Ever hear of John MacArthur? He is a particularly hostile Protestant.

[PhilVaz]

Sand << I did not assert that MacArthur has never misrepresented anyone at anytime as that would be foolish of me; I have not read everything MacArthur has written, neither have heard every word that he has spoken. Do you understand that? >>

Yeah yeah yeah yeah. Thanks for the admission.

You said: << I agree; none of you can deliver on this final point, namely, that MacArthur has materially misrepresented the Catholic Church…No one has provided any factual misrepresentation made by MacArthur concerning the Catholic Church. >>

MacArthur thinks, in the order I have provided them:

Catholic salvation is works/righteousness; that no Catholic priest can be saved; that God and Jesus are “tough guys” so we should go to Mary in prayer; that we teach the “virgin birth of Mary”; that our teaching on “pastoral work is not comfort and care and compassion”; that papal infallibility means the Pope “never makes a mistake”; that heretics and schismatics and immoral people are “absorbed” (his term); that there is “an inherent uncleanness” in marriage and we have a “Manichean/Gnostic idea of the evil of the flesh”; that “the desire for procreation is the enemy of spiritual devotion”; that we have a “warped view of marriage” and that we “think marriage is all about sex and procreating little Catholics”; that the priesthood and the Mass is “an aberrant, unbiblical bizarre pagan theology”; that Catholicism is a “satanic religious system.”

These are from just two articles (JUST TWO!) here:

The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood by John MacArthur (2002), version 1
AND
The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood by John MacArthur (2002), version 2 (does not contain the “virgin birth of Mary” they cleaned it up)
AND
GTY tape, GC 1301-X, titled “Bible Questions and Answers” Part 26

Sand << Although I do not need to read any of the links that you have provided, because they are outside of the specific request that I made on this thread, I have read through the immediate context of each of the links only for the quotations that you have provided; I have not read the links in their entirety; again, I don’t need to. >>

Yeah yeah yeah yeah , MacArthur grossly misrepresents Catholic doctrine. Deal with it.

Sand << Many of you on this thread have been at least as unfair toward MacArthur with the statements that you have made against him, as you claim that he has been toward you and the RCC in the statements he has made. >>

Yeah yeah yeah yeah, once again, MacArthur has clearly misrepresented Catholic doctrine. Challenge accepted, challenge answered. But thanks for your participation on the board anyway.

BTW, I’ve listened to the guy off and on since 1988. Have long have you listened or been associated with him?

Phil P

 

[sandusky]

Sand << I did not assert that MacArthur has never misrepresented anyone at anytime as that would be foolish of me; I have not read everything MacArthur has written, neither have heard every word that he has spoken. Do you understand that? >>

Yeah yeah yeah yeah. Thanks for the admission.

You said: << I agree; none of you can deliver on this final point, namely, that MacArthur has materially misrepresented the Catholic Church…No one has provided any factual misrepresentation made by MacArthur concerning the Catholic Church. >>

MacArthur thinks, in the order I have provided them:

Catholic salvation is works/righteousness; that no Catholic priest can be saved; that God and Jesus are “tough guys” so we should go to Mary in prayer; that we teach the “virgin birth of Mary”; that our teaching on “pastoral work is not comfort and care and compassion”; that papal infallibility means the Pope “never makes a mistake”; that heretics and schismatics and immoral people are “absorbed” (his term); that there is “an inherent uncleanness” in marriage and we have a “Manichean/Gnostic idea of the evil of the flesh”; that “the desire for procreation is the enemy of spiritual devotion”; that we have a “warped view of marriage” and that we “think marriage is all about sex and procreating little Catholics”; that the priesthood and the Mass is “an aberrant, unbiblical bizarre pagan theology”; that Catholicism is a “satanic religious system.”

These are from just two articles (JUST TWO!) here:

The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood by John MacArthur (2002), version 1
AND
The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood by John MacArthur (2002), version 2 (does not contain the “virgin birth of Mary” they cleaned it up)
AND
GTY tape, GC 1301-X, titled “Bible Questions and Answers” Part 26

Sand << Although I do not need to read any of the links that you have provided, because they are outside of the specific request that I made on this thread, I have read through the immediate context of each of the links only for the quotations that you have provided; I have not read the links in their entirety; again, I don’t need to. >>

Yeah yeah yeah yeah , MacArthur grossly misrepresents Catholic doctrine. Deal with it.

Sand << Many of you on this thread have been at least as unfair toward MacArthur with the statements that you have made against him, as you claim that he has been toward you and the RCC in the statements he has made. >>

Yeah yeah yeah yeah, once again, MacArthur has clearly misrepresented Catholic doctrine. Challenge accepted, challenge answered. But thanks for your participation on the board anyway.

BTW, I’ve listened to the guy off and on since 1988. Have long have you listened or been associated with him?

Phil P

Yeah yeah yeah yeah.

10 years.

 

[PhilVaz]

Sand << Yeah yeah yeah yeah. 10 years. >>

Ah ha, well, yo yo yo yo. I was way into listening to him the first 3-4 years, until I slowly discovered just how “anti-Catholic” he can be. I really used to like the guy, but the last straw was his appearance on John Ankerberg (1995) condemning ECT and stating publicly his “pagan satanic non-Christian religious system” garbage. R.C. Sproul was a little more restrained but still disappointing. But thanks anyway. Yeah yeah yeah, yo yo yo.

It doesn’t matter what this or that Catholic down the street teaches, you know it, I know it, MacArthur knows it. What matters is what the Catholic Church teaches officially (Catechism, etc). Get it right. And if you have the size ministry MacArthur has, you better get it right. His “mission to Catholics” feeds on ignorance and is only effective because of ignorance (MacArthur’s own ignorance and misrepresentations, and ignorance of your average down-the-street Catholic).

Phil P

 

[sandusky]

PhilVaz:

What matters is what the Catholic Church teaches officially (Catechism, etc). Get it right. And if you have the size ministry MacArthur has, you better get it right.

Again Phil, he does get it right; he argues and opines from his study of Catholic teaching, just as you argue from your study of MacArthur that he is ignorant, and also, you argue from your study of your “average down-the-street Catholic” that he is ignorant as well. Your conclusion? The only ones who aren’t ignorant, are those who agree with you. What wisdom, and what a way to understand the world:

PhilVaz:

His [MacArthur’s] “mission to Catholics” feeds on ignorance and is only effective because of ignorance (MacArthur’s own ignorance and misrepresentations, and ignorance of your average down-the-street Catholic).

 

[rtconstant]

No he got it wrong as has been shown repeatedly throughout this thread. This sort of mentality never ceases to amaze me. Someone says catholics believe X but no Catholics seem to actually believe that but we’re wrong we actually do we just haven’t noticed. Or The Church teaches X but in truth no Catholic was ever taught X in church. Yet it is inarguable that the Church does teach it even though no one has ever heard it taught.

Reading something and then making a wild assumption about its meaning doesn’t hold water. After all JW’s can use the Bible to make wild assertions about what it is saying does that mean the Bible is a book full of blasphemy? No, it means their understanding is incorrect.

Also MacArthur’s resistance to proper understanding makes his statements regarding the RCC hard to take seriously. Such as in his overview sermon on the “worship of Mary” where that he refuses to acknwoledge the differences between latria, dulia and hyperdulia. In this case he was provided the Catholic definitions for these words (approved by the likes of St. Augustine, St. Jerome and St. Thomas Aquinas) and simply ignores them so as to push through his own personal interpretation of doctrine.

The meanings behind the doctrines and language within The Church may not be convenient for MacArthur but in your words Sundusky “To bad”.

As for running into a couple of Catholics who may have had a wrong understanding that really means nothing. I’ve met Baptists who didn’t believe in the Trinity. Does that mean that the Baptist Church taught them that? No, it means they didn’t understand its doctrines.

 

[Church_Militant]

**Again Phil, he does get it right; he argues and opines from his study of Catholic teaching, **

just as you argue from your study of MacArthur that he is ignorant, and also, you argue from your study of your “average down-the-street Catholic” that he is ignorant as well. Your conclusion? The only ones who aren’t ignorant, are those who agree with you. What wisdom, and what a way to understand the world:That is such a crock…you have seen clear evidence that he sets up straw man arguments and purports things to be Catholic teaching that are plainly not so, and Phil just buried you and your pastor in a huge pile of it and you continue to defend?!

I don’t think you’re even willing to be honest Sandusky, because to everyone else reading this thread you just lost all possible credibility, (just like your pastor.)

It’s just like my buddy Mike discovered when he was doing his own homework to save his faith and his marriage, MacArthur misrepresents what we believe and then makes himself look like some sort of hotshot preacher by “biblically” condemning it. As I pointed out before, that’s either ignorant or dishonest.

Doesn’t this sort of destroy any semblance of his (or your) infalliblity? This bunk might fly on CARM or one of the other anti-Catholic forums, but not around here. You’ve wasted your time…

“For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” (Romans 1:22)
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[sandusky]

rtconstant:

No he got it wrong as has been shown repeatedly throughout this thread. This sort of mentality never ceases to amaze me. Someone says catholics believe X but no Catholics seem to actually believe that but we’re wrong we actually do we just haven’t noticed. Or The Church teaches X but in truth no Catholic was ever taught X in church. Yet it is inarguable that the Church does teach it even though no one has ever heard it taught.

It seems to me that what you want is to hear nothing that opposes you, but want that everything agrees with you, and that’s not realistic RT.

In open discourse, people are free to say what they want to say within certain parameters; if you don’t like those parameters, than work with the rest of the culture for more tolerance, and increased limits on speech.

rtconstant:

Also MacArthur’s resistance to proper understanding makes his statements regarding the RCC hard to take seriously. Such as in his overview sermon on the “worship of Mary” where that he refuses to acknwoledge the differences between latria, dulia and hyperdulia. In this case he was provided the Catholic definitions for these words (approved by the likes of St. Augustine, St. Jerome and St. Thomas Aquinas) and simply ignores them so as to push through his own personal interpretation of doctrine.

If he “provided the Catholic definitions for those words,” how is it that you can say he ignored them? You’ve not provided a source, so I don’t know what he said, but by your statement, it doesn’t seem to me that he ignored them.

rtconstant:

The meanings behind the doctrines and language within The Church may not be convenient for MacArthur but in your words Sundusky “To bad”.

It doesn’t have anything to do with convenience. The primary thrust of MacArthur’s criticism is not the veneration of Mary, but whether or not it is a correct practice, and is a Christian bound to submit to the dogmas concerning Mary. I say they are not subject to such bondage, and I’m certain MacArthur would agree with me.

You like neither opposition, nor the opposition.

rtconstant:

As for running into a couple of Catholics who may have had a wrong understanding that really means nothing.

It does mean something, namely, that those specific things PhilVaz objected to in MacArthur’s statements, my wife, and myself have heard Catholics voice.

Now you can dismiss my wife and I as a liars if you’d like, but I don’t know why would do that, as you have heard Baptists say they don’t believe in the Trinity, and I don’t believe that you are a liar in any way, shape, or form.

What we are doing is disagreeing; it is an act as old as men.

 

[jim1130]

“Roman Catholics, on the other hand, believe the infallible touchstone of truth is the Church itself. The Church not only infallibly determines the proper interpretation of Scripture, but also supplements Scripture with additional traditions and teaching. That combination of Church tradition plus the Church’s interpretation of Scripture is what constitutes the binding rule of faith and practice for Catholics. The fact is, the Church sets itself above Holy Scripture in rank of authority.” John MacArthur – Is Roman Catholicism Biblical? gty.org/resources.php?section=articles&aid=231224

The Catechism says otherwise:

CCC - Tradition and Sacred Scripture - 80 - "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

CCC - The Magisterium of the Church - 86 - "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

He also says “While there are many errors in the teaching of the Catholic Church (for example its belief in the transubstantiation of the communion wafer and its view of Mary), two rise to the forefront and call for special attention: its denial of the doctrine of sola Scriptura and its denial of the biblical teaching on justification.”

I am not sure I want to know anymore about this man.

 

[sandusky]

“Roman Catholics, on the other hand, believe the infallible touchstone of truth is the Church itself. The Church not only infallibly determines the proper interpretation of Scripture, but also supplements Scripture with additional traditions and teaching. That combination of Church tradition plus the Church’s interpretation of Scripture is what constitutes the binding rule of faith and practice for Catholics. The fact is, the Church sets itself above Holy Scripture in rank of authority.” John MacArthur – Is Roman Catholicism Biblical? gty.org/resources.php?sec…les&aid=231224

Jim, perhaps you didn’t read my post #176.

In it I said:

My request was very specific Phil. It had to do with the charge that MacArthur’s tape on the Papacy, at the time of the death of JPII almost caused a marriage breakup, and the charge that MacArthur’s teaching on that were misrepresentations of RCC teaching. Also included in that charge were his teachings concerning Mary and prayer to her etc. I linked to the page at GTY that contained those sermons; the sermons on Mary were to immediately follow the sermons on the Papacy, but were delayed, thus the time discrepancy of their recording.

I did not assert that MacArthur has never misrepresented anyone at anytime as that would be foolish of me; I have not read everything MacArthur has written, neither have I heard every word that he has spoken.

The link that you provided is outside of my request. In posts #84, and 87, you find links to the sermons about which I made my request to Church Militant, in response to his post #71.

Thank you for the opportunity to re-state that.

 

[rtconstant]

[q]It seems to me that what you want is to hear nothing that opposes you, but want that everything agrees with you, and that’s not realistic RT.

In open discourse, people are free to say what they want to say within certain parameters; if you don’t like those parameters, than work with the rest of the culture for more tolerance, and increased limits on speech.[/q]

Not sure what that the above has to do with what I posted but that’s OK. Anyway, yes people can say all kinds of things However if one has incomplete knowledge of something they should expect to eventually be corrected.

You seem to think that what the Church teaches is up for interpretation. It isn’t. What it teaches it teaches. You can agree with it or you can disagree with it. If you disagree then you can point out why you do. However, what it teaches is not up for grabs. This isn’t the book of the month club.

[q]If he “provided the Catholic definitions for those words,” how is it that you can say he ignored them? You’ve not provided a source, so I don’t know what he said, but by your statement, it doesn’t seem to me that he ignored them.[/q]

I did provide a source read it again. Actually it was from a link you offered I expected you would know what you posted. Anyway, he acknowledged that he was aware of the Catholic teaching of the meanings of the words but chose to ignore them as “wiggling” and stated that he thought they really meant the same thing. Problem with his logic is that while he is free to believe what he will about the word meanings he’s ignoring the fact that he understands his definition is in fact not what’s being taught.

[q]It doesn’t have anything to do with convenience. The primary thrust of MacArthur’s criticism is not the veneration of Mary, but whether or not it is a correct practice, and is a Christian bound to submit to the dogmas concerning Mary. I say they are not subject to such bondage, and I’m certain MacArthur would agree with me.[/q]

What his ultimate goal was with these sermons is really not the point. What we’re discussing here is whether or not he misrepresented Catholic doctrine.

[q]You like neither opposition, nor the opposition.[/q]

A wild assertion.

[q]It does mean something, namely, that those specific things PhilVaz objected to in MacArthur’s statements, my wife, and myself have heard Catholics voice.

Now you can dismiss my wife and I as a liars if you’d like, but I don’t know why would do that, as you have heard Baptists say they don’t believe in the Trinity, and I don’t believe that you are a liar in any way, shape, or form.[/q]

I don’t think you’re a liar Sandusky I’m assuming you mean what you say. Yet what your example points to the fact that most Christians (whether Protestant or Catholic) really don’t understand their faith very well. It actually has nothing to do with what doctrine a given denomination holds too. Most Christians don’t study like they should or listen to sermons like they should or read their Bibles like they should or pray like they should.

Christianity as the largest religion on earth constitutes a significant portion of humanity yet look at how messed up the world is. Obviously most of Christianity isn’t taking their faith seriously.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You’ve not provided a source, so I don’t know what he said, but by your statement, it doesn’t seem to me that he ignored them.

Sandusky weren’t you complaining about Catholics not reading what he wrote? rtconstant was revering to a peice MacArthur wrote that you yourself posted… Did you not read it?

There is doulia(?), that is the worship of saints and angels. There is latria, that is the worship of God. And there is hyper-doulia which is the worship of Mary alone. This is not just doulia which is a sort of low-level worship of saints and angels, this is hyper or upper level doulia, not quite latria. This is a silly, artificial kind of distinction that even Roman Catholic people can’t sort out. They worship saints. They venerate or worship angels. Far above saints and angels they worship Mary. And they attempt to worship God.

It has been my experience that anytime a “scholar” uses the phrase, “this is a silly…” his argument is dubious at best and he knows it. And what do ya know…

By the way the word is Dulia…

Here is what the Catholic encyclopedia says about Dulia

newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm

St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, X, ii, 1) distinguishes two kinds of servitus: “one which is due to men . . . which in Greek is called dulia; the other, latria, which is the service pertaining to the worship of God”. St. Thomas (II-II:103:3) bases the distinction on the difference between God’s supreme dominion and that which one man may exercise over another.

Between MacArthur and Augustine… I’m siding with Augustine.

The fact is that Catholics make a distinction between honor for Mary and honor for God, no matter how, “silly” MacArthur thinks it is or how much he choses to ignore it.

 

[sandusky]

rtconstant:

You seem to think that what the Church teaches is up for interpretation. It isn’t. What it teaches it teaches. You can agree with it or you can disagree with it. If you disagree then you can point out why you do. However, what it teaches is not up for grabs. This isn’t the book of the month club.

The bondage you have placed yourself under is not the subject of the thread RT. The subject is the sermons on the Marian doctrines at the links that I presented in posts 84, and 87—the first four sermons.

MacArthur claims that the facts used in those sermons were affirmed to be accurate by a group of Catholic Priests and Apologists in the green room of the Larry King Live Show.

In spite of the affirmation of the correctness of MacArthur’s facts, Church Militant claims that MacArthur misrepresented the Church in those sermons.

See posts 71-87.

rtconstant:

I did provide a source read it again. Actually it was from a link you offered I expected you would know what you posted. Anyway, he acknowledged that he was aware of the Catholic teaching of the meanings of the words but chose to ignore them as “wiggling” and stated that he thought they really meant the same thing. Problem with his logic is that while he is free to believe what he will about the word meanings he’s ignoring the fact that he understands his definition is in fact not what’s being taught.

You didn’t provide a source, you quoted from one, and I don’t know which one it is; I’m not going to search it out, I’m busy, that’s your job; you brought it up, you provide the link.

You said MacArthur presented the Catholic definitions of dulia, latria, and hyperdulia; than you contend that he ignored them. Again, how is presenting them ignoring them? Did he disagree with them? Did he say that they were wrong? What did he say about the words?

 

[sandusky]

Roman Catholic:

Sandusky weren’t you complaining about Catholics not reading what he wrote? rtconstant was revering to a peice MacArthur wrote that you yourself posted… Did you not read it?

I’ll tell you what I told RT. He quoted from a link, but I don’t know which one, and I’m not going to search it out, that’s his job; he brought it up, he can provide the link.

There is doulia(?), that is the worship of saints and angels. There is latria, that is the worship of God. And there is hyper-doulia which is the worship of Mary alone. This is not just doulia which is a sort of low-level worship of saints and angels, this is hyper or upper level doulia, not quite latria. **This is a silly, artificial kind of distinction that even Roman Catholic people can’t sort out. **They worship saints. They venerate or worship angels. Far above saints and angels they worship Mary. And they attempt to worship God.

Where is the factual misrepresentation? Did he wrongly define the terms?

In your post, you bolded the first four words of the sentence that I have completely bolded in the quote above; that must be your concern.

Have you not participated in threads on this forum where Catholics, and some protestants considering conversion to Catholicism were trying to sort out those distinctions?

Because of the Catholic’s extreme sensitivity on the subject, I don’t participate in those threads, but I do read them, and I see MacArthur’s conclusion publicly acted on threads on this forum for everyone who desires to participate in those threads, or to read them.

I don’t see a problem with the statement you pointed out.

 

[rtconstant]

The bondage you have placed yourself under is not the subject of the thread RT. The subject is the sermons on the Marian doctrines at the links that I presented in posts 84, and 87—the first four sermons.

MacArthur claims that the facts used in those sermons were affirmed to be accurate by a group of Catholic Priests and Apologists in the green room of the Larry King Live Show.

In spite of the affirmation of the correctness of MacArthur’s facts, Church Militant claims that MacArthur misrepresented the Church in those sermons.

Please we’ve already established that since he failed to mention what he affirmed with the priests he or you cannot use it as evidence of anything. His affirmations are further reduced by the fact that he seems willing to intentionally ignore facts that he doesn’t like. Don’t ask for evidence of that again I’ve posted and explained it if you don’t get it or didn’t bother to read it that’s “to bad”.

You didn’t provide a source, you quoted from one, and I don’t know which one it is; I’m not going to search it out, I’m busy, that’s your job; you brought it up, you provide the link.

You said MacArthur presented the Catholic definitions of dulia, latria, and hyperdulia; than you contend that he ignored them. Again, how is presenting them ignoring them? Did he disagree with them? Did he say that they were wrong? What did he say about the words?

I did provide the source (not just quoted it). If you either overlooked it or wasn’t familiar enough with your own material to realize it “to bad”. If you’re to busy to fully read the posts and/or keep track of your own sources then why are you here?

 

[sandusky]

rtconstant:

Please we’ve already established that since he failed to mention what he affirmed with the priests he or you cannot use it as evidence of anything.

Nobody told me that. Got the post number(s) where that occurred?

 

[lak611]

Nobody told me that. Got the post number(s) where that occurred?

With all due respect, Sandusky, I think that PhilVaz has already answered your question!

 

[sandusky]

With all due respect, Sandusky, I think that PhilVaz has already answered your question!

Thank you for your post lak611. For me, it is the perfect note on which to wrap up this thread.

Yes, Phil has claimed that he has met the challenge, but in response to some of his links I have shown that he did not, therefore, Phil is mistaken.

By the wording of his posts, that should be evident to anyone who reads Phil’s words with an unjaundiced eye.

Phil uses such phrases as: “after he quotes from Trent,” or “after he quotes from the Catechism,” or “after he quotes from,” whatever Catholic document Phil names, “he then goes on and says X.”

Phil’s lament is, “if only he would stick to the Catholic teaching…but he does not.”

Clearly, by the appreciated admission of Phil, and some others, MacArthur presents Catholic teaching, terms, etc, but, as Phil laments, “he does not [stick to them].”

All of that is true.

When MacArthur leaves the Catholic teaching he has presented, and speaks against it, he is giving his conclusion, or his opinion, or his POV, concerning the Catholic teaching he previously presented.

There is nothing wrong with that. Pay attention to your speech on this forum or outside of it, and pay attention to the number of times in a day that you do the very same thing.

None of you has shown anything other than that John MacArthur is, at times, an outspoken critic of the RCC.

And again I say, that’s life.

In closing, I want to thank you all for the exchanges with me on this thread. As always, my time on this forum adds to my insights on the RCC and its members, and there is never a dull moment.

As always, I am,

Your lying, dishonest, ignorant, and credibility-lacking friend,

Sandusky

 

[Fidelis]

Your lying, dishonest, ignorant, and credibility-lacking friend,

Sandusky

Actually, you are the only one who has actually called anyone a liar on this thread. Refer back to Post 5, please.

The rest, I’ll buy. I’d also add decieved. And thus you are in my prayers.

 

[PhilVaz]

Sand << Clearly, by the appreciated admission of Phil, and some others, MacArthur presents Catholic teaching, terms, etc, but, as Phil laments, “he does not [stick to them].” >>

By that logic, Jack Chick comic books perfectly represent Catholic teaching since they too cite from Trent, Vatican II, the Catechism, the Popes, etc. There is no misrepresentation in Jack Chick’s comic books, right? What’s the difference?

At least MacArthur doesn’t say Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by Jesuits. Now that’s a step in the right direction. Yeah yeah yeah yeah Yo yo yo yo.

Sand << As always, I am, Your lying, dishonest, ignorant, and credibility-lacking friend >>

Sand says it, we believe it, that settles it.

If you want to learn about Catholicism, go to John MacArthur, and double check him against Jack Chick comic books. Makes sense to me.

Phil P

 

[jim1130]

A fellow named John MacArthur, who has a radio program called “Grace to You” has a particularly anti-Catholic bias. He says that the Mass is anti-Christian on this link: gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=231486. He also has numerous links on his website that accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary. What do you think is the best response to this fellow?

I went to this site and a site provided by Sandusky (# 84) on “Mary.”

MacArthur’s rhetoric on Mary (from post # 84) impassions and inflames the emotion of the listeners rather than challenges or stimulates their intellect. “Brainwashing” comes to mind because of the inflammatory nature of the message, analogies, and word usage (uses pagan/paganism 13 times and goddess 17 times). Truly there is nothing wrong with sharing an opinion, possessing a point-of-view, or drawing conclusions, but MacArthur’s venomous delivery is designed to feed his listeners a healthy smorgasbord of hostile, detestable, and repugnant similes, images, descriptions, and metaphors to propagate interpretations that coerce his listeners toward his vitriolic message.

His appetizer before the anti-Catholic entrée consists of discussing a former 20th century emperor of Ethiopia, the religion that grew from his reign, and subsequent service that included “smoking marijuana while singing, dancing, feasting, reading the Bible and listening to their most popular prophet Bob Marley.”

And this parallel leads to: “All this seems ridiculous, bizarre, ignorant, corrupt, perverse, and foolish to worship a dead Ethiopian who is now in hell. It is really no more foolish than worshiping a dead woman who is now in heaven.”

MacArthur says: “They pray to her (Mary) regularly using the rosary. The rosary is a series of ten prayers, there are five of the tens making 50 prayers, and there are five prayers in between. The 50 are to Mary, the five are to God. There are five “Our Fathers,” there are 50 “Hail Marys.” For every time you pray once to God the Father, you pray ten times to Mary…for five to God, fifty to Mary.” Where is the mention of the Mysteries that are mediated upon during the Rosary? After all, it is the Mysteries that are the emphasis of the Rosary. For MacArthur, explaining the Rosary would negate the slant of his address so he presents a simple explanation expecting the simple minds of his listeners to nod in agreement like bobble heads on a car dashboard.

Then he adds: “This is no different than worshiping Baal or Molech or Caesar or Buddha or Krishna or Haile Selassie.”

That nice incendiary touch, to compare the Rosary and Mary to heathen gods and infer Mary is dead, shows he is trying to masquerading emotion as scholarship.

He says: “In the celebration of the Marion year (1954), Pope Pius XII accurately reflected the Church’s view of the Virgin Mary when the Pope stood up to give this following Pontifical prayer, and I quote (I will edit the entire prayer since it is long): “Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty…O Mary, you are the joy, you are the honor of our people.”

MacArthur: “Now if that is not worship, I don’t know what worship is.” Are his listeners not able to determine for themselves the theme of the prayer? Obviously not, such is MacArthur’s lack of respect for his listeners.

“Someone may think I’m overstating or exaggerating the blasphemy toward God that comes in Mary worship, so I have to do this very distasteful exercise to let you hear from the sources themselves.”

Again, his use of words leads the listeners to his conclusion, not theirs, although he elevates himself to martyr status for the unselfish nature of his great personal sacrifice.

MacArthur: “There is nothing anywhere in the pages of the New Testament that attributes to Mary any of these ridiculous attributes of sovereignty, supernatural power, nothing. This is just a woman like any other woman. But there’s plenty in pagan history to point to the worship of a queen in heaven. And paganism on a number of fronts has infiltrated Roman Catholicism, it is steeped in paganism. The queen of heaven is right out of paganism.”

Leading the audience by using belittling and provocative language to increase shock and horror augments his message.

----- continued -----