I have four closely related questions on this topic (if overall this is considered too broad, I'm happy to receive advice as to which questions—if any—would be better off in a separate post): 1. What is the earliest documented use of the term "Queen of Heaven" being applied to Mary, the mother of Jesus? (cf. Wikipedia on *the Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven* - there seems to be a contradiction between the first and second paragraphs in this section ). 2. Given that the only Biblical references to this title are regarding a false goddess being worshipped in the nation of Judah during Jeremiah's time (cf. Wikipedia's *Queen of heaven (antiquity)* ), is there evidence of any discussion or dissent (over whether such a title was in any way appropriate) in evidence in the wider church when this title was being adopted and disseminated (prior to the Reformation)? 3. Are there any arguments from Church Fathers or other historical records of why such a title would have been adopted in the first place? 4. It seems on the surface (at least to some) that this might be an example of Syncretism , but perhaps there are convincing arguments that can exclude that possibility - if so what would be the outline of such arguments? Or otherwise, what additional evidence (ie not covered in 2. or 3.) would support the idea that this *is* an example of Syncretism? **Please note**: I'm looking for answers that are supported by quotes from Church fathers and Church historians, not doctrinal expositions from denominational perspectives. I'm only looking for a very brief outline of an argument (one way or the other) to question 4 (one or two paragraphs maximum) - if there are the seeds of a worthwhile further question to be developed from such responses, I will ask a separate question to elicit a more detailed answer."

Lk. 2:35 (Douay-Rheims, 1899): > And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed How does a sword piercing Mary's heart cause thoughts to be revealed out of others' hearts? cf. Hermeneutics StackExchange question: "In Luke 2:35 what is meant by 'so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed'? "

I have heard the title "Mother of God" in connection with the "Hail Mary" prayer that(Ave Maria) is recited by Catholics. However, I have never heard this term used in any Protestant setting. (From the comment by Bobo, we find that the Orthodox also refer to Mary in this way; *Theotokos* in Greek literally means "Birth-giver of God", as well as *Bohoroditza* in Russian. Both of these terms are widely used in their respective Orthodox groups). Why, then, do Protestants not use this title that appears to be so common in Catholicism?

Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin. So my question is, have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus only resemble his mother Mary, or whether he also resembled his adopted father Joseph? God could easily have arranged it so that Jesus resembled Joseph, even if Joseph played no role in the conception of Jesus.

**Luke 2:34–35**: > (KJV) **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; > **35**(Yea, **a sword shall pierce through thy own soul** also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. > > (NLT) **34**Then Simeon blessed them, and he said to Mary, the baby’s mother, “This child is destined to cause many in Israel to fall, but he will be a joy to many others. He has been sent as a sign from God, but many will oppose him. > **35**As a result, the deepest thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And **a sword will pierce your very soul**.” Do any *non-Catholic* denominations (i.e. those that don't venerate Mary) attach any special significance to Luke 2:35, "a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also"?
(Other than of course the trivial obvious fact of having to watch one's son's being tortured and executed.)

Is there a feast in the Universal Calendar of the Catholic Church celebrating Mary's perpetual virginity?

At Luke 1: 46-55 we see Blessed Virgin Mary singing a song of praise, now known as the Magnificat, while greeting her cousin Elizabeth. I wish to know if the song of Mary was a spontaneous utterance, or was it an integration of prayers from the old Jewish scripts and the Psalms ? What do the teachings of Catholic Church say on the source(s) of the Magnificat ?

> And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. - Mark 2:7 Swaddling clothes are narrow strips of cloth wrapped around an infant to restrict movement, and also to give it a snug feeling. Usually , the work of cleaning the new-born baby and clothing it , is done by the mid-wife , who could either be hired (Gen 35:17; Gen 38:28; Ex 1:16 ) , or be a close female relative of the expectant mother . Mary is traditionally believed to have been a teenager when Jesus was born to her. Notwithstanding the fact the Joseph and Mary were travelling, they could have taken along a close lady relative to take charge when the time would arrive. My question therefore is: Did Mary have the assistance of a midwife at the time of Jesus' birth? What do the traditions of Catholic Church say about it?

How did St. Jerome defend the Blessed Virgin's virginity *post partum* in light of Matt. 1:25 , which says St. Joseph "knew her not **till** she brought forth her firstborn son"?

When Elizabeth greeted Mary - >42 ...she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?..." - Luke 1:42-43 (RSVCE) Why don't Evangelical Protestants treat Mary with at least this much reverence?

Is the Blessed Virgin's universal mediation of all graces definable as dogma? Can she be called "Mediatrix of All Graces"?

Is the Blessed Virgin's title of "Co-Redemptrix" definable as dogma? Can she be called a co-redeemer with Christ?

Possible ways to understand "***virginity***" : - Some people may define it as no sexual event whatsoever. - Some may define as not having intercourse with a male. - Some may define it as not participating in any intimate acts with a male. - Some may define it as an intact hymen. I have a problem with the last one, since a lot of girls are not born with a hymen, or the hymen can be damaged in sports activities. I can't see a logical reason to think that the Blessed mother was definitely born with one or didn't damage it with non sexual physical activity. **So, what exactly does the Catholic Church mean by the "Virginity" of Mary?**

[Luke 1:26-26](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201-2&version=NIV) : > **26** In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, **27** to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. Many other Bible verses talk about Mary's virginity, even to the point that the Catholic church teaches she was a virgin her entire life*. What evidence exists (either Biblical or extra-Biblical) to support the claim that she was indeed a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception? *This question is _not_ asking whether Mary was a perpetual virgin; only for evidence that she was a virgin at the time Jesus was conceived.

There is a Catholic Church near where I lived called "**Mary Queen of the Universe**" (Link) . It seems from their website it's a shrine for Mary. The name of this does not make much sense to me if it is a Christian church. How is she the Queen of the Universe? I have never seen this in the Bible (any translation). All I can think of is the marriage supper of the Lamb for all the believers in the end, not just Mary. Where did they come up with this title? Is the title "Queen of the Universe" something found in established Catholic teaching? Also, if it is an established title, what does it mean?

# Problem description # A protestant made the following two arguments about the assumption of Mary: 1. A catholic that doesn't accept the assumption of Mary will be excommunicated from the Catholic church 2. A catholic must believe in the assumption of Mary ---------- # Questions # - Are these arguments correct? - Is the assumption of Mary a salvific issue for Catholics? - If it's not a salvific issue why is it "good" to believe in it as a Catholic? The last question was asked from a Catholic perspective.

I'm not sure how to express the relationship that Catholics have with the Virgin Mary, so please excuse the word "faith" in the question title. **Giving Mary praise** I understand that Mary gave birth to Jesus. But, isn't Jesus God in human form? He is the Alpha and the Omega. He chose Mary to give birth to his human body, right? So if Mary was chosen by God, and we know that Mary is incapable of doing anything on her own, why give her so much praise? Is she not just another servant like the rest of us? **Intercession** When one asks the virgin Mary to intercede for us, I'm confused. Isn't that the role of Jesus, that the curtain to the Holy room was torn because Jesus is now our intercessor between us and God? We may now go directly to Jesus, so why have Mary do this for you? I am seeking the Catholic viewpoint on this.

My research has thus far turned up only one (seemingly small) detail: The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic Churches believe that **Mary died a regular, albeit peaceful earthly death** and shortly thereafter her body was glorified and taken up into heaven. This is the Dormition of Mary; she died and was taken up. Roman Catholicism emphasizes that Mary was taken bodily into heaven **without definitively saying whether she died first** and Roman Catholics are free to believe either that she died or did not. This is the Assumption of Mary; she may or may not have died prior to being taken up. Both traditions are based upon extra biblical writings and tradition with no direct basis in Scripture, both traditions held to the Dormition view until late in the middle ages, and both still ultimately affirm that Mary was taken bodily into heaven. Is this really the only difference between the two; that the East insists that Mary died and that the West is unsure whether she died? What are the theological and (if any) practical implications of this difference?

I understand that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the eternal virgin in that she never had sexual relations with Joseph (or any other man)--either before or after the miraculous conception of Jesus. What Biblical evidence is there that contradicts this doctrine?

So I am not asking about Mary and Joseph's genealogy. I am asking about their children's descendants. So Jesus's siblings' children, their children's children, etc. Whenever I search for this, I only receive results about their family history genealogy. So essentially, what happened to Jesus's nieces and nephews?