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."
In what respect is there any wiggling?
I pinged Quix because this is what I was talking about when non-Catholics try to jam what they think we teach down our throats and then attack not what we teach but what they think we teach.
This is a very precise teaching. It is spelled out in remarkable detail by Aquinas.
HOWEVER, it relies on a very precise "metaphysics", that is, explanation of what things are.
For example, we do not think a thing is what it is made of. Neither do most people.
My frequent examples are of a radiator used as a boat mooring anchor and or a wedding ring.
Once we toss an old iron radiator into the bay, with a chain and a mooring line and buoy attached, we cease to call it a radiator. We say, "Okay now approach the mooring from downwind," NOT "approach the radiator."
Suppose someone has a gold ring on his index finger. Someone asks,"Aren't wedding rings supposed to go on the ring finger of the left hand?" The ring wearer says, "One ring to rule them all and in the darkn..... wait, get a hold of yourself ... it's not a wedding ring. I am not married. I just like the look of it (and the way it turns me invisible -- wait. You SAW me? Darn, better take it back to the shop.)"
Take one young girl. Put a girl scout uniform on her. Is she a girl scout? Not until she's taken the secret oath and sold cookies and all the rest. IS she physically different before and after she does those things? No,but now she's a REAL girl scout.
This is not about wiggling.
It's just that non-Catholics who think a thing is what it's made of and looks like don't think clearly about what a thing is. So they call it wiggle room.
No substances were changed in the writing of this post.
As former clergy-D00d, I know you preach and teach and counsel your guts out and commend 'em to God. It is He who saves.
Exactly, I just posted it to maybe get some lurker to think. People get boxed in to their routines. IMHO especially catholics. The mass has many attendees but few seem to even sing. The life of faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ can be so rewarding.
What your analysis fails to reckon is the reading of the Torah. It was read out loud to the people assembled, every seven years. In part, YHWH's reason for this command was so that the children born between readings would hear the Torah. That either means that there is some magical work effecting these children, imbuing them with some mysterious substance of faith, or that the Torah (in it's natural form and language) is simple enough for everyone, including children, to understand - at least in it's basic message (spiritual milk v. meat)...
It seems to me that, in order to come to your conclusion, the Father had to have intentionally lead the Hebrews to abstain from cannibalism of any kind, from the very basic level that even a child could understand... only to change that precept by way of Christ's words- Even though the Torah is set in stone, and is unchangeable. Why would YHWH set such a trap; one which by it's nature assures the death of the very people He had declared Himself to?
There is no doubt that the new covenant is a furthering of revelation, but the precepts laid out in it, by reason of the unchangeable eternal Torah, must be built upon the the works of the past. Ergo, interpretations which run counter to the Torah cannot be true.
Christ's message (to include all that comes after Him in His Name) cannot change Torah, else He is not the Christ. Your argument is with the eternal Words of YHWH, not with me.
I deny that. And the proofs used to declare such a thing are tenuous (document-wise), at best. The only early Christians that we will agree upon are those found in the Bible... And they were Torah keepers.
Would this notion of the unchangeable Torah relate to circumcision or to "keeping Kosher". Is there a kind of rank among precepts?
The other general, sort of sniffing around the margins before we dash off to get lost in the woods, question is would you be so kind as to crank your way a little bit into the "I have come to fulfill the law," logion?
And presumably not all the laws pertaining to lustration or even to harvesting were one's IHS observed.
I'm not contending. I'm just trying to get an idea of the lay of the land. (My half-blind albino Opus Dei monks will come in and clean your clock later ... ;-) )
Torah keepers?
Are you kidding? Peter’s dream of the sheet, Judaizers, works of the law: any of this ringing a bell for you?
Making up things as one goes along is no way to carry on a rational inquiry.
"Both", and "no", respectively. And bear with me, as this is a fairly new line of thinking for me, still subject to change. That is, my thinking is subject to change, not the principle (the letter v. the spirit of the Law, and all that).
The other general, sort of sniffing around the margins before we dash off to get lost in the woods, question is would you be so kind as to crank your way a little bit into the "I have come to fulfill the law," logion?
Does fulfilling the Law change the Law? Having kept the speed limit once, can one then forego the keeping of the speed limit?
And presumably not all the laws pertaining to lustration or even to harvesting were one's IHS observed.
In order to be the perfect lamb for sacrifice, He had to keep the Torah perfectly. Else He makes His Father's Word null. Since He is the embodiment of His Father's Word, that seems impossible. And He is our perfect example, so how can one emulate Christ without the keeping of Torah as a precept?
As to harvesting and lustration, which law(s) are you referring to?
Peter's dream, by his own interpretation, was not about Kosher. It was about gentiles.
Judaizers, IMHO (and without offense meant) look more like y'all to me.
As to works of the law, it has always been thus: Saved by grace... From Abraham onward.
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) 1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
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.
There was no metaphor...It was literal...But it was spiritual, not physical...
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.”
Jesus gave his flesh, on the Cross, not for you to digest...It's spiritual...
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Why did they say that??? Because they knew Jesus couldn't give them his flesh to eat...
But you guys on the other hand say, Yes he can give us his flesh to eat...
They had no idea of the spiritual application any more than you guys do...
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
Physically impossible...Everything goes out in the draught, as Jesus said...Unless it is spiritual...
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.
A little nibble??? Or 3 meals a day??? Once a year???
1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
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
There was no bread and wine in the chapter and it wasn't a metaphor...It was a spiritual command...The people that left didn't accept Jesus as their Messiah anyway...
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).
These people were not disciples in the way that you apparently picture them...They were disciples in that they followed him...NOT that they believed he was God...Jesus lost none of his believers when they left...
Never under-estimate the ability of Rome to contradict itself without blinking - "unequivocally."
"...Christ is present in the Eucharist not only with everything that makes Him man, but with all that makes Him this human being. He is therefore present with all His physical properties, hands and feet and head and human heart. He is present with His human soul, with His thoughts, desires and human affections. He becomes present in the Eucharist by means of transubstantiation.
I am not addressing the word "literally" because of its vagueness.
Father Hardon doesn't think "literal" is "vague"...
"Nothing in the context of (Jesus') words indicates He was speaking figuratively, whereas everything shows He meant it to be taken literally."
Now that's not true...You put the verses in 'bold' that you want to emphasize...
I have read the chapter many times and have read the scriptures in the other chapters and books that verify what I claim to be true...
Christ is “present” but undetectable by any of the senses except the word “chew” has great significance, it “is” the “actual” (the Catholic Encyclopedia says “literal”) body of Christ but has to be “transubstantiated”, by which is meant what?
Shall we examine the meaning of “substance” to see if that enlightens?
“Suppose someone has a gold ring on his index finger”
Stay out of this neighborhood or your finger will go missing with the ring still on it!
“Take one young girl. Put a girl scout uniform on her”
Hasn't that caused enough trouble?
“Once we toss an old iron radiator into the bay, with a chain and a mooring line and buoy attached, we cease to call it a radiator”
You get your leg caught in that chain and your friends (both of them) will be calling it Mad Dawg Mooring and you'll radiate no moor.
“It's just that non-Catholics who think a thing is what it's made of and looks like don't think clearly about what a thing is. So they call it wiggle room.”
I understand. If you're Catholic I can serve a hot dog to you and say it's Kobe beef at $75 a pound even though in every way it really “is” a hot dog and no part of it ever did wiggle.
Leave a generous tip for good meal.
Most of such efforts were carried on in FREEPMAIL.
However, I’m skeptical you’d have seen the truth had they been on an open thread.
Okay, so now you’re saying they weren’t Torah observant....
Which is it?
Thanks Notwithstanding.
Thank you for playing our game. Unfortunately you started out by breaking the rules by bringing an unofficial source. But we have a lovely parting gift.
Johnny, what do we have for our contestant?
We have this lovely Ave Maria prayed with special intensity by Mad Dawg while he breaks the world record for headache pain.
Well, that about wraps it up for this time. So long, and join us next week for “Dispute That Question!”
[Theme music rises, fade to commercial.]
How convenient.
This is of particular significance....
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM
1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares: It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.204
The Catholic church teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic church at vatican .va itself, does indeed teach that the bread and the wine are actually CONVERTED or TRANSFORMED into different substance.
So, any Catholic who denies this denies the teaching of their own church.
Look who's poorly catechized now.
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.