AssemblyBoard

A few days ago, after downloading Mozilla and trying it with various web sites, I found that it wasn't able to display the huge (550 by 27429 pixels) picture file of the Alberto story on the Chick web site.

The story of Alberto Rivera is rather hair-raising!  The whole story is covered by 6 comic books, of which 3 are available in digitized form on the Chick web site.

"Alberto" (http://www.chick.com/reading/comics/0112/albertoindex.asp)  ---  His schooling and infilration work
"The Godfathers" (http://www.chick.com/reading/comics/0114/godfathersindex.asp)  ---  The Vatican in European history
"The Prophet" (http://www.chick.com/reading/comics/0117/theprophetindex.asp)  ---  The Vatican in Islamic history


(This thread is a poll.)


The story that Alberto Rivera told about the Catholic Church: how accurate do you think it is?

1. Substantially true and accurate, with only a few misstatements of details.

2. Much of story true; historic part "enhanced" by the seminary for intimidation, self-importance.

3. Mixed bag: the truth being somewhere between the previous choice and the next choice.

4. Personal story true; a few exceptional people were subverting an otherwise decent organization.

5. Alberto Rivera was continuing his former job by telling an absurd story to discredit hearers.

6. Alberto Rivera was disgruntled and invented his story as retribution.

7. Alberto Rivera's brain was burned out: he wasn't remembering things correctly at all.

8. None of the above.  (Please explain in a post.)

Steve,

Although I am not familiar with Alberto Rivera, that fact that Jack Chick is behind popularizing him is enough to activate my Baloney filter.

A few minutes looking on the web revealed that he has been discredited in expose's by Walter Martin, Christianity Today, and Cornerstone Magazine.  

That's enough for me.

Thomas Maddux

Hi Steven,
 Put me down for #8.   Alberto Rivera is old news and IMO, so is Jack Chick.   In the 1980's, I was exposed to Chick Tracs and they were great fuel for my distaste for Christianity.   I recall the Rivera stuff and remember thinking that all of the conspiracy stuff was laughable.

Strange thing is that as a new believer, I was drawn into conspiracy after conspiracy by*information* from Chuck Misler and the SW Radio Church.   I call all of that time as non profitable.

   My question to you would be...Why pursue things with such a questionable source?   IMO, it is a waster of time...unless of course you enjoy that type of stuff, in which case it is no more a waste of time than fantasy baseball or football.

   One thing that the Assembly experience has given me is a desire for a simple and sincere seeking of the Kingdom of God.   I've had enough detours and distractions and don't wish to consider chasing another.

Philippians 4:8  Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

--Tony

Hi Stephen,

I was brought up Catholic and definitely there was the indoctrination that protestants were 'the enemy'.  The only reason to invite a protestant to church was to win them to Catholicism.

I perused the Alberto tract but not the other two, very painful without high speed.  I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the story.

It has similarities to our assembly days and even to the communist regime in their persecution of believers.  External controls to force people to believe and stick with the system always lead to abuse.  It is a familiar story.

The province of Quebec in Canada used to be controlled by the Catholic church.  The past generation of kids rebelled against the system and the Catholic church lost a large following so they, the church, have had to change their tactics.  Having said that, I also know quite a few devout sincere believers who are Catholic.  Many of those that rebelled are now turning to Christianity.  So is that story applicable today??  Don't know for sure.  I have an uncle who is a Jesuit priest in India, but I hardly ever communicate with him.  I should send him the link and ask his opinion.

God bless,
Marcia

I looked over the Chick comic book.  It reads very much like the Da Vinci Code where everything Catholic was a mindless coverup for vast wrongdoing.

Of what I understand of my peanut understanding of church history is that the Jesuits were an apologetic wing of the Catholic church that formed in response and reaction to the Reformation - telling "their side of the story", if you will.  I don't know, but I would guess many had some thoughful arguments as to why folks should remain with the Catholic church and wasn't part of an organization that simply promoted underhanded means to destroy their "enemy" by any immoral means possible.

I think a better approach than Chick's would be as follows:
1.  Attempt to accurately articulate what the typical Catholic believes (not the extreme nut cases).
2.  Gently explain why we differ with some of these beliefs and explain why our view of spirituality is more accurate.
3.  (Maybe this should be point 1) Start with a Catholic with what we have in common - they pray, they believe in the Trinity, they believe they need Jesus as savior, they are against abortion.  Build a friendship and trust so that you can have a friendly discussion about the differences.

Here is the Cornerstone article that debunks the Chick tract:

http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?228 (http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?228)

"Hair-raising" has been Chick Publications' stock-in-trade since I first encountered his cartoon booklets shortly after my conversion to Christ in the 1960s.  Sort of reminds me of the Law Enforcement community's attempts with the "Scared Straight" program: bringing at-risk kids face-to-face with hard, tough convicts who get right in the kids' faces and try to straighten them out with "tough love."  Chick seems to be on a "Scared Saved" crusade, taking the tack that the best route to conversion is imposed paranoia.  Chick's basic doctrine doesn't seem "off" in terms of contemporary evangelical beliefs-- but his manner of getting around to the gospel is questionable.

The Rivera material does not defy belief, but so what?  We are to be wise as serpents in our dealings in this world, in order to identify the enemy among us.  But that doesn't necessarily mean fixating on his methods.  Much better, I believe, to spend our energies in pursuit of the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.  If we are full of the Holy Spirit, the contrast of our enemies' manners to those of our Redeemer will be obvious to us, when we need to see them.

Serious meditation upon the lesson offered us in Matthew 6:9-13, and devout prayer for the understanding and implementation of it, will bring us infinitely closer to Christ than investigations into the tactics of wickedness.

...but as to this thread's survey, I honestly have no idea what to think of Rivera's story, so I guess #8 comes closest for me...

In Christ,
al

An afterthought:  How farfetched would it be for a loyal Geftakysite to conclude from Chick's publications that:

 - Brent Tr0ckman is a Jesuit guerilla who was sent to destroy the assemblies.

 - The women with whom GG dallied were also Vatican  "plants," assigned to
   either compromise him or lie, saying that they had done so.

 - The assemblies were valid, but have been decimated by Catholic saboteurs.  

---

An outsider who has read the Rivera comics might buy it.

We all probably know inside "loyalists" who would snap it up as justification for continuing to meet.

That is the greatest danger of the Chick-type approach:  it preys upon the fears of the weak and the weaknesses of the fearful...

---

...I will fear no evil: for Thou art with me... Psa.23:4

In Christ,
al

Of course, you are all missing the main positive of Chick tracts.  

Because they were often placed in public facilities such as Men's restrooms, they gave me something to do when I had some, well, down time.  ;D

On a similar (but not quite exact) note, I wonder if many of George's books we sent to Africa were used in similar situations:

Ongawa:  Brother, we have shortage of toilet paper again.
Chongjui:  Here, take a copy of Assembly Stewardships.  We will write Fullerton and ask for more.   :P

Marcia and all,

...fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Mt.10:28

...and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, (the churches) were multiplied. Ac.9:31

I recently found this commentary on the book of Jonah:

                          "To fear God is to stand in awe of Him;
                      to be afraid of God is to run away from Him."
                           -- Carroll E. Simcox

The Psalms and Proverbs are full of wonderful verses about the fear of the Lord.  God is Love, and perfect love casts out fear (the "afraid" kind).

Only by asking Him to teach me the fear of the Lord do I hope to learn it.

Blessings,
al

All:

I was wondering for awhile if indeed GEORGE was a Jesuit of some sort, seeing his wife's fondness for the Knox translation of the Bible (!!) and also for certain Catholic authors.

I would have to say #3.  Most things are a mixed bag.

Matt

Me to. Good to hear from  you again Arthur.
Verne

I guess looking at Auther's post, anything can be a cult.  Random House Dictionary says:

1.  a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2.  a group that devotes itself to or venerates a person, ideal, fad, etc.

3.  a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist.

4.  the members of such a religion or sect.

I guess with definitions that broad any church as well as the Boy Scouts and Little League would be a cult, too.  You can almost rewrite it as:

1.  Any religious group
2.  Any group that believes anything
3.  Any group you don't agree with.
4.  The people who attend.

Arthur,

I took a look at Jack Chick's article on the link you supplied.  Pretty much his usual stuff.

When I was a brand new Christian I obtained a copy of Halley's Bible Handbook.  He has a section on Church history that pretty much parallels Chick's take on the Catholic Church.  So I began my Christian life with pretty much the same attitude.  God had "called" me to oppose the evil Whore of Babylon.  Just as he had "called" me to return to the One True New Testament Pattern.

BTW, I had heard that restorationist idea all my life.  I grew up in the Christian Church/Church of Christ tradition.

So, I wasted a lot of time and effort studying up on the subject.  I adopted the fundamentalist mythological church history that GG promoted, only I adopted it long before I met GG.  Of course, getting into the Plymouth Brethren/Assembly system only exposed me to more of same.  "The Pilgrim Church" , "The Torch of the Testimony" and so on.

The idea that these folks promote is that as the Evil Catholics apostasized there were faithful groups holding to the truth that carried on the faithful "testimony"...which is seen as "doing it correctly".  In order to promote this they "baptise" every heretical group that ever existed.

As the years passed, and as I learned more about church history, I began to doubt these ideas. I began to notice such things as the fact that the central doctrinal belief of the Christian church, the doctrine of the Trinity, was worked out and formalized at a council called by the Roman emperor Constantine, (who was probably still a pagan at the time), and agreed upon by a bunch of people who believed things about the "eucharist", baptism, church government and much more that we protestants reject today.

So, you end up with Jack Chick professing the faith of the Great Whore of Babylon!  :o

I had to ask myself, "what's going on here".  I finally decided two things: First, God is sovereign over history and works out his purposes through imperfect men.  Second, Jesus said, "I will build my church".

Restorationism is based on the idea that he messed up!  :o

I don't understand all the ins and outs.  But I do know that if the Catholic Church is a non-Christian cult then we are going to have to fill in about a thousand year blank when there simply wasn't any Christianity!  The "pilgrim Church" idea may give folks a conception of church history that validates their beliefs, but it just can't be supported by historical evidence.

Besides, it isn't the Jesuits who are trying to take over the world.  The Jesuits are only a front for the Illuminati Cabal who run Masonism, the Kiwanis Club, Cub Scouts, Islam, Zen Buddhism, Amway, world Zionism, and Shaklee products.  I hear they have been working mainly through Chiropractic colleges to indoctrinate westerners into their darkness for many years.   ::)

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Arthur,

In order to understand the Catholic teaching on transubstantiation one has to have at least some familiarity with the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.  That is the official philosophy of the RC church. 

They think of these things using Aquinas' categories about "natures", "essences", "accidents" etc.

So, I don't think Chick is presenting what they really believe, but rather a simple minded carriciture.

Don't misunderstand me...I reject the doctrine of transubstantiation and all other sacraments as well.  I also reject the worship of Mary, who in folk Catholocism is frequently viewed as a goddess.

But if believing nonsense means you aren't a Christian....what does that mean for us?

Thomas Maddux

And which thousand would that be, pray tell?
Verne

p.s I am more than a little startled that you would consider the Papacy and what it stands for, more importantly what that system has historically done to believers, in any way "Christian". I distinguish the system from its adherents, some of whom I believe to be saved...
The critical point of derparture is the position of the Catholic leadership that church tradition, not the Bible, is the ultimate arbiter of doctrinal matters. In this position they are entirely unabashed. It is hard consider a system like this "Christian"...

Can someone explain to me in something rather clear and simple what exactly it is that the Catholics are doing when they have "communion" on Sunday mornings? Is that what they call the eucharist?

I'm assuming from these earlier posts that Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the body & blood of Christ, but so do the Lutherans, but the Lutherans don't call it the eucharist. Aside from all the other obvious differences with the Catholic church, I don't think that Lutherans "worship" the wafer and wine, do they?

Verne,

First of all, I don't recall having said anything about the papacy at all.  

Second,  I am not speaking specifically of the ROMAN catholic church.  When I said "catholic" I am referring to the "universal" church as it existed from..say...300 to 1300AD.  During that period, you've got the first real pope, Gregory I who "reigned" from 590-604.

But infant baptism, sacramentalism, government by heirarcical bishops, church state unions, persecution of dissenters were all in place long before the papacy.  These were characteristics of both the eastern and western churches.  I believe it was 1256AD when they finally formally separated.

Now, as to the "system" and the "adherents".   The system is nothing more than the beliefs, practices, documents and property of the adherents.  How does one separate them?

For example, Augustine of Hippo.   One of the great theologians of the western church.  Can you divide between the Christian and the system?  He was both a great Christian theologian and a Catholic bishop.  He also favored the imposition of catholic teaching by government power.

If you wish to say he wasn't a Christian, go ahead.  But to do that you would need to explain how he fooled Calvin, Luther, Zwingli and the other reformers so well.   ::)

So, how would you differentiate between the system and the adherent in Augustine?

Thomas Maddux

Moon,

The word "eucharist" is the anglicized form of the greek words for "thank you" or "thanksgiving".   We "give thanks" for the bread and wine when we celebrate the Lord's supper.

Very early the idea arose and became popular that there was virtue in the "elements", the bread and wine.  But then they needed to differentiate between the eucharistic elements and plain old bread and wine.

So the idea of "consecrated" bread and wine developed.  Only the ones that were blessed, prayed over, or whatever by an authorized church official were effective.   Eating and drinking this stuff was supposed to communicate grace in some way.   If you didn't get it....you could lose out on salvation.

Of course, this conferred tremendous power on the church hierarchy.  They could send you to hell if you made them mad. 

Or, at least, so it was believed.

When the Reformation came the principle of justification by faith alone was recovered and preached.

The Roman Catholic church held a big council that lasted 9 years at at Trent.  One of the things that came out of it was the declaration that the bread and wine, properly consecrated  by an authorized priest, were physically transformed into the real body and blood of Christ.

Not just spiritually, as the Lutherans believe, but physically.  In Thomist philosophy they distinguish a things essence, (what it really is), from its accidents, (its physical characteristics).  RC's believe that the bread and wine are really Christ's body and blood in their essence, just as if you had cut a chunk of meat out of Jesus. 

Transubstiation, in their view, only effects the essence, not the accidents.

So, when they bow down to the "consecrated host", they believe that they are bowing down to Jesus Christ himself.  They don't believe that God is a wafer, they believe that Christ is present in the wafer.

Sounds strange to us, and it is.  But it is based on philosophical ideas that were widely accepted in Medieval philosophy.

We think of the bread and wine in terms of physics and chemistry.  This or that elements in this or that chemical combination acted upon by some catalyst...and so on.   They didn't.   They thought of reality as being closer to the spiritual than we do.

The problem is, for them, that they made in an "infallible" declaration, and can't take it back.   

Thomas Maddux

Thanks for the clarification Tom.
I would make historical distinctions based on the doctrinal position.
Most historians agree that the kind of rigid heirarchichal structure we see today began with the teachings of Cyprian(Bishop of Carthage in Africa circa  A.D. 248-258).
Some feel the "system" got going even earlier than Gregory I with Leo I.(A.D. 440-461)
Nothing in the writings of Agustine suggest that he would endorse the teachings of Vatican II in my view.



It is possible to subscribe to erroneous or even heretical teaching and still be a believer. The assemblies certainly prove this.
You and I disagree on the doctrine of election and that means that one or both of us may be wrong. It does not mean that either of us is necessarily unsaved.
The items you mention as being particular to the system are not the ones I would have metnioned as defining. As you know there are five central propositions regarding Mary and you mentioned none of them. The items you cited I would not necessarily consider a basis for an absence of Christian fellowship.

The thing that in my mind is truly defining when it comes to an assessment of what is Christian and what is not is one's view of the Bible.

Beware anyone mitigating the centrality and authority of the Scriptures and substituting human erudition in matters of doctrine and living, It is the quickest way to spot a false teacher.

The Roman Catholic Church has stated in no uncertain terms that it rejects the authority of Scripture as the ultimate source of doctrinal truth, and has vested such authority in church tradition, and the conclusions of one human - the Pope.

I suspect that not every person who is Catholic is fully aware of some of the teachings of the "system".
I am certain that not every Catholic who may be aware of them accepts all of them as valid.
Contraception and the contents of the Canon of Scripture (Council of Trent notwithstanding  :) ) are two examples.
Verne
p.s. Concepts such as the infallibility of the Pope and the assumption of Mary are certainly not ones Agustine would recognize and are certainly not Medieval in their origin...

While there are many clear doctrinal aberrations espoused by the Roman Catholic authority, what I think justifies the view of those who tend to view them as a cult is their teaching concerning the person of Mary.
1.That she is the Mother of God
2. That she is "ever virgin".
3. That she was immaculately conceived.
4. That she was assumed into heaven and crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth.
5. That she is Mediatrix of all Graces, Co-Redemptrix and Advocate for the People of God.

You cannot talk seriously about how one should view Catholicism, unless you are prepraed to deal with the implications of the these doctrinal positions in my view.
Verne

Aw come on Arthur.  Stop knocking the Catholics and calling them a cult.  So what if they want to worship the Eucharist and the virgin Mary and believe that salvation comes by the sacrament of baptism and confirmation.  Think of all the sincere and devoted leaders and followers.  Sincerity and devotion is what matters isn't it??  It's not up to you to judge them eh??  So many marriages have been healed by the good counselling of the priests.  And so many are truly following God, be it under the catholic umbrella.  Mother Teresa was a Catholic.  Isn't that enough reason to validate them?

Marcia (insert toungue-in-cheek smilie here)

I take it you mean that he is spewing "hate" on God's people?
That we are supposed to only concern ourselves with "compassion" and "forgiveness"?
I guess we have to just forget about truth, righteousness, and the holiness of God.
Anybody interested in sending their young son off for altar boy training while we are at it?
Verne

Tom did a good job Moonflower.
The Eucharist falls under the general category in Catholicism referred to as the Sacraments.
The are generally defined as a sign from Christ by means of which He imparts His life and vitality to believers.
They include the bread and wine of the Eucharist of course, water babtism, and the exchange of matrimonial vows, the latter while not being directly sanctioned Scripturally( the wedding at Cana is often cited), but viewed (among others) as being legtimate by virtue of the "Church's experience and reflection".
Verne

It is my observation that there are many types of Catholics just as there are many types of Christians.  There are Catholics who are the supersticious type who pray to Mary and get into wierd spiritualism.  Then, there are those who act, believe and talk very much like Evangelicals.

There is someone who posts on this website who generally gets a reaction because he tends to put Christians in a box - all Christian leaders are immoral, according to him and they are all hypicrites, etc.  We evangelicals have often been taught to do the same when it comes to Catholics.

I remember one time many years ago at work when I was in the office of a woman who was a Catholic.  She was sharing her heart about how she was praying for her kids and really wanted God to do a work in their lives.  I remember thinking for the first time that perhaps I may have more in common with many Catholics than I realize.  Now that my kids are at decision-making age, I wouldn't mind having such a person as a prayer partner.

I understand that there are many historical differences we have with Catholicism.  I understand that there are many who are works-oriented.  But, over the years, the lines have kind of blurred and I believe that there are many Catholics who we have more in common than you might think.  Certainly, I have more in common with the Catholic church than I do with the ACLU.

It is always easier (I know by my own guilt) to label folks, generalize, and make everything black and white.  By doing so, we can write off anything Catholic as a horrible entity and don't have to face the fact that it is made up of people who, like us, are at different stages on the spiritual journey and understanding.  It makes things easier to control and our life nice and tidy.  It's much easier if Catholics and eveyone in it is part of a cult.  That way, we don't have to bother getting to know them.

Verne,

The idea that Mary was the mother of God always seemed nutty to me until I actually read the Chalcedonian Creed.  It is concerned with questions regarding the nature of Christ and mentions Mary incidentally.  

It says..."truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten..."

So, all the "mother of God" claims mean is that since Christ was fully God, and Mary was his mother, she was the mosther of God in that sense.

When I heard that phrase I used to think, "How can Mary be her creator's mother?"  But, that isn't what they mean at all.

Seems to me that the real question here is "Who is a Christian?"   In the gospels and acts it seems that Christ was preached as the Messiah, the Son of God, and no clearly defined explanation of what that meant was given until much later.  Paul said to the Philippian jailer, "...believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved..."

Genuine Catholics do that.   That doesn't validate all their other ideas, but it does show that one doesn't necessarily have to "pray to receive Christ" to be saved.

Back to Mary...I used to work with a sincere practicing Catholic who was very well educated.  Had quite an understanding of Catholic teaching.  I challenged him to show me that their beliefs were apostolic, or at least from the apostolic period.  

The best he could do was some quotes from the 5th century.  I'm pretty sure that most of the doctrinal statements you quote were "promulgated" at Vatican I in the 1870's and hang completely on the validity of the papal infallibility doctrine.

It seems to me the move to declare Mary, "co-mediatrix" was voted down...but I'm not completly sure.  Maybe it was "co-redemptrix".   :o

BTW, the Catholic friend I had, (we worked together), was one of the few Christian teachers I ever knew that took a bold stand for Christ with the secularist teachers.  He stood for all the historic Christian doctrines, opposed abortion, homosexuality etc.  He took a lot of flak for it.  

Many of our brethren behaved like "secret service" Christians.  You would never have known that they were Christians unless you asked them in private.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I too have learned not to paint with too broad a brush by experience. There are folks we readily accept as believers based solely on their say-so and some presumed subscription to theology but who don't act the part...
As to who is truly saved is a complex and rather elusive question. We have all been fooled at some point or another. I am becoming convinced that there are a few things about the regenerated life that simply cannot be counterfeited, if only we had eyes to see... :)
Verne
p.s you are right about fifth teaching concerning Mary not yet being made a matter of an infallible Papal decree, but the cardinals are pushing hard for it nonetheless...

On an individual basis there are some who are believers.  On the organizational basis I tend to categorize the catholic church as cult-like.  The priests(leaders) have to toe the party line or else suffer the consequences of not doing so.

I watched a documentary video on the life of Mother Teresa.  She had actually left the Catholic church to start her work in Calcutta.  It was a number of years later, only after she had applied and re-applied for official status, that the church 'recognized' her order of nuns.

Marcia

I have sinned this time: the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked. Ex. 9:27

These are amazing words, considering their source. They come from a person whose heart is completely hardened! Indeed they come from a life specifically raised up to demonstrate the judgmental power of God.
Unless we learn to think about the course of history in terms of God's purpose, we will play the part of fools.
Some hearing this confession could very well have concluded that this was a righteous man. After all, was he not clearly acknowledging his own transgression?
The key was of course the man could not cease from sin.
Some Christians still are unable to recognize Pharaoh's symptoms in others, regardless of what they say.
Pious platitudes from this man did not alter his fate, nevertheless, even he confessed his sin.
What will become of a man like George Geftakys?
I am more than ever convinced, that the reason so many of us fall into error, sorrow and a tragic  wasting of our precious time in futile pursuits is becasuse we fail to properly read and understand our Bibles...may the Almighty grant to each of us wisdom...



An attitude like this is almost always borne of ignorance and from that perspective can be excused.
How many of us under the influence of the apostate were convinced that the only place godly people existed was in the assemblies? I dare say most of us were of that sad opinon.
We all learned better after we left.
Those who have left the cofines of the assemblies and are still of the opinon that the world is devoid of truly godly men and women have another far more serious problem...
Verne