Mother Teresa’s Abomination

Post 298

Of course we know that God describes the Jewish nation as his; servants, children, daughters, sons, and wife, each various description giving place for a representation of a specific standing or crime that fits that context. In the previous Post I know that the context of the verse used was as a son who married a woman. I am simply using another Type description to describe a particular Type crime. Let me provide another practical example in Type as we continue to investigate how Judah has married the daughter of a strange god; whether in the masculine role as a rebellious son of God, or in the feminine role as a very confused gender bending bride. It is important that all these separate quantum example Posts be retained until we arrive at the big picture concept conclusion.
* * *

Of all Catholics, Nuns are obviously the most direct representation of “the bride of Christ” concept. These women have given up all temporal experiences and duties as brides for the express purpose of devoting that entire concept to their faith, blending the temporal and the spiritual worlds until the one is indistinguishable from the other. To them Christ is their husband both spiritually and practically.
And of all the Nuns, Mother Teresa is presented as the quintessential representation of all that we imagine a Nun should be (*1). Her humility, simplicity, selflessness, nurturing focus, unconditional love in action, and devotion to comforting the suffering is unquestionable, and her publicized lifetime of practical application is what won her the admiration of the world (Galatians 5:22-23) as well as her elevation to “certified Saint” according to the Catholic Church. Nobody but a Hitchens (*2) is going to condemn her for her work of compassion. Nor do I.

But, applying her official position in the Catholic Church, along with the healthy nature and inclinations of her female gender, we see evidence that her emotionally driven motive to comfort the suffering moved her to conduct outside of the commands of her “husband.” Clearly, in her mind, what Christ offered-- and commanded that she offer-- was not enough to meet the need of those she saw suffering and so in the emotional moving of her compassionate heart she failed her scope and offered what Christ does not.
What was her offense to Christ that she offered those in her care? In short, she placed the suffering in a class outside of the need for salvation.

By interviews and recordings of her in action we see that Christ was only a generic concept to her as Comfort was not only the superior goal, but the only goal and motive regardless of the other specific commands of Christ. What Mother Theresa routinely offered to the dying was peace with whatever god they served. She offered them the hot iron peace that comes with a seared conscience, which temporarily overcomes guilt as does a drug with pain. Contrary to the command of Christ (Matthew 10:7) Mother Theresa provided much needed comfort in the name of “any god” (*3) and by it, actually failed to fulfill a single element of even v.8 beyond possibly healing the sick in a non-supernatural way with no other end intended. Calls of Repentance, Restitution, or Redemption were never in the ministry or apparent motive of Mother Teresa; only making people feel good by relieving their suffering (*4). And like “The Good Witch” (Post 271 The Violence of Peace http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-violence-of-peace.html) how are we to complain about her wonderful comforting conduct that far surpasses those of most Christians? This is a question that is loosing validity in an age which has abrogated the source of Cause-and-Effect reasoning. “If a woman is willing to give her life to the comfort of the suffering then that is as pure a form of Christ’s commands in action as ever there could be. This is pure religion in action just as James proclaimed, right?”

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” James 1:27.

Who would argue against the notion that if we would all “lean in the direction” of Mother Teresa’s example of compassionate conduct the world would indeed be a much better place? Certainly not me.
But I ask you, How many of those souls did Mother Teresa save from the flames of Hellfire? Are we to imagine that the sick have no sin? Are they too busy suffering to be bothered with repentance? Has Christ given them a pass?
Of all the people on the planet the dying perhaps need salvation more earnestly than any other, as they are about to meet their Maker imminently. In all the hours of interviews and footage of her practical work which I have reviewed I have never once heard Mother Teresa present Christ unto salvation to anyone, not once.

And as support for my argument, according to her own private letters: “No faith- no love- no zeal- (the saving of) souls holds no attraction- heaven means nothing… It has been like this more or less from the time I started ‘the work.’” - Mother Teresa Questioning Faith (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep1C5Opcwbg). A very insightful video respectfully calling her “the Patron of Skeptics” for her self-declared lack of faith… which is supposed to be used in her favor to support canonization into Sainthood for her great work without faith. It is sheer insanity!

Ignoring all the possible explanations and excuses of a struggling human being in a tough mission, these words are still inexcusable for someone with a real salvation. These telling words are not someone struggling in faith; they are the words of someone struggling without the Holy Spirit of faith. Any sinner can clean a toilet, and many sinners can learn to work hard and tirelessly. Even without God, women by nature are caregivers with big hearts that break at the sight of suffering, some are even more naturally inclined than others. But it is impossible not be desperately attracted to the saving of souls when filled with the Holy Spirit, heaven means everything, love abounds, faith is the key that in our work brings pleasure to God;

“But without faith it is impossible to please him…” Hebrews 11:6a (see Hebrews 4:2).

“Yea, a man (or Nun) may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works” James 2:18.

We get that. But what do we say to him/her who shows works without faith? In the mirror of James 2:14, Can works without faith save him? (Titus 3:4-5, II Timothy 1:9). James 2:22 is speaking of an already existing faith that the works then perfects (makes mature by function), but works does not create faith; works without faith is just works (Hebrews 4:2 vs. Hebrews 11). Even sinners have jobs and go to work before they die and go to Hell. Even Satan and his ministers do works of righteousness… that get them a seat in the lake of fire according to those works (II Corinthians 11:14-15).
By many recordings it seems evident that the vow of poverty and hard work is the focus of these Nun’s salvation. So if the Nun’s are saved because they live and work in poverty, apparently poverty is indeed a pass against the threat of Hellfire. Apparently only the rich are in danger of Hell. Who knew?!

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” Romans 3:23,

“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:”… Romans 3:24(+).

Forgive me for my brazen approach to this topic, without writing a whole book about her work it is impossible for me to express my praise for Mother Teresa’s labor to comfort the unfortunate. But her greatly needed work of “waiting tables” (Acts 6:1-5) is not what is in question here; the issue is that even those “table servers” of Acts were filled with the Holy Ghost. It is incomprehensible to think that these caregivers would neglect the salvation of those in their care, and even declare that they felt no faith- no love- and that the souls of people hold no attraction because heaven means nothing.

“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not…in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” Matthew 7:22.

The context of this passage is not about the works done, but about the undone will of the Father. In obeying the will of the Father, Jesus himself seemed wholly consumed with saving the souls of men and used caregiving as the means to reach many (Matthew 5:16, 11:20). There is not a single recorded case among the disciples where caregiving was the ends, but only a means. It pains me to say it but caregiving appears to have been the only end of Mother Teresa’s work, their souls she seemed to abandon on the streets from whence she rescued their bodies.
Until recently this distinction has been far too cloudy to make boldly. But times are changing.
* * *

The Pontiff:
Recently we learned-- directly contrary to the Catholic Church of the recent past-- the infallible (*5) new Pope has declared:

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.” - Pope Francis, in his first and unscripted homily per the Hal Lindsey Report (*6).

Not too long ago Christians were burned at the stake by the Catholic Church for simply refusing to acknowledge the Catholic Church as the supreme authority of Christ regarding their faith. Today it is good enough just to “do good.” Apparently Mother Theresa was not acting alone in the motive of her mission and according to the Pontiff her salvation was secure not in Christ but in her good works, contrary to Ephesians;

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” Ephesians 2:8-9.

What we are seeing is the Evolution of the Catholic faith in the same concept that Obama perceives the U.S. Constitution as a flawed living document that is Evolving over time to become better and better with slow gradual changes. We will explore this foundational “Evolution of Everything” concept in the next Post.
* * * * * * *

(*1) Mother Teresa Interview:
Exclusive Mother Teresa 1974 1-2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF5n4HScSP4) a typical example of many.
The Story of Mother Teresa’s work: Mother Theresa 1986 (A.J.B.) FILM subtitle: Come and See (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnhiGtCBc10 start at 0:16:40). The work of her life calling was indeed truly wonderful and the good she did was huge… though completely temporal and eternally pointless.

(*2) Christopher Hitchens’ unfair perspective on Mother Teresa:
( #1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ12imRY0Og)( #3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICt1KYh-Tfo).
Much of his general argument warrants honest contemplation - See Shaming Mother Teresa - India (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30XdrOLT7J4), but frankly Mr. Hitchens’ specifics are largely “barking up the wrong tree.” Other than Mother Teresa being an over-stressed ignorant tool used to reach ends that she has no idea of or desire for, I believe she really had no ulterior motives beyond an extremely simplistic expression of love to the innumerable needy. Her vow of poverty over the needs of the suffering seems to be a huge factor in the complaints against the mission’s practices and the struggles it faces. It is not the intent of this Post to address these factors.
Mr. Hitchens complained about the fact that she strived in simplicity to abstain from politics as she single-mindedly aided the poor as best she could-- which is apparently not enough for his mind which requires her to be more politically savvy, but then he complained that she used her simple endeavor politically to gain funds and open political doors.
Was her fame used by unscrupulous men as she went about receiving funds for her projects? Possibly, but nobody can say that she amassed those funds for her own comfort or benefit. In this she appears above reproach - Exclusive Mother Teresa 1974 2-2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR4u9mnPI0I). If fault is to be lain for the use or misuse of the funds raised, it is the Catholic Church that should be accountable for the large sums she received and passed on to them as an obedient servant; If it wasn’t, why was it not spent to actually help the needy beyond a token mattress to die on? Was she perhaps misguided as to which “programs” were beneficial and which were not, or which “parties” were actually good and which were evil? Most possibly, as Mr. Hitchens proposes, but as she said; She did not follow such politics, her entire focus was simply to aid the suffering and let her leaders deal with the other - Mother Teresa of Calcutta Part 8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNucWJzeSWQ).
I myself do not attempt to sort through the virtue of her program or how God will reward her in the hereafter for her understanding or lack thereof, I don’t have the information or the position required to make such conclusions (Romans 14:4). My argument is with her misguided Redemptionless mission to those needy that she served. I don’t believe an auto mechanic will go to heaven just because he got 40,000 broken vehicles back on the road or parked them in his peaceful yard while they rusted away unmolested. There is more to salvation than that.

(*3) Still looking for the specific video of her in action that I have seen before, showing her specifically comforting non-Christians by her very words; to trust in their god-- whomever it was-- to give them strength as they died. While she claims to have chosen Jesus she had no qualms about the usefulness of the gods others served. This could only be because she had no concern for their souls or that she figured all gods lead to the same place. Either way that pretty much rules out her Jesus and mine being the same one (II Timothy 4:1-2, John 14:6). The only question is, Who's is biblical?

(*4) “The sisters don’t really come out and teach you anything verbally, how they teach you is through what they do.” Mother Teresa 1986 (A.J.B.) FILM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnhiGtCBc10 Start at 0:17:45), vs.

“How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” Romans 10:14.

Let’s not get off topic and like a pack of sharks attack at the smell of first blood. I have no desire to demonize Mother Teresa but to show that her sympathetic emotional heart led her to a temporal end functionally exclusive of the spiritual when it came to those she was serving. How many people comforted at her hand, even riddled with the agony of guilt, transitioned peacefully into hell because in comforting them spiritually with soothing words or no words at all, she did not provide them with the only means to heaven? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A96cT-1pHM) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNwSjGh_ya0&list=PLEB4CFAB7B7667682).
She might have been a great humanitarian, but Saint? It's highly questionable whether the woman was even saved!

There is a very insightful conversation in a British talk show regarding Mother Teresa’s application of her faith as practiced predominantly from Calcutta India:

“Currently, controversial in the news, is that Albania-- from where she originally came-- has requested the return of her body of her relics, and the Indian government has said; ‘Absolutely not. We are so proud of Mother Teresa, we love her, she is a citizen of India and she is resting at peace in her own country.’” - Louise Bagshawe, author.

After a bit of typical Talkshow confusion with everyone speaking at once:

“Could I just bring some perspective to this? You must understand that in 1929 Mother Teresa entered India as a missionary. Now unfortunately Indians have not had a very good relationship with the Catholic Church…” - Dr. RAJ Pandit SHARMA Hindu Council UK.

Interrupted by the host:

“How do you feel about the ‘deathbed conversions’?”

Dr. RAJ changed gears and answered the new question;

“Well the deathbed conversions…In our faith, in the Hindu faith, we believe in the unconditional service to others. It does not mean that you hand them a loaf of bread in one hand and then the Bible in the other. I think that’s wrong, to try and convert people who already have a faith. I think that’s an insult.” - (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MISP4pU0o64).

According to his adoration of Mother Teresa and that of the government and people of India, it is apparent that she felt likewise. From what I have seen and explored over time I must conclude that Mother Teresa was a practicing Hindu in the name of the Catholic Jesus.

She often would say, as the foundation and justification of her work, statements like; “Jesus said I was hungry and you gave me something to eat…” presumably referencing Matthew 25:34-40 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yFzCBIK-PY). This is the simple single-minded principle by which Mother Teresa operated her life, and by example shames the average people of God for lacking such commanded practices (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYex8kpB-OY) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyg4_MoA7z8)(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks8ZNubZ3Lg), etc, etc. But without a single complaint against such a principle in practice this is NOT the Gospel unto salvation... unless you are a Hindu or a Catholic or other similar religion. Such faithless works is too generic. It is a worldly minded faith of a world who wants generic peace and comfort from who really cares where. Apparently according to Mother Teresa, generic love in your heart is the complete answer to the human condition because it’s the complete answer to finding salvation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEQ8O4XpIgE). Can you present a logical answer to such a proposal?

Said simplistically; by abandoning the masculine Law of Salvation, Mother Teresa as the bride of Christ has profaned God’s holiness and married the emotionalism in the permissive but loving daughter of a strange god.

(*5) [Note: this takes us off topic but is included here for important documentation. Don’t get side tracked from our present topic: “Daughters of a Strange God”]

Papal Infallibility: R.C. Sproul, Renewing Your Mind lectures on “Roman Catholicism.”
Papal Infallibility was declared July 18, 1870 by Vatican Counsel 1, presided by Pope Pius 9th. This enactment was made after the blood of the reformation was spilled regarding the authority of the Catholic Church over a Christian’s faith.

“…we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA (*5b), that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.” - Vatican Counsel 1 Pastor Aeternus First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Abridged, Chapter 4 clause 9 (http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm) An interestingly non-biblically supported read.

Such proclaimed and belief-demanded infallibility of the Pope presents the Catholic Church with a very real problem when a Pope says things unbiblical or contrary to their longstanding doctrine. This foundational Catholic abuse of misguided authority, presumed to be granted by an inappropriate application of Sphere Sovereignty where it does not rightly apply, is a complex mess of corruption that-- in the presentation of honesty and good intentions-- displayes long and complex resolutions of that which cannot be made clean. Frankly, the Pope is a fallible man, elected by a college of fallible men, and then by a puff of white smoke is presented as the infallible proxy voice of Christ, which they call Vicar. Bathe him again, because while dressed in beautiful knock-off clothes of righteousness the swine still smells unclean (II Peter 2:22, Proverbs 11:22) and we know that the end will eventually be found back at the beginning with great bloodshed (Matthew 7:6, Proverbs 26:11-12). At least if they would have drawn straws to see who would be Pope the possibility that God had a vote in the matter would provide some hope of Divine process (Acts 1:26). Are we to suppose that the whole college of Bishops who voted in the election were also as Divinely moved as Peter himself, in order to insure God’s choice for Pope was chosen? Is this not the whole point of declaring Mary the Divine Conception? This “covering” for a flawed doctrine has no end; If Mary had to be sinless in order to give birth to a sinless son, were Mary’s parents also sinless in order to make her sinless at birth for the job? And if their sinlessness were not needed for Mary’s sinlessness, why was Mary herself required to be sinless in order for her God-child to be?

And who actually made Peter the first of a line of Popes? Certainly not Jesus’ recorded words (Matthew 16:18-19 compared with Judges 6:25-26). Isn’t that whole Pope thing taking the scripture out of context? Just who is the 4073 mass of Rock upon which the Church would be built, The Pope? 4074 Peter; a piece of rock? And if the Pope’s words are infallible because like Peter’s they are Divinely sponsored then why are the Pope’s words not canonized into scripture as were Peter’s? I hate to burst this pretty balloon with a single prick but the Rock upon which the Church would be built was not Peter but the knowledge that Jesus was the Son of God, go read it again. The Church of Jesus Christ is the alter on the Rock upon which the second bullock--Jesus Christ, the second covenant-- was sacrificed for the sins of the world (Hebrews 8:6-9). Peter had nothing to do with that but to make that proclamation from the Father. Scripturally there is no Pope, fallible or infallible! (Matthew 23:10-11). Just as there is no holy or unholy mother needed to take part in the act of Salvation (Acts 4:12). Why is the Catholic Church perpetually trying to add stuff to the salvation of Christ alone? Sola Mysica vs. Sola Scriptura (Revelation 22:18).

SOLA MYSTICA [(soh’-luh) (mis’-tik-uh)]
[Sola 1685–95; and Italian, Latin sōlus alone] [Mystica:1275–1325; Middle English mystic; Latin mysticus; Greek mystikós, equivalent to mýst (ēs) an initiate into the mysteries + -ikos -ic; akin to myeîn to initiate, teach]
1. [of 7] Mystical experience alone—in contrast to the Reformation which set forth the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone)—as the basis for spiritual authority; new revelation and/or spiritual encounters deriving from mystical experience as modern evangelicalism's basis for final authority spiritual matters.
2. [of 7] Ascribing superior significance and insight to paranormal encounters and mysterious experiences so that they provide new revelations and/or insights which supplement, enhance, enliven, enlighten and even supplant the Word of God. - Herescope blog (http://herescope.blogspot.com/2012/02/sola-mystica.html).

As the supposed Bride of Christ the Catholic Church, elevating itself and it’s Pope’s to the masculine state of speaking for God in the authoritative role to direct its subjects against God’s will that doing good is salvation, the Church is committing the act of profaning God’s Holiness by marrying the daughter of a strange god. “She is new, and exciting, and alluringly attractive and brings life back into my dead faith. And by legitimately marrying her I can bring her into God’s family. That makes it right, right?”

Throughout my writing I have been very careful to identify the parentage of the “daughters I interview” because of this very risk, but I just today became aware of a complexity that has sprung up anyway. Herescope-- a Blog I have never before heard of-- has just published a very good two-part book review of Chuck Missler’s Alien Encounters: The Secret Behind the UFO Phenomenon.
Herescope part 1 (http://herescope.blogspot.com/2013/06/alien-encounters.html) Posted 6/29/13 Herescope part 2 (http://herescope.blogspot.com/2013_07_01_archive.html) Posted 7/5/13 (yesterday).
Because in my previous book I praised part 2 of Mr. Missler’s 2-part alien podcast/DVD; “Return of the Nephilim,” which I did review, I feel I need to include a written specific exclusion from this similar book, which I have not read. I simply have no knowledge of the material in that work. In my work the effort is not to glorify the Sumerian information or even to use it as support for what I think the bible says; but to show you that this information is already corrupting your faith! It is growing ever harder to make the identification without attaching oneself to the material by osmosis. It’s possible this is the case with Mr. Missler’s book, I simply don’t know. I respect Mr. Missler’s wisdom, experience, dedication and faith, but that does not put him above possible error. I simply have no knowledge of what is in his book but these book reviews have very solid footing on which I also stand, and this leads me to suspect the book. Caution in accepting anything from the mind of man, including my own, is always needed. The personal guidance by the Holy Spirit in all things is even more important today than ever before, if it were possible that it has ever been “less important” by comparison.

The daughter of the strange god is indeed becoming extremely attractive by actually diminishing her former “trashiness” and putting on the elegant clothes of righteousness to “better fit into the family,” while her wicked heart is still wildly exciting to the flesh because of it, drawing us ever closer to fulfilling Genesis 6:2&5.

(*5b) Ex cathedra: [Latin, from the chair.] By virtue of or in the exercise of one’s office; with authority.

(*6) The closest I was able to find of this portion of his speech with translation:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaBGA7vLPZg)(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3kcWVarCHI). Although there are many who are addressing these words from the new Pope I cannot find the video for my own verification. Apparently that portion of it, with translation, has been removed from the internet.

I feel it only right that I point out it is easy to take a portion of a speech out of context and/or intent, and I have found other portions of his translated speech that confirm the cross of Christ must be the center of what we do, or else what we do will be so much meaningless fluff:

“When we walk without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, and when we confess a Christ without the Cross, we are no longer disciples of the Lord. We are mundane; we are bishops, priests, cardinals, Popes, everyone, but we are no longer disciples of the Lord.” - Pope Francis, in the same unscripted homily (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdSQbFag_AU).

But applying this concept of his speech with the previous words of his speech it is extremely hard to conclude other than his meaning is that the cross of Christ is a grand capitol “C” covering that requires no repentance or turning or allegiance to God the Father before it takes affect. This is pure unadulterated Universalism.

As the only possible alternate meaning, in spite of his clear statement; “The Lord has redeemed all of us…”, Perhaps he was not discussing whether atheists would go to heaven or not, but that the world would be a better place if atheists would do good too. This is true, in the short term… but obviously a very slippery position for a minister of the faith who is supposed to be drawing attention to the hereafter as the end goal. So by these Papal statements regarding atheists and the temporal world, along with the life-long Catholic work of Mother Teresa preaching the same thing in practice, we see a trend “Evolving” where doing good becomes the salvation itself rather than a sign of the salvation that has taken place.
I bother with posting such information not because I labor to “fix” the Catholic Church, but because many Christians are as ignorant as Mother Teresa and see her as the darling of Christ because of her benevolent work of charity. This is far more dangerous than one would think.
*