Awaken Bible Prophecy Update 8-16-23: Problematic Catholic Bookend Beliefs – Part 1

I must be a masochist.  Not content to call out erroneous post-Trib Rapture and NAR doctrines, US government conspiracies, and the medical profession for their devilish, homicidal participation in the depopulation agenda which I call Hospicide, I also have to take on the Vatican.  Is it something simple like their faith by works beliefs or the false un-Scriptural notion of purgatory?  Oh no – I have to investigate their thinking about Genesis and Revelation – the two cornerstone books in the Bible.

Why would I take on this little task?  Only God knows.

Two 100-page books came into my possession from a thrift store.  My wife thought I’d find them interesting.  Thanks, Dear, one more project.

Both books were written by a Catholic priest by the name of Albert Joseph Mary Shannon.  I wondered about that second middle name of Mary.  Did he come from a Catholic family that so revered Mary as the mother of Jesus that they couldn’t resist given him that name despite his being male?  Or at a later point in life did he adopt that additional middle name?

The books in question are titled: Genesis – The Book of Origins and Apocalypse – The Book for Our Times.  As I note in the name of this Prophecy Update, they comprise bookend beliefs of the Catholic church.  Because of how Catholicism sanctions various works, these are representative of Biblical beginning and ending beliefs within Catholicism.  As such, they are indeed problematic when seen in the light of Scripture.

Today as Part 1 of this dive into these books, I want to briefly discuss the first of the two works: Genesis – The Book of Origins.  This will by no means be exhaustive, but I think representative of the thinking that comes from the Vatican and infiltrates the minds and hearts of the people in this religion.  Next week I’ll continue this effort in Part 2 with Apocalypse – The Book for Our Times, a look into how Catholicism views the book of Revelation.

Transcript:

I must be a masochist.  Not content to call out erroneous post-Trib Rapture and NAR doctrines, US government conspiracies, and the medical profession for their devilish, homicidal participation in the depopulation agenda which I call Hospicide, I also have to take on the Vatican.  Is it something simple like their faith by works beliefs or the false un-Scriptural notion of purgatory?  Oh no – I have to investigate their thinking about Genesis and Revelation – the two cornerstone books in the Bible.

Why would I take on this little task?  Only God knows.

Two 100-page books came into my possession from a thrift store.  My wife thought I’d find them interesting.  Thanks, Dear, one more project.

Both books were written by a Catholic priest by the name of Albert Joseph Mary Shannon.  I wondered about that second middle name of Mary.  Did he come from a Catholic family that so revered Mary as the mother of Jesus that they couldn’t resist given him that name despite his being male?  Or at a later point in life did he adopt that additional middle name?

The books in question are titled: Genesis – The Book of Origins and Apocalypse – The Book for Our Times.  As I note in the name of this Prophecy Update, they comprise bookend beliefs of the Catholic church.  Because of how Catholicism sanctions various works, these are representative of Biblical beginning and ending beliefs within Catholicism.  As such, they are indeed problematic when seen in the light of Scripture.

Today as Part 1 of this dive into these books, I want to briefly discuss the first of the two works: Genesis – The Book of Origins.  This will by no means be exhaustive, but I think representative of the thinking that comes from the Vatican and infiltrates the minds and hearts of the people in this religion.  Next week I’ll continue this effort in Part 2 with Apocalypse – The Book for Our Times, a look into how Catholicism views the book of Revelation.

We’ll get right into this as soon as we pray and read from God’s Word.

<PRAY>

Scripture

Mark 7:1-8

Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

Problematic Catholic Bookend Beliefs – Part 1

• The author of both books states as a caveat that:

The Nihil obstat and the Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error.  It is not implied that those who have granted the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions, or statements expressed.

• According to a website expounding Catholic doctrine, Nihil obstat means a work has been given the green light to be published because “nothing stands in the way”
• A work given the Imprimitur is given the approval that says “let it be printed”
• The bottom line is that:

These official declarations state that a publication is true to the Church’s teachings on faith and morals, and free of doctrinal error. Too many souls are in jeopardy because of the erroneous literature that is promoted as genuinely representing the Catholic faith.  In an age where publications are abundant, a good Catholic must be on guard and look for the imprimatur before buying.

• I tell you this so that you can see these books are good representations of Catholic beliefs – they are sanctioned in Catholicism and not an aberration out of the mainstream
• First, let me say that there is much in both books that point to a true and real faith in the author
• He continually points to Jesus as God and the source of salvation
• What is then troubling are the doctrinal errors that rely on the traditions of the Catholic church rather than the complete and infallible Word of God
• As we’ll see in the Apocalypse book, reliance on the word of Mary, i.e. a Marian apparition, is significant
• That is truly problematic when combined with the extreme and un-doctrinal faith in Mary as to her position in the scheme of salvation
• Ultimately, as I’ve said in the past, I believe that the Catholic church doubtlessly has many who are truly born-again, but only because they’ve overcome the doctrinal errors of the Vatican
• Plus, it’s evident to me that God allows us to hold a whole lot of differing opinions – many of which conflict with each other – as long as our trust and faith is in Jesus Christ, i.e. that we have believing loyalty to Him and no other gods
• As an aside, because of Catholic reliance on Mary in their theology, she definitely presents a stumbling block to the issue of not having any other gods before the One true God
• Now, let’s take a look at what the author has to say about certain aspects of the book of Genesis

Genesis – The Book of Origins

• Right off the bat the author brings up an issue that has plagued the church in general – namely does the Bible speak of a young or an old earth?
• He quotes Genesis 1:2 (ASV):

And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

• Then he contrasts that with Isaiah 45:18 (NASB):

For this is what the Lord says, He who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it as a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited):

• So, which is correct?
• Did God create the earth initially as waste and void as Genesis says?
• Or as Isaiah declares, did God not create it as a waste place?
• The statement the author makes is that:

“We [i.e. presumably the Catholic church in its teachings?] find it hard to believe that God’s original creation of the earth was a wasteland covered by darkness.”

• Thus, going along with the Isaiah passage, the author continues:

“Much later, perhaps thousands of years after the original creation of the earth, some terrible catastrophe must have happened that reduced the earth to a formless wasteland, put out its lights and covered her in darkness.  Very likely the war between the angels could have reduced the earth to such a chaotic state, just as wars often do to countries.”

• He then goes on to say that then the Spirit of the Lord made order out of chaos and restored the earth so that it was inhabitable by man
• Do you see what he says?
• He obviously agrees with the old earth idea
• In order for that to make sense to him, the initial perfection of the earth – long before mankind and the events chronicled in Genesis 1 happened – was marred by an angelic war
• But what does that imply?
• It means that before the incident in the Garden with Adam, Eve, and the serpent, there was already sin that affected the earth
• Thus, before the Garden, the earth effectively built up layer after layer of death as life upon it died
• This was all then buried prior to the Biblical account that says sin entered the world only after the first humans rebelled against God
• I believe in a young earth because this other explanation is a major problem
• Either sin entered through Adam and Eve which then impacted the earth . . .
• Thus the Biblical account in Genesis 1 is accurate
• Or somehow sin was present beforehand and we’re simply not shown how that happened
• As to Isaiah, I think he was speaking of the Genesis account

• In the discussion of God’s creation of man, the author considers the “tradition” that anthropomorphizes God
• In other words, this “tradition” imagines God with actual hands and a mouth to breathe life into Adam upon His creating him
• Is that what God did?
• Did he have literal hands, lips, and lungs so as to actually mold Adam out of the dust
• Our author says: “Of course not! God has neither hands, nor mouth. The story is pure imagery.”
• To this I say: “Hold on! Not so fast!”
• What do we actually see in the Old Testament?
• What does the Biblical text say?
• Before Jesus came to walk the earth and claimed that He was God incarnate – this reality that the priestly class absolutely denied because of the Shema that Moses recited in Deuteronomy 6:4:

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

• . . . There was another, deeper understanding that God’s people, led by the prophets, realized
• They had the concept of the Two Powers in Heaven, a.k.a. the Two Yahwehs
• They saw in Scripture that many verses described God speaking to God
• There was a God in heaven and there was a God who walked on the earth
• In fact, Moses spoke to this God face-to-face when they met at the Tent of Meeting
• One of the most familiar verses to us in this regard in Psalm 110:1:

The Lord says to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool.”

• The verse is repeated three times in the Gospels as well as in Acts (Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42-43; Acts 2:34-35)
• We also know that God was indeed a physical presence in the Garden as seen in Genesis 3:8:

And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

• The question then becomes: How is this possible since God is Spirit and a consuming fire, and no one can look upon Him and live?
• The answer is that this is the pre-incarnate Jesus, a.k.a. the Angel of the Lord
• Before He was born into the flesh, He had a physical presence on the earth whenever necessary
• He had hands and feet, a mouth, ears, and lungs
• He could even eat human food
• The ancient Israelites knew this
• Thus for them to understand that this was Yahweh in physical form who could indeed fashion man out of clay, was no stretch at all for them
• The Pharisees denied this reality only when Jesus came because He threatened their hold on power over the people
• From this you can see that the belief of the Catholic church is not only problematic – it’s just plain wrong
• In this same vein, the author of our Genesis book – not God, but the Catholic priest in this case – disputes how God created Eve
• Instead of believing the Genesis account that God put Adam to sleep, literally removed a rib, and fashioned Eve from that, he’s got a different explanation
• He says that this idea of putting Adam to sleep is simply “a way of saying that [Moses] didn’t really know how woman originated.”
• [Sarc] You know, those ancients were pretty ignorant of God and how He did things, so Moses and the other Biblical authors had to make things up
• Then we come to the idea of evolution
• Is there room in the Genesis account for this Darwinian theory?
• Yes indeed says the Catholic church
• (To be fair, the author doesn’t cite Darwin – just the idea he presented)
• Evolution can certainly be incorporated into our – the Catholic – worldview
• Our author says:

“[God] could allow the body to evolve from lower forms, till it is ready for a soul.”

• However, the caveat is presented that evolution is still a theory, and that the missing link is still missing.
• I say amen to that
• In fact, the missing link will never be found because there is no such thing
• Evolution is a theory that has never been proven, and never will be, because it cannot be proven
• God created birds, beast, fish, and man whole and intact
• I may have 90-some percent of the DNA of a monkey, but I didn’t evolve from it
• Just as life did not evolve willy-nilly out of the muck because it decided the time was right
• Nothing did not create everything without a Creator
• How about the serpent in the Garden?
• What up with that?
• According to our Catholic author, the snake was a symbol of the Canaanite fertility cults
• Thus, the telling in Genesis was a teaching warning about false cults, i.e. not only that they were evil, but led to evil
• Now, it’s absolutely true that by the time we get to Moses in Egypt and God’s wrath upon Pharaoh rained down via the plagues, these were indeed a polemic against false gods and the cults they fostered
• Can this legitimately be said about the incident in the Garden with the serpent tempting Adam and Eve?
• Absolutely not – because there were no such cults at that time
• The true Biblical narrative shows us the ease with which we are drawn away from God and His Word in rebellion and disobedience
• It demonstrates the weakness of our flesh in relation to our free will to choose self over God
• It introduces the enemy of our souls who will wage a millennium-long war against God through His highest creation
• Ultimately, it provides the picture of how sin entered the world through our first parents
• Beyond that it reveals the beginning of the larger Biblical narrative of man’s fall from grace with God’s sacrificial gift of Jesus Christ to restore us to the exalted position as beloved sons and daughters of the Most High God
• The author in the book we’re reviewing discusses all this symbolically, i.e. believing that what happened in the Garden was simply allegory and not something that literally happened
• He does mention some truisms, but without an actual event, something is lost in the telling
• In speaking of original sin coming from the Garden, the author veers deeply into Catholic doctrine by saying:

“Only one person was spared the terrible ravages of original sin – Mary, the Mother of God . . .  The Church teaches that Mary was not only sinless, but that she was conceived even immaculate; that is, that she was full of grace from the very moment that she was conceived in the womb of her good mother, St. Anne.”

• Thus, not only was Jesus as the Son of God – God Himself – sinless in this life, so was his mother
• Someone with an intrepid curiosity might ask: “How does this work? Presumably only God is sinless.  Man – after the Fall – inherited a sin nature.  Was Mary also divine, perhaps part of the Godhead in order for her to have no sin?”
• Digging a little more deeply into this belief that Mary was conceived as immaculate, we look to org for a description of this unique understanding:

The official statement of the [Roman Catholic Church] doctrine reads, “The blessed Virgin Mary to have been, from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of Mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin” (Essentially, the Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary was protected from original sin, that Mary did not have a sin nature and was, in fact, sinless.)

• Once more our resolute inquisitor might ask: “If Mary was conceived sinlessly, does that mean that her mother Anne (which by the way in known only by tradition and not through the Biblical text) was impregnated by the Holy Spirit such that Mary also came about through a virgin birth? Why doesn’t the Bible tell us this?  Wouldn’t this be as important to convey as the circumstances of Jesus’ birth given how important Mary is in the Catholic narrative?”
• As it turns out, the Catholic church made this determination about Mary in 1854 – just a tad later than when the canon of Scripture was concluded
• The author of the Genesis Origins book carries on with a mention of Cain and Abel
• However, this in his opinion – and presumably that of the Catholic church – is that this is not an historical event
• It is inserted by the “authors” of Genesis to make a theological point
• FYI – the perspective also is that multiple authors over the years put together the verbal accounts from antiquity to eventually write Genesis, i.e. it wasn’t really Moses
• As to Cain’s interaction with God, that is understood to simply be God’s speaking to him through His conscience
• Once more, we see the denial of an actual manifestation of Jesus as the Angel of the Lord appearing to and speaking to Cain
• Now – it is true – that in the Biblical account we don’t have the text explicitly telling us that Jesus stood face-to-face with Cain
• However, we’re dealing with the first generation born outside the Garden
• In those ancient times, God was very much present and known directly through various interactions
• I think it’s a very good speculation that He and Cain had a direct talk mano-a-mano . . .
• Which Cain then dismissed in his anger
• This then shows a logical sense from Cain’s perspective when the Lord questions him about his brother: “Where is your brother Abel?”
• Cain in replying to God in this face-to-face interaction can then say with a shrug: “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper.”
• But see, you lose all that if this is just symbolic in nature, and the Angel of the Lord is only God speaking through Cain’s conscience
• Coming to one of the most consequential passages in the Bible, namely Genesis 6, the utterly incoherent and false understanding is put forth by the author that this isn’t a supernatural event
• He repeats the rather silly explanation of the Sons of Seth theory for all that happens
• The Nephilim in his thinking only refer to moral qualities, i.e. men renowned for their lawlessness and not giant hybrid beings
• Unfortunately, when people seek to void Scripture of the supernatural, much understanding is lost regarding the larger Biblical narrative
• Then we come to the account of Noah and the Flood
• Here are some quotes from the book:

“Geographically, [the Flood] did not cover the whole earth.”

“First, all the animals, some 519,000, could not get into the ark.”

“Anthropologically, the Flood was not universal, for thousands of years were required for the various languages of the Near East to develop.”

• Obviously, the author hasn’t visited Ken Ham’s Creation Museum and Ark Encounter in Kentucky
• Granted a lot of very smart people think the Flood was only regional, but the Bible says it covered the whole world
• Does the argument from a Biblical understanding hold water [pun intended] that the whole world meant just the limited area of the Middle East because that was all they knew?
• I don’t think so
• From the fossil records, the Nephilim very likely spread throughout the earth – even to North America
• Their corruption and depravity were such an abomination to God that He had to wipe out all life everywhere that it could have spread – even if it was limited in numbers in those other locales
• Regarding the animals, as the Ark Encounter ably describes, every single kind of dog from chihuahua to husky didn’t need to board the ark to be preserved
• All that was needed was the species type, then genetics in procreation could take place as Mendel demonstrated in his various biology experiments
• Thus, all Noah needed was a male and female wolf as representatives of the canine family
• Finally, completing a discussion of the several quotes, we see a complete absence of belief in the Biblical account
• Why?
• The author thinks that the many languages in the world came about through a period of development lasting thousands of years
• Wait!
• Did he not read about the Tower of Babel?
• Does not Genesis 11 explicitly tell us that God dispersed men into nations and confused their languages?
• Does that not imply that from the one original language, men thereafter had fully developed languages within their own nations?
• As a matter of fact, the author doesn’t believe this . . .
• The Babel story is meant only to demonstrate civil discord in the world as a result of man’s turning from God
• But as to it being actually a historic event?
• Nope
• Figurative or symbolic only
• Again, this misses the mark dramatically in the basic understanding of the greater Biblical narrative, which I’ve discussed many times regarding the rebellious sons of God and how they set themselves up as gods over the nations
• There is certainly more that I could comment on
• I’ll finish, however, with something that drives me crazy, and should do the same for anyone with a true Biblical and prophetic understanding of God and the nation of Israel
• How many of you have looked at the full-color maps in the back of your Bible?
• How many of you have read the study notes if you have a Bible that contains them?
• What is one thing you often come across regarding reference to Israel?
• On your maps, is Israel labeled as such, or is the name shown as Palestine?
• Do your study notes consistently speak of Israel, or do they reference Palestine?
• For the record, there never was a nation named Palestine
• The Romans in 135 AD after the last Israelite uprising gave the land the name of Philistina as a disrespectful jab at Israel since her ancient enemy had been the Philistines
• For any true Christians to subsequently refer to Israel as Palestine is an abomination and disrespectful to God Himself
• In the book we’re discussing, the author speaks of Noah and his fateful imbibing of the fruit of his vineyard
• Here’s the quote from the book in this regard:

“Noah, a man of the soil, planted a vineyard.  The potency of Palestinian wine is proverbial (Isaiah 16:8-10).”

• All I can say is: “Really?”
• Describing Noah’s growing and drinking adventure as taking place in Palestine?
• Referring to a passage of Isaiah which:

1. Describes a situation in the nation of Israel since Isaiah lived around 700 BC
2. Relates the drinking of wine as something joyful but certainly doesn’t imply wanton drunkenness

• . . . is really torturing the Biblical account
• Can we not have a little Biblical, historical accuracy here?

• We’ll take leave for now of our critical inquiry into Catholic doctrine and belief as presented in this little book of Genesis – The Book of Origins
• Sadly, we see just in the miniscule amount I’ve covered that Catholic understanding of the Bible leaves much to be desired because it is not taken literally in many of the most important contexts
• This means that their interpretation of Scripture is highly problematic since anyone can make it mean whatever he wants
• Indeed, this is a major criticism of Catholicism
• The Vatican instructs its priests, and they teach the people in church what they want them to know
• Few Catholics read the Bible
• Thus, the true doctrine conveyed in God’s Word is skewed
• We have only to understand the difference between how evangelicals understand a passage like Ephesians 2:8-9, in that saving faith comes by the grace of God alone versus the Catholic teaching that works also are necessary for salvation
• Multiply this by the things we’ve pointed out today, and the many more I didn’t even touch, and you can see how the average Catholic parishioner, who does not read his Bible, is ripe for misunderstanding at the least, and serious deception at worst
• Next week I’ll go through the other book I read in my masochistic endeavor: Apocalypse – The Book for Our Times
• In that we’ll discuss what I consider even greater errors that lead people of good will and heart astray because they are under Catholic teaching
• Such folks are a mission field
• Some of the strongest true Christians I know came out of Catholicism
• But they first had to hear the truth
• If any of us have the opportunity to bring the true Gospel to a Catholic, it’s a vitally important work of God’s kingdom in these final days
• Why?
• There isn’t much time left
• If we have the opportunity to present the Gospel to someone of this persuasion, our effort may be the difference between that person being Raptured or going into and suffering through the Tribulation
• What a profound privilege that would be to save someone from such a fate!