Mary Queen of Heaven? What?

Psalm 45:9 says nothing of the Queen Mother, only of the queen. You are assuming this means the mother, but you have absolutely no justification for this from the text in question. You are reading something into the text without justification.

Elisabeth wasn't speaking as a subornate to a superior. Elisabeth was recognizing that inside of Mary at that very moment was her Lord.

Again, there is a whole lot of reading into a text that which isn't there in order to call Mary the queen of heaven. There are two simple statements, one using imagery to describe the glory of a king and the other a simple statement of worship towards the baby Lord Jesus Christ in His mother's womb. Mary was a wonderful woman of strong faith. After all, God chose her to be the earthly mother of Jesus. However, let's not put her above where she should be. She is a sinner saved by grace worshipping Jesus Christ in heaven right now, as all the saints are and shall be. She's not on a throne beside Jesus, she's not honored above the other redeemed saints, she's part of the redeemed mutlitude praising their Savior for salvation.

 

I found a 'handout' from a class I took recently:

"When we turn to the Queenship of Our Lady, the teaching of the Church is
very clear, especially in the "Bendito seia," of Pius XII, Radiomessage to
Fatima, May 13, 1946, AAS 38. 266: "Jesus is king of the Eternal Ages by
nature and by right of conquest; through Him, with Him, and subordinate to
Him, Mary is Queen by grace, by divine relationship, by right of conquest
and by singular choice [of the Father]."

Can we find the same teaching in Scripture? Definitely yes. We begin by
noting that out of the four titles for Queenship given by Pius XII, two
are the most essential, namely, divine relationship, and by right of
conquest.

The first is obvious: she is Queen because she is the Mother of the
Creator, for her Son, as divine, is the Creator. So that is divine
relationship.

The second title is, "by right of conquest." This means cooperation in the
redemption and, further, since the Pope gave a triple expression to her
subordination to and dependence on Him, we should not expect that any
other limitation is left understood. So it means that, under Him, she
shared in redeeming us.

Already Genesis 3:15, as we saw, was messianic, and so she was contained
in it as the Mother of the Messiah - who was thought of as King. But that
text of Genesis in the light of the Targums, also speaks of a victory over
the serpent. This really implied cooperation in the redemption. Since the
Church understands that she was contained in the text, and since Pius XII
in "Fulgens corona," of Sept. 8, 1953 explicitly says that this text is
the foundation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - if the
Church can see this, she, full of grace, saw it too, and hence since the
Church sees Immaculate Conception in it, she must have seen it too. So she
must have known that she was the woman who would share in the victory.

We could examine other messianic prophecies, and see her at least implied
in many, but we wish to go ahead to clarify her cooperation in the
redemption, even on Calvary.

Now Jeremiah 31.31 ff foretold a New Covenant. In the old covenant, there
were two features: it brought into being a people of God, and they were to
get favor on condition of obedience. Probably Jeremiah did not fully see
the implication, but now with hindsight we can see: the obedience was to
be that of Christ, the King-Messiah, in the New Covenant.

Further, Vatican II in LG paragraph 61 told us that her cooperation in the
redemption, and hence in the New Covenant, was found essentially in her
obedience: "In suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated
in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience,
faith, hope and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls." So
obedience was the essential feature of her cooperation. Vatican II
expressed that fact twice earlier in LG paragraph 56, where we read that,
"by being obedient, she became a cause of salvation for herself and for
the whole human race, " and right after that, in the context of the words
of St. Irenaeus comparing all sin to a complex knot, LG paragraph 56
added, "thus then, the knot of the disobedience of Eve was untied through
the obedience of Mary." In LG paragraph 3 we learn that, "by His
obedience, He brought about redemption."

The reason for these words is clear: if we look on the redemption as the
making of a new covenant, the covenant condition was obedience, first of
all, His obedience, but also hers in dependence on Him, but joined to Him.
If we look on the redemption as a sacrifice, which it surely was, the
thing that gave His death its value was obedience to the Father. Had His
death been done without obedience, it would have been just a tragedy, not
a redemption.

But the Council said three times, she cooperated by obedience.

These words of the Council rest on Scripture. He, on entering into the
world said, as Hebrews 10:5-7 said: "On entering into the world, He said:
Behold, I come to do your will O God." He, still in her womb, spoke thus
at the first instant of the Incarnation - He could do this since as the
Church teaches, His human soul from the first instant saw the vision of
God, in which He knew in horrid detail all He was to suffer. Hence He also
said later: "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me (Jn 4:34)." But
at the same time as He pledged His obedience, she said the same too: "Be
it done to me according to your word. That fiat of hers was never
retracted. Rather, it continued all through His and her lives, and reached
its culmination on Calvary. LG paragraph 58 speaks of her as consenting to
His immolation." This was merely the further outworking of her "fiat."
That "fiat" was given in view of her clear knowledge that He was the
King-Messiah. For as soon as Gabriel said He would rule over the house of
David forever, not just one full of grace, but even the most ordinary Jew
would understand the King-messiah was meant. She did it further in the
knowledge, gained at least in pondering in her heart, of His suffering,
from Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22."

 

there is nothing scriptural about calling mary queen of anything, to do so is to add too and change scripture, of course some make it a regular pratice to try and change what God said in His bookb becasue God's word doesn't suit them, look at the rcc, does it all the time, barely anything scriptural about it.

 

The idea that she cooperated with Jesus is not only blasphemy, it is just plain wrong according to scripture.

Hebrews 1:3 says, "when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."

Psalm 69:20 - "and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none."

Isaiah 63:5 - "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."

 

But what about Luke 2:35? "And a sword will pierce even your own soul--to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed."

 

In the context of the Davidic Kingdom, the Queen mother was the queen. Just read through the Books of Kings and see the many references to the 'queen-mother' in the Kingdom of Judah (starting with Bathsheba sitting on the throne next to Solomon). Jeremiah the prophet even makes reference to the queen mother and the king in a sense sharing a rule and crown (singular) (Jer 13:18). Although 21st century American evangelicals may skim over these references, the Jews at the time of Christ's birth, who had messianic expectations, would not. The first Christians, who were also Jewish, would be familiar with them as well.

True, but based on the context of the Davidic kingdom the mother of the Lord had a very important role. Elizabeth, being a Jew, recognized this. Remember, first century Palestinian Jews were not 20th or 21st century egaltarian democrats (or republicans, if you prefer :smilewinkgrin: ). They wouldn't necessarily have the same hang ups that we would have honoring those with important roles in the Kingdom.

Having said all this, let me state I am in no way advocating the RCC dogmas of the Assumption or Immaculate Conception of Mary, let alone the more questionable notions of her somehow being the Co-redemptrix or 'mediatrix of all graces'. To me, these latter particularly seem to dangerously blur the distinction between the Savior/Creator and a mortal creature (and have no scriptural warrant) no matter how honored she may be. The former don't have warrant either in Scripture or the earliest tradition (in fact Thomas Aquinas in the middle ages flatly denied the immaculate conception of Mary) and were not part of the Apostolic kerygma,and therefore should not be dogmatically required of anyone to believe for his/her salvation.

Keeping in mind that the Church is not a democracy, there is certainly room for appropriately (ie, not excessively) honoring those, like Mary herself, whom God has honored and whom have in turned honored God by their holiness of living by His grace. However, Mary herself called God her 'Saviour' and would be saddened by those who put more emphasis on her at the expense of her Son. Our Lady would point us to Christ and continue to say to us, "whatever HE says to you, do it" (John 2:5).

 

First of all, you quoted the text incorrectly.

Luke 2:34 - "And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."

The statement that a sword would pierce her own soul also is in parenthesis. The emphasis is on Jesus, the child.

Now, concerning the sword that would pierce Mary's heart also, consider Hebrews 4:12 - "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sigh: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession."

The sword that pierced her own soul is the same sword that laid bare the thoughts and intents of many a heart. An example of this is the changing of water to wine. She said to Him, "They have no wine." His response was, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." Obviously He knew exactly what she wanted Him to do.

 

So, the earthly Jesus was not Divine?? Not Creator??

 

21st century evangelicals may miss something, but let's consider sound expositors of bygone years. First Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown from the 19 Century:

"9. In completion of this picture of a marriage festival, female attendants or bridesmaids of the highest rank attend Him, while the queen, in rich apparel (Ps 45:13), stands ready for the nuptial procession."

Next, John Gill from the 18th Century:

"upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir; by whom is meant the church, whose title is a "queen," being the bride, the Lamb's wife: wherefore, because he is King, she is queen; for this title she has not of herself; it is founded not in her own right, but upon her relation to Christ, being married to him; and so is expressive of relation to him, union with him, and of privilege and dignity through him; she sharing with him in all he has, even in his kingdom and government, reigning with him, and on the same throne: her being "on his right hand" shows the honour she is advanced unto; yet "standing" may denote subjection to him as her Lord and head; and being so close by him may suggest her fidelity and inviolable attachment to him, and strict adherence to his person, cause and interest; as well as her protection from him, being held and upheld by his right hand; and her reception of favours from thence, and her enjoyment of his presence, at whose right hand are pleasures for evermore. Her dress is "gold of Ophir": a place famous for gold; See Gill on "1Ki 9:28"; with which the clothes of great personages used to be embroidered; so Esther is said {q} to put on her royal apparel, adorned with the good gold of "Ophir": here it means, that the queen's or church's clothing was of wrought gold, as in Psalm 45:13, and intends the righteousness of Christ, with which she is arrayed, comparable to it for its richness, purity, lustre, glory, and duration"

And finally Matthew Henry from the 17th Century:

"The church in general, constituted of these particular believers, is here compared to the queen herself—the queen-consort, whom, by an everlasting covenant, he hath betrothed to himself. She stands at his right hand, near to him, and receives honour from him, in the richest array, in gold of Ophir, in robes woven with golden thread or with a gold chain and other ornaments of gold. This is the bride, the Lamb's wife, whose graces, which are her ornaments, are compared to fine linen, clean and white (Rev. 19:8), for their purity, here to gold of Ophir, for their costliness; for, as we owe our redemption, so we owe our adorning, not to corruptible things, but to the precious blood of the Son of God."

Now, this if far from binding, but it is interesting that all 3 connect the Queen here to be the wife of the King, not the mother. Also of interest is that two of them believe she is a picture of the church. This is far more likely than that she is the mother of the king.

 

"The idea that she cooperated with Jesus is not only blasphemy, it is just plain wrong according to scripture."

She said 'be it done unto me according to your word'. She cooperated plain and simple.
How is that cooperation blasphemy?

She could have said 'no, thank you'.

 

No one is saying Mary created the Creator. However, she bore Him in her womb. She was the Mother of God, Theotokos, Period.

There is a big, big difference between creating and bearing.

 

I didn't quote it incorrectly, unless your position is the New American Standard Bible got it wrong. However, I took a look at the KJV and other translations that use a parenthetical here and I see how the last part probably does relate back to the previous verse about the rising and falling of many in Israel.

However, the parenthetical is about Mary's future suffering as she watched her son die on the cross. Suggesting it is anything else is nonsensical effort to downplay the role of Mary.

 

Indeed.

And they do so by ignoring the historical context in which the queen mother stood or sat at the right hand of the king in the kingdom of Judah.

This is speculation, not evidence based on the historical context.

 

So your position is the whole of history is riding on one woman's answer? I guess Isaiah should have said, "and I will do all my pleasure... as long as people cooperate with me."

Zecharias was in a state of unbelief, yet his wife still conceived John. He certainly didn't "cooperate" with God, yet God's will still came about. The point of that statement is Mary showing great faith in God to believe Gabriel's statement.

 

So you are saying that this text speaks of Mary's agony at the cross and somehow this agony played a part in redemption? Yet my position is nonsensical. Again, read Hebrews 4:12, it makes it absolutely plain what is under consideration.