Quoted:
Who is this question directed to, Protestants, Catholics, or both?  I wouldn't want to answer the question and then be called a Catholic hater if my answer doesn't line up with the Catholic Church as Bohr Adams already predicted would happen.

Quoted:
yes, I can agree that she is the mother of Jesus, what I can't agree with is worshipping her,  she was a normal woman with no special feets or deeds done on her own.  In fact, I can only think of one reference to her after Jesus was born,  anyone know which reference I am referring too?

Quoted:
Tagging for anti-Catholic vitriol disguised as passion for "scriptural truth."

Quoted:
yes, I can agree that she is the mother of Jesus, what I can't agree with is worshipping her,  she was a normal woman with no special feets or deeds done on her own.  In fact, I can only think of one reference to her after Jesus was born,  anyone know which reference I am referring too?

Carried away by the splendors of the moment, I did not initially realize that something was very wrong. I had noticed the floor-to-ceiling scrim-covered scaffolding near the crossing of the nave and transepts, but had assumed it was routine maintenance. But my more attentive wife, the architectural historian Rosemarie Haag Bletter—who as a Columbia doctoral candidate took courses on Romanesque sculpture with the legendary Meyer Schapiro and Gothic architecture with the great medievalist Robert Branner—immediately noticed that large areas of the sanctuary’s deep gray limestone surface had been painted.  The first portion she pointed out was a pale ochre wall patterned with thin, perpendicular white lines mimicking mortar between masonry blocks. Looking upward we then saw panels of blue faux marbre, high above them gilded column capitals and bosses (the ornamental knobs where vault ribs intersect), and, nearby, floor-to-ceiling piers covered in glossy yellow trompe l’oeil marbling, like some funeral parlor in Little Italy...

The belief that a heavy-duty reworking can allow us see the cathedral as its makers did is not only magical thinking but also a foolhardy concept that makes authentic artifacts look fake. To cite only one obvious solecism, the artificial lighting inside the present-day cathedral—which no one has suggested removing—already makes the interiors far brighter than they were during the Middle Ages, and thus we can be sure that the painted walls look nothing like they would have before the advent of electricity.  Furthermore, the exact chemical components of the medieval pigments remain unknown. The original paint is thought to have flaked off within a few generations and not been replaced, so for most of the building’s eight-century history it has not been experienced with painted surfaces. The emerging color scheme now allows a direct, and deeply disheartening, before-and-after comparison...

Observant Catholics, whose primary interest in the cathedral is religious rather than aesthetic, have been particularly appalled by one aspect of the program: the repainting of Our Lady of the Pillar, the early-seventeenth-century devotional statue of the Virgin Mary and the Christ Child familiarly known as the Black Madonna. As Jean Markale argues in Cathedral of the Black Madonna: The Druids and the Mysteries of Chartres (1988)—an intriguing study of the links between the Christian sanctuary and the Druidic shrine it superseded—there was a direct precedent for Our Lady of the Pillar in the Celtic black mother goddess Sulevia, another case of early Christianity co-opting indigenous beliefs to attract pagans. Whenever and however Chartres’s Black Madonna acquired its mysterious patina—through oxidation or smoke from candles and incense—it was familiar as such to centuries of the faithful until its recent multicolored makeover, which has transformed the Mother of God into a simpering kewpie doll.  

Quoted:
Doubtless she gave birth to Jesus, and was selected as blessed among women to bear the Son of God and to be honored throughout generations.  This much is clearly written.

What I find trouble understanding from scripture are things like this:

How is it however that she is the "Queen" of heaven? Mary Regina, a ruler of heaven?
http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Queen-of-Heaven.jpg

How is it she is a "co-redemptrix"?
http://www.interfaithmary.net/images/book/Vichy,crucifixion.jpg

How is it that she is not subject to the curse of sin in all mankind in need of liberation by the savior?  Particularly when she says "and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior".  Who needs a savior when they have no punishment in store?

I think a good many people spend too much time reducing the role of Mary and ignoring the honor due her, but others spend a lot of time putting her on a pedestal even making her coequal with Jesus.  

I'm really not comfortable with either extreme with my understanding of scripture.

With that I conclude as I have no interest on debate of the subject, and merely seek to provide my response to the question asked

Peace.

Quoted:
1) Queen of Heaven (Regina simply means "queen") goes way back, but the teaching was codified not too long ago, with a very well-written decree, here: http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_11101954_ad-caeli-reginam.html

2) "Co-redemptrix" is not official Church doctrine, but it has also never bveen viewed (that I am aware of) as heresy.  It is an age-old theological concept pretty well summed up above in paris-dakar's post, combined with the simple observation that the Salvation of mankind could not have occured without her doing her part. These discussions have gone on for nearly 2 millenia now.

3) Your other bit seems to be a challenge to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The idea that God is Mary's Savior would not rule that out, as she was arguably the "first saved," so that through her the rest of Mankind could be (yes, worded intentionally to tie back in to number 2).  The fact she spoke of being saved BEFORE the resurrection in no way ruled out that the Salvation hadn't already occurred (and arguably suggests the opposite - that it clearly already had). The Immaculate Conception, like Queen of heaven moniker, is probab;y best debated/discussed by starting with doctrine: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

As for putting her on a pedestal?  Take that up with God, He seemed to think she was pretty special. Christians ever since have simply followed that lead.

Quoted:

Can you point where "Queen of Heaven" is used in the bible?

Quoted:
This thread seems an appropriate place to post this sad news:  A Scandalous Makeover at Chartres

Quoted:
Just as I suspected from the usual catholic suspects. Y'all don't want a discussion.

I'm out

Quoted:
1. I didn't demand anything, I asked a question.
2. Why would it be okay to refer to Mary as "Queen of Heaven" when that term was used to describe a pagan goddess in Jeremiah? It doesn't make sense.

Quoted:

Can you point where "Queen of Heaven" is used in the bible?