The story of Alberto Rivera: how accurate?

[sfortescue]

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"  ---  His schooling and infilration work
"The Godfathers"  ---  The Vatican in European history
"The Prophet"  ---  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.)

[Oscar]

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

[Tony]

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

[M2]

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

[outdeep]

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

[al Hartman]

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.

"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

[al Hartman]

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

[outdeep]

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.  

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.  

[al Hartman]

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

In Christ,
al

I must admit that I am not there yet, because I do fear evil.

God bless,
Marcia

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

[matthew r. sciaini]

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

[vernecarty]

S
The more I taste of life here on earth the more I realize how fragile life is, how temporary our time here on the earth, and how nothing is certain except our hope which is beyond this life.  That's the only hope I have.

Arthur

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

[outdeep]

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.

[Oscar]

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! 

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! 

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

[Oscar]

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

[vernecarty]

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!
Blessings,

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"...