Is Mary's Queenship Biblical? [Ecumenical]

CatholicAnswers-The Rock ^ | not given | Edward P. Sri

[Salvation]

Is Mary's Queenship Biblical?

By Edward P. Sri

Mary’s title as "Queen of Heaven and Earth" is a great scandal to many non-Catholic Christians. After all, the Bible doesn’t mention anything about there being a queen in God’s kingdom. All this royal attention Catholics give to Mary—whether it’s singing "Hail, holy queen enthroned above" or portraying Mary in statues and paintings with a crown on her head—seems 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 Mary’s 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 king’s mother ruled as queen, not his wife.

The great pre-eminence of the king’s 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 king’s mother as well, showing the mother’s intimate involvement in her royal son’s 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 son’s rule over the kingdom.

Probably the clearest example of the queen mother’s role is that of Bathsheba, wife of David and mother of Solomon. Scholars have noted the excellence of Bathsheba’s position in the kingdom once she became queen mother during Solomon’s rule. Compare the humble attitude of Bathsheba as spouse of King David (1 Kgs. 1:16–17, 31) with her majestic dignity as mother of the next king, Solomon (1 Kgs. 2:19–20). 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 king’s 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. 2:19–20).

This account reveals the sovereign prerogatives of the queen mother. Note how the king rises and bows as she enters. Bathsheba’s seat at the king’s 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 Christ’s divinity and his reign with the Father over the whole universe (e.g., Hebrews 1:13). Thus, the queen mother sitting at the king’s right hand symbolizes her sharing in the king’s royal authority and illustrates how she holds the most important position in the kingdom, second only to the king.

This passage regarding Bathsheba also shows how the queen mother served as an advocate for the people, carrying petitions to the king. In 1 Kings 2:17, Adonijah asks Bathsheba to take a petition for him to King Solomon. He says to her: "Pray ask King Solomon—he will not refuse you—to give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife" (1 Kgs. 2:17). It is clear that Adonijah recognizes the queen mother’s position of influence over the king, so he confidently turns to Bathsheba as an intercessor for his request.

A few Old Testament prophecies incorporate the queen mother tradition when telling of the future Messiah. One example is Isaiah 7:14, which originated during a time of dynastic crisis in Judah when Syria and Israel were threatening Jerusalem and plotting to overthrow King Ahaz. God offers Ahaz a sign that the kingdom will continue: "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Emmanuel" (Isa. 7:13–14).

On one level, this passage points to the next king (Hezekiah) as a pledge that the Davidic dynasty will continue despite the threats of invading armies. At the same time, the royal son who is to be named "Emmanuel" points to the future messianic king (cf., Isa. 9:6–7, 11:1–2). This is why the New Testament says Jesus fulfills this prophecy from Isaiah (Matt. 1:23).

For our purposes we should note how this prophecy links the mother to her royal son. Since the oracle is addressed specifically to the Davidic household and concerns the continuation of the dynasty, the young woman bearing forth the royal son would be understood as a queen mother. This has implications for our understanding of Mary. Since the mother of the king always ruled as queen mother, we should expect to find the mother of the messianic king playing the role of the true queen mother in the everlasting Kingdom of God.

With this Old Testament background, we can now more clearly see how the New Testament portrays Mary in light of the queen mother tradition.

The Gospel of Matthew has often been called the "Gospel of the Kingdom." Matthew emphasizes that Jesus is "the Son of David," who is the true King of the Jews establishing the "Kingdom of Heaven." With all this kingly imagery, it should not be surprising to find queen mother themes as well.

Right away, Matthew shows explicitly how the infant Jesus is the "Emmanuel" child as prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 (Matt. 1:23). As we saw above, this prophecy links the royal messianic child with his queen mother. Further, Matthew singles out the intimate relationship between the mother and her royal son by using the phrase "the child and his mother" five times in the first two chapters, recalling the close association between queen mother and royal son as described in the Books of Kings. Just as the queen mother was constantly mentioned alongside the Judean kings in 1 and 2 Kings, so Mary is frequently mentioned alongside her royal son, Jesus, in Matthew’s infancy narrative (Matt. 1:18; 2:11, 13, 14, 20, 21).

We find Mary portrayed against the background of Davidic kingdom motifs in Luke’s Gospel as well, especially in his accounts of the Annunciation and Visitation. First, the angel Gabriel is said to appear to a virgin betrothed to a man "of the house of David" (1:27). Then the angel tells Mary, "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end" (Luke 1:31–33).

Hear the strong Davidic overtones describing Mary and her royal son: a woman from the house of David giving birth to a son who will be the new king whose reign will never end. With echoes from the queen mother tradition of the Davidic kingdom and the mother-son prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, we can conclude that Mary is being given the vocation of queen mother.

Mary’s royal office is made even more explicit in Luke’s account of the Visitation. Elizabeth greets Mary with the title "the mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43). This title is charged with great queenly significance. In the royal court language of the ancient NearEast, the title "Mother of my Lord" was used to address the queen mother of the reigning king (who himself was addressed as "my Lord"; cf., 2 Sam. 24:21). Thus with this title Elizabeth is recognizing the great dignity of Mary’s role as the royal mother of the king, Jesus.

Finally, Mary’s queenship can be seen in the great vision described in Revelation 12: "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery" (Rev. 12:1–2). Who is this newborn child? He is described as the messianic king exercising his dominion. In verse 5, the author of Revelation chose the messianic Psalm 2 to describe how this child will "rule all the nations with a rod of iron" (Rev. 12:5, Ps. 2:9). This royal son is taken up to heaven to sit on a throne (Rev. 12:5), and he ushers in the kingdom of God by defeating the devil: "Now the kingdom of our God has come, for the accuser has been throne down" (12:10). Certainly, this newborn child is the royal Messiah, King Jesus.

In this light it is clear who this woman is who gave birth to the messiah: It is Mary. Some people have interpreted this woman in Revelation 12 as merely a symbol either for the Old Testament people of Israel or for the New Testament Church and therefore have concluded that the woman cannot be an individual (i.e., Mary). However, this "either-or" proposition is foreign to the biblical worldview, in which individuals often symbolically represent collective groups. For instance, Adam represented all humanity (Rom. 5:19), and Jacob stood for all of Israel (Ps. 44:4). Given this biblical notion called "corporate personality," the woman in Revelation 12 should be understood as both an individual (Mary) and a symbol for the people of God.

But for our purposes, once we see that this woman is Mary, the mother of Jesus, it is important to note how she is portrayed as queen in this passage. Her royal office is hinted at by the imagery of the sun, moon, and twelve stars, which recalls the Old Testament story of Joseph’s dream in which the sun, moon, and stars bow down before him, symbolizing his future authority (Gen. 37:9–11). Her queenship is made even clearer by the crown of twelve stars on her head. Just like the queen mother in Jeremiah 13:18, here Mary is wearing a crown, symbolizing her royal office in the kingdom of heaven. In sum, Revelation 12 portrays Mary as the new queen mother in the Kingdom of God, sharing in her son’s rule over the universe.

We have seen how the Old Testament queen mother tradition serves as an important background for understanding Mary’s royal office. Indeed, the New Testament portrays Mary as the queen mother par excellence. Thus, prayers, hymns, and art giving honor to Mary’s queenship are most fitting biblical responses for Christians. In honoring her as queen mother we do not take anything away from Christ’s glory, but rather we exalt him even more by recognizing the great work he has done in her and through her.

Understanding Mary as queen mother sheds light on her important intercessory role in the Christian life. Just like the queen mother of the Davidic kingdom, Mary serves as advocate for the people in the Kingdom of God today. Thus, we should approach our queen mother with confidence, knowing that she carries our petitions to her royal son and that he responds to her as Solomon did to Bathsheba: "I will never refuse you."

---

Edward P. Sri is assistant professor of Religious Studies at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas. He holds a Licentiate in Sacred Theology from the Angelicum in Rome, where he is currently a doctoral candidate.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“But that is a non-sequitur; it is a completely irrelevant point. There is a saying “you are the wind beneath my wings”, does that mean you are an ethereal flow of air? No, it means you hold me up.”

If it was a “completely irrelevant” point, then why are you making the same one? I said that the claimed “metaphor” of John 6 has a known meaning. It does in Hebrew and Aramaic culture. You said no. Then you said that “you are the wind beneath my wings” has a definite meaning. Is that not what I just said?

Listen, if you’re going to help me out that much by shooting your own argument in the foot let me know so I can take the rest of the day off and just relax.

“Which means you deny the words of Christ Himself.”

No, you deny them. I accept them all. You, on the other hand, deny them by claiming they don’t mean what they plainly say when no metaphor is even used.

“Explain John 6:60-63. You cannot if you hold to your opinions...”

I just did explain John 6:60-63 and the whole passage and everything I said about it absolutely holds to exactly what I have said all along. Such was the known outcome from the start simply because my opinion is based on it and not the other way around.

“So we can DNA test the eucharist and find it as human flesh? Is that your contention?”

We already know the blood type. Did you know that? No, you probably didn’t. Here, read, learn: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

[Artemis Webb]

bookmark

[Mr Rogers]

For any who haven’t read it lately, here is the passage in contention (John 6.25-71). As you read, ask yourself, “Is Jesus speaking spiritually, or physically?”

It may also be worth asking yourself, “Is he talking to believers? Are all his disciples believers, or are some just following him to see the miracles?”

---

“When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

“Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this bread.”

Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

---

I cannot stop someone from believing Jesus was speaking physically, but the answer is plain enough for me. I find it summarized well here: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

[vladimir998]

I see you, and I raise you:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/08/john-6-eucharist-plausibility-of.html

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/12/counter-reply-to-protestant-take-on.html

[PugetSoundSoldier]

No, you deny them. I accept them all. You, on the other hand, deny them by claiming they don’t mean what they plainly say when no metaphor is even used.

Do you eat other food and water? According to the literal words of John 6:35 none is required. You can live on a weekly communion wafer and a swallow of wine.

I just did explain John 6:60-63 and the whole passage and everything I said about it absolutely holds to exactly what I have said all along. Such was the known outcome from the start simply because my opinion is based on it and not the other way around.

You explained nothing other than to say it wasn't metaphorical. Nothing other than your pronouncement. Even in your church, you are not allowed to do that unless you are the Pope. Are you?

We already know the blood type. Did you know that? No, you probably didn’t. Here, read, learn: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

So exactly ONCE in the history of the Catholic faith has the Eucharist actually become flesh. Is that your contention? That's the evidence you are putting forth. And the fact it is considered a "miracle" of import marks its singular nature even further.

You hang your position on a possible once-ever happening in 2000 years?

[Mr Rogers]

From your link: “Despite this, the counter-argument to the straightforward Catholic interpretation of Real Presence in this passage is that it was purely a symbolic, metaphorical discourse, which the disciples misunderstood, causing some of them to forsake Jesus (6:66). But this makes no sense, because Jesus certainly would have explained what He meant in order to clear up the misunderstanding (and the abandonment), rather than simply reiterate and emphasize the same point more and more strongly: as the passage records.”

But the heart of an unbeliever creates misunderstandings to allow their unbelief. What Jesus said made manifest the rebellion already in their hearts...it revealed the ‘soil’ the word had fallen on. There was no reason for Jesus to call them back, for they were not His to begin with.

” 35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

20 verses later, in the same incident, many left Jesus. They were not given him by the Father...”And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.”

To lose that which you didn’t have is no loss at all.

That is unchanged, regardless of a literal or spiritual interpretation. With the later, Jesus was saying He was God - come to ME, partake of ME and live eternally. And THAT would be a very hard saying to many of his folowers, just as it is today.

[Mr Rogers]

BTW - thanks for the links. I’ll read quite a bit more at that website later on.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Do you eat other food and water?”

Not from Jesus, no.

“According to the literal words of John 6:35 none is required. You can live on a weekly communion wafer and a swallow of wine.”

If God so wills it, yes. Check: “Consider: for more than 20 years she lived without food or even water, sustained only by Holy Communion a fact confirmed by medical experts.” For an interesting photo or two: http://www.heiligenlexikon.de/BiographienT/Therese_Neumann_von_Konnersreuth.htm

“You explained nothing other than to say it wasn’t metaphorical.”

Correct, which means your understanding is flawed. Not mine.

“Nothing other than your pronouncement.”

Find an early Christian who contradicts me - one who believes John 6 is only metaphorical.

“Even in your church, you are not allowed to do that unless you are the Pope. Are you?”

Yes. I am allowed to make pronouncements which repeat the known truth recognized throughout the Church any time I want. You really don’t know anything about the Catholic faith, do you?

“So exactly ONCE in the history of the Catholic faith has the Eucharist actually become flesh. Is that your contention?”

No. It happens each and every time. The number of times it is visibly flesh, however, are much more rare. They have still happened, however: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

“That’s the evidence you are putting forth. And the fact it is considered a “miracle” of import marks its singular nature even further.”

No. Miracles are, in fact, more numerous than you seem to realize. EVIDENCE of miracles, however, is a more difficult matter. As I posted, you might want to look at this website: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

“You hang your position on a possible once-ever happening in 2000 years?”

Again, no. http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

You seem very unfamiliar with this whole topic. I doubt that will stop you from posting about it or attacking it.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“But the heart of an unbeliever creates misunderstandings to allow their unbelief. What Jesus said made manifest the rebellion already in their hearts...it revealed the ‘soil’ the word had fallen on. There was no reason for Jesus to call them back, for they were not His to begin with.”

You’re right...but you’re wrong too. You are right about the hangers-on. But you are not right about the apostles. They too had no understanding of Christ’s words, but they still believed in Him. Even those with faith cannot always understand those things put before them even by Almighty God. Abraham had faith. Do you really believed he understood exactly why God had asked him to sacrifice his son?

“That is unchanged, regardless of a literal or spiritual interpretation. With the later, Jesus was saying He was God - come to ME, partake of ME and live eternally. And THAT would be a very hard saying to many of his folowers, just as it is today.”

And not believing that Jesus would give Himself COMPLETELY to us is as hard to believe now as it was then. The simple fact is that people need faith to believe in the Eucharist. The only way to believe in the Eucharist WITHOUT the necessity of faith is if this happens in your presence: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

[Religion Moderator]

It was a service to the Devil.

This Religion Forum thread is labeled "ecumenical." Antagonism is not allowed on this thread.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“This Religion Forum thread is labeled “ecumenical.” Antagonism is not allowed on this thread.”

Okay. So where is a similar reminder to PugetSoundSoldier for writing this in post #116:

“What? Are you serious with this dribble?”

If that isn’t antagonistic what is?

I’m not complaining so much as wondering why there is a lack of consistency here.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I meant dribble in that it was a series of incoherent thoughts. I hope you would agree being told your post is incoherent is much less antagonistic than being told you are a follower of Satan?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I meant dribble in that it was a series of incoherent thoughts.”

That’s 1) untrue - the comments were not a series of incoherent dribble, and 2) it was still antagonistic.

“I hope you would agree being told your post is incoherent is much less antagonistic than being told you are a follower of Satan?”

When did I ever say you were a follower of Satan? I never said any such thing nor would I. Here, let me help you - at the risk of sounding antagonistic:

You wrote:

“You know that Luther did not protest against the theology espoused in the Nicene or Apostle’s Creeds, but against the corruption of the Roman Catholic church. It was a protest against the men - fallible, fallen men.”

And I responded with:

“No. It was a service to the Devil.”

IT WAS - past tense - clearly referring to LUTHER’S ACTIONS more than 450 years ago. Luther’s schismatic act cannot be correctly viewed as anything other than a service to the Devil.

I realize my post might get deleted so I’ll also send this to you in an email. I am only posting this for clarification to CORRECT YOUR ERROR. I have NEVER ONCE suggested that you are a follower of the Devil. Please read more carefully. This might explain why you viewed my earlier statements as “incoherent” when they were anything but that.

[Religion Moderator]

Ok, both of you have had your shots. Now stop it. Do not antagonize each other or anyone else.

Posters and lurkers come to the ecumenical threads to read, learn and contribute without all the heat.

[Jaded]

In the Old Testament the Queen was the mother of the King, not the wife as in the European tradition. Solomon would have had hundreds of queens.

[bobjam]

So much bad theology running around here... Kyrie Elaison!

I find the arguement from the Davidic Kingdom to be fundamentally weak. Yes, a young king held his mother in great asteem. What is so surprising about this? Does anyone think the young king in his right mind would do any less for his mother? Does anyone think that this practice was limited soley to Middle Eastern kingdoms? Check out the Severan Dynasty in Rome or the relationship between Richard the Lionheart and Eleanor of Aquitaine.

[Melian]

“And all ages since have called her blessed by God. Blessed does not equal sinless, or Queen of Heaven.”

Actually, Jesus defined “blessedness” in His Sermon on the Mount. Mary is called blessed by an angel, says future generations will call her blessed, and you agree they do. If Mary is blessed, as defined by Christ, wouldn’t you say she’s worthy of honor, love and respect? Martin Luther loved Mary.

[Melian]

“Jesus Himself says that Mary is not to be blessed because of her position as His mother.”

No, He’s saying what makes her blessed is her holiness, not the biological connection.

More importantly, God and his angel and St. Elizabeth say Mary is blessed. See the Sermon on the Mount for Christ’s definition of blessedness. Mary fits the bill.

[Melian]

Read John 6 like this:

Immediately after Christ said that the followers came because He had fed them through the miracle of the loaves and fishes, He says, “Labor not for the meat with perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of Man will give you.” He didn’t say “spirit” or “faith” or symbolic bread; He said MEAT which endures forever. ((John 6:27)

When Christ spoke in parables, He gave a small summary at the end to explain His point. He did not do that in John 6. He’s just done several tremendous miracles for the people and fed them. They are primed to believe in Him. Then the people asked for a sign, like manna in the desert, that would help them believe in Him— and they ask Him to give them this faith-giving nourishment ALWAYS. At this moment, He decides it is time to tell them about the miraculous nourishment that He will give them until the end of time. He tells them 12 times that HE is the bread of life. He tells them 4 times to eat His flesh and drink His blood. He uses the word “trogon” not the normal word for eating (phagon). Trogon means “gnaw or crunch with your teeth” because He is stressing REAL eating. The tense of the word “trogon” also implies CONTINUOUS eating.

As all those followers turned away because they just couldn’t accept this teaching, He turned to the apostles and said, “Will you walk away also?” He didn’t clarify a thing for them, because there was nothing to clarify on this teaching. He was not speaking symbolically that day. All the people listening that day knew this. That is clear from the Gospel.

Peter, the spokesman of great faith, said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of ETERNAL life? And we have believed and have known that you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Peter shows at this moment that he has just accepted Christ’s bewildering words on faith. It is at this moment he becomes the leader of the Church Christ is founding. Remember later, their eyes are opened and they understand after they celebrate the Eucharist on their own.

Catholics take Scripture more literally than any other faith, even this strange, divinely inspired scripture about the Eucharist. The people who heard Christ that day, and many people today, have dull ears and closed eyes. Christ said what He meant and meant what He said. He knew it took a leap of faith. That’s why He started talking about the Father’s gift of faith at the end of this passage. It’s a leap He asked His followers to make. He was disappointed and discouraged when his followers couldn’t make that leap of faith, but He let them distance themselves from Him over it.

Read John 6 as a continuous story, as it happened, as it was inspired to be written, and I think it will make more sense to you.

The argument you are making is not logical: people don’t stop believing in somebody who just did some amazing miracles because He spoke in a metaphor that they didn’t like. They would have asked for clarification. So would the apostles. Christ wouldn’t have wanted to lose a soul over a metaphor. This just doesn’t make sense and you are trying too hard to make this passage mean what you want it to mean. The fact is, it just doesn’t mean that. Christ said what He meant to say clearly.

[Melian]

Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars agree that there are NO parables in John. None. Google it.

Christ is not using parables in John 6.