Talk:Queen of Heaven/Archive 1

this entry about the Catholic Title Queen of Heaven is nonsense
This is an anti-Catholic article and should be removed from Wikipedia.

This is a tired article, apparently written by some born again Christian, who does not understand that Catholics believe in the communion of saints which includes the invocation, the veneration and the intercession of saints.

This Wikipedia editor quotes Jeremiah 44 which refers to the Queen of Heaven and equates this title with the modern day usage of this term in the Catholic Church.

Jeremiah was born 600 years before Christ and was referring to the pagan goddess Ishtar, when he spoke about the Queen of Heaven.

Catholics use the term “Queen of Heaven” as an honorific. An honorific is a term or title of respect. Saint Mary is also called by the Catholic Church Tower of Ivory, Tower of David, House of gold, Gate of heaven, Morning Star., etc. And Catholics are fully aware that Mary was not made of Ivory, and that she wasn't a star.

These titles are not meant to be taken literally.

It seems to me that the Anti-Catholic editors of this Wikipedia entry about the Queen of Heaven should be concentrating on the true reporting of the origins of this title for a Catholic saint and it would be more germain to the issue if these anti-Catholic editors directed their attentions to the upcoming Islamic terrorism threat, in which case back-biting Protestants will welcome their Catholic brethren in Christ, because there will be no one else to help them or any of us if Islam over-rides all of our own very hateful Christian sects.

Is Christianity a religion of love? No, it is not. It can't be because there are eggheads like the dude who wrote this article who is worried as to whether Mary is really the Queen of Heaven or if it is Ishtar? Duh? Worry about Iraq and and the deaths of people who are living today.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gregor99 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

I am one of those "some born again Christian" as we are so rudely addressed. However, I do understand the rudeness as you feel attacked. I find this discussion quite interesting and from what I see the article in question is highly slanted against Catholic beliefs.

I believe it is important that we learn about each other ( that is why I came to the article in the 1st place [not knowing whether or not it was correct - lead there by my search engine]) and not address each other in such disparaging fashion.

I heard a comedian (Christian - Mark Lawry (sp?)) same something really funny not too long ago that was more true then it was funny and should give us all pause for thought...

He took an in formal poll of his audience...Do we have any Episcopalians? Protestants? Catholics? Baptists (there were others)...Then he said "One day we are all going to be gathered before the judgments seat and (in a sing song child’s voice) somebody’s gonna be wrooooooooong!" Much laughter ensued.

I am not trying to make light of religious bigotry - but that is what I see happening here on ALL sides. I have attended a Nazarine school, Lutheran school, Catholic school and even attended school in a synagogue. Can you imagine the confusion? Then I just lived as a huge sinner with a double twisting dismount and of pike. I am now born again. I however, believe I am informed.

God intended for us to love one another, to do unto one another as we would have done unto ourselves. True? True. Trust me on this. My Catholic brethren, I love you. Why? Because my Lord and Savior told me to and that is enough for me. Is it enough for you?

Be blessed.

Dogma
The sentence which indicates that "Queen of Heaven" is a reference to Catholic dogma is inaccurate. The queenship of Mary is not technically a dogma, nor is her queenship a part of the dogma of the Assumption.

The encyclical which defined the Assumption as a dogma, Munificentissimus Deus, only says that, "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." Her queenship is probably not unrelated, given that Psalm 45 is often used to speak of the Assumption, but I don't really know what the real historical connection is between the dogma and the Assumption. Does anyone know? The sentence in the article about the dogma needs to be clarified, but I don't know this information necessary to clarify it.

Also the whole Christianity section includes no citations whatsoever. This should probably be addressed. Harlomcspears 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC) harlomcspears

Split
I'm in favor of splitting off the "Fertile Crescent religions" section into its own article, and expanding it to note that Isis and Aphrodite were also referred to as "Queen of Heaven". --Redeagle688 20:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Redeagle688 that the section on "Fertile Crescent religions" should be split into a seperate article. --PVani 17:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as is for now - it is hardly too long. Johnbod 17:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reworking
I have reordered the article, and put the Christian parts together and first, and the pagan concepts afterward. This I feel is a neater and more logical sequence. Xandar (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Xandar, keep in mind that some people might not consider Old Testament material "pagan", and that many people will find a chronological order more logical in an article describing the history of a term's use. -Eric talk 13:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Old Testament material is alluding to the pagan concept of a Queen of Heaven - usually taken to refer to Asherah. Mixing the two up, as previously, is very confusing. Most people coming to this page will probably be coming for the Christian concept, which is the principal one in today's world. Starting with defunct pagan concepts would not be useful. The two could be separated into distinct articles with a disambiguation page I suppose. I'm not sure if that would be better. Xandar (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Xandar's re-ordering seems fine to me. I don't see any need to split the article, though.—  Wi ki sc ie nt  — 02:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

POV
This article contains assertions and statements of opinion that appear based in religious belief. Some of these statements come across as catechism or read like a discussion, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. For some examples, see the several parenthetical asides beginning with "(Note:", and note the capitalization of personal pronouns referring to God and Jesus ("His" as opposed to "his", outside of quotations). Editors should confine themselves to explaining the meaning and history of the term "Queen of Heaven" and not put forth any one teaching as a given. I have tagged the article with POV-check. -Eric talk 13:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa! Time out! ;)
 * The changes being made here lately seem increasingly controversial and WP:POV-ridden.
 * Clearly, this article needs some work. But before making any significant changes concerning Protestant, Catholic, and Pagan views, could we try to propose and discuss those changes here first?
 * Thanks! [[Image:Face-grin.svg|22px]]—  Wi ki sc ie nt  — 21:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism Wikiproject
This article is listed as being part of the Catholicism Wikiproject.

Since the POV dispute that's been brewing lately seems in part to be concerned with differing Christian views of Mary, and as "Queen of Heaven" seems to be a primarily Catholic appellation for her, I thought it might be a good idea to get the official Catholic teaching on that title:
 * First of all, there is no mention of that title in the online CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA's article, "The Blessed Virgin Mary."
 * In fact, in the entire encyclopedia the main reference to that title is as a translation of the hymn "Regina Coeli."
 * There also does not seem to be anything at all about this at the official Vatican's "Catechism" page.

So, I've left a request for comments on this article at the WikiProject Catholicism talk page.

I guess the question I have at this point is:  should this article  really be a part of that project?

Should it, perhaps, in fact, be re-oriented toward an emphasis on what is presently the "Antiquity" section of the article, as it had been until very recently...?

--— Wi ki sc ie nt  — 01:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, no one at the Catholicism Wikiproject seems to be replying.
 * So, as per my points above: maybe for starters, we ought to revert back to the version before Xandar's re-arrangement emphasizing the "Christian" use of the title? Since it does not seem to be a particularly "Catholic" term, after all, and since many non-Catholic Christians seem to find the implications of the term as applied to Mary somewhat objectionable, perhaps the most appropriate content really ought to be about Isis and other "goddesses" of "Antiquity"...?
 * Any thoughts, objections, further considerations?
 * If not, I'll go ahead and make those changes, say, tomorrow...
 * Wi ki sc ie nt  02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been busy on the RC FAC page. I fear the objection to the current arrangement is POV. I've removed a very POV edit linking to some sect ministry and repeating material already covered. Going back to the jumble that existed befoe is not an option. The Catholic use of the term is by far the most numerous CURRENT usage. Maybe not in 500 BC, but now it is, and that should come first. People from other groupings who wish to express an objection to what Catholics believe (i'm not quite sure why) have to place reports of such objections AFTER the main issue. the simple fact is that this is what the Catholic Church believes, and that needs to be explained plainly and clearly. Minority viewpoints on a Catholic belief should not be given prominence over the belief itself. trying to mix the catholic belief up with various alleged pagan links, is itself very POV. Xandar (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of being part of Project Catholicism. It has to be, since it concerns an important Catholic (and Orthodox) title. If people want to split the page into two - one for the Catholic Meaning and one for the Historical pagan usages, hat is a matter for debate. Xandar (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for responding and clarifying the Catholic position!
 * I have no objection to your points myself, and no need to insist on any particular arrangement to which anyone else has any good objection.
 * I wonder, though: is there any better reference for the Catholic doctrine on the use of the title than the "Dictionary of Mary"...? Preferably, something available online?  A formal papal pronouncement, say?
 * Likewise (and perhaps even to help ease the tension here with those Christian groups moved to make some of the POV'ed changes lately), is there a good source clarifying the precise "theological" position in Heaven, vis-á-vis God, that Mary is believed by Catholics to hold?
 * Also: I see that the "Antiquity" section seems to be completely devoid of references at present -- anyone out there able to do anything about that, by any chance?
 * Wi ki sc ie nt  04:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. The point that I removed contained a link to an evangelistic site - which is not allowed.
 * I haven't had time to look deeply into referencing yet, having been drawn into a long, Featured Article Candidate debate, but I'm hoping to get round to it reasonably soon. what i did was basically sort the article out a little, rearrange the material. The Antiquity material was all there previously and unreferenced, (the Isis quote doesn't actually mention Queen of Heaven, but I left it, since its best not to remove stuff unless its proven false.) I added some material to the catholic section, referenced to a book that I have. Xandar (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Although the exact phrasing "Queen of Heaven" might be dubious, there is substantial evidence in Coronation of the Virgin that the subject is notable in connection with Mary. However, the statement that the same title is used elsewhere for Isis and others is also valid. Suggest that the lead be rewritten to lay more emphasis on the title itself first, then indicate the various figures which have had the title, and then sections on each figure. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * John's point immediately above makes senses to me.
 * On Xandar's view that the Catholic use of the term is the main use and that it should be described first: I would normally expect to find a presentation of historical use to be chronological from earliest to latest, but I don't see a problem with the reverse, as long as it remains chronological. -Eric talk 21:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Queen of Heaven (Antiquity)
I picked up the May 22 comment from above:


 * Also: I see that the "Antiquity" section seems to be completely devoid of references at present -- anyone out there able to do anything about that, by any chance? Wikiscient 04:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)''

As I added to this article, the unreferenced antiquity article began to look worse. I created a new antiquity article, Queen of Heaven (Antiquity), added materials and intros to it, some new quotes, some cut and paste, and some structure. There is much more to that interesting topic than presently included. Maybe somebody here wishes to expand. This article has been greatly expanded. It could benefit from additional inputs. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the non-antique it is a pretty good article now. I upgraded the ratiing. The only problem I see is format specially in the Alma Redemptoris Mater section with the picture of the left, and the italic text. It will look very good on some screen sizes and very disorderly on others. I think the picture should move to the right and the text should be better positioned. But the content is pretty good. On that note I think the ISIS picture in antiquity is too small, again a minor issue. History2007 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Text & Queenship
I reshuffled the image locations so the text would wrap better on different screen sizes. Then I noticed there is another article Queenship of Mary that seems to be a good sub-section for this. Is there a reason not to merge them? History2007 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, go ahead - having these 2 plus the one on the encyclical is too many. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Ambrosius would be a better person to merge them (if he agrees) because he knows more about it. History2007 (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The merger should go the other way: much of this article is in fact about other Queenships (Queendoms?) and as an article title Queenship of Mary could carry all of this. And there are several related articles which could also be merged or at least have duplicate content reduced, such as Coronation of the Virgin, Ad Caeli Reginam etc. --Rumping (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are on much more specific topics and should certainly not be merged. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Johnbod. That would be far too much to merge. Now that Ambrosius is busy, I willl try to do this, as discussed back in August. History2007 (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see this. We have a number of articles on various aspects of Mariology. Examples of topics raised here which do not obviously belong in this particular article: If this article remains with this title then it should be cut down, concentrating on examples of the explicit use of "Queen of Heaven" including links to Ave Regina Caelorum and Regina Coeli, a summary of Ad Caeli Reginam, and discussion of Apocalypse/Revelation 12 and perhaps Psalm 45 (neither of which are mentioned in Ad Caeli Reginam, though other biblical texts are). Pruning some of the trees would allow the wood to be seen.--Rumping (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Litany of Loreto, which, despite an impressive array of titles given to Mary, does not actually say "Queen of Heaven"
 * The Eastern Orthodox approach to the Dormition of the Theotokos, which has nothing to do with being Queen of Heaven
 * Protestants considering Mary in heaven, most of whom do not use the title "Queen" in doing so, so more appropriate to the Assumption of Mary article (the exception, Johannes Oecolampadius, was critical of what he saw as greater Catholic devotion to Mary than to Christ, though this is not mentioned here).
 * The Council of Ephesus considering the title Mother of God, not Queen of Heaven
 * The Assumption of Mary, a separate and more significant dogma with its own article
 * Titles about being Queen of several other things: not the same as Queen of Heaven, and so belonging in the more general Queenship of Mary
 * Alma Redemptoris Mater and Salve Regina, neither of which refer to "Queen of Heaven"
 * Most of the gallery is specifically of the Coronation of Mary and is a duplicate of the gallery both there and the gallery at Queenship of Mary.
 * That is the correct approach, rather than merging - there has been a lot of cut and paste & I agree the article reads flabbily, and wanders around different topics. There is nothing wrong with raising some of these things, but they should be mentioned briefly with a link to the main article.  I think the section on the "Coronation" is ok for example, but the gallery does not need repeating from there. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

To do what is needed anyway, I brought in the text for Queenship of Mary as a feast, as discussed in August, but did not delete any of the existing text. There is no doubt that there are redundancies on this page. Maybe we should do the trimming gradually until enough of the wood emerges. The gallery has obvious redundancies and should probably be trimmed first. Who wants to do that next? History2007 (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Either of you go ahead Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to start that, but there is a dilemma here. Theologically, Queen of Heaven is a concept in its own right and is distinct from the Coronation of the Virgin, hence it does not make sense to merge those pages. However, Queen of Heaven in art typically refers to works which involve Mary wearing a crown and being in an elevated posture, etc. as in the text on the page. A good deal of the art involves the Coronation of the Virgin which is replicated elsewhere. My idea is to just keep 2 or 3 coronation images here and add a few more images (e.g. Madonnas with crowns) to balance it with the text. Also a few statues with crowns, etc. I will do that in a few days, unless there are better suggestions. History2007 (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Vastly improved
The article has been greatly expanded and improved since my last visit. The separation into distinct articles on Christian and antique elements is a good one.  Xan  dar  01:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"Divine Motherhood"
The phrase "Divine Motherhood" means to say that Mary is the mother of Christ's Divinity. I don't think even the most ardent devotees of Mary believe this. I know that the Catholic Church teaches (in accordance with the Scripture) that Mary is the mother of Christ's humanity, not of Christ's Divinity.

Therefore, I think the phrase "Divine Motherhood" is un-Catholic, certainly un-Scriptural, and most certainly un-factual.

But before I edit the phrase "Divine Motherhood" in this article, I shall take three days period to wait. Perhaps the phrase has an intended different meaning, if it does feel free to explain in reply to this my post. Archestrategos (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Watch out for Nestorianism. Nestorius denied this, and he was excommunicated as a heretic. Divine maternity/motherhood is just another name for the Theotokos, it is an English translation of the Greek title. The fact that Mary is Jesus Christ's mother does not at all remove the fact that Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God, according to Catholic teachings. ADM (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to delete it. Archestrategos's statements are personal views, not taught by the Church. And certainly have no references herein. History2007 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is this: Mary is the mother of the humanity of Jesus, and is the bearer of the Divinity of Jesus.

This distinction is very important. Using the term "Divine Motherhood" might be misunderstood as implying that the Church teaches that Mary is the mother of the Divinity of Jesus.

This would imply polytheism, and would imply that the Divinity of the Son is temporal.

Not what the Church teaches.

--Archestrategos (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My friend, in Wikipedia, what you and I think matters NOT. What matters are references. History2007 (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. And therefore to avoid misunderstanding, why not include a small section at the beginning of this article elucidating the distinction contained in the phrase "Divine Motherhood"?

Otherwise, without prior elucidation, this article might cause people to misunderstand the meaning of the teaching of the Church regarding Mary's maternity.

If that happens, then it would no longer be informative, but disinformative.

--Archestrategos (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have solid references, be my guest. Else I will get to it when I can. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Try the Chalcedonian Creed. Mary is the Mother of God according to Manhood.

--Archestrategos (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits to intro
I think Johnbod's touch ups of Cjeynes's edits were an improvement, in case a debate starts there. History2007 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fundamentalist Nonsense
I removed the two paragraphs which were clearly written from a Fundamentalist position. Nothing within it could be considered factual or neutral. If anybody wishes to write something explaining the Protestant POV then feel free but don't repaste the slop that I just removed.

Again I see that the Protestant article has been returned. Once again I have deleted it. In no way can it be considered neutral but is an attack (and may I say, an ignorant attack by a Bible-dumb Fundamentalist) on Catholicism. How on earth the following can count as neutral I do not know:

'This, of course, is nothing more than baptized paganism.' ''Scripture, Mary the mother of Jesus, is never portrayed in any kind of light suggested by the teachings of Roman Catholicism.' 'Elevating Mary to the place of "Queen of Heaven" (a term not found in the New Testament, but only found in the Book of Jeremiah referring to the pagan goddess Isis or perhaps Ashurah), is a doctrine that is incompatible with the plain text of the Bible. If this kind of doctrinal innovation is allowed, there is no limit to the different kinds of doctrine that one could teach, because it would not be limited by Scripture, but only by the bold wickedness of the person so inclined to invent a new religion at variance with the Bible' If it keeps on being reprinted I will continue to remove it. If somebody wishes to write a neutral article on what Protestants believe about the title Queen of Heaven then be my guest.--Good News 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I wish Fundies weren't given computers. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Regina Coeli is one of the Marian Anthem, all of which are regularly sung in Latin to this day in religious houses and seminaries. I would prefer that title or as it matches the other Marian Anthems. --Vaquero100 02:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This discusses not only the anthem but the theology. Goldfritha 16:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

King of Angels / King of Heaven
I'm not sure where to put this, but I think that the title King of Angels / King of Heaven is also a title given to either Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit, due the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary is often called as the spouse of the Holy Spirit. ADM (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "King of Angels"/"King of Heaven" is a title given to Christ. The Blessed Virgin Mary is considered a Queen Mother, not the spouse of the king. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, deeply sorry to have personally offended some
That was never my intent in attempting to put the pagan and the Biblical view - as you noticed, I respectfully did not remove, edit or destroy one word of what was on the page- particularly not the Catholic faith, due to the fact that this is an encyclopedia, where the point is to have access to varying points of view, even those we do not agree with.

I deeply apologize that it was seen by some as an attack upon the Catholic faith.

I added what the Bible has to say about QoH. In the interest of representing a third definition, I added with Pagans/Wiccans believe about the Queen of Heaven.

I respectully request that this wiki on QoH be locked so that each view be allowed, or split the wiki - in the interest of representing ALL faiths, ALL views be included concerning the Queen of Heaven, including the Catholic view.

Thanks, and take care. --24.113.224.224 (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the pagan views but the Christian views (specifically the Catholic view) of the Queen of Heaven. The pagan views have their own article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Viewing the Queen of Heaven in Historical Perspective
I occasionally attend liturgy in a Russian Orthodox church. Though the church is named Holy Trinity, the topmost and by far the largest icon on the wall behind the altar is of a majestic woman, arms raised in benediction, with a child on her lap. My first reaction was that this is certainly not the meek young maiden in Luke's birth narrative or the woman briefly mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. She seems to an outsider clearly to be the Great Goddess, Isis.

Could it be that while the patriarchal church removed the feminine from its trinity, artists and cathedral builders under the guise of Mary perhaps unconsciously restored the Queen of Heaven to the high position she held throughout antiquity? Icons of the Madonna and Child as well as the Queen of Heaven seem obviously pre-Christian. How many Catholics today, especially in Romance and Latin countries pray, not to God or to Jesus, but to Mary, Queen of Heaven?75.15.29.210 (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Jim Lacey (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We pray to the Virgin Mary, not to the false goddess Isis. This is an encyclopedia, NOT a forum. You obviously are not Russian Orthodox if you believe they are praying to Isis. We pray to Mary and ask her to intercede for us to Christ. We do not believe Mary is all powerful, Christ is. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop the childishness
Bold text Not everyone is going to believe in what you believe in. So if some people want to believe in Mary being the Queen of Heaven, then let them. The ones that don't let them be as well. It is not up to ANY of you to determine what should be believed and what should not. God is the ONLY judge. So stop arguing like little school children. God is Love, and Love is God. He knows our hearts. Live Life, Love and laugh. Stop with the bickering. Enjoy life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisPaulOMG (talk • contribs) 01:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Space exploration?
The last sentence of the section OTHER TITLES, "This reference came at a time during which space exploration was beginning," is out of place. Can I or someone delete it? DKPhilosophy (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for calling attention to this. I have just gutted the section. The "space exploration" and "modern scientific understanding" references were WP:OR; I took them out. The extended quote was WP:UNDUE since none of the other titles have that much detail; I took it out. Finally, the link which was provided led to a malware page; I replaced it with a proper link. --MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)