They do, though. Of course they do. In basically any other context (including terms like "motherland" or "mother of [field]"), a "mother" is someone that literally spawned someone/something that didn't exist before. God spawned Himself on Earth using Mary as a vessel. Boiling that down to "Mother of God" is very misleading.
It's the same with the term "Queen of Heaven." It most definitely implies that she has rulership over heaven, even if it isn't supposed to. It's true that "in My Father's house are many mansions," and it seems like a safe bet that Mary has one of the nicest ones. But Queen of Heaven? No. That's misleading.
I have literally never heard that spoken aloud in my lifetime.
I mean, I literally got it from the source above. If you want to say it isn't official enough, ok, but I'm not making this up.
If you don't think it's reasonable to believe that a Queen might rule over a kingdom (since we don't use the term "queendom"), then I don't know what to tell you.
ignorance ... that would be ignorance of the theology we're talking about in the first place.
But that's part of my point. Lots of laymen without deep theological knowledge go to church, right? It's part of why they go. To someone like that, this sort of thing can definitely be deeply misleading, possibly to the point of idolatry. And it's certainly not necessary.
Too many religions, in fact too many things in general are dumbed down for the braindead postmodernist proles already. You lose gravitas and moral legitimacy when you do crap like that.
The answer is no. No no and thrice no.
To someone like that
Someone like that is welcome to go listen to the saxophone and hold hands in an Episcopal "church" with the rest of the theological illiterates.
They imply no such thing. You might infer that, but that would be ignorance of the theology we're talking about in the first place.
I've been a practicing Catholic for four decades and I have literally never heard that spoken aloud in my lifetime.
They do, though. Of course they do. In basically any other context (including terms like "motherland" or "mother of [field]"), a "mother" is someone that literally spawned someone/something that didn't exist before. God spawned Himself on Earth using Mary as a vessel. Boiling that down to "Mother of God" is very misleading.
It's the same with the term "Queen of Heaven." It most definitely implies that she has rulership over heaven, even if it isn't supposed to. It's true that "in My Father's house are many mansions," and it seems like a safe bet that Mary has one of the nicest ones. But Queen of Heaven? No. That's misleading.
I mean, I literally got it from the source above. If you want to say it isn't official enough, ok, but I'm not making this up.
They really don't, and they originated a thousand years before the English semantic terms you're trying to use to parse them out ever existed.
No, that's just speaking from ignorance again.
If you don't think it's reasonable to believe that a Queen might rule over a kingdom (since we don't use the term "queendom"), then I don't know what to tell you.
But that's part of my point. Lots of laymen without deep theological knowledge go to church, right? It's part of why they go. To someone like that, this sort of thing can definitely be deeply misleading, possibly to the point of idolatry. And it's certainly not necessary.
You still don't get it, apparently.
No.
Too many religions, in fact too many things in general are dumbed down for the braindead postmodernist proles already. You lose gravitas and moral legitimacy when you do crap like that.
The answer is no. No no and thrice no.
Someone like that is welcome to go listen to the saxophone and hold hands in an Episcopal "church" with the rest of the theological illiterates.