I’m familiar with the passage in Revelation and it by no means supports Catholic dogma about Mary being the queen of heaven.
This is another perfect example of Catholicism creating a doctrine and then trying to find Scripture verses that *support* it.
Problem is, the woman is never identified as Mary, Mary’s name never comes up in Revelation at all, the term *queen of heaven* is not used in the passage, and the scene does not contain any account of a coronation.
All those conclusions are based on assumptions made about who the woman is and what was going on. There is an awful lot being read into the passage in order to make it fit Catholic teaching about Mary.
>>> The woman is never identified as Mary<<<
Nuh... she’s just identified as the woman who gave birth to Jesus.
>>> the term *queen of heaven* is not used in the passage,<<<
A better translation of “Queen of Heaven” would have been “Queen of the Skies,” which would be recognized as a material realm, rather than that of the Father. I’m not criticizing the translation as “wrong,” per se. Ironically, the account in Revelation DOES use “Ouranos” (sky), but the Catholic Church is careful to use “Heaven.” But since you’re trying to say, “A-ha! Because these words match, they must reference the same entity!” the fact that they’re not the same language and don’t (really) mean the same thing kinda kills your argument.
(I should note that Catholics read this passage as using Mary to embody the Church, using the hermeneutic that prophets describe something that has happened in ways to reveal a future or universal truth. In such double meanings, the eternal or metaphysical meaning does not negate the obvious, historical meaning.)
>>>> and the scene does not contain any account of a coronation. <<<<
“And she was clothed with the sun, ... and on her head a crown of stars.”
>>>> This is another perfect example of Catholicism creating a doctrine and then trying to find Scripture verses that *support* it. <<<<
Since the Bible predated the Church, and the Church discerned which books were of the bible after some period of relatively more ambiguity, it’s positively absurd to claim that the Church had some doctrine independent of the Bible, and only then found justification in the bible for its belief, as if the Bible were only something discovered by the Church at some late point in the development of Church doctrine.
Indeed, the reformers broke from the Church and only over centuries drifted further and further from the Church, inventing more and more reasons to place emnity between their flock and the Church’s flock. It seems strange that if “Queen of Heaven” constituted idolatry, Luther would embrace this idolatry rather than condemning it.
(There is a recent book which claims he eventually changed his view, but it is not available on line and costs an astonishing $260 to so much as peek at it; I can find no older source. Given the plethora of times he referred to her as “Queen of Heaven,” it would seem if he believed he had committed idolatry, he might do more to repent of it and correct his flock than mention it once in an apparently long-lost sermon.)