Roman Catholism

last SG · 2004-07-17T00:02:20+00:00

Yup, sliew, just hold on to your faith. Let neither defractors nor hypocrites make you stray away from your beliefs. Btw, is the movie out on vcds?

frOst^~^nOva SG

Does protestants experience Stigmata too? coz RC does.. Smile

stupidissmart SG

I too experience them.. mosquitoe bites mah ! So wat r u trying to say ? When one has a hallucination tat he has (finger) nail marks on their hands, they become more holy ?

laurence82 SG

Same as someone poo poo Chinese medium?

Yup.

stupidissmart SG

There were not many such claims during this period, and very little official notice was taken of them. It wasn't until the 13th century that the number of such reports began to increase.

It was 1224 when the first undisputed and best-known case of stigmata surfaced on the person of St. Francis of Assissi, one of the great Roman Catholic Church saints.

Two years before his death, St. Francis was praying on Mount Alverna, a place in central Italy where he often went to be alone. He was in the middle of a 40-day fast, feeling weak, and his eyes were burning. While he was praying and concentrating on his meditations, a vision appeared to him: an angel who was carrying an image of a man nailed to a cross.

When the vision disappeared, St. Francis felt sharp pains in various places on his body. Looking to find the source, he saw that he had five marks like those on Jesus' hands, feet, and sides. Observers described them as "fleshy" and "nail-like ... "round and black, standing clear of his flesh." His side appeared to have been lanced; his companions actually saw that wound appear, as though his skin had been slashed. During the days that followed, St. Francis' trousers and tunic were often soaked in blood. The marks remained until his death and reportedly caused him much pain.

Church authorities have not recognized St. Francis' stigmata as "divine intervention." Pope Benedict XIV (1740-175 Cool said he was "doubtful." St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622) at first believed the marks were the result of heavenly action but later came to judge them as "a product of strong compassion in a person thinking about Jesus' suffering." Pope Pius (1846-187 Cool , like many of his predecessors, believed that St. Francis' stigmata were "historically certain but not an article of faith."

The Church's opinion is that this phenomenon occurs only in ecstatics, persons in a state of "ecstasy," reportedly a common denominator in all stigmata claims. This is described as an intensely emotional state in which rational thought and self control are absent.

The question arises: Why did God start to intercede in human affairs after 13 centuries? If stigmata are intended by Him to inspire and encourage the faithful, it is puzzling that for the first 12 centuries there were only a handful of occurences.

To explain why, we might consider the Church of that period. It was being criticized for various abuses and for ignoring the average man and woman. It was on the brink of some important changes. The "common people" wanted some direct communication with Jesus, but the Church required them to obtain permission for that contact. So to bypass an unyielding church, individuals began to suffer with Jesus on their own, feeling that body on the cross within their own bodies.

A skeptic might point out that earlier stigmatists had marks in the PALMS of their hands, while later subjects reported marks on their WRISTS. This could be explained by a change in historical understanding of the nature of crucifixion and the need to have the victim kept in place on the cross.

Just a question... why does god have to punish his follower by inflicting pain on them ? Sounds to me more of a work from the devil than divine, more of a punishment than a reward, more hoax than holy.

frOst^~^nOva SG

no coz my cathecist ever showed me some pics of stigmata happening when they went on a retreat. the photos were quite shocking. Shocked Shocked

laurence82 SG

Me all right with Christians receiving stigmata, just dont like certain Christians here poo poo Chinese mediums and post pics of them here for eberyone to laugh at....

nukewatch SG

Can I try to clarify some things?

Do Catholics believe:

1) That all the Scriptures, and only the Scriptures, as the infallible Word of God? Are there other literatures (e.g. Creeds) accorded the same status as the bible?

2) That Jesus is both divine and human? That his death on the cross is a sacrifice of atonement acceptable to God.

3) That salvation is by grace through faith, not works?

sliew SG

We Catholics do not worship any pics or whatever. Protestants failed to understand the meaning behind because most of the churches were started in late centuries when people are more educated ect.
In the early Church most people do not know how to read. There was not even a Bible as we see today. Because of persistant persecutions from the pagans, the Catholic Church under the Pope at that time decided to have the books collected so that they can have at least someting in writing to pass on to future generations. Martin Luthur mentioned that it was due to the RC church that we owned the Bible. It is like when you form a society and you have your beliefs and culture. When your society gets bigger and you are afraid to lose its identity, you want to write things down for future members. Same as a company founder who want to make sure the basic tenats of his company be passed on to future owners.
But the Church have an unwritten tradition passed down from the apostles and early Church Fathers. The Church father bears witness to the faith. For example St Ignatius who was martyred in the colessums spoke of ' where there is peter, there is the Catholic Church' You may read these readings yourself.
Early Christians did use symbols and pics to remind them of the faith. Go to Rome and see the catacombs or Israel.
When you see the picture of your late relative or friend or even girlfriend, it helps you to focus on that person and remind you of him or her. This is not worship.
I agree that some catholics put superstitions into the pics etc but this popular piety not official church teaching.
As a Catholic if you feel that you don't need these sacramentals, you don't have do. In fact if you go to modern RC churches in the US, you find no images except the crucifix.
Lets not argue over these petty things. The most impt is our spiritual life not picking faults here and there. Also try to appreciate each other cultures rather than picking faults here and there.
I think our arguements over these things is a laughing stock.
We fight agianst each other even kill each other as in Ireland in the name of religion. Is it the life that Jesus wants us to live ? Was Jesus like this in the Bible ? He always point out that the Jews did not live their faith according to the heart but he did not say anything bad about their external practices.

We as disciples should imitate our Master.

The root of terrorism is fanatical extremism as in militant Islam. Lets not fall into Satan trick. I do not want to see fanatical Christians in Singapore turning to terrorists and start bombing Catholic Churches.

If your pastor is doing this, pls remind him and pray for him. It is love that conquers just like Mother Theresa said to a Hindu that everyone make no diff to her, all are children of God whether Muslim, Hindu or Christian.

sliew SG

Hello my friend in Christ, Catholic beliefs is the same. In fact your second belief was confirmed by the RC church in the early centuries. St Augustine was the one who challenged the heretical beliefs in those days and won at the council. The Catholic Church survived all the heresies in the early days and passed on the faith to us. In this modern times there is another heresy a popualr book called the Da Vinci code. The Church wrote a debunk da vinci to challenge the heresy.

You see there so many persecutions against the Church whether Protestants or Catholics. Let us be united in faith rather than judging each other

Salvation is by grace. Salvation is given free but you may lose it if you committ a mortel sin ie break away from God. So even if you are bapitised, if you committ a serious sin eg deliberate killing and remain unrepetent, you cannot be save. For example judus who betrayed Jesus.

Some Christians believe that once you are save, you are save. this is heresy

Icemoon SG

It is like when you form a society and you have your beliefs and culture. When your society gets bigger and you are afraid to lose its identity, you want to write things down for future members ... But the Church have an unwritten tradition passed down from the apostles and early Church Fathers.

Doesn't make sense logically if we consider the first part which I have no problem with. Why does the tradition remain unwritten? Scared to write it down? If it isn't any esoteric teaching or knowledge guarded by a family line, then no harm writing it down for the benefit of future generations.

Lets not argue over these petty things. The most impt is our spiritual life not picking faults here and there ... I think our arguements over these things is a laughing stock.

Actions speak louder than words. I think the fact that some church accepted a gay bishop is a bigger laughing stock.

He always point out that the Jews did not live their faith according to the heart but he did not say anything bad about their external practices.

Got. Since many people think Judaism is a religion of works, any attempt for them to live their faith will no doubt translate to some kind of works.

Well, Jesus saved the prostitute from a potential barrage of stones, didn't he?

We as disciples should imitate our Master.

Remember, everyone should change their favourite 4 letter word to "bloody vipers".

The root of terrorism is fanatical extremism as in militant Islam. Lets not fall into Satan trick. I do not want to see fanatical Christians in Singapore turning to terrorists and start bombing Catholic Churches.

Ni3 yan2 zhong4 le. Christians haven't started throwing stones yet.

I think you're putting them in a bad light by comparing them to terrorists and militant Islam. Oh well, Bush is just another high class [christian] terrorist.

If your pastor is doing this, pls remind him and pray for him. It is love that conquers just like Mother Theresa said to a Hindu that everyone make no diff to her, all are children of God whether Muslim, Hindu or Christian.

Her statement is politically and technically correct. All human beings are children of God, just that some are more alienated than others.

Icemoon SG

St Augustine was the one who challenged the heretical beliefs in those days and won at the council.

Credit must be given to his mother. Without her prayers, our man would still be leading his screw-up life.

The Catholic Church survived all the heresies in the early days and passed on the faith to us.

It was more the case of groups debating with one another, one group won and wrote the history.

In this modern times there is another heresy a popualr book called the Da Vinci code. The Church wrote a debunk da vinci to challenge the heresy.

Good effort by Dan Brown to bring about cooperation between Catholics and Protestants.

You see there so many persecutions against the Church whether Protestants or Catholics. Let us be united in faith rather than judging each other

If ecumenism is so successful that there is a merger, how big will this World Christian Body be? How rich will it be? Big enough to pose a threat to other religions. Probably street preachers everywhere. Even SIS has no place to hide.

Wait a minute, Catholics are not really into evangelising. So we may see another reality. All street preachers suddenly disappear.

Salvation is by grace. Salvation is given free but you may lose it if you committ a mortel sin ie break away from God. So even if you are bapitised, if you committ a serious sin eg deliberate killing and remain unrepetent, you cannot be save. For example judus who betrayed Jesus. Some Christians believe that once you are save, you are save. this is heresy

You never answer the part which I think is more important. Is salvation by faith, not works?

And was Judas even baptised? He was gone before the Father gave the Holy Spirit to baptise the disciples. (recall the baptism formula)

Eternal security, not sure if this is the theological 'layman' term, can be argued. There is no need to relegate it to a heresy. Moreover, since God is eternal and does not share our perspective of time, once-saved-always-saved is still very much plausible. And if the P in TULIP is true, heehee ...

nukewatch SG

Originally posted by Icemoon:
Salvation is by grace. Salvation is given free but you may lose it if you committ a mortel sin ie break away from God. So even if you are bapitised, if you committ a serious sin eg deliberate killing and remain unrepetent, you cannot be save. For example judus who betrayed Jesus. Some Christians believe that once you are save, you are save. this is heresy

You never answer the part which I think is more important. Is salvation by faith, not works?

Thanks Icemoon, that is what I have in mind when I first asked the question.

There are a lot of doctrinal differences among christians. I believe we can agree on the essentials and allow liberty in the non-essentials.

I believe that the issue on salvation by grace through faith in Jesus, and not on works, is an essential issue. If we can agree on this, it is a good start. If not, the attempt to reconcile catholics and protestants is as difficult as reconciling jews and muslims (ok, i exaggerated).

As for non-essential issues like history, 2000 years is a long time for a sound church to get corrupted and a corrupted one to repent. So there is little point in pursuing the argument along that line.

As for images, I tend to see them as an optional means to an end. Could we agree that these are non-essentials and put this issue aside?

fandango SG

Christians don't mock Mary.

Well, as for a word of caution to Catholics too, whoever address Mary as the Queen of Heaven will .....

Jeremiah 7:16 - 20

16 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear thee.

17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?

18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?

20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.

Oops...guilty as charged.

Icemoon SG

The reality is that both sides misunderstand each another's position. I believe the Catholic position is salvation by faith AND works. I think the Protestant position is similar, since an absence of works is not good indication that you're saved.

Actually Jews and Muslims are easier to reconcile than Christians and either of them. I mean if your idea of God is so different (the Trinity issue), how can you even get started?

SingaporeMacross SG

Originally posted by NeonTetra:
as much as the explanation do make some sense...they do not have solid biblical backing. the making of images and veneration of these are surely not allowed in the Bible.

You need to look closely at the verses in scripture that condemn images. You will find that images are not to be made for worship. Nothing condemns them being made for the purpose of directing our minds and hearts to God. How can images be wrong when they facilitate our prayer and worship of the One Lord?

if God knows humans like pictures so much..then y the bible is all in words?

Firstly, in the early years of the Church, before the masses knew how to read as they do today, pictures were used to teach the people about Christ and the stories of the Bible. It is for that reason that many stained-glass windows, paintings, and statues were created. Also, if you look at the very first editions and printings of the King James Bible--as well as similar bibles of that time period--you will find that they are extensively adorned w/ wood carvings and other artwork and illustrations.

Of course, today, since most Christians can read, the Bible is mostly in words. Words are also the most effective way to get any point across--much more effective then pictures. However, this does not discredit the use of pictures to "illustrate" a story or to aid our prayer life.

the bible also emphasise on a faith that require no sight. then why keep insisting people need to see and touch some relics and pictures in order to believe?

Catholics do not insist on these at all. We argue not that the use of pictures and relics is absolutely necessary, but that the use of them is an orthodox practice. This is a big difference. Also, Catholics have plenty of "faith without seeing," the most notable example being our belief in the Real Presence.

Grace from God is it tt limited that we need sacramentals such as medals and scapulars to obtain? Christ's death is not powerful and sufficient enough to make us worthy of God's grace? Mary dun wear medals..yet she is highly favored and God's grace is on her.

No one is claiming that medals and scapulars are absolutely necessary. We can and do receive grace w/o them. We merely contend that grace can also be received through the physical aided by the spiritual.

Moses and all the biblical figures do not encounter God in bread and images. They saw God in visions and out of faith.

For one thing, visions are images. Secondly, if manna from the sky isn't people encountering God in bread, what do you call it?

Pictorial representations, no matter how legitimate it seems on human terms is not the right manner to remember, observe, worship and honour God-the invisible.

We are merely claiming that it is right, not that it is THE right way, or more right then any other way

Why dun we worship a picture of Jesus's brain so that we can have the mind of Christ?

I repeat once again, we do not worship these images. We do not worship paintings or statues of Jesus. No worship is being afforded these things. Instead, these things direct our worship to God.
Hence, in the devotion to the Sacred Heart, there are two elements: a sensible element, the Heart of flesh, and a spiritual element, that which this Heart of flesh recalls spiritual element, that which this Heart of flesh recalls and represents. But these two elements do not form two distinct objects, merely co-ordinated they constitute but one, just as do the body and soul, and the sign and the thing signified. Hence it is also understood that these two elements are as essential to the devotion as body and soul are essential to man. Of the two elements constituting the whole, the principal one is love, which is as much the cause of the devotion and its reason for existence as the soul is the principal element in man. Consequently, devotion to the Sacred Heart may be defined as devotion to the adorable Heart of Jesus Christ in so far as this Heart represents and recalls His love; or, what amounts to the same thing, devotion to the love of Jesus Christ in so far as this love is recalled and symbolically represented to us by His Heart of flesh.

NeonTetra SG

Regarding to your explanation..statues and images that direct our worship to the God of the Bible is ok....i show you wat the bible says...

Exodus 32

The Golden Calf

1 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him."
2 Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." 3 So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."
5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD ." 6 So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. [3] Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.
7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.'
9 "I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."

--------------------------------------------------------

When the Israelites made the golden calf..it was not some pagan gods they have in mind when they made it. Infact when u read the words in bold...they ascribe to the calf what the God of Israel did. They say....this is the 'god' who brought them out of Egypt. They worship the calf as though worshipping God and recognising what God has done for them....in the wrong manner and God hates it. Many of us can also worship the true God in a false manner....

SingaporeMacross SG

Originally posted by fandango:

Christians don't mock Mary.

Well, as for a word of caution to Catholics too, whoever address Mary as the Queen of Heaven will .....

Jeremiah 7:16 - 20

16 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear thee.

17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?

18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the [b]queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?

20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.

Oops...guilty as charged.[/b]

Hmm, in Jeremiah 44 it also mentions the phrase Queen of Heaven a number of times. Maybe you are right.

Absolutely not!!

To begin with the "queen of heaven" found in the book of Jeremiah has no bearing or relation with Mary. The text in question has to do with Ishtar, the Assyro-Babylonian goddess of fertility. This pagan worship was initiated under Manasseh and was restored after the death of Josiah. Pagan worship, then as now, is considered an abomination by Jews and Christians alike, including the first Christians, Catholics. Catholics do not regard the Blessed Mother of the Lord as a god, or goddess, or anything of the sort!
This whole Protestant argument is not the Biblical text or true history, it is simply based on the similarity in the title, "Queen of Heaven", and is a very weak position. The fact that a pagan deity was known, as the "queen of heaven" doesn't mean this term can't rightfully be applied, in another sense altogether, to Mary.

In the second place, the fact that a pagan deity was known as the queen of heaven doesn't mean this term can't rightfully be applied, in another sense altogether, to Mary. The pagan king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, is called the king of kings by Daniel (Daniel 2:37), yet this doesn't preclude Jesus from being called by the same title (Rev. 17:14; 19:16).
Thirdly, Mary, whom all generations "shall call blessed." (Luke 1:4 Cool has a legitimate claim to the title of QUEEN OF HEAVEN. As Christians we acknowledge Christ as the king of heaven (Matt. 19:23-24). And a King of the Davidic Royal line "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David"(Luke: 1:32) The Sacred Scriptures specifically refer to Mary as the mother of Christ over 25 times.

Next, we must note "The mother of the ruling monarch is known as the Queen Mother," (World Book Encyclopedia 2000) So we see that "Queen Mother" refers to the mother (Mary) of a reigning monarch (The Divine King, Jesus Christ).

The Queen Mother, "Gebi Rah" in Hebrew, was a distinct honor, and a tradition began by the son of David, Solomon. The Sacred Scriptures show in Ancient Israel or Judah the mother of the designated heir enjoyed a special status. Nathan enlisted Bathsheba rather than Solomon in his plan to have Solomon confirmed as king (1 Kings 1:11-40). Queen mother was an official position in Israel and Judah. Great care was taken in preserving the names of the queen mothers (1 Kings 14:21; 15:2, 13; 22:42; 2 Kings 8:26). Asas removal of his mother from the office for idolatry (1 Kings 15:13) points to its official character. On her sons death, Athaliah murdered her own grandsons, the legitimate heirs, in order to retain the power she had enjoyed as queen mother (2 Kings 11:1-2). The queen mother served as a trusted counsel for her son Proverbs: 31:1). In the Scriptures God heavily, heavily emphasized the queen mother's of the Davidic Royal line. In Scriptures over 25 times that after the introduction of the Jewish king, the queen mother is recognized Each Time. In all of these verses notice the words, "and his mother's name was". Notice what the king does for his mother, he stands to greet her, pays homage to her, and had a throne built for her at his right hand side.
So we see that Mary has a right to the title of "Queen of Heaven" but were does scripture say God say he will have a Queen? In Psalms: 45:9, 12, and 17 we read:

"Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the QUEEN in gold of Ophir...even the rich among the people SHALL INTREAT THY FAVOUR. I will make THY NAME TO BE REMEMBERED IN ALL GENERATIONS: therefore shall the people PRAISE THEE for ever and ever."
Her name remembered in all generations. Ring a bell? The prophecy comes to fulfillment in Luke 1:48: "For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth ALL GENERATATIONS SHALL CALL ME blessed". In the Book of Revelation we read.
"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." (Rev. 12:1-2)
What kinds of women wear crowns? Queens wear crowns, but this woman seems to be crowned with the 'highest jewels' of creation, the stars, with the sun itself as her royal robes.

"Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus."(Rev. 12:17)
Satan could not get the woman (enmity Gen 3:16) so he went to fight her spiritual children, Christians, people who bear witness to Jesus the Christ.
Even Martin Luther preached after his break with Rome on the Feast of the Visitation (July 2, 1532) --
"She, the Lady above heaven and earth, must have a heart so humble that she might have no shame in washing the swaddling clothes or preparing a bath for St. John the Baptist, like a servant girl. What humility! It would surely have been more just to have arranged for her a golden coach, pulled by 4,000 horses, and to cry and proclaim as the carriage proceeded: 'Here passes the woman who is raised FAR ABOVE all women, indeed above the WHOLE human race.'"
Five years later, preaching on the same feast day, Luther said --
"She was not filled with pride by this praise...this immense praise: 'No woman is like unto thee! Thou art more than an EMPRESS or a QUEEN....blessed above all nobility, wisdom, or saintliness!'"

NeonTetra SG

The title 'Queen of Heaven' first of all refer to the pagan goddess....Ishtar(Ashtarte), or Isis in the Egyptian context. This female goddess concept has been a widespread devotion worldwide. The thing about a picture of Isis is that she is found standing with a serpent under her feet and guess wat? look at the picture above.

some may argue that the serpent is about some prophecy in Genesis...what got this to do with her? Christ is the one crushing the head of the serpent.....the snake under her feet...she is not even crushing it....

Click to know more

There is nothing wrong to respect Mary, but to honour her to such extent and pomp.....wats that for?

A simple jewish maiden has been repackaged and make-over into some elebourate and exalted female biblical figure with the ability to heal, intercede, come to rescue and save from fires of hell....oh....thats out of hand.

and by the way, the description in Revelation is NOT abt Mary....read carefully, the whole of Revelation is a figurative speech....wat makes you think that that segment is so clear....revealing a picture of Mary in the book...for wat? That woman is Israel as nations r often described as a lady....

not this picture!

one..

think about it. I personally dun hate Mary.....why shld i? i have nothing against the biblical Mary...wat i am against is the fake

stupidissmart SG

When I see this picture... i think of eve...

and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel

never realise tis story goes back to pagan

SingaporeMacross SG

You know what Jack Chick writes in his tracts?

The Catholic Church keeps "the name of every Protestant church member in the world" in a "big computer" in the Vatican for use in future persecutions.[1]

But the conspiracy is much broader than this, and it has been going on for a very long time. In the sixth century, for instance, Catholic leaders manipulated the Arabian tribesman Mohammed into creating the religion of Islam to use as a weapon against the Jews and to conquer Jerusalem for the pope.[2]

The Jesuits instigated the American Civil War, supporting the Confederate cause and seeking to undermine the Union. When they failed, they arranged the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.[3] Later, they formed the Ku Klux Klan.[4]

"Jesuits worked closely with Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin" to create Communism, and it was "believed that soon . . . Communism would rise up as the new strong daughter of the Vatican."[5] It was Rome that instigated the Bolshevik Revolution and the murder of the czars family.[6] The Communist "liberation theology" movement also is a Vatican plot.[7]

The Nazi Holocaust of the 1940s was a Vatican-controlled attempt to exterminate Jews and heretics.[8] Further, "Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were backed by the Vatican for the purpose of setting up a one-world government to usher in the Millennial Kingdom under Pope Pius XII."[9]

The Vatican conspiracy is so extensive that, through the Jesuits, Rome controls the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, international bankers, the Mafia, the Club of Rome, the Masons, and the New Age movement.[10]

The Jesuits created the Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormonism, Unity, Christian Science, and other religious groups.[11]

"Pope John Paul II has been a good Communist for many years"[12] and engineered a phony assassination attempt against himself in 1981 to shame Islam into warming relations with the Vatican, since the would-be killer was a Muslim.[13]

Anyway....Chick makes a lot of the conventional anti-Marian arguments that are common in Fundamentalism: that Mary is not the Mother of God, that we are not to ask for her intercession, that statues of her should not be venerated, that she was not preserved by Gods grace from sin, etc.[67]

What is distinctive about Chicks approach is his is claim that "the Mother of God that Catholics worship is not the Mary of the Bible. Satan has tricked them into worshiping a counterfeit goddess."[68] The basis for this claim is a story he borrowed from Alexander Hislop, according to which there was a queen in ancient Babylon named Semiramis. She married her son, Nimrod. After his death, she claimed to have had a virgin birth of another son, Tammuz, who was Nimrod reincarnated. This pair of Semiramis and Tammuz was often depicted in artwork as a mother and child. They form the basis of all of the mother-child statues in the different religions of the world, and when Catholics worship Mary and the Baby Jesus, they are actually worshiping Semiramis and Tammuz.

What is one to make of this? Setting aside the fact that Catholics do not worship Mary, it is still complete nonsense. Hislops wild ideas cannot be substantiated historically.[69] We have mother and child images from cultures that predate Babylon. Further, if you want to depict a famous mother, a good way of doing it is by picturing her holding her child. Thus before literacy became widespread Christians often would picture Mary holding the Baby Jesus, and it became an established image in Christian art.

Goodness, Anti-Catholicism in Singapore is worse than I thought!!! My friend, do not read the material of this man! He is untrustworthy!

« Previous Page Next Page »