Queen of Heaven

  • Thread starter Thread starter PatienceAndLove
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ignoring the fact that the apostles appear to have attempted to protect the Blessed Virgin from capture by not writing much about her and even then in very cryptic terms.
They didn’t write about her at all after the first few lines of Acts.

Can you please refer us to the Scripture where they discuss hiding Mary away so she is not captured. I never saw that.

Considering that she was supposedly assumed just 3-15 years after the Ascension according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, what explains her lack of mention again in the NT?

newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

Since she was assumed and coronated years before the first book of the NT was penned, why do you suppose they still felt the need to protect Mary from capture?

…
 
They didn’t write about her at all after the first few lines of Acts.

Can you please refer us to the Scripture where they discuss hiding Mary away so she is not captured. I never saw that.

Considering that she was supposedly assumed just 3-15 years after the Ascension according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, what explains her lack of mention again in the NT?

newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

Since she was assumed and coronated years before the first book of the NT was penned, why do you suppose they still felt the need to protect Mary from capture?

…
The same reason we don’t have a Divinely inspired index to tell us which books belong in the Bible. The same reason why there is no direct mention of the sinfulness of abortion and masturbation in the Bible. What is not found explicitly found in the Bible is found in Tradition.

God Bless,
Michael
 
Read Revelation Chapter 12…yet another part of the Bible protestants ignore…
The woman of Rev 12 is clearly Israel, as God already defined in Genesis.

Secondly, it is against Catholic dogma that Mary is the woman of Rev 12. The woman in Rev 12 is in great labor pains as she delivers. That is against Church teaching on the subject.
In addition to Mary being clearly shown as Queen of Heaven, you will also discover that she is the God given mother of all Christians.
For one, John strangely never records and Queen in Heaven, even though he records seeing just about everyone else.

Also, all 260+ chapters of the NT never mention Mary as the mother of all Christians.

The Holy Spirit never said anything about Mary being our mother. Actually, He already gave that role and position to someone else:

1Pe 3:6 “Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right”

Gal 4:26 “But Sarah, the free woman, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. And she is our mother”

You say Mary.

God says Sarah. The Apostle Peter says Sarah. The Apostle Paul says Sarah.

I must believe God and His Apostles, not you, in this case. I am sure you can understand.

…
 
Mary’s the Holy of Holies, the Ark of the New Covenant. The Holy of Holies carried the Ten Commandments which Moses received from God, and Mary bore the Word of God.
 
here is an interesting perspective for protestants. if sola scriptura is true, and everyone has the authority to interpret the bible for themselves by the power of the holy spirit, doesn’t this mean that if a catholic reads passages like revelation 12 and the old testament passeages about the queen mother, and from this comes to the conclusion that mary is the queen of heaven, musn’t the protestant conceed that this interpretation is at least potentially valid if the catholic claims to be lead by the holy spirit when coming to this interpretation?
 
The woman of Rev 12 is clearly Israel, as God already defined in Genesis.
The ‘woman’ in Israel is Mary, the Church and Judea. Not the modern nation-state of Israel.
40.png
Atemi:
Secondly, it is against Catholic dogma that Mary is the woman of Rev 12. The woman in Rev 12 is in great labor pains as she delivers. That is against Church teaching on the subject.
Can you please show me where the Church is against the idea that Mary suffered labor pains? It may be the opinion of some, but it certainly is not dogma.
40.png
Atemi:
For one, John strangely never records and Queen in Heaven, even though he records seeing just about everyone else.
Okay, and again, the Trinity isn’t mentioned in the Bible yet the Trinity is one of the beliefs that makes one a Christian. It’s alluded to, but it wasn’t defined till the Council of Nicaea.
40.png
Atemi:
Also, all 260+ chapters of the NT never mention Mary as the mother of all Christians.
Mary was the first Christian, and the mother of God. Can we agree on this much? Jesus is God, Mary is His mother, therefore she is the Mother of God. Not the Mother of the Trinity, the mother of Jesus who is fully God and fully man.
40.png
Atemi:
The Holy Spirit never said anything about Mary being our mother. Actually, **He already gave that role and position to someone else:**1Pe 3:6 “Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right”

Gal 4:26 "But Sarah, the free woman, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. And she is our mother"You say Mary.

God says Sarah. The Apostle Peter says Sarah. The Apostle Paul says Sarah.
Sarah is the Mother of old Covenant Jews, as Mary is the Mother of New Covenant Christians. Got it? Good! We’re getting somewhere…
40.png
Atemi:
I must believe God and His Apostles, not you, in this case. I am sure you can understand.
That’s what the Pharisees said, too… "I must believe God and our Prophets, not some Carpenter… 😉
 
The woman of Rev 12 is clearly Israel, as God already defined in Genesis.
the catholic church has always held that thsi is both mary, isreal and the church.
Secondly, it is against Catholic dogma that Mary is the woman of Rev 12. The woman in Rev 12 is in great labor pains as she delivers. That is against Church teaching on the subject.
birth pains don’t nessearilly have to be taken literally in scripture esspecially in apocalyptic literature. Even St. Paul compaired his own sufferings to that of birth pains

"My children, for whom I am again in labor until Christ be formed in you! " (galatians 4:19)
 
Atemi,
I’ll try to clear up a few misconceptions.
The woman of Rev 12 is clearly Israel, as God already defined in Genesis.

Secondly, it is against Catholic dogma that Mary is the woman of Rev 12. The woman in Rev 12 is in great labor pains as she delivers. That is against Church teaching on the subject
…
The woman in Rev 12 has a double application: Israel and Mary; Mary as mother of Jesus and as mother of the Church.

Regarding the “labor pains”.
  1. Mary is the Mother of Jesus and that birth was without labor pains.
  2. Mary is the Mother of the Church because the Church is the body of Christ (Ephesians 5:23 “…Christ is the head of the church, His body,…”). It is the birth of the Church, the body of Christ, that is the cause of her great labor pains. Tomorrow especially (Good Friday), we can get an idea of how great her labor pains were.
The Holy Spirit never said anything about Mary being our mother. Actually, He already gave that role and position to someone else:
1Pe 3:6 “Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right”
Gal 4:26 “But Sarah, the free woman, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. And she is our mother”
1 Peter 3:6 The words of Peter are addressed to a limited audience, specifically married women, who are already in the Church - are already children of Mary by virtue of being members of the body of Christ. Note that wives are only children of Sarah if they “do right and let nothing terrify them” (RSV).

Galatians 4:26 I’m sure you’re aware the Galatians passage is an allegory (vs 24) where, as St. Paul says, the free woman (Sarah) corresponds to the new covenant and the heavenly Jerusalem, the Church, - and “she (the Church) is our mother”. This also is part of Catholic teaching, that the Church is our mother.

I hope this helps explain a little.

Have a grace filled, happy Easter,

Nita
 
Wow… I didn’t think this would get that heated.
I hope we can at least be civil to one until after Easter.
 
Because it was not employed or used in the early church, long after she was purportedly coronated.
People that really study the early Church and early Church fathers often convert to Catholicism.

Mary changed her son’s mind and had him make wine from water. That makes her special as she changed the mind of God. But then the local protestants think Jesus only made juice, not wine. How can you reason with notions like that?

I imagine in heaven that Christ is at the right hand of God and Mary is at the right hand of Jesus. When and if protestants get to heaven, they will then pay Mary her due respect.
 
People that really study the early Church and early Church fathers often convert to Catholicism.
I thoroughly study the early fathers and it makes me even more inclined to never return to Catholicism. There are fewer things that make me as convinced as the testimony of the early church.
Mary changed her son’s mind and had him make wine from water.
Please quote the Scripture where it says Mary changed Jesus’ mind. I can’t find it.

…
 
Oh, I didn’t know I was getting into a debate with a disgruntled Catholic who now describes himself as a non-catholic christian.

I’ll scream “Uncle” as you are looking through tainted glasses now. I’ll pray for you that you’ll come back home soon.

But in my opinion, your comment about the early church fathers was disingenuous. No one I have ever heard of studies them indepth and goes away from the Church. :confused: Not saying it doesn’t happen, but this would be my first knowledge. I also see you can’t bring yourself to call yourself a protestant. You are definately protesting your old faith.

Anyways good luck. Time for me to go to Holy Thursday night Mass. I promise you a prayer at Mass. 👍
 
I thoroughly study the early fathers and it makes me even more inclined to never return to Catholicism. There are fewer things that make me as convinced as the testimony of the early church.

…
I find that ironic, since John Newman set out to study the early fathers in order to prove Catholicism wrong, and ended up becoming Catholic himself as a result (as did many other converts).
 
I thoroughly study the early fathers and it makes me even more inclined to never return to Catholicism. There are fewer things that make me as convinced as the testimony of the early church.

Please quote the Scripture where it says Mary changed Jesus’ mind. I can’t find it.

…
At the wedding feast of Cana. Jesus told His mother that it was not yet His time, but she insisted that the guests needed more wine. He fulfilled her request by changing water into wine for the party guests.
 
I get the idea that queen mother is above Jesus from your online apologetists. Try reading their articles as an outsider, they are either raising her too high or they are poorly communicating to us non-catholics.

Here are some criticism of one of your apologetists books by another catholic,
The word Gebirah (translated as “queen mother”) is mentioned in connection with THREE different women in the Old Testament.
  1. Queen Tahpenes (Wife)(5)
  2. Maachah, King Asa’s grandmother(6)
  3. King Ahaziah’s mother(7)
Already we should be raising an eyebrow and asking ‘is this role so important?’ being only mentioned with three women and only one of which fitting the description of which we’re trying to fit it to? Let’s get down to specifics:
Chapter 2 pg 48 says:
“In the Old Testament, gebirah is often used as a title for the mother of the king but it is never used to describe the wife of an Israelite king.”
Often? The word is used 6 total times in the entire bible!!! Of those, 2 are ambiguous (prophetic writings Jeremiah 13:18, Jeremiah 29:2) and 2 specifically speak of someone other than a mother (1 Kings 11:19, 1 Kings 15:13)!!! You can see already how the book is misleading.
He says ‘an Israelite king’ deceivingly. If ‘gebirah’ had been mentioned 95 times and 45 of those times were describing Israelite mothers of kings and the remaining 50 times were of other nations containing both mothers & wives or just wives then he may have a point. But this is not the case. We have only ONE example of this being given to a mothe. So it is insignificant that it is used of a mother or grandmother EVERY time in connection with Israelite kings because there are only 2 examples! It is also insignificant that it applies only to the wives of foreigners since it is only used once. However, he takes for granted from this point on that every time it mentions gebirah it is talking about the mother. This is a glaring error and easily misleads the reader.
Let’s break it down mathematically:
Here are the three different women and their relationship to the king that are awarded the title “queen mother” or “gebirah”:
  1. Mother
  2. Grandmother
  3. Wife
…
So we can see that ratio wise: 1/3 of the time it is mentioned it’s talking about mothers and 2/3 of the time it is mentioned in connection with NOT mother or someone other than the mother. So in unknown circumstances, employing the methods of probability we can safely determine that most of time, when using the word ‘gebirah’ we are talking about “Not Mother”.
Chapter 2 pg 49 says:
First, the narrative of 1 and 2 Kings views the king’s mother as having such an important role that it mentions her name while introducing almost every new monarch in Judah (all except three).
What he says is true. But it’s misleading! It is interesting that the mother’s name is usually mentioned. I am sure this does have significance. But keep in mind that none of these women are given the title ‘gebirah’ or ‘queen mother’.
On page 52 he says:
“Finally, the prophet Jeremiah tells how the queen mother possessed a throne and a crown”
Again, he is basing this on the faulty premise that the word ‘gebirah’ always means the mother of a king. The 2 times the word is used in Jeremiah are both ambiguous as to whether or not they are speaking of a mother or a wife. (He is taking for granted that it must be of a mother or grandmother) since it is speaking of Israelites but this is faulty logic as I have previously shown).
On page 54 he says:
“in this section, we turn our attention to two Old Testament passages which bear witness to the importance of the gebirah in Israel’s traditions: Isaiah 7:14 and Genesis 3:15”
This is highly misleading as neither of those passages even use the word gebirah!
So we have shown how he has been misleading concerning the word translated as “queen mother” but what about the word “queen”? Ah hah! We conveniently forgot about that word didn’t we. (He never mentions it). Remember the original Catholic proposition?
“In Biblical times the queen was the mother and not the wife.”
We’re interested in the word queen. This is a completely different word from the word misused by Mr. Sri. The Hebrew word for queen is “malkah”. This means (as our word does) the wife of a king of course. Which of these offices were more important in the culture? Judge for yourself:
Gebirah (queen mother - mother, grandmother or wife) is mentioned 6 total times
Malkah (queen - the wife of a king) is mentioned 35 times
(There’s also another word “shegal” mentioned twice abstractly in Pslams which according to Strong’s meant exclusively the wife of a king)
It is clear that ‘queen’ means the wife even in that culture.
godfearin.blogspot.com/2006/07/mary-queen-mother-in-catholicism.html
 
I thoroughly study the early fathers and it makes me even more inclined to never return to Catholicism. There are fewer things that make me as convinced as the testimony of the early church.
Please quote the Scripture where it says Mary changed Jesus’ mind. I can’t find it.

…Oh that would be here in John 2:1-11
3: When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
4: And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”
5: His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
6: Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.
7: Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim.
8: He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast.” So they took it.

It’s quite obvious that Our Lady’s intercession affected Our Lord’s decision to intervene miraculously.

As for your reading of the ECF, you must not be paying much attention then.

Ignatius of Antioch says: (CHAP. VII.)

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.”

and then, (CHAP. VIII.)

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution(17) of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

Written within 10 years of the death of St. John who discipled he and Polycarp.

Polycarp says this at his trial. (" CHAP. IX.–POLYCARP REFUSES TO REVILE CHRIST.)

Now, as Polycarp was entering into the stadium, there came to him a voice from heaven, saying, “Be strong, and show thyself a man, O Polycarp !” No one saw who it was that spoke to him; but those of our brethren who were present heard the voice. And as he was brought forward, the tumult became great when they heard that Polycarp was taken. And when he came near, the proconsul asked him whether he was Polycarp. On his confessing that he was, [the proconsul] sought to persuade him to deny [Christ], saying, “Have respect to thy old age,” and other similar things, according to their custom, [such as]," Swear by the fortune of Caesar; repent, and say, Away with the Atheists." But Polycarp, gazing with a stern countenance on all the multitude of the wicked heathen then in the stadium, and waving his hand towards them, while with groans he looked up to heaven, said, “Away with the Atheists.”(5) Then, the proconsul urging him, and saying, “Swear, and I will set thee at liberty, reproach Christ;” Polycarp declared, **“Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?” ** He was eighty six years old at the time. That means that he was infant baptized.

How’d you miss these things from the earliest of disciples?
 
here is an interesting perspective for protestants. if sola scriptura is true, and everyone has the authority to interpret the bible for themselves by the power of the holy spirit, doesn’t this mean that if a catholic reads passages like revelation 12 and the old testament passeages about the queen mother, and from this comes to the conclusion that mary is the queen of heaven, musn’t the protestant conceed that this interpretation is at least potentially valid if the catholic claims to be lead by the holy spirit when coming to this interpretation?
:clapping: :clapping: I’ve always wondered how I as a catholic can’t interpret scripture too, I’ve always found that to be very hypocritical of some protestants. thank you for asking such a great question!!!
 
Ah No, because there are rules for interpretation and for doing proper word studies. It is known as exegesis. And, sad to say many people are poor at doing this.

Exegetical Fallacies (by DA Carson)
WORD-STUDY FALLACIES: (condensed from Carson’s book)

1)The root fallacy – “pineapple” is not an apple growing on a pine

2)Semantic anachronism – dynamite is etymologically derived from “dunamis”, then, the idea of dynamite is read back into dunamis.

3)Semantic obsolescence – Is “head of the family” origin or source? It’s not so in Hellenistic Greek, only in classical Greek.

4)Appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings – ‘The law’ refers to rabbinic tradition?

5)Careless appeal to background info – born of water and Spirit (water can be referred to sperm) so physical birth and spiritual birth? Purification by water and new spirit in Ezekiel 36:25-27.
  1. Verbal parallelomania – John’s prologue is compared to other remote literature to prove dependency – Bultmann and Dodd?
  2. Link of language and mentality – Ancient Hebrews unable to understand past, present and future because only two aspects in their language? False assumption about technical terms – ‘sanctification’ and ‘baptism of Spirit’
8)Problems with synonyms and componential analysis – agape and phileo?

9)Selective use of evidence - Hebrew knowing is experiential, not intellectual? Knowing God is obeying and loving others but also content in John 4:50, 5:47, 13:19, 17:21)

10)Unwarranted semantic disjunctions/restrictions – false either/or meanings. E.g. the headship of Jesus – either He as Head has authority to control and demand obedience OR as Head, He is source/origin and stoops to lift us up?

11)Unwarranted restriction of semantic field – Judaism is only a technical term for a sectarian exclusiveness against Hellenist and not religion of the Jews? This is my body? “IS” could mean Fulfillment, Resemblance, Cause, Attribute or identity?

12)Unwarranted broadening of semantic range – ‘church’ (universal?) in Acts 7:38

13)Problems relating to Semitic background of Greek NT – Methodologically irresponsible to read Hebrew word into Greek equivalent

14)Neglect distinguishing peculiarities of a corpus – a fallacy that one NT writer uses a word (call/justification) with the same meaning as other NT writers

15)Unwarranted linking of sense and reference – The meaning of words in a grammatically coherent array (Three is a prime number) is different from the theoretical referent of each word (Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, Berkeley)

Most word studies you will find commits one or more of the above errors.
 
Ah No, because there are rules for interpretation and for doing proper word studies. It is known as exegesis. And, sad to say many people are poor at doing this.

Exegetical Fallacies (by DA Carson)
WORD-STUDY FALLACIES: (condensed from Carson’s book)

1)The root fallacy – “pineapple” is not an apple growing on a pine

2)Semantic anachronism – dynamite is etymologically derived from “dunamis”, then, the idea of dynamite is read back into dunamis.

3)Semantic obsolescence – Is “head of the family” origin or source? It’s not so in Hellenistic Greek, only in classical Greek.

4)Appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings – ‘The law’ refers to rabbinic tradition?

5)Careless appeal to background info – born of water and Spirit (water can be referred to sperm) so physical birth and spiritual birth? Purification by water and new spirit in Ezekiel 36:25-27.
  1. Verbal parallelomania – John’s prologue is compared to other remote literature to prove dependency – Bultmann and Dodd?
  2. Link of language and mentality – Ancient Hebrews unable to understand past, present and future because only two aspects in their language? False assumption about technical terms – ‘sanctification’ and ‘baptism of Spirit’
8)Problems with synonyms and componential analysis – agape and phileo?

9)Selective use of evidence - Hebrew knowing is experiential, not intellectual? Knowing God is obeying and loving others but also content in John 4:50, 5:47, 13:19, 17:21)

10)Unwarranted semantic disjunctions/restrictions – false either/or meanings. E.g. the headship of Jesus – either He as Head has authority to control and demand obedience OR as Head, He is source/origin and stoops to lift us up?

11)Unwarranted restriction of semantic field – Judaism is only a technical term for a sectarian exclusiveness against Hellenist and not religion of the Jews? This is my body? “IS” could mean Fulfillment, Resemblance, Cause, Attribute or identity?

12)Unwarranted broadening of semantic range – ‘church’ (universal?) in Acts 7:38

13)Problems relating to Semitic background of Greek NT – Methodologically irresponsible to read Hebrew word into Greek equivalent

14)Neglect distinguishing peculiarities of a corpus – a fallacy that one NT writer uses a word (call/justification) with the same meaning as other NT writers

15)Unwarranted linking of sense and reference – The meaning of words in a grammatically coherent array (Three is a prime number) is different from the theoretical referent of each word (Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, Berkeley)

Most word studies you will find commits one or more of the above errors.
Daniel,

I’m sure glad it was DA Carson that set up those rules and not Jesus. According to them, I’d say there are very few people qualified to read Scripture. It is not a problem for a Catholic - one that knows Church teaching that is. We have the “hedge” or “fence” of doctrine to keep us from falling off the deep end of error. How is the average Protestant to read Scripture if he hasn’t studied Hebrew, Greek, culture of the OT and NT time, etc.?

Nita
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top