Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

[ozso]

The vast majority of prayer in the Bible is to God the Father. We are not specifically instructed to pray to Jesus, but that can be derived from an understanding of the Bible. The Bible states that Mary was there when Jesus was born and when she took Him to the Temple. It states that at her request at Cana, Jesus worked His first public miracle. (This is what, starting with Solomon, the queen mother does--makes requests of the king.) She was there at the foot of the cross. She was there in the Upper Room when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit. And Revelation shows she is there in Heaven. First we see the Ark of the Covenant in Heaven, and the very next passage depicts Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant. She is there praying for you and me, shown clothed with the sun, and wearing a crown of twelve stars. I suggest you read these passages, when I open the Bible I use the Catholic way of asking the Holy Spirit for discernment. Cardinal Newman put it well:

The Holy Apostle would not have spoken of the Church under this particular image unless there had existed a Blessed Virgin Mary, who was exalted on high and the object of veneration to all the faithful. No one doubts that the “man-child” spoken of is an allusion to our Lord; why then is not “the Woman” an allusion to his mother?

Saint Ambrose, a Doctor of the Church, wrote of Mary's role back in the fourth century:
". . . because she is the Mother of the Church, for she brought forth Him who is the Head of the Church."

Realize that back in Genesis the first woman was born without sin and sinned, while Mary, our New Eve, reversed this and never sinned. As I've said, so much understanding of the early church was lost by many after the reformation. As the Bible shows us she is blessed because, unlike Eve, this woman did God's will.

That layout has been posted before a few times in other treads. It's eisegesis seeking confirmation bias.

 

[ozso]

That’s not true. It lacks two essential elements of worship: intent, and sacrifice.

What are examples of intent and sacrifice in Christian worship?

 

[Valletta]

That layout has been posted before a few times in other treads. It's eisegesis seeking confirmation bias.

It's an understanding of God's Word that many abandoned after the reformation. I've seen a number of your anti-Catholic statements before in other threads.

 

[ozso]

It's an understanding of God's Word that many abandoned after the reformation.

The reformation was about getting back to original Christianity. And the whole praying to Mary, Mary being a heavenly intercessor, Mary being the Queen of Heaven, Mary being an immaculate conception, Mary being a perpetual virgin, the assumption of Mary etc. wasn't a part of original Christianity.

 

[ozso]

Catholics are a praying bunch. People would do so much better if they spent the time they take trying to find fault with others and other religions and use it to pray. On your knees before God is an excellent way. Catholics have reminders of God all around, maybe a crucifix, or statue of a saint or angels, a painting depicting a religious scene. Of course Catholics are not worshiping the statue or the crucifix or the painting, but there are always some who will falsely accuse. Imagine if Catholics went around accusing other Christians or worshiping the wood or metal because they wore a cross or prayed by a cross or prayed in a church with a cross on top.

Praying to God is crucial. People would do much better if they devoted every second of their prayer time praying the way Jesus taught us to pray. When God Himself teaches us how to pray, why do it differently? He gave plenty of instructions on praying. It's highly improbable that He left anything crucial out. Highly improbable that He taught His apostles anything extra about prayer that they didn't pass on.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The reformation was about getting back to original Christianity.

That is incorrect. It was about overthrowing one earthly Church with authority and substituting local and national bodies to administer the religion in their territories and also about replacing the authority of the hierarchy with the authority of free-lance bible interpreters such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli. It's end result was that every person who fancied himself (or herself) a capable leader and bible interpreter could start his (or her) own local church and rule it like a king ruled a territory.

 

[dwb001]

That is incorrect. It was about overthrowing one earthly Church with authority and substituting local and national bodies to administer the religion in their territories and also about replacing the authority of the hierarchy with the authority of free-lance bible interpreters such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli. It's end result was that every person who fancied himself (or herself) a capable leader and bible interpreter could start his (or her) own local church and rule it like a king ruled a territory.

You are incorrect in fact... your opinion can be your own... but facts are against you.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You are incorrect in fact... your opinion can be your own... but facts are against you.

No, that is not the case; the facts support the statement I made. In truth Martin Luther himself supported it. As his 'reformation' matured he found himself the butt of jokes, his students "whispered in their sleeves" while they laughed at his teaching. It did not take a single life time for the reformation to fragment into a menagerie of reformations. But this was not specifically Martin Luther's fault. It is human nature, once a population is told by an educated authority figure that they have as much right and ability to understand the bible as any Pope or Bishop of the Catholic Church it takes only a short time to grasp the idea that they also have as much right and ability to understand the bible as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli; in fact as anybody at all. And history tells us that they did exactly that and today people continue to do exactly that. Everyone buys a Greek grammar and lexicon, or uses online ones, and sets up shop as exegetes establishing their own doctrines in distinction and opposition to all comers.

 

[dwb001]

No, that is not the case; the facts support the statement I made. In truth Martin Luther himself supported it. As his 'reformation' matured he found himself the butt of jokes, his students "whispered in their sleeves" while the laughed at his teaching. It did not take a single life time for the reformation to fragment into a menagerie of reformations. But this was not specifically Martin Luther's fault. It is human nature, once a population is told by an educated authority figure that they have as much right and ability to understand the bible as any Pope or Bishop of the Catholic Church it takes only a short time to grasp the idea that they also have as much right and ability to understand the bible as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli; in fact as anybody at all. And history tells us that they did exactly that and today people continue to do exactly that. Everyone buys a Greek grammar and lexicon, or uses online ones, and set up shop as exegetes establishing their own doctrines in distinction and opposition to all comers.

Provide your proof that the Reformers wanted a fragmented Church as a result of their actions.

Your statement indicates that you know people's intentions... show your proof. Not the outcome, but proof of intent.

 

[dzheremi]

The reformation was about getting back to original Christianity. And the whole praying to Mary, Mary being a heavenly intercessor, Mary being the Queen of Heaven, Mary being an immaculate conception, Mary being a perpetual virgin, the assumption of Mary etc. wasn't a part of original Christianity.

Since you are clearly not a type of Protestant who has any use for tradition preserved outside of the pages of the Bible as you know it, how do you even know what is or isn't a part of "original Christianity" without the Biblical canon, which for people involved in western Christianity explicitly means without the Roman Catholic Church, since they were the only ecclesiastical game in town that far west by the time of the Reformation (the Celts, Visigoths, etc. having converted from their original Christianities centuries earlier)? The East has other things to look to (Alexandria, the Pešitta, etc.) such that if the West had never adopted the canon that it did, things would likely still be the same (read: one isn't in 'reaction' to the other), whereas for the Reformation in particular, nothing that it does or that initially comes out of it makes sense without viewing the RCC as its immediate backdrop and context (read: one absolutely is in 'reaction' to the other). Luther or even earlier proto-Reformationists like Hus certainly weren't starting with the Ethiopian broader canon (let alone any aspect of Christianity there outside of its scriptural canon, of course) and working backwards to whittle away at it, that's for darn sure!

 

[Valletta]

Praying to God is crucial. People would do much better if they devoted every second of their prayer time praying the way Jesus taught us to pray. When God Himself teaches us how to pray, why do it differently? He gave plenty of instructions on praying. It's highly improbable that He left anything crucial out. Highly improbable that He taught His apostles anything extra about prayer that they didn't pass on.

Jesus was at times specific in the prayers he taught us:
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

But certainly there are a number of prayers, Jesus being a practicing Jew would have prayed the Psalms. And in the Psalms there are a wide variety of types of Psalms, including those that address angels in Heaven. Of course Heaven was not then open to the Saints when the Psalms were composed. Jesus taught us the Our Father, Catholics also have a prayer that we sometimes say with the Our Father: "For thine it the kingdom . . ." and many Protestants use this Catholic prayer. We also pray to Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Trinity even though the vast majority of the Bible directs prayers to God the Father. We have a Creed we pray which is called the Apostles Creed. And we pray parts of the Bible in the Rosary, including words in passages about Mary. Catholics consider all of the Bible as being of great value.

​

 

[ozso]

Since you are clearly not a type of Protestant who has any use for tradition preserved outside of the pages of the Bible as you know it, how do you even know what is or isn't a part of "original Christianity" without the Biblical canon, which for people involved in western Christianity explicitly means without the Roman Catholic Church, since they were the only ecclesiastical game in town that far west by the time of the Reformation (the Celts, Visigoths, etc. having converted from their original Christianities centuries earlier)? The East has other things to look to (Alexandria, the Pešitta, etc.) such that if the West had never adopted the canon that it did, things would likely still be the same (read: one isn't in 'reaction' to the other), whereas for the Reformation in particular, nothing that it does or that initially comes out of it makes sense without viewing the RCC as its immediate backdrop and context (read: one absolutely is in 'reaction' to the other). Luther or even earlier proto-Reformationists like Hus certainly weren't starting with the Ethiopian broader canon (let alone any aspect of Christianity there outside of its scriptural canon, of course) and working backwards to whittle away at it, that's for darn sure!

Patristics.

 

[ozso]

Jesus was at times specific in the prayers he taught us:
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

But certainly there are a number of prayers, Jesus being a practicing Jew would have prayed the Psalms. And in the Psalms there are a wide variety of types of Psalms, including those that address angels in Heaven.

Psalm 103:20 is the only one directed to angels. Others mention angels, but they're all directed to God.

Of course Heaven was not then open to the Saints when the Psalms were composed. Jesus taught us the Our Father, Catholics also have a prayer that we sometimes say with the Our Father: "For thine it the kingdom . . ." and many Protestants use this Catholic prayer. We also pray to Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Trinity even though the vast majority of the Bible directs prayers to God the Father. We have a Creed we pray which is called the Apostles Creed. And we pray parts of the Bible in the Rosary, including words in passages about Mary. Catholics consider all of the Bible as being of great value.

Thanking God for Mary isn't the same as praying to her in lieu of God, thinking she's going to relay it to Jesus and then he'll fulfill it because he turned water into wine at Mary's request. That's man-made mythos.

 

[Valletta]

Psalm 103:20 is the only one directed to angels. Others mention angels, but they're all directed to God.

Thanking God for Mary isn't the same as praying to her in lieu of God, thinking she's going to relay it to Jesus and then he'll fulfill it because he turned water into wine at Mary's request. That's man-made mythos.

Don't make up stories. Please keep conversations respectful. God is all powerful.

 

[dzheremi]

Patristics.

So you follow the fathers to understand what was present in early Christianity and what was not, then? Is that what this answer means? Because we find in the fathers all of this stuff that you have brought up as being subsequent to the writing of the scriptures or however you exactly put it with the idea that it's somehow detrimental to their being the true belief of the early church, like Christ being explicitly called God (that's in the epistles of St. Ignatius, who was a disciple of St. John), St. Mary being Theotokos (that's all over all of the fathers, really; St. Athanasius the Apostolic, St. Ephrem, St. John Chrysostom, etc., and again, in the earliest hymn dedicated to St. Mary as Theotokos, "Beneath Thy Protection", found in a Coptic Nativity liturgy dated to c. 250), and so on. So that's a little odd to read.

 

[dzheremi]

Thanking God for Mary isn't the same as praying to her in lieu of God, thinking she's going to relay it to Jesus and then he'll fulfill it because he turned water into wine at Mary's request. That's man-made mythos.

I'm sorry, but who ever did anything in lieu of doing the other thing? It's been years now since I went to one, but I did attend literally hundreds of RC masses in my time in that particular Church, and I don't remember even once it being voiced or even hinted at that we pray or are to pray to St. Mary or any saint in lieu of praying to God. It was always in addition to, like in the stereotypical example of having been given a penitential act to perform as part of reconciliation, e.g., "say 10 Hail Marys, 10 Our Fathers, etc." (or whatever they'd actually say in this context; I should clarify that I never received any such instruction like this, but the stereotype is there, perhaps applying to people in other times and places or even just other parts of the world).

When you post things like this it really does seem like you're straining to get your anti-Catholic prejudices to fit reality, and I say that despite the obvious irony that I know exists in having it come from an ex-Catholic who of course has more than enough disagreements with the RCC himself (why else would I have left? It's not a light choice to make, especially not to end up where I have where I'm basically the only OO person active on this website, which sadly seems to mirror our visibility in the West), so please don't think that this is somehow "Catholics vs. Protestants" or something, at least not for all of us. I just don't like misrepresentations based on what it seems like to someone who has never practiced it being brought up as though they are facts. Anyone could do that. I was raised Presbyterian, so technically I could say what Protestantism seems like to me based on my extremely faded memories of what Protestantism was like when I was in it (1980s to the early 1990s, when there was a palpable shift and basically a schism in our little neighborhood church when the elderly traditional pastor retired and was replaced by a man who had obviously been influenced by the flashy neo-Evangelical approach which was popular at the time -- think Benny Hinn et al.), but that wouldn't necessarily reflect what those people are doing and why. You'd have to ask them if you want an insider's perspective, which seems like an incredibly common sense thing to do from where I am sitting, yet for some reason when it comes to RCism in particular, it is enough that it seems a certain way to someone somewhere. Well isn't that grand. It's a way to make "When did you stop beating your wife?" into a quasi-theological argument, basically. Make them answer for things they don't do to begin with, so that you can still hold them guilty by implication no matter what they actually say, because that's just them trying to deny what is obvious to 'everyone' who looks at what they do. Pretty lame.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Holy crap this thread really exploded. What are we talking about? Not going to read 50+ pages of replies give me the gist of it.

 

[The Liturgist]

What are examples of intent and sacrifice in Christian worship?

Intent is a conscious decision to worship; more specifically, to engage in adoration, also due only to God. We can and should love, admire and appreciate our wives, children, parents, friends and relatives and the Blessed Virgin Mary in every way possible, but adoration is reserved for God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

In the Christian religion, the sacrifice, whether it’s a sacrifice made by God for us as. Martin Luther argued, or a sacrifice we make in anamnesis (memorial, remembrance, recapitulation, literally, “putting yourself in the moment”) of the sacrifice of Christ our True God on the Cross, as the early church and the Orthodox, Catholics, Assyrians and notably, the Anglicans and some Lutherans believe, is the Eucharist, which is to say Holy Communion. The Lord’s Supper is described in a majority of ancient texts as a “bloodless and rational sacrifice.”

This is why the Palmarian Church of today and the ancient Collyridians of the fourth century were guilty of idolatry concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary: because they say the she along with Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and they offer the sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper to her as well as to the Lord. It is called the Lord’s Supper for a reason, that being that it is from and to God, hence the phrase in the Byzantine (Eastern Orthodox and Greek Catholic) versions of the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil, “Thine own of Thine own, we offer unto Thee, on behalf of All, and for All.” It is thus an offering specifically to God through the person of Christ, accomplished with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

 

[The Liturgist]

Holy crap this thread really exploded. What are we talking about? Not going to read 50+ pages of replies give me the gist of it.

With your permission I will send you a PM.

 

[The Liturgist]

Patristics.

If you care about Patristics you should study the writings of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and also St. Athanasius (On The Incarnation) which would clear all of this up.