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."

I don’t think the catholics mind having our actual doctrines confirmed by such an exercise, but it seems impossible unless the non-Catholic folks here will actually agree to walk through without injecting non-sequiturs and distractions.

As it stands, the non-Catholics such as eckles, quix, presently and iscool could give a rats butt about having a real discussion because they just want to sit in front of their screens claiming how inspired they are and posting stink bombs.

I'm not interested in a 'walk-thru'...All I ever asked is what your religion teaches...Simple questions...Only requires simple answers...

Is your Eucharist physical or something else, for example...

All the literature I've seen and most Catholics I am aware of claim it is physical...Mad Dawg says it's something else...
Mad Dawg then goes into what I would call deflect mode and informs us that 'substance' is a philosophical word and it can't be defined by a dictionary...

And we're supposed to sit in a chair with our mouths gagged and our hands tied behind our backs...And you call that having a real discussion...

So what have we learned??? Not a great deal yet...

but I hope the idea of conjuring up, the magical thinking, is clear. In both our faiths, it is God acting on His discretion and being faithful to His promises. And that, while the form matters, this again does not necessarily denote conjuring.

ummmmmm no! Perhaps we've established that most denominations agree to a minimal standard in which it would make sense that the sign relates to the thing signified. But it may be the case that while one denomination believes that the other denomination agrees in principle to what is signified, it may at the same time find the fact that the other denomination believes it can conjure up the thing signified as being irrelevant as to whether the sign still carries the same meaning.

I do not think most people not raised as a catholic understand the “principles” of transubstantiation ...
In fact needless to say you are correct.. The church adapted the theories of the greek philosopher Aristotle ...His theory was that all matter has two parts ..”accidents” ( how something appears to our senses) and “substance “( the essence which is essentially reality).

This broad accident error is the foundation for the doctrine of transubstantiation.

So the church teaches that the accidents remain.. (the bread and wine) but the “substance” is changed

This theory has no scientific truth..it is a an ancient belief that ranks with a flat earth .. yet millions of Catholics accept it on faith alone while their outward sense denies it.

If you were transformed, yet it was not a “physical” transformation, then you can understand the difference applied to your prior posts. It’s a quite similar concept.

That's what we've been telling you guys all along...It's a spiritual transformation...And you can't physically eat spiritual...

Jesus does not physically or spiritually get turned into a wafer...You don't put the Spirit into your mouth...The Spirit goes into your soul by way of your conscience...

We may both agree that the act of Baptism relates to the washing away of sin.

That's a general enough statement in which most Christians agree.

But if we were to get to the details of how the sign and the thing signified are related that's where the denominations split.

So Rome will accept a Protestant Baptism as “from the work done”. The sign was significant enough as to be efficacious.

Thanks very much.

As someone baptized Lutheran and converted to the Catholic Church, without re-baptizing, I do understand.

A bit of clarification or emphasis though:

I thought that the form “In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” was common to almost all trinitarian Protestant Churches.

Secondly, even if there is a “close enough” formulation, surely not any form of Baptism will be recognized as valid, would it. There is some limit as to form in all, isn’t there?

Calvin’s words are not the Word of God.
Calvin was a sexual pervert who did the work of the devil.
Calvin’s words are opposed to the bible.
Why would anyone consider his word when you have God’s Word?

I find it hilarious that we have yet another Catholic who never capitalizes the proper noun Bible! Is this a Catholic thing, Notwithstanding? It makes me think that you might believe the Bible doesn't contain the Word of God.

Yesterday saw...a forceful plea from a key papal advisor [Bishop Salvatore Fisichella, the rector of the Lateran University and President of the Pontifical Academy for Life] to reject the idea of Christianity as a “Religion of the Book”....
.......the big debate over Dei Verbum at the time of the council pitted what was then known as the “two-source theory,” which held that Scripture and tradition are essentially two separate streams of revelation, against the “one-source theory,” which posited that Scripture is the lone source of revelation and tradition is an elaboration of it. In effect, Dei Verbum held that Scripture and tradition are interdependent and integrally related to one another.
-- from the thread Synod: Christianity not a 'Religion of the Book'

"As we begin the work of this synodal assembly, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, let us turn our gaze to Christ, the light of the world and our only teacher," Cardinal Levada encouraged.
The prelate's point was further developed when Cardinal Marc Ouellet, archbishop of Quebec, took the floor to affirm that the Word is much more than the Bible. He clarified that Christianity is not a religion of the Book.
"The Word of God means before all else God himself who speaks, who expresses in himself the divine Word that belongs to his intimate mystery," he said.
This Word, he added during his Latin-language discourse, which he delivered seated beside the Pope, speaks in a particular and also dramatic way in the history of man, especially in the election of a people, in the Mosaic law and the prophets.
-- from the thread Cardinal Says Scripture Inseparably United to Tradition

“even if there is a “close enough” formulation, surely not any form of Baptism will be recognized as valid, would it. There is some limit as to form in all, isn’t there?”

That’s a good historical question that I don’t have the answer to. Obviously there was an agreement at some time that Jesus’ parting words was the minimal standard by which one Church would accept another Church’s baptism. Does Rome check the formulations of all the different Protestant denominations to make sure they fall within the limits? And even if they did so they would find that many independent and Baptist Churches have no set formulation. Would Rome then require the convert to be rebaptized if they could not confirm they were baptized under a minimal standard?

I haven’t looked it up, but I remember in my case, my certificate was checked for the trinitarian formulation. I was asked for my baptismal certificate. I had it (by very odd coincidence), so I don’t know what would have been the next step. I think it safe to say, yes, the Church checks.

I’m fairly certain that some churches, LDS, JW, for example, are not accepted. The former I don’t know whether the formulation is the same, but it doesn’t matter.

Veering off slightly here and I hope I’m not misunderstanding one of your points:

If the Protestant belief is that it is an “outward sign” of something inward, why would the formulation matter - unless the formulation mattered on the inward?

Does this question make sense or should I rephrase?

If the Protestant belief is that it is an “outward sign” of something inward, why would the formulation matter - unless the formulation mattered on the inward?

That's a good question. Being baptized into something means being baptized into a way of life. One is baptized into a confession. It is not a gift of God to be baptized into a false confession. To be a true gift it needs to represent a basic truth. We confess that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is the basic element of the confession for it to be a true gift. But that doesn't guarantee that for someone who has been baptized into an orthodox confession they receives an automatic "transformation".

The CCC quite clearly states that it IS a physical transformation.

What happened to me is of no consequence to this discussion because it’s not relevant to the subject of transubstantiation and the claim by the Catholic church, which supports it with the passage in John, that one has to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ.

The way the CCC is worded and the way that most Catholics apply John 6 to the doctrine make it clear that the change is that of a literal, physical change in the actual, physical, nature and substance of the elements, that the wine becomes blood and that the wheat becomes flesh.

....informs us that 'substance' is a philosophical word and it can't be defined by a dictionary...

It's the Catholic knee jerk reaction to everything that they can't explain.

*It's a mystery*, *We just have to accept it by faith*, *Well, the meaning is just so philosophical and esoteric that it's too subtle to be really explained (to you ignorant, unread morons) adequately for the average person. Only the specially educated clergy has the adequate ~~brainwashing~~ education to understand deep mysteries like this so you just have to take their word for it, even if it contradicts someone else's word for it.*, or some such excuse.

They refuse to be pinned down on the definitions so they can have their cake and eat it too.

If it's not a literal, actual, physical change into a literal, actual, physical body and blood, then it's symbolic.

Those are the choices.

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.