreee, and I will take the back seat here.

John
www.gideonsword.net

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.

 

[Redeemerslove]

ah, but the witness of the saints means nothing to our Protestant brethren.

Then make it.

In apologetics work, Scripture still holds primacy.

That is cowtowing to Protestants.

 

[Redeemerslove]

While these verses can be construed as pointing to the role of the Holy Virgin, this interpretation seems to be novel to me. After all, Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Ad caeli Reginam does not appeal to the role of the *gebirah *but to the witness of the Saints. Moreover, we would not have this interpretation if it weren’t for the Sacred Tradition.

That doesn’t mean that there is no merit to the argument. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

**2038 **In the work of teaching and applying Christian morality, the Church needs the dedication of pastors, the knowledge of theologians, and the contribution of all Christians and men of good will.

**2033 **The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors.

 

[Redeemerslove]

The truth is, He is not now reigning as “King” in Heaven on “His father David’s throne.” So how is it then that men, according to their own traditions, have anointed Mary as “Queen of Heaven,” while the Man Christ Jesus is still awaiting to ascend His own throne here on earth. How is it then that men, according to their own traditions, have exalted Mary to a greater position in Heaven (Queen of it) than the Man Christ Jesus?

You are supposed to obey your bishops (Hebrews 13:17, check the context). If they say she is Queen of Heaven, then you should believe it.

Secondly, since when is a queen of heaven greater than a king of heaven? I thought it was the other way around.

 

[porthos11]

That is cowtowing to Protestants.

Cowtow or not, it is the truth. The idea is to use Scripture to establish the authority of the Church in any dialogue with them. Otherwise, the argument ends with a simple “I don’t accept the writings of your saints.”

Besides, there is no Catholic teaching that does not ultimately connect one way or another to Scripture.

 

[Church_Militant]

Good point! And David punished the fool for his duplicity. But you’re missing the main point. Why did Adonijah go to Bathsheba in the first place? Look at Adonijah’s own words. "For he will not refuse you

".

Who said that Mary is greater in heaven than Jesus. NO CATHOLIC makes that claim, so please don’t tell others that we do. We teach that Jesus rules in heaven and Mary is the Queen Mother.

There are few too many threads on this subject to get into, **but the Church teaches that the woman represents Mary, Israel, and the Church.**Thanks NW! You saved me the grief of having to answer just as you have. Apophasis has the same problem that we see the Jews having had in the Gospels…not realizing or accepting that passages of the Bible have multiple fulfillments and meanings.

I don’t know. I wasn’t there. …
An argument from silence means, forgive me, nothing.Indeed, one could, from the same silence, argue that because of the problems that arose during David’s lifetime–due to multiple wives–that the office of the gebirah was, indeed, divinely appointed.
Now, I’m not making that argument. I’m just pointing out, that when you set out to prove that something can’t be true, “because the Bible doesn’t say anything about that”, you are on very shaky ground as to logic.

Again, arguing from silence. Scripture has no problem with pointing out the faults & failings of the OT kings; silence cuts both ways

. Read your Bible in toto; not in bits & pieces. Mary as Queen [Mother] of Heaven is all over the place…
And? Even a villain knows where the power lies…The attempt to misuse the office does not make it cease to exist. (If it did, a couple of our US presidents–Nixon comes to mind–would have thrown us all back into the British Empire. It doesn’t work that way!)
What??? Are you serious!!! Of course He is King; He is KIng of Kings & Lord of Lords!!!
:nope: No one is doing that! On the contrary, you are downgrading the Lord Jesus Christ from His appointed place in Heaven!! (Or having a little trouble with the hypostatic union…) **I think you need to read the:thumbsup: Bible more, & the:tsktsk: Left Behind books less. You seem to have confused yourself with some of those :bigyikes: “traditions of men” you keep talking about…**Well said Zooey! This last especially I find to be the case. Novel new doctrines of men that have been around 500 years (or less) are being passed off by modern n-C preachers as New Testament beliefs that the early church held when in fact a serious check of the ECF’s writings (Better known as Sacred Tradition, the second leg upon which Catholic doctrine is founded.) shows that that is not the case at all.

That is cowtowing to Protestants.

I disagree… It is appealing to one of the three legs upon which all Catholic doctrine rests and is simply a matter of beginning with common ground.
Pax domini sit semper vobiscum,