Skip to comments.Mary is our Mother and Queen of the New Davidic Kingdom (Scriptures Agree With Catholic Church)
Posted on 02/24/2010 11:17:16 AM PST by Pyro7480
click here to read article
It seems to me that any answer I give you will be insufficient. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and get back to me if you still have questions.
Just tell me what it means to you.
I don't want to be accused of having my "own personal interpretation" of the Catechism.
Who says they aren't? Who says the "Hail Mary" is the only (or even most common) prayer "ordered recited for penance"?
Are your speaking from personal experience? Have you interviewed a statistically significant, randomly selected sample of lay Catholics (or priests) on the topic?
I'm honestly curious ... this is not a flame.
The church formed of true believers, is here compared to the queen, whom, by an everlasting covenant, the Lord Jesus has betrothed to himself. This is the bride, the Lamb's wife, whose graces are compared to fine linen, for their purity; to gold, for their costliness: for as we owe our redemption, so we owe our adorning, to the precious blood of the Son of God.
The Scriptures, from beginning to end are about Christ NOT MARY
The woman in Revelation 12:17 is Israel, the nation that birthed Him..note the crown of 12 stars representing the 12 tribes.. Note that there is not one mention of Mary being seen in the Revelation account of Heaven, no queen sitting next to King Jesus on the throne.. no Mary mentioned at all because scripture is all about Christ
That scripture is not about Mary it is about Christ. His first miracle was one that pointed to the plan of salvation.. The water that was changed to wine was in the ritual cleansing jugs, wine that is a symbol of the blood of Christ filled those cleansing jars. Because His blood is what cleanses us from our sin.. those Jewish ritual washing jars were considered unclean once they held wine and could be used no more.. This is about Jesus
You already do without ever having read it. How pathetic is that?
So does the King of Kings and Lord of Lords bow down to his mother? NO SHE MUST BOW BEFORE HIM..
Phil 10: 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
That includes Mary who must bow before Jesus and proclaim HIM her Lord
This is made up out of whole cloth, the scripture does not say that it is pure Isogesis as is all of his work here..
Destroying it.. does this point to Mary?
neh2: 6 Then the king said to me, the queen sitting beside him, How long will your journey be, and when will you return? So it pleased the king to send me, and I gave him a definite time
This does NOT SAY Queen MOTHER it say the Queen..the hebrew translation is
Word Origin from shagel
(queen) consort NASB Word Usage queen (2).
It is a very bad practice to intentionally misquote scripture to make it say what you want it to say..this author is not trustworthy in his study
No one has claimed otherwise.
These scriptures have been made all about Mary instead of looking for Christ in them
You have still never said what exactly the Scriptures are, how you got them, and how you know them to be true and complete. Care to give it a try now?
I don't know that they aren't. I'm just asking for Natural's personal experience. I've never been to a Catholic Confession, so I'm admittedly ignorant of the types of penance, but it would appear that Hail Mary's and Our Fathers and recitations of the Rosary seem to be a common thread for those seeking penance. I'm just wondering if any priests have ever suggested that in order to do penance, that the sinner recite chapters from the Book of Leviticus or some other difficult scripture.
Just curious man. Educate me. You guys have been to confession hundreds of times (sometimes I suspect after losing your tempers on these threads) so tell me if I'm wrong from your own personal experience (YOPEWC) "Your Own Personal Experience with Confession"
Is Mary’s Queenship Biblical?
By Edward P. Sri
Marys title as “Queen of Heaven and Earth” is a great scandal to many non-Catholic Christians. After all, the Bible doesnt mention anything about there being a queen in Gods kingdom. All this royal attention Catholics give to Marywhether its singing “Hail, holy queen enthroned above” or portraying Mary in statues and paintings with a crown on her headseems to many non-Catholics to detract from the royalty of Christ, who alone is King of Kings. Besides, how could Mary be a queen, since she is not the wife of the Jesus but only his mother?
One biblical theme sheds light on these questions and serves as a key for unlocking the mystery of Marys queenship: the Old Testament tradition of the “queen mother” in the Davidic kingdom.
In the monarchy of King David, as well as in other ancient kingdoms of the Near East, the mother of the ruling king held an important office in the royal court and played a key part in the process of dynastic succession. In fact, the kings mother ruled as queen, not his wife.
The great pre-eminence of the kings mother may seem odd from our modern Western perspective, in which we think of a queen as being the wife of a king. However, recall that most ancient Near-Eastern kings practiced polygamy. King Solomon had seven hundred wives (1 Kgs. 11:3)imagine the chaos in the royal court if all seven hundred were awarded the queenship! But since each king had only one mother, one can see the practical wisdom in bestowing the queenship upon her.
A number of Old Testament passages reflect the important role of the queen mother in the Davidic kingdom. For example, almost every time the narrative of 1 and 2 Kings introduces a new monarch in Judah, it mentions the kings mother as well, showing the mothers intimate involvement in her royal sons reign. Similarly, the queen mother is listed among the members of the royal court whom king Jehoiachin surrendered to the king of Babylon in 2 Kings 24:12.
Her royal office is also described by the prophet Jeremiah, who tells how the queen mother possessed a throne and a crown, symbolic of her position of authority in the kingdom: “Say to the king and the queen mother: Take a lowly seat, for your beautiful crown has come down from your head. . . . Lift up your eyes and see those who come from the north. Where is the flock that was given you, your beautiful flock?” (Jer. 13:18, 20). It is significant that God directed this oracle about the upcoming fall of Judah to both the king and his mother. Addressing both king and queen mother, Jeremiah portrays her as sharing in her sons rule over the kingdom.
Probably the clearest example of the queen mothers role is that of Bathsheba, wife of David and mother of Solomon. Scholars have noted the excellence of Bathshebas position in the kingdom once she became queen mother during Solomons rule. Compare the humble attitude of Bathsheba as spouse of King David (1 Kgs. 1:1617, 31) with her majestic dignity as mother of the next king, Solomon (1 Kgs. 2:1920). As spouse of the king, Bathsheba bows with her face to the ground and does obeisance to her husband, David, upon entering his royal chamber. In striking contrast, after her son Solomon assumed the throne and she became queen mother, Bathsheba receives a glorious reception upon meeting with her royal son:
“So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the kings mother; and she sat on his right. Then she said, I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me. And the king said to her, Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you” (1 Kgs. 2:1920).
This account reveals the sovereign prerogatives of the queen mother. Note how the king rises and bows as she enters. Bathshebas seat at the kings right hand has the greatest significance. In the Bible, the right hand is the place of ultimate honor. This is seen in particular in the messianic Psalm 110 (”Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool”). In fact, many New Testament passages refer to the right-hand imagery of Psalm 110 to show Christs divinity and his reign with the Father over the whole universe (e.g., Hebrews 1:13). Thus, the queen mother sitting at the kings right hand symbolizes her sharing in the kings royal authority and illustrates how she holds the most important position in the kingdom, second only to the king...
It would certainly seem that way in popular culture (TV, movies, etc), but IMO that's just another area of popular culture that's not really correct. Certainly, the idea that one's penance is simply a matter of reciting a set of words as fast as possible (and nothing more) is not correct ... if that's all the priest tells the penitent to do, the priest isn't really doing his job. My experience has been more along the line of topics for prayer, specific to the nature of what I confessed.
We all have our own personal interpretation of EVERYTHING. Even Papal Bulls and the Catechism.
Every mind processes information differently. Everyone has their own personal interpretation not only of scripture, but of the "official" interpretations of those scriptures.
Ultimately we all must rely on the Holy Spirit to teach us all things. If we don't then no matter what our interpretation of scripture is, or of any stated doctrine it is our own personal interpretation, isn't it?
Regarding the nature of praying the Rosary, I posted the following on another thread:
OK. I see two ways to look at the Rosary.
1) External form. The external form of the Rosary is to recite a set of standardized texts (adapted from the Scriptures) a prescribed number of times in a prescribed order. The string of beads is a useful tool for keeping count, although it is not necessary. If one is simply reciting the words (nothing more), well ... I can think of better ways to spend one’s time. I can also think of worse. One who is simply reciting the words is missing the point.
2) Internal state of mind. Actually praying the Rosary entails meditation on a set of twenty events in the life of Christ, 18 of which appear directly and explicitly in the Gospels. The repetitive recitation helps one to drown out the distractions of the world ... the purpose of praying the Rosary is to deepen one’s personal relationship with Our Lord Jesus Christ.
No one has told me to say a Hail Mary or Rosary since is was about 12 years old. My experience with confession is a priest asking me if I knew that what I confessed was a sin when I did it and did I know why it was a sin. I have been guided and have been taught when or if I was uncertain or unclear. I have been told to pray about my transgressions and to ask God for forgiveness and the strength and wisdom to avoid sin and temptation in the future.
I did have a priest tell me to do push-ups and run laps for screwing up, but he was my football coach.
Looks like we are traveling a new trail. Cool.
Are there "rules" for priests in doling out penance? Is these some kind of manual for forgiveness? That is one of the reasons why I pointed to Leviticus. In the Old Testament there were clear rules (set in stone so to speak) of what actions needed to be done to clear the slate with God, like restitution, being removed from the camp, punitive damages, sacrifice, etc.
So if I come to the Priest after having committed the sin of gluttony at Claim Jumper, what would be the "official" penance that I should have to do to clear the slate (other than jogging off the excess weight)?
Did he forgive you?
The 66 books of the OT and NT Canon.. The OT points to Christ at least thats what he said
No this is just more isogesis
No where are we told Mary is the Queen of anything.. The book of revelation opens heaven and speaks of it..no where is a queen present, no one sits next to Jesus on the throne
That was 40 years ago .....and no, I don't think he ever really did.
No. The Old Law idea of "this sacrifice for this sin, and that sacrifice for that sin" has been fulfilled in Christ's one Sacrifice for all people, all places, all times. Forgiveness of our sins doesn't come from what we do, it comes from what Christ does.
OTOH, there is pastoral guidance as to what a priest should do ... part of his job is to help the penitent to understand the true horror of sin, and to help him/her find ways to amend his/her life. The idea isn't just to receive (from God) forgiveness for sins already committed but, with the help of His grace, avoid those sins in the future.
If I were a priest, and you confessed a sin of gluttony at "Claim Jumpre" ...
Dunno ... I might "impose" a meditation on the idea that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, and deserves more respect than that ... I might suggest avoiding buffets in the future ... Holy Spirit might tell me something else entirely to pass on. I'm not a priest, and this isn't a confession, so the discussion is academic. But I think it provides a good view of what confession has been like, in my experience as an adult.
BTW, “assigning” a reading from Leviticus might not be a bad idea in some cases ... if for no other reason than to help instill a sense of gratitude to Christ for fulfilling all that ... I’m glad we don’t have to sacrifice animals any more.
Maybe you should have dragged him into the confessional and forced some forgiveness out of him.
We don't go to confession to get the priest's forgiveness, we go the get God's. The priest only recognizes out contrition.
I thought the Priest's position was effectively God's position, (i.e., whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven). So if the priest tells you that your sins are NOT forgiven, then they remain, isn't that true?
Or is this another pop-culture myth?
I've always wondered how the Mafioso's and gang members can go to confession after killing someone and expect to get forgiveness. If I were the priest, I sure as heck would not offer to bind God to forgiveness of some punk killer just because he pretends to be contrite. I'd tell him to go to hell. And I'd pray that God would be bound to that decision.
IMHO (YOPHO) it is not any man's prerogative to forgive another man for sins they did to someone other than themselves or to declare to them that God has forgiven them. Only God and the victim can forgive and in the case of murder, there is no victim to forgive.
What amazes me is how these politicians who promote abortion can continue to remain in fellowship with the Catholic Church when they have the blood of millions of innocent children on their hands.
Does the priest (by virtue of his office) have the power to bind God to forgiving them merely because they offer up some contrition and a few prayers and maybe a few bucks to buy some pews?
The purpose of the Church is to guide and facilitate everyone in their plan and path to salvation. It is predicated upon forgiveness and redemption.
Both sin and salvation are of the moment and are conscious choices. Each of us can be forgiven for any sin at any time by God, made possible by the death and resurrection of Jesus. Only God knows what is in our hearts.
The priest can ind the Church, but not God. Even the act of Excommunication is implemented such that it is an explicit choice by the one excommunicated and the Church does not suggest a loss of salvation or an interference between the excommunicated and God.
This then naturally brings us to the Council of Trent. The Anathemas that were declared there... do they bind God?
Must God curse the Reformers and all who vow fealty to the Westminster Confession for their doctrinal differences with the Catholic Magisterium?
Are those Anathemas binding on God? If not, then why were they pronounced and why have they not been rescinded? Did the Council of Trent have the authority from God to make those pronouncements?
Of course not, they only bind the Church. In fact, the anathemas were only put on Catholics. You had to be a "card carrying Catholic" in order to "qualify." Anathemas never applied to non-Catholics. Anathema was the most severe form of excommunication. Someone can't be "excommunicated" if they were never in communion with the Church in the first place. Also, the canonical penalty of Anathema was removed from Canon Law (Catholic Church law) in 1983. It is not in the Catechism.
So now we get to the issue of "What is a Catholic"? Is it a follower of Christ or a follower of Rome?
As a follower of Christ I consider myself a member of the Catholic Church as enunciated in the Nicean and Apostle creeds. Apparently some time after the declarations of those creeds fealty to the Bishop of Rome became the defining requirement for inclusion into the membership of the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am not a member. So do the anathemas only apply to members of the Roman Catholic Church?
Since I hold as gospel truth some of the doctrines declared to be Anathema by the Council of Trent, and I consider myself a Catholic as enunciated in the Nicean and Apostle creeds, am I now under some kind of official curse?
Now you are just trying to be contentious. For the purposes of this discussion Catholic (upper case "C") means an adherent to either the Latin or the Eastern (Orthodox) rite.
Wrong. That, my FRiend is Your Own Personal Interpretation of Catholic. [YOPIOC].
I am an adherent to the founding creeds of the uInvisible and Universal Catholic Church by virtue of my fealty to Christ and to the the Nicean and Apostle creeds.
Do you have the authority to excommunicate me from that Church? Is God bound by YOUR decision to disfellowship me because I do not adhere to some non-essential doctrine that was not part of the Early Church?
Now you have a choice, you can attempt to declare my position Anathema and excommunicate me from the fellowship of Christ which I enjoy by virtue of my communion with Christ through faith or you can accept me as a brother in Christ by virtue of my declaration of fealty to Christ and my adherence to the Apostles and Nicean creeds.
My fate is in your hands, brother.
I will side with you to a small degree, Pyro... There is to be a queen.
But the queen is the one that Christ marries. Not His earthly mother (because that's just gross). Numerous scriptures, beyond counting, describe Christ's queen as the virgin Assembly, dressed in white. The "queen" will be Israel. The wedding is on the schedule.
Agreed. ALL glory, laud, and honor belong to the Father, and His Redeemer King.
You are free to be wrong as you want to be, you just can't do and remain in communion with or as a member of the Latin Rite Church.
You diminish God by anthropomorphizing Him.
Catholics are expressly forbidden from adoring Mary. Look it up...
...don’t tell them that...they may take you up on it, and then all their pretty little fantasies and Catholic bashing will be ruined...
When you leave confession and the priest tells you that to atone for your sins you have to say 500 Hail Mary’s, what is that, if it is not a sacrifice to Mary?...
...it is truly remarkable that the more incorrect a person is regarding a subject, the more ridiculous becomes the patter...
If I do (which I don't), it is done in the way HE proposes. The Scriptures that describe Christ's bride are myriad. It is a major theme in the Bible, not to be missed or misconstrued.
Meanwhile, a wee little bit of Scripture, wrenched painfully from the text in a gnostic fashion might point to Mary...
Who better fits the character of the prophesied "queen" then? The earthly, carnal, unquestionably human mother of Christ, or the spiritual woman who is betrothed to the King? Upon the marriage, the daughter of Zion is the wife of the King... What is the wife of the King called, hmmm?
The answer is easy.
And btw, How is it that I am "diminishing God by anthropomorphizing Him" when your own theology defends Mary as queen because of a carnal act? The title comes at least partly from the idea that she is the "wife" of the Spirit, and the "mother" of God... Which in fact, diminishes Him in the greatest fashion?
That's cool brother. But I'm not wrong. I'm just a member of Christ's body of believers. I don't rely upon some Latin rite to secure my place in Christ's Church. Your salvation, like mine, is conditioned only on our being accepted by God and not on some ancient ritual or adherence to some non-essential dogma. My salvation is solely in the hands of Christ, the only priest I need. The Church cannot save me. Only Christ can.
in that sense we are all in the same boat. Thank God the boat is being piloted by Christ
Have a safe voyage, brother.
Incidentally, The very same logic disputes the idea that Mary is the new Eve... The New Adam/Eve scenario better describes an husband/wife relationship.
The Church does not save, it only guides and facilitates. Christ only saves those who have faith and strive to save themselves.
So, God saves those who save themselves?
Salvation requires both faith and works. God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel (Sir 15:14), so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.
I thought that Pelagianism was declared to be a heresy even by you Latin Rite Catholics