Posted on 04/12/2011 7:55:27 AM PDT by bkaycee
Can a born again Christian be a member of a cult and be involved in idol worship? I once thought this was an impossibility until it happened to me. Now I understand why Jesus warned us that, in the end times, there would be an appearance of great signs and miracles that would deceive even the elect, if possible. I confess I have been seduced by signs and miracles associated with apparitions of Mary, and I offer my testimony so others may be warned and delivered.
Until recently I was serving as Director of Public Relations for the Queen of Peace Center in Dallas, Texas. This non-profit organization disseminates information and messages from Marian apparitions in Medjugorje and around the world. I co-authored a full page ad that was published in the June 25, 1993, Dallas Morning News at a cost of $10,000. This add announced "Mary's" prescription for peace and listed locations of her recent appearances. It also listed phone numbers to call for up-to-day recorded messages of Mary's latest apparitions, such as the one in Dallas (214) 233-MARY. I once thought it was special to be the only non-Catholic on the Queen of Peace board . . . that is, until I met Mike Gendron and his wife, Jane.
A Divine Appointment
Neighbors and close friends of mine knew I was seriously contemplating becoming Roman Catholic. They told me that Mike had been a Roman Catholic for 37 years and was now a pastor at a non-denominational church in the Dallas area. They said he understood many of the issues involved in being Roman Catholic and could help me with my decision. I looked forward to meeting both Mike and his wife, not for my sake, but for theirs. I felt certain the information I had collected about "Our Lady's apparitions" in Medjugorje would surely lead them back home to the "true" (Roman Catholic) church. Providentially it appeared, I attended a Queen of Peace board meeting the night before we met and asked the board to pray for this lost pastor and his wife, who had fallen away. When I arrived at their door the next morning, I first introduced myself, before returning to my car for the large stack of books and newspapers I had brought to persuade them. The materials would help explain what was happening in Medjugorje and how the Virgin Mary would help change their lives.
Confronted by Contradictions
After we met, they showed me a film titled Catholicism: Crisis of Faith. This film lovingly and objectively contrasted how the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church contradicts the teachings of the Sacred Scriptures. Mike would stop the film after each segment for my questions and comments. Initially, I was argumentative and felt uneasy and rather adamant about what I was witnessing. Mike realized he had forgotten to pray before starting the film and asked if we could ask God to make His truth clear, and that all deception would be exposed. After the prayer my whole countenance changed.
Each question I asked, Mike validated his answers using Vatican II documents and an official Roman Catholic catechism. It was amazing to me how Roman Catholic teaching contradicts the very Word of God. Question after question, he would bring the Bible over to me and knell to show me verses in context. His servant's demeanor and patient, understanding heart helped in unraveling falsehood after falsehood. There wasn't a question I could have asked him that would have provoked anger. As a reflection of our Lord, this man allowed Jesus to pull the scales away from my eyes.
There were three things in the film and our discussion that were most alarming to me. First, a church in South America has Mary placed on a crucifix rather than Christ. It reminded me of my visit to Our Lady of Guadeloupe Cathedral in downtown Dallas where Mary is positioned as the focal point at the alter and the crucifix is placed in another part of the church. These two scenes made me realize idolatry is practiced within the church.
Second, the Roman Catholic Catechism by Rev. William Cogan, now in its 44th year of print, has altered the 10 commandments of God. The 2nd commandment given to Moses reads, "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or in the earth beneath or in the water under the earth" (Exodus 20:4). The Roman Catholics have deleted this commandment but still came up with ten by splitting the 10th one into two separate commands. "You shall not covet your neighbor's good; and you shall not covet your neighbor's wife" (Exodus 20:17). I was reminded of the scriptural warnings for those who add to or subtract from the Bible.
Third, Mike told me the only place in the Bible in which the queen of heaven was referred to was in the Book of Jeremiah. He encouraged me to study the passage and it would expose another false doctrine concerning Mary. Anyone who is familiar with the prayers and meditations of the rosary can tell you that in one of the mysteries Christ supposedly crowned Mary the queen of heaven after she was assumed into heaven. Neither of these events have scriptural validity, but I had decided to blindly accept these doctrines because all of the other meditations on the life of Christ were verified by Scripture.
The Queen of Heaven
After returning home, I looked in the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible for the passage in Jeremiah 44. Here, the Lord was angered by the wickedness of the people choosing to serve other gods. The people refused to listen to the Lord. Instead, they would "burn sacrifices to the Queen of Heaven and pour out libations to her." The woman "made for her sacrificial cakes in her image and poured out libations to her?" (Jeremiah 44:17, 19).
In Hebrew the word for queen has reference to "the heavenly handiwork" or "the stars of heaven." The reference might be to Ishtar, the goddess of love and fertility, who is identified with the Venus Star and is actually entitled "Mistress of Heaven." (The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 975)
My head was spinning and filled with questions after reading this. Doesn't Mary usually appear with stars for her crown? Who then is the woman in Revelation 12:3-6? And most importantly, why would the Roman Catholic Church give the mother of Jesus the title of a pagan goddess? Had I been promoting the ministry of a pagan goddess whose messages were inconsistent with the Bible? Indeed her messages do contradict the Bible. In fact, she speaks of another gospel, another plan of salvation that nullifies and opposes the all sufficient sacrifice of Jesus. The apparition of Fatima said, "You have seen Hell where the souls of poor sinners go, so save them, God wishes to establish in the world, devotion to my Immaculate Heart." The apostle Paul condemned anyone, even an angel from heaven, who would dare preach a different way to be saved other than through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (Galatians 1:6-10).
As for the woman described in Revelation, she is not Mary, the mother of Jesus, but God's chosen people, the Jews. When the passage in chapter 12 is read in context with the rest of the book, and Genesis 37:9-10, this clearly refers to the nation Israel. God fulfills His promise to the Jews, by protecting them in the desert during 3 1/2 years of tribulation.
I later realized my prayers to Mary and the saints, the reciting of rosaries and chaplets of divine mercy, and the wearing of Marian medals and scapulars had taken my focus off of Jesus. I had allowed doctrines of the Roman Catholic church to do the very thing Saint Paul warned against, "But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." (2 Cor. 11:3).
An Angel of Light
Recently, a person whom I love dearly, and who has a "Marian devotion" asked me, "Why are you bothering the people who are already good people instead of worrying about those who are lost?" The answer came to me the other evening as the Lord continues to guide me through His sacred Word. Saint Paul wrote that "Satan masquerades as an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). We know the mother of Jesus would never oppose her Son, and since the apparitions do just that, they could very well be Satan masquerading as Mary. Saint Paul also wrote, "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them . . . everything exposed by the light becomes visible" (Ephesians 5:11-14). Therefore, I feel called to expose these attempts by the evil one to divert people's devotion away from Jesus. The most authoritative way to do this is with the light of God's Holy Word. My new test for truthfulness is -- if it does not agree with the Scriptures then it must be rejected.
Freedom in the Truth
Now that I have torn down the altar in my bedroom, where I knelt and prayed to St. Anthony of Padua each night, and now that I have placed my rosaries, scapular and medals away, I have found a new freedom. The truth really does set people free! I have found special peace in knowing Jesus alone is my Savior, and not co-redemptrix with His mother. The Holy Spirit continues to lead me into all truth and is now the only teacher I need (1 John 2:27).
To all my precious friends who I have encouraged to seek Mary and to obey the misleading messages of her apparitions, I pray these Scriptures would minister to you -- "And it came about while He said these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, 'Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts at which you nursed.' But He said, 'On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the Word of God and observe it." (Luke 11:27-28)
This article was submitted by a former Director for a "Mary, Queen of Peace Center."
bttt
Is your, presumably, perfect knowledge and interpretation of Holy Scripture the only correct one? Does it agree with the Calvinists on the thread? How about the UFO angel view?
Thanks for your recent posts on this thread.
As I was reading them, I recalled the Ignatian “Presupposition” re: dialogue:
“....let it be presupposed that every good Christian is to be more ready to save his neighbor’s proposition than to condemn it. If he cannot save it, let him inquire how he means it; and if he means it badly, let him correct him with charity. If that is not enough, let him seek all suitable means to bring him to mean it well,....”
I think you have applied this Ignatian rule, MD, even if by some chance you were not familiar with it.
How we offer (deliver) our message is vital to its reception.
Again, thanks for your recent posts here.
Nah, Just playing with someone who'd call a "mom" Dude.
He is not his sect’s defender!
He is not his sect’s keeper!
Be careful when posed with an obiter dictum from PNSN.
Always so slick and hard to pin down.
His sect’s manual must cover this quite well, as it seems to be among the best of his sect’s techniques.
INDEED.
THX for your kind reply.
I wasn't talking about any incapacity in God's word. I was talking about the incapacity in humans to discuss God's word.
So is Mary; so is devotion to Mary.
But when we get right up to that point, that’s when the daffinary or whatever it is comes out. So the conversation stops. The well is poisoned and what is an important distinction to us is cast aside.
It is as though the maxim of your side is, “The more delicate the operation, the blunter the instrument to be used.”
Now, maybe that’s not right. But even if it’s wrong it ought to be useful data for finding a way to communicate.
I think there is SOME validity to those assertions.
Speaking of which . . . if we are going to talk about accuracy in communications it is
DAFFYNITIONARY vs DAFFINARY
LOL.
I don’t think that’s an adequate or comprehensive explanation for when I use DAFFYNITIONARY. It may cover part of the geography. I don’t think it covers a majority part of the geography.
I think a lot of us Proddys get fairly exasperated trying to communicate with RC’s at all.
Except with you privately and some on threads . . . and for 1-3 others very rarely . . . the other RC’s simply seem absolutely incapable of or totally unwilling to engage meaningfully with us.
They refuse to deal with the evidence when it reaches a certain level of uncomfortable, difficult, challenging to deal with. They just run away or race on by with great pontifications about endless straw dogs and no small amount of blaming and personal assaults.
Whoop-T-Do!
I try. I really think that some of us and many of them do not care about this. Again, like the Muslims, they are more interested in saying, “We are not like you; go away,” than in entertaining the possibility that there might be some common ground upon which we might build.
Pay attention now; the usage of the word flesh is symbolic. I suggest you search Scripture for the use of the word "flesh" and make the claim it is not used symbolically.
NOPE.
About as miserably pathetic as the rest . . .
It is nice to see the struggle TOWARD wit, however.
Serious answer: Only if one is a revisionist. :D
I can in no wise believe that a document written a thousand years after the fact can bear a better witness than those written by persons on the actual ground, or those in close proximity thereto.
We see this sort of "correction" happening even now, right before our eyes, with regard to Hitler's Germany. Already the numbers are being softened, atrocities are being denied... By my grandson's generation it will be but a dim memory, and the revisionists will have their way with it... all the sheep in the world will be yearning to return to the calm pastures of Germany's glorious past... and that with multiple sources of media, and a strong and vocal nation of survivors and their sons and daughters. They will not forget. But the rest of the world will. All that in four generations (if not sooner).
Look at what the history books have done to the majestic rise and purpose of the United States! Have you read a current history book? It's appalling!
How much easier to cherry-pick desired results from a thousand years away, and especially so when the lion's share of the record is in the hands of the victor, the author has a predisposed bias, and the victims being all but annihilated a millenia ago, their books and records burned, their progeny nothing but the barest threads?
No. I will take the first witnesses at their word.
Perhaps y’all could stir up a collective multi-parish effort . . . to help one of your own out.
They appear to be in desperate need of ocean tankers full of affirmation.
I’m a little concerned that they might break both their arms with such self-inflicted back-patting.
You might want to strictly screen any priests involved, however.
We Proddys wouldn’t want anything kinky to evolve from the supportive effort.
Novel attempt to apply it here. But a non sequitur.
I’m not interested in y’all going away.
I love intense dialogues.
INDEED.
WELL PUT.
Thx.
You have to realize that there are many people on this thread who have had multiple sects changes.
Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).
John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.
John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.
John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?"…
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.