John MacArthur on Mariolatry

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.

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.”

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 …

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.

http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/evervirg.htm

1. The conjunction “until” in Scriptural usage expresses what has occurred up to a certain point, and leaves the future aside. Thus God says in the book of Isaias: “I am till you grow old” (Isaias 46:4). Are we to infer that God would then cease to be? Again, God says to His Divine Son: “Sit Thou on My right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy foot-stool” (Psalm 109:1). Will the Messias, once His enemies are subdued, relinquish His place of honor? St. Matthew’s principal aim was to tell his readers that Christ’s birth was miraculous and that Joseph had no part in the conception of Mary’s child. His statement is confined to this point.

In itself the statement, “He knew her not till she brought forth her first-born Son,” neither proves Mary’s subsequent virginity nor contains an argument against it. Speaking as he does, the Evangelist in no wise affirms that the abstention mentioned by him ceased after the expiration of the time indicated.

To say that the exclusion of an event up to a certain point implies that it occurred afterward, is pure cavil. In fact, one would find it difficult to believe that the sacred writer, after insisting so strongly on Mary’s anterior virginity in the opening verses of the chapter, could suddenly imply that it ceased later on. If Joseph abstained from the use of the union preceding the angel’s message, who could think that after Mary had brought forth the Son of God, he should feel less reverence for the temple of the Trinity?

Your assertion would be more valid if it was not for the following passages:

19 Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. 20 And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.” 21 But he answered them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”

Mark 6:3 “3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.”

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.”

As for the reformers or any other “church leader”, they are all human so I will put my faith in Gods’ word.

God Bless

But, do you believe this discovery of those passages appear suddenly over a millennium and a half into the history of the Church?

The errors of "brothers and sisters of Jesus" is discussed earlier in this thread, I believe with a link provided. I can look for it - or others - again, if you wish. But I'll focus on another aspect:

Either these passages that you say mean Mary gave birth after Jesus are newly discovered or newly interpreted into something no theologian of the Church - and none of the leaders of the Reformation - saw. Or they were very aware of scripture and held that Mary was ever-virgin.

I think it strains credulity to think these men were unschooled in scripture or interpretation.

No, the scripture never meant Mary gave birth to anyone other than Jesus, the modern innovative exegesis of some notwithstanding.

As for the reformers or any other “church leader”, they are all human so I will put my faith in Gods’ word.

As you are human, you are putting your faith in your interpretation.

For me it is clear that without the Church, we have have no authority but ourselves. Remove the Church and you remove all authority but yourself. And your authority is no greater than any one else's.

This leaves us at an impasse, each his own authority, each claiming truth - which is impossible as this case illustrates. And this shows the wisdom of Our Saviour in establishing His Church as the pillar and foundation of truth.

thank you very much for your courteous reply. God bless...

Those who have a problem with seeing Mary as “Mother of God” also have a problem with Jesus Christ as both Man and God. To be mother of the flesh of Jesus is to be mother of God, since the two are inseparable by reason of assumption of humanity which God has done for the sake of saving all mortal flesh. What is not assumed is not saved by God, if Jesus was not fully God and fully man in one person we cannot say that God died on the cross for: “being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross(Philippians (RSV) 2:8).

The two are yoked, his humanity and his divinity. What is predicated of the man is predicated of God. This is why the Catholic Church declares Theotokos, see the ecumenical council of Ephesus for more reasons why Catholics believe this is. To have ignorance of this role and title of Mary is to have ignorance of Christ.

It started in a.d. 431 when the Council of Ephesus declared that Mary was to be honored as Theotokos, the God-bearer or Mother of God. And we can understand that correctly, since Jesus is, in one person, both man and God. However, the term carried more than a small hint that something inherent in Mary made her enough like God to bear his Son.

Next the Catholic Church declared that Mary was conceived without original sin (Immaculate Conception) and later that she was taken up bodily into heaven immediately upon her death (Assumption). And through the years, the poor, humble virgin mother has been called Immaculate Heart, Virgin of the Golden Heart, Virgin of the Poor, Lady of All Nations, Mother of the World, Queen of Peace—even, though not yet officially, Co-Redemptrix.

How unlike the Mary of Scripture we remembered earlier. Wouldn’t she be embarrassed at the adoration and the myth making? If the next step is taken to officially declare her Co-Redemptrix, there will be no hiding the idolatry behind all the extrabiblical attributes assigned to her.

Will some in that church even know who the “other” Redeemer is supposed to be? Will it matter? Will Christmas become more of a Marymas?

You don’t have to know much Scripture to see what’s wrong here. Consider: When the angels appeared to the shepherds in Bethlehem, they proclaimed the birth of the Savior and not a word about his mother. After the shepherds saw Mary, Joseph, and Jesus, they spread the word about “the child,” not his mother. And the Magi from the east came to worship the infant King, not his mother.

Clearly, when we allow anything or anyone to draw attention away from Jesus, we miss the point of Christmas altogether. Remember for your Christmas: Mary was forever blessed. Jesus is forever the Blesser.

Is there not something to each person that is baptized that makes them more like God? Can there be no reason to suggest that God could have picked anyone to be his mother, yet he chose Mary? More importantly, to get to your problem, can you say that God died on the cross implying that the divine eternal God died on the cross, and say it is so difficult or confusing to say that Mary is the mother of God? Additionally, ignorance of the relationships Christ had on earth and their significance to Him is an ignorance of a facet of His life, perhaps important ones no?

Co-redemptrix properly understood is acceptable, given that God gives all people freedom to reject him and his mission, but the "titles" help explain the role Mary has played in the life and death of Christ and to Christians everywhere as a consequence.

Wouldn’t she be embarrassed at the adoration and the myth making?

And yet the angel in Luke proclaimed "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" (Luke (RSV) 1:28)

And Mary came to accept his mission proclaiming

"Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." (Luke (RSV) 1:38)

And Elizabeth who was filled with the Holy Spirit...exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! (Luke (RSV) 1:41-42)

How one understands Christmas has to be placed in context. I cannot understand the incarnation if I knew nothing of being human; I can know little about the heart of Christ if I had not read that He died for all men the death of a slave, on a cross. I can know nothing of life of Jesus as a historical if I could not place Him in history. I could not understand his role as the Priest of sacrifice, if I knew nothing of levitical priests and the holiness of the temple. If I knew nothing of His family, I would know nothing of how He was raised or how He treats those who are members of His family. That is why I say that ignorance of these realities constitutes ignorance of Christ.

I believe in Gods’ authority, hence his word in the Bible.

And obviously there are different views of what the words of the Bible mean - in this case and in others, many more significant that this.

You seem to choose the word of humans over God, that is your choice.

I certainly see what you mean here.

From my view: I trust God's word in the Bible establishing His Church with authority - His Church, not any man. The Church led by the Holy Spirit, again as He promised as we read in Holy Scripture.

From my view again, it is you who are choosing the words of humans - in this case your own words, or those of other humans whom you have chosen.

We have come, ultimately, to a difference in what the Church is and where the authority for interpreting scripture resides.

Many individual humans arrive at quite different views of the meaning of certain scripture while they believe in God's authority - yet they differ widely, while God does not. It is impossible that God's authority would give truth to contradictory meanings. To continue, one has only his own authority versus that of other human's authority; arguments are never settled, what the "church" believes matters little, members follow whoever's interpretation seems right at the time, then leave for another church. The church becomes fractured, and of little consequence or meaning.

It is so obvious in scripture that this is not the Church of scripture.

That's why scripture talks about the Church so much - that it is led by the Holy Spirit, that it remain one, that it decides and does so with the authority given it by Christ through the apostles - One Holy and Apostolic Church.

Thank you again for your posts. I very much appreciate disagreeing without becoming disagreeable on these threads. May God greatly bless you and yours.

That's lovely!

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!

“Our Lord is coming to us and we must await his arrival with a vigilant spirit. We should not be fearful, like people caught doing wrong. We should not be distracted like those who have placed their heart entirely in earthly goods. . . .

. . .This meeting with Our Lord will not come unexpectedly for the Christian who has been on watch. For him He will not come like a thief in the night. There will be no surprises, because there will already have been many meetings with Him each day; meetings in the Sacraments and in ordinary happenings of the day which have been full of love and friendship.”

In Conversation with God, vol I, -Francis Fernandez

Fred -- if you point out facts, you will get attacked by some folks

Fred said :it was the Catholics who drove back the Muzzie hordes at Vienna, Lepanto, etc."

And John goes off track asking about the present-day and asking a completely different question about the Church as opposed to a state (or states as in the first case)

Don't you KNOW, John, that at Vienna, 1683, Austria, Poland etc. (btw Fred, the Zaporozhian Cossacks, Orthodox, also fought with the Catholics against the Ottomans) fought against the Muzlim hordes, turning back the Ottomans and destroying them utterly so that from that point on Islam has been on retreat. The day on which that happened, 11-September-1683 (9/11/1683) has been looked on as a day of tragedy by Moslems, hence they attacked the US on the same day. Don't you KNOW that?

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.