Queen of Heaven and Earth

[Darryl_B]

I will also add that in my journey in search for God, in my search of His Truth, I made a fundamental mistake. I made the assumption that His Truth was lost, and I had to find it, like all protestants do in an individualistic way. The fact is His Truth was never lost, it was only me who had not found it. It was always there as a light, a beacon, to the weary confused soul, the peace of the Catholic Church, and for the first time in my life journey I am not wrestling Scripture.

 

[Wesrock]

Why not 1 Corinthians 3:5-9 or 1 Corinthians 4:1?

It’s obviously a continuation of the discussion from earlier. I never denied that. But the context makes referencing the immediate previously quoted scripture much more likely as part of his overall point, which the quotes from scripture and his instruction not to go beyond scripture, are wrapped up in, than simply taking it out of context and making it say more than it does.

I quoted the entirety of 3:18 through 4:7, so I hardly discounted 4:1. So why did I focus on 3:18 - 20? Because he’s quoting scripture here, and it’s clearly part of the same discussion, not something separate.

 

[Wesrock]

I guess Jesus also referenced Scripture too much? To me, there is never such a thing as too much of Scripture. Nothing I stated was taken out of its context. The Pharisees were the “guided” people. They taught others the Word of God. They were the teachers and the supposed to be the bearers of truth, just as the Catholic Church claims about itself today. Jesus said their religious traditions were not god-breathed. So why is it not appropriate for me to draw the comparison?

Regarding Paul, which verse are you speaking of?

If we’re going with the comparison, should you not listen to the Bishops, as they sit on the seats of the Apostles, as Jesus instructed people to listen to the Pharisees and scribes, as they sat on the seat of Moses?

 

[tstor]

It’s obviously a continuation of the discussion from earlier. I never denied that. But the context makes referencing the immediate previously quoted scripture much more likely as part of his overall point, which the quotes from scripture and his instruction not to go beyond scripture, are wrapped up in, than simply taking it out of context and making it say more than it does.

I quoted the entirety of 3:18 through 4:7, so I hardly discounted 4:1. So why did I focus on 3:18 - 20? Because he’s quoting scripture here, and it’s clearly part of the same discussion, not something separate.

Why not extend it to all of previous Scripture on the topic?

 

[tstor]

If we’re going with the comparison, should you not listen to the Bishops, as they sit on the seats of the Apostles, as Jesus instructed people to listen to the Pharisees and scribes, as they sat on the seat of Moses?

I do not adhere to the Catholic view of apostolic succession. So the comparison you draw is not accurate.

 

[Wesrock]

Why not extend it to all of previous Scripture on the topic?

It’s a larger stretch, and also inconsistent with the broader context of the Bible and with early Church teachings. You were talking about crystal clear meanings earlier in the topic, which I disagree with, and find this reading makes so much more sense in context than yours. On top of that, my goal isn’t so much to convince you that mine is right, but to show that verse at the least isn’t a good and clear proof text for sola scriptura.

 

[Wesrock]

I do not adhere to the Catholic view of apostolic succession. So the comparison you draw is not accurate.

The comparison is a bit more apt then, isn’t it? The Pharisees and scribes weren’t all part of the levitical priesthood, either. But it is clear, at least, that even if you don’t fully buy into the full meaning of apostolic succession, the Catholic and Orthodox churches are the only ones that can trace their traditions continuously back to the churches established by the apostles appointed by Christ, which seems to make their position a little stronger than the pharisees anyway.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Are you not righteous? Is your prayer not powerful?

Answer my question and my Bible quote.

 

[Dalriadan39]

In my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it describes Mary as follows:
“Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved from all stain of original sin…”

What does Genesis 3:16 say?

“To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’”

How is the woman in Revelation 12 described?
“and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.” (v2)

So how can this woman be Mary? And why do you believe the features listed insist on the interpretation of Queenship?

I never said the woman in Rev 12 was Mary. You did right in your first post. It was Mary but not a queen. In fact that is the title of the thread you started. At least in that post you said you understood how it could be Mary but couldn’t see the queenship. I showed you the woman as queen. Now you have changed your mind it seems about the Woman being Mary at all.

 

[Wesrock]

Mary suffered greatly in bringing the Christ into the world. Maybe in childbirth, maybe not. But she suffered a mother’s worries during Jesus’ childhood and ministry, and certainly went through tremendous anguish during her son’s passion and death. The birth pangs of the woman in heaven need not bhe literal birth pangs, whether we apply it to Israel as a whole or Mary, though I wouldn’t say the two are entirely separate, anyway. The suffering she had can, in one way or another, be tied into bringing the savior into the world.

 

[tstor]

It’s a larger stretch, and also inconsistent with the broader context of the Bible and with early Church teachings. You were talking about crystal clear meanings earlier in the topic, which I disagree with, and find this reading makes so much more sense in context than yours. On top of that, my goal isn’t so much to convince you that mine is right, but to show that verse at the least isn’t a good and clear proof text for sola scriptura.

I do not see it as a larger stretch at all. Why are you limiting the verse to its immediate context when it could very well be speaking about all Scripture regarding modesty and humility? The text is clear about one thing: Paul is referencing and appealing to Scripture. Whether that Scripture is within the immediate context or going all the way back to the Hebrew Scriptures is irrelevant. I hope that makes sense.

 

[tstor]

The comparison is a bit more apt then, isn’t it? The Pharisees and scribes weren’t all part of the levitical priesthood, either. But it is clear, at least, that even if you don’t fully buy into the full meaning of apostolic succession, the Catholic and Orthodox churches are the only ones that can trace their traditions continuously back to the churches established by the apostles appointed by Christ, which seems to make their position a little stronger than the pharisees anyway.

I can neither confirm nor deny whether or not “Catholic and Orthodox churches are the only ones that can trace their traditions continuously back to the churches established by the apostles appointed by Christ.” I do not know all of the traditions and I have not traced all of them back through the texts of the church fathers.

 

[tstor]

Answer my question and my Bible quote.

You did not quote the Bible. I am guessing that you are referencing James 5:16, but you did not say it. If you are, then I need you to answer my question for clarification. You stated the following:
“James in his letter says that a righteous person’s prayer is pleasing to God. Who is more righteous than His saints in heaven?”

I agree with your first sentence. However, why are you assuming that only the saints are righteous? Are you not righteous? Is your prayer not powerful?

 

[tstor]

I never said the woman in Rev 12 was Mary. You did right in your first post. It was Mary but not a queen. In fact that is the title of the thread you started. At least in that post you said you understood how it could be Mary but couldn’t see the queenship. I showed you the woman as queen. Now you have changed your mind it seems about the Woman being Mary at all.

You quoted me as saying this:
“I can understand the interpretation of Revelation 11:18-12:17, which is that the woman clothed in the sun is Mary.”

After quoting me, you stated the following:
“But she wears a crown of 12 stars, is clothed with the sun and has the moon under her feet. What is the woman if not a queen? If a queen, of what?”

You did not object to me saying that the woman was Mary, so I assumed you agreed with the statement that was quoted. Now, I do see how it is supposed to be Mary. However, I do not agree (as it stands) with the Catholic teaching of Mary being free from original sin. You, as a Catholic, believe that Mary is free from original sin. If that is true, then you have a hard time placing Mary in Revelation 12, as the woman clearly suffers from original sin (pains of childbirth). I still do not see why the text demands the woman to be the Queen over all things. You are taking a preconceived idea and reading it into the text.

 

[tstor]

Mary suffered greatly in bringing the Christ into the world. Maybe in childbirth, maybe not. But she suffered a mother’s worries during Jesus’ childhood and ministry, and certainly went through tremendous anguish during her son’s passion and death. The birth pangs of the woman in heaven need not bhe literal birth pangs, whether we apply it to Israel as a whole or Mary, though I wouldn’t say the two are entirely separate, anyway. The suffering she had can, in one way or another, be tied into bringing the savior into the world.

I am not sure that the text allows such an interpretation. Consider the Greek term rendered as “being in pain.” It is the term basanizomene, which means “I examine, as by torture; I torment; I buffet, as of waves” (Strong’s Concordance). The term used right afterwards that is rendered as “giving birth” is tekein, which means “I bear, bring forth, produce, beget, yield” (Strong’s Concordance). This pain, or torture, is coming from the bringing forth of Christ.

 

[Wesrock]

I am not sure that the text allows such an interpretation. Consider the Greek term rendered as “being in pain.” It is the term basanizomene, which means “I examine, as by torture; I torment; I buffet, as of waves” (Strong’s Concordance). The term used right afterwards that is rendered as “giving birth” is tekein, which means “I bear, bring forth, produce, beget, yield” (Strong’s Concordance). This pain, or torture, is coming from the bringing forth of Christ.

I see no contradiction. As I said, I think the allegory of birth pains is fitting for Mary, not just for the singular event, but for all that she went through. Her begetting or yielding was over the course of her earthly life.

Even were it not so, the crowned woman as Mary wouldn’t be undermined. The text has no one reading or application, and people see no issues attributing the psalms as a whole and certain prophecies to Jesus even where there is admission of sin or other such things seemingly inconsistent with Nicene Christology, as Jesus is, in a sense, standing in for (or simply ‘is’) Israel. Israel is the Church, and Christ is the head and Israel/the Church His body. Whereas Mary is the archetype of the Church/Israel (the body only, and I say archetype, I don’t make her its head or leader/king (in the way the davidic kings stood for AIsrael; that’s Christ), and so the crowned woman being both is even more tied together.

This all said, I don’t believe the Church has a current doctrine on whether Mary experienced birth pains.

And I’m not sure why it’s okay to accept the birth pains as metaphorical for Israel but to deny that it could be used metaphorically for Mary.

 

[Dalriadan39]

You quoted me as saying this:
“I can understand the interpretation of Revelation 11:18-12:17, which is that the woman clothed in the sun is Mary.”

After quoting me, you stated the following:
“But she wears a crown of 12 stars, is clothed with the sun and has the moon under her feet. What is the woman if not a queen? If a queen, of what?”

You did not object to me saying that the woman was Mary, so I assumed you agreed with the statement that was quoted. Now, I do see how it is supposed to be Mary. However, I do not agree (as it stands) with the Catholic teaching of Mary being free from original sin. You, as a Catholic, believe that Mary is free from original sin. If that is true, then you have a hard time placing Mary in Revelation 12, as the woman clearly suffers from original sin (pains of childbirth). I still do not see why the text demands the woman to be the Queen over all things. You are taking a preconceived idea and reading it into the text.

Hi

For the record I think the woman is a lot of things including Mary, but certainly not just Mary. If scripture said she had brown hair and I knew Mary had black hair I would still think it was an image of Mary. The allusion to birth pain can apply to Mother Church/Isreal of which Mary is also a type bringing forth her seed/son. But the Church/Isreal didn’t suffer actual child birth pain either.

You are the one who actually thinks this can be Mary, but then not because of the woman suffering actual child birth pains. If this is the case.

Who do you think the woman is? What are the child birth pains and why?

 

[Della]

Who is to say that I am right or wrong? No one specifically. Someone can consult the Scriptures to see whether I am right or wrong.

That works fine–if they agree with your interpretation of Scripture. What if they don’t? I must not be explaining the importance of authority very well. Authority does not lie in documents/writings. Authority lies with persons. Jesus didn’t give us writings to rely upon in matters of faith and morals–he gave us his Church. The Church preceded the official canon (list of books) of the NT (as well as the OT) by nearly 4 centuries. So, who did people consult in matters of faith and morals? It wasn’t the NT, although many spiritual writings were in circulation, some written by the Apostles and others written by various authors. It was the Church that preached and taught and decided all such matters. There was no one volume of writings for anyone to read. I highly recommend reading: Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church. Don’t be put off by the title or the modesty of the author, it’s really well-researched and nicely written with no anti-Protestant digs or polemics.

Both JWs and Mormons would say that they were

As I wrote, anyone can claim anything, but can they prove it? No, they can’t. Ask them for proof–they won’t be able to supply anything except assertions, not facts.

Thank you for the clarification. While I do have some questions on Peter, I will not try and obscure the thread any further.

You’re welcome. Yes, another topic for another thread. As it is we’ve gone way off your original question, but that’s okay–it’s your thread to discuss whatever you wish.

I pray for others if they request it. I do not believe my prayer will add any strength to their own.

Strength is not the issue. It’s not about adding strength to your prayers or mine. It’s about uniting all our prayers as a single body for the benefit of all of us. I believe you are being a bit too academic rather than thinking in terms of faith and spiritual values. We don’t believe merely because the facts say so, we believe because Christ has revealed himself to us in his Incarnation. He asked that we pray for one another as an act of love and mercy towards others. We all benefit from employing such love and mercy–we need all we can get in a world that is increasingly rejecting such values.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

You did not quote the Bible. I am guessing that you are referencing James 5:16, but you did not say it. If you are, then I need you to answer my question for clarification. You stated the following:
“James in his letter says that a righteous person’s prayer is pleasing to God. Who is more righteous than His saints in heaven?”

I agree with your first sentence. However, why are you assuming that only the saints are righteous? Are you not righteous? Is your prayer not powerful?

Who is more righteous than his saints in heaven? Did I ever assume that only the saints are righteous? Why must you twist my words?

 

[Della]

I do not adhere to the Catholic view of apostolic succession. So the comparison you draw is not accurate.

But, you know nothing about it? So, what cogent reasons do you have for rejecting apostolic succession except that you weren’t taught anything about it?

As for Scripture being “God-breathed”, of course it is, but it’s not alone in that. Is Jesus not God? He breathed on the Apostles, when he gave them the authority to forgive or retain sins:

Jn. 20[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Whose sins were they given the authority to forgive or retain if not those to whom Jesus was entrusting them–his people, redeemed by his blood.

God breathed life into Adam–a man who was God’s steward of the Earth until Adam sinned and the Earth became a hardship for him rather than the blessing it was supposed to be.

God’s Word is Christ (note the capital W), not a book. Jesus is the Father’s final Word to man. And what did Christ do? He established his Church to represent him, to preach, to baptize, to govern his people (as Moses did), to appoint successors (by the laying on of hands), etc. It’s all right there in Scripture. You only need to open your eyes to see it.