Get your own Free Home PageDear Friends,
I absolutely love your news-letter. I too despise the whore of Babylon. Your newsletter strips and whips the scarlet harlot. My address has changed, please continue to send me your news-letter. Also, can you please send me your Nov/Dec. 96 back issues? I hate to miss them. If there is a charge, please bill me.
I have a King James only Independent Baptist Protestant-to-the-bone pastor friend of mine who would enjoy your newsletter. Please start sending them to him.
Yours under His easy yoke,
R.H.of Roanoke, VA
Dear R.H.,
Glad you like our newsletter. How correct you are, His yoke is easy!
“Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” (Matt.11:29)
To think that as a Roman Catholic there was never any rest for our souls. We were never permitted to trust that Jesus was our Savior.
I went to see a local priest and he said, “Jesus is my Lord and Savior.” I said, “Oh, then you’re going to heaven for sure?” He answered, “No one can know that!” My reply was, “How then is Jesus your Savior? He may be a Savior or the Savior, but unless Jesus has saved you, how then is He ‘your’ Savior?” Needless to say the priest tried to philosophize his way out of the situation, but it only got worse.
The wages of sin is death....my Savior saved me from death. The priest’s “savior” didn’t do anything for him.
Your “Independent Fundamentalist Baptist friend” is on our mailing list. May God bless you both.
In His Grace,
Rebecca A. Sexton
Dear FCFC,
From reading most of your articles, I see that you have had many bad experiences with bad priests and nuns. To me it seems that these bad experiences are what turned you away from the church more than anything else. I thought that perhaps this article from THIS ROCK magazine might show you some examples of good priests which you, it seems, were not fortunate enough to en- counter. I pray to God that some good men such as Fr. Petty might some day lead you back to the flock, and keep you from leading others into error.
Sincerely,
A.K. on internet
Dear A.K.,
Thank you for writing. Be assured that my personal reasons for leaving the Catholic church were not based on “...bad experiences with bad nuns and priests”, although there are many who have. Your prayer that some “good” men could bring me back to the flock fails in light of the fact that the only “good” man is Jesus Christ and He took me out of Catholicism. The truth is, we are all sinners. (Rom.3:23) I was no different than the priests and nuns, for I too bowed before images made by man’s hands and served other gods. (Acts 17:29-30) Oh, I know, you claim that Mary is not “a god”, but the reality of it is that Rome has given Mary more god-like attributes than all the gods of the heathens put together whom the Lord destroyed.
When I sincerely searched the scriptures to prove the things I held dear as a Catholic, I could not find them. The rosary beads, prayers to saints and Mary (read Job 4:17-21, 5:1, 15:15), purgatory, limbo ( a place that is rarely mentioned anymore by the hierarchy), the Mass, the Eucharist, the priesthood, etc. I didn’t need , nor did I have any anti-Catholic fundamentalist to tell me that the Catholic church was not in line with scripture, the Holy Spirit did that. It wasn’t till years later that we discovered there were others who knew what we did. We thought we were alone in our struggle. You cannot even imagine the joy we felt when we heard that Jack Chick, Bart Brewer, Dave Hunt, John Ankerburg, Bill Jackson and many others had books and information concerning this subject. I am so grateful for their ministries, as their courage to speak out strengthens those who are being called out by our precious Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We faced much persecution and spent many nights in prayerful tears over our Catholic family until the Lord delivered them too. Praise Jesus!!!
Most Sincere,
Rebecca A. Sexton
Dear FCFC,
Could you please explain the difference between the Catholic bible and the Protestant bible. I know that the Catholic bible has a few additional books. What are those books? And how do you explain to a Catholic that the Protestant bible is the correct bible to use and the additional books used by the Catholic Church were deemed not God inspired? Please give the Christian reasoning why we use the books we use and could you please give the Catholic reasoning why they use the additional books they use.
Thank you so much. All your material is so informative, praise the Lord for your ministry.
Tom Gauci
Dear Tom,
Thanks for writing. The Catholic Bible contains 9 extra books: 1and 2 Paralipomenon, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and an additional 2 chapters in Daniel. The Catholic bible is taken from the manuscripts out of Alexandria, Egypt which had corrupted and altered the word of God, whereas the Christian’s Bible comes from the manuscripts out of Antioch which were untouched and kept by God. Many times you will hear the Catholic’s boast that they gave us the Bible, but that is untrue. Our Bible is not like their bible just as “...their rock is not as our Rock....” (Deut.32:31) The extra books were rejected by true Christianity because of the doctrinal, geographical and historical error contained in them. Just a couple of examples: in Judith we read that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria which contradicts Daniel who claims that Nebuchadnezzar is the king of Babylon. In Maccabees, Antioch IV dies three different deaths. The book of Tobias (12:15) has one of the angels, namely Raphael, claiming to be one of the Seven Spirits that stand before the Lord (according to Rev.5:6 it is the “...Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth)". Raphael lies to Tobias and teaches him divination (putting the heart of a fish in the fire to drive away demons, 6:5-8). The more that I’ve read of the extra books, the more assured I am that they are not canonical. John 7:17 states:
“If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”
I often hear “The Catholics gave us our bible at Carthage and Hippo”. The truth is that Carthage, although it listed the books of the bible, was only a local council and had no authority as was Hippo, that omitted the book of Revelation. It was not until the Council of Trent in 1546 that the books of the Catholic bible were proclaimed canonical, and the Latin Vulgate the church’s authentic version. Even Jerome, who was responsible for putting the Septuagint into the Latin Vulgate, did not accept the apocrypha. In 1588, Pope Sixtus (not particularly a scholarly man), in a 300-word sentence:
“...declared in a Bull that he, the pope, was the only proper person to decide the question of an authentic Bible for the church. Hour after hour he laboured, and night after night, for he was an insomniac. He had only one full time secretary, who was almost driven to the grave. In the main, Sixtus kept to the Louvain text which he was familiar with... Where it was obscure, he did not mind adding phrases and sentences to clarify. Often he translated according to whim. Another of his idiosyncrasies was to alter the references. A system of chapter and verse had been worked out in 1555 by Robert Stephanus. It was not perfect but it was convenient and was universally used. Sixtus discarded it in favour of his own scheme. All previous Bibles became instantly obsolete; all books in the schools, with their armouries of texts, had to be reprinted. Apart from changing the titles of the Psalms which were considered by many to be inspired, he omitted, probably through carelessness, entire verses...After only eighteen months, his work was done, In 1590, the first folio copies appeared. ‘Splendid,’ he muttered, admiring the beautiful binding, until one glance at the text revealed many misprints. Then more and more. The printers, too, had been expected to operate, night and day, in whirlwind fashion. So as not to waste time, Sixtus started patching things up on his own. He wrote corrections in ink on tiny bits of paper - squares, oblongs, triangles, and pasted them over the printer’s errors. It took him six months, and he botched a lot of it. Publication kept getting deferred as the pope’s nightmare continued. His Bull, Aeternus Ille, was long ready. Never was there a more authoritative document: ‘By the fullness of Apostolical power, We decree and declare this edition...approved by the authority given Us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned in all public and private discussions, readings, preachings and explanations.’ No printer, editor, bookseller was allowed to deviate by one jot from this final and authentic version of the Latin Bible. Anyone contravening the Bull was to be excommunicated, and only the pope could absolve him. Temporal punishments were threatened, too” (Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Peter De Rosa, 217-218).
The cover-up that follows is even more fascinating. I recommend you look up the subject. It seems this is one time that the infallibility claim failed miserably. At a time when Protestants were distributing free Bibles, the Catholic church was desperately trying to buy some back. They failed to retrieve them all.
“One copy found its way into the Bodleian Library in Oxford. Its first librarian, Dr. Thomas James, treated it like manna from heaven. In 1611 he wrote a book contrasting the two Bibles of Sixtus and Sixtus-Clement. He found ‘that the two popes did notoriously differ amongst themselves, not only in the number of the verses...but in the body of the text and in the Prefaces and Bulls themselves’. James claimed to see a remarkable thing: two popes warring in open contradiction of each other. ‘In this war, their Head hath been so soiled and their Church so deadly wounded that all the balme in Gilead will not cure them.’ We have here one Pope against another, Sixtus against Clement, Clement against Sixtus, disputing, writing and fighting about the Jerome Bible.’ The Bible, as far as Catholics were concerned, said James, was a wax nose which popes bent into whatever shape suited them. ‘If the Pope said what was white was black and black white no Catholic dared disagree’ ” (Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Peter De Rosa, 220).
Hope the information was helpful. I also recommend Samuel Gipps, An Understandable History of the Bible. I also found Gail Riplinger’s book, New Age Bible Versions to be very enlightening concerning all of the so-called modern versions. We here at FCFC hold the King James Bible to be the infallibly pure word of God, preserved, as promised by our Lord, to all generations.
In His Precious Blood,
Rebecca A. Sexton
Dear FCFC,
Recently upon attending Mass with my wife who is Catholic, I learned something that I believe came to me from the Lord. I left Catholicism years ago and hope I don't find myself sitting through a mass again...However, I did go on this occasion and during the communion (which I do not receive) I meditated upon God's word about the Lord's supper. These are the words that I believe came to me from the Lord: "Where in my word did I say that when you eat my body and drink my blood you are receiving me?"
To me that settles a lot of the arguments about the subject.
Sincerely for the Truth,
Marty Nichols
Dear Marty,
Amen! The Lord did settle the matter in His word, but until the heart of man is circumcised, he cannot understand. But nonetheless, the final words of Christ concerning the matter reads:
“ It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (Jn.6:63)
We thank and praise the Lord that:
“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1Co. 2:12-14)
In His Spirit,
Rebecca A. Sexton
Dear FCFC,
Let me tell you a bit about myself. I grew up Catholic. In my 20s I started looking into things because I wanted to know what "salvation by faith" was. This started me on a whole new journey. I left the Catholic church and joined the Episcopal Church about 15 years ago and was just fine.
This June my mother passed away. She was RC, but a very spiritual person. I was handling her funeral and had a terrible time with the RC priest, he jumps all over me for leaving the RCC and then he wants to debate theological issues. Well I've read his books and mine also. I think he kept on trying to "one up" me, but couldn't. However what I found most damaging was their thing on purgatory. Who wants to picture their mother burning up somewhere? Yes I know there is no such place. But (and this is true of other former RCs I know) they always leave you with "what if they are right?"
My mother's funeral made me re-address the whole issue of the RCC and why I left. I found a newsgroup, alt.recovery.catholicism, the people on there get rather nasty, but it was good to get out the anger. I always had this "thing" about the RCC but never told anybody because I thought it was just me. Now I find it is a lot of people, and not just pre-Vatican II people either.
I found the RCC gave a person both a superiority complex and an inferiority complex. Superior because it was the only religion going to heaven, inferior because you would never get to heaven.
I found all this pent-up anger and feeling of guilt just for being alive. With the help of my Episcopal priest I was able to work through much of this.
It seems the ones most damaged by the RCC was the very ones that were looking for something spiritual. The lukewarm RCs never took it seriously. I was told in Italy that nobody takes the RCC seriously, it's "nice to have" for weddings, funerals etc. What good is a faith that you can't embrace?
I have found that the RCC has had very different effects on everybody. Many are atheists, they want no part of any spiritual belief. This includes a man who was in the seminary and left over 30 years ago. He is a very bitter person. Another man in his 60s, away from the RCC for about 30 years, has found some help in meditation. His father is 90 and afraid of dying and he's afraid of dying. One woman has gone "lukewarm" and is doing her own thing in the RCC. I had no idea the damage was so far and great.
Hitler perhaps got his tactics from the RCC, he was a baptized Catholic. His concentration camps remind me of how I learned purgatory. It’s interesting, some of the things of the RCC would be OK if they were presented correctly. You mention confession (one on one), I know that forgiveness is ours for the asking, but if confession is done in a counseling atmosphere then it can be very helpful. I was talking to my EC priest about such issues. I said, “you are supposed to chew me out and tell me what a terrible person I am.” She said, “you've come to the wrong place then. The fact that you ask for forgiveness means that you can have it.” I really, really do appreciate your prayers. Are there any other resources available on this?
I just finished reading, How Good do We Have to Be it's by the same rabbi that wrote, When Good Things Happen to Bad People. It was very helpful.
Could you please tell me about your experience with the RCC? Thanks for writing. Peace and Love be with you.
Steve
Dear Steve,
Your comment “...some of the things of the RCC would be O.K. if they were presented correctly...” strikes the very heart of the matter. The vocabulary she uses sounds biblical but her “interpretation” is anything but. (i.e., we are saved by grace [Rom.3:24-28, 9:16 also Eph.2:7-9], that is scriptural, but her “interpretation” is that all grace flows through Mary, which is not scriptural). It is this twisting of scripture that destroys the proper placement of hope which leads to the bitterness, lukewarmness, anger, resentment, fear and disillusionment you and so many others have experienced. Our hope should not be in Mary, saints, works or a teaching magesterium. The Bible says our hope is in Jesus Christ alone, (1 Tim.1:1, Heb.3:6, Tit.2:13, 3:7, 1 Pet.1:1-5 and 1 John 3:1-3) and not to sorrow as others which have no hope. (1 Thess.4:13)
We know from the word that upon a true Christian’s death he is ushered into the presence of Christ immediately. (Phil.1:23 and 2 Cor.5:8) When someone is taught the unscriptural doctrine of purgatory this hope is dashed. They are left with, as you said, “...what if they are right?” This causes doubt and casts aspersions on the promises of God. As Jesus said this results in “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition....” Paul put it this way:
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Col.2:8)
Reading secular books may be somewhat helpful, but our primary focus should be reading the Bible so as to understand his purpose for our lives, guidance to finding and doing His will and the spiritual power to enable us to fulfill those objectives. Only then can we be confident in what the apostle John assured us of in I John 5:13:
“These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”
Concerning your comment on meditation being helpful, consider the scripture that says we should bring “...into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ”. We must be wary of meditation designed to empty our thoughts, which can leave an opening for demonic interference. Proper meditation should be on God’s word alone. (Ps.77:12, Ps.119:15, 23, 48, 78)
Yours in the Embraceable Faith,
Debbie Rucker
Dear Rebecca Sexton, I have accidentally deleted the reply you gave me but I think my message will remind you of what you wrote. I would have responded sooner but I am cutting back on internet usage as part of my Lenten fast. Several items need to be addressed: If you were in the Catholic Church for 30 years I suspect you were never properly taught the truths of the faith. I myself was not and had to learn them on my own. Practicing Catholics who know their faith and why we do the things we do are not easily led astray by the deceptions of the fundamentalist sects.
As for the KJV, this was written by the state controlled Church of England whose blood stained hands took part in the persecution of those faithful who held on to the Catholic Faith which the kings of England professed for 900 years. It comes as no surprise that there are several hundred errors in this text. (Although not as bad as Luther's hackjob which contains 2000 errors)
As for the Alexandrian texts, surely you must be referring to the Septuagint which was the Bible of the early Christians. In fact many of the OT quotations in the NT are not simply Greek translations of the Hebrew. They are direct quotations from the Septuagint. It also contains the complete canon which no one disputed until the mad monk of Wartburg decided he did not like them. In fact also he tried to expel the Book of James. (Understandably, since Protestants always have a tough time explaining away chapter 2 of that fine book.)
The fact is, there was no precise "Bible" until Catholic bishops settled the matter in the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in 394 and 396 A.D. It is the same apostolic authority which taught and defined truth that also put the seal of approval on the very books of the NT you use today.
Regarding your blasphemy towards the Eucharist, I don't think I can be more explicit than Our Lord in John's Gospel, Ch.6. It has been said that fundamentalists take everything in the Bible word for word with one exception: "THIS IS MY FLESH AND THIS IS MY BLOOD".
No one in history disputed transubstantiation until the 11th century. But history is terra incognita for those of your faith. Walk into your neighborhood "Christian" bookstore and ask for their history section. Quite simply it's non- existent. Only the Catholic Church has been a visible presence on this Earth since Christ founded it.
Of course I do not know exactly which faith you profess among the 23,000 different Protestant churches that men have founded. So I will not suppose too much about what you exactly do believe. If you claim that your beliefs are from the Bible, well so do the members of the other 23,000 sects.
Anyhow, time is running short and I must move on.
Again I must admit that I am not a full time apologist and highly recommend that you visit some of the fine Catholic web pages. If you are still confident in your beliefs, then field your questions/comments to some of them. They are much more eloquent then I am.
I will also recommend you to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of his Blessed Mother.
Sincerely in Jesus and Mary
Joe Owczarzak
Dear Joe,
The very fact that neither one of us (and many, many more just like us) were “...never properly taught the truths of the faith...and had to learn them on...” our own, should be sufficient cause for us to stand back and scrutinize the “mother” that was responsible for neglecting her primary duty to her “children”. A natural mother’s responsibility to her children and to God rests in not only teaching them how to walk and talk, but how to live a life that will be pleasing to the Lord and will result in their eternal union with Him when death ends their time here. Instead this “holy mother” holds back the truth in unrighteousness, (Rom.1:16-18) substituting instead corrupted doctrine and man-made traditions which can only lead them astray on paths of doubt, despair and hopelessness. If it were possible to bring her up on charges in a court of law, she would undoubtedly be found an “unfit mother” and her children remanded back to the “custody” of their “Father” and his instruction wholly contained in one book without adulteration from mom’s deceit. Paul said it well when he penned these words:
“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Tim.3:15-17)
As we stated before, the councils of Hippo and Carthage were local councils and not ecumenical councils, therefore they had no authority, and although Carthage listed the books, the council of Hippo took out the book of Revelation proving it did not have the Holy Spirit leading it. The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship by Peter Ruckman does an excellent job of proving the Septuagint is corrupt.
You speak of Luther wanting to take out the book of James because he did not understand it. Luther was schooled in a Catholic monastery, therefore he had little knowledge of the Christian interpretation of James. The fact that he did not take James out, regardless of his misconception, shows the Holy Spirit was working in him.
In regards to your accusation that “...fundamentalists take everything in the Bible word for word with one exception: THIS IS MY FLESH AND THIS IS MY BLOOD”, I must disagree. Many times throughout the Bible a literary device known as a metaphor is used such as “...out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” (Jn.7:38), “I am the door” spoken by Jesus in John 10:9, again in John 15:1 “I am the true vine....” Is Jesus truly a “door” or a “vine”? Of course not, this is figurative speech, not to be taken literally. The Old Testament has examples of this also; Psa.18:2 says, “The Lord is my rock, and my fortress...my buckler...and my high tower”, Psa.91:4 tells us:
“He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.”
You used John 6 concerning Christ’s body and blood. Read Matt.26:26-29 which speaks of the same incident and explain to me why, although the Catholic hierarchy uses verse 26 to prove he meant literally to “Take, eat; this is my body....”, why then don’t they say the same for verse 28 when he tells them “...this is my blood of the new testament...”[?] Was his blood literally the new testament? No, and neither should verse 26 be taken literally then. By the way, in verse 29 he told the disciples, “...I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine (he did not call it blood, his blood had not yet been shed) until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
As to your statement that none “...disputed transubstantiation until the 11th century...” we have many quotes from early “church fathers” where they contradict the Catholic point of view and even contradict themselves [read James 1:8], such as Augustine who said, “...sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its symbolical authority” and Eusebius: “This is a figure of that [sacrifice] and this remembrance of that...This is done in remembrance of what was then done....” (The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, Webster, 196) The problem is that many forgeries and interpolations [as admitted by her own theologians and historians] have been so tightly woven into Catholicism that one cannot fully trust in what the early “church fathers” said. Although God did not promise to preserve the words of the “church fathers”, He did promise to preserve His word forever:
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Ps.12:6)
In that precious word, Peter said:
“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Pe.1:19)
Most Sincere,
Rebecca A. Sexton
Dear Former Catholics,
I applaud your efforts to spread the truth about Jesus Christ. I especially appreciate your pointing out the Catholic’s omission of the second commandment; I hadn’t noticed that before.
I, myself, am a former Catholic and it has taken me a good part of my life to untangle myself from the Catholic doctrine. Now that I have, I have dedicated my life to telling others how the Catholics and others have distorted the Word of God. Please send me more information about your organization. Any help you could give me would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
D.E.H. of Fremont, OH
Dear D.E.H.,
It’s wonderful to hear from others who have escaped the clutches of Rome, and even more wonderful that you wish to dedicate your life to warning others of the dangers of Catholicism, while sharing the true gospel of grace with them.
We here at FCFC are not theologians, we are housewives and mothers who have decided to confront the system that lied to us and our families. We had for years been studying and compiling information and at the right time, the Lord opened the door for us to start the newsletter. To be honest, we have expanded beyond our expectations and are considering another course of action, perhaps a book.
Our desire here at FCFC is to support those who have escaped Rome, to warn Christian brothers and sisters not to join in ecumenism with her as she is deceitful and corrupt, and last but not least, that just one Catholic would turn from the traditions of men and trust in the living word of God as their final authority. God has given us the desire of our hearts, and we are thankful and grateful for the time He has allowed us to do this newsletter. We offer seven tracts and our newsletters (26 issues). At this point, we are behind in getting past issues reprinted, but will inform our readers as soon as we can catch up. You are in our prayers.
Rebecca A. Sexton
Get your own Free Home Page