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."
Good points, imho.
I am now entirely confused.
If we want to find out what the rules of major league baseball are, wouldn't we go to the official major league baseball rule book?
If we wanted to talk about how to make them better or to confirm our opinion that they are totally stupid, wouldn't we still want to to to the major league baseball rulebook first?
There are some people who claim that our Eucharistic doctrine includes, for shorthand, Proposition A.
I just want to clarify the question of whether it does include that proposition.
I am not talking about what it SHOULD include or exclude. I am not trying to criticize, favorably or unfavorably,the doctrine.
I am just trying to determine ONE ASPECT of it.
It seems to me the reasonable way to do that is to go to the official doctrinal "rulebooks". Trent dealt with transubstantiation, I believe. So did an earlier Lateran council, I believe. I'm assuming Vatican II says something, but I don't know.
I do know that Aquinas is widely, if not universally, considered to be the premier exponent of transubstantiation. He is also pretty easy to work one's way through. The treatise on the Eucharist is a pretty small part of the Summa (and I happen to be installing the Summa on my hard drive as I type this!)
So this seems to me to be a fair way to approach the question. Even if it's not perfect, it's a start. AND It's flexible because I am open to arguments to accept other authorities.
However, regretfully, because I'd really like us to get started, I don't want to spend any more time on whether my rules for determining what the doctrine, good or bad, actually is.
I hope this is not totally unacceptable.
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?
Presumably whether or not it is hokum and rationalization we will do better if we can reach an understanding about what it actually is than if we are still thrashing around worrying about whether Catholics think they eat IHS's left thumb.
Theologians who do not routinely throw themselves on God's mercy are playing with insanity. Maybe I am a heap of self-deceit. But I am a heap of self-deceit who begs IHS for mercy and help.
Likewise.
I hope you will show EXACTLY what statement I made that contradicts exactly what statement of the catechism. I read what was posted by metmom and saw no contradiction.
I laid out what authorities would be allowed AND left room for NEGOTIATION, not bullying for other sources to be included.
Either play fair or don't play, please. In what exact particulars did I contradict the catechism?
I would guess that the vast majority of books about catholic doctrine are unofficial.
It’s not my problem you can’t square scriptures with your suppositions, anecdotes, and pet doctrines. Your entire line of legalism falls to any biblically literate individual with one word:
Circumcision.
Furthermore, you have no biblical reason to discount Peter’s dream, because while the intent was pertaining to gentiles, the ELEMENTS and DIALOG disprove your assertion in and of themselves.
Your reply regarding Judaizers is nothing but a Pee Wee Herman “i know you are.”
And finally, the part I don’t understand that you can explain for me is how noting Abraham was saved by grace gives any indication what so ever as to practice of Torah observance in the early church.
Okay, but I am so poorly catechized that evidently I do not even read very well. I saw the word "substance," but I was looking for a word like "physical"or "physically" since that is the word under contention.
Can you please show me the sentence which uses the word "physical" or "physically" or something similar? In Catholic theology a substance is what a thing is. It does indeed often have a physical aspect, but, for example, a wedding ring could be silver or platinum, broad or narrow, with or without jewels, and it would still have the substance of "wedding ring."
Further, a ring which Grandma Jane wore only as an ornament could be used as a wedding ring. Then it would no longer be just jewelry but would become a wedding ring. The substance would have changed, even though there was no change in appearance, weight, chemical properties or anything else - in other words, no physical change.
Words like ‘real, substance, nature, essence’ are not complicated terms or concepts and should not be confused with the philosophical wanderings of folks like Aristotle.
Just to kick the flywheel, I think the roamer is wrong (but he thinks I'm wrong, da noive!, so that's okay)
if it were me I would examine what fulfilling the law means and what a NEW covenant might imply.
In thinking about fulfilling the law, I would suggest that our modern distinction between criminal lawand civil (torts 'n stuff) law may not apply to the Bible.
Okay, gotta scoot back to my hill.
Nay, not so, MD. Changing the use of a thing does not change it’s substance, perhaps it’s dsignation or name but a rose by any other name......
At least that seems to be the gist of Catholic Encyclopedia’s discussion of “substance”:
“Substance being a genus supremum, cannot strictly be defined by an analysis into genus and specific difference; yet a survey of the universe at large will enable us to form without difficulty an accurate idea of substance. Nothing is more evident than that things change. It is impossible for anything to be twice in absolutely the same state; on the other hand all the changes are not equally profound. Some appear to be purely external: a piece of wood may be hot or cold, lying flat or upright, yet it is still wood; but if it be completely burnt so as to be transformed into ashes and gases, it is no longer wood; the specific, radical characteristics by which we describe wood have totally disappeared. Thus there are two kinds of changes: one affects the radical characteristics of things, and consequently determines the existence or non-existence of these things; the other in no way destroys these characteristics, and so, while modifying the thing, does not affect it fundamentally. It is necessary, therefore, to recognize in each thing certain secondary realities (see ACCIDENT) and also a permanent fundamentum which continues to exist notwithstanding the superficial changes, which serves as a basis or support for the secondary realities — what, in a word, we term the substance. Its fundamental characteristic is to be in itself and by itself, and not in another subject as accidents are.”
Yes, yes, “not official” but officially correct nonetheless.
I can't imagine disagreeing more!
(I)
In a nutshell, the history of Eucharistic doctrine (as we tell it, anyway) is that ab initio the Church said something like, this is REALLY the body, blood, etc.
Then people said, (a)how can that be;and (b) I don't want to eat blood and gristle and stuff.
So the alleged thinkers had to find a coherent way to find out what they meant. It's a problem: we see that it looks just like bread and wine; we believe it is "truly"or "Really" the B&B. So there was a lot of back and forth, centuries worth. With the recovery of Classical learning and the intellectual ferment that engendered, Aquinas came up with a detailed explanation of 'how it could be.'
But even he writes:
Praestet fides supplementum
Sensuum defectui
in a hymn he wrote for a eucharistic holy day -- faith provides what is needed where the senses fail (to tell us what this is.) All he's doing is saying,in some detail, here's a way to think of something that looks just like bread and wine but is really the B&B.
Now it's not a burden we think every Catholic has to carry to understand Aquinas. We are asked to believe that "that stuff" is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of IHS XP.
But if you want to ask "How can that be?" then we say, "Here's how." So the technical vocabulary is not necessary at ALL. But if you're going to get into it, then you need to speak the same language that the other folks are speaking, or chaos results
(II)
I think ‘real, substance, nature, essence’ are not complicated terms or concepts as long as we keep a certain distance -- as a blade of grass is simple until you get up really close to it.
But around the world for 2,500 - 3,000 years or more there are fundamental statements made about these simple things, like there is no true physicality, everything is made up of little particles, including what we THINK are souls but such things don't exist. And so on.
So if we keep our distance, we can keep our simple blades of grass. But once we get up close, we have stoma and chloroplasts and the whole mess.
(III)
So especially with philosophy and theology. We say "God IS." We say "MaryLou IS." If we look closely, can those two uses of "IS" possibly mean the same thing? Is the 'is-ing' of MaryLou the same kind of thing or activity as that of God?
We Say MaryLou is a human -- and therefore she has certain rights. What is a human? Was MaryLou a human 30 seconds after sperm united with ovum, or will she not be one until she's been sucking air for 6 months. Does she stop being human if she gets Alzheimer's? Under what circumstances can a human rightly be understood to forfeit his rights?
Do you have to look like a human to be a human?
Now, again, You can have a complete (or very nearly) spiritual life, life of prayer and praise and all the rest without boring into those questions.
But once you say, the Catholic (or the Zwinglian, or Hookerian, or whatever) doctrine of the Eucharist is an abomination, then I think you have invited Dracula the theologian into your house, and you have to let him bring his trunk of jargon with him.
What exactly does "spiritual" mean, anyway? How could there be a physical body and a "spiritual body",as St.Paul says? And, this is VERY relevant, is the B&B which those stupid Catholics claim the bread and wine become, is it/are they the -- what St.Paul calls -- the psukikon B&B or the pneumatikon body and blood?
There's no question that SOMETHING is different about the resurrected Body of Christ. So if the bread and wine are the B&B, are they the resurrected or the pre-resurrected B&R
You see? You opened the box. Now look at what's coming out!
So, I don't see how we can discuss the question without using the tools -- which are terms and concepts.
I won't be back until around 9P EDT or later.
It is necessary, therefore, to recognize in each thing certain secondary realities (see ACCIDENT) and also a permanent fundamentum which continues to exist notwithstanding the superficial changes, which serves as a basis or support for the secondary realities — what, in a word, we term the substance. Its fundamental characteristic is to be in itself and by itself, and not in another subject as accidents are.”
What is the substance of an angel? of a wedding ring? Of Jesus the God/man?, what is the "permanent fundamentum"? Not expecting answer. expecting the savoring of the question.
THERE IS NO TEACHING OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH IS SO CLEAR IT CANNOT BE DENIED, MODIFIED, OR INTERPRETED AS REQUIRED.
There are, take your pick, 70-80 million "Catholics" in the United States. How many do you believe know any more about what the Catholic Church teaches than the non-Catholics you complain so mightily about?
Later then. Cheers.
savor, savor....more savoring....
Well, fancy that: the Church proposes doctrines as Truth, but she does not impose upon members that they accept them as true.
It seems that protestants and Catholics of old used to have less trouble with imposing.
By golly we have all progressed!
that is something to savor
Excellent question.
Research posted repeatedly indicates 7-30% of self identified RC’s believe anything close to the basics of the RCC by Catechism.
Roman Catholic, RC STATS POST:
.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2657209/posts?page=1670#1670
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.