Queen of Heaven?

[eleos1954]

You managed to twist the meaning of my post, and then ask me to confirm your world view. I am not going to jump through your hoops. You can discard my view if you do not like it, but I am not stupid, and I see what you are doing.

So just to make it very clear, the view I presented

"tradition" = interpretation(s) of scripture

The bible interprets itself.

Jesus warned about traditions of men ...

Matthew 15:7-9 “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”

 

[eleos1954]

Forgive me, but I don’t see how you can use the obvious fact that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are at variance with respect to their understanding of what constitutes Holy Tradition as the basis for rejecting organized churches writ large. It does not make sense, logically; the argument you present is a non sequitur. Indeed the KJV that you quote is the product of the Church of England, which like the Orthodox and the Catholics, does formally embrace Church Tradition, although its understanding of Church Tradition is not quite the same as the others, however, in general, it is actually the case that the variance between the traditional churches, which also include Lutheranism and the Assyrian Church of the East, and several smaller Protestant denominations such as the Moravians, is extremely slight, and furthermore due to the ecumenical movement, these churches are in the process of resolving their differences and restoring communion. For example, in 1991, the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church, both of which are headquartered in Damascus and serve Syrian Christians, but which were divided by the Chalcedonian schism, achieved a spectacular reconciliation, with an agreement that restores limited intercommunion and constitues a recognition by the predominantly Aramaic-speaking Syriac Orthodox Church and the predominantly Arabic and Greek speaking Antiochian Orthodox Church of the legitimacy of the other.

Bible

These people from protestant churches that are entering into "agreements" with the catholic church are in an apostate condition. All churches are in an apostate condition one way or another.

There can not be a true unification of the world religions (including protestants) without compromising the word of God one way or another.

Those entering into these "agreements" are subjecting themselves (and their "flocks") to catholic teachings .... not biblical ones. The catholic church sees herself as the one "true church" and this view will never change

What does the Catholic Church say about ecumenism?

The Union of Christendom is a traditional Catholic view of ecumenism; the view is that every non-Catholic Christian ecclesial community is destined to return to the unity of the Catholic Church, from which it has broken.

Luke 12

51 Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other!


Jeremiah 12:12

“On all the bare heights in the wilderness
Destroyers have come,
For a sword of the Lord is devouring
From one end of the land even to the other;
There is no peace for anyone.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Bible

These people from protestant churches that are entering into "agreements" with the catholic church are in an apostate condition. All churches are in an apostate condition one way or another.

There can not be a true unification of the world religions (including protestants) without compromising the word of God one way or another.

Those entering into these "agreements" are subjecting themselves (and their "flocks") to catholic teachings .... not biblical ones. The catholic church sees herself as the one "true church" and this view will never change

What does the Catholic Church say about ecumenism?

The Union of Christendom is a traditional Catholic view of ecumenism; the view is that every non-Catholic Christian ecclesial community is destined to return to the unity of the Catholic Church, from which it has broken.

Luke 12

51 Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other!


Jeremiah 12:12

“On all the bare heights in the wilderness
Destroyers have come,
For a sword of the Lord is devouring
From one end of the land even to the other;
There is no peace for anyone.

So, what makes you the arbiter of what is Catholic and what is not? By your standards, we confessional Lutherans, the first "protestants", (a derogatory term imposed on us by the Catholic Church) would be "Catholic". We don't particularly like to be called "Protestants" and are glad not to be counted among most churches that wear the title Protestant as a badge of honor. Depending on one's point of view, what we would call "radical reformed" churches may be more harmful to Christianity that the CC ever was; sewing seeds of doubt and division at every opportunity; claiming false ecumenism among themselves.

 

[eleos1954]

So, what makes you the arbiter of what is Catholic and what is not? By your standards, we confessional Lutherans, the first "protestants", (a derogatory term imposed on us by the Catholic Church) would be "Catholic". We don't particularly like to be called "Protestants" and are glad not to be counted among most churches that wear the title Protestant as a badge of honor. Depending on one's point of view, what we would call "radical reformed" churches may be more harmful to Christianity that the CC ever was; sewing seeds of doubt and division at every opportunity; claiming false ecumenism among themselves.

Gods word is the arbiter ..... It's not about earthly church systems ... it's about one's relationship with Jesus ... those in Him are His church.

What is a protestant?

1. a member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches.
   

1. We don't particularly like to be called "Protestants"
   

Then become catholic.

They are opposing views (not a badge of honor) in regard to the Word of God and can not be fully united .... unless there is compromise .... protestants compromise, catholics do not .... they stick to their teachings no matter what.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have been to Catholic churches on three continents and have never been questioned as to whether I was a Catholic or not. Your claim that non-Catholics are not welcome in Catholic churches is hollow. I have brought many Protestant guests with me. Nobody ever told them they were unwelcome. I have never heard of such a thing. I have never read of such a thing. I think you have imagined it. If you can prove otherwise, please go ahead. Even the rabid pro-abortion fanatics are welcome. They get ushered out when and only when they become disruptive.

The relevant Catholic document for a rule against non-Catholics would be the Code of Canon Law. I have read every word of the CCL and there is nothing at all forbidding you from entering a Catholic church or participating in the Mass.

You should not be presenting yourself at the Eucharist if you are in disagreement with us, as you clearly are. If you do present yourself for the Eucharist you are telling the watching world you are in communion with us, which would clearly not be something you would say. You are welcome for everything else. Just don’t disagree with us and then pretend you agree by getting in line for communion.

Just to be clear my friend it was not my claim but rather that of @myst33 that non-Catholics are not allowed to attend Catholic services, which is of course preposterous. I think non-Catholics have on occasion even attended the private masses said by the Pope in his apartments in the Vatican!

 

[prodromos]

The bible interprets itself.

Jesus warned about traditions of men ...

Matthew 15:7-9 “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”

View attachment 334568

I recommend you check your sources

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Scroll down to Section 2 and knock yourself out

 

[PeterDona]

Jesus warned about traditions of men ...

And i should probably warn you about the force of the ecco chamber.
You managed to repeat fully the error of ... wait, that was you also the first time ! So you understood nothing. The ecco chamber strikes again !

 

[Fireinfolding]

In the Davidic Monarchy, the Queen was never the wife of the King- she was his mother. Jesus is the new David, the King of Kings, and Mary is the Queen- the Queen Mother.

Bathsheba was the wife of king David as well as the mother of king Solomon, who (after king David's death) began to sit upon the throne of his father. Makes sense that Bathsheba (as it relates to her being the wife of a deceased king) could be referred to as a queen mother of sorts to the now king Solomon.

Although, when it comes to the title queen, I do see it in scripture numberous times when speaking of Vashti, or Sheba and Esther an Candace etc for example but not in respects to Bathsheba. And the only place the words "queen of heaven" appears in Jeremiah where the prophet is confronting them on what appears to be a part of an oral tradition mentioned in regarding practices to such a one (Psalm 141:2)

Jeremiah 44:17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.

The contrasts between the mother of Solomon can be shown in the scriptures also, for example when Bathsheba went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her but Jesus on the otherhand did not respond the same when his mother came to him desiring to speak with him for example here...

Mat 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

One greater then Solomon was here obviously, the one who actually created his mother (who refers to herself as the handmaid of the Lord) and not the future "queen of heaven"

So there was no rising up immediately to meet her or any bowing himself unto her.

And in 1 Kings 2:19 after bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king's mother; and she sat on his right hand.

In contrast when Jesus was asked, that her two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. Jesus response was in Mat 20:23 but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

I recall reading that Mary as queen of heaven is derived from the idea of the woman in Rev 12:1 who is clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head "a crown" of twelve stars being she who (vs 5) brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

But the next verse says, (vs6) "And the woman fled into the wilderness"...

And so the handmaid of the Lord is depicted as the queen of heaven with a baby Jesus on her lap (pictured on a throne) and often with her immaculate foot on a snake per the Genesis verse. Wherever when Paul speaks of the mystery there (of the man and the woman) he says he is speaking of Christ and the church (made up of a many membered body) In Ephesians 5:32 and God bruising the serpent is under their feet (shortly) spoken of again here in Romans 16:20 not Mary's foot.

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

The only place she is even mentioned by name is in Acts 1:13-14 and she is mentioned lastly (not firstly) among all the other said names there.

Acts 1:13-14 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

In Gal 4:4 Paul touches upon God sending his Son made of a woman who was made under the law (but even he doesnt even mention her by name there).

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Even where Paul begins to share what he preached as far as the gospel goes in the "first of all" part (he did not include any mention of Mary in it).

For example,

1Cr 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

1Cr 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

1Cr 15:3 For I delivered unto you **first of all** that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

He begins at the death of Christ and his ressurection, being begotten from the dead wherein he was made a priest forever in the order of Melchisedec (not Aaron). Of him it says, "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

I don't understand how he can be depicted as a baby on the lap of His created mothers throne in heaven. Sometimes the motherhood thing (as far as it pertains to the womb Jesus came by and the paps he sucked) is a form of worship that even Jesus corrected concerning Mary, for example here

Luke 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

That woman is speaking of Mary (in the singular sense)

Luke 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

So Jesus corrects her. Elizabeth got it right

Luke 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

"The fruit of" thy womb not glorying in "the womb" and paps" of Mary's motherhood parts (as far as those it pertain to Jesus Christ). That woman was telling the Lord how special the womb was that actually bore him (when he is the very creator of the whole vessel He come into this world by). Could be understood as a form of worshipping the creature (even the womb of) more than the Creator (who was also the fruit of her womb).

Not sure how Mary is understood to be Sarah though, even though Sarah brought forth Isaac (Son of the promise) since
Jesus was made of a woman made under the law. Is Sarah understood to be a handmaid (or bondwoman) or a woman made under the law also? Because Abrahams wife Sarah had a "handmaid" named Hagar which pertained to Jerusalem (below) as these two women representing two covenants. Gal 4:24.

This post isnt to you per se' I should have quoted the OP, sorry about that but raised another question on me on your post about Mary being queen or queen mother of Solomon and how the greater than Solomon compares between the pictures in scriptures

 

[PeterDona]

Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

In all your exegesis of this, just remember that we know that Jesus was sinless, which in this context would mean that he did not dishonor his mother. So at this point he "probably" did not disown his mother, breaking the fifth commandment. You can work out the consequences.

 

[prodromos]

In all your exegesis of this, just remember that we know that Jesus was sinless, which in this context would mean that he did not dishonor his mother. So at this point he "probably" did not disown his mother, breaking the fifth commandment. You can work out the consequences.

I always got the impression from the above passage, that Jesus's brothers brought Mary along as leverage. I don't believe His mother, knowing what she did about her Son, would have willingly tried to intervene in His ministry.

 

[Fireinfolding]

In all your exegesis of this, just remember that we know that Jesus was sinless, which in this context would mean that he did not dishonor his mother. So at this point he "probably" did not disown his mother, breaking the fifth commandment. You can work out the consequences.

Why would you think I believed Jesus sinned at all, whether that be against God or man, inclusive of Mary in any of the examples I included?

I dont even understand where you get disowning Mary, He created her as he did all of us.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Just to be clear my friend it was not my claim but rather that of @myst33 that non-Catholics are not allowed to attend Catholic services, which is of course preposterous. I think non-Catholics have on occasion even attended the private masses said by the Pope in his apartments in the Vatican!

Looks like I responded to the wrong person in trying to make that point. It is of course preposterous that people would be prohibited from entering a Catholic church if they wanted to observe. And I knew you knew that. Sorry.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Anyway, if it turns just to personal assurances and nobody of us have some official sources ready, we can leave the topic and return to Mary.

It is YOUR personal assurance that you are banned from attending a Catholic church. YOU are asking US for an official source that refutes something which doesn't exist, as an official document that no, you aren't banned from visiting a Catholic church. We also have no official document that space aliens are prohibited from visiting a Catholic church. Why have a document for something that isn't even a thing? But, of course, if space aliens appear they would be allowed to visit a Catholic church just like you would.

It's up to you to prove your position, or admit you were wrong, or maybe just quietly drop it and hope we all forget about it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

hm, the most official I could find by a quick search.
I do not know who runs catholic answers, but I have always thought they were pretty official

Can Non-Catholics Participate in the Gestures at Mass?

As a congregant, a non-Catholic is allowed to do as much as do Catholics in the pews with the exception of receiving Communion. You can make the sign of the cro...

www.catholic.com

There you go. If a non-Catholic can come into a Catholic church and genuflect, kneel, make the sign of the cross, and all that I guess they must be allowed to enter a Catholic church building. Ya think?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

My brother in the catholic faith,
I think you are stretching the bliblical text beyond reason. Mary was not present at creation.
I am not sure if there is a standard of what it means. Here is a resource for some meditation click

Thank you for that reference, and I have seen that reasoning before. Have you read Mystical City of God by blessed Mary Agreda? It is Church approved and has a good explanation.
The Characteristics that argue against wisdom being Christ, are that she is portrayed as a woman. We know Christ is a man. She was with God at the beginning but it does not say that she was God. God knows us before we are born, as He said to Jeremiah before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Wisdom is a woman, and the wisest thing ever said was, “behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to your word”. This is opposed to the most foolish thing ever said, which is by Satan and the demons, “we will not serve”

God planned for the woman long before Mary was born, and He made announcements of her coming along with the Savior. He gave her special place by telling Satan, I will put enmity between you and the woman, between her seed and your seed. We know a woman does not have seed unless she virginally conceives, and she would not be in opposition to Satan unless she was immaculate, just as Eve was created sinless.
As one who sins is a slave to sin and not it’s enemy.

I highly recommend Mystical City of God. It is four volumes and covers creation to Mary’s assumption, which we will honor tomorrow

 

[PeterDona]

I highly recommend Mystical City of God. It is four volumes and covers creation to Mary’s assumption, which we will honor tomorrow

OK thank you for the reference. I think I will stick with the Bible for now. It already became thicker, when I became catholic
And probably, the next read-through will be the Douay-Rheims version. After a few selected tests, it does appear to be at least level with the sacred King James Version.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

There is like a dozen of questions in your post. I suppose those are rhetorical and you do not expect answers.

Regarding your reasoning, I am kind of lost. The passage is about wisdom or about Jesus. Nothing leads us to think its about Mary or about a woman.

I do not even believe that what you present is a catholic teaching - Mary creating with God or existing before heavens. Sounds like an absurd heresy, totally unbiblical. The New Testament explicitly says that everything was created through Christ, you instead put Mary there, which is blasphemy.

It is not blasphemy. God knows us before we are born, as told to the prophet Jeremiah. Wisdom in proverbs is portrayed as a woman, a created being, and not God Himself. A created being that God takes delight in is not blasphemy. As I stated, the wisest words ever said were, “behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy word” what is more delightful for the Lord to hear than that?
We do repeat it when we say the Our Father. “….thy will be done….” That is not some pie in the sky dreaming, but a pledge that we will die to ourselves as Jesus commands and follow God’s will. Jesus gives us the more perfect example in the garden of Gethsemane, when He prays, “Father, not my will, but thine be done”, and He proceeds to surrender His mortal body to the will of the Father. We follow Jesus, by following His example

 

[chevyontheriver]

Bathsheba was the wife of king David as well as the mother of king Solomon, who (after king David's death) began to sit upon the throne of his father. Makes sense that Bathsheba (as it relates to her being the wife of a deceased king) could be referred to as a queen mother of sorts to the now king Solomon.

You missed the point entirely. The mother of the king being the queen was a common and well understood thing in the Middle East in antiquity. It wasn't at all the wife of the king who was queen. Or the wife of a dead king who became queen. Your 'makes sense' only 'makes sense' in a recent European sort of way. It doesn't make any sense if you understand a bit of the history of Judah, Israel, or the surrounding countries. The mother of the king was the queen. That's why the mother of Jesus is a queen, his queen.

As to older 'queens of heaven' we do not approve of them. In the same way we do not approve of any older 'kings of heaven' . Only Jesus the rightful king. All others were fakes and pretenders until Jesus. Jesus is the only true King. And he had a human mother who was thus His queen. You complaining about previously condemned 'queens of heaven' is a good thing. But finally the true King has a true queen, his mother by ancient Middle East usage, and you complain about her too. Reject the counterfeits by all means, but don't call everything a counterfeit. The true coin has been found.

 

[JSRG]

Not sure about experience, I did not even try to attend, because its officially said on various catholic websites. Sure, in reality, they cannot really know you are a protestant, if one wants to go anyway and its not some small town or a village.

No, its just another extreme practice/doctrine of theirs I dislike. It does not precede other dislikes.

Can you refer to what the "various catholic websites" that that "officially say" non-Catholics cannot go to Catholic services? Because I've never heard of this before.

Now, it is true that non-Catholics are normally forbidden from taking communion in a Catholic Church. (I think there may be a few rare exceptions to this, but ordinarily communion is only supposed to be for Catholics) But there is no for a non-Catholic to attend mass, you just aren't supposed to take communion. Is it possible you are thinking not of the issue of attending mass, but of the specific act of taking communion?

 

[Fireinfolding]

You missed the point entirely. The mother of the king being the queen was a common and well understood thing in the Middle East in antiquity. It wasn't at all the wife of the king who was queen. Or the wife of a dead king who became queen. Your 'makes sense' only 'makes sense' in a recent European sort of way. It doesn't make any sense if you understand a bit of the history of Judah, Israel, or the surrounding countries. The mother of the king was the queen. That's why the mother of Jesus is a queen, his queen.

As to older 'queens of heaven' we do not approve of them. In the same way we do not approve of any older 'kings of heaven' . Only Jesus the rightful king. All others were fakes and pretenders until Jesus. Jesus is the only true King. And he had a human mother who was thus His queen. You complaining about previously condemned 'queens of heaven' is a good thing. But finally the true King has a true queen, his mother by ancient Middle East usage, and you complain about her too. Reject the counterfeits by all means, but don't call everything a counterfeit. The true coin has been found.

She was never called queen when David was alive as King or after he was deceased and still alive during Solomons reign, where is she even adressed as that.

And as far as Mary goes she called herself the handmaid of the Lord.

Where is the difference between masses being led to adress Mary as "the queen of heaven" (Jeremiah 44:7) and pouring out sacrifices to her in the same fashion, and the likes of those in Acts 14:12-18 who began to call Barnabas, Jupiter and Paul, Mercurius as the people there began to bring oxen and garlands to offer sacrifices to them too ? I just dont even see the title applying in either place but where I do find it its in some form of idolatrous worship. And in the examples posted it was like people love borrowing the titles which belong to the idolatrous and attach the same to those who belong to Christ.


And that's not Mary's fault (who is called "the queen of heaven") or Barnabas fault (who is called Jupiter) or Paul's fault (who is called Mercurius) thats just typical ignorance of men who are shown beginning that sort of thing with holy men. Paul and Barnabas
could protest against in person (which they did) regarding these peoples vanities, but Mary isnt here to protest such things.