The "queen of heaven"

[itsjustdave1988]

…When one has a just view of the character of God, it is difficult to understand how it is now okay to fly to the redemptive mediation of Mary. She is not merely one prayer-partner among many, as some Catholics indicate in their presentation to Protestants. She is the supreme, and therefore, most powerful of intercessors; thus, if one does not invoke Mary’s help then he or she is seriously lacking their Christian life.

We don’t have to “fly” to the redemptive mediatorship of Mary. Her mediatorship is there, whether we fly to it or not.

how are we to understand this in light of God’s demand for undivided attention

By honoring my mother and my father, I keep His commands, and therefore, I am called His friend. To presume that a devotion to my wife, for example, somehow takes away from my devotion to God is ridiculous, isn’t it? Thus, I am perfectly orthodox in describing my wife, the one I love as “My life, my sweetness, and my hope,” no?

So if it is ok to do so for my wife, out of my love for her, then why would doing so for Mary be claimed as “divided attention” to God?

The real Pope St. Peter tells us to “honor all men.” (1 Pet 2:17). How is this possible if any honor we give to creatures is claimed to be “divided attention” to God?

 

[gardenswithkids]

I’m sorry but the New Covenant is not in “the Ark” but in the Lord Jesus himself.

Yes, Ark=Mary, not the new covenant.

The New Covenant refers to a communion with Jesus–and the Cup of the New Covenant contains Jesus Himself. (Matthew 26: 26-29) But that would be a different thread.

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…

You partly understand the typology concept. “Symbolism” is often not merely symbolic. Things represent people, people represent things, and people,events &things can represent and foreshadow other people and events. The woman can be understood both as Mary and as Israel.

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.

No need to get nasty–we’re trying for a civilized discussion. And the Biblical exegesis you used seemed to me very much based on your traditions of how to read the Bible. Reading the Bible alone, Revelation says 'woman", not nation of Isreal. To conclude that she is anything* other than a woman *requires you to use something beyond the actual words of Revelation.

 

[cleargospel99]

And the Biblical exegesis you used seemed to me very much based on your traditions of how to read the Bible. Reading the Bible alone, Revelation says 'woman", not nation of Isreal. To conclude that she is anything* other than a woman *requires you to use something beyond the actual words of Revelation.

Maybe you can provide us with a citation from any of the ante-nicene church fathers, about whom they interpreted this woman to be in Rev 12?

 

[gardenswithkids]

(BTW, I want to note that we moved on from Jeremiah–all the way to the end of the Bible. Some people read the ending of books and threads first.)

Maybe you can provide us with a citation from any of the ante-nicene church fathers, about whom they interpreted this woman to be in Rev 12?

Off hand, I don’t know of any sources for that. I don’t know of any early documents with interpretaion of Revelation–anyone well versed with early Church Fathers, please enlighten me. If such citations even exist, it would need to say the woman represents only Israel in order to back up your interpretation of this passage. I understand the woman of Revelation 12 to represent both Mary and Israel.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

As for making images of “anything in heaven or on the earth”, consider God’s own command to Moses:

They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the desert? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!” Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived. (Numbers 21:4-9)

[Hezekiah] did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father David had done. He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.) (2 Kings 18:3-5)

The Lord commanded Moses to make an image of a snake to save the people who were bitten by serpents. Later, when the Israelites began to worship and burn incense to it, Hezekiah destroyed it as a false god.

Today, Catholics use pictures and statues of great Christians of the past to remind us of their worthy example. Yes, we ask them to pray for us…just as you yourself might ask someone in your own congregation to pray for a sick relative. The saints are alive and able to pray for us just as much as you and I can pray for each other.

And since they are already in heaven before the throne of God, we might consider that their prayers are even more effective than our own for "The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.” (James 5:16) They’re obviously righteous since they’re already home!

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[RNRobert]

As for making images of “anything in heaven or on the earth”, consider God’s own command to Moses:

They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the desert? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!” Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived. (Numbers 21:4-9)

[Hezekiah] did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father David had done. He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.) (2 Kings 18:3-5)

The Lord commanded Moses to make an image of a snake to save the people who were bitten by serpents. Later, when the Israelites began to worship and burn incense to it, Hezekiah destroyed it as a false god.

Today, Catholics use pictures and statues of great Christians of the past to remind us of their worthy example. Yes, we ask them to pray for us…just as you yourself might ask someone in your own congregation to pray for a sick relative. The saints are alive and able to pray for us just as much as you and I can pray for each other.

And since they are already in heaven before the throne of God, we might consider that their prayers are even more effective than our own for "The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.” (James 5:16) They’re obviously righteous since they’re already home!

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

You forgot to mention that God also commanded the Israelites to make the ark of the convenant with two gold cherubim on top (Exodus 25:10). I mentioned the serpent and the cherubim being ordained by God in post 22. I also pointed out in that post that the serpent was a foreshadowing of Christ (John 3:14).

 

[cleargospel99]

(BTW, I want to note that we moved on from Jeremiah–all the way to the end of the Bible. Some people read the ending of books and threads first.)

Off hand, I don’t know of any sources for that. I don’t know of any early documents with interpretaion of Revelation–anyone well versed with early Church Fathers, please enlighten me. If such citations even exist, it would need to say the woman represents only Israel in order to back up your interpretation of this passage. I understand the woman of Revelation 12 to represent both Mary and Israel.

Actually I found two early church fathers who addressed this passage specifically and at length, prior to 300AD. They were St. Hippolytus of Rome and and St. Methodius of Olympus, both of whom say the woman represents the church (ie. Israel) not Mary.

I can provide the citations offline at your request.

If Mary is indeed “Queen of Heaven” that dogma was not known prior to 300AD. Maybe someone can provide us with the origin of that doctrine. But then it wouldn’t be a “tradition” handed down as it were from the beginning, would it?

 

[Zooey]

(BTW, I want to note that we moved on from Jeremiah–all the way to the end of the Bible. Some people read the ending of books and threads first.)

:hypno: :hypno: :hypno:

 

[Mannyfit75]

Maybe you can provide us with a citation from any of the ante-nicene church fathers, about whom they interpreted this woman to be in Rev 12?

Several

Quodvultdeus None of you is ignorant of the fact that the dragon was the devil. The woman signified the Virgin Mary. [Quodvultdeus De Symbolo 3, PL 40, 661] 430AD

Oecumenius:

He is speaking of the mother of our Savior. Naturally the vision describes her as being in Heaven and not on earth, as pure in soul and body, as equal to an angel, as a citizen of Heaven, as one who came to effect the incarnation of God and as one who has nothing in common with the world and the evils in it, but wholly sublime, wholly worthy of Heaven, even though she sprang from our mortal nature and being. For the Virgin is of the same substance as we are.
What is the meaning of saying that she is clothed with the sun, and has the moon under her feet? The divine prophet Habakkuk says in prophesying about the Lord, “The sun was lifted up and the moon stood in its position for light.(Hab. 3:10-11)” He, Malachi, calls our Savior Christ, or perhaps the preaching of the gospel, “the sun of Justice.(Mal. 4:2) When this was exalted and increased, he says, the moon, that is, the law of Moses, stood still, and no longer grew in size. For after the appearance of Christ it no longer received proselytes from the nations as before, but experienced annulment and diminution. Perhaps you could imagine that here the holy Virgin is being protected by the spiritual sun. For this is how the prophet, too, speaks of the Lord when he says about Israel, “Fire fell upon them, and they did not see the sun,(Ps. 57:9)” And the moon, that is, their worship according to the law and their way of life according to the law, inasmuch as it has been brought down and much reduced, is under her feet, overcome by the evangelical splendor. He well named the requirements of the law the moon, since they were brought to the light by the sun, that is, Christ, just as the actual moon is given light by the actual sun. In line with this explanation, it would have been more consistent to say that the woman was not clothed with the sun, but that the woman clothed the sun contained in her womb. But in order to show in the vision that even when the Lord was conceived, he was the protector of his own mother and of all creation, the vision said that he clothed the woman. In the same way the divine angel said to the holy Virgin, “The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.(Lk. 1:35)” Overshadowing, protecting, and clothing all have the same meaning. He says, And on her head, a crown of 12 stars. For the Virgin is crowned with the 12 apostles who proclaim the Christ while she is proclaimed together with Him. [Oecumenius Commentary on Revelation] 6th Century

Epiphanius: She was given wings of an eagle and was taken to the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize her. Perhaps this can be applied to her (Mary), I cannot decide for certain, and I am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am I saying that she died.” [Epiphanius Panarion 78:11]315-4403AD

 

[richardeekw]

Who is the “queen of heaven” in this passage?

Why, in light of God’s jealousy regarding His people’s undivided devotion to Him, does He not now mind His people adoring, venerating, praying and consecrating themsevles to Mary?

In detailed analysis and response, I recommend to you the Book
QUEEN MOTHER

Biblical Theology of Mary’s Queenship
by Edward Sri
General Editor Scorr Hahn
Emmaus Road, Steubenville, Ohio, 2005
(with Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat endorsement)

 

[RNRobert]

In detailed analysis and response, I recommend to you the Book
QUEEN MOTHER

Biblical Theology of Mary’s Queenship
by Edward Sri
General Editor Scorr Hahn
Emmaus Road, Steubenville, Ohio, 2005
(with Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat endorsement)

Scott Hahn wrotte an excellent book, Hail Holy Queen.

 

[NotWorthy]

Scott Hahn wrotte an excellent book, Hail Holy Queen.

Edward Sri’s book is a much more scholarly work. It’s almost like reading a college book, unlike the rest of his books.

Scott Hahn did a audio series on Hail Holy Queen on EWTN.Com. If you do a search for “Hahn” on the audio files section, you’ll find it.

 

[colliric]

A whole lot of Stuff about the Church fathers confirming my own opinion. It’s too big to quote here.

Thank you for backing me up. I will keep these quotes in mind for future apologetical use. I simply based my arguement on the Apologetic book “Rapture: The end times error that leaves the bible behind” which unequivocally points out that the end of Chapter 11 is actually where the vision starts.

Daro, Why would John be shown the Ark of Covernant, and then suddenly there is some sort of earthquake and thunderstorm of sorts in heaven’s temple and suddenly instead of seeing the Ark, John is suddenly looking at a woman bathed in glory? how can you explain that? God shows him the Ark, the old Ark of the covernant, there is a lightening storm, hail and the ground shakes, and then John looks again to heaven, and there’s a crowned woman with child there? Is not god showing him the vision of when the old ark of the covernant became the new ark of the covernant? Is not god showing John how exactly Mary fits into the equation?

 

[cleargospel99]

Thank you MannyFit75 for providing your quotes:

First, let me wish you a Happy Easter and a prayer for your safe homecoming. May God continue to watch over you and keep you from harm.

Please allow me to point out that Quodvultdeus, Epiphanius and Oecumenius were writing at least 1-2 centuries later than either Hippolytus of Rome and Methodius of Olympus. (Epiphanius was a little closer, but his quote hardly makes a compelling case.)

Hippolytus (Treatise On Christ And Antichrist, 61), Methodius (The Banquet Of The Ten Virgins, Discourse 8:5-7), and Victorinus (Commentary On The Apocalypse Of The Blessed John, 12:1-2). All interpret the woman as the church.

In any case the concept of understanding the woman in Rev 12 to be either A) the "queen of heaven or B) Mary mother of Jesus was not in fact something, that was believed “from the beginning, everywhere and by all.”

The (Rev 12=“queen of heaven”) interpretation remains unreliable and problematic lacking unanimous consensus. At best it was a minority opinion.

Yours in Christ,
cg99

 

[gardenswithkids]

Happy Easter! Christ is Risen!

Actually I found two early church fathers who addressed this passage specifically and at length, prior to 300AD. They were St. Hippolytus of Rome and and St. Methodius of Olympus, both of whom say the woman represents the church (ie. Israel) not Mary.

I can provide the citations offline at your request.

Cleargospel—

Thank you very much for offering the citations. I’m interested in reading them–send me a pm or post them here as others may also be interested.

The irony of this debate hit me earlier today while pondering our discussion. I hope you can also appreciate the irony of it. You, a protestant, argue that the Bible in Rev. 12 tells us that the woman who “gave birth to a male child destined to the rule the nations” is something beyond a just a woman. Tee-hee-hee. The Bible in many other places clearly indicates that the One destined to rule all nations is Jesus, and it’s also clear that Mary was His mother. In short, you say that the woman who gave birth to the one destined to rule all nations is somehow different or beyond an ordinary woman. Catholics think that the woman (Mary) who gave birth to the One destined to rule all nations (Jesus) is different from an ordinary woman. :yup: In short, we agree on the general concept, it’s just some of the specifics where we need to work out the details.

Anyway, have a blessed Easter.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

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.

I was reading through this thread and came to this post. I feel obliged to respond at the egregious fallacy of determining a logical fallacy.

“Begging the question” does not mean simply “assuming as true the very thing you are trying to prove true.” The way you phrase it in the context of your email is that, since he believes that Mary is the TRUE Queen of Heaven, he will interpret Rev. 12 as such and that is begging the question. In that sense, every proof text is begging the question, and, in fact, NEARLY EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT PERIOD begs the question!

“Begging the question” means to assume the conclusion of your argument in the premise.

Consider the statement, “I believe in God because the Bible says God exists.” This statement assumes that God exists and is the reason why the Bible is trustworthy.

(This is one reason why sola scriptura is fallacious-it begs the question. Something outside of Scripture, namely Tradition and history, must validate it.)

Below is the argument made by NotWorthy:

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

The conclusion is that Mary is the Queen of Heaven. These three points are observational based off of Rev. 12, “She” being the woman pictured.

Some premises are assumed due to common sense:

B1) A woman wearing a crown is a queen.
C1) Mary is the only woman to give birth to Jesus.

It rightly follows that Mary is the Queen of Heaven. But no where does NotWorthy assume that Mary is the Queen of Heaven. A, B, and C are all observational, and B1 and C1 are commonsensical. To prove ABC, just turn to Rev. 12. To prove B1, ask what the meaning of a crown on a woman is, and to prove C1, ask who gave birth to Jesus, and if it is possible for a man to be born of more than one woman.

 

[cleargospel99]

Remember:

1. The woman is a “sign”, were it Mary, would he not have told us that more explicitly. Neither is she called the queen of heaven. In Greek weddings the bride wears a crown, even if she isn’t a queen. So the Crown=Queen doesn’t necessarily follow.
2. Israel also gave birth to Jesus, he was in fact a descendant of Abraham through Jacob (aka Israel).
3. The earliest fathers interpreted the woman as the New Israel, the church, through whom Jesus the Christ comes to the world. The earliest know reference to the woman definitively as Mary is c. 500AD. Too late to be clearly apostolic in origin. (Church is symbolized as the bride of Christ [see note 1 above] and Greek brides wear crowns)
4. The symbology is identical to Joseph’s dream in Gen 37. Joseph prefigures Christ as the savior of Israel.
5. The theme of Revelation concerns persecution, tribulation and ultimate victory. It is a letter of assurance to all the believers that God is indeed in control.
6. Finally it is important to note, that this thread started as a question posed by PopeStPeter about the only biblical reference to the queen of heaven, and God’s displeasure with that practice.

Happy Easter, He Is Risen and shall come again.

Wishing you all God’s grace on this most wonderful of holy days.
cg99

 

[Randy_Carson]

If Mary is indeed “Queen of Heaven” that dogma was not known prior to 300AD. Maybe someone can provide us with the origin of that doctrine. But then it wouldn’t be a “tradition” handed down as it were from the beginning, would it?

If antiquity is the sole criterion for judging, then I have a question.

The doctrines of *sola scriptura *and sola fide were unknown until the 1500’s.

Since they were not handed down from the beginning, does this mean that they are mere “traditions of men”?

 

[colliric]

Remember:

1. The woman is a “sign”, were it Mary, would he not have told us that more explicitly. Neither is she called the queen of heaven. In Greek weddings the bride wears a crown, even if she isn’t a queen. So the Crown=Queen doesn’t necessarily follow.
2. Israel also gave birth to Jesus, he was in fact a descendant of Abraham through Jacob (aka Israel).
3. The earliest fathers interpreted the woman as the New Israel, the church, through whom Jesus the Christ comes to the world. The earliest know reference to the woman definitively as Mary is c. 500AD. Too late to be clearly apostolic in origin. (Church is symbolized as the bride of Christ [see note 1 above] and Greek brides wear crowns)
4. The symbology is identical to Joseph’s dream in Gen 37. Joseph prefigures Christ as the savior of Israel.
5. The theme of Revelation concerns persecution, tribulation and ultimate victory. It is a letter of assurance to all the believers that God is indeed in control.
6. Finally it is important to note, that this thread started as a question posed by PopeStPeter about the only biblical reference to the queen of heaven, and God’s displeasure with that practice.

Happy Easter, He Is Risen and shall come again.

Wishing you all God’s grace on this most wonderful of holy days.
cg99

You still have not explained how Israel can be the new incarnation of the “Ark of the covernant”? How exactly did Israel agree to birth, physically birth, Jesus Christ? that is what is described here, his physical birth, not some “metaphor” of it. Israel did not agree with God to birth Jesus Christ physically, it therefore is not the new ark of the new covernant.

It would fit that the new church of the christians may be that ark in it’s defense of Jesus, however the new church also did not physically birth Jesus, unlike what is clearly described in the vision. The first christian of which we are all theologically decended, agreed to god’s idea and birthed the new agreement between god and man and was therefore the ark of the new covernant.

This vision is not a sign of the future but a vision or sign of what the new ark of the covernant, already in god’s temple in heaven, actually is.

This fact is clear when you read the narrative starting with Revelations 11:19(as you are supposed to), as it was originally taken in by christians who did not read the bible with the modern Chapter breaks. The fact is the Catholic position on this issue took several years to put apostolic traditions of John and mary leaving Jerusalem and this passage’s scriptural evidence of this woman’s physical god helped escape from persecution, universally together. But once that was done, the Church fathers, the late fathers, finally figured out what at least 1 apostle taught on this issue. The late clarity of the teaching, due to historic evidence, does not change the fact it is really apostolic tradition that started with the apostle John.

The fact remains the most literal and defensible interpretation of the passage is the Catholic one.

 

[cleargospel99]

Colliric,
I am only reporting to you the testimony of the earliest church fathers, on the interpretation of Rev 12.

Those writing within a generation or two of the Aposlte John are presummed to have a more accurate idea of what John actually meant when he wrote it.

I’m not disputing the idea that the “queen of heaven” doctrine developed over time. In fact that is exactly my point. The “queen of heaven” = Mary is an innovation, not part of ancient Christian tradition.

You can check my cites on CHURCH FATHERS: Home for yourself.

Getting back to the subject:
Jeremiah is explicit in condemning those who honor the “queen of heaven”. At what point did God change his mind?