WARNING: INFLAMMATORY

[amycahill]

Maybe this will be hard to read and maybe this will be easy to read -- I dunno.  But I am about to state some conclusions about the Assembly I have made and they aren't going to be pretty.

First of all, I am Roman Catholic and I love my faith, so I personally start there.

As I came to this board, I found myself identifying with some of George's teachings most of you so strenuously objected to.  I actually went through a period of time where I questioned everything, including my Roman Catholic faith.

I finally figured it out.  Ready?

GEORGE TAUGHT A TWISTED, COUNTERFEIT VERSION OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM!!!!!!!!!

THAT'S why so many of you have "escaped" to mainstream evangelical churches, who are rather opposed to Catholicism.  You are, in my opinion, instinctively getting away from the poison you were fed.

Think about it.  I saw this (and laughed!) long before any of the web stuff was put up.  George was the pope; the elders were the cardinals; the workers were the bishops; and the leading brothers were the priests.  George created the Catholic hierarchy.  George tried to build the New Testament vision and what he built was the Catholic Church.  His own Catholic Church, of course.

Except it was TWISTED AND COUNTERFEIT.  He arrogated to himself the authority the Church claims, authority he did not possess.  And yes, you can look back at the 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church and find plenty of corruption in it, even to this day (the priest scandals, anyone?) but THE INSTITUTION ITSELF IS INTACT.  And the core teachings of it are too.  The Church claims her authority from the chair of Peter and has the history to back it up.  That is substantially different than one man (George) deciding that he is God's gift to the world and has the responsibility of transmitting some "heavenly vision" that only happens to be available to members of his church.  Not even the Catholic Church teaches that!

George didn't have that power and he himself was corrupt.  He was a corrupt and immoral pope and the church he created on his own authority did not survive.  

What's so funny is that he HATED Catholicism.  *I* sat there for 2 1/2 years and listened to my former religion (at that time) bashed frequently.  And yet he created his own version of it.  

Notice I said TWISTED.  Notice I said COUNTERFEIT.  I think the real is beautiful and true; what George created is false and ugly and desperately harmful.

Living my Catholic faith connects me deeply with God, although I have to take periodic "rest breaks" from religious activity because of being harmed in the Assembly.  But I never stop praying, never stop connecting with God in some way.  

Since I opened the topic, I welcome reasonable questions about Catholicism.  If someone attempts to harshly debate me or even flame me, I will ignore you.  

[M2]

Maybe this will be hard to read and maybe this will be easy to read -- I dunno.  But I am about to state some conclusions about the Assembly I have made and they aren't going to be pretty.

First of all, I am Roman Catholic and I love my faith, so I personally start there.

As I came to this board, I found myself identifying with some of George's teachings most of you so strenuously objected to.  I actually went through a period of time where I questioned everything, including my Roman Catholic faith.

I finally figured it out.  Ready?

GEORGE TAUGHT A TWISTED, COUNTERFEIT VERSION OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM!!!!!!!!!

THAT'S why so many of you have "escaped" to mainstream evangelical churches, who are rather opposed to Catholicism.  You are, in my opinion, instinctively getting away from the poison you were fed.

Think about it.  I saw this (and laughed!) long before any of the web stuff was put up.  George was the pope; the elders were the cardinals; the workers were the bishops; and the leading brothers were the priests.  George created the Catholic hierarchy.  George tried to build the New Testament vision and what he built was the Catholic Church.  His own Catholic Church, of course.

Except it was TWISTED AND COUNTERFEIT.  He arrogated to himself the authority the Church claims, authority he did not possess.  And yes, you can look back at the 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church and find plenty of corruption in it, even to this day (the priest scandals, anyone?) but THE INSTITUTION ITSELF IS INTACT.  And the core teachings of it are too.  The Church claims her authority from the chair of Peter and has the history to back it up.  That is substantially different than one man (George) deciding that he is God's gift to the world and has the responsibility of transmitting some "heavenly vision" that only happens to be available to members of his church.  Not even the Catholic Church teaches that!

George didn't have that power and he himself was corrupt.  He was a corrupt and immoral pope and the church he created on his own authority did not survive.  

What's so funny is that he HATED Catholicism.  *I* sat there for 2 1/2 years and listened to my former religion (at that time) bashed frequently.  And yet he created his own version of it.  

Notice I said TWISTED.  Notice I said COUNTERFEIT.  I think the real is beautiful and true; what George created is false and ugly and desperately harmful.

Living my Catholic faith connects me deeply with God, although I have to take periodic "rest breaks" from religious activity because of being harmed in the Assembly.  But I never stop praying, never stop connecting with God in some way.  

Since I opened the topic, I welcome reasonable questions about Catholicism.  If someone attempts to harshly debate me or even flame me, I will ignore you.  

Hi Amy,

You've figured it out quite nicely. One other thing Headquarters was at 2001 Calle Serena, Fullerton rather than in Rome.

Having being saved out of Roman Catholicism myself, I have no desire to return to it.  However, I do believe that there are some true believers who are Roman Catholics, you being one of them.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[vernecarty]

THE INSTITUTION ITSELF IS INTACT.  And the core teachings of it are too.  The Church claims her authority from the chair of Peter and has the history to back it up.

Are you quite sure about this? History suggests that the man in authority in the Jerusalem church was not Peter but James the Elder. If there was a line of Apostolic authority to be identified most Biblical scholars would argue that it descends from the apostle Paul through Timothy etc.etc. (This is certainly true as regards the bringing of the good news of the gospel to the Gentiles, which we are...). Finally, although I do not agree with everything written in this vein, there are many scholars who view the Roman Catholic Church as the great whore depicted in Revelation. Your beloved institution has shed the blood of many a saint dear Amy. Read your history. I would be happy to discuss church history and the legacy of Roman Catholicism with you anytime! The deification of Mary (mariolatry so called) is particularly troublesome to Christians as a central tenet of the teaching of Roman Catholicism.  The remarkable lengths to which the Church of Rome went to to keep the Word of God out of the hands of the common people (some paid for this breach with their very lives!) stands as dark testimony to the virulence of Romanism against the the clear teaching of the Scripture in this regard. The doctrine of infallibility of the pope, a mere human, mortal and sinful soul, flies in the face of everything taught by the Word of God. Even the apostle Peter had to be sharply rebuked by Paul for his bigotry. Since Peter did not himself claim infallibility, why does the pope, who supposedly derives his authority from Peter, make such a claim? The diligent study of, and faithful obedience to God's Word is enjoined on every beleiver, is that not so?  
In Christ,
Verne

[Joe Sperling]

Amy----

What you say is very interesting. George was kind of like a "mini-Pope", and our "rosary" was the so-called
"selfers prayer". I respect your views Amy, but I'll be honest that the reason that I could not be a Catholic is the power they ascribe to the church and Pope. Jesus says to the Pharisees "You lay aside the Word of God that you may keep your tradition". Much of the teachings of Catholicism are based on "Church Tradition" and not the Word of God. Take the prominence of the Virgin Mary in the Catholic Church for example. You would think if she held such importance to Christians, that the Epistles would be full of teachings about her. But Paul never even mentions her in all of his Epistles, which are accepted as the authority on what the Lord desires in his Church. The teachings about Mary come from Church tradition, the writings of Popes, etc.  But, I respect your beliefs, and know many Catholics that I'm sure are  saved and belong to the Lord.

God bless you Amy,  Joe

[Oscar]

Amy,

You wrote:
"GEORGE TAUGHT A TWISTED, COUNTERFEIT VERSION OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM!!!!!!!!!"

In this you are 100% correct.  However, you are incorrect in ascribing this idea to George Geftakys.  As with most of his teachings, GG simply lifted his ideas from his background in Plymouth Brethrenism.

Most of the founders/leaders of the PB movement in England were upper class Englishmen who came out of a background of high church Anglicanism.  A high church Anglican believes most of what the RC church teaches.

 They believe in Apostolic Succession, following the idea that the original Catholic bishops of England stood in that succession and that it cannot be revoked.  When Henry VIII broke away from Rome the succession, in their view, simply continued as it was.

The PB's, of course, rejected all the fol-de-rol of dressing up in odd clothes, ringing bells, burning candles, processions, incense, making mystical signs, intermediary sub-deities (saints), and so on.

What they did was to allegorize much of the Catholic practice. Their "Breaking of Bread" ceremony, which was called "the worship" in the GG assemblies, is nothing more than an allegorized version of the Mass.  That is why I have called it the Plymouth Bretheren Mass on these boards.

Another way they allegorized Catholic thinking is the idea of "God's Government".  In their view, God recognizes an earthly authority and works through it to achieve His goals in the world.  The problem they have, of course, is that they have so many "God's Governments" (ambitioius domineering men) that they split constantly.  

Their exclusiveness rises from this idea.  You have to submit to "God's Government" to really be in fellowship with God, just as in Catholic teaching.  The problem is "which one?"

You also wrote, "The Church claims her authority from the chair of Peter and has the history to back it up."

The first part of this statement is correct, but not the second. History is based on written documents.  There are no documents anywhere to back up the claim of apostolic succesion.  You have, no doubt, seen the Pope lists showing a succession of bishops of Rome beginning with Peter.

The problem is that the earliest record, which we have in quotations by later writers, dates from the 3rd century.  We do not actually have the original document.  So questions like "Who wrote this?"  "Was it true when written?" and "How did the author know this?" cannot be answered at all.

Think about it, Amy, who was the vice president of the US 150 years ago?  You could find out, because we have written documents.  Without them, how could you know?

Most Catholics think that the apostolic succession from Peter is well established history.  Actually, it is merely Catholic doctrine, backed up by the claim of historicity.  The claims of the Church are true because it speaks with the authority of Peter.  But the idea that the Church HAS the authority of Peter is established by Church authority, not by history or scripture.

That is a merry-go-round of reasoning that I just can't ride.

There is no question that there are Greek Orthodox dioceses that antedate any supposed authority excercised from Rome.  The fact that Polycarp told the bishop of Rome to "go jump in the lake" when he was ordered to change the date of Easter is based on documentary evidence.  

There is much more to be said, but my homework is calling to me.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Robert E. Beasley]

Amy,

I like the connections you've made between the hierarchies of the Catholic Church and the Assemblies. I thought you were also going to say that both churches rely on a system of works for salvation. Which, by the way, both churches do, whether or not it is official doctrine.

You also mentioned something about the history of the Catholic Church for the past 2000 years. It isn't really the history of the Catholic Church that goes back 2000 years. It's the history of the universal Church that goes back 2000 years. It is easy to see that the Catholic Church of today is nothing like it was 2000 years ago. For example, they met in homes, baptized grown-ups in rivers, etc. Just read the new testament. It is probably okay to say that today's Catholic Church is similar to the Church of the 14th and 15th centuries with all the garb, penances, confessionals, immaculate conception, and such. But the first few centuries...no. It is true that today’s Protestant Church was born out of that, but just because Catholicism (as it exists today) came before Protestantism doesn’t mean it was the original. The main reason for the reformation was that Martin Luther and others saw that the Church had strayed from the original model and doctrines of God's word.

Please don’t see this as Catholic-bashing. It is not. I respect your position, but this is a forum in which we can and should tell the truth.

One of the problems I see with the Catholic Church as it is today, is that its traditions are often contrary to God's Word. So, I'm CONSTANTLY hearing Catholic apologists (in newsletters and such) TRYING to reconcile traditional teachings with what the Bible says (a la Scott Hahn) instead of just admitting that the Bible says one thing and we've not been doing it that way. (With all due respect, I have to say that it really insults my intelligence sometimes.) I mean, aren’t we as Christians supposed to read God's word and, with the Holy Spirit’s enabling, conform to it? The Catholic Church of today seems to do just the opposite much of the time: This is what we've been doing, so let's try desperately to fit our interpretation of the Bible into that. I can't imagine that any God would agree to that kind of arrangement. We cannot serve two masters. Which has authority? Tradition or Bible. Some say, "both", but they are NOT being honest with themselves. If one contradicts the other, which they DO, one must be wrong, at least on the issue in question.

Anyway, good post. Take care,

Bob.

[vernecarty]

.

 They believe in Apostolic Succession, following the idea that the original Catholic bishops of England stood in that succession and that it cannot be revoked. .

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

These guys ought to read their Bibles. The rule of revocation is indisputably proven in the case of Judas Iscariot who was one of the original twelve. The Psalmist speaks prophetically:
 
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Psalm 109:8

Further,  Paul himself expressed  concern over the possiblility of his disqualification after he had preached to others:

I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:  But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
2 Corinthians 9:26-27
 
Verne

[Oscar]

.

 They believe in Apostolic Succession, following the idea that the original Catholic bishops of England stood in that succession and that it cannot be revoked. .

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

These guys ought to read their Bibles. The rule of revocation is indisputably proven in the case of Judas Iscariot who was one of the original twelve. The Psalmist speaks prophetically:
 
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Psalm 109:8

Further,  Paul himself expressed  concern over the possiblility of his disqualification after he had preached to others:

I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:  But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
2 Corinthians 9:26-27
 
Verne

Verne,

If you will read the verse about Judas carefully, you will see that his office was taken by Matthias after he hung himself.  That is why his days were "few".

As to Paul, I'm sure God could have taken away his apostleship.  I don't see how that has anything to do with Catholic theology though.

What happened in England was that Henry VIII made it illegal for English Catholics to swear allegiance to foreign rulers.  The Pope at that time ruled central Italy as a king.  So, English bishops had to either renounce their allegiance to Rome, or have their stature reduced by one head length.

Many left the country, but more just "took the oath" and went on in their jobs.  The Pope retaliated by revoking their ordinations and excommunicating them.  They, however, figured that once you are a successor to the apostles, that can't be changed.  So the Archbishop of Canturbury today figures that he is in the apostolic succession.

The problem that I see is simply that there is no such thing as apostolic succession.  Whenever I discuss this with Catholics I avoid the whole thing about "upon this rock" by saying, "OK let's say you are right.  The church was founded on Peter.  However, just in case you hadn't noticed, Peter is slightly dead.  The writings of the apostles contain not a word about having any successors, ergo, there aren't any.   End of story.

Usually, this produces dumbfounded silence.  Most Catholics have never even thought about this, and know virtually nothing about their Bibles.  Amy, having been in the assemblies for several years, has probably read her Bible more than just about any lay Catholic west of Rome.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

.

 They believe in Apostolic Succession, following the idea that the original Catholic bishops of England stood in that succession and that it cannot be revoked. .

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

These guys ought to read their Bibles. The rule of revocation is indisputably proven in the case of Judas Iscariot who was one of the original twelve. The Psalmist speaks prophetically:
 
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Psalm 109:8

Further,  Paul himself expressed  concern over the possiblility of his disqualification after he had preached to others:

I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:  But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
2 Corinthians 9:26-27
 
Verne

Verne,

If you will read the verse about Judas carefully, you will see that his office was taken by Matthias after he hung himself.  That is why his days were "few".

As to Paul, I'm sure God could have taken away his apostleship.  I don't see how that has anything to do with Catholic theology though.


Thomas Maddux

If I understood your earlier post correctly, it has to do with the Catholic postulate that their line of succession to apostolic (via Peter) authority was irrevocable. I intended to show that for historical apostles, revocation was not impossible. I consider the manner in which Judas "lost" his office to be the ultimate act of Divine revocation, don't you?

The problem that I see is simply that there is no such thing as apostolic succession

I think this position has good Scriptural warrant.

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Rev. 21:14

  However, just in case you hadn't noticed, Peter is slightly dead.

If I were Catholic, I would challenge this point on the basis of God's designation of Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...you know the reference and you get my drift...however I am not Catholic and I agree with the main point nonetheless...
Verne

[editor]

Hi Amy,

I agree with your observations about the Assembly being twisted Roman Catholicism, on a smaller scale.

Lee Irons mentioned this in one of his critiques of George's writings, and I think you are both right on the money.

As a Catholic, you are definitely in the minority here, so I hope you have thick skin, and please understand that you are most welcome here, Catholic or not.

Brent

[M2]

All this 'talk' about Roman Catholicism made me think of my own Catholic experience (don't worry Bob Smith and company, I have gotten over it. I just want to illustrate a point ). Having been brought up a Catholic I went to went to 'Mass' every Sunday and on other special occasions. Upon getting saved 21+ years ago, I stopped all Mass attendance except for weddings and funerals of relatives. Recently I attended a funeral service of one of my husband's relatives and I was amazed at how much of the 'old programming' to stand/sit/kneel at the correct time was still with me even though I had tuned out because the service was in French. After 21+ years of assembly experience I still feel the effects of my prior 24+ years of being a Catholic.

Marcia

[Mark Kisla]

 Non Catholics will laugh at the scene in the original Blues Brothers movie where Jake and Elwood go to see the "Penguin"(nun). I can identify with that; After attending Catholic grade school & H.S. I too, had a couple of dozen yard sticks and pointers broken over my head, back, arms and knuckles. I don't miss praying to Mary or confessing my sins to a priest. I did enjoy "the stations of the cross" and Easter services. Bottom line, being Catholic kept me busy but left me empty. It was'nt till age 19 (before the assembly) when I prayed, 'God if You are there, I want to know you, please let me know you'. I picked up a bible at a bookstore and started reading.
I learned about sin, mercy and grace. When I understood that God loves Mark Kisla, I was saved, born again !
6 Months later I took a huge detour called "The Assembly" what an experience ! No Bitterness....It's not how you start, it's how you finish.

[amycahill]

Thank you, ALL OF YOU, for responding to my topic!  Nobody bashed ME, for one, only Catholicism.  As far as some of the points you brought up, I would have to sit down and do further research to refute them adequately, and, having brought the topic up, should probably do that.  (Just so you know MY side. )  And I pretty much knew this was coming, but nobody went after me personally and everybody expressed their views quite respectfully.  Thank you very much for that, ALL!!!  I am grateful.  And many of you commented on my point, which was that George imitated Roman Catholicism.  I particularly like Thomas Maddux's grasp on why/how George did that from a historical perspective -- it makes sense.  

I will continue to monitor this topic and perhaps prepare replies to the points which have been brought up.

[M2]

Thank you, ALL OF YOU, for responding to my topic!  Nobody bashed ME, for one, only Catholicism.  As far as some of the points you brought up, I would have to sit down and do further research to refute them adequately, and, having brought the topic up, should probably do that.  (Just so you know MY side. )  And I pretty much knew this was coming, but nobody went after me personally and everybody expressed their views quite respectfully.  Thank you very much for that, ALL!!!  I am grateful.  And many of you commented on my point, which was that George imitated Roman Catholicism.  I particularly like Thomas Maddux's grasp on why/how George did that from a historical perspective -- it makes sense.  

I will continue to monitor this topic and perhaps prepare replies to the points which have been brought up.

In the assembly, bashing the assembly is synonomous to bashing the assemblyites. So, I am glad that you are not married to the Catholic church and that you are open-minded to discuss and reply to the points brought up.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[amycahill]

In the assembly, bashing the assembly is synonomous to bashing the assemblyites. So, I am glad that you are not married to the Catholic church and that you are open-minded to discuss and reply to the points brought up.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Like I said, Marcia, I probably will eventually prepare a defense to all this.  Now is not a good time personally for me to do so, though -- I'm not up for a full scale debate on Catholicism emotionally.  So I wish to gracefully bow out for the moment.

Which brings me to my next topic -- why did I even bring this up in the first place, knowing what the reaction was likely to be?  A brother on this board who has become a friend through correspondence with me asked this, and it's a good question.  I brought it up, not because I don't believe in or wish to defend my faith, Catholicism, but because I believed my point about George twisting Catholicism was a valid point that needed to be made even at cost to myself.  

And again, no one has smacked ME -- I am truly grateful for that!!!