Our Lady Fatma of Deception - EXPOSED!
Revelation 22:8-9
Bow in worship before no one but God.
Luke 4:8 Worship
the Lord your God and serve him only.
Exod 20:2-4 Have
no other gods or idols before God
THE NAKED TRUTH
ABOUT THE WHORE OF ROME: THE BLASPHEMY OF FATIMA EXPOSED
Editor:
Steve Van Nattan: Pope John Paul II has made all manner of fuss over Our Lady
of Fatima. This is one of the most far sighted ploys the Roman Whore ever
hatched, for Fatima was the daughter of Muhammed, and the town Fatima in Portugal was
named for here. The courtship of Islam by John Paul II fits so very well with
this alleged apparition of Mary, for it will draw the whole Catholic and Muslim
world into one Holy piano covers and Rage as they stand on the threshold of the
Age of Antichrist.
The
following article is a powerful discussion and very revealing.
Our Lady
of Deception
By Reese
Currie, Compass Distributors
A being,
representing itself as Mary the mother of Jesus, made an appearance at Fatima some years ago. This has been dismissed by some as
a demonic apparition that was not Mary at all. I was asked to explain how a
demon could make such an appearance and point people to Jesus.
To begin
with, the apparition did not actually point anyone to Jesus. Rather, she
promoted Mariolatry and the false sacramental gospel of the Roman Catholic
Church.
I found a
page describing the appearance of pseudo-Mary at Fatima.
I have taken a few excerpts from this page to show how the "Mary" and
"Guardian Angel of Portugal" could not possibly have God as their
source.
The page
says, "The Guardian Angel of Portugal appears to the children and tells
them to submit with patience to the sufferings that will come to them. He tells
them to pray and offer sacrifices in reparation for the conversion of
sinners."
The fact
that the Roman Catholic Church consistently requires sacrifices, beyond the
sacrifice Jesus made on the cross, proves conclusively that the Roman Catholic
Church is not Christian. At least it does so for anyone with an inkling of
understanding of the Bible.
Of Jesus,
blips 7:26-27 says: For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless,
undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who
needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his
own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up
himself.
What
inseparably removes Roman Catholicism from Christianity is that they do not
believe Christ’s one-time sacrifice was enough, as the Bible plainly says. He
gave His life for our sins, once, that is, one time, for all, that is, all
sins. "All" does not refer to "all people"; the subject of
the sentence is not people, it is "sins".
Rather,
Roman Catholicism has masses that supposedly re-sacrifice Christ for sins
daily. They further require acts of penance for sins, they require baptism for
(meaning in their case, "to obtain") the forgiveness of sins, and
partaking in the mass to sacrifice for sins. One may spend a long time in
"purgatory" if one has not received "extreme unction", yet
another sacrifice for sins. In their funerals, they pray for the dead that
their sins may be forgiven in death, and make sacrificial payments in the
funeral mass so the dead one may be released from purgatory. All of it is false
and unnecessary for Christ made one atonement for all sins.
The
document then describes the first appearance of "Mary" to the
children. "A Beautiful Lady, all of brilliant white, appears to the children
at Cova de Iria. Her hands were together as in prayer and Rosary beads hung
down between the fingers of her right hand."
Now, I’d
like you to take a look at the image of "Mary."
Here we
see a white European "Mary," complete with halo, as regularly
depicted by the Roman Catholic Church. How would these poor, deceived children
possibly recognize the real Mary, who was a blipish peasant woman and looked
nothing whatsoever like this Romanized imagery? We know then, certainly, on the
basis of physical appearance alone, that these children were not really seeing
Mary.
If it
actually was Mary, surely she would not allow the children to bow to her, as we
see here in this picture. Revelation 22:8-9 tells us we should bow before no
one but God. And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard
and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me
these things. 9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy
fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the
sayings of this book: worship God.
Let’s
move on to the frankly insane concept of Mary herself having a rosary. What is
the rosary for? For saying "Hail Marys", correct? Why, then, would
Mary need to use a rosary? To "Hail" herself or offer prayers to
herself? It’s nonsense to any but the cultically deceived. The document then
goes on to reveal Mary’s instructions. "The children were instructed to:
say the Rosary every day, to obtain peace for the world and the end of piano covers."
Just
saying the rosary is a serious violation of Scripture. In Matthew 6:7, Jesus
piano coversned, "And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the
heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words."
The rosary is an act of saying "hail Mary" over and over again.
The act
of saying a "hail Mary" is an act of worship topiano coversd Mary
that is also absolutely prohibited by Scripture. Matthew 4:10 says, Then saith
Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship
the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
This
apparition was trying to take worship away from God, and onto Mary. This
conclusively proves that the apparition was of Satanic origin, for it is a work
of Satan to prompt people to worship someone other than the Lord. It follows
logically that the whole of the Roman Catholic Church is of the same Satanic
origin, since it officially promotes Mariolatry (the worship of Mary through
praying to her).
The
document continues, "Lucia asked the Lady about two girls, friends of the
family, who had died recently, as she wanted to know whether they had gone to
heaven. The Lady replied that one of the girls was in heaven but that the other
girl would be in Purgatory until the end of the world."
The very
concept of Purgatory cannot be found in Scripture. It is a payment for sins
after death that is foolishness. We know from blips 7:26-27 that Christ’s one
time sacrifice for sins was sufficient for all whom He has saved, which is
identified elsewhere in Scripture as those who believe in Him.
If you do
not believe that Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient, you do not actually believe
in Jesus and need to repent immediately. To believe in Jesus could be described
as, "Forsaking All I Trust Him." By forsaking all, we speak not only
of sins, but of man’s pigheaded belief that some of his actions can lead to his
saving himself. We must trust Christ only, else we do not in fact trust Him, or
believe in Him, at all.
The
document continues, "The Lady appears to the children and when asked by
Lucia what it was that she wanted of them, the Lady replied that she wanted
them to come to the same place on the thirteenth day of the coming month, to
recite five decades of the Rosary every day and for Lucia to learn to read. The
children understood from this vision that the Immaculate Heart of Mary was
outraged by the sins of humanity, for which there must be reparation. Francisco
and Jacinta were told that they would soon be leaving for heaven."
We can
know this was not Mary for several reasons from this passage alone. The
Catholics speak of "revering" Mary (they actually worship her), but I
think I revere Mary enough to believe she would not lie or turn people to a
false gospel. I do not for a moment believe that Mary would violate the
Scriptures about repetitive prayers, worshipping God only, or espouse the false
Catholic doctrine of Mary’s being "immaculate."
What many
Christians do not understand is, the term "immaculate conception" in
the Roman Catholic Church does not refer to Jesus – it refers to Mary. Or,
"Mary the Immaculate", as some are given to calling her. It is the
belief that, for Jesus to be conceived without sin, Mary had to be conceived
without sin as well, so from her conception, she was shielded from inheriting
original sin. Therefore she did not pass on original sin, or the sinful nature,
to Jesus.
This is
so immensely theologically flawed in itself as to render the gospel useless. It
is based on the false Catholic theology of inherited sin. Catholics believe
that children inherit sin itself, not just a sinful nature, from their parents.
That is why the Catholics must rush their infants off to be baptized as soon as
possible; if their original sin is not forgiven by baptism, and they die, they
will go to hell. This sin is inherited because sex itself is sinful, according
to the Roman Catholic Church.
So, there
somehow needed to be an additional level of protection for Jesus. Not only
could sex not be involved in his production, but the effects thereof had to be
miraculously erased from the production of His earthly parent, Mary. These
false beliefs came from the Greek philosophical influence that crept into
Christianity.
People
who believe such tripe have no hope of ever understanding the simple beauty of
the gospel unless they repent. You see, what the Catholics find deplorable and
impossible to believe about Christ is the very thing we must believe about Him:
That He was fully God and fully Man and that He was tempted in all ways, even as
we are, but without sin. They set up Jesus as a person who did not have to
contend with a human sinful nature, but He did, and defeated it soundly. If He
had not, His sacrifice would have been useless for it could not have reconciled
Man, as he really is, to God.
Not only
that, but people who believe this sacramental gospel, with acts like baptism
somehow forgiving sins, could not hope to understand the most basic things
about the world. For instance, it has often been asked, "How can God
permit children to die of starvation?" For the Catholic, who blindly
believes the Church and the doctrine that baptism is necessary for salvation,
there is no answer – the only conclusion could be that God hates man and does
not care about his well being, consigning them to hell without a chance to be
baptized. But for the Christian who thinks it through, the death of children is
an act of mercy by God, for He does not hold children accountable for any sin
until they reach an age of accountability and ability to repent.
People
think living to a ripe old age is "normal" for humans. That is
incorrect. On a global scale, the reality is most humans die as infants. Now,
consider where most of those infants die. Most die in non-Christian countries,
like India.
Given the chance to grow up, the vast majority of those Indian children would
have committed suicide of the soul by cleaving to Hinduism. However, because
they died as infants, God can be merciful to them because they have not
rejected Him.
It is
interesting that, in our remarkably sinful North American culture, the death of
infants is on the dramatic rise through abortion. And even then, we can see the
pattern. Who is dying through the abortion epidemic? Infants who would not have
been born into Christian homes, and would have most likely rejected the Savior.
What Paul wrote is definitely true, And we know that all things work together
for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his
purpose. (Romans 8:28). If God called one of these babies, He would not see
them go through life and end up separated through joining the Islamic, Hindu or
Buddhist religions, or any other religion that denies Christ.
There are
no such answers in this world, if Catholic theology is true (not to mention the
theology of all the "baptismal regeneration" churches). Roman
Catholicism is a soul-robbing, festering sore of a false religion that harvests
millions of souls for Satan each generation.
The
document goes on, "When the Lady appeared this time her first request was
for the children to say five decades of the Rosary every day in honour of Our
Lady of the Rosary. ... The children were told that to save sinners God wanted
to establish a devotion in the world to the Immaculate Heart of
Mary."
I hate to
sound like a broken record, but once again, we see repetitive prayer and false
religion through the worship of Mary, which we have already discussed. Isaiah
45:22 says, Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am
God, and there is none else. Don’t look to Mary. Mary herself would never ask
you to look in her direction. She, like all others who believed in Jesus, would
point you in His direction for salvation.
The
document continues, "Just before the Lady left she told the children a final
secret that has never been revealed. Lucia wrote the secret out and Pope John
XXIII opened this letter in 1960 but he decided that it would better not to
reveal its contents to the general public." This statement shows a strong
aspect of cultic behavior in the Roman Catholic Church.
When a
cultic group, like the Roman Catholic Church, wishes to target a person for
mind control or "thought reform," a triangle is placed around a
person. The three points of that triangle are Miracle, Mystery and Authority.
The
"Miracle" is ideology imputing miraculous powers to leaders or
activities. In this story, saying the rosary is said to have miraculous powers.
In Catholic dogma, baptism and holy communion are also attributed powers for
the forgiveness of sin that Christ never intended them to have.
The
"Mystery" is secrecy obscuring actual beliefs and practices. The
popes will not say what the "third" prophecy of Fatima
was, so that no one can evaluate it on their own. There is also a real mystery
about what the Roman Catholic Church holds is truly necessary for salvation. We
know that the Roman Catholic Church does not say faith in Jesus Christ is
necessary for salvation, for they maintain that good Hindus and Muslims can
also be saved. So what exactly do they believe? Who do they believe God is? Why
don’t they believe the clear statements of the God of the Bible? We really
don't know, but we are supposed to believe that the leaders have secret
knowledge that transcends all that.
"Authority"
is obviously a big part of the RCC cult scheme. The Church is supposed to be
infallible, and the pope is also supposedly infallible and is chosen by God to
lead the church through apostolic succession. In all cultic cases, this
perceived authority legitimizes inordinate claims on people’s time, talents,
and resources. These young people were given a requirement to spend a lot of
time in repetitive prayer and we can see, reading the whole document through,
that cleaving to the "Holy
Mother Church"
and saying the rosary are requirements given even to the readers of the
document. Too bad they weren’t directed to spend their time in Bible study
instead; they may have escaped the snare of Catholicism.
There are
more excellent examples from this document of Roman Catholic abuse of "Authority."
The Bishop of Leira-Fatima declared in a Pastoral Letter that the apparitions
at Fatima were "devotions worthy of
belief." Who is he to tell anyone what to believe without Scriptural
authority backing him up? Pope Pius XII consecrated the world and later Russia for the
"Immaculate Heart of Mary." Unless I am mistaken, Russia is a
subset of the world and would have been included in his first proclamation, but
that piece of typical Catholic illogic is beside the point. Who gave him the
authority to do so? Later, pope John Paul II rededicated the world to the
"Immaculate Heart of Mary," which makes it obvious that pope Pius XII
did not have the authority. So why would John Paul II have the authority? It is
obvious he does not, especially since Pius XII is in John Paul II’s "line
of succession."
Continuing
on with the document, we read, "The Lady appeared on this day instead and
told the children to recite the Rosary every day. The children were also told
to pray for sinners and to make many sacrifices for them as many souls go to
hell because there is nobody to sacrifice and pray for them."
What a
laundry list of unscriptural trash! We've discussed the non-necessity for new
sacrifice in blips 7:26-27. We’ve discussed Matthew 6:7 and its admonition
against repetitive prayer. We’ve shown how prayer and worship to any other than
God is forbidden. And now, we find this garbage about people going to hell
because others do not pray for them. This lie is held by too many evangelicals
as well.
John 6:37
says, All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me
I will in no wise cast out. That means that whoever is going to be saved by
Jesus will invariably come to Jesus, and their salvation is secure when they
come. These are two things the Catholics don't believe, incidentally.
Consider
blips 10:11-14. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering
oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this
man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the
right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his
footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are
sanctified.
The
Catholic Church pretends that people need to make sacrifices over and over for
people, because they "sin again" and thus need more sacrifice. This
is a lie. For by one offering, He has perfected forever those who are being
sanctified. They cannot be "unperfected," even by sin. Jesus has perfected
them forever. If we don’t believe that, we do not believe the Bible or Jesus
Himself.
The
document continues, "For just as there still has to be the conversion of
hearts in Russia, our own
hearts have cooled and many hundreds of thoBlipnds, even millions, in North
America have turned away from the Holy
Mother Church.
We need to begin again, if we have not already done so, to have recourse to the
Most Immaculate Heart of Mary which is outraged at the sins of `humanity' and
for which there must be reparation. … Throughout the narrative of the Fatima events, the emphasis given to the Rosary by Our
Lady cannot be overlooked."
I would
hope that you do not overlook the fact that this Fatima
vision contradicts the whole tenor of the gospel message. Because the fact is,
the emphasis given to the Rosary by the Catholic’s "lady" can be
overlooked. Deceived evangelicals overlook it every time they claim the Roman
Catholic Church is by any means a Christian church and worthy of unifying with.
Now, many
people attempt to validate the "Lady’s" appearance by the fact that
70,000 people supposedly witnessed her. If you read the document closely,
however, you will learn that only the same children actually witnessed her. The
other people did see a supernatural event, however.
The
document says, "When the Lady appeared more than 70,000 people had
gathered at the site. She told Lucia that she was the Lady of the Rosary. Our
Lady told Lucia that she wanted a chapel built on the site and that she also
wanted the Faithful to say the Rosary every day. Lucia was told that World
piano covers I would end soon and as Our Lady left, the children were shown
further visions that included Our Lord and St. Joseph. As these visions were being seen
by the children, the sun began its well documented 'Dance' that was seen by
thoBlipnds of people present at the site. Our Lady had performed the miracle
that she had promised."
The sun's
dance is a tactic God would not use. Matthew 12:38-41 says, Then certain of the
scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from
thee. 39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation
seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of
the prophet Jonas: 40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the
whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the
heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh
shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they
repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is
here.
If Jesus
would not give a sign like the sun's dance then, why on earth (or in heaven)
would He do it now?
Another
Marian apparition occurred in Egypt
and very many people saw the apparitions. From a different web document on
Marian apparitions, we read, "These apparitions attracted large crowds by
night, sometimes up to 250,000 people, they were Christian, blips, Moslems,
unbelievers and many others, it was a gift of Our Lady to all the nations. The apparitions
finally ended in 1971 leaving an atmosphere of unity and peace and many people
received miraculous healings there."
The first
person to receive such a healing was a Muslim. But did this healing actually
come from God? Consider the common element in the following verses of
Scripture.
Matthew
9:22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of
good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from
that hour.
Luke 5:20
And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
Luke 7:50
And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.
Luke 8:48
And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee
whole; go in peace.
Luke
17:19 And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.
Finally,
look at Matthew 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their
unbelief.
Here's
the point. There were many unbelievers there who were healed, including a Muslim
who received healing. But throughout the Bible, it is people's faith in Jesus
Christ that makes them well. Where there is unbelief, Jesus does not do many
mighty works.
And with
regard to bringing unity among Christians, blips, Muslims and unbelievers, that
is not a Biblical message. Although it is a goal of the Roman Catholic Church,
it is not a goal of Christ and should never be a goal of Christians.
Matthew
10:34-38 says, Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to
send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his
father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against
her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that
loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh
not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
In short,
true believers will be at odds with unbelievers and practices of different
religions, not at unity with them. They must follow Christ at the expense of
relationships with these types.
If you
will dig thoroughly into these appearances of Mary, you can find many things
that are counter to the overall message of the Bible. One reason why "the
Lady" might appear to all these people is to help push ecumenical unity
being sought by the Roman Catholic Church with Protestant, Islam, Hindu and
blipish religions, so that there will be that one-world "harlot"
religion. A demon would certainly be willing to help out on a goal like that
because it would effectively end Christ-centered evangelism in the entire
world. It would be "religion-centered" and "man-centered"
instead.
Not once,
in any of these "Mary" appearances, is a thing said about repentance
-- people are allowed to continue on in their self-centered and self-righteous
religions, not turning back to God. Not a thing on these pages points to Jesus
Christ but only to the Roman Catholic Church. I actually think it is very
interesting that in all the blabber, "Our Lady of Fatima" didn't say
a single word about Jesus Christ. That should tell you something.
I realize
this plain speaking will inflame many Catholics, some of whom will wish to
e-mail me to convince me of their view. However, this time, I will not answer
such correspondence, not because I am over-awed with their intellectual
prowess, but because nothing short of an act of repentance topiano coversd God
can possibly help them. If they can reject so many plain examples of how Marian
apparitions and the Catholic religion conflict with Bible teaching, they are
free to cleave to their religion and follow it all the way into the bowels of
hell; I shake off the dust of my feet at them. I would much rather they repent,
disassociate themselves with popery, and live. I will certainly not waste my
energies restating the obvious to those Catholics who wish to cleave to
religion rather than truth.
DIALOGUE
Reese
Currie
The
Catholic Priest
The King
James Bible
___________________
Some
people found the above topic objectionable and claimed it was inaccurate. What
follows is my response to a Roman Catholic priest who felt this article was the
product of an "obvious lack of research." This is an even more
eye-opening revelation of the heresy of Roman Catholicism.
I take it
from the "FR." that you want to be referred to as "Father,"
but I will respectfully decline, since such a title is specifically forbidden
by Matthew 23:9.
Not that
I believe that this note will do any good, but a member of my parish referred
me to your web page.
I'm sorry
the truth offends you. For my part, I think the note has done a world of good,
and I think I will post it alongside the "Lady of Deception" article
so others may read more about Catholicism.
First of
all, I would ask that if you are going to enter into a debate with the
doctrines of Roman Catholicism that you first learn what our church teaches.
Your article "Our Lady of Deception" is riddled with errors,
misconceptions, and an obvious lack of research on your part as to what the
official church teaches.
By the
time we get to the end of this response, you can decide if I am truly
unresearched or if you are simply trying to intimidate me into recantation with
a number of inaccurate statements of your own.
I would
recommend you reviewing a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which
gives a basic statement of Catholic belief. I have already.
You will
not find all the philosophical, theological, or scriptural reasoning (there
are, however, other sources for that) but at least you will see the basics of
our faith.
Yes, like
the writings of Jerome, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and other Catholic writers
with whom I am familiar.
You took
issue with the Marian apparition at Fatima.
Please realize that the Catholic Church has NEVER made the material presented
in an apparition part of the deposit of faith. As a matter of faith, the
strongest statement that the church will make concerning an apparition is that
the messages are not in contradiction with faith or morals.
It seems
that your statement is in contradiction with the truth. On the pro-Catholic web
site I drew my information from, it states, "11. 1930: The Bishop of
Leira-Fatima declares in a Pastoral Letter, that the apparitions at Fatima are `devotions worthy of belief'."
Granted,
there are some (well-meaning) Catholics who I believe take Marian devotion
overboard. However, Mary's role is only to point us to Jesus, not to herself.
Well, as
we saw from my article, and the page it refers to, "Mary" did not say
one word about Christ but quite a bit about Marian prayer and devotion through
the rosary. Now, in my book, if you are devoted to someone you pray to, you are
worshipping that person. In your book, the New Catholic Catechism, we read:
971
"The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian
worship." The Church rightly honours "the Blessed Virgin with special
devotion. ..." The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and
Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel,"
express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.
I would
have thought Christ was the epitome of the whole Gospel, but you know, you
Catholics differ with Biblical faith on a lot of points.
Also, no
Catholic is required to believe in apparitions as a matter of faith. It is
purely private revelation. If Mary were to decide to appear to me (which she
hasn't) I would be the only one bound to believe since she was speaking to me,
not the whole world.
You would
not be so bound! You would be required to validate what she said to you against
Scripture. Galatians 1:8 says, "But though we, or an angel from heaven,
preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let
him be accursed."
Why won't
Catholics do this? Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the
scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
If it was
not offensive to the real apostles that their teachings be questioned this way,
why on earth would it be offensive to Catholics who claim apostolic leadership?
Secondly,
when you quote scripture I would challenge you to ask yourself, "Where did
this Bible that I am reading come from? Who determined which gospels, which
letters, etc. would make up this book." Contrary to what you might
believe, the Bible did not just miraculously drop out of heaven.
It
doesn't surprise me that a Catholic priest would deny inspiration of the
Scripture. But I think I may be reading more into your statement than you
intended.
The Bible
is the Book of the Church. We are not a "church of the book."
That's
evident from your church's lack of adherence to Biblical doctrine.
In other
words, the church predated the Bible. And the only two churches that can
historically trace themselves to New Testament times would be the Roman
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
Actually,
even your own church's writings dispute that. The president of the Council of
Trent, Cardinal Hosius, wrote in 1524, "Were it not that the baptists have
been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve
hundred years, they would spiano coversm in greater number than all the
Reformers." This means that Hosius counted "baptists" (which
went under many names down through the centuries) existed just as long as
Catholicism.
I think I
would correct also your statement that the church predated the Bible.
Obviously, only the New Testament portion is predated by the church. The Old Testament
portion predates the church. However, the early church in Scripture bears no
noticeable likeness to the Roman Catholic Church. Rather, we know that the
churches did not form under an umbrella organization, the Catholic Church,
until 313. So Scripture certainly does predate the Catholic organization.
All
Protestant denominations trace their history to the Catholic Church in the
West.
In the
case of Baptists, which are not technically "Protestant," they do so
erroneously. In the case of Church of Christ and Brethren, which are
"restorationist" churches, they do not trace their lineage back to Rome either. The Church of Christ
originally claimed that Rome
was apostate.
I realize
that the "Reformed" variations of Christianity come from the Western Church, in that they reflect many
Catholic errors such as episcopal hierarchy, infant baptism and church-state
religion. However, you must have had Baptist teachers who claimed they were
part of the Reformation as well. Anabaptists predated the reformation and
traces of the faith can be found down through history. Only in England did the
Baptist faith come following the Reformers. Unfortunately, many Baptists
(especially people in the SBC) only go back to England when they recount their
history.
It was
THE CHURCH that determined which Gospels "made it" into the Bible,
since there were many, many gospels floating around.
I am
apiano coverse of the New Testament apocryphal works as well. However, the
"church" that determined the canon of Scripture predated the Catholic
organization. All the Catholics did was place the seal of approval on the books
that were already the de-facto standard. Some regions had a few more books than
today's canon, some less. The regions together agreed on a canon simply by
collecting their various opinions surrounding the genuineness of the books in
question.
Please
don't think that I believe that the Catholic Church is flawless. Historically
we have had our share of characters that made a mess of things. As a convert
from the Baptist faith, and now a Catholic priest, I am convinced that is
precisely why the Church is of God. If we were only a human institution we
would have folded centuries ago considering the various scandalous behaviors
that some of our leaders displayed.
That's
really not very sound reasoning. Consider your own logic. Hinduism predates
Christianity, but it still exists; does that make it of God? Taoism and
Buddhism predate Christianity by centuries. Does their continued existence mean
they are of God? Islam has existed for about 1200 years; does that mean Islam
is of God?
At this
point, I'd like to call attention to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church
actually does believe Islam is of God and that Islamic people will be saved,
despite the Bible's repeated doctrine that faith in Christ is necessary for
salvation.
Quoting
from your catechism, "841 The plan of salvation also includes those who
acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these
profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one,
merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
So I
understand that you would therefore contend that Islam is of God. Truly Peter
wrote when he said, But there were false prophets also among the people, even
as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable
heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves
swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1).
I bet not
many Catholics know that Muslims are "Christians too." False teachers
among them brought in damnable heresies. This one even denies the Lord that
bought them, for it allows salvation to those who deny Jesus Christ as Lord. I
think the swift destruction is probably faced in the afterlife, judging from
the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is so old.
Yet
Christ is the Head of the Church. The pope is only the visible head. Hey, the
buck has to stop somewhere and we believe that the Holy Spirit is with us to
insure that we don't stray too far, regardless of the human shortcomings of the
pope at any given time.
There are
human shortcomings in a person who can make ex cathedra proclamations that are
considered to be infallible? That's not a really comforting thought for
Catholics, I bet!
Why do
you think a human head is really necessary? Is God powerless? It reminds me of
blip, when they installed a king in the Old Testament instead of allowing God
to rule. 1 Samuel 8:7 says, And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the
voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected
thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. Have you
not rejected God in giving yourselves a human head?
No, the
church is to be without a king except Christ.
If you
believe the Holy Spirit keeps you from straying, why will you ignore His words
in...
1 Timothy
4:1-3?
Now the
Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the
faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking
lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding
to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be
received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Forbidding
marriage: Marriage is forbidden for Catholic priests, nuns and monks.
Abstaining
from food: Remember the admonition against eating meat on Fridays?
Hypocrisy
of men who speak lies: Your church at once states that baptism is necessary for
salvation, and at the same time that unbaptized Muslims can be saved. That's
only one example of a hypocritical position.
Seducing
spirits: We can see from my article that the version of "Mary" that
appeared there drew people hard away from Biblical doctrine.
Doctrines
of demons: Prayer and devotion to people and things other than God. One known
doctrine of a demon was identified by Christ in Matthew 4:10, when He said,
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
The Roman
Catholic Church supports prayer to Mary according to the catechism (I repeat):
971
"The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian
worship." The Church rightly honours "the Blessed Virgin with special
devotion. ..." The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and
Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel,"
express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.
Peter was
given the keys to the kingdom by Christ. Certainly when Peter died the keys
weren't thrown away! Peter wasn't the brightest of individuals either, as
scripture attests. Yet God was able to use him anyway!
If Peter
gave the keys to the Catholic popes, he did throw them away, for no one in
history has a more bloody legacy than Catholic popes with the possible
exception of Adolf Hitler. When we look at the keys of the kingdom, however, it
is awfully interesting to me that the Roman Catholic Church needs to ignore the
actual tenses of the Greek verbs in order for their doctrines about them to
come to pass.
For what
the Bible actually says at Matthew 16:19, says, And I will give unto thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven.
The popes
say they can change the mode of baptism, for example, because what they bind on
earth will be bound in heaven, following bad translations. The truth of the
Greek is the reverse, and a good example of it taking place is the way God
showed Peter that salvation had come unto the Gentiles. What Peter then bound
on earth had already been bound in heaven.
Mary
isn't the center of our worship - Christ is. Each time I receive him in the
Eucharist I am strengthened. We believe the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul,
and divinity of Christ. No, we are not cannibals! The Christ we receive is the
RISEN Christ, not the dead Christ. We are not Killing Christ over and over
again on our altars. We are participating in the ONE sacrifice for which Jesus
atoned for our sins. Yes, it's the bloody sacrifice of Calvary
in an UNBLOODY manner. Christ knows no time or space. We received his RISEN
body as nourishment ... The Eucharist is a sign of God's presence to us ... a
reminder that God never leaves us.
Okay, so
here's a question. How come atonement for sin knows time and space, according
to your church's doctrines, if the sacrifice for sins knows no time or space?
Surely you agree with your own Catholic doctrine that the sacraments remit sin.
Surely you agree with your own church's stated doctrines to that point:
1414 As
sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the
living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.
Here's
one from John Hardon's "The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism"
(Garden City: Image, 1981).
"Are
the sacraments necessary for salvation? According to the way God has willed
that we be saved the sacraments are necessary for salvation."
How do
you then answer the Scriptures from blips that state, "But this man, after
he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of
God;" If one sacrifice suffices for all time, on what basis do you people
claim that people need to receive Eucharist as a sacrifice at all? You can say,
"It's the same sacrifice," but according to the Bible, the sacrifice
was only offered once. Your practice simply does conflict with Scripture.
Your
catechism states:
1367 The
sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single
sacrifice: ... "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass,
the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the
cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner."
To quote
John Knox: "How can you deny the opinion of your Mass to be false and
vain? You say it is a sacrifice for sin, but Jesus Christ and Paul say, The
only death of Christ was sufficient for sin, and after it resteth none other
sacrifice... I know you will say, it is none other sacrifice, but the self
same, save that it is iterated and renewed. But the words of Paul bind you more
straitly than that so you may escape: for in his whole disputation, contendeth
he not only that there is no other sacrifice for sin, but also that the self
same sacrifice, once offered, is sufficient, and never may be offered
again."
That
effectively answers the statement from your catechism, does it not?
You claim
that you offer no new sacrifices; then, how do you explain this teaching from
Mr. Hardon's "The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism":
"How
does the Church communicate the merits of Christ’s mercy to sinners? The Church
communicates the merits of Christ’s mercy to sinners through the Mass and the
sacraments and all the prayers and good works of the faithful."
The Mass
is a sacrifice that communicates the merits of Christ's mercy, but so are the
sacraments according to this. I suppose it's inaccurate? Or from your
catechism:
1497
Individual and integral confession of grave sins followed by absolution remains
the only ordinary means of reconciliation with God and with the Church.
What is
sacrifice if not a means of reconciliation? Is there a means of reconciliation
other than sacrifice?
You do
offer sacrifices other than the sacrifice of Christ. Why not admit it and be
done with it? Why charge me with inaccuracy and ignorance when I can show you
your teachings from your own catechism?
Regarding
babies, Catholics aren't obliged to "rush" their children to be
baptized. If a child dies before baptism that child goes to be with God.
Baptism is necessary for salvation, but certainly God wouldn't count it against
a child who was unable to be baptized!
I guess
they don't teach logic at Roman Catholic seminaries. Something is either necessary
or it isn't. As Malachi 3:6 says, For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye
sons of Jacob are not consumed. That Scripture predates the church,
incidentally. If God requires baptism for salvation, that's it -- God requires
baptism for salvation.
Historically
we acknowledge three types of baptism: water, blood, and desire. Water is
obvious. Blood is martyrdom before baptism (which was not uncommon in the first
centuries among those who were in the process of converting to Christianity in
the Roman Empire when Christianity was
outlawed). Desire is when the parents or the individual desired baptism but
were not able to follow through in a timely manner.
Consider
this. Baptism is a transliteration of the word baptizo for
"immersion". So what you are saying to me is, you immerse in water
(Catholics sprinkle, which is not even an immersion); you immerse in blood and
you somehow manage to immerse in desire which is not something you can even
immerse in!
You can
see that Catholic doctrine is built on lie after lie, because first we have to
lie about the very definition of the Greek term "baptizo" to even
continue with that line of discussion. I'm not rightly sure what
"baptize" means to you -- it's yet another sacrifice for sin, obviously
-- but what it means in the original language is "immerse." You have
to depart from the original meaning of the word you base your doctrine on in
order to explain it. Can't you see there's something desperately wrong with
that?
There is
no limbo (contrary to some popular belief) - just heaven and hell as our
ultimate destinies.
I
understand there is some question even about that. Didn't the pope recently say
that heaven is not a place? I understand the recantation of limbo occurred in
the sixties; is this a new recantation of the existence of heaven today?
Purgatory
is another issue - but only for those who are heavenbound. Most of us will need
some purification before we see God face to face. To be emptied of those things
which we cling to other than God. Yes, some popular piety made it sound like a
jail term when using descriptions of years and hours to describe the time spent
there. And some made it sound like a "temporary hell." Those are not
the preferred terms anymore. Some things changed after Vatican II. Read the Vatican
II documents. You might be surprised (although no DOCTRINAL changes were made).
By
claiming that we need more purification, you are saying a number of things I
think you should rethink, and I mean, in emergency fashion. Because what you
are saying speaks terrible blasphemies against God.
But now
the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the
law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of
Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no
difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his
blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,
through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his
righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth
in Jesus. [Reference: Romans 3:21-26.]
You are
first of all claiming that Jesus sacrifice was not enough for all of your sins;
but the Bible uses the word "propitiation" (Greek
"hilasmos", which means to "to reconcile" or "make
atonement"). Therefore, if you actually believe in Christ, your atonement
for sin is already made; your reconciliation is already made.
Now, this
propitiation is declared here to be a demonstration of God's righteousness. So,
in saying that you need purgatory, you are denying that God is righteous,
because it is a demonstration of God's righteousness that He fully atoned for
your sin. That's quite a charge to lay on God. I wouldn't want to have it
against me at the judgment.
Believe
me, I write this in all charity. I have idea what your religious affiliation is
although I have friends in almost every Christian denomination: Baptist,
Methodist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, Lutheran, Episcopal, etc. We are not
looking for form one "harlot" religion as you say. We are just
looking to get past some of the nonsense we've been clinging to for 350 years!
While we have our differences in theology, we do hold our faith in the
resurrection of Christ in common!
We have
an entirely different definition of faith. I believe that when Christ said on
the cross, "It is finished," it really was finished. I believe in
trusting Christ only for salvation, and if I look to my good works or those of
saints, or to the denomination I am affiliated with, I condemn myself as one
who does not trust in Christ alone and His finished work on the cross.
To give
Mary evil titles like co-redemptrix, the doctrine that she is our redeemer
along with Christ and Christ alone is not our redeemer, and to name her our
mediator, is to deny Christ's identity as our only redeemer and our only
mediator with God. I know, you're going to cry "inaccurate," so
here's your catechism reference:
969
"... Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by
her manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation....
Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of
Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."
blips
12:24 identifies Jesus as the sole mediator of the New Covenant. And to Jesus
the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh
better things than that of Abel.
You are
either dishonest or uninformed about the goals of your own church with regard
to restoring a one-world church. From your catechism:
820
Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe,
subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose ...The desire
to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the
Holy Spirit.
And if
you weren't trying to create a "one world church", you should be, considering
this belief:
834
Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of
them, the Church of Rome "which presides in charity." "For with
this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the
faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord"
So, let's
be honest, shall we? Your church wants to create a one world church, which
judging from your catechism would include even Muslims. That would give it all
the Scriptural qualifications of a "harlot" church.
If you
want to get past nonsense, get past 1800 years of Roman Catholicism and get
back to the Bible. I don't know why the plain truth of the Bible is not the
basis of the efforts at reconciliation, but rather, "agreement to
disagree." As I have demonstrated, Catholic doctrine is quite dangerous to
the soul. If I am dutiful topiano coversd Christ, I will oppose it; if I deny
Christ, I will sit idly and let fellow believers be victimized by organizations
like the Catholic church.
These
reconcilation attempts are also typical of Catholic illogic. There cannot be
multiple truths. There is true, and there is false. But you allow things such
as Islam, which is evidently false, and Fatima, which would certainly seem
counter-biblical to me, to be believed by whomever wishes.
One of
the reasons Catholics are hard to pin down is their doctrines are internally
self-contradictory. I mean, right here we see that you can be saved if you are
Islamic and unbaptized, but baptism is necessary for salvation. I mean, if I were
to take your belief that baptism is necessary for salvation and refute that,
you'd come back and say, "We don't believe that, because even Muslims can
be saved." (I've actually had this tactic used on me by one of your
fellows.) There's always an answer in a doctrine as twisted and
self-contradictory as yours, as long as your whole doctrines are not taken into
account.
When
something contradicts the whole tenor of the Bible, you say things like,
"Well, you don't have to believe it." That was your response to the Fatima apparition. I'm not "required" to
believe it.
If you
were a shepherd, would you allow poison into the feed? No. You wouldn't say to
the sheep, "Oh, by the way, you don't have to eat that poison. You can eat
around it." No, you would take the poison out of the feed. So as a
shepherd of Christ's church, why would you not purge out false teachings?
I would
challenge you to read a book entitled Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl
Keating. It might clear up some misconceptions. Also, Setting the Record
Straight: What Catholics Really Believe by the same author.
I think
I've shown I don't really have the misconceptions you allege. Actually, I am
well used to the tactic of charges of ignorance and inaccuracy, which is why I
remain prepared as I do to answer detractors such as yourself.
I would
challenge you to read the Bible, and rather than twist it to a Catholic
interpretation, read it for what it really says. I assure you, the Author is a
much more learned and reliable fellow than even Karl Keating.
If you
have any questions, or wish to engage in a dialogue I would welcome your
questions and comments.
I think
I'll save the dialogue for people like the evangelicals who signed the
"Evangelicals and Catholics Together" agreement. You will note that I
have included every word from your original e-mail interspersed with my
comments so this is a reliable account of our conversation. I believe the
foregoing provides a sufficient outlet for your attempts to call into question
the article, "Our Lady of Deception."
A
PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF FATIMA
May 30,
2000
The man
who is serving a life sentence for the shooting of Pope John Paul II is
requesting clemency, following the Pope's revelation that the third secret of Fatima was a prophetic vision of his assassination
attempt.
Mehmet
Ali Agca argues that since his crime was "preordained," he should be
absolved of all responsibility. The 43-year-old Turk, who is in prison in Ancona on Italy's
east coast, envisions a holy life for himself, as a preacher spreading the
message of Fatima.
Agca sent
a letter to the Pope pleading "Your Holiness, help me" on May 13, the
19th anniversary of the shooting and the day the Vatican
disclosed the third secret of Fatima. He
followed it up with a telegram five days later on the Pope's 80th birthday.
"I am hoping for the diplomatic intercession of the Vatican [for my
release]," he told Reuters in a recent interview. "The Pope is not
the only one who makes sacrifices and dedicates his life to humanity."
One of
the bullets fired is placed in the crown of the statue of the Virgin Mary at Fatima.
