**Mary Makes An Entrance in The Gospel of St. Luke.** This is how Mary is introduced in the Gospel of St Luke: > **Luke 1:26-28 (RSVCE) ** > > **The Birth of Jesus Foretold** > > 26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of > Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name > was Joseph, of the house of David; and **the virgin’s name was Mary.** > 28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with > you!” **Today** Today, Friday, September 12, 2025, is the Optional Memorial of **the Most Holy Name of Mary** **Names in Scripture** Names in Scripture are highly significant, conveying character, destiny, and identity, serving as more than mere labels but as expressions of **God's message, prophetic meaning, and divine purpose.** A person's name could reveal parental hopes, **God's intended path, or signify a new beginning and transformation, like Jacob becoming Israel.** **God's own name, particularly "I AM," holds immense power and is considered holy, a concept explored through various divine names throughout the Bible.** **The Name "Mary" of The Blessed Virgin Mary The Mother of Jesus, What Does It Mean?** **Clearly then, Mary has a significant meaning. What does it mean?**

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."

> Beginning in the spring of 1917, the children reported apparitions of > an Angel, and starting in May 1917, apparitions of the Virgin Mary, > whom the children described as "the Lady more brilliant than the Sun". > (quoted in Wikipedia ) *. *Was this report accurate? How did Mary really look like in the Fatima Apparitions according to trusted Catholic sources?  (*We are not alone in the Universe* , Konrad Kulczyk, Sixth Books 2012)

In 1858 St. Bernadette asked for the name of the beautiful Lady who was appearing to her. The Beautiful Lady answered her "I am the Immaculate Conception." Why didn't she simply tell her she was the Mother of God? Or why didn't she say "I am immaculately conceived."

Do you have to be in a state of grace to be invested with the Brown Scapular?

Joan Carroll Cruz, *Prayers and Heavenly Promises: Compiled from Approved Sources* claims: >PROMISES: According to St. Bridget of Sweden (1303-1373), the Blessed Virgin grants seven graces to the souls who honor her daily by saying seven *Hail Marys* while meditating on her tears and dolors: > > 1. “I will grant peace to their families.” > 2. “They will be enlightened about the divine Mysteries.” > 2. “I will console them in their pains and I will accompany them in their work.” > 2. “I will give them as much as they ask for as long as it does not oppose the adorable will of my divine Son or the sanctification of their souls.” > 2. “I will defend them in their spiritual battles with the infernal enemy and I will protect them at every instant of their lives.” > 2. “I will visibly help them at the moment of their death—they will see the face of their mother.” > 2. “I have obtained this grace from my divine Son, that those who propagate this devotion to my tears and dolors will be taken directly from this earthly life to eternal happiness, since all their sins will be forgiven and my Son will be their eternal consolation and joy.” Where exactly in *The Revelations of St. Birgitta of Sweden* do these promises occur? I couldn't find them there.

Both Orthodox and Catholic Christians believe and affirm that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the ***ark of the new covenant***, but is there a scriptural basis for this and if so where do we see this in the Old or the New Testament?

My question is specifically relevant to a study I am conducting to determine if it was plausibly possible that Luke had contact with Mary while in Paul's company. I know that Mary's death is not attested anywhere in scripture. The closest information we actually have is from Epiphanius, and later Hippolytus of Thebes, though likely derivative of Epiphanius, who both claim that she allegedly lived eleven years after the crucifixion (Epiph. *Pan*. 78.11; Hipp. Theb., *Chron*. *fr*. 48 (*PG* 117, 1029)). Given the average betrothal age of twelve or thirteen years old for a young woman in first century Judaea, if Jesus was born in 3 BCE relative to Luke's deduction from the fifteenth year of Tiberius, then he was born when she was either thirteen or fourteen years old. When you calculate that forward to 34 CE (which is the year I have personally determined for the crucifixion, though that is an entirety different discussion), eleven years later would put her death around 45 CE at approximately the age of sixty. Demographically, this is perfectly normal. While average life expectancy at birth in the Roman world was low, this is largely due to infant and child mortality; those who survived into adulthood frequently lived into their sixties or beyond. Thus, Mary’s surviving to her early sixties accords well with demographic realities, making the patristic calculation historically plausible (Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content, 3rd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 25; Keith Hopkins, Death and Renewal: Sociological Studies in Roman History, Volume 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 225–27). However, for Luke to have had contact with her, either he was in Paul's company much earlier than Troas, which is where most scholars put it, or Mary lived longer than the tradition given by Epiphanius. The latter is not out of the question. A lot of his information is highly questionable. So, I'm trying, as best as I'm able, to deduce a competent approximation of the time of her death to either confirm or deny the plausibility of her having contact with Luke. The relevance of this contact has to do with the intimacy of knowledge Luke has concerning his infancy narrative. He is privy to details that could only have come from someone who knew them. Things like the offset of Mary's and Elisabeth's pregnancies, or that Mary stayed with Elisabeth for three months, are not details that could have been acquired from the public records. I did read somewhere some time ago a passage that I recollect was in a patristic writing, though it's possible it was in one of the New Testament epistles. The scene mentions young women who wanted to meet with and talk with Mary about private, secret, or mysterious things. The implication is that they wanted to discuss her virginity or similar. As best as I can recall, this passage, wherever it is, provides a minor temporal time-stamp that gives a clue to the longevity of Mary's life. I know I read it. It's not my imagination. But I have tried searching for it in every way I can think to word it. I can't find it anywhere. Anyone who knows the source of what I'm looking for, I would be greatly obliged if you would share. Outside of that, any solid arguments on the time of Mary's death would be great. I don't care if it supports or undermines my thoughts concerning Luke's contact with her. I just want a factual conclusion, as best as can be had within the bounds of credible evidence.

Jesus does not have a brother in the catholic tradition, his mother Mary is a perpetual virgin, which can hardly be compatible with having several children. Yet in his epistle to the Galatians (1, 19) , Paul calls James "the brother of the Lord". In the first letter to the Corinthians (9: 4-5) , he mentions other brothers of the Lord who have the right to take their wives during their apostolic mission. It is clear in Paul's formulation that compares his rights with "other apostles and the Lord’s brothers, and the apostle Peter" that he does not attribute the qualifier of brother of the Lord only to a few specific individuals. It does not stand as synonym of disciple. From this, several historians hold the position that either Joseph or Mary had children together or from previous relationships for Joseph like P-A. Bernheim(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2584331-james-brother-of-jesus) , or F. Blanchetière[2] (https://brill.com/view/title/15554) , who point out that, Paul never qualifies Peter or John as brother of the Lord, or Fr John P. Meier who denies[3] (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/838138.A_Marginal_Jew) the theory of cousins that never appears in the Greek version of the Old Testament in which the term *adelphos* marks exclusively the fraternal bond of blood or right. However the Catholic church and many Catholic exegetes believe that Mary didn't had other children, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church , following the traditional reading based on the later belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, following Jerome [4] (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm), the first Father of the Church to argue against the siblings theory for the benefit of the cousins one at the end of the fourth century. They also recuse the half-brothers and sisters theory presented in an apocryphal gospel from James, around 180, born of a first marriage of Joseph from previous relationships. Why these "Brothers of the Lord" have been embarrassing for the Catholic Church which make them gradually forgotten and lose their quality of brothers? Why at the same time as the cult of chastity develops, whose mother of Jesus becomes the symbol and which will find its apogee in the doctrine of its perpetual virginity? Note : Other like Assyrian and part of protestants hold this doctrine as well but I narrow my question to the Catholic Church as far as the different schisms had not yet been pronounced when the doctrine was created.

Is there a bilingual, Greek-English version of St. Romanus's *Akathist Hymn* ?

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.

I am slowly converting to Catholicism and am confused on the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. I do understand that it is Mary's conception that she was free from original sin. According to St. Augustine, original sin was passed down via sexual intercourse. Augustine also said that because Jesus did not have a human biological father and was not conceived with sperm. From what I understand of the story of St. Joachim and Anne, they had intercourse at the gates of Jerusalem. I may be wrong on these things as I am still learning. But taking these things into account, how can Mary be born without original sin if her parents had intercourse.

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.

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?

**Are there examples of Marian Apparitions to Orthodox faithful, Protestants or non-christians?** After reading this [question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/106340/25495) (**Best arguments against Marian apparitions?**), it got me wondering if there are examples of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, appearing to the Orthodox, Protestants (or other denominations) or non-christians? I am desiring an answer that has examples of all three fields if possible.

Over the last thousand years there have been many reported apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, most famously (as far as I can tell) in Fatima, Portugal and in Guadeloupe, Mexico. These apparitions would seem to prove the Roman Church to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church given the contents of the messages seeming to come directly from Heaven from the mouth of the Mother of God. Additionally, the evidence for these apparitions seems to be high, including miraculous and unexplainable portraits on the tilma of Juan Diego and thousands of eye witnesses to the miracle of the sun at Fatima, making it the most attested to miracle of all time. If these apparitions had overwhelming evidence to their validity, I would think the whole Christian world would come under the Roman Church, yet no such thing has occurred, leading me to wonder if there is reason to doubt the validity of these apparitions. What are the chief arguments against the validity of these Marian apparitions, specifically those of Fatima and Guadeloupe?

> "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever – the Spirit of truth" ([John 14:16–17, NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A16-17&version=NIV)) From Jesus' words the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit, but if we consider the succeeding verses below, it seems like it's describing the role of the Holy Spirit as a Teacher of Faith and someone who will testify in full about who Jesus is. > But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you. ([John 14:26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A26&version=NIV)) > When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father — the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father — He will testify about Me. ([John 15:26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15%3A26&version=NIV)) My question is: according to Catholic teaching, is the Spirit of Truth a person in whom the Holy Spirit chose to dwell, to testify to and become the teacher and guide of the Apostles?

I heard that a Polish anthem or hymn addressed Our Lady as the "Warrior Queen". Which hymn was this? Is "Warrior Queen" one of her official titles?

The practice of a saying a "Hail Mary" is often referred to in colloquial speech, sometimes as a way to caricaturize Catholics. References to the practice instantly conjure up images of Catholicism, priests, and confessionals. However, beyond these references with my Protestant background I don't actually know much about the practice. I don't even have the vocabulary to properly ask this question. What should a non-Catholic like myself understand about the practice? Where did it originate and what is the purpose? Do other traditions employ such a ritual? Is it fair to call them a ritual? **Edit:** If it's simply a prayer, what is the purpose of repeating it more than once? At least the pop-culture references often involve saying "so-many" Hail Mary's in the sense of more being somehow better.

Mormons appear to believe that Jesus is the literal, physical offspring of their "Heavenly Father" and "Heavenly Mother". What do they believe about how Jesus was born to a human mother? Do they believe that Jesus's human mother, Mary is distinct from "Heavenly Mother"? How did Mary come to be pregnant in Mormon theology?