Apparitions Exposed!

Proclaiming the Gospel ^ | former Director for a "Mary, Queen of Peace Center."

[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."

[the_conscience]

Which version of the OED?

If version 2 is slightly different than version 1 which authority is binding?

And what if the OED fails to to define a particular meaning to a word that is in common usage. Would that prove that meaning is not applied to that word?

[Mad Dawg]

In as few words as possible: the doctrine of the Eucharist is not confined to transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is about what sort of change it is, from what, to what, quomodo, like that. But the whole shebang is WAY WAY too big to comprehend in words.

One of the sad things about the non-Catholic focus on this is that so much other great stuff is not discussed. Also they, focussing their attack on this one thing, then say we don't have anything else to say about the Mass.

[Quix]

Mad Dawg was aware of at least most of those efforts.

[Quix]

Hmmmmmmmmm

[D-fendr]

Your post helps explain why the central word “worship” has such different understandings.

I think its too big a divide, most certainly for those not even sincerely wanting to know.

[Quix]

Just plenty on my plate.

[Mad Dawg]

The last question is the most relevant, IMHO. I am not going to pronounce on the validity of this or that authority with a principle. Let's wait until we get some. I already sketched my list, and for those who really want this to be something more than the usual juvenile nonsense around here even the discussion about which authorities 'get to play' could be useful and informative.

As to the last Question: The OED is a descriptive not a prescriptive work. So if there were a meaning of "Shizzle" that were not in the OED, that would be a defect of the OED.

But doctrine is prescriptive, not descriptive. That fact that there are Arians or Nestorians does not mean the doctrinal authorities are deficient because they don't embrace those errors. So the question doesn't fly because of the difference between descriptive and prescriptive.

Now, seriously, is this going to be rope-a-dope or is anyone going to step up?

This isn't about "Mad Dawg is sew kewel." It's about trying, against all reasonable hope, actually to settle something or at least to display the question in all it's gory majesty so that the disagreements are clear.

I long for the day when nobody who has been here for a while will allege that we claim a "physical" change.

[Notwithstanding]

I have decided to switch from the CFAYT mode.

It is such a bumpy ride in that mode, but it can be prudent and necessary for traction when faced with such deep trenches of muck.

[Mad Dawg]

Fr needs a ‘Like’ button.

[count-your-change]

“What is the “substance” of Kobe Beef? What is that by virtue of which we call it “Kobe Beef”. Compare and contrast to the substance of count-your-change.”

I don't know, the menus I read say, “Keep the line moving and no spitting on the floor”.
The substance of the count is summed up in the tag line.

[the_conscience]

But doctrine is prescriptive, not descriptive.

So if I understand correctly, doctrine is about rules not understanding?

I long for the day when nobody who has been here for a while will allege that we claim a "physical" change.

The fact that you want others to play only "medieval metaphysics" seems rather selfish.

[Mad Dawg]

LOL

Substance Nazi: No substance for YOU!

I have to nap to push the approaching headache away.

[roamer_1]

Though I certainly see through the glass darkly, too.

Oh, so do I. I don't have this figured out yet either. But the Torah is unequivocal about the fact that no one can add or subtract anything... That the Torah is eternal. So it goes without saying that anything that adds or subtracts from the Law (the sense of the word is "instruction" more than "law," in the western sense) cannot be of YHWH. That should be the first measurement. Every time that Christ said, "It is written," he was pointing to the Old Testament.

[count-your-change]

When we both return I’ll go into substance in a less vain vein.

[D-fendr]

Sheesh, more distraction - again.

Text in blockquotes is your clue that it is a quotation. A blockquote means "quoting here..."

A block quotation (also known as a long quotation or extract) is a quotation in a written document, that set off from the main text as a paragraph, or block of text, and typically distinguished visually using indentation and a different typeface or smaller size quotation. (This is in contrast to a setting it off with quotation marks in a run-in quote.) Block quotations are used for the long quotation. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends using a block quotation when extracted text is 100 words or more, or at least eight lines.
- Source.

If you had known this, you would know that I was quoting the article which I linked to in reply to the original poster, blockquoted and referred to a second time and blockquoted and referred to you as a section a third time.

Or, had you read the discussion before you jumped in, you would also have known it.

You certainly know it now.

If you wish to argue just to argue, I suggest you start by explaining why your church welcomes self-proclaimed pagans while you criticize Church dogma concerning Mary.

That argument would entertain me. This one doesn't.

[RnMomof7]

Sola scriptura is anti-biblical.

Define sola scriptura

[Mad Dawg]

Look: The problem that I see is that when people want to dispute with us about the Mass, they all go to transubstantiation. Fine. That's not the most interesting or most important thing to say about the Mass, but it is something.

The problem arises that people then say something like, "Sister Mary Sadistica in third grade said we are eating IHS's toenails! EEW!"

SO then our side says, "That's not what the Church's teaching is."
And then the other side says, "Sez who? You goin' up against Sr. Mary Sadistica. She's got a ruler, y'know...."

IN other words, if were going to spend time debating this but of Catholic teaching. it seems to me the first thing to so is to agree on WHAT the teaching is.

And yes that would involve SOME understanding. And one would hope more and more understanding.

But right now MY problem is that somebody keeps saying, "The Catholic Church's teaching is X. And it stinks!" I'm just asking to clarify one step at a time. Can we clear up whether the teaching is X or not before we address whether or not it stinks?

In practice, the more we discuss it FRUITFULLY, the greater understanding will occur.

But nothing of any value will happen as long as somebody insists that the official teaching of the church is something other than what it is.

Now, as to medieval teaching. There are plenty of half way respectable philosophers and theologians alive and teaching right now who think that Aristotle by way of Aquinas is all the metaphysics anybody needs. Feser (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/) is one. So it may be medieval but it's not dead yet.

Also, the scheme is not too very complicated. (Nothing like Kant, say.) While the official dogma does not confine us to Aquinas, looking at Aquinas is as good a way as any to get a grip on what the limits and high points of the dogma are.

But I did not rule out stuff other than Aquinas. I just said he and the relevant councils were in -- since we're trying to determine NOT what the RIGHT doctrine is, but only what the Catholic Church teaches it to be.

Again, though we may already have hit the point of diminishing returns here, the idea is to agree ONLY enough so that when your side says, "The Church teaches such-and-such and their wrong!" We can answer, "Yes, we Do teach such-and-such; you gotta problem with that?"

That would be a GREAT improvement over the current "The Church teaches thus-and-so," being answered with "No, we don't either," which is where we are most of the time these days.

[Mad Dawg]

Define sola scriptura

IMHO that's exactly the right comeback. FIRST let's nail down what we're arguing about, THEN let's argue about it.

[the_conscience]

While the official dogma does not confine us to Aquinas, looking at Aquinas is as good a way as any to get a grip on what the limits and high points of the dogma are.

Well there you go. We can officially rule out any appeal to authority.

Maybe if you started with the teleology of the Mass we could work backwards.

[Quix]

A worthy, even necessary intermediate goal.

I do have a nagging . . . question . . . sense . . .

to many Proddys . . .

the hair splitting

whether re

the ‘real’ Presence, substance, form, etc.

or

adoration, veneration, worship

comes across as tediously erected rationalizations constructed only to support preconceived biases and dogma.

Even for RC’s . . .

HOW DO YOU “KNOW” . . . supporting faith, trust, belief,

such are NOT merely hokum rationalizations?