Quotes of Mary Being a Queen

[Guardian]

Is there ANY quotes from ANYBODY outside of Scripture on Mary being a Queen of ANYTHING before 313 AD???

 

[The_Augustinian]

I’m no patristic scholar, but I’m not sure why that’s important. There are only four Marian dogmas. She is the Mother of God, immaculately conceived, ever-virgin, and assumed into Heaven. I think “Mother of God” as a title outranks “Queen of Heaven” by far. We will all be kings and queens in Heaven, but Mary is especially Queen because of her Motherhood. I’m sorry for not being helpful, but I hope I helped put things in perspective!

 

[Todd_Easton]

In his October 11, 1954 encyclical Proclaiming the Queenship of Mary (Ad Caeli Reginam), paragraph 13, Pope Pius XII cites a homily by Origen (Homilies on Luke, Homily 7), written about A.D. 233, where “Elizabeth calls the Virgin Mary ‘the Mother of my Lord.’ and even addresses her as ‘Thou, my Lady.’” This seems to be the earliest extant indirect reference to Mary’s queenship.

The earliest extant reference mentioned in the same encyclical, paragraph 10, that explicitly refers to Mary as Queen seems to be the prayer to the Virgin Mary by St. Ephrem, who died in A.D. 373. The prayer is found in St. Ephrem’s Oratio ad Ssmam Dei Matrem, and reads, “. . . Majestic and Heavenly Maid, Lady, Queen, protect and keep me under your wing lest Satan the sower of destruction glory over me, lest my wicked foe be victorious against me.”

 

[heisenburg]

Keep in mind…

In the Jewish Culture of the time… The mother of the king was considered queen. Ergo, if Jesus is the King of Heaven, who is the queen…

Mary

In Christ

 

[Guardian]

I’m very familar with Mary’s queenship, but I need more substance than her being referenced as “My lady” or “the mother of my Lord.”

I’m trying to show that Christians believed Mary was a Queen before Constantine made Christianity legal in the Roman Empire.

I can not find one explicit quote from anybody that calls Mary “queen!”

 

[FCEGM]

I’m very familar with Mary’s queenship, but I need more substance than her being referenced as “My lady” or “the mother of my Lord.”

I’m trying to show that Christians believed Mary was a Queen before Constantine made Christianity legal in the Roman Empire.

I can not find one explicit quote from anybody that calls Mary “queen!”

You really don’t need to. While for many non-Catholics it’s important to see everything in black and white either in Scripture or a consensus of the ECFs, what they do not understand is the development of doctrine wherein something true (e.g., the Queenship of Mary) can be drawn through inference and building on various passages of Scripture and of the ECFs. So while the one questioning you may not be satisfied at the moment with no specific testimony from the earliest of the CFs, there is no need for you to panic as if this seeming lack in any way demolishes the Church’s understanding of her place in the Church. So it seems the issue of the development of doctrine is something that you need to address first.

 

[Penitus]

You also have to understand that simply because it was not mentioned before 313 A.D. means nothing.

You see, the large Roman empire hevaily persecuted Christians, forcing them to go underground into catacombs to worship, pray, have Mass, etc. Many of their documents have been burned or otherwise destroyed. This is why there is a massive abundance of Christian writings AFTER Constantine declared all religions legal in 313 A.D.

So just because no writings of Mary as Queen exist before that time, this does not mean that at one time they didn’t exist, not does it mean that the early Chrstians never made the Davidic Throne connection to Jesus and Mary, which is obvious from scripture.

 

[Guardian]

It just seems odd that I can’t find one writing about Mary being a Queen before 313 AD, whereas I found several quotes of Mary being the “new Eve” and the “Ark of the Covenant,” which to me are more abstract concepts than Mary being a Queen. Mary being a Queen seems blithering obvious to me, yet no one mentions this. This bothers me.

I don’t believe that doctrine developed on Mary being a queen, I think this doctrine and its understanding has been in place since the beginning, I just can’t confirm this!

 

[Della]

It just seems odd that I can’t find one writing about Mary being a Queen before 313 AD, whereas I found several quotes of Mary being the “new Eve” and the “Ark of the Covenant,” which to me are more abstract concepts than Mary being a Queen. Mary being a Queen seems blithering obvious to me, yet no one mentions this. This bothers me.

It may be that it was so “blitheringly obvious” to everyone that no one thought it needed to be mentioned, i. e., because it was so universely believed and accepted. Ususally, what gets written about the most are issues that are under attack or which are unclear to many, not those that are accepted by all.

I don’t believe that doctrine developed on Mary being a queen, I think this doctrine and its understanding has been in place since the beginning, I just can’t confirm this!

I wouldn’t let it bother me, development of doctrine doesn’t at all mean that it wasn’t believed before it was developed, but rather that it was deepened and clarified as the doctrine was developed. It’s not that it wasn’t believed one day, then “developed” and believed another day. Protestants tend to think that way, but they don’t understand what the term “development of doctrine” means.

 

[Guardian]

It may be that it was so “blitheringly obvious” to everyone that no one thought it needed to be mentioned, i. e., because it was so universely believed and accepted. Ususally, what gets written about the most are issues that are under attack or which are unclear to many, not those that are accepted by all.

Well the thing is, it’s a title more than a concept. I would expect someone to call her " my Queen" as a title, or at least address her as “Queen Mary.” Yet they never address her as such when she is mentioned. Even if no one denied her as Queen you would expect her to be addressed as such.

 

[apophasis]

Keep in mind…

In the Jewish Culture of the time… The mother of the king was considered queen. Ergo, if Jesus is the King of Heaven, who is the queen…

Mary

In Christ

And can you show me in Scripture where the Man Jesus is said to be now reigning as “King of Heaven?”

 

[gap51]

And can you show me in Scripture where the Man Jesus is said to be now reigning as “King of Heaven?”

Depends on your interpretation … but how about Daniel 4:37?

 

[Della]

Well the thing is, it’s a title more than a concept. I would expect someone to call her " my Queen" as a title, or at least address her as “Queen Mary.” Yet they never address her as such when she is mentioned. Even if no one denied her as Queen you would expect her to be addressed as such.

Pope Piux XII cited in his encyclical: Ad Caeli Reginam:

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.

1. In this matter We do not wish to propose a new truth to be believed by Christians, since the title and the arguments on which Mary’s queenly dignity is based have already been clearly set forth, and are to be found in ancient documents of the Church and in the books of the sacred liturgy.

Now, I don’t know just which documents the pope was referring to, but I’m sure he did, and for my money, that’s good enough for me!

 

[apophasis]

Depends on your interpretation … but how about Daniel 4:37?

Yes, that certainly is a reference to the God of Daniel, the God of Israel, creator and ruler of heaven and earth: Yahweh. But is heaven the “Kingdom” the Son was born into this world to rule? Was it “heaven” that the angel Gabriel was was referring to when he said to Mary concerning the child she would bear, "And He will be great, and He will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end?"When did David ever reign over heaven? Where does Scripture ever call heaven “the house of Jacob?”

The Church was predominately Premillennial for the first four centuries. Which is probably why one cannot find any writings that teach of a heavenly queenship of Mary (and you certainly won’t find it taught by the Apostles).

 

[apophasis]

Pope Piux XII cited in his encyclical: Ad Caeli Reginam:

Now, I don’t know just which documents the pope was referring to, but I’m sure he did, and for my money, that’s good enough for me!

Well, the teaching is definitely way post-Apostolic, so the “ancient documents” he was referring to certainly are not the Scriptures, the written Word of God. Not even Gabriel told her she would reign with her Son in the kingdom He was born to rule. Yet one would think he would have passed that not so insignificant, new, bit of information to her, since none of the prophetic Scriptures ever speak of a “Queen” reigning during the promised, Messianic Kingdom.

 

[IanS]

Guardian:

I suggest you read “Queen Mother, A Biblical Theology of Mary’s Queenship” by Edward Sri. It’s a great book that explains the truth of Mary’s queenship by using the “salvation history” approach. There is no way to slam-dunk this issue with a couple of proof texts from the Bible. However, when you look at the whole all of salvation history which includes, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the norms and culture of the time it paints a very clear and undeniable picture of Mary beeing Queen of Heaven.

 

[Guardian]

Guardian:

I suggest you read “Queen Mother, A Biblical Theology of Mary’s Queenship” by Edward Sri. It’s a great book that explains the truth of Mary’s queenship by using the “salvation history” approach. There is no way to slam-dunk this issue with a couple of proof texts from the Bible. However, when you look at the whole all of salvation history which includes, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the norms and culture of the time it paints a very clear and undeniable picture of Mary beeing Queen of Heaven.

IanS: Actually, I think the Bible does “slam-dunk” this issue, which is why I am not asking for Scripture verses but outside Scripture quotes.

There’s no doubt that Mary is the Queen Mother from any and all perspectives, I’m just sad that none of the writings that reference her explicitly as “Queen” before 313 AD have been preserved.

 

[Guardian]

Well, the teaching is definitely way post-Apostolic, so the “ancient documents” he was referring to certainly are not the Scriptures, the written Word of God. Not even Gabriel told her she would reign with her Son in the kingdom He was born to rule. Yet one would think he would have passed that not so insignificant, new, bit of information to her, since none of the prophetic Scriptures ever speak of a “Queen” reigning during the promised, Messianic Kingdom.

Apophasis: First off, you’re straying from the OP. Secondly, you seem to keep applying the fallacy of sola scriptura on us Catholics. We don’t have to have everything “spelled out” explicitly in the Scriptures to believe it. However, the Scriptures are the strongest argument for the Queenship of Mary, in fact they are explicit.

Not only will Mary reign as Queen, but Christians in general will “reign:”

• “if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;” – 2 Timothy 2:12

• “Only hold on to what you have until I come. To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations— ‘He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery’” – Revelation 2:25-27

• “To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.” – Revelation 3:21

• “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.’” – Revelation 5:10

I will lend it to you that the Bible does not EXPLICITLY say that Mary is “Queen,” although it does say she wears a crown in Revelation 12. But like I said, we Catholics don’t have to have everything spelled out.

Many people wonder why the Bible does not explicitly state many things about Mary. One reason is that Mary was still alive during most of the writings of the New Testament. As we see with Jesus during His earthly ministry that He told his disciples not to tell people what they have learned about Him at that time (Mark 7:36, Luke 9:21). Why would He do that? Because it would actually interfere with His ministry as He would draw too much negative attention before His ultimate timing of redemption would come. The same applies to Mary. If the New Testament spoke explicitly about Mary and her role in God’s divine plan, she too most likely would have been executed, and at the very least would have interfered with her ministry with the Apostle John. It is interesting to note that the only book of the New Testament that was most likely written after Mary went to Heaven was Revelation, and that book speaks the most explicitly about Mary.Finding God’s Ideal, pg. 80]

 

[apophasis]

Apophasis: First off, you’re straying from the OP.

I didn’t stray at all. You wanted to know why there are no quotes concerning Mary’s alleged Queenship for several centuries after the Apostolic age. I told you why, because it’s neither Biblical or Apostolic teaching.

Secondly, you seem to keep applying the fallacy of sola scriptura on us Catholics. We don’t have to have everything “spelled out” explicitly in the Scriptures to believe it. However, the Scriptures are the strongest argument for the Queenship of Mary, in fact they are explicit.

Not only will Mary reign as Queen, but Christians in general will “reign:”

In reality, the silence of Scripture is the strongest argument against her alleged Queenship. Yes, Scripture does teach us that believers will reign with Christ on earth during His Millennial Kingdom (Mary will be one of them), but Scripture speaks of no unique Queenship of Mary then, or, now in heaven. And for this reason you’ll find no early quotes about it. IT SIMPLY WASN’T TAUGHT OR BELIEVED. It’s a teaching come lately void of any Biblical or Apostolic backing.

I will lend it to you that the Bible does not EXPLICITLY say that Mary is “Queen,” although it does say she wears a crown in Revelation 12.

The crown is worn by a symbolic woman seen in a sign that is seen in heaven. It doesn’t say the woman is in heaven. In fact, in the “sign” the woman is seen on earth and the son she gives birth to is caught up to the throne of God, not the woman. The woman, and the rest of her “offspring” (Catholicism teaches Mary had no other offspring) remain on earth and are pursued by the dragon. It is quite obvious that the “woman” with a crown of “twelve stars” (corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel) is national Israel, the nation through which the Messiah came into this world.

But like I said, we Catholics don’t have to have everything spelled out.

I know. It doesn’t need to be “spelled out” at all for you to believe it. But men are called to believe God’s Word, not the words of mere men.

 

[Axion]

.In reality, the silence of Scripture is the strongest argument against her alleged Queenship.

Argument from silence is generally a dangerous fallacy. Nowhere does Scripture mention the words Trinity, or tell us that it is sole authority for teaching.

Yes, Scripture does teach us that believers will reign with Christ on earth during His Millennial Kingdom (Mary will be one of them),

Which verses say “during His Millenial Kingdom”??? You’ve added this yourself, methinks.

but Scripture speaks of no unique Queenship of Mary then, or, now in heaven

. Revelation 12 actually shows her as Queen in heaven.

And for this reason you’ll find no early quotes about it. IT SIMPLY WASN’T TAUGHT OR BELIEVED. It’s a teaching come lately void of any Biblical or Apostolic backing.

Again this is your supposition, based on modern circular reasoning.

The crown is worn by a symbolic woman seen in a sign that is seen in heaven. It doesn’t say the woman is in heaven. In fact, in the “sign” the woman is seen on earth and the son she gives birth to is caught up to the throne of God, not the woman. The woman, and the rest of her “offspring” (Catholicism teaches Mary had no other offspring) remain on earth and are pursued by the dragon.

The sign is in heaven. And yes, Jesus was caught up to the throne of God before Mary was - check the gospels. The offspring of Mary are defined in Revelation 12 itself, as those who believe and follow Jesus, in other words Christians. It doesn’t refer to any imagined natural children. Mary is Mother of all Christians, who are Jesus’ brethren.

It is quite obvious that the “woman” with a crown of “twelve stars” (corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel) is national Israel, the nation through which the Messiah came into this world

This is not “obvious” at all. To use your own reasoning, if this is so obvious, how come the interpretation of the Woman as Israel has only appeared in the past hundred years or so, even in protestant circles?

In fact ALL the figures in Revelation 12 represent individuals. The child is Jesus, the dragon is Satan etc. How come with Jesus’s Mother and her ALONE, the Woman suddenly ceases to be an individual, but a collective entity? Israel is NEVER portrayed as a Woman in revelation.

I know. It doesn’t need to be “spelled out” at all for you to believe it. But men are called to believe God’s Word, not the words of mere men.

And God’s word is taught through His Church.