Queen of Heaven


Why is Mary’s title “Queen of Heaven” picked on so much by Protestants? Is it because of the OT usage? What about the pagan king that was called king of kings?

I ask this because a very lovely Protestant woman I know has some issues with Catholicism, Mary seeming to be her largest issue.

Thank you!


Basically because they think Mary wasn’t really that special.
“She bore Jesus, so what?” is what they say.
They think that since we call Mary Queen of Heaven, we are equating her with her son, which is wrong.

She is only Queen of Heaven by virtue of her son’s Kingship.
Like a woman being the Queen Mum is her son is crowned King.
We still give her honour because her son is king.
Same with Mary.

One day, I bought "Catholicism for Dummies."
My Anglo friend was reading the first pages, and while reading the dedication, saying the book was dedicated to Mary, and he came across the phrase, “Queen on Priests”. He asked, “who’s the Queen of Priests?” I replied, "Mary."
He rolled his eyes and scoffed under his breath.

The reason why they attack is because they do not understand that we aren’t giving her any more honour that is already given to her by default.


Because we believe Heaven has no Queen…only a King.

Because we believe there is only one Sovereign in Heaven.

Because it was not used by Christ.

Because it was not used by the Holy Spirit in His Word.

Because the only place that title is used in Scripture, God uses it in disgust.

Because it was not employed or used by the Apostles.

Because it was not employed or used in the early church, long after she was purportedly coronated.

Because of what other powers and authority the RCC ascribes with such a title…also unknown in the early church.

That is a start for at least an understanding of why we stand where we do on this issue.



At least use real reasons and attack those.

“She bore Jesus, so what?” is what they say.


At least use real reasons and attack those.

The reason why they attack is because they do not understand that we aren’t giving her any more honour that is already given to her by default.


Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Apostles, and the earliest fathers never titled her that way either.

We do not have any qualms about following that example.


I actually have heard protestants use the excuset hat Mary wasn’t that special.

Mary is given all her titles by default.
Christ is King.
Mary is mother.
Therefore, Mary is Queen Mum.
Exactly like the whole Mother of God thing.
Mary bore Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
We don’t give Mary any more titles than Jesus didn’t giver her by becoming her son.


What escapes us non-Catholics is how the Apostles and the early church were never able to figure out what you post here…


They probably didn’t think of it because they were more concerned with the prospect of the Romans wiping them out. :slight_smile:

We believe in what is known as doctrinal development. No doubt you would have heard it.
Basically, the Deposit of Faith was completed with the death of the last apostle.
That doesn’t mean that our human understanding of the faith they left behind cannot grow and mature.
The Catholic Church sometimes ponders some doctrines, and decides to make them more clearer. In the case of Mary’s Queenship in Heaven, it was promoted as doctrine to make Mary’s role in our salvation clearer.


Ignoring the fact that the apostles appear to have attempted to protect the Blessed Virgin from capture by not writing much about her and even then in very cryptic terms.

It would’ve been a real coup for the Jews and Romans to have captured and killed the mother of Christ.

Odd how that escapes people who claim they read the New Testament and know it so well.

But I guess if it doesn’t fit with someone’s theology then it doesn’t do to bring common sense thinking to the issue.

As for the idea that “Queen of Heaven” having been a pagan title in the OT is problematic, by that messed up logic then one cannot call Christ King of Kings since that title also was used by pagan kings.


The Old Testament has several texts which are quoted in support of Mary’s sovereignty: “The Queen stood on thy right hand” (Psalm 44:10). We find mention, too, of famous women in whom this sovereignty is prefigured, like Bethsabee and Esther. Yet these texys and persons, though they aided the faithful in expressing Mary’s sovereignty once it was admitted, did not aid them in discovering it.

In the New Testament, however, we find two explicit texts, capable of orientating the minds of the faithful toward the thought of Mary’s sovereignty. The first is the angel’s message to the Blessed Virgin Mary, “Thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son . . . The Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he shall be king over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1:31-33) And again Jesus’ answer to Pilate’s question, “Art thou a King?” in which He replied: “Thou sayest it *.” (Mark 15:2)

The belief in Mary’s sovereignty was first expressed through art - pictures and statuary. We find it in the second century catacombs; in the monuments of Christian Africa, in mosaics and frescoes ornamenting the shrines of divine worship, in the statues of Mary found in the churches and cathedrals, the majority of which are dedicated to our Lady.

From the 4th century, Christian writers began to call the Blessed Virgin Mary by the title of Lady (domina), Queen, Sovereign. They preferred these titles and very rarely called her Mother.

The bases of Mary’s sovereignty rests on the facts the Mary is the Mother of Christ the King and as the associate of Christ in the Redemption.



The first flows from the bonds of nature uniting the Son and His Mother. It was certainly the realization of this relationship which from the patristic age caused Mary to be looked upon as a Queen. A Christian artist of the 2nd century, in painting the scene of the adoration of the Magi on the walls of the catacomb of St. Priscilla, represented Mary with a Coiffure similar to that of the empresses of the first half of the 2nd century “without a veil covering it,” thereby indicating that she was the Mother of the new-born King whom the Magi came to adore. Gradually this basis was explicitly taught. Then a proof from reason was sought. “The goods of the Son belong to the Mother,” it was said. In fact, the Christian mentality under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit does not base itself upon natural or positive law but upon divine law. It proceeds from this conviction that the Son of God who wished to be the Son of Mary is an infinitely loving Son and that, in agreement with the Father and the Holy Spirit, He wished to share with His Mother all His functions and prerogatives in the degree and manner in she was, a mere creature, woman and mother, was capable of participating in them. Mary is Queen by divine right which, according to the words of Pope Pius XII, is a “grace” and a “choice.”


Read Revelation Chapter 12…yet another part of the Bible protestants ignore…In addition to Mary being clearly shown as Queen of Heaven, you will also discover that she is the God given mother of all Christians.

Chapter 12
1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered.
3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems:
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days.
7 And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels:
8 And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of the testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death.
12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you that dwell therein. Woe to the earth, and to the sea, because the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time.
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child:
14 And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
18 And he stood upon the sand of the sea.


Wow…thanks Tomster!
I don’t know if I will go to her with this, as we don’t really “talk religion”, but perhaps she will come across this in her internet studies!

Pax Christi!


If you are talking with a Protestant, try the following approach.

Refer to the Parable of the Talents, Matthew 25: 14-30, especially verses 21 and 23.

The Lord promises us that in heaven, His good and faithful servants will receive rewards, specifically, mansions and crowns.

Everyone will receive a different reward. We will not be jealous over or covet someone else’s crown. The exact nature of our reward will be up to Christ.

Many of us speak of our loved ones going to heaven and walking on golden streets, or living in a mansion, or being free of disease. We really don’t know any of this for sure, do we? We are making statements about our deceased loved one based on what we infer from the Bible. We infer that the Lord will grant our loved ones who were His disciples a reward, a crown, and a mansion. We can’t point to a specific place in the Bible where it says, “Grandma will receive a crown in heaven,” but we know Scriptures that imply that Grandma will receive a crown.

There are passages of Scripture hinting that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, received a “crown” in heaven. (Revelation 12 is especially graphic.) There are quite a few Old Testament passages implying that she will be/is the Queen Mother.

Whether you accept this “crowning of Mary” or not, it is fair to say that Mary did receive a reward from Christ when she arrived in heaven, just as we will all receive rewards.

Who are WE to question what the Lord Jesus Christ decides to give to His mother?

Who are we to question what the Lord Jesus Christ gives to any believer?

Does it matter to our salvation? No. His death on the cross still avails, His resurrection is still the promise of our new life, His ascension still gives us hope that He will come again. He is the KING of glory.

So Mary’s crowning is not specifically spelled out in the Bible. Neither are your sentimental wishes about Grandma and her reward in heaven, yet you KNOW that Grandma went to her reward.

In the same way, the Church infers from the Bible that Mary was crowned Queen of heaven and earth.

This teaching does not affect the Christian Gospel.
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.”

There is much that we believe that isn’t specifically spelled out in the Bible, but was developed over the first 400 years after the ascension of Jesus. (For example, the doctrine of the Trinity.)

It is possible to infer from the Bible that the twelve patriarchs and the twelve apostles sit as kings in heaven. Does this make Jesus any less the King? Of course not.

Christ will give crowns to many of His servants in heaven: the soul winner’s crown, the martyr’s crown, etc. Will these crowns make Christ decrease? Of course not.

Christ’s majesty is not diminished when He gives crowns to His good and faithful servants, including a crown to His mother.

Keep in mind, too, that the Bible teaches that all of us will cast our crowns at the Feet of Jesus. The crowned saints in heaven, including Mary, never seek royal glory for themselves. They always direct us to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

The teaching of the crowning of Mary does not diminish the Majesty of Jesus, it only increases the depth of His love for all of us. Not only does He give us eternal life, but He gives us mansions and crowns.


Let’s get some facts straight. We will all reign with Christ. By virtue of our adoption as children of God, we share in the royal dignity of Christ.

Revelation 4:4

4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

So I don’t see the contardiction between the Kingship of Christ and the queenship of Mary.

God Bless,


Yeah, like how the apostles never talked about the Trinity, so that must not be true. Or the full nature of the hypostatic union. Also false, I guess.


Because “queen of heaven” title places her Above Jesus, not on her knees in worship to him.

You give her godlike qualities, like Jesus can not say NO to her.

Only God the Father has authority over Jesus.

In short, you are giving us a poor image of her.


How does Queen place her above the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords?


Jesus is God.


You all use the phrase “queen mother” on earth a queen mother is above her son, the king. This is exactly what we see your apologetists as arguing.

There is no proof that God gives mary a report of his will on everyone on earth, thus it likely that she or anyone else in heaven would be praying contray to his will.

Your basic problem in our eyes is that you put her too high on a throne which is where a queen mother would be.



on earth a queen mother is above her son, the king. This is exactly what we see your apologetists as arguing.

No, she is not. Where did you ever get this idea? It is totally wrong. A queen mother, in Jewish tradition, is literally the mother of the king. . .the mother of the ruler, not herself a ruler.

Are you trying to tell us that the “queen mum” was above Elizabeth II after Elizabeth II was crowned??? Right there, your theory is blasted to smitheerns as she most emphatically was not seen as such.

Neither were any others ‘above’. During a regency (where the king is either a minor or incapicitated a la George III), the queen mother may act ‘for’ the king but once the king is crowned, on the throne, and reigning, the queen mother is no longer the one in charge.

Come on. Who placed Mary above all women by asking her to bear Christ? When did she ‘stop’ being His Mother?


Being Queen of Heaven does not place Mary above Christ. That’s like saying the First Lady is higher than the President.

God bless,

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.