Pope-Ordered Coronation of Statues

Dale · Nov 18, 2017

Gracia Singh said:
Because of who she is, and who we are because of her.

Moses didn't kneel at the Burning Bush, a manifestation of God.

Is Mary greater than God, that we should kneel before her, or even a mere statue of her?

tz620q · Nov 20, 2017

Dale said:
Moses didn't kneel at the Burning Bush, a manifestation of God.

Is Mary greater than God, that we should kneel before her, or even a mere statue of her?

Dale, the next time a Catholic forces you to kneel to a statue of Mary, let me know and we can work to stop that.

Dale · Nov 28, 2017

Popes have made Mary the Queen of Mexico, the Queen of Cuba and the Queen of Poland.

The only way the Pope could have the power to do this is if the Pope owns Mexico, owns Cuba and owns Poland. None of this makes sense.

tz620q · Nov 29, 2017

Dale said:
Popes have made Mary the Queen of Mexico, the Queen of Cuba and the Queen of Poland.

The only way the Pope could have the power to do this is if the Pope owns Mexico, owns Cuba and owns Poland. None of this makes sense.

Who is the King? Knowing that might allow the designation of Queen to be properly understood.

Dale · Nov 29, 2017

tz620q said:
Who is the King? Knowing that might allow the designation of Queen to be properly understood.

Is the stand of various popes on Mary being the Queen of various places supposed to be pro-monarchy or anti-monarchy? These absurd proclamations go back to a time when many countries were monarchies, and usually not symbolic monarchies. That suggests that Mary as Queen reflects a view that monarchy is the norm of governance. Do present day popes continue this medieval thinking? Or do they have something else in mind?

tz620q · Nov 30, 2017

Dale said:
Is the stand of various popes on Mary being the Queen of various places supposed to be pro-monarchy or anti-monarchy? These absurd proclamations go back to a time when many countries were monarchies, and usually not symbolic monarchies. That suggests that Mary as Queen reflects a view that monarchy is the norm of governance. Do present day popes continue this medieval thinking? Or do they have something else in mind?

I guess you didn't like the answer to my question of "Who is the King?" so you ignored it. If Jesus is King of Kings and above all nations, then God is pro-monarchy as you put it. I know you might not like political monarchies; but at least there was a thought at that time that God was the true monarch above the political King. The divine right was at least a nod that the true source of power should be God. A good example of this was Joshua or David, leaders that trusted God and even when they sinned acknowledged that the true power was God and they were just those chosen by God.

As far as Mary being Queen, again in the Davidic kingdom with multiple wives, the King's mother ruled as Queen. In like fashion, Mary was chosen by God to be the King's mother. So it is not the Pope that makes her Queen, it is God.

Now you might hold democracy up as a beacon of modern day hope; but let me ask you another question. Has religion done better under democracies than under monarchies or worse?

Dale · Nov 30, 2017

tz620q said:
I guess you didn't like the answer to my question of "Who is the King?" so you ignored it. If Jesus is King of Kings and above all nations, then God is pro-monarchy as you put it. I know you might not like political monarchies; but at least there was a thought at that time that God was the true monarch above the political King. The divine right was at least a nod that the true source of power should be God. A good example of this was Joshua or David, leaders that trusted God and even when they sinned acknowledged that the true power was God and they were just those chosen by God.

As far as Mary being Queen, again in the Davidic kingdom with multiple wives, the King's mother ruled as Queen. In like fashion, Mary was chosen by God to be the King's mother. So it is not the Pope that makes her Queen, it is God.

Now you might hold democracy up as a beacon of modern day hope; but let me ask you another question. Has religion done better under democracies than under monarchies or worse?

I've heard Catholics say that the Queen of Israel is the King's mother but I have heard this from no other source. The following verses are one sign that this is not true.

8 Sixty queens there may be,
and eighty concubines,
and virgins beyond number;
9 but my dove, my perfect one, is unique,
the only daughter of her mother,
the favorite of the one who bore her.
The young women saw her and called her blessed;
the queens and concubines praised her.
--Song of Solomon 6:8-9 NIV

The Song of Solomon says there were sixty queens in the King's court. Yet we know that the King did not have sixty mothers! If the King's mother is a queen, she is a dowager queen.

tz620q · Dec 1, 2017

Dale said:
I've heard Catholics say that the Queen of Israel is the King's mother but I have heard this from no other source. The following verses are one sign that this is not true.

8 Sixty queens there may be,
and eighty concubines,
and virgins beyond number;
9 but my dove, my perfect one, is unique,
the only daughter of her mother,
the favorite of the one who bore her.
The young women saw her and called her blessed;
the queens and concubines praised her.
--Song of Solomon 6:8-9 NIV

The Song of Solomon says there were sixty queens in the King's court. Yet we know that the King did not have sixty mothers! If the King's mother is a queen, she is a dowager queen.

Jewish tradition equates the two lovers with God and Israel. So in this light, having 60 queens over Israel throughout time is certainly possible. If you want to interpret this literally as one man and one woman, then the important point to pull from Song of Songs is that the queens and concubines praise the dove, the perfect one, who is called blessed. So who is this blessed one of Solomon, who had 700 wives? The only time we see Solomon place a throne beside him is in 1 Kings 2:19
Then Bethsabee came to king Solomon, to speak to him for Adonias: and the king arose to meet her, and bowed to her, and sat down upon his throne: and a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right hand.

This shows the Middle Eastern custom of that time to have the Gebira or King's mother rule alongside her son.

This is also shown in 2 Kings 24:12 and in Jer 13:18, which states about the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians,
Say to the king, and to the queen: Humble yourselves, sit down: for the crown of your glory is come down from your head.

If you want non-Catholic sources for this tradition, please follow this link to several bible commentaries at biblehub.com

Jeremiah 13:18 Commentaries: Say to the king and the queen mother, "Take a lowly seat, For your beautiful crown Has come down from your head."

Phil 1:21 · Dec 1, 2017

Why would anyone need a "queen" when they already have the greatest king ever?

Dale · Dec 1, 2017

tz620q said:
Jewish tradition equates the two lovers with God and Israel. So in this light, having 60 queens over Israel throughout time is certainly possible. If you want to interpret this literally as one man and one woman, then the important point to pull from Song of Songs is that the queens and concubines praise the dove, the perfect one, who is called blessed. So who is this blessed one of Solomon, who had 700 wives? The only time we see Solomon place a throne beside him is in 1 Kings 2:19
Then Bethsabee came to king Solomon, to speak to him for Adonias: and the king arose to meet her, and bowed to her, and sat down upon his throne: and a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right hand.

This shows the Middle Eastern custom of that time to have the Gebira or King's mother rule alongside her son.

This is also shown in 2 Kings 24:12 and in Jer 13:18, which states about the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians,
Say to the king, and to the queen: Humble yourselves, sit down: for the crown of your glory is come down from your head.

If you want non-Catholic sources for this tradition, please follow this link to several bible commentaries at biblehub.com

Jeremiah 13:18 Commentaries: Say to the king and the queen mother, "Take a lowly seat, For your beautiful crown Has come down from your head."

It's not sixty queen over a period of time, it's sixty Queens of one King, probably Solomon.

bbbbbbb · Dec 3, 2017

The very idea of appointing a deceased person as regent of a country is absurd in the extreme.

However, the argument will be made that not only is Mary quite alive, she, in fact, never died and that she ascended to heaven without tasting death and reigns in heaven as Queen of Heaven and of all creation. If you believe that, then I have a mighty fine bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you.

tz620q · Dec 4, 2017

Dale said:
It's not sixty queen over a period of time, it's sixty Queens of one King, probably Solomon.

It seems we are conflating two Hebrew words. In Song of Songs 6:8 the word used is מְּלָכ֔וֹת, which is transliterated malcah. This word is used 35 times in the Bible and all but in Song of Songs 6:8,9 it is referring to foreign queens like "the queen of Sheba" or Queen Vashti or Queen Esther, both queens of Persia. In Song of Songs, it is never stated that these were queens of Israel. We simply do not know; but the general usage of malcah would tend to point to queens from other countries, not Israel. This, of course, is only applicable if you are taking Song of Songs as a literal story about two lovers and not generalizing it to stand for God and Israel.

In Jer 13:18 and the other texts that I quoted, the Hebrew word is גְּבִירָה, which is transliterated as gebirah and variants of that word. This word specifically is used for queen mother, never for the wife of the King.

tz620q · Dec 4, 2017

bbbbbbb said:
The very idea of appointing a deceased person as regent of a country is absurd in the extreme.

However, the argument will be made that not only is Mary quite alive, she, in fact, never died and that she ascended to heaven without tasting death and reigns in heaven as Queen of Heaven and of all creation. If you believe that, then I have a mighty fine bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you.

Well, I tend to think of the afterlife as being live after death. To believe in this seems a founding principle for belief in Heaven, etc. Maybe you can help explain exactly what you meant.

bbbbbbb · Dec 4, 2017

tz620q said:
Well, I tend to think of the afterlife as being live after death. To believe in this seems a founding principle for belief in Heaven, etc. Maybe you can help explain exactly what you meant.

Perhaps we can proceed with some definitions here.

Concerning life after death, most Christians reject the notion that individuals continue to live on earth after death. Various non-Christian religions teach the existence of ghosts and spirits of deceased individuals maintaining their presence on earth following their demise. Hence, in far Eastern countries such as China there is still a pervasive worship of ancestors.

Do you believe that after death the spirits of individual continue to remain on earth?

tz620q · Dec 4, 2017

bbbbbbb said:
Perhaps we can proceed with some definitions here.

Concerning life after death, most Christians reject the notion that individuals continue to live on earth after death. Various non-Christian religions teach the existence of ghosts and spirits of deceased individuals maintaining their presence on earth following their demise. Hence, in far Eastern countries such as China there is still a pervasive worship of ancestors.

Do you believe that after death the spirits of individual continue to remain on earth?

I think you are saying that life does not end at death; but our life on earth as corporeal beings ends. Whether you call the part of us that transcends death, a spirit or a soul, it is everlasting and does not perish (I am not an annihilationist). Now we do have scripture that talks about these as being in Heaven worshiping God and we also have scripture that talks about our being surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, Heb 12:1. If this cloud of witnesses are Christians that have gone before us, then at least they have an ability to visit us, though unseen. Is this living on earth? Not in the sense that they are constrained to remain here; but perhaps their love for those they have left behind is so perfected in Heaven that they are drawn to look in on us and cheer us on in our race to Heaven, so that we may be reunited. I think this is different from the viewpoint of many other religions that view these spirits as malevolent and vengeful. To me this is not ancestor worship or somehow diminishing God by giving spirits God-like powers. It is merely using the Bible to give us clues about what life after death will be like.

Dale · Dec 4, 2017

tz620q said:
I think you are saying that life does not end at death; but our life on earth as corporeal beings ends. Whether you call the part of us that transcends death, a spirit or a soul, it is everlasting and does not perish (I am not an annihilationist). Now we do have scripture that talks about these as being in Heaven worshiping God and we also have scripture that talks about our being surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, Heb 12:1. If this cloud of witnesses are Christians that have gone before us, then at least they have an ability to visit us, though unseen. Is this living on earth? Not in the sense that they are constrained to remain here; but perhaps their love for those they have left behind is so perfected in Heaven that they are drawn to look in on us and cheer us on in our race to Heaven, so that we may be reunited. I think this is different from the viewpoint of many other religions that view these spirits as malevolent and vengeful. To me this is not ancestor worship or somehow diminishing God by giving spirits God-like powers. It is merely using the Bible to give us clues about what life after death will be like.

At the time Hebrews was written, many of the witnesses could still be living. If they are not, their testimony would be remembered. To say that there is a "cloud of witnesses" to the ministry of Jesus doesn't seem to put forward a theology of Christians looking down on us from heaven. There may be Christians looking down on us from heaven, but I don't believe that this passage proves that.

bbbbbbb · Dec 4, 2017

tz620q said:
I think you are saying that life does not end at death; but our life on earth as corporeal beings ends. Whether you call the part of us that transcends death, a spirit or a soul, it is everlasting and does not perish (I am not an annihilationist). Now we do have scripture that talks about these as being in Heaven worshiping God and we also have scripture that talks about our being surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, Heb 12:1. If this cloud of witnesses are Christians that have gone before us, then at least they have an ability to visit us, though unseen. Is this living on earth? Not in the sense that they are constrained to remain here; but perhaps their love for those they have left behind is so perfected in Heaven that they are drawn to look in on us and cheer us on in our race to Heaven, so that we may be reunited. I think this is different from the viewpoint of many other religions that view these spirits as malevolent and vengeful. To me this is not ancestor worship or somehow diminishing God by giving spirits God-like powers. It is merely using the Bible to give us clues about what life after death will be like.

Actually, ancestor worship is very similar to Catholic veneration of saints. In Chinese and other Eastern cultures the ancestors are assuredly not seen as malevolent or vengeful, but are there to encourage and assist their descendants in the prosperity and well-being of the family line. In the home an altar will be found where various offerings are placed. At least once a day the head of the family will visit the altar and make a bow of reverence and say a prayer of greeting. Although images of the ancestors are at the altar, they are not viewed as the ancestors nor as the objects of veneration. It is the ancestor him/herself who is there in spirit who is being venerated.

Dale · Dec 8, 2017

tz620q said:
I guess you didn't like the answer to my question of "Who is the King?" so you ignored it. If Jesus is King of Kings and above all nations, then God is pro-monarchy as you put it. I know you might not like political monarchies; but at least there was a thought at that time that God was the true monarch above the political King. The divine right was at least a nod that the true source of power should be God. A good example of this was Joshua or David, leaders that trusted God and even when they sinned acknowledged that the true power was God and they were just those chosen by God.

As far as Mary being Queen, again in the Davidic kingdom with multiple wives, the King's mother ruled as Queen. In like fashion, Mary was chosen by God to be the King's mother. So it is not the Pope that makes her Queen, it is God.

Now you might hold democracy up as a beacon of modern day hope; but let me ask you another question. Has religion done better under democracies than under monarchies or worse?

TZ620: << Now you might hold democracy up as a beacon of modern day hope; but let me ask you another question. Has religion done better under democracies than under monarchies or worse? >>

How about the expulsion of the Jews from Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella?

Is that an example of what monarchy has done for religion?

tz620q · Dec 11, 2017

Dale said:
TZ620: << Now you might hold democracy up as a beacon of modern day hope; but let me ask you another question. Has religion done better under democracies than under monarchies or worse? >>

How about the expulsion of the Jews from Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella?

Is that an example of what monarchy has done for religion?

I think this is one situation where you have to ask a more general question and try to evaluate an answer based on many points of data, not one. That question is, "Is religion looked at more favorably today than 500 years ago when most countries were under monarchs?" A second correlative question is, "Do more people die today because of religious intolerance than under monarchies?" The last century probably saw more deaths due to religion than ever before.

bbbbbbb · Dec 11, 2017

tz620q said:
I think this is one situation where you have to ask a more general question and try to evaluate an answer based on many points of data, not one. That question is, "Is religion looked at more favorably today than 500 years ago when most countries were under monarchs?" A second correlative question is, "Do more people die today because of religious intolerance than under monarchies?" The last century probably saw more deaths due to religion than ever before.

Interestingly, the largest number, proportionately, of deaths in the twentieth century simply because of religious belief occurred in a supposed Christian area (Italy, Germany and the Axis Powers) and the victims were Jews. That does, indeed, say something, does it not?

Pope-Ordered Coronation of Statues

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads