The "queen of heaven"

[cleargospel99]

colliric,
That is an interesting legend about John and Mary. But it doesn’t really address the matter at hand. And if you think I’m overlooking Rev 11:19, then your issue is with Hippolytus, Methodius, and Victorinus, not me. I’m not interpreting, but rather providing clear explicit examples of the earliest church tradition speaking directly on this matter.

Randy,
None of those quotes of the early fathers speak directly about the title “queen of heaven”. Nor do they address the key claim that Mary is the woman of Rev 12. An issue that was addressed directly by Hippolytus, Methodius and Victorinus (provided in earlier post) that identified the woman in Rev 12 as the church.

I’m not disputing the fact the legendary status of Mary grew over the intervening centuries.

What is at issue is the title “Queen of Heaven”, maybe one of you can show the origin of when the Church dogmatically declared Mary the “Queen of Heaven”.

Assuming they were as meticulous as they normally are, then the declaration must have addressed Jeremiah 7 and 44, to ensure there was no misunderstanding. Certainly the infallible interpreter would have anticipated this issue and not have left it unaddressed.

once you’ve done that, it is resolved, nothing more to talk about.

 

[cleargospel99]

So you use an arguement of silence to prove your point? Do you really want to go there?

The ECF’s were silent on Sola Scritpura, Sola Fide, OSAS, the Rapture Theory, etc…

Have you really just disproved to yourself the heart(s) of Protestantism?

Col 2:8

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

 

[colliric]

colliric,
That is an interesting legend about John and Mary. But it doesn’t really address the matter at hand. And if you think I’m overlooking Rev 11:19, then your issue is with Hippolytus, Methodius, and Victorinus, not me. I’m not interpreting, but rather providing clear explicit examples of the earliest church tradition speaking directly on this matter.

Randy,
None of those quotes of the early fathers speak directly about the title “queen of heaven”. Nor do they address the key claim that Mary is the woman of Rev 12. An issue that was addressed directly by Hippolytus, Methodius and Victorinus (provided in earlier post) that identified the woman in Rev 12 as the church.

I’m not disputing the fact the legendary status of Mary grew over the intervening centuries.

What is at issue is the title “Queen of Heaven”, maybe one of you can show the origin of when the Church dogmatically declared Mary the “Queen of Heaven”.

Assuming they were as meticulous as they normally are, then the declaration must have addressed Jeremiah 7 and 44, to ensure there was no misunderstanding. Certainly the infallible interpreter would have anticipated this issue and not have left it unaddressed.

once you’ve done that, it is resolved, nothing more to talk about.

To catholics it’s not legend, to catholics it’s really cold hard fact… She went with John after the resurrection and ascension of her son into heaven. There was nothing for her anymore in Jerusalem and when death and destruction was heading their way, John took Mary with him to Ephesus.

A Radio Ad for their recent cruise to holy sites for Catholic Answers:
“you’ll journey to Ephesus, where the Virgin Mary lived…”

 

[NotWorthy]

Col 2:8

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Ditto, my brother!

 

[NotWorthy]

None of those quotes of the early fathers speak directly about the title “queen of heaven”. Nor do they address the key claim that Mary is the woman of Rev 12. An issue that was addressed directly by Hippolytus, Methodius and Victorinus (provided in earlier post) that identified the woman in Rev 12 as the church.

The later Church fathers that said the woman in Rev. 12 was Mary were NOT arguing with Hippolytus, Methodius, and Victorinus and neither am I.

We Catholics undertand that the woman represents Mary, the Church, and Israel.

I’m not disputing the fact the legendary status of Mary grew over the intervening centuries.

What is at issue is the title “Queen of Heaven”, maybe one of you can show the origin of when the Church dogmatically declared Mary the “Queen of Heaven”.

I don’t know that the Church has ever Dogmatically declared Mary as “Queen of Heaven”.

Assuming they were as meticulous as they normally are, then the declaration must have addressed Jeremiah 7 and 44, to ensure there was no misunderstanding. Certainly the infallible interpreter would have anticipated this issue and not have left it unaddressed.

once you’ve done that, it is resolved, nothing more to talk about.

Since there is no dogmatic declaration of Mary as Queen of Heaven (that I know of), I don’t know that this point is addressable.

BTW, do you feel that Catholics are going down the same road as those in Jeremiah?

 

[3sonsasa]

Here is a quote from the 1941 Confraternity Version of the Bible, with both a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. About Apocalypse 12:1, “A woman: this woman is** NOT** the Blessed Virgin, for the details of the prophecy do not fit her. The prophecy pictures the Church of the Old and New Covenants. The beams of the divine glory clothe her; the moon is beneath her feet; she is crowned with a crown of twelve stares, and she must bring forth Christ to the world. By ACCOMMODATION the Chruch applies this verse to the Blessed Virgin”.

 

[RNRobert]

Here is a quote from the 1941 Confraternity Version of the Bible, with both a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. About Apocalypse 12:1, “A woman: this woman is** NOT** the Blessed Virgin, for the details of the prophecy do not fit her. The prophecy pictures the Church of the Old and New Covenants. The beams of the divine glory clothe her; the moon is beneath her feet; she is crowned with a crown of twelve stares, and she must bring forth Christ to the world. By ACCOMMODATION the Chruch applies this verse to the Blessed Virgin”.

The NAB also has the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, and some of its notes are questionable. So I wouldn’t rely totally on Bible notes for authoritative teaching.

 

[NotWorthy]

Here is a quote from the 1941 Confraternity Version of the Bible, with both a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. About Apocalypse 12:1, “A woman: this woman is** NOT** the Blessed Virgin, for the details of the prophecy do not fit her. The prophecy pictures the Church of the Old and New Covenants. The beams of the divine glory clothe her; the moon is beneath her feet; she is crowned with a crown of twelve stares, and she must bring forth Christ to the world. By ACCOMMODATION the Chruch applies this verse to the Blessed Virgin”.

If I’m correct, the Nihil Obstat simply means the local bishop does not disagree with anything in the book. Unfortunately, this stamp has been way overused, to the point where it doesn’t always speak with the Church’s voice.

 

[cleargospel99]

The NAB also has the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, and some of its notes are questionable. So I wouldn’t rely totally on Bible notes for authoritative teaching.

How would you know what teaching is authoritative?

 

[cleargospel99]

The later Church fathers that said the woman in Rev. 12 was Mary were NOT arguing with Hippolytus, Methodius, and Victorinus and neither am I.

We Catholics undertand that the woman represents Mary, the Church, and Israel.

I don’t know that the Church has ever Dogmatically declared Mary as “Queen of Heaven”.

Since there is no dogmatic declaration of Mary as Queen of Heaven (that I know of), I don’t know that this point is addressable.

BTW, do you feel that Catholics are going down the same road as those in Jeremiah?

I can’t know what is in the heart of each individual believer.

Thankfully our election is not conditioned on our orthodoxy.

 

[NotWorthy]

How would you know what teaching is authoritative?

The Teaching that comes from the Vatican and the Magisterium. The Catechism.

 

[NotWorthy]

I can’t know what is in the heart of each individual believer.

Thankfully our election is not conditioned on our orthodoxy.

So if you are not judging the Catholic Church calling Mary, Queen of Heaven, then what’s the problem?

And our election seems to be conditioned on our obedience.

John 3:36 - Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

colliric,
That is an interesting legend about John and Mary. But it doesn’t really address the matter at hand. And if you think I’m overlooking Rev 11:19, then your issue is with Hippolytus, Methodius, and Victorinus, not me. I’m not interpreting, but rather providing clear explicit examples of the earliest church tradition speaking directly on this matter.

Randy,
None of those quotes of the early fathers speak directly about the title “queen of heaven”. Nor do they address the key claim that Mary is the woman of Rev 12. An issue that was addressed directly by Hippolytus, Methodius and Victorinus (provided in earlier post) that identified the woman in Rev 12 as the church.

As you well know, many of the church’s doctrines were decided much later than the days of Peter and Paul.

For example, can you tell me where the Bible says that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle?

Surely, this doctrine must be in the Bible, right? I mean, you believe that with all your heart, don’t you?

Or is it okay for the Mormons to add to the Word of God?

So, if the canon was closed infallibly and that declaration is outside of scripture, then it stands that some infallible declarations are not Biblical.

Now regarding the Fathers and the development of doctrine, I hope you will take careful note of the following because this is REALLY important in understanding their writings:

“Most Catholics recognize that doctrines like the Assumption, Immaculate Conception, and even the technical definitions of papal infallibility and authority are sufficiently peripheral that it wasn’t necessary for the Fathers to have any explicit knowledge of them. The experience of centuries is required to appreciate their significance. But Protestants have more or less equated Scriptural authority and Justification by Faith Alone with the Gospel, so they don’t have the luxury of inconsistently saying that they are peripheral doctrines. If a Father makes a mistake on the Immaculate Conception, it’s no big deal from the Catholic perspective, because the Immaculate Conception is the sort of doctrine that depends on considerable theological development. But the fact that every single recorded Christian blew it on the Gospel is more than a historical anomaly; it’s a disaster. Effectively, Protestants are charging the Fathers with error on major matters, while Catholics are charging them with error on peripheral matters that we wouldn’t even expect them to know (absent blatant abuse of Magisterial documents regarding the “unanimous consent of the Fathers,” doctrines having been “known in every age,” and the like to assert that they had to be known consciously and formally).”

From a post by Jonathan Prejean in the Speak Your Mind Forum
envoymagazine.com/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3200&whichpage=5

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[NotWorthy]

Col 2:8

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

BTW, Judge Ito wishes to remind you, you never answered my questions on Aryanism (or is it Arianism?).

 

[cleargospel99]

The Teaching that comes from the Vatican and the Magisterium. The Catechism.

But how do you recognize a definitive teaching of the Vatican or Magisterium as authoritative.

You simply dismissed the Nihil Obstat and Impramatur that 3sonsasa made reference to in his own RC bible.

Who interprets the infallible teachings of the church?

RE: Arianism. I am aware but I don’t see the relevence?

 

[cleargospel99]

So if you are not judging the Catholic Church calling Mary, Queen of Heaven, then what’s the problem?

And our election seems to be conditioned on our obedience.

John 3:36 - Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.

1. Not my thread, ask Pope St. Peter. I only pointed out that the text of Scripture clearly condemns the “Queen of Heaven”, whether or not you heed that warning is between you and God.
2. You believe that our election is conditioned on our obedience. Thats an interesting point. Would you say that is your personal opinion, or the official doctrine of the RC church?

I think you have it backward:

**I would say our obedience is a consequence of our election. **

This could make for an interesting dicussion.

 

[HailMary]

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

Its obviously Mary, the woman pre-figured throughout the bible and the only one who can look at Jesus, the King and say, “flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone”. Simple logic can lead you to this conclusion if you stop listening to commentators with agendas: Jesus is a King, Mary is His Mother, therefore, just by virtue of her Son she is therefore a Queen, by being part of a royal family. Even if it wasn’t in Revelations, as explicit as it is, one could have still arrived at this conclusion.

Our Lady, Queen of Heaven and Earth, pray for us!

 

[NotWorthy]

But how do you recognize a definitive teaching of the Vatican or Magisterium as authoritative.

You simply dismissed the Nihil Obstat and Impramatur that 3sonsasa made reference to in his own RC bible.

If it has a Nihil Obstat, it simply means the local bishop of that diocese where the article/book was published found no error in it. That local bishop could teach error. Any priest in his diocese can teach error. Sadly we’ve seen that happen time and time again. Every heresy of the Catholic Church has come from Her clergy.

Who interprets the infallible teachings of the church?

This question does not make sense. The infallible teachings of the Church are interpretations of:
A) Sacred Scripture
B) Sacred Tradition
C) the Infallible Teachings of the Pope.

RE: Arianism. I am aware but I don’t see the relevence?

It has everything to do with this topic.

Look at Mary’s title of Theotokos (“God Bearer” or “Mother of God”). This title was declared at the Council of Ephasus. It wasn’t able to be determined earlier, because the Church was still arguing over whether Jesus was True God and not True Man, True Man and not True God, or True God and True Man. You very well couldn’t call Mary “Mother of God” until you determined that Jesus was fully God ( because she couldn’t be the mother “OF GOD” if he wasn’t fully God) and fully human (because she couldn’t be his “MOTHER” if he wasn’t fully human). This Hypostatic Union of Jesus was first define at the Council of Nicaea, and then more clearly at Council of Chalcedon.

If Mary is not the Mother of God, then she very well can’t be Queen of Heaven now can she, because her role as Queen of Heaven is due to the fact that she is the Gebira, the Queen Mother.

 

[cleargospel99]

As you well know, many of the church’s doctrines were decided much later than the days of Peter and Paul.

For example, can you tell me where the Bible says that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle?

Surely, this doctrine must be in the Bible, right? I mean, you believe that with all your heart, don’t you?

Or is it okay for the Mormons to add to the Word of God?

So, if the canon was closed infallibly and that declaration is outside of scripture, then it stands that some infallible declarations are not Biblical.

Now regarding the Fathers and the development of doctrine, I hope you will take careful note of the following because this is REALLY important in understanding their writings:

“Most Catholics recognize that doctrines like the Assumption, Immaculate Conception, and even the technical definitions of papal infallibility and authority are sufficiently peripheral that it wasn’t necessary for the Fathers to have any explicit knowledge of them. The experience of centuries is required to appreciate their significance. But Protestants have more or less equated Scriptural authority and Justification by Faith Alone with the Gospel, so they don’t have the luxury of inconsistently saying that they are peripheral doctrines. If a Father makes a mistake on the Immaculate Conception, it’s no big deal from the Catholic perspective, because the Immaculate Conception is the sort of doctrine that depends on considerable theological development. But the fact that every single recorded Christian blew it on the Gospel is more than a historical anomaly; it’s a disaster. Effectively, Protestants are charging the Fathers with error on major matters, while Catholics are charging them with error on peripheral matters that we wouldn’t even expect them to know (absent blatant abuse of Magisterial documents regarding the “unanimous consent of the Fathers,” doctrines having been “known in every age,” and the like to assert that they had to be known consciously and formally).”

From a post by Jonathan Prejean in the Speak Your Mind Forum
envoymagazine.com/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3200&whichpage=5

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Randy you have an apologetic technique that would be called “spray and pray” in the military.

You can see from what Not Worthy wrote in his post, that there is no definitive dogma regarding an infallible interpretation of Rev 12.

So for you to rely on Rev 12 as if it had been infallibly interpreted is disingenuous. I’m just pointing out that your position is speculative and not authoritative.

Furthermore, when you do claim that the woman in Rev 12 is Mary, then you are engaging in private interpretation, which is not allowed.

The strongest statement you can make is that some ECF’s might have said she could have been Mary. But to be honest you’d have to hang that claim alongside, Hippolytus, Methodius and Victorinus, who speak directly to that very point and refute it.

Sola scriptura or Sola fide is a discussion for another time. If you wish to start a thread, I’ll come on over. But I’m not going to get sucked down that rabbit hole and get blamed for taking this thread off topic.

 

[NotWorthy]

1. Not my thread, ask Pope St. Peter. I only pointed out that the text of Scripture clearly condemns the “Queen of Heaven”, whether or not you heed that warning is between you and God.

You pointed it out because…?

Evidently you still do not see the difference between pagans worshipping a false goddess instead of Yahweh and Catholics venerating the Mother of God because she brings us closer to God.

Oh well, it’s your loss.

1. You believe that our election is conditioned on our obedience. Thats an interesting point. Would you say that is your personal opinion, or the official doctrine of the RC church?

I wouldn’t call it election, as I’m not sure what part of the justification process the “election” is a part of. My continued state of Grace (state of Justification) is conditioned upon my obedience to Jesus and all that He taught.

“He who disobeys the Son will not see life…”

I think you have it backward:

**I would say our obedience is a consequence of our election. **

This could make for an interesting dicussion.

Yes, another thread. Our obedience is always our Free Will.