Posted on 09/20/2004 3:43:25 AM PDT by Stubborn
"If the Son is a King, then the Mother who bore Him should be looked upon as a queen and sovereign."
"Since the flesh of Mary was no different from that of Jesus, how can we deny to the Mother the same royal dignity we find in the Son? . . . So I would consider the glory of the Son not as something shared with His Mother, but as her glory too."
If Jesus is the King of the universe, then Mary is its Queen. And as Queen, she possesses by right the whole Kingdom of her Son.
Christ had both a Divine and a human nature at once. He was very much God, yet at the same time subject to human frailties (e.g. temptation to sin) as all men are. Yet, he never sinned, nor yielded to temptation.
He is both Lord of all, and at the same time a tole model - one should pattern one's life in the manner of Christ.
So, in the spiritual sense, Christ is our "brother" as he shows us the way to the Father. Christ is the new Adam (in the spiritual sense), as Mary is the new Eve.
In that sense they are respectively brother and mother to us all, as God is Father of all. This is the heavenly model of the family, on the spiritual plane.
Incorrect assumption. Princess Diana bore the future king of England and she was not born royal, but was made quasi royal later in life. Mary was born a commoner like Dianna. She became royal when she married Prince Charles (equivalent to Mary marrying God). Furthermore, technically if Dianna had become Queen, she would not have been a soverign-only Charles's consort; Charles would have been the sovereign. It is very possible that a woman can bear a king and not have an ounce of royal blood in her veins (as both history and logic has shown us). It is also very possible that a woman can bear a king and not be born royal (in this case "divine") herself. In that case, Mary was a commoner who bore the king of humanity.
Here's something that'll immensely help Christians in life: "If it ain't in the New Testament, don't worry about it."
Jezzz, no wonder Christianity is going extinct in Europe. People see that and cringe. Next time Christians complain Godless Europe, remember, the church in it infinite wisdom (which it has demonstrated constantly) did everything it could to help it become that way. Crushing disenters, etc. and ticking people off.
Christians are often their own worst enemy.
In OT Judaic times the mother of the king was considered the queen. She sat in a specially prepared place by the side of the king and interceded on behalf of those who approached her.
Christ was the long awaited King from the lineage of David. Mary was His mother, thereby receiving status as Queen.
***In OT Judaic times the mother of the king was considered the queen.***
The mother of David was not considered a queen.
The mother of Saul was not considered a queen.
Interesting quote.
I think a SSPX priest mentioned that to me several years ago. However, as I was leaving Rome shortly after that, God convinced me that the Bible interprets the ECF, not the other way around.
When I stopped believing in
the sinlessness of Mary,
it changed what I believed about Mary
but not what I believed about Jesus.
In Catholic tradition/teaching we have what are known as the Corporal and Spiritual works of Mercy.
Some of the Corporal one are obvious: to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, visit prisoners, give shelter to the stranger,to give alms to the poor, etc. These are important, but - to paraphrase Christ - even an evil man will give alms to the poor.
The more important are the Spiritual Works of Mercy. These would include: to instruct the ignorant, counsel the doubful; correct those in error; to give succor to those in despair; to pray for the living and the dead.
These heal the soul Yes, I rebuked and correct my brother in Christ when I saw that he was speaking heresy - error. To allow him to continue in his error, without any statement to the contrary, would be a sin of ommission on my part. I have an obligation to at least attempt to set the record straight. If he chooses not to heed - that is his business. If he does heed, then it is for the benfit of his soul.
This is not an issue of "one-upmanship" or pompous finger wagging. This is intended to be fraternal correction out of concern for my brother's soul.
If I DO NOT attempt to correct him then I do not love my brother. This is in the same manner that a mother corrects a child out of love.........or a brother corrects his brother or sister, out of brotherly love, to keep them on the right path, and out of danger.
In contemporary terms, one might consider this a type of "tough love". But it should never be done out of spirit of anger, nor of superiority.
It is an error of contemorary society to think that one "has a right" to be wrong. Man has free will - and may err because of it. But when he speaks or writes this error, he can cause another soul who hears or reads this to "fall into the pit" also. So the adage that "I have a right to my opinion", is symptomatic of the pride of man......and pride is the primordial sin of Lucifer, from which all other sins are derived.
Unfortuantely, my friend, this is not comprehensible to the mind of the average modern man, weaned on pseudo paganistic pop culture/PC thought modes.
Yes, I have read them. I'm a former RC.
Where the writings of the ECF in places contradict the Bible, they must be rejected. Paul wrote many letters in the very early years to different churches to correct falso doctrine.
Of Paul's letters, Romans, Ephesians and Galatians are the most important for a Roman Catholic to study.
The Letter to the Hebrews is crucial for understanding the Crucifixion.
***If not, you would be quite pleasantly surprised at their clear explanations of the Scriptures.***
Not always clear. Sometime errant. Would you like to see an striking example?
The Bible, I think we would agree, is inerrant.
In OT Judaic times the mother of the king was considered the queen. She sat in a specially prepared place by the side of the king and interceded on behalf of those who approached her.
Regardless of whether this is true or not (for we see no evidence for it in the Old Testament) ... such was not according to God's will.
It wasn't even God's will for His people to have kings.1 Samuel 8:4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.
9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
Where most scholars go for the old testament is really irrelevant here. Your objection was one of language- what does the Greek word "heos" mean, and does it necessarily follow that it ends the condition which existed before it.
“but kept her a virgin until ["heos"]she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.”
Regardless of what you think of the Septuagint, it is still clearly written in Greek, and is not some sort of biased Catholic source (written before 250 B.C.). It provides many examples of the Greek language using the word "heos" (translated into English most often as "until"), where a condition was not ended. The one I cited was an example, again:
"Therefore the daughter of Saul had no child "heos" (until, to the day of) her death" 2 Kings 6:23.
The same word from Matt. 1:25 is used. It clearly does not mean she had children after death, and the above quote from Matthew does not mean that after the birth of Jesus, Mary was not kept a virgin.
It makes God my father.
No Catholic worships MAry no matter how much you might like that they do. Do you not know that even Christ Himself asked His mother for things? He wants us to do the same.
Incorrect interprelation because Mary is The Mother of the God the Son, the Spouse of God the Holy Ghost and the Daughter of God the Father - do not try to compare this to Princess Diana or you will get more screwed up.
I think the reference to the tent in Judges 5:24 is a feature of Hebrew parallelism poetry. The Greek word describing Jael as blessed in the Septuagint is the exact same word describing Mary as blessed in Luke. It's true that they are both blessed, but being blessed no more makes Mary the queen of heaven than it made Jael queen of the tent. Where in the Bible is the term "queen of heaven" applied to Mary? Or even used at all? Peter in I Peter 4:11 warns us to "speak as the oracles of God". Jude 3 tells us that the faith was once-delivered in the 1st century. If any man says anything not supported in that once-delivered faith of the 1st century we are to reject it. "..."But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto than that which we have preached, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8)
MY FACTS:
1) Kings nor Samuel are part of the Septuagint.
2) There were disagreements among the early church father that the Septuagint was even "inspired". It was left as appendices because of the disagreements.
3) The Hebrews never accepted the Septuagint as "inspired", only historical.
4) The Septuagint is not a biased Catholic source.
5) The Septuagint was deemed "inspired" by the Council of Trent in 1500+ AD.
6) No matter how many times you try to bring up this verse in Kings (Samuel), the fact remains this is not how it is in Hebrew (which is far more accurate than the Greek). Even the Catholic Douay-Rheim Bible doesn't translate it as you're translating it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.