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.
The Bible.
God Bless
You could say the same about his belief in the Holy Trinity and everything else concerning Christianity. Yet, he felt free to oppose the Church where he wished - including what constituted scripture.
It's also valuable to know what the early Reformers believed. They were sola scriptura also, yes?
They and the Church knew the scriptures extremely well; and, yet these obvious scriptural problems that some see today were not seen as contrary to their beliefs - until relatively quite recently.
This too undermines the credibility of the more recent innovations on the subject.
Sorry, maybe I am dense but you lost me on that one.
So let me get this straight. Irenaeus, Ambrose, Augustine,
Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzen, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ALL got it wrong concerning Mary, and yet you, Mr. Vegasrugrat, somehow got it right by just picking up your Bible, the canon of which, of course, was set down by Church councils of the 4th century.
Okay...
PRAISE GOD for His faithfulness . . .
and for your return to Him.
not supported by Scripture
What a grossly wrong assertion.
Wow! That’s disgusting and demonic!
INDEED.
INDEED.
AMEN! AMEN!
If saying "X was A until B" does not mean X was not A after B...
Likewise, your assertion that you will be non-Catholic until you die does not mean you will be Catholic after then.
Again, saying something did not occur "until" does not necessarily mean it happened after. I'm referring of course to the phrase "knew her not UNTIL.."
This also helps explain why this scripture was not any problem to the Church's belief in Mary's perpetual virginity before the reformation and the same is true for the leaders of the Reformation - all of whom were well-versed in scripture. This scriptural find and problem arose only relatively recently.
Matthew 1:24-25 - “When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not UNTIL she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.”
Seems clear. Doesn’t it?
IT’S QUITE CLEAR . . . unless one has an agenda from another power . . . focus.
Thus my previous statement:
“Disgusting and demonic!”
WHOOOOOOP T DO!
Bureaucratic political power-mongering pseudo theological elite magicsterical self-serving club members . . . shortly after the 300-400 AD BEGINNING of the
Vatican Alice In Wonderland School of Theology And Reality Mangling
concocted a hideous bunch of heretical horse feathers that their successors have been hawking to this day.
What an unsurprise.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
Fundamentalists insist that “brethren of the Lord” must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a “second-born,” perhaps a “third-born,” and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until,” instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.
Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?
There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.
The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).
INDEED.
2Sa 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
You guys make up scripture to fit your analysis and then tell us that the scripture is bad...What a hoot...
Why are you trying to deceive people???
Great Scripture! Thank You, FRiend!
Your post shows clearly what can be seen as the point of the passage: The virgin birth of Jesus: He had not known her when she bore a son” or “until.” The point is to emphasize this about Jesus.
It’s not a passage about Mary, it’s the story of Jesus’s miraculous birth.
Pretty eye opening, isn’t it?
Catholics can claim all they want that they don’t idolize Mary, that they don’t attribute to her characteristics of God, that they don’t worship her or pray TO her for things, but the mask is torn with the help of the internet.
Their continued denial of the facts that are there plainly for all to see demonstrates a level of delusion that is staggering.
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.