Sacred Oral and Written Tradition

[guanophore]

Your off topic again with your rant and derailing this topic.

No rant, ja4, just want others on the thread to know the disingenuous nature of your questions, so they don’t fall into the same trap that I did, believing that you were really here to learn.

When I first read all these same questions from you about Sacred tradition two years ago., I spent hours researching answers and posting to every question. It was a great exercise to strengthen my apologetics skills. I meant what I said about the postes being good-full of excellent material specifcally addressing the nature of Sacred Tradition. The fact that it will likley be lost on you does not detract at all from it’s value. I also note that you did not respond intelligently to any of the material posted for you, but chose this post, bringing attention to your disingnenous intent. You have hereby exemplified my point, thank you.

 

[justasking4]

ncgolf;4343115]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What if a pope teaches something not taught by the Apostles? Is she departing from the faith?

ncgolf;
Based on Christ’s assurance to Peter that He would not let the gates of Hell prevail against it … this cannot happen, not from a Pope.

Many popes supported the inquisitions that went on for centuries. Was hell prevailing against the Catholic church during this period?

This is the beauty of Apostolic succession, it assures us that authentic, true teaching does exist. It protects the Church from the false teachings of men. Heresies can come from within the Church … look at a particular man … with the initials ML.

What of Pope Honorius I (625-38) was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople (680-1).
What good is this divine protection if a pope and anyone else in the church can teach falsely?

If the Bible is the inerrant word of God … what does that really give you, practically?

Insights into the mind of God and how i am to live a life pleasing to Him. It is by the Scriptures that a Christian grows in salvation. See I Peter 2:2

If you are taught with a false understanding how does the inerrancy of the book help you?

What is my false understanding?

I am sure you will say the HS guides me …yes but that is individual … your assurance does nothing to convince me you are correct … it’s like believing the pitch from a used car salesman … there is a bit of truth in his pitch but where?

The way to determine if i’m speaking the truth or not is compare it to the Scriptures. If it can be shown i’m teaching something contrary to the Scriptures then i’m speaking falsely. Keep in mind this principle applies to you and your church teachings.

The words are inerrant only if the understanding of those words is inerrant.

This is false. Inerrancy does not depend on the understanding of others. Inerrancy is property of the Scriptures that have their source in God Himself.

Do you claim an inerrant understanding of the Word of God, totally, not a piece but all?

No. No man can claim to be totally inerrant. No pope, no church can truly claim this since we are all fallen. Only One has ever lived can it be said to have a total inerrant understanding of the Word. He died and rose again 2000 years ago.

Can you transmit an error free understanding of the complete Deposit of Faith left by Christ to the world? I await your answer.

See my previous response. The only complete Deposit of Faith left by Christ to the world are the Scriptures alone.

 

[guanophore]

What do i get for all my efforts? It has not been easy presenting the truth in a hostile place like this

This is very true. When folks like you bring in false teaching, and attempt to convert us to heretical positions, it is not easy for us to be charitable in the face of such hostility and calumny as you provide. As I said, what I give you for all your efforts is daily prayer, and support to the forum so that those who actually are interested in the answers to the questions you repeatedly post can have them.

 

[justasking4]

No rant, ja4, just want others on the thread to know the disingenuous nature of your questions, so they don’t fall into the same trap that I did, believing that you were really here to learn.

When I first read all these same questions from you about Sacred tradition two years ago., I spent hours researching answers and posting to every question. It was a great exercise to strengthen my apologetics skills. I meant what I said about the postes being good-full of excellent material specifcally addressing the nature of Sacred Tradition. The fact that it will likley be lost on you does not detract at all from it’s value. I also note that you did not respond intelligently to any of the material posted for you, but chose this post, bringing attention to your disingnenous intent. You have hereby exemplified my point, thank you.

You forget that you are not the only one i respond to. There are others who need attention besides you…

 

[guanophore]

Questions have been asked by JA4 about Marian doctrines such as the Assumption. Was this revealed to a pope at some point in time?

I suppose it is possible. Any one of us could be blessed with a private revelation regarding the once for all deposit fo faith.

This question seems to assume that the Assumption was unknown until all of a sudden it is revealed to a pope and then he tells everyone else about it.

Yes, I agree with this observation.

No, the Assumption was always known from the time it happened. No revelation was needed to know about it. Actually, it is more of a matter of history–history is the story of events that happened. The Assumption happened, and the story of it was handed down to succeeding generations.

I think the difficulty comes in not being able to find it explicitly in the NT.

So, from that point of view, it is not really a matter of revelation, but the telling of something that happened, like the Battle of Waterloo, or the assassination of Lincoln. But unlike secular history, this history is protected by the Holy Spirit.

Protestants don’t believe that Jesus meant what he said.

 

[justasking4]

Questions have been asked by JA4 about Marian doctrines such as the Assumption. Was this revealed to a pope at some point in time?

This question seems to assume that the Assumption was unknown until all of a sudden it is revealed to a pope and then he tells everyone else about it.

No, the Assumption was always known from the time it happened. No revelation was needed to know about it. Actually, it is more of a matter of history–history is the story of events that happened. The Assumption happened, and the story of it was handed down to succeeding generations.

So, from that point of view, it is not really a matter of revelation, but the telling of something that happened, like the Battle of Waterloo, or the assassination of Lincoln. But unlike secular history, this history is protected by the Holy Spirit.

You might want to change your belief about this. Here is what is said about this from Catholic scholars:
“The Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).”

 

[guanophore]

What do you do when there were more than one pope on the chair of Peter?

There never has been. Never could be.

Do you think all that the Catholic church has done has been right and done under the guidance and protection of the HS?

The Church has been protected from teaching errors on matters of faith and morals by the Holy Spirit. How can we say this? Because teaching error is the road to hell, and Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;4343227]
Originally Posted by justasking4
How did “tradiition” work to come up with the table of contents of the Bible?

mercygate
In the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th Century, bishops met to sort out which of the hundreds of “gospels” and “epistles” circulating among the churches merited universal acceptance as authentic. The epistles of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians and the epistles of Ignatius were axed. The Didache & Shepherd of Hermas were also excluded as were some 17 gnostic gospels and letters.

Criteria were:

1. Was this document associated with an apostle or someone close to an apostle?
2. Was it in universal or nearly universal use in the liturgy of the churches?
3. Was it consistent with the rest of the Scriptures?
4. Was it consistent with the teaching of the Church?

I was aware of this and i think its a good method that they used.

Councils of the Church are part of how Tradition operates. The Holy Spirit lives in the living Body of Christ.

Are all councils equal in authority and significance?

That is how a teaching that you personally may not understand to be “scriptural” may nevertheless be entirely consistent with Scripture and by no means a “teachng of men.”

Church leaders getting together to decide important matters is a biblical principle. Acts 15.

Another great teaching of Tradition that is not specifically delneated in the written Word is the twofold nature and personal unity of Christ as one divine Person with two natures: divine and human. Tradition even came up with an entirely “unscriptural” word to describe it – the hypostatic union.

i have no problem with this either since its derived from the Scriptures.

It is inconsistent to believe that the table of contents of the New Testament is the inspired and inerrant written Word of God and to believe the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as understood by Christians throughout the ages but not to accept the concept of Sacred Tradition since both are the product of Sacred Tradition.

It depends what is meant by Sacred Tradition and specifically what qualifies as a Sacred Tradition.

The O.T. of the Septuagint was ratified at that time as well.

Ratified when?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4345562]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What do you do when there were more than one pope on the chair of Peter?

guanophore
There never has been. Never could be.

How i wish this was not so. Lets take a look at history again. I got this from Wikipedia :
The Great Western Schism, which, on the grounds of the allegedly invalid election of Pope Urban VI, began in 1378 with the election of Clement VII, who took up residence in Avignon, France, led to two, and eventually three, rival lines of claimants to papacy: the Roman line, the Avignon line, and the Pisan line. The last-mentioned line was named after the town of Pisa, Italy, where the council that elected Alexander V as a third claimant was held. To end the schism, in May 1415, the Council of Constance deposed John XXIII of the Pisan line, whose claim to legitimacy was based on a council’s choice. Pope Gregory XII of the Roman line resigned in July 1415. In 1417, the Council of Florence also formally deposed Benedict XIII of the Avignon line, but he refused to resign. Afterwards, Pope Martin V was elected and was accepted everywhere, except in the small and rapidly diminishing area that remained faithful to Benedict XIII. The scandal of the Great Schism created anti-papal sentiment and fed into the Protestant Reformation at the turn of the 16th century."

Here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Do you think all that the Catholic church has done has been right and done under the guidance and protection of the HS?

guanophore
The Church has been protected from teaching errors on matters of faith and morals by the Holy Spirit. How can we say this? Because teaching error is the road to hell, and Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail.

Again i wish this was true but the facts of history show otherwise not just once but repeatedly. My previous response demonstrates this one of many problems.

 

[twb1621]

How i wish this was not so. Lets take a look at history again. I got this from Wikipedia :
The Great Western Schism, .

Hi how you doin… I’m sorry I must have missed your responses to my previous posts. But in regard to this one, "Antipope under the name of Clement VII, b. at Geneva, 1342; d. at Avignon, 16 Sept., 1394. He was the son of Count Amadeus III. Appointed prothonotary Apostolic in 1359, he became Bishop of Thérouanne in 1361, Archbishop of Cambrai in 1368, and cardinal 30 May, 1371. As papal legate in Upper Italy (1376-78), in order to put down a rebellion in the Pontifical States, he is said to have authorized the massacre of 4000 persons at Cesena, and was consequently called “the executioner of Cesena”. Elected to the papacy at Fondi, 20 Sept. 1378, by the French cardinals in opposition to Urban VI, he was the first antipope of the Great Schism.
New Advent Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/13096c.htm

The fact is that Clement VII was considered the anti-pope and was not legitiamtely placed into the Seat of Peter. Read on JA4

 

[twb1621]

How i wish this was not so. Lets take a look at history again. I got this from Wikipedia :
The Great Western Schism, .

Hi how you doin… I’m sorry I must have missed your responses to my previous posts. But in regard to this one, "Antipope under the name of Clement VII, b. at Geneva, 1342; d. at Avignon, 16 Sept., 1394. He was the son of Count Amadeus III. Appointed prothonotary Apostolic in 1359, he became Bishop of Thérouanne in 1361, Archbishop of Cambrai in 1368, and cardinal 30 May, 1371. As papal legate in Upper Italy (1376-78), in order to put down a rebellion in the Pontifical States, he is said to have authorized the massacre of 4000 persons at Cesena, and was consequently called “the executioner of Cesena”. Elected to the papacy at Fondi, 20 Sept. 1378, by the French cardinals in opposition to Urban VI, he was the first antipope of the Great Schism.
New Advent Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/13096c.htm

The fact is that Clement VII was considered the anti-pope and was not legitimately placed into the Seat of Peter. Read on JA4 His declaration of Papacy was as legitimate as you declaring yourself pope at that time.

 

[justasking4]

Hi how you doin… I’m sorry I must have missed your responses to my previous posts. But in regard to this one, "Antipope under the name of Clement VII, b. at Geneva, 1342; d. at Avignon, 16 Sept., 1394. He was the son of Count Amadeus III. Appointed prothonotary Apostolic in 1359, he became Bishop of Thérouanne in 1361, Archbishop of Cambrai in 1368, and cardinal 30 May, 1371. As papal legate in Upper Italy (1376-78), in order to put down a rebellion in the Pontifical States, he is said to have authorized the massacre of 4000 persons at Cesena, and was consequently called “the executioner of Cesena”. Elected to the papacy at Fondi, 20 Sept. 1378, by the French cardinals in opposition to Urban VI, he was the first antipope of the Great Schism.
New Advent Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/13096c.htm

The fact is that Clement VII was considered the anti-pope and was not legitiamtely placed into the Seat of Peter. Read on JA4

Were there evil popes that did indeed sit on the Chair of Peter?

 

[twb1621]

Were there evil popes that did indeed sit on the Chair of Peter?

Each person to his own degree and to be judged by Our Lord only, do you know of any human being that is without sin other than our Lord and His Mother?

 

[RobHom]

What do you do when there were more than one pope on the chair of Peter?

There was one valid pope, and one who was not. There was only one who sat in the chair of Peter.

Do you think all that the Catholic church has done has been right and done under the guidance and protection of the HS?

Yes. But what you need to learn to not do…is confuse the actions of people when viewing the Church. You also need to seek other venues of history than you probably use…because more than likely yours are rather slanted and carry erroneous bias. And by the way…“wikipedia” is hardly a reliable source for information. That has been proven a number of times. If you don’t believe that…just “Google” these two words: Wikipedia unreliable". I think getting factual information about Catholicism from a Klansman would more reliable than “wiki”…

 

[ncgolf]

Many popes supported the inquisitions that went on for centuries. Was hell prevailing against the Catholic church during this period?

It sure knocks on the door doesn’t it … the evil one knows what and where to attack … hasn’t prevailed yet.

What of Pope Honorius I (625-38) was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople (680-1). What good is this divine protection if a pope and anyone else in the church can teach falsely?

An article on the subject from This Rock Magazine, September 1994. catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp …

Insights into the mind of God and how i am to live a life pleasing to Him.

No argument here.

It is by the Scriptures that a Christian grows in salvation. See I Peter 2:2

I do not understand growing in salvation.

What is my false understanding? The way to determine if i’m speaking the truth or not is compare it to the Scriptures. If it can be shown i’m teaching something contrary to the Scriptures then i’m speaking falsely.

The subject of the thread for one.

Keep in mind this principle applies to you and your church teachings.

You bet … can’t be any other way.

This is false. Inerrancy does not depend on the understanding of others. Inerrancy is property of the Scriptures that have their source in God Himself.

Inerrancy of the Scriptures is only 1 side of the coin … just as important is the transmission of that inerrant message to others hence Sacred Tradition. You hit upon something true though the source … the “source” of the Church is Christ … for he is joined to it as a spouse, the bride of Christ is the Church … what would any spouse do for his bride … the 2 are not separate but 1 … same as marriage.

No. No man can claim to be totally inerrant.

You can be inerrant in your understanding then? If so how will you recoginize it?

No pope, no church can truly claim this since we are all fallen.

The Church didn’t claim it … we didn’t grab it from Christ like a prize … it was a gift from Christ … in a sense a wedding present to protect His bride. No one argues that each member of the Church shares the same fallen nature as Adam. Christ protects the Church not from sinners but from inerrant teaching … the Church was built for sinners. Why would Christ say upon you Peter I will build my and church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it … was this just idle boasting?

Only One has ever lived can it be said to have a total inerrant understanding of the Word. He died and rose again 2000 years ago.

He did not leave us … you’re starting to get it though.

 

[RobGentner]

You might want to change your belief about this. Here is what is said about this from Catholic scholars:
“The Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).”

Boy, are you lucky JustAsking4!

I am also a Roman Catholic Writer! So please feel free to also quote me next time:

The Blessed Mother died. She was assumed into Heaven both body and soul. She acts on our behalf helping in our salvation. During her life she lived with the Apostiles It has been said that she live to the age of 63, but who cares? As far as the actual day, year, and manner of the Blessed Mother’s death, nothing certain is known.that also isn’t important. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumptionof Mary is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. (From our written tradition)
Catholic faith, has always derived our knowledge of the Church mysteries from Sacred Tradition. As you know it consists of both Oral and Written tradition. Written tradition includes the real sacred scriptures. I already explained how you can get copies of them!
But again, lucky for you, that actually isn’t necessary. Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in among East and West Catholicism; according to Pope Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous. And we all know how God likes Blasphers!

 

[guanophore]

I was aware of this and i think its a good method that they used.

One wonders why you asked the same question again, then?

Are all councils equal in authority and significance?

The answer to this is the same as the last time it was asked. Go back and other posts made under this username.

How i wish this was so.

I don’t really think so, ja4. If you really desired an infallible authority, then you would take an honest look at anyone making the claim to provide it. However, you have not done that. Your disingenuous claim is easily disproved by your behavior.

Lets take a look at history again. I got this from Wikipedia :
The Great Western Schism, which, on the grounds of the allegedly invalid election of Pope … The scandal of the Great Schism created anti-papal sentiment and fed into the Protestant Reformation at the turn of the 16th century."

Here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope

What has this got to do with anything? The schismatic behavior of arrogant self centered men does not invalidate the Teaching of Jesus. That is like saying “Oh, well, since Peter and Judas betrayed Christ nothing He taught must be infallible”. It is illogical.

Again i wish this was true but the facts of history show otherwise not just once but repeatedly. My previous response demonstrates this one of many problems.

History shows that men fall from God’s plan for them. It does not show that God’s plan is fallible.

Your previous response demonstratest that you have a deficient understanding of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Were there evil popes that did indeed sit on the Chair of Peter?

Yes. Did you think the evil betrayal of Christ by one of His Apostles (Judas) invalidated anything that Jesus taught?

Your error, ja4, is trying to invalidate the infallible Teaching of Jesus by finding fault through those that did not adhere to it.

If you wish to argue with Catholics, why not find something valid? Why not choose something that the Church teaches, instead of defining her by her enemies? Honestly, you remind me of one who stands around all day accusing the brethren.

 

[RobGentner]

You forget that you are not the only one i respond to. There are others who need attention besides you…

:tiphat:
That is what I love about you guys! You are so caring! When you said that to guanophore, I said to myself, "Now here is a bunch of guys that we should get into the real church! They could do actually do good for God! " Rather than spending their time nailing jello to figurative walls in attonment for their many sins.:tsktsk: Their repeated sinning against God, His words, His teachings, His Mother, His church, actually all things Sacred and true! That is why you do that jello thing isn’t it? :whacky: It is Ok we won’t judge! That is God’s job and boy is the list we are going to give Him is getting really long.
I can hear you now explaining to Jesus: “Oh Jesus! How could I know you loved your Mother so much? It wasn’t in the scriptures!” Well, yea, The Catholics tried to tell us, but we depended on the scriptures. Well sure, we knew the scriptures were about our redemption and about you and your teachings. But we all talked and thought to ourselves that you would have written something to let us know. Well yea,we remember your giving her to your apositle, and the apositle to her. But, but, …What? You want us to go where? Eeeerrrr could we Italk to your Mother for a second??


“Behold, from now all generations shall call me blessed. The Mighty One has done great things for me,and holy is His name.”
Luke 1, 48-49

Since that is written in the Bible do you guys actually call God Holy instead of God like us Catholics do? Are you sinning if you done? Did God say he wasn’t Holy? Could He be “Holy God”, I have heard that said! Do you think Holy is His first name? Did he change His name from I AM? Is his full name I am Holy God?
As you can tell, I am one of them! Thanks for being he e for us!
[SIGN] Posted by justasking4
There are others who need attention besides you[/SIGN]

May God have mercy on all of you!

 

[twb1621]

:tiphat:
That is what I love about you guys! You are so caring! When you said that to guanophore, I said to myself, "Now here is a bunch of guys that we should get into the real church! They could do actually do good for God! " Rather than spending their time nailing jello to figurative walls in attonment for their many sins.:tsktsk: Their repeated sinning against God, His words, His teachings, His Mother, His church, actually all things Sacred and true! That is why you do that jello thing isn’t it? :whacky: It is Ok we won’t judge! That is God’s job and boy is the list we are going to give Him is getting really long.
I can hear you now explaining to Jesus: “Oh Jesus! How could I know you loved your Mother so much? It wasn’t in the scriptures!” Well, yea, The Catholics tried to tell us, but we depended on the scriptures. Well sure, we knew the scriptures were about our redemption and about you and your teachings. But we all talked and thought to ourselves that you would have written something to let us know. Well yea,we remember your giving her to your apositle, and the apositle to her. But, but, …What? You want us to go where? Eeeerrrr could we Italk to your Mother for a second??


“Behold, from now all generations shall call me blessed. The Mighty One has done great things for me,and holy is His name.”
Luke 1, 48-49

Since that is written in the Bible do you guys actually call God Holy instead of God like us Catholics do? Are you sinning if you done? Did God say he wasn’t Holy? Could He be “Holy God”, I have heard that said! Do you think Holy is His first name? Did he change His name from I AM? Is his full name I am Holy God?
As you can tell, I am one of them! Thanks for being he e for us!
[SIGN] Posted by justasking4
There are others who need attention besides you[/SIGN]

May God have mercy on all of you!

I like your style. This is from my web site also;
If our Lord Jesus were to stand before each of us in regard to this, I am quite confident of His displeasure. Isn’t it realistic to believe that our Lord would voice Himself in a manner such as this?

…How DARE you express a denial of honor showing disrespect to My mother whom I Myself loved, honored and respected from the beginning. The woman so blessed by My Heavenly Father to be chosen from all human kind as my mother and who’s very blood I share. My mother, who my Apostles loved and respected as their own in my absence until she rejoined me in my Father’s house. You, who show honor to women for being the mothers of your fallen one’s, your men so blessed from Heaven with their God given talents in sports, military, peace making and alike. Yet you refuse to show honor to this Blessed Virgin who birthed me? …As though less due honor and respect than those you pay honor to… Continue to deny My mother of due respect and honor, mocking and judging others for doing so and learn the path you choose. For the honor showed to My mother will never be as deep as what I hold for her but what you can and should offer in her honor is reflective of even more Honor and Worship to Me…

To explain it simply, the Catholic faith does not worship the Blessed Virgin but we certainly do honor Her with the respect befitting the Holy Mother of Jesus Christ. She is at times referred to as the “Queen of Heaven” based on recorded history and The Old Testament of The Holy Bible, which attests to the fact that the mother of a king held the seat of Queen and sat at his right hand with the highest position of influence to the king. Jesus is the King of Heaven. The blood of the Blessed Virgin flowed through the veins of our Lord just as the Blood of our Lord flowed through the veins of His Mother during Her pregnancy. As Jesus Christ is Her Son and the King of Heaven according to Scripture, and in testament to the fact that He brought all things of the Old Testament to fulfillment, to contradict Her position as the Queen of Heaven would be to contradict the word of our heavenly Father in the Old Testament itself. And do we not honor the mothers of our fallen soldiers, policeman and others? Of course we do.