Apparitions Exposed!

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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."

Taking it as spiritual is impossible in the context of the Biblical verses.

First -- Christ first talks about manna in the desert, then in John 6:32, true bread from heaven and bread of life of the future (6:52)

He is not talking of spiritual food, because see the reaction of the people he is talking to The Jews made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

In terms of the elements of the Lord’s Supper . . . imho, I suspect that many Proddys find that a distinction without a difference.

I don't mean this as a nyah nyah, but to us they seem incoherent and to misrepresent us. YOU may find the difference between "real" and "physical to be a distinction without a difference. (Are angels "real"? Are they "physical"? Is God "real"? Is He "physical"? You see no difference?) Then you do not understand what we mean, and are not able to criticize it.

Just as we find . . . no significant FUNCTIONAL, BEHAVIORAL, ATTITUDINAL DIFFERENCE between adore, venerate, worship.

That argues a coarseness of vision. Adore means "pray to". Over time it has come to mean "pray without words to". Venerate means "to show respect", as for the aged, the 'venerable'. Worship means "to attribute worth." As used these days, it means to attribute ultimate worth. But is wasn't so long ago that rich people were addressed with "your worship."

Again if you see no difference between the respect I pay a child and the respect I pay my nation, that doesn't mean there's no difference there. And I can't be held answerable to one who doesn't or won't look and insists there's nothing there.
===========

I think I remarked to you years ago . . . that the two camps come from EXTREMELY DIFFERENT REALITIES. IIRC, you go at some length into What is “real,” etc. I mean above, “realities” in the sense that our representations of what we perceive in our own cognitions and mental space, emotions, spirit . . . one might say . . . body, mind, soul, spirit—the totality of our representations of what we perceive and experience . . . THOSE representations are EXTREMELY DIFFERENT IN FUNDAMENTAL WAYS.

We are prepared to discuss those differences. But your sides insists it knows what we mean and that we MUST mean real in their way, and then turns and says we look at things differently. It's, again, incoherent.

It is as if someone were to say, "I do not understand what you mean, I think differently; therefore you REALLY think the way I think."

What am I to make of that?
===========

I think I remarked to you years ago . . . that the two camps come from EXTREMELY DIFFERENT REALITIES. IIRC, you go at some length into What is “real,” etc.

I mean above, “realities” in the sense that our representations of what we perceive in our own cognitions and mental space, emotions, spirit . . . one might say . . . body, mind, soul, spirit—the totality of our representations of what we perceive and experience . . . THOSE representations are EXTREMELY DIFFERENT IN FUNDAMENTAL WAYS. I don’t know that the analogies of ET’s vs Humans or Aardvarks vs collies quite gets at it . . . but hints, maybe . . . at the degrees of difference.

Given such horrendous DIFFERENCES in the very substrate, foundation, descriptions, experiences of “REALITY” How can there NOT be such excruciating and intense sparks, conflicts, jangling of sensibilities, incongruence, discord?

I don’t know that any of us are so saintly as to much at all and certainly not easily eradicate such huge spans of DIFFERENCE.

In the period in which non-Catholics think we were doing nothing that wasn't superstitious or cruel, we were discussing "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

Everybody makes fun of this, but this is a question about "physical" v. "real", about modes of being.

We have literally centuries of work on analyzing and thinking about all those things which you mention. And those who do not look at the work, who despise it, who think in one life-time they can accomplish more than hundreds of people doing it full time for centuries, they tell us we're wrong, that we make distinctions without differences.

Because they despise the work already done, they rarely can come up with the vocabulary to discuss the differences. I don't think it's a problem of saintliness or its lack. It's an unwillingness to do the work. (and, truth be told, there are many who don't know the work is there to be done. They proceed entirely on sketchily examined assumptions and assume we do the same.

I remember coming up, after prayer,anguish, and study, with what I thought was a new take on the Baptism of the Lord. Then I found that Cyprian or Cyril or somebody came up with the exact same idea around 1,500 years ago.
===========

My EXPERIENCE is that ALWAYS, the RC side has RUTHLESSLY SHREDDED SUCH EFFORTS and certainly me, in the process.

Backatcha. I came to the RF and found, in the charges of alchemy, that the question was pre-shredded for my convenience. The very insistence that there is no difference between "physical" ("of or pertaining to the realm of physis -- growth", as "nature" is the realm of things that are born - natus) and "real" is already a potential shredding. It becomes actual when our distinction is just thrown away as impermissible.
===========

As to the child-abuse. It is wonderful to me that the same people who note and resent the media's slimy reporting about conservatives go directly to the worst and most sensational of their reporting on this horror and swallow it whole. The accusation against the late Cardinal Bernardin gets front page above the fold. The later retraction by the accuser is forgotten. The current pope writes a letter, it ismischaracterized and blownoutofproportion and broughtup for years. Where do we go to read of the positive steps? And not reading of them your side eagerly and salaciously concludes there are none.

And the judgment your side makes is without logical foundation. We know it's a horror almost beyond imagining. What we don't know is if it's worse than what goes on in school or in other denominations. We just don't know.

So your side guesses and then acts as if the guesses were facts. It's irresponsible in those who claim to want to judge with right judgment.

Anyone who commits such gratuitous and irresponsible errors of thought and then claims to speak of what comes acrossloudand clear is simply incredible to me. I cannot believe him. When the judgment is almost universally bad in matters which I CAN check, why would I believe it in matters I cannot check?
===========

THE INSTITUTION IS purported to be, defended as SAINTLY

There you go again.

We mock the institution. Popes themselves mock the Vatican. WE'RE the ones who say that the"operation of the Holy Spirit" required to make a bishop is "Removal of the Spine." When Napoleon said he meant to destroy the Catholic Church, somebishopor something said, more or less, "Good luck! We've been trying to destroy it for 1800 years."

And with very rare exceptions—probably less than 0.05% of the posts, RC’s do nothing but justify and excuse the INSTITUTION.

Once again, I am stunned at the eagerness to condemn, even to describe, without checking the literature. DO you look at First Things? Do you read Catholic journals? I can't get Twitter to work for some reason,but "The Anchoress" (Justice Scalia's daughter,btw) just linked to articles deploring the venal incompetence of various bishops. This is merely an irresponsible rush to judgment AND a failure toallow us our distinctions. The Church is indefectible ONLY where we NEED for to be. Otherwise she serves mostly as a bad example.
===========

To Proddys, that is OBVIOUS BRAZEN DEMONSTRATED PROOF that SOME RC’s WORSHIP THE INSTITUTION MORE THAN GOD.

And once again, the distinctions that you climare not real turn out tobe critical and the careful thought your side disdains is central.
Some Americans worship the US more than God. That doesn't make the US bad. Some Catholics worship the Church more than God. That's not the Church's desire or fault.

However making that valid argument interferes with the gang-banging, so it is called evasive and hair-splitting.
===========

You close with lamenting that Protestant messengers get killed, regardlessof the facts..

100% backatcha. Look at this perfect well-poisoning. You guys are right to say that we believe in alchemy because YOU do not acknowledge the distinctions we make. You can tell us what we think because, in other words, what we think doesn't matter.

I can, as requested, explain a post and then get mocked for verbosity and evasiveness. Metmom can repeat falsehoods that she previously acknowledged to be false. And then you all can look up with expressions of injured innocence and dare to complain that we are unfair!

Onlyboatbums or Catholics have acknowledged my defense of the OPC. Your side won't take yes for an answer, and complains at every no, all the while telling us what we think and do without consulting the world's fore most experts on what we think and do -- ourselves, or like the little girl in the cartoon whose mother says, "It's broccoli, dear," responds, "I say it's spinach and the hell with it." You guys say that the distinction between physical and real is not important and then insist that when we say 'real' we really mean 'physical' and the hell with it.

There is harsh injustice on both sides of this battle. What do you suggest I do, and what do you offer to do to mitigate 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.