Posted on 12/18/2010 6:01:48 PM PST by Gamecock
It seems as if there might be a sizable number of Christians who are unaware of the text of Jeremiah, particularly Jeremiah 44, which discusses a goddess called … the Queen of Heaven.
John MacArthur uses Jeremiah 44 as his text to introduce two sermons on Mary in Catholic Church dogma. These date from 2006.
The links to the full text are at the bottom of the post. I’ll provide excerpts, indented below, which will give many of us food for thought. Emphases mine throughout.
On Jeremiah 44
God condemns apostate Judah for worshipping this goddess of paganism called the Queen of Heaven that has had a number of different names throughout history. The latest name for this goddess, sad to say, is a name borrowed from the earthly mother of our Lord, none other than Mary who has now been morphed by apostate Christianity into the latest edition of the Queen of Heaven. Is it important to address this issue? It is … [In] Timothy 1:3, Paul says, “I urge you that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor pay attention to myths and endless genealogies which give rise to mere speculation, rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.”
Christian obligation to point out error
It’s important to say at the outset that this is not because we are mad or hateful or resentful, but it is love from a pure heart. If you do not address error, if you do not address strange doctrine, damning heresy, this is not love, this is indifference. Love from a pure heart and a clear conscience and a sincere faith demands such a confrontation. And so we come to address this same age-old goddess heresy of paganism in its newest form with the modern goddess having stolen the name of Mary, a terrible dishonor to her. But there is nothing sacred to Satan anyway. And to address it is not a lack of love, but is the sincerest, purest kind of love rising out of a good conscience and a sincere faith.
It does make one wonder why the Catholic Church would refer to Mary in this way. Yet, Jeremiah 44 refers specifically to the Queen of Heaven in an idolatrous context. Here are verses 18 and 19:
18But since we left off making offerings to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine.” 19And the women said, “When we made offerings to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, was it without our husbands’ approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out drink offerings to her?”
Much of the text concerns St Alphonsus Liguori‘s The Glories of Mary, a 750-page work first published in 1745 in response to the 17th century Catholic heresy of Jansenism, which originated in the Netherlands, became popular in Paris and, in many ways, bears a close resemblance to Calvinism. Francophones may recall that the philosopher Blaise Pascal and the playwright Jean Racine (for a time) were Jansenists.
I have linked to an 1888 online version of the book above so that you can peruse the text yourselves. An eye-opener, to say the least. MacArthur has read it cover to cover. We didn’t study this book at school, I hasten to add. I never even knew it existed until this week. But then, I do recall one of the nuns telling my mother that there is much about the Catholic Church which would not be included in religion classes. My mother, mentioning Vatican II, said, ‘That’s a relief.’ Sister replied, ‘Oh, no, it’s not so much Vatican II as it is other texts.’ Could she have meant this one?
Unbiblical
MacArthur says that Mariology is unbiblical, much as the Book of Mormon and Christian Science’s Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. What his sermons show us is the importance of being biblically literate — every book of the Bible. You will wonder how it is that Mary, not only bearing the appellation of a pagan goddess but having so many thousands, probably millions, of words written about her through the centuries is mentioned so seldom in the New Testament. That last one surprised me greatly when I was a teenager, and I suspect many Catholics would be similarly surprised should they read the gospels and epistles.
How could so many details be obtained about her life, from childhood to death? MacArthur reads excerpts from the Glories of Mary and papal documents from latter days to his congregation. You can find them in the sermon text. They are amazing.
Mythical
MacArthur tells us how Mariology began. Many will find this startling, although it ties in with what Dr Gregory Jackson, a Lutheran professor, said on Ichabod and reproduced here:
Now this idea about Mary, though it really wasn’t formally dogmatized until the twentieth century goes way, way back and you start to read about this in the fifth century as paganism and pagan goddess worship at the very earliest gets mingled. Remember the Holy Roman Empire, as it was called, the Holy Roman Empire was really not holy, it was Roman, for sure, but the emperor in the 325 decided that the best thing to do to unify the great empire was to make everybody automatically a Christian. And since the emperor was rife with paganism, they just married a kind of Christianity with paganism and all of this came very early. So it’s in the rule of somebody who calls himself Galacius(?) I, a self-appointed leader of the church in the fifth century, this comes up at that time. There’s a discussion about Mary being assumed into heaven. So already this goddess cult has imposed itself on poor Mary. And it was at first considered heretical. There was no evidence for it historically, there’s no evidence for it biblically, obviously. So the earliest appearance of this idea is in a very apocryphal work, an unreliable work like the gospel of Judas and hundreds of others. It was called Transitus Getti Marii (???) and it was in the fifth century it was denounced as a heresy. So when it first showed up in the fifth century, the 400′s, it is denounced as a heresy. But things began to develop over the years in regard to Mary. Praying to Mary arrives in 600…
A transitus is a service recalling a saint’s death and begins the eve of his feast day. Presumably in Mary’s case, the work mentioned involved the Assumption.
It should be mentioned that John MacArthur has nothing against Mary, just the hype and apparent falsehood built up around her life and death.
‘Mother of God’
MacArthur traces the origins of this title to Alexander, the 4th century Bishop of Alexandria:
Goddess worship, the very outset, the Holy Roman Empire comes into existence in the fourth century, early in the century. This mother of God comes in rapidly by the year 431 and the Council of Ephesus and 451, The Council of Chalcedon, this is established. She is to be called the mother of God, this contributes to centuries and centuries and centuries of accumulated deification of Mary. She becomes equal to God. And though the Church tries its best to wiggle out of this, it tries its best to deny this, the truth of the matter is, she really is superior to God and superior to Christ as becomes very evident in what they say and in how they portray her in cathedrals all over the world. She rules in heaven as queen, sovereign, saving, sanctifying, sympathizing, all this power is given to her that belongs only to God.
Apparitions and their nature
Like many of us, MacArthur wonders how the number of Marian apparitions can be increasing in frequency. I should like to mention here for the benefit of my Protestant readers that it used to be that the Church viewed these with scepticism and was very careful to investigate them thoroughly. Most investigations went no higher than local or diocesan level. Very few were authenticated.
Mary keeps appearing. Have you noticed? She keeps appearing. She descends from heaven to earth to make herself known to people. She comes quite frequently. She always comes with secret messages. She comes with secret messages for very isolated people …
The latest Pope, Pope Benedict XVI … said this, noted this, “In 1984 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the head of the Roman Catholic Church’s congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” that was where he came from, he came from being the doctrinal gate keeper of Roman Catholicism, “declared … : ‘One of the signs of our times is that the announcements of Mary in apparitions are multiplying all over the world,’” … He made this observation as a comment on the many reports of the appearances of the Blessed Virgin Mary to individuals located in a wide variety of countries, cultures and political systems. In fact, the last century and a half has seen numerous appearance of the Blessed Virgin, they say, and they have received official approval by the Roman Catholic Church …
A book in 1993 had about a thousand appearances of Mary that were documented thirty times in the eighteenth century, 200 times in the nineteenth century and 450 times in the twentieth century. So they are escalating at a rapid rate. Cardinal Meisner claims that Mary brought Christ to Europe from Fatima and one would ask where was he before that if she brought him? She visited a farm in Georgia, an office building in Clearwater, Florida, and a subway wall recently in Mexico City. She comes so often and she comes to the down and out and she comes to the little children, she comes to the peasant people and this validates the fact that she is this loving, sympathetic, merciful, tender-hearted compassionate person …
The only person if there is someone really appearing to them is right out of hell. This is demonic, for sure….for sure. But what assurances and what cleverness the demons offer for the deceived and the damned with their hellish counterfeits.
‘Mediatrix’
MacArthur quotes from the aforementioned documents, including Liguori’s book, as well as from the latest Catholic catechism from the 1990s — published during John Paul II’s papacy. No wonder so many of these notions — ‘New Eve’, ‘New Ark of the Covenant’ and ‘Co-Mediatrix’ — are so alien to me. When you read the quotes he uses, take note of the word ‘sovereign’ used in connection with Mary. He then offers the commentary below, based on what he reads to the congregation:
The point is, you go to Mary because Jesus can’t resist Mary. And Mary, because she’s so merciful, can’t resist you. Mary, claims the Church, can persuade God to grant what He otherwise wouldn’t grant …
You’re really banging on steel if you go to God yourself. Go to Mary and He listens to Mary …
You see, Roman Catholicism is pagan goddess worship, completely distracted. God is reinvented as judgmental, harsh. Christ is reinvented as indifferent. Everybody worships Mary …
She commands Jesus.
John Paul II
MacArthur tells us of the importance that Mary played in the late pope’s life from his childhood through to his papacy. He reads the congregation excerpts from some of John Paul II’s Marian thoughts and says:
Now that…that’s a pretty bold statement. She is not only the mediatrix of all grace, the channel through which all grace comes, the one to whom we go for everything, but she is even involved in our redemption …
Now I could go on and on with all of this, but I think you get the picture. The Church says nothing comes to us except through Mary’s mediation for such is God’s will. The Church says Mary is the most powerful mediatrix and advocate of the whole world with her divine Son.
Don’t remember if I pinged you/ don’t know if you saw it, I think it bears repeating.
I recently attended a funeral at a Roman Catholic house of worship. During the singing of the Ava Maria they had a small processional that made their way towards a life-sized statue of Mary, where they placed flowers at the feet of the idol.
Idolatry is as Idolatry does.
They do that at weddings as well, dedicating the bride to Mary ...
Perhaps what you find objectionable is the language, which to a 21st Century American protestant must sound "over the top". That's a cultural thing, though. I believe I posted a link to you a ways back to the Akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos by +Romanos the Melodist (6th century). There are all sorts of appellations of Panagia in that one which seem odd today even to an Orthodox Christian, my favorite being "O Butter Mountain". But again these are cultural markers.
During the Divine Liturgy, right after the Consecration, we chant, in Greek, this:
It is truly right to bless thee, O Theotokos,
ever blessed, and most pure, and the Mother of our God.
More honorable than the cherubim,
and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim.
Without corruption thou gavest birth to God the Word.
True Theotokos, we magnify thee.
Virtually all the important dogmatic theology of The Church concerning Mary is contained in those lines. Everything else we say and chant about her are really just glosses on this. Here's a wonderful chanting of Axion Estin followed by Kyrie Eleison...which this thread sorely needs!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR3Y5hDncn4
You wrote:
“Your ‘infallible’ Pope - what will he think?”
What does he think about what? When do we claim he is infallible - do you even know?
“Where’s the unity he desires between you and the muzzies?”
What unity are you talking about?
“Would that be a mortal sin or venial sin to go against his kissy kiss wishes?”
Who are you even talking about? Are you drinking?
Here’s a little celebratory seasonal chant (Tone 4) for those of us who venerate Panagia. This is from the Lauds for the Matins of the Nativity. It was written in the 8th century by +Andrew of Crete.
“Make glad, O ye righteous; greatly rejoice, O ye heavens; ye mountains, dance for joy. Christ is born, and like the cherubim the Virgin makes a throne, carrying at her bosom God the Word made flesh. Shepherds glorify the new-born Child, magi offer the Master gifts. Angels sing praises, saying: ‘O Lord past understanding, glory to Thee!’ It was the good pleasure of the Father: the Word became flesh, and the Virgin bore God made man. A star spreads abroad the tidings: the Magi worship, the shepherds stand amazed, and the creation is filled with mighty joy. O Mother of God, Virgin who hast borne the Saviour, thou hast overthrown the ancient curse of Eve. For thou hast become the Mother of Him in whom the Father was well pleased, and has carried at thy bosom God the incarnate Word. We cannot fathom this mystery: but by faith alone we all glorify it, crying with thee and saying: O Lord past all interpretation, glory to Thee! O come, let us sing the praises of the Mother of the Saviour, who after bearing child still remained Virgin. Rejoice, thou Living City of God the King, in which Christ has dwelt, bringing to pass our salvation. With Gabriel we sing thy praises; with the shepherds we glorify thee, crying: O Mother of God, intercede for our salvation with Him who took flesh from thee!”
Do you have it handy in Greek?
“... Christ is born, and like the cherubim the Virgin makes a throne, carrying at her bosom God the Word made flesh...”
Thank you, Kolo, beautiful.
Just in a book at church, I'm afraid. I'll see if I can find anything online after the Liturgy.
Blessed words. Thank you for sharing!
Thanks!
Indeed.
Even our Sincere Calvinist Brethren will say that MacArthur is “off the Wall” when he goes into his “Lordship Salvation” spiel.
Once he strays into Territory, it is no longer “Sola Fide”.
MacArthur is one of those teachers that seems to dislike EVERY Branch of Christianity, including his own. LOL.
Sad. Because he does it so well! :-)
Hey, Everybody, Merry CHRISTmas!
mark
Uh, no. I think you are misinterpreting the verse. IIRC this was directed at the Serpent and Eve, not "Jesus and Mary."
I believe it is in the New Testament where it is written that we will judge the Angels. So, if Gabriel is bowing to Mary, it could be because she is human, just as you and I are.
They will correct me if I’m wrong but I think most of the people making the most sincere anti-Catholic noises on this thread more likely trace their religious roots to Charles Fox Parham than John Calvin, though they share many similarities.
I spent Thanksgiving with the AG side of my family. During my visit many of their friends and fellow parishioners came by to visit as well. The conversation frequently drifted toward religion since that was what they had most in common. I was a little surprised to hear how much “Maryolitry” and conspiracies revolving around the Catholic Church figured in to their opinions. (Did you know that the Catholic Church is hoarding half the world gold? :-)
It may just be the threads I’m reading but it seems to me that we are seeing more “anti-Name-That-Denomination” threads here. Most are directed at Catholics but a growing number express a dislike and a distortion of LDS beliefs as well. Sadly, I think I’ll add religion to flying saucers and pit bulls as topics I will from now on ignore.
Luther may have believed it, but that belief doesn't make the belief true.
God wouldn't do something like that without a purpose. What would His purpose be in making Mary a "perpetual virgin"? Especially as Jesus has a brother, James. By this logic, James would also have had to have an immaculate conception.
Especially as Jesus has a brother, James.False to fact, a failed view not supported by any true scholarship. Try again.
“Uh, no. I think you are misinterpreting the verse.”
Nope. You are.
I grew up in his church.
However, I did find this:
Mark 3:30-32 (New International Version, ©2010)
30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”
31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”
Again, Jesus has siblings identified as existing in the Gospels. See also Luke 8:19.
How does this invalidate my point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.