MMurphy
Inactive
Protestants don't really believe in saints so its hard for you to understand how we can ask them for intercession. Or how Mary is the first among saints.
Immaculate Conception
- Thread starter MMurphy
- Start date
- Status
PeaceLikeaRiver
Inactive
My usual attitude is to ignore your taunts. Maybe use that tack in future.
I'm not taunting you in anyway and I don't recall any time I ever have. Maybe you're confusing me with someone. I asked a sincere question and you seem incapable of a friendly reply. No worries
But either way, its not a matter of being enemies.....its a matter of whorshiping something other them GOD....Could Mary hear all the prayers direct to her every day at same time? If she does them she is ominipotente or ominipresente attributes held only by GOD? ....Its not a war of any extent but only logic and clarification....so we can all grow in Christ our only God..[emoji4]
To begin, I agree worshiping anything or anyone other than God is always, 100% out of the question. And this is the position of the Catholic Church. It rejects Marian worship.
As Catholics, we don't pray TO Mary so much as we pray THROUGH Her. No prayer bypasses God. We ask her to pray for us just as we may ask a friend or pastor to pray for us.
Mary isn't omnipotent, but those in the communion with God in heaven we recognize are not limited to time as we are on earth. We don't take Mary to be divine, but we recognize that even those in heaven are still part of the body of Christ and accept them as part of the Christian family -- they aren't separated from God in heaven.
But just to highlight...Marian worship -- totally wrong, and the Catholic Church has always taught that it is wrong. By loving Mary (not worshiping her), we do this because we worship her Son, Jesus and mean to imitate Him because no one was as close to Him as His mother.
I'm not trying to change your mind, but I do think I should at least clear up a misunderstanding you have in regards to Catholicism--respectfully of course.
Last edited:
Its ok.....God is king rigth?....Whats a Queen?
The 'Queen of Heaven': Pope Pius XII (1939-58), a Pope many today still remember, described Mary as 'Queen of Heaven'. It was he, on November 1st 1950, who proclaimed ex-Cathedra 'from the seat' (infallibly) that Mary's body was raised from the grave shortly after she died, and she was taken up and enthroned as 'Queen of Heaven.' At St. Peter Square on Easter Day 1988, Pope John Paul II's message included a prayer "to the Queen of Heaven for protection and peace in the world."
Lol...
Mary's title as "Queen of Heaven" shouldn't be looked at as a title of worship. A Queen Mother was a common tradition, especially since we've seen this with David and his mother. Mary's title as the Queen of Heaven points to her Son as being the King -- the one we need to turn to.
But you also mentioned the assumption of Mary. This, like the Immaculate Conception, is another subject which requires serious discussion and much time to fully evaluate -- more than mere back and forths on a forum
MMurphy
Inactive
In Orthodox theology. Saints undergo theosis, otherwise know as mysticism or deification. Thus in heaven they experience the timeless union of God.
Indeed. It's the nature of divine eternal life. Sense of earthly time isn't in God's presence.
Time for bed. I look forward to more discussion 
lol...you asked....I gave the "who"....she was "enthroned" as Queen, not just recived a title....now you say its just a title....lol....Mary's title as "Queen of Heaven" shouldn't be looked at as a title of worship. A Queen Mother was a common tradition, especially since we've seen this with David and his mother. Mary's title as the Queen of Heaven points to her Son as being the King -- the one we need to turn to.
But you also mentioned the assumption of Mary. This, like the Immaculate Conception, is another subject which requires serious discussion and much time to fully evaluate -- more than mere back and forths on a forum
Is this not truly deception? When we talk about the 'Queen mother' it would generally be understood that the mother of Queen Elizabeth II is being referred to. The Queen of England is not the queen mother, nor would any normal person think that the 'Queen of heaven' refers to merely a queen mother figure.Mary's title as "Queen of Heaven" shouldn't be looked at as a title of worship. A Queen Mother was a common tradition, especially since we've seen this with David and his mother. Mary's title as the Queen of Heaven points to her Son as being the King -- the one we need to turn to.
But you also mentioned the assumption of Mary. This, like the Immaculate Conception, is another subject which requires serious discussion and much time to fully evaluate -- more than mere back and forths on a forum
Being right i not about being in the majority....it is about being right.
PeaceLikeaRiver
Inactive
Well then, you do what you think is right, and so will the rest of us.
Well yes. This queenship began the moment she said yes to God's request to be the mother of Christ.
This is why context is important. I was uncomfortable with this title of Mary being the Queen of Heaven because it seemed to give her equal credit to God, which I think you'd agree with me is absolutely blasphemous.
However, when you step back and understand what it used to mean in ancient times, that it was an honor as the mother of a king, you realize it doesn't mean she has this sort of equal reverence, but that she is highly respected as being the woman who carried the fruit--that fruit being the king.
So if someone is upset about Mary being called the Queen of Mary because they are thinking of a position like the Queen of England rather than the meaning it had as a queen mother, then that's something they need to work out themselves and look further into.
Don't take this statement as me trying to change your mind (I anticipate rebuttal of interpretation), but this term came from the early Church in reference not just to David and his mother, but also the woman in Revelation 12, as the early Christians all understood to be Mary.
But we also see the link in 1 Kings 2 in regards to Solomon and his mother being the queen and how she intercedes for the people. But the NT link to that is at the wedding of Cana where Mary intercedes instructing the servants to do what her Son says. This passage is very important to Catholics because it is a Gospel illustration of Mary's role -- not directing people to her, but that she directs us to God.
Again, I suspect you disagree that it was Mary, all I'm doing is explaining the background for this concept of Mary being the Queen Mother. You are totally free to reject it.
Last edited:
PeaceLikeaRiver
Inactive
Not completely off topic, but I recall I had a calendar a couple of years ago that had "Immaculate Conception" written on one of the dates. What would that refer to?
Somehow related to the topic, i think a good discussion with be Traditions....
I just seem to read somewhere the there are extra-biblical traditions.... in a way that the two are different...
Traditions = Oral and Written
Oral are actually written: teachings, doctrine, customs… although the latter is more subject to misinterpretation than the first 2…
Bible is Tradition.
We validate Tradition by Tradition.
One cannot say just say aside from the Bible, we believe in extra-biblical Traditions….
Sure, one can just say that: …. but we validate Tradition by Tradition.
We are warned.
Galatians 1:8New King James Version (NKJV)
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
2 Corinthians 11:4New King James Version (NKJV)
4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!
IMO
I just seem to read somewhere the there are extra-biblical traditions.... in a way that the two are different...
Traditions = Oral and Written
Oral are actually written: teachings, doctrine, customs… although the latter is more subject to misinterpretation than the first 2…
Bible is Tradition.
We validate Tradition by Tradition.
One cannot say just say aside from the Bible, we believe in extra-biblical Traditions….
Sure, one can just say that: …. but we validate Tradition by Tradition.
We are warned.
Galatians 1:8New King James Version (NKJV)
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
2 Corinthians 11:4New King James Version (NKJV)
4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!
IMO
PeaceLikeaRiver
Inactive
I'd also be interested in knowing why the oral and written traditions which were so integral at one time were discarded by some and retained by others, like who dictated this and why.
- Status