Was Alberto Rivera for real? Or was he a liar?

[rush4hire]

Alberto Rivera claims he used to be a Jesuit priest, and was trained to work with others in subterfuge to twist the arms of Protestant schools and churches to join the Roman Catholic Church in the ecumenical movement.

1. Ellen White

We probably better start with Ellen White:

Throughout Christendom, Protestantism was menaced by formidable foes. The first triumphs of the Reformation past, Rome summoned new forces, hoping to accomplish its destruction. At this time the order of the Jesuits was created, the most cruel, unscrupulous, and powerful (1.) of all the champions of popery. Cut off from earthly ties and human interests, dead to the claims of natural affection, reason and conscience wholly silenced, they knew no rule, no tie, but that of their order, and no duty but to extend its power (2.). (See Appendix.) The gospel of Christ had enabled its adherents to meet danger and endure suffering, undismayed by cold, hunger, toil, and poverty, to uphold the banner of truth in face of the rack, the dungeon, and the stake. To combat these forces, Jesuitism inspired its followers with a fanaticism (3.) that enabled them to endure like dangers, and to oppose to the power of truth all the weapons of deception (4.). There was no crime too great for them to commit, no deception too base for them to practice (5.), no disguise too difficult for them to assume (6.). Vowed to perpetual poverty and humility, it was their studied aim to secure wealth and power, to be devoted to the overthrow of Protestantism (7.), and the re-establishment of the papal supremacy (8.). {GC 234.2}

When appearing as members of their order, they wore a garb of sanctity, visiting prisons and hospitals, ministering to the sick and the poor, professing to have renounced the world, and bearing the sacred name of Jesus, who went about doing good. But under this blameless exterior the most criminal and deadly purposes were often concealed. (9.) It was a fundamental principle of the order that the end justifies the means. By this code, lying, theft, perjury, assassination (10.), were not only pardonable but commendable, when they served the interests of the church. Under various disguises the Jesuits worked their way into offices of state, climbing up to be the counselors of kings, and shaping the policy of nations [-- and now churches --] (11.). They became servants to act as spies upon their masters. They established colleges for the sons of princes and nobles, and schools for the common people; and the children of Protestant parents were drawn into an observance of popish rites (12.). All the outward pomp and display of the Romish worship was brought to bear to confuse the mind and dazzle and captivate the imagination, and thus the liberty for which the fathers had toiled and bled was betrayed by the sons. The Jesuits rapidly spread themselves over Europe, and wherever they went, there followed a revival of popery. {GC 235.1}

[olger]

I believe he was real.

[Bill Cork]

None of your arguments address the question you raise as to whether this man was telling the truth or making up a story.

Please check out the investigations that were made into Rivera's past, including Cornerstone Magazine.

[Bravus]

Welcome, Bill!

[rush4hire]

Please check out the investigations that were made into Rivera's past, including Cornerstone Magazine.

Thank you for that link. I'll read that, as soon as I get time.

But is there an independent, un-bias investigation?

No one is surprised they would drum up a bunch of fake information. But I have seen the Catholic church publish so many bold lies, that's it's just ridiculous. Who do you trust? Who has any credibility? If anyone on earth does, it's not the Roman Catholic Church.

They said John Huss claimed to be the 4th person of the Godhead. They said the children of the Waldensees where born with four rows of black teeth. They make up all kinds of things. They will say they have a letter from God Himself that just appeared on their alter. They will say you can buy an indulgence which gives you a free pass to sin, and can get people out of purgatory.

They say that Mary is praying for us, and can even let down her rosary to pull people out of purgatory.

All these are lies. No credibility at all.

That's just from what I can think of on the spot. We could write whole libraries full of books just about the lies of the Roman Catholic Church.

But there is plenty of real, factual data that proves Alberto Rivera's legitimacy.

Was Alberto Really Who He Claimed To Be?

[carolaa]

Do you know of any lies they have told lately? I mean, that was back in the Dark Ages.

[rush4hire]

Do you know of any lies they have told lately? I mean, that was back in the Dark Ages.

It's always easier to separate truth from lies, after the fact, in retrospect.

Anyway. I found this pretty good presentation by Jim Arrabito on the history of the Jesuits.

Part 1. A

Part 1. B

Part 2

Part 3

You can also read this one online:

Fifty Years in the Church of Rome

By CHARLES CHINIQUY

The life story of Charles Chiniquy, who was a priest in the Roman Catholic Church for 25 years.

There are a few pretty good books I've heard quoted alot.

Some you can find here:

http://www.chick.com/catalog/catholicism.asp

The Secret History of the Jesuits -by- Edmond Paris

The Two Babylons -by- Alexander Hislop

The Fiery Jesuits -by- some German guy, I think.

I haven't found those online yet. If you do, let me know. Thanks.

[carolaa]

Actually, I'm not that interested in the subject of the Jesuits. But all the lies you mentioned as being told by the Catholic Church were from the Dark Ages. Do you know of any lies the Church has told, on record, within the last 100 years or so? I just don't think it's a very solid case to use evidence from 500 years ago.

[olger]

Actually, I'm not that interested in the subject of the Jesuits. But all the lies you mentioned as being told by the Catholic Church were from the Dark Ages. Do you know of any lies the Church has told, on record, within the last 100 years or so? I just don't think it's a very solid case to use evidence from 500 years ago.

Yes, the Pope said evolution was a viable explanation of origins.

They still say they had the right to change the sabbath (and their evolution posit is no doubt aimed at weakening Sabbath).

They still claim to speak ex-cathedra (for God).

They recently said they were sorry for killing those nasty "heretics." They are sorry that they got caught in our modern world of political correctness.

and others,

OG

[Bravus]

The Alberto Rivera story has all the elements of every classic conspiracy story. It's a self-sealed system, since any inconsistencies can be explained away as part of the Jesuit plot. That makes it completely unassailable to any kind of evidence.

[John317]

D. Martyn Lloyd Jones, a highly regarded protestant theologian and pastor, wrote:

"'Ah but,' you say, ‘has not the Roman Catholic Church changed? You are simply looking back, you are speaking as if you lived in the 16th century-- don't you realize you are living in the 20th century?' My answer is quite simple. The proudest boast of the Roman Catholic Church is this, that she never changes, Semper eadem. How can she change? If she changes she will be admitting that she was wrong in the past -- but she was saying then that she was infallible, and that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and that he cannot make a mistake. If she says that she is capable of change she is denying her central claim! She does not say that she is changing, and she never will. The Church of Rome remains the same. If anything, she is even worse. She has 'added' things to what she taught in the 16th century, such as Papal infallibility, etc. No, there is no change in the Church of Rome. And if there ever is one great world Church it will be because the Church of Rome has absorbed all the rest and swallowed them in their ignorance!"

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: carolaa

Actually, I'm not that interested in the subject of the Jesuits. But all the lies you mentioned as being told by the Catholic Church were from the Dark Ages. Do you know of any lies the Church has told, on record, within the last 100 years or so? I just don't think it's a very solid case to use evidence from 500 years ago.

Yes, the Pope said evolution was a viable explanation of origins.

They still say they had the right to change the sabbath (and their evolution posit is no doubt aimed at weakening Sabbath).

They still claim to speak ex-cathedra (for God).

They recently said they were sorry for killing those nasty "heretics." They are sorry that they got caught in our modern world of political correctness.

and others,

OG

That's all opinion - can't be proved either way as a lie or not.

[carolaa]

D. Martyn Lloyd Jones, a highly regarded protestant theologian and pastor, wrote:

"'Ah but,' you say, ‘has not the Roman Catholic Church changed? You are simply looking back, you are speaking as if you lived in the 16th century-- don't you realize you are living in the 20th century?' My answer is quite simple. The proudest boast of the Roman Catholic Church is this, that she never changes, Semper eadem. How can she change? If she changes she will be admitting that she was wrong in the past -- but she was saying then that she was infallible, and that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and that he cannot make a mistake. If she says that she is capable of change she is denying her central claim! She does not say that she is changing, and she never will. The Church of Rome remains the same. If anything, she is even worse. She has 'added' things to what she taught in the 16th century, such as Papal infallibility, etc. No, there is no change in the Church of Rome. And if there ever is one great world Church it will be because the Church of Rome has absorbed all the rest and swallowed them in their ignorance!"

Yes, I'm familiar with that quote, although I can never remember who said it. Still, it sounds like an opinion - no examples of any lies they have told in recent history.

Are you saying that there are Catholics out there who still say Protestants have 4 rows of teeth, or whatever? I mean, if the Church never changes, wouldn't that have to be the case?

Have they said anything in recent history that can be proved to be a lie?

[Kountzer]

Originally Posted By: olger

Yes, the Pope said evolution was a viable explanation of origins.

They still say they had the right to change the sabbath (and their evolution posit is no doubt aimed at weakening Sabbath).

They still claim to speak ex-cathedra (for God).

They recently said they were sorry for killing those nasty "heretics." They are sorry that they got caught in our modern world of political correctness.

and others,

OG [/quote']

That's all opinion - can't be proved either way as a lie or not.

I side with OG or this. All that stuff is common knowledge.

[carolaa]

Being common knowledge doesn't make them lies. I'm talking about things that can be proven as lies - not just opinions we disagree with.

Examples: Saying Protestants have 4 rows of teeth is a lie that can be easily disproven. Saying evolution is a viable explanation of origins is an opinion that cannot be disproven.

I hate to keep harping at this, but I think accusing a group of telling lies - and then having no examples of it since the 1500s - is a pretty lame accusation.

[jasd]

>>D. Martyn Lloyd Jones, a highly regarded protestant theologian and pastor, wrote:

The proudest boast of the Roman Catholic Church is this, that she never changes, Semper eadem. How can she change? If she changes she will be admitting that she was wrong in the past -- but she was saying then that she was infallible, and that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and that he cannot make a mistake.<<

I think the following rather puts some perspective on the above-noted “highly regarded protestant theologian and pastor”. I suppose it is not for nuthin’ that he is noted as ‘protesting’.

I remember, not too many years past, that Pope John Paul II admitted-to and apologized for ‘errors’ of the Universal Church.

“On no fewer than 94 occasions, according to a the Italian journalist Luigi Accattoli, Pope John Paul II has publicly admitted that the Catholic Church was guilty of errors in the past. Now, in what Religion News Service calls "a move unprecedented in two millenniums of Roman Catholic history," John Paul has issued a summation of all these apologies. He read the document, "Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Mistakes of the Past," at a "solemn ceremony" on March 12, (year 2000) the first Sunday of Lent. A preparatory document, outlining the conditions and limits of the forthcoming apology, was also issued by the Vatican.

Among the Church's errors for which John Paul apologized are divisions within Christianity, forced conversions, ecclesiastical use (and approval) of violence, and anti-Jewish prejudice. The document also says that past errors by Catholics lie at the root of such "evils of today" as the spread of atheism and ethical relativism.”

[...]

Furthermore, John Paul's apology puts him in the position of condemning such institutions as the Inquisition and the Crusades, ... [ed.jasd]

[jasd]

>>I hate to keep harping at this, but I think accusing a group of telling lies...<<

Using the above as segue, I note:

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"

'bear' in the above commandment is also translated as 'hear'- as in

"Thou shalt not hear false witness..."

Seems to me that should a .Org find it impossible to adhere to the one commandment, then, it is moot for that .Org to pontificate upon any other commandment.

IMHO

That said, yes, I believe that the interests of the Jesuits and the interests of this .org or that .Org - do not coincide.

That said,

I smile to find that an almost [internationally] unnoticed .Org should indulge in the frisson of a constant fear of sheltering within its ranks an 'embedded' Jesuit

[Neil D]

Quote:

1. Ellen White

We probably better start with Ellen White:

Originally Posted By: Ellen_White

Throughout Christendom, Protestantism was menaced by formidable foes. The first triumphs of the Reformation past, Rome summoned new forces, hoping to accomplish its destruction. At this time the order of the Jesuits was created, the most cruel, unscrupulous, and powerful (1.) of all the champions of popery. Cut off from earthly ties and human interests, dead to the claims of natural affection, reason and conscience wholly silenced, they knew no rule, no tie, but that of their order, and no duty but to extend its power (2.). (See Appendix.) The gospel of Christ had enabled its adherents to meet danger and endure suffering, undismayed by cold, hunger, toil, and poverty, to uphold the banner of truth in face of the rack, the dungeon, and the stake. To combat these forces, Jesuitism inspired its followers with a fanaticism (3.) that enabled them to endure like dangers, and to oppose to the power of truth all the weapons of deception (4.). There was no crime too great for them to commit, no deception too base for them to practice (5.), no disguise too difficult for them to assume (6.). Vowed to perpetual poverty and humility, it was their studied aim to secure wealth and power, to be devoted to the overthrow of Protestantism (7.), and the re-establishment of the papal supremacy (8.). {GC 234.2}

When appearing as members of their order, they wore a garb of sanctity, visiting prisons and hospitals, ministering to the sick and the poor, professing to have renounced the world, and bearing the sacred name of Jesus, who went about doing good. But under this blameless exterior the most criminal and deadly purposes were often concealed. (9.) It was a fundamental principle of the order that the end justifies the means. By this code, lying, theft, perjury, assassination (10.), were not only pardonable but commendable, when they served the interests of the church. Under various disguises the Jesuits worked their way into offices of state, climbing up to be the counselors of kings, and shaping the policy of nations [-- and now churches --] (11.). They became servants to act as spies upon their masters. They established colleges for the sons of princes and nobles, and schools for the common people; and the children of Protestant parents were drawn into an observance of popish rites (12.). All the outward pomp and display of the Romish worship was brought to bear to confuse the mind and dazzle and captivate the imagination, and thus the liberty for which the fathers had toiled and bled was betrayed by the sons. The Jesuits rapidly spread themselves over Europe, and wherever they went, there followed a revival of popery. {GC 235.1}

So now, if Ellen White says Jesuits:

1. Are powerful.

2. Since their conception, to this day, have been working for nothing more than to extend their power and influence.

3. Are fanatical.

4. Have all the weapons of deception.

5. Practice the most base deceptions.

6. Assume the most difficult disguises.

7. Are devoted to the overthrow of Protestantism.

8. Are devoted to re-establish the supremacy of the Papacy.

9. While doing good deeds, conceal the most criminal and deadly purposes.

10. Lie, steal, commit perjury, assassinate.

11. Assume various disguises to climb up to high positions to even shape the policies of nations.

12. Establish colleges where the children of Princes and Nobles are drawn into the observance of popish rites.

To say otherwise, you must reject Ellen White.

Um, so, if I reject that these are current practices, I am rejecting EGW?

I dont think so...

©1984-2008 Chick Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Some portions of www.chick.com are copyrighted by others and reproduced by permission, as indicated by copyright notices on individual pages.

Doesn't this say everything?

[Kountzer]

Being common knowledge doesn't make them lies. I'm talking about things that can be proven as lies - not just opinions we disagree with.

Examples: Saying Protestants have 4 rows of teeth is a lie that can be easily disproven. Saying evolution is a viable explanation of origins is an opinion that cannot be disproven.

I hate to keep harping at this, but I think accusing a group of telling lies - and then having no examples of it since the 1500s - is a pretty lame accusation.

Creation scientists are disproving evolution all the time. There voices in this matter are drowned out by the overwhelming number of pro-evolution scientists who are obsessively biased against the idea of God, or that God created everything.

DB

[carolaa]

It's still a matter of opinion and how one interprets the evidence.

[Kountzer]

(Adventist Review article on evolutioin)

C O V E R S T O R Y

BY JONATHAN GALLAGHER

Sitting in his study with Baltimore neurosurgeon Ben Carson,* I engage him in conversation, and the discussion turns to the subject of evolution and origins. As we face each other between the erudite tomes on the bookcase and the modern technological equipment on the desk, it feels appropriate to think about who we are and where we came from.

Carson: Like this computer: If you came into this room and saw the computer, you wouldn't think it had just happened. It didn't come about by random events.

JG: So why do so many people prefer to believe in the random formation of the universe--and of life itself? Or to put it another way, Why is the matter of evolution so important?

BC: It comes down to a matter of ownership. Who owns the universe, who owns the earth, who owns your life? Those who believe in evolution, and in a naturalistic explanation of the universe, ultimately see themselves as end-owners--as the creator and ultimate source of authority. In this way they answer to nothing and nobody, for there is nothing higher than themselves.

How does this happen? What are the consequences of accepting evolutionary views of human origins? How does this affect society and the way we see ourselves?

By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher values.

If we are all the product of chance, the random assortment of atoms, living in a deterministic universe that is simply the consequence of physical interactions, doesn't it all seem so futile?

Yes, in my education I had to learn evolutionary theories, and as a God-fearing Christian I wondered how to make God and evolution mesh. The truth is that you can't make them mesh--you have to choose one or the other.

Too many Christians have given up too much to "science," conceding not just the observed data but the anti-God interpretations. Are you often questioned about being both a logical scientist and a Christian?

Yes, my answer is that the more you understand science, the less you can believe all this is an accident! Just look at the brain, with its billions and billions of neurons, and 100 billions of connections, and how it remembers everything it has ever seen and heard . . .

Everything? This does not seem to be a correct portrayal of my brain at least! I'm forgetting things all the time.

Put a probe on the hippocampus of an 80-year-old man, and he can tell you verbatim the words of a book he read 60 years ago. This is a highly complex and sophisticated organ. Not a likely result of chance processes.

Not even by slow degrees?

Even if you allow the formation of a single cell. And a single-celled organism is also amazingly complex--the cell membranes, the nucleus, the nucleolus, the mitochondria. . . . Plus, we give evolutionists too much if we start with a single cell. Try starting with inert substances!

But just supposing you did have that first cell?

Even if you accept evolutionary theory--developing a more sophisticated organism in this theoretically "logical" fashion, then there should be a continuum of organisms. And why did evolution divert in so many directions--birds, fish, elephants, apes, humans--if there is some force evolving to the maximum? Why isn't everything a human--a superior human? Darwin specifically stated that his theory hung on the discovery of intermediate forms, and was sure that we would find them. More than a hundred years later we still haven't found them. Even the earliest fossils don't show such intermediates.

Take the simple case of ape to human. It should be easy to find abundant fossil remains since, according to evolutionary theory, this is the most recent transition. If we can find so many fossils of dinosaurs, which are further back in the evolutionary scheme, we should have plenty of evidence of intermediates between apes and humans. But we don't have them. We have very few supposed intermediates--like "Lucy," based on fanciful reconstruction with a lot of filling in. Today we have people with significant congenital abnormalities whose skeletal remains would seem like a missing link. So "Lucy" does not make the case, and there should be multiple "Lucys" if the transition from ape to human were true.

Also, there's the whole subject of irreducibly complex organisms--the idea that everything has to be there all at once for it to work. How could all the complex items evolve simultaneously--as in the eye, for example?

Would so many scientists who disagree with your views be a concern to you? After all, 99 percent may say you're wrong!

Before Darwin most scientists were Christian. Even Darwin was brought up a Christian, but he became embittered. He set out to prove another explanation to life. I have to give the man credit--he was a powerful observer. On the Galápagos Islands he found thick-billed finches whose bills were capable of breaking apart hard seeds. He also discovered iguanas and tortoises with different adaptations. Therefore, he concluded that these organisms were evolving, and he was right in terms of microevolution--adaptation to the environment. Imagine if you only got fed if you could dunk a basketball . . .

(Now I was really wondering where he was going with this one! Evolving basketball players? But then he made a telling point.)

Only tall people would be fed and would survive. They would pass on their tall genes to their offspring. Is this evolution or adaptation? Obviously it's the latter. But evolution means one organism eventually changing into another quite different, and there's no evidence for such change. God allowed for adaptation, which speaks of a wonderful Creator who gave His creatures a genetic structure flexible enough to adapt. But that's not evolution.

(Then we turned the conversation heavenward.)

Look at the complexity of the universe, too. The Hubble telescope has revealed much more to us. But our galaxy is just a tiny dot in the great scheme of the universe, and there's much more beyond what we know. Even in our own solar system--we orbit 93 million miles from the sun. If it were 92 million miles, we'd be incinerated; 94 million miles, and we'd be a frozen iceball. There's so much--it's all so extraordinarily organized with such complexity. How does that happen?

Then take the ideas of the origins of the universe. The scientists speak about the second law of thermodynamics, which states that everything tends toward a state of disorganization . . .

(Maybe he has seen my desk, a stray thought occurs to me as it streaks across my brain!)

So how could our incredibly organized universe come about as the result of a big bang? This flies in the face of the second law, which says it would be less organized as a result, not more! Scientists have to be consistent.

A few closing thoughts?

Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires. You have no reason for things such as selfless love, when a father dives in to save his son from drowning. You can trash the Bible as irrelevant, just silly fables, since you believe that it does not conform to scientific thought. You can be like Lucifer, who said, "I will make myself like the Most High."

Can you prove evolution? No. Can you prove creation? No. Can you use the intellect God has given you to decide whether something is logical or illogical? Yes, absolutely. It all comes down to "faith"--and I don't have enough to believe in evolution. I'm too logical!

_________________________

*Ben Carson is the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland.

_________________________

Jonathan Gallagher is the United Nations liaison for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, with headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

D. Martyn Lloyd Jones, a highly regarded protestant theologian and pastor, wrote:

"'Ah but,' you say, ‘has not the Roman Catholic Church changed? You are simply looking back, you are speaking as if you lived in the 16th century-- don't you realize you are living in the 20th century?' My answer is quite simple. The proudest boast of the Roman Catholic Church is this, that she never changes, Semper eadem. How can she change? If she changes she will be admitting that she was wrong in the past -- but she was saying then that she was infallible, and that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and that he cannot make a mistake. If she says that she is capable of change she is denying her central claim! She does not say that she is changing, and she never will. The Church of Rome remains the same. If anything, she is even worse. She has 'added' things to what she taught in the 16th century, such as Papal infallibility, etc. No, there is no change in the Church of Rome. And if there ever is one great world Church it will be because the Church of Rome has absorbed all the rest and swallowed them in their ignorance!"

Yes, I'm familiar with that quote, although I can never remember who said it. Still, it sounds like an opinion - no examples of any lies they have told in recent history.

Are you saying that there are Catholics out there who still say Protestants have 4 rows of teeth, or whatever? I mean, if the Church never changes, wouldn't that have to be the case?

Have they said anything in recent history that can be proved to be a lie?

The lies that I am most concerned about are the lies about God and about Bible doctrines. The Roman Catholic Church's entire structure rests on false teachings, such as the papal authority, the human priesthood, church tradition over Bible authority, the priest's power to absolve and to create Christ's flesh and blood in the mass, the immortality of the soul, prayers to the saints, auricular confession, penance, the belief that only the teaching authority of the church can interpret the Scripture correctly, etc. Those kinds of lies do more damage because they been such great influences on billions of people. The book of Revelation compares the false doctrines to a wine that makes people spiritually drunk and disoriented.

One of my wife's sisters, for instance, has crawled on bloody knees for miles on a pilgrimage because she was taught in the Catholic Church that this is how she can get God to answer her prayers. Hundreds of thousand do this every year in places like Mexico and South and Central America. Those lies make it very difficult for them to understand the truth of God's Word. They are taught to listen to their priests rather than study the Bible for themselves.

[carolaa]

Obviously, I share your concerns. But it doesn't take away from the fact that no one has come up with a lie that the Catholic Church has come up with in the last 100-200 years, or even before that. That's the only point I was trying to make, because the claim was made that they lie, and yet there is no proof of that since the Dark Ages.

[Bravus]

Whether the Catholic Church (a) lies or ( has different doctrines are quite different issues from whether the Catholic Church has Jesuit secret agents in Protestant churches trying to destroy them, and on this forum attacking Adventist doctrines.

[John317]

It's still a matter of opinion and how one interprets the evidence.

Yes, virtually everything is a matter to a large degree of opinion. The spiritual condition of a person's heart and mind do influence how he chooses and what he thinks. Does a person want to do God's will? Is he or she open to the influence of the Holy Spirit? Some people aren't. That's important in determining whether a person will recognize the truth, accept it and obey it.