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.

BTW-I watched MacArthur a while back on TV where he was interviewed along with several other “Christians” including a high ranking priest. When asked if Christ was the only way to heaven everyone but MacArthur pussy-foot around the real answer. MacArthur was the only one who said that Christ was the only way to heaven.

You may quibble over some of MacArthur’s erroneous views which he later has recanted. One may recall that the great Augustine found himself in a similar situation, even to the point of having to recall his books to be burned. But MacArthur sticks up for the gospel time and again. He is an honorable man.

People who go down the path of trying to explain the Trinity, and especially the incarnation, are bound to get burned.

It was developed by the Church over hundreds of years. Every possible error arose and was dealt with. Yet, here they come along again and again, because "people" go down the same paths the Church has already covered.

MacArthur was the only one who said that Christ was the only way to heaven.

Pardon me, but big whoop. Now what does that mean? "People" will vary a great deal on that answer. And a bumfuddled priest doesn't change what the Church believes - you can look it up. :)

You may quibble over some of MacArthur’s erroneous views which he later has recanted.

So what's to keep him from re-re-canting. And the "incarnational sonship" was was no small quibble. What's the point in listening to him if it's only to reinforce what you believe when he agrees and ignore him when he doesn't? It's your authority picking those who agree as your authority. Unless you then recant. On and on...

One may recall that the great Augustine found himself in a similar situation

We're the Catholic Church not the Augustinian Church - people again.

MacArthur sticks up for the gospel time and again.

According to you and some other people. :)

Honestly, with all the mishmash of different doctrines and theologies, church becomes pretty meaningless. People get convinced one way, then another, leave this church, found another… Lots of people, no church.

Thanks for your reply.

HD-MacArthur was the only one who said that Christ was the only way to heaven.

D-F-Pardon me, but big whoop. Now what does that mean? "People" will vary a great deal on that answer. And a bumfuddled priest doesn't change what the Church believes

Ah, the standard pat answer-this "bumfuddled" priest doesn't speak for the Church and I should go look up what the Church believe. And when I go look up the Church teaching is that there really are other pathways to Christ, you'll just deny it-or ignore it-and rally around the Church blah, blah, blah. (Should I post the Pope kissing the Koran?)

The Roman Catholic Church has just about rejected or changed every major Christian doctrine there is-including our Lord Jesus being the only way to God. There is not much of a Christian Church in Rome. Rather it's more like a club. For a Catholic to tell me that MacArthur is a heretic is not very reliable source. It's like someone telling me that Martha Stewart is a great auto mechanic. Thanks but I think I'd like to check this out myself.

Tell me, not that I expect a straight answer, but do you believe that our Lord Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven? You can tell us all the Catholic Church's position on the matter. And this is your opportunity not be bumfuddled and to really put the matter to rest. Just post your source.

And you tell me John MacArthur is a heretic.

What's the point in listening to him if it's only to reinforce what you believe when he agrees and ignore him when he doesn't? It's your authority picking those who agree as your authority. Unless you then recant.

That is how we grow. I am reminded of the honorable Apollos who, when teaching wrong doctrine was taken aside and corrected. He then started teaching correct doctrine. Same way with those teaching the baptism of John. You listen to what someone states, you compare it with the scriptures which you know to be infallible, and then you trust God to guide you all.

There are some things that remain a mystery and you keep your mind open to the truth. Every Christian is on a pilgrimage. Once you find out the truth, you fit that piece of the puzzle into the picture and move on. After all, God said that He would guide us to all truths.

Thanks very much for your reply.

On your question about what we believe concerning whether our Lord Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven, the obvious answer is the creed: " He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end." Of course, the Catechism will answer more fully if you have other questions.

In here, probably the briefest answer to your request is "1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately--or immediate and everlasting damnation." And there's also "1977 - Christ is the end of the law (cf. Rom 10:4); only he teaches and bestows the justice of God."

I am reminded of the honorable Apollos who, when teaching wrong doctrine was taken aside and corrected.

By Paul who had the authority of the Church. And whom met in Council with other leaders to decide what the Church believes. The New Testament is full of the story of the One Church led by the Holy Spirit, not individuals picking one leaders view or the other. It's the history of one Church, the same Church, the Church that Christ established and gave authority to.

That's my point. If you correct MacArthur, he can say "who are you?" And you can say the same to him - "he's right on this, wrong on that." But you both only have your own authority. How can this way hope to result in One Holy and Apostolic Church?

You listen to what someone states, you compare it with the scriptures which you know to be infallible, and then you trust God to guide you all.

But in practice you just have different people with different views of infallible scripture arguing with equal authority - none. Surely God does not guide us in all these different directions to different truths.

Every Christian is on a pilgrimage.

But not by themselves, each becoming their own authority and deriving their own doctrine - choosing from a plethora of churches.

On your question about what we believe concerning whether our Lord Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven...

Here is the Catholic Catechism:

By Paul who had the authority of the Church.

It was actually by two other people in the church:

But you both only have your own authority.

This would be true if you took a low view of the scriptures. However, if you view the scriptures as the ultimate authority, then we both have the same authority. If John MacArthur could show clearly to me out of the scriptures a particular view, then I have to give in to that view not because of MacArthur but because that is what the scriptures tells us.

This btw is a pet peeve of mine. When scripture clearly states something, it is unfathomable in my mind for Christians just to ignore it or say it's a mystery. I would hope people would want to reconcile the passages or try to understand.

But not by themselves, each becoming their own authority and deriving their own doctrine

The authority is the scriptures. I am reminded of the case in Samuel where Israel begged God for a king. After God told them of all the problems they will have with a king, they still wanted one. God granted them a king saying they had rejected Him as their king.

The Christian church is no different. Men still want a king other than Christ.

If John MacArthur could show clearly to me out of the scriptures a particular view, then I have to give in to that view not because of MacArthur but because that is what the scriptures tells us.

You have been clearly shown the Holy Eucharist in scriptures but you disagree. Scripture as we see here has no authority - it's not saying you're right and I'm wrong. It's not on the witness stand or in the judge's box saying MacArthur is wrong and you are right.

Scripture is scripture - what it means in regards to doctrine requires an authority outside scripture. We disagree on what scripture means, now what? Convince each other? Appeal to the authority of scripture? I'm convinced you missed the scripture's meaning. Now what? Which meaning does the Christian Church hold? You decide for you and I decide for me? How is that a church?

When scripture clearly states something, it is unfathomable in my mind for Christians just to ignore it or say it's a mystery. I would hope people would want to reconcile the passages or try to understand.

Then you understand how I'm completely perplexed when you can't see the Church, One Holy and Apostolic clearly throughout the scripture. Again - Scripture is not capable of saying I'm right and you're wrong. Sola scriptura results in sola sola.

The Christian church is no different. Men still want a king other than Christ.

Christ is Head of His Church. The alternative is people like MacArthur here. I initially responded to this:

"MacArthur-If you do not address error, if you do not address strange doctrine, damning heresy.."

Who died and made him king?

You have been clearly shown the Holy Eucharist in scriptures but you disagree. Scripture as we see here has no authority - it's not saying you're right and I'm wrong.

I see nothing in scripture that states the elements actually turns into the blood and flesh of our Lord or that grace in imparted through the sacraments. On the contrary, scripture specifically states that we are to do this as a rememberance of our Lord until He returns. That's it, as a proclamation. But it is a very special sacrament handed down by our Lord Himself.

I posted the Church's Catechism 841 with regards to Muslims because it is rather controversial even within the Catholic Church. It changes what has been taught throughout history. If you go over to justforcatholics.org (yes, I peek), there is an intense debate going on about this Catechism. Now the question is how can Catholics reject a Catechism given by the Church? Why should there be any debate what has been handed down? And, if you believe the Church to be fully knowledgable and unerring, then you must agree with Catechism 841 which plainly states that all a person has to have is a profession of faith of Abraham.

And let's not forget what the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 stated about heretics (ie John MacArthur):

- Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 - On Heretics

It's nice to know that the Church would call John MacArthur a heretic who believes Christ is the only way to God. Yet the Catholic Church would not call Muslims heretics. Since I don't hear any disagreement with the Church, I can only assume that you do not believe Christ to be the only way to God.

In is interesting how the Church confers on Muslims the title of the "faith of Abraham". And I keep hearing how right the Church is at making these types of decisions. My, my. What a difference 800 years makes when the Church was fighting the Holy Wars and calling them hetheans and infidels. Now they have the faith of Abraham (whatever that means).

Thanks, but it isn't difficult to pick out of the scriptures that Christ is the only way to God the Father. I'd have to say I'll agree with John on this one. It's too bad the Church has a hard time understanding this if even I can understand it.

I see nothing in scripture that states the elements actually turns into the blood and flesh of our Lord or that grace in imparted through the sacraments.

And I - and the Church - do. Now what?

scripture specifically states that we are to do this as a rememberance

So? One doesn't negate the other. Non sequitur. Now what? Which is the Christian belief?

Catechism 841 which plainly states that all a person has to have is a profession of faith of Abraham.

Nope. Read more of the Catechism on the Church, Economy of Salvation, Sacraments, Particular judgement, etc.

It's nice to know that the Church would call John MacArthur a heretic who believes Christ is the only way to God.

Actually my post was about your post on MacArthur determining heresy. Who does determine heresy in your view?

I'd have to say I'll agree with John on this one.

But, not the other one. This part he's right, there he's wrong. And he'd say you're right here and wrong there.. What does the Christian Church believe? Who do I ask?

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.