Is Mary the Queen of Heaven?

[Randy_Carson]

Mary has long been called the “spouse of the Holy Spirit”, so if you want to acknowledge that her “husband” was God, that works, too.

Of course, you must also deal with Rev. 12:1-2 which suggest very strongly that Mary is crowned in heaven.

Now all that aside, if a king was deposed or killed in battle, another man ascended to the throne. His mother, not his wife, would be gebirah. This position was derived from her relationship to her son and not to her husband who was never king.

However, it’s an interesting question, so I’ll see what else I can come up with.

Thanks for the challenge!

Let me add that David did not have a queen; the position was vacant when his son, Solomon, ascended to the throne. Solomon filled the vacancy by appointing his mother to the position of Queen Mother. Alizarin rightly notes that she HAD been married to the king.

When Jesus inherited the vacant throne of His father, David, He also appointed His mother to the vacant position of Queen Mother. Similarly, He appointed Peter to the vacant post of royal steward. These two appointments are consistent with the re-establishment of a kingdom.

Like many points of theology, this is straightforward for those who want to accept it, and easily disputed by those who do not.

 

[EIF5A]

Let me add that David did not have a queen; the position was vacant when his son, Solomon, ascended to the throne. Solomon filled the vacancy by appointing his mother to the position of Queen Mother. Alizarin rightly notes that she HAD been married to the king.

When Jesus inherited the vacant throne of His father, David, He also appointed His mother to the position of Queen Mother.

Like many points of theology, this is straightforward for those who want to accept it, and easily disputed by those who do not.

Is there oral tradition that says He explicitly appointed her to be Queen of Heaven, or is it inferred because He is King, so she must be Queen?

Part (or most?) of my misunderstanding seems to be what is implied by being Queen Mother: that she is more honored than the king because she is the mother (and all mothers are more honored than the child because she is responsible for birth). This honor works for earthly creatures. I’m having a hard time applying this to Jesus Christ, God. And if Mary is queen, God the Father is Supreme Emperor?

 

[jimmy]

“Half of the quotes speak of her as queen.”

Yes, they do. Thank you for that.

As you know, in modern parlance, commoners are not referred to as “ladies” or “gentlemen”, these are terms reserved for nobility. Yeah, I’ll speculate that things were very similar in times gone by. The Fathers understood kings and queens far better than we moderns who live primarily in democracies devoid of monarchical influences. Their whole world was governed by kings and emperors.

For reasons just noted, I venture that ALL of them did. But you already conceded that half of the quotes DO speak of Mary as queen…

I did meet your 1990 standard, though. :yup:

You did get me on the 1990 thing. But most of my knowledge is from saints, particularly the fathers along with council documents and some of the popes writings. I am lacking modern theological sources.

But that said, I don’t think the fathers saw it in the same way as some modern Catholics approach it. Especially someone like Ephrem who wrote only hymns and poems. His language isn’t meant to be understood literally. In one passage Mary is compared to the virgin earth from which Adam was taken. Just as Adam was born from the virgin earth, Jesus was born from a virgin. It is imagery that illustrates an idea. But if you take it too far, it gets distorted. Mary as queen is a similar thing. It does indicate an importance of Mary, but at the same time taking it to an extreme distorts the intent. Mary is certainly important to all the fathers, but they don’t speak of official titles for her. The only official title is theotokos or mother of God. If someone refused to call her queen, no one would have thought much of it.

This is my last post here. I have said what I think on the matter. I simply don’t think it should be thought of in terms of doctrine or dogma, but rather should be seen as an expression of the piety of the saints and the Church.

 

[Reuben_J]

OK, this makes more sense (in my tiny brain). It was said that the Queen Mother counseled her son, the king. And I ask myself, “Why does God need counsel?” Also, because the Queen Mother is the mother of the king, her place is “higher”, as any mother is, and I’m told what happens on earth happens in heaven. I just had a hard time reconciling this since Jesus is God, and no creature is “higher than” or “equal to” Him, even though He is fully human as well as fully God.

Well, most of us have tiny brain, in proportion to the weight of our body. Just imagine if God gives us a bit more, what marvel a brain can do. Sometimes we disagree because of our differences and our mind is led to a direction where it must oppose instead of reason.

The relationship between Mary, Jesus Mother, and the Lord, is best exemplified at the Cana incident during the wedding feast. Much can be said of that. Some Protestants use that passage to show that Jesus demeaned Mary by addressing her as ‘woman’. To make matter short, ultimately a miracle was formed. Whatever Mary’s role there, the bottom line, the problem (no wine) was brought up to Jesus (by her), and Jesus as a result performed a miracle.

God does not have to counsel her. And that she should be ‘higher’ than him does not arise and not the issue. That is unless our tiny brain being led to think it is. lol

The title of the ‘Queen of Heaven’ is Biblically derived from the Book of Revelation. Even if it does not, she is simply a Queen because Jesus her son is a King, which Jesus himself said so, “My Kingdom is not of this world …,” explicitly implying that he is a King. That is basic Christian belief.

The reference of Queen Mother is used because everything in the Old Testament points to Jesus. The New Testament is hidden in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New. There is nothing wrong to explain Mary as Queen of Heaven in term of Queen Mother since she is not a consort of the ‘King’ but a mother.

 

[Reuben_J]

This is my last post here. I have said what I think on the matter. I simply don’t think it should be thought of in terms of doctrine or dogma, but rather should be seen as an expression of the piety of the saints and the Church.

It is.

Mary as Queen of Heaven is a devotional practice, and referred to in such prayer.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Four Kings and a Queen
By Edward P. Sri
books.google.com/books?id=lE_geepjWk4C&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=edward+p.+sri+gebirah&source=bl&ots=J_0UW9Hi_G&sig=yKrW-875AXb2GICslmevCaHwF-w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z4kqUp-kMdPe4APrxoGoDg&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=edward%20p.%20sri%20gebirah&f=false

Like Luke, Matthew also draws attention to Mary’s queenship, but he does so in a subtle way. In a famous scene from chapter 2 of his Gospel, Matthew singles out Mary as being with the child when the three magi come to adore the newborn King. Notice how Joseph is conspicuously not even mentioned in this scene: “…going into the house they [the three magi] saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him” (Mt. 2:11).

Why does Matthew zoom in on Jesus and Mary and leave Joseph out of the picture at this point? All throughout the narrative in Matthew 1-2, Joseph is much more prominent than Mary. Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph. The angel appears to Joseph three times. It is Joseph who leads the Holy Family to Bethlehem, to Egypt, and back to Israel. From this we can see Joseph often takes the spotlight in the first few scenes of Matthew’s Gospel.

However, in this particular episode when the magi come to honor Jesus, Mary takes center stage and Joseph fades into the background. Why? Because it shows the importance of Mary as queen mother. As scripture scholar Raymond Brown explains:

Since the magi story puts so much emphasis on homage paid to a Davidic king in Bethlehem of Judah, “the child with his mother” might evoke the peculiar importance given to the queen-mother…of a newborn or newly installed king in the Davidic dynasty.

It is quite significant that just when Jesus’ kingship is being recognized for the first time by these three magi, Matthew highlights the close relationship between the infant King and His queen mother. At the very beginning of Jesus life, Matthew draws attention to the queen mother’s being right by the king’s side, sharing in His kingship—just like the queen mothers of old in the kingdom of David (Edward P. Sri, “Treat Her Like a Queen – The Biblical Call to Honor Mary as Royal Mother”, Catholic for a Reason II, pp. 78-79).

 

[pocohombre]

I say, “Yes,” and here’s why:

Jesus inherits David’s throne, and Mary becomes Queen Mother. Support for the principle of the Queen Mother in the House of David is found clearly in the following passages:

1 Kings 2:19
When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

Since Solomon had MANY wives, none of them would be queen. In fact, it was his mother that sat on the throne. This idea is also evident in the book of Jeremiah:

I prefer to think only what is stated. There was no throne for the queen, or it was not there when she entered the room. Did he bow in deference to his mother and that only ? Scripture says he sat at his throne and he had a seat brought in placed at right hand side and the conversation began. The conversation ended badly for her request backfired.

Jer13:18 Say to the king and to the queen mother, “Come down from your thrones, for your glorious crowns will fall from your heads.”

KJV has Queen, not queen mother, but even with queen mother the reasoning is a bit ungodly. That is, the king had so many wives that the mother became important for succession. Many wives is not God’s original intent. The whole idea of Israel having a king was not a good idea either, for it showed unbelief in the invisible throne of Jehovah ruling over His people. Queen is an earthly thing. Did not Jesus have a throne, a kingdom before time, yet He is said to fulfill the promise to David to be the king of kings. If I were to use the term queen mother, then in OT fashion it is only for “succession” and not for reigning or governance (Revelations 12 shows this also-“succession-giving birth”, not governance or power requiring a throne). We have examples that would show that indeed it was a man’s world back then and it would be long time before you would have a model such as king and queen Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain both having power/thrones in their own rights. So maybe it is simple semantics, or maybe “politics”. That is why some Catholics objected I believe to the original term “Mother of God” for it’s possible misinterpretations. Queen mother could have same misinterpretations. We all agree Mary was the mother of Jesus, who was fully God and fully man, the succession of the Davidic line. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[EIF5A]

Four Kings and a Queen
By Edward P. Sri
books.google.com/books?id=lE_geepjWk4C&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=edward+p.+sri+gebirah&source=bl&ots=J_0UW9Hi_G&sig=yKrW-875AXb2GICslmevCaHwF-w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z4kqUp-kMdPe4APrxoGoDg&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=edward%20p.%20sri%20gebirah&f=false

Like Luke, Matthew also draws attention to Mary’s queenship, but he does so in a subtle way. In a famous scene from chapter 2 of his Gospel, Matthew singles out Mary as being with the child when the three magi come to adore the newborn King. Notice how Joseph is conspicuously not even mentioned in this scene: “…going into the house they [the three magi] saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him” (Mt. 2:11).

Why does Matthew zoom in on Jesus and Mary and leave Joseph out of the picture at this point? All throughout the narrative in Matthew 1-2, Joseph is much more prominent than Mary. Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph. The angel appears to Joseph three times. It is Joseph who leads the Holy Family to Bethlehem, to Egypt, and back to Israel. From this we can see Joseph often takes the spotlight in the first few scenes of Matthew’s Gospel.

However, in this particular episode when the magi come to honor Jesus, Mary takes center stage and Joseph fades into the background. Why? Because it shows the importance of Mary as queen mother. As scripture scholar Raymond Brown explains:

Since the magi story puts so much emphasis on homage paid to a Davidic king in Bethlehem of Judah, “the child with his mother” might evoke the peculiar importance given to the queen-mother…of a newborn or newly installed king in the Davidic dynasty.

It is quite significant that just when Jesus’ kingship is being recognized for the first time by these three magi, Matthew highlights the close relationship between the infant King and His queen mother. At the very beginning of Jesus life, Matthew draws attention to the queen mother’s being right by the king’s side, sharing in His kingship—just like the queen mothers of old in the kingdom of David (Edward P. Sri, “Treat Her Like a Queen – The Biblical Call to Honor Mary as Royal Mother”, Catholic for a Reason II, pp. 78-79).

Personally, I don’t find that to be convincing, but to each their own.

 

[pocohombre]

, and I’m told what happens on earth happens in heaven. .

Yes there are "foreshadows. But there are two kingdoms, the kingdom of heaven and the earth’s. God rules heaven and Satan is the prince of this earth. God’s kingdom has a plan to regain dominion over this earth. May His kingdom come we pray, but it has not fully happened yet. Sometimes earth’s kingdom enters thru compromise and sin into the existing Godly kingdom here on earth, represented by Israel in the OT and the church in the NT. The whole idea of kings and queens for Israel is an example of the earth’s ways entering Israel thru sin and compromise. Remember scripture says the Israelites wanted a king like their heathen neighbors and God warned them against it. God was their invisible king working thru prophets and judges and divine inspiration,and His word. Though grieved God allowed Israel to have kings (no initial mention of any queens). By grace, when Christ’s throne comes down to earth all will be restored. So perhaps a "king’ is ( was) a foreshadow of things to come, but by faith, it is (was) what we are to have now thru Christ and the Isaralites were and did have for a time, to have back then.

 

[Reuben_J]

I prefer to think only what is stated. There was no throne for the queen, or it was not there when she entered the room. Did he bow in deference to his mother and that only ? Scripture says he sat at his throne and he had a seat brought in placed at right hand side and the conversation began. The conversation ended badly for her request backfired.

** KJV has Queen, not queen mother, but even with queen mother the reasoning is a bit ungodly. That is, the king had so many wives that the mother became important for succession. **Many wives is not God’s original intent. The whole idea of Israel having a king was not a good idea either, for it showed unbelief in the invisible throne of Jehovah ruling over His people. Queen is an earthly thing. Did not Jesus have a throne, a kingdom before time, yet He is said to fulfill the promise to David to be the king of kings. If I were to use the term queen mother, then in OT fashion it is only for “succession” and not for reigning or governance (Revelations 12 shows this also-“succession-giving birth”, not governance or power requiring a throne). We have examples that would show that indeed it was a man’s world back then and it would be long time before you would have a model such as king and queen Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain both having power/thrones in their own rights. So maybe it is simple semantics, or maybe “politics”. That is why some Catholics objected I believe to the original term “Mother of God” for it’s possible misinterpretations. Queen mother could have same misinterpretations. We all agree Mary was the mother of Jesus, who was fully God and fully man, the succession of the Davidic line. Nothing more, nothing less.

Catholics do not prefer to think only of what is stated (in the Bible). We are NOT Sola Scriptura. Besides, to say only to refer to what is stated is a misnomer; it creates another problem too. When are we ever following strictly to what are stated anyway?

And seriously, do you really think the Lord, the King, would follow the mould of the earthly kings by having wives and bowing and such? How many times the Bible tell us that even though Jesus is true man, he is yet not a man in every aspect ( sin, born of both human parents).

The idea of the Queen Mother is not far-fetched because the practice was found in the ancient Kingdom of the chosen people. It’s folly to think that we must ascribe to Jesus what the ancient kings did, if Jesus is to be an example what it’s to be a (good) King.

A good reference perhaps is in Ezekiel (34) when the Lord said. “I myself will be the good shepherd …. .” Paraphrase – you have asked for a king and I gave you kings, but they did not do their job their properly. Thus now I myself will take over and I will do what a King (me) should do. …” The Lord is a King but he is not like their human kings.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I prefer to think only what is stated. There was no throne for the queen, or it was not there when she entered the room. Did he bow in deference to his mother and that only ? Scripture says he sat at his throne and he had a seat brought in placed at right hand side and the conversation began. The conversation ended badly for her request backfired.

1 Kings 2:19
19 When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

So, Solomon had a throne brought in where none had existed previously and bowed down to his mother to honor her.

In re-establishing the Davidic kingdom, Jesus established the same throne for His mother, though I think it would be fair for anyone to say that it is unlikely that Jesus (who is God) bowed down to Mary. But who knows? Jesus was a good son and a faithful Jew. He’s probably more humble than we realize, and like Bathsheba, Mary’s position flows from the king’s so the honoring of the queen by the king does not diminish him.

Oh, one more point…the “outcome” of the conversation does not change anything just stated, and the Gebirah was a constant fixture within the Davidic kingdom from that time on.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Personally, I don’t find that to be convincing, but to each their own.

But Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience, n’est-ce pas?

So, if you were Jewish and you heard those words, you would have been riveted in your seat!

 

[Sam_777]

The Queen (Mother) was married to the king. There is no marriage in heaven (other than the Bride of Christ), or so is my understanding. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Is the Queen of Heaven an honorary title or authoritative title that comes with power?

Does Mary reign in Heaven or does she intercede for us to save our souls and grant graces from God?

Where is God the Father? Where is His reigning power? Transferred to Christ?

Solomon bowed down to Bathsheba. Does Jesus bow down to Mary?

Since we’re drawing similarities between earthly kingdom and heavenly kingdom…

EIF5A, which Christian sect you follow?

 

[Sam_777]

The title “Woman” is not a sign of disrespect, it is the opposite – a title of dignity. It is a formal mode of speech equivalent to the English titles, “Lady” or “Madam.”

I fully understand that it was not a sign of disrespect.

BUT also it is not a sign of a special title like “Mother of GOD” to be given by Christians!

 

[EIF5A]

EIF5A, which Christian sect you follow?

Raised Protestant, but looking into Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Both Churches call her Mother of God, but I’m not sure if the Orthodox view Mary as queen of heaven in the same way as Catholics.

I pray God Almighty leads us both to His will.

 

[Sam_777]

Raised Protestant, but looking into Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Both Churches call her Mother of God, but I’m not sure if the Orthodox view Mary as queen of heaven in the same way as Catholics.

I pray God Almighty leads us both to His will.

Thanks EIF5A, however, I think the title “Queen of Heavens” is more acceptable than “Mother of GOD”, since Heavens is a wide scope which could means our earthy Heaven, but GOD!, there is only one GOD, and it’s hard to understand that title.

 

[Alizarin]

Mary has long been called the “spouse of the Holy Spirit”, so if you want to acknowledge that her “husband” was God, that works, too.

Of course, you must also deal with Rev. 12:1-2 which suggest very strongly that Mary is crowned in heaven.
:

(bold print mine)

Good points That word “suggest” though is the sticking point if you encounter a Christian who’s literal-minded when it comes to scripture, like a Protestant from a fundamentalist denomination, for example.

I think I have to go with Jimmy on this one, and say it’s a wonderful expression of piety, and has great meaning to the heart – a lot poetry to it – but I personally don’t see the need to set it in stone via dogmatic proclamation. :juggle:

 

[EIF5A]

Thanks EIF5A, however, I think the title “Queen of Heavens” is more acceptable than “Mother of GOD”, since Heavens is a wide scope which could means our earthy Heaven, but GOD!, there is only one GOD, and it’s hard to understand that title.

I see where you come from. We believe that Jesus is fully human and fully God, Member of the Holy Trinity. I don’t know if God had to become human to redeem (for who can limit God?), but He did. Upon Incarnation, Jesus’ divinity and humanity cannot be separated (hard to grasp), hence, Mary is Mother of God. If she is not Mother of God, Jesus is not God.

IMHO, part of our hesitation has to do with the limitations of human language and logic, but even though we don’t understand how things work, we have to ask for faith to believe and accept what is true and beneficial.

On the other hand, I see heaven as God’s dwelling place…so to be queen of such a place is…yea……but again, I think it’s due to tacit implications of what it means to be queen that may or may not actually be meant to be conveyed.

 

[Alizarin]

On the other hand, I see heaven as God’s dwelling place…so to be queen of such a place is…yea……but again, I think it’s due to tacit implications of what it means to be queen that may or may not actually be meant to be conveyed.

:yup:

 

[pocohombre]

]Catholics do not prefer to think only of what is stated (in the Bible). We are NOT Sola Scriptura. Besides, to say only to refer to what is stated is a misnomer; it creates another problem too. When are we ever following strictly to what are stated anyway?

Understand. Only responding to statements as if they were based on what is stated in bible.So, if you give me a scripture as proof text then i respond to what is stated in bible text. I understand there are prevoius interpretations that then become “tradition” .

And seriously, do you really think the Lord, the King, would follow the mould of the earthly kings by having wives and bowing and such? How many times the Bible tell us that even though Jesus is true man, he is yet not a man in every aspect ( sin, born of both human parents).

That was my point. Just as many wives is an earthly thing, not in His mold, so is queen mother an earthly thing, not in His mold, unless you strictly mean “succession” or born from her, and not with a ruling throne.

The idea of the Queen Mother is not far-fetched because the practice was found in the ancient Kingdom of the chosen people. It’s folly to think that we must ascribe to Jesus what the ancient kings did, if Jesus is to be an example what it’s to be a (good) King.

Again, you are ascribing something ancient kings did. Jesus was ( is) Lord of Lords and ruler of all before time began.

A good reference perhaps is in Ezekiel (34) when the Lord said. “I myself will be the good shepherd …. .” Paraphrase – you have asked for a king and I gave you kings, but they did not do their job their properly. Thus now I myself will take over and I will do what a King (me) should do. …” The Lord is a King but he is not like their human kings.

Yes, that is a paraphrase, an interpretation indeed. Ezekial speaks of a shepherd, the Good Shepherd only. Yes in earthly terms, He will be King of Kings, a fulfillment of Davidic promise. The government will be upon His shoulders. When you say Mary is queen mother are you saying more than succession of Jesus coming from her ? Are you saying she will be at His right side, enthroned and co -ruler ? What is Catholic tradition? Is it not also still being formed-the tradition of full Marion doctrine still in flux ?