The "queen of heaven"

[Tantum_ergo]

Here’s something to think about.

Is God eternal? Is He unchanging?

Did God come to us through Mary? Then, when did He ‘stop’?

If He hasn’t stopped coming to us through Mary, then most certainly we should be more concerned with knowing exactly what Mary’s role is. Her “fiat” in accepting God’s “word” is much more than a simple ‘yes’ to be done for one ‘brief moment’ on earth.

 

[RNRobert]

This is a fascinating question:

And Randy Carson had the most thoughtful and sophisticated answer I’ve seen, but how to reconcile the practice with the explicit condemnation found in Jeremiah 7 and 44 as well as the Ten commandments (Exodus 20:4-6)?

**4 Thou shalt make the no grauen ymage, nether any symilitude that is in heauen aboue, ether in the erth beneth, or in the water that ys beneth the erth.
5 Se that thou nether bowe thy sylf vnto them nether serue them: for I the Lorde thy God, am a gelouse God, **and viset the synne of the fathers vppon the childern vnto the third and fourth generacion of the that hate me:
6 and yet shewe mercie vnto thousandes amonge them that loue me and kepe my commaundmentes.

But God also commanded the Jews to make the ark of the covenant with two cherubim atop it (Exodus 25:10) and later commanded Moses to make a bronze serpent so that those who weren bitten by snakes could look at it and be healed (Numbers 21:8).
Is God contradicting himself, or he distinguishing between using objects in religious worship as opposed to the objects being worshipped themselves?
BTW, I’m aware of 2 Kings 18:4, where Josiah destroyed the bronze serpent because the people were worshipping it. The fact that people were misusing it doesn’t change the fact that its creation was ordered by God in the first place (it was also a foreshadowing of Christ- John 3:14).

 

[Church_Militant]

“Do not presume to argue, ‘Mary is the earthly mother of Jesus’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up Jesus!”

And what part of the Bible is that in?

 

[gardenswithkids]

I certainly am aware of the fact that the “queen of heaven” in the passage is not the Blessed Mother. If it were, then she would have had to been, in some sense, pre-existent, which obviously she was not. With a title like “queen of heaven,” however, one cannot help but think of the Catholic understanding of Mary as “queen of heaven and earth.” This, of course, is why I brought the passage up.

A footnote from an Anglican Bible (The New English Bible: Oxford Study Edition) from the footnote on Jeremiah 7:18 reads: "Queen of heaven was an astral deity variously identified as Ishtar, Venus, or some other love goddess of the Ancient Near East.

 

[Church_Militant]

I just wanted to thank everyone for their comments. I’ve haven’t responded because up until yesterday I was finishing up a paper for my Systematic Theology class.

Contrary to the gross assumption of one on this thread, I did not google some verse(s) with which to try and refute the Catholic teaching on Mary’s queenship. This could not be farther from the truth. In fact, I was in prayer our Lord GOD, asking Him to speak a word to me. When I opened the Scriptures the passage from the prophet Jeremiah was where I was taken.

That’s a fairly common non-Catholic practice that is much the same as pressing the muzzle of a pistol to one’s head and pulling the trigger then checking to see if you’re dead.

It has lead to a great many errors in thinking and even behaviors.

Your phraseology is also characteristic of a non-Catholic, why is that?

If the title Queen of Heaven is idolatrous for the Blessed Virgin, then by that same fallacious logic then Christ Himself cannot be called King of Kings, since that title was also claimed by pagan kings in the OT.

 

[Pope_St_Peter]

I don’t play “spiritual Russian Roulette.” I would think that most people who take a Systematic Theology course do not, even Protestants.

 

[Pope_St_Peter]

P.S. Tantum Ergo, that is an intersting point.

 

[Zooey]

Hi Zooey,
How are the Cats?

The cat is fine, thank you for asking. She just turned 9, & is flourishing.

If you knew your Bible even a little better you would know that our Lord Jesus referred to the actions of the Holy Spirit as like unto “the wind” in

John 3:8 (Tyndale version-just for you my dear)

"The wynde bloweth where he listeth and thou hearest his sounde: but canst not tell whence he cometh and whether he goeth. So is every man that is boren of the sprete."

Yeah, and?? You really think this is “clarity”??
It says: “The wind blows whereever it wishes, & you hear it blowing. But, you cannot tell where it comes from, nor where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Holy Spirit”…When even I can write a better sentence than a “Bible translator”…

I kind of like the poetic style of the Elizabethan English, but if you have trouble with it, the Book, Chapter and verse reference should be the same in you favorite English translation.

My favorite English translation is the Douay Rheims, as revised by Bishop Richard Challoner.
Since chapters & verses were still a brand new idea in the 16th/17th C., there actually are a number of verses that are divided differently.

Is it any less perspicuous than sitting through a Mass done in Latin?

The Latin mass has been among the missing for lo, these many years. Too bad too; when you grow up in the same house with the Latin teacher, having the chance to hear the language with life breathed into it again, is no end of a pleasure.

But back to the topic, Who is this queen of heaven and why is God so mad at the Israelites for worshipping her?

Ashtarte. She was the (mythological) goddess of the ancient Canaanites. She was being worshipped because the children of Israel neglected to finish the job of “subduing the land” when they returned from Egypt. (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Judges, et al).

I will subscribe to the theory that having been dethroned she has been replaced

No, just trodden underfoot…like many another myth or legend.And a good thing too. It was a great wickedness to desert the God Who delivered them out of bondage, & they should have known better.

by Mary the blessed mother of Jesus, however I must confess that I know of no biblical warrant for this.

Mary is indeed the true Queen of Heaven; you think maybe God might be just a** little** upset to see her title being dragged about a pagan ritual honoring a fictional character???
In re: “Biblical warrant”–You really must read your Bible with more attention. The Biblical warrant is there all right; it starts with Genesis & ends with Revelation (Apocalypse of St John).

What say you my dear?

I say I’m not your “dear”!!! (Indeed,I’m quite likely old enough to be your mother, & entitled to a wee drop of respect for my grey hairs, if nothing else).
I have been reading the Bible, in one edition/translation or another (including Latin, including Dutch/Netherlandic) since** 1951**, & I dinnae need some yean acting the wee dafty.

 

[cleargospel99]

Zooey
If Tyndale hadn’t written his English Bible, you may have never learned English. But for God who is Sovereign in all things he gave us the brave Reformers who sacrificed everything to give us the legacy of freedom of conscience. What a great gift.

Accepting the queen of heaven argument requires a post-modern view of the truth.

Whenever you try to get somebody to provide sound biblical exegesis on the issue, all you get is “Well it says this, but it really means that.” Such lack of respect for the Truth content of the very Word of God is remarkable, particularly when it comes from somebody who claims to be a Christian.

But then again, you are on record for endorsing the martyrdom of William Tyndale, so I guess human sacrifice isn’t much of a stretch for you.

Praying that God will open your eyes and soften your heart, before it is too late.

Your’s in Christ,
cg99

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

is there more than one thread on this?

 

[NotWorthy]

Whenever you try to get somebody to provide sound biblical exegesis on the issue, all you get is “Well it says this, but it really means that.” Such lack of respect for the Truth content of the very Word of God is remarkable, particularly when it comes from somebody who claims to be a Christian.

OK, I’ll accept your challenge.

The Woman in Revelation 12 that is wearing the crown and all that and giving birth to the Child Jesus… wouldn’t that be Mary the Queen of Heaven? There’s no “it says this, but means that” here.

a) She’s in heaven.
b) She’s wearing a crown.
c) She gives birth to Jesus.

ergo, Mary is the Queen of Heaven.

Let’s look at exhibit B.

What did the Old Testament prophets constantly teach that the Messiah would bring about? The resoration of Israel.

Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, and is reigning as King.

In the OT, who was the Queen of Israel? The Mother of the King.

Therefore, if Jesus is King of Heaven and Earth, and Mary is His mother, then Mary would be Queen of Heaven.

Sounds like good old fashioned exegesis, there, doesn’t it?

 

[Zooey]

is there more than one thread on this?

It only seems that way, because we are hearing the same old, same old, so much…

 

[Zooey]

Zooey
If Tyndale hadn’t written his English Bible, you may have never learned English.

Really?? Somebody find me a time machine!! I get to stop the Sassenach from taking the whole country away from us!! It’ll be the Gaelic & Goidelic for me!! (Oh, my sainted aunt!! My Irish ancestors will be so proud of me…The Welsh ones, too! Not to mention the Scots, & the Germans. )

But for God who is Sovereign in all things he gave us the brave Reformers who sacrificed everything to give us the legacy of freedom of conscience. What a great gift.

Then, mayhap, you should talk about them…and leave the likes of Treasonous Tyndale to blow away in the winds of time.

Accepting the queen of heaven argument requires a post-modern view of the truth.

Nay, laddie; only an unprejudiced heart.

Whenever you try to get somebody to provide sound biblical exegesis on the issue, all you get is “Well it says this, but it really means that.” Such lack of respect for the Truth content of the very Word of God is remarkable, particularly when it comes from somebody who claims to be a Christian.

I have noticed; and you really need to cut that kind of thing out, Clear!!

But then again, you are on record for endorsing the martyrdom of William Tyndale, so I guess human sacrifice isn’t much of a stretch for you.

But, yean, ye should know that! I’ve said several times that I’m Irish!! You know: :shamrock2: Shamrocks, &:irish3: leprechauns, and burning Roman spies on the beach, in full view of them as sent them…

Praying that God will open your eyes and soften your heart, before it is too late.

Dinnae fash yourself, laddie; if my eyes were any opener, they’d likely fall out!!

Your’s in Christ,
cg99

 

[Tantum_ergo]

There are two; one started by Pope St. Peter and one by Patience and Love.

 

[cleargospel99]

OK, I’ll accept your challenge.

The Woman in Revelation 12 that is wearing the crown and all that and giving birth to the Child Jesus… wouldn’t that be Mary the Queen of Heaven? There’s no “it says this, but means that” here.

a) She’s in heaven.
b) She’s wearing a crown.
c) She gives birth to Jesus.

ergo, Mary is the Queen of Heaven.

Let’s look at exhibit B.

What did the Old Testament prophets constantly teach that the Messiah would bring about? The resoration of Israel.

Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, and is reigning as King.

In the OT, who was the Queen of Israel? The Mother of the King.

Therefore, if Jesus is King of Heaven and Earth, and Mary is His mother, then Mary would be Queen of Heaven.

Sounds like good old fashioned exegesis, there, doesn’t it?

NotWorthy,
You have a sophisticated argument, however it is not the exclusive explaination. You are “begging the question”; That is: assuming as true the very thing you are trying to prove true.

Note: the woman is not refered to as Mary, nor is she refered to as the “Queen of Heaven”

Is it possible that the woman actually represents Israel. That this woman gives birth to a nation would contradict the dogma of perpetual virginity, No?

How is this conclusion:

“The woman being associated with the sun, moon and 12 stars alludes back to Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37. These symbols stood for Joseph’s family who was to become the nation of Israel. The sun representing Jacob (Joseph’s father), the moon representing Rachel (Joseph’s mother). The 11 stars represented Joseph’s brothers. They, together with Joseph, would become the 12 tribes of Israel. Once again the fact that the woman is clothed with symbols that represent Israel shows the continuity of the New Covenant with the Old Covenant. Those under the New Covenant have become part of the true Israel, the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16).”

Is not this interpretation equally valid, or has the Church dogmatically defined Rev 12?

v/r
cg99

 

[colliric]

This is a fascinating question:

And Randy Carson had the most thoughtful and sophisticated answer I’ve seen, but how to reconcile the practice with the explicit condemnation found in Jeremiah 7 and 44 as well as the Ten commandments (Exodus 20:4-6)?

**4 Thou shalt make the no grauen ymage, nether any symilitude that is in heauen aboue, ether in the erth beneth, or in the water that ys beneth the erth.
5 Se that thou nether bowe thy sylf vnto them nether serue them: for I the Lorde thy God, am a gelouse God, **and viset the synne of the fathers vppon the childern vnto the third and fourth generacion of the that hate me:
6 and yet shewe mercie vnto thousandes amonge them that loue me and kepe my commaundmentes.

It’s simply explained really. The image is not of someone in heaven at all, they may be there now, but it is not of them as they are there. Therefore it does not violate that commandment. The images and statues of Mary, Jesus, the saints, etc, are not pictures that we serve or bow to… No, we achnowledge Mary, Jesus and the Saints themselves, we don’t think “this statue is mary” but we DO think “this statue is what Mary may have looked like” and that helps us remember the events of the Gospels with more clarity. We do not serve or worship them, we serve(in the case of Jesus) and pray to the people now in heaven that they represent.

The images of Mary are not of a woman in heaven, but rather someone who existed once as a very real Human being and has now made her way to heaven. It is not against god’s specific commandment to use these pictures as memento’s to remind us of what this now heavenly being once looked like when she was in earthly form. The same goes for Jesus.

If Jesus, mary, etc had not existed as Human beings or taken on eartly form, then yes it would break the commandment to make images to worship to in heaven above. But the fact is it doesn’t. We do not worship or pray to idols. We pray and in the case of Jesus we worship, to the very real beings they are likeness of.

The graven images mentioned by GOD are references only to images and pictures physically worshiped to without them being memento’s of people long past, but still living in heaven, who existed once in human history. Such people range from Mary, the saints and Jesus to your relatives(when you pray to god for their wellbeing in heaven, when they pass away… which is something the bible validates in the complete Canon). Such graven images are things like false gods and that graven animal god Moses destroyed.

Praying to Mary for intercession, and using an image of what she may have looked like on earth to help your prayer, therefore does not violate that command. She is not god, we do not worship her, but she is very real and can hear our prayers for her intecession on our behalf, to God. She can also recieve our prayers for her own specific goodwill. This is not worship of stone and false idols, but is sincere prayful communication with a real being we believe is with God…

The exact same thing can be said about Protestant christians and praying to Jesus by using the living Cross symbol(Something Catholics do too). And they will respond with the same arguement I have just used to explain our position to you. It is only a memento of Jesus and is not what is really prayed to, which of cause is Jesus himself.

It is not the memoriam Idol in front of us, it is the being behind us, the mother of God, that we pray to. Prayer and worship of fake idols is compleatly diffrent as occured in the example of Moses when the Israelites literally worship a useless peice of gold in the shape of an animal. That is the idolatry god talks about. Literally worshipping a useless statue.

 

[gardenswithkids]

is there more than one thread on this?

Yes, :hypno: two threads with similar names are currently active on Catholic Answers Forum–another thread is in the general apologetics forum, not the sacred scripture subforum: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=143781

So–at least as forum thread titles are concerned–there can indeed be two with similar titles.

 

[colliric]

NotWorthy,
You have a sophisticated argument, however it is not the exclusive explaination. You are “begging the question”; That is: assuming as true the very thing you are trying to prove true.

Note: the woman is not refered to as Mary, nor is she refered to as the “Queen of Heaven”

Is it possible that the woman actually represents Israel. That this woman gives birth to a nation would contradict the dogma of perpetual virginity, No?

How is this conclusion:

“The woman being associated with the sun, moon and 12 stars alludes back to Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37. These symbols stood for Joseph’s family who was to become the nation of Israel. The sun representing Jacob (Joseph’s father), the moon representing Rachel (Joseph’s mother). The 11 stars represented Joseph’s brothers. They, together with Joseph, would become the 12 tribes of Israel. Once again the fact that the woman is clothed with symbols that represent Israel shows the continuity of the New Covenant with the Old Covenant. Those under the New Covenant have become part of the true Israel, the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16).”

Is not this interpretation equally valid, or has the Church dogmatically defined Rev 12?

v/r
cg99

The woman in the narrative is in fact metaphorically the “New” Ark Of the Covernant. The narrative is actually interrupted by the initial Chapter Break. It really begins with the last few verses of Revelations 11 which when there was no chapter break made more sense. The Ark as we now see it in the eyes of John changed form, We immediately see a flash of the old ark at the end of Rev 11, and then it starts talking literally about it’s new form as soon as chapter 12 begins:

And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail.
And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered

The “she represents israel” interpretation does not take that into account as Israel itself is not the new ark of the covernant. The Ark, the golden house for the old covernant, is suddenly and unequivocally superceeded in John’s vision in god’s open temple by a woman with child… who is the new Ark of the New Testament. The woman who agreed to the new covernant of god and became it.

This new Ark of the covernant, gave birth to Jesus Christ. It is Mary mother of God.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Note: the woman is not refered to as Mary, nor is she refered to as the “Queen of Heaven”

Is it possible that the woman actually represents Israel. That this woman gives birth to a nation would contradict the dogma of perpetual virginity, No?

Let’s look at what the Bible says. :bible1:

Revelation 12:5 “She gave birth ot a male chid, who is destined to rule all nations…”
or as you like Tyndale’s translation: “And she brought forth a man child, which should rule all nations with a rod of iron.”

Not birth of a nation, but birth of a **male child destined to rule the nations. **Who is destined to rule the nations? Who is the woman who birthed Him?

Now to complicate matters (but also tie this back to your quote from Galatians and your proposal that the woman represents Israel), Catholic understanding of this passage from Revelation allows for this woman to represent both Mary and Israel. See colliric’s post. The term we use for this is typology. Mary brought forth Jesus–but He also came to us though Israel.

Here’s a link about typology–which is what you used when proposing the woman in Revelation represented something beyond just a woman. fisheaters.com/typology.html

Reading the Bible using typology is the art of discovering the spiritual and mystical sense of the divine realities contained in Sacred Scripture. It’s also to find out that, as St. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) said, “The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.”

A type (*typos *in Greek), or “archetype,” often called a “shadow,” “parable,” “allegory,” or “figure” in Scripture, is a person, thing, or action that precedes and prefigures a greater person, thing, or action. That which is prefigured is referred to as an “antitype.” The concept is summarized in Scripture itself:

 

[cleargospel99]

The woman in the narrative is in fact metaphorically the “New” Ark Of the Covernant. …
The “she represents israel” interpretation does not take that into account as Israel itself is not the new ark of the covernant. The Ark, the golden house for the old covernant, is suddenly and unequivocally superceeded in John’s vision in god’s open temple by a woman with child… who is the new Ark of the New Testament. The woman who agreed to the new covernant of god and became it.

This new Ark of the covernant, gave birth to Jesus Christ. It is Mary mother of God.

I’m sorry but the New Covenant is not in “the Ark” but in the Lord Jesus himself. Using your definition you have Satan persuing the Ark, rather than the New Israel (ie: the Church). I think the Israel definition stands up better, than the Mary definition. The woman symbolizes the church as the true heir of the Lords promise to Jacob (Israel).

The symbology is all Israel (Sun=Jacob, Moon=Rachel, twelve tribes (twelve stars)

See: Rev 12:1
1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

The woman is a sign (symbol) not an actual person, she represents something else, Israel.

See: Gen 37:9-10

9 Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. “Listen,” he said, **“I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” **10 When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?” 11 His brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the matter in mind.

John’s vision alludes to Josephs dream, does it not. See the symbols are identical.

Barring a dogmatic declaration on these particular passages, I don’t see how you can interpret them any other way?

So the argument that Mary is the “Queen of Heaven” cannot stand on biblical exegesis. But solely on some extra-biblical “tradition” maybe it’s just a fairy tale, doctine novum conjured as it were from thin air. The proverbial rabbit from a hat.