Mike Gendron attacks Eucharistic Adoration

[Church_Militant]

Congress on Eucharistic Adoration meets in Rome

**News from Evangelist Mike Gendron
**July 2011

                                                        **Adoration of A False Christ Increases**

The Congress on Eucharistic Adoration met in Rome for the purpose of encouraging people to spend more time adoring the Eucharistic Christ. Pope Benedict XVI expressed the importance of worshipping the Eucharist when he encouraged everyone to: “Fix our gaze on the holy Host: and thus on God. This is the beauty of true Christianity: The Creator and Lord of all things was made a grain of wheat in order to be sown on our earth. He was made bread to be broken, shared, eaten; he was made our food to give us his own divine life.” He also declared, “The transformation of the world is in the fragile, white, consecrated host - the real presence of Jesus. The only true medicine of immortality and the certainty of being loved by God is the Eucharist.”

The worship of the Eucharist has become a non-negotiable requirement for ecumenical unity. In 1965, the second Vatican Council stated, "All Christians will be gathered in a common celebration in the Eucharist, into the unity of the one and only Church. This unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose." In 2008, Pope Benedict affirmed that requirement when he said, “*The road of ecumenism ultimately points towards a common celebration of the Eucharist which would only strengthen our resolve to love and serve one another in imitation of our Lord.” *

The church must be warned that worshipping the Eucharist is perhaps the worst kind of idolatry. The Lord Jesus Christ said, “If anyone says to you,‘Behold, here is the Christ, do not believe him, for false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect’” (Matthew 24:23-24). According to Catholic priest John O’Brien in his book, The Faith of Millions, the priest “reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.” The priest is said to perform great signs and wonders by changing the Eucharist into “the body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ such that the whole Christ is truly, really and substantially contained” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1374). “As the RCC pursues being the head of an ecumenical church, that this kind of idolatry, with its accompanying symbols - in this case the monstrance/Eucharist, will play a prominent role. This abstract “thing” called the Eucharist, in which “the faithful” around the world, will be able to apply whatever definition of “god” that they believe in. They have found a neutral symbol to worship. Demonically ingenious!” Jose Oller, PTG Board Member

Truly the Eucharist is a false Christ because the Bible gives precise details about the return of Christ so that no one will be deceived. We are told when, where, how and why Jesus will return. He does not return daily as a “victim for the sins of man” but “a second time, without reference to sin” (Heb. 9:28). He will return immediately after the tribulation with power and great glory and everyone will see Him (Matthew 24:27-30). The Lord will return in a physical body to the Mount of Olives, the same way He ascended to heaven (Acts 1:11).

Evangelicals, who continue to sign unity accords with the Catholic religion, are in essence, giving their stamp of approval for the false Christ of Catholicism. They are also helping the Vatican reverse the Reformation by embracing Catholicism as a valid expression of Christianity. The end result is mass confusion. Christians don’t know whether to evangelize Catholics or to unite with them to evangelize the world together. Clearly the truth must be told and people must be warned of the eternal consequences awaiting those who embrace and worship a false Christ. The following video clip exposes the deception.

Video is above. Notice who the real deceiver is…

 

[cemiller]

Maybe if he actually reads up on this a bit he’ll be the next Tim Staples

 

[Saintlucy]

What is there to say? It’s just ridiculous. Let him go and tell the Muslims how to worship and see the backlash. We Catholics are used to being insulted.

 

[Subrosa]

Pray for this man… He is baptized into the Body of Christ and thus is even more subject to judgment (James 3:1).

Sub

 

[Saintlucy]

Pray for this man… He is baptized into the Body of Christ and thus is even more subject to judgment (James 3:1).

Sub

Amen

 

[Fink]

Pray for this man… He is baptized into the Body of Christ and thus is ***even more subject to judgment ***(James 3:1).

Sub

Dead right! Being an ex-Catholic makes it even worse. And an ex-catechist? In other words, he knows that hes lying! :mad: Either that; or he was catechising under false pretenses. Theres certainly something baleful about the undisguised hatred of anti-Catholic ex-Catholics! The Eighth Commandment applies to them just as much as it does to the rest of us.

Scott Hahn says that a moral problem is often (mostly?) at the root of a decision to desert the Church, contraception being a leading contender…

When were not in a state of Grace, our intellects are darkened. We have to be careful about judging; but i cant help wondering about the likes of Gendron, the late B Brewer, pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians etc.

 

[teenphilo1]

He brings up some valid points- but here are mine.

1. if the Eucharist is evil, wouldnt the Apostles have condemned it as it such?
2. if the Eucharist is symbolic why did Jesus say only those who ***truly ***eat of His body and drink of His blood would be saved?

just thoughts.

 

[ChadS]

This is old, typical argumentation coming from our separated bretheren and seems to belong in the hysterical writings of a bygone era. Sadly it still seems to be around and quite alive. At every opportunity it needs to be pointed out how and why it is wrong and poke big holes in the theology. Hopefully that will get people to come around to the truth.

ChadS

 

[Kay_Cee]

Terrific discussion between John Martignoni and Mike Gendron can be found here:

biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter

Start with issue #138.

 

[Church_Militant]

The church must be warned that worshipping the Eucharist is perhaps the worst kind of idolatry.

Of course he’s way out of whack here. We know that The Eucharist IS Scriptural and he really needs to get out his time machine and go back and explain that to the Early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch who plainly told the church at Smyrna…

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16)

The Lord Jesus Christ said, “If anyone says to you,‘Behold, here is the Christ, do not believe him, for false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect’” (Matthew 24:23-24).

Nicely snatched right out of context, since this speaks of to an entirely different context. Again though, we have St. Paul saying the following about the Eucharist. [bibledrb]1 Corinthians 11:23-30[/bibledrb]

According to Catholic priest John O’Brien in his book, The Faith of Millions, the priest “reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.”

Let me know when Fr, O’Brien is declared an infallible source, okay? In 1938 this may have been the way he explained this. I don’t know because I don’t have this book and can’t find the context of this quote online. However, the way it is explained is actually. The Institution of the Mass

The priest is said to perform great signs and wonders by changing the Eucharist into “the body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ such that the whole Christ is truly, really and substantially contained” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1374).

Here Gendron pulls a reference in the CCC out of context (along with the passage from Fr. O’Brien above) and uses it to misrepresent authentic Catholic teaching. Look here at paragraph 1375 of the Catechism.

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.204 **And St. Ambrose says about this conversion: **

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.205

(Emphasis mine)
So here again Mike Gendron blatantly misrepresents Catholic teaching to try to make his case.
(Cont’d)

 

[holmj2674]

Its guys like this who helped lead me from Protestant Evangelicalism to the Roman Catholic Church in the first place. I firmly believe these (often, but not always) well meaning but totally ignorant and deluded people are the tools of Satan. Only the One, True Church, could be the target of such malicious attacks against it… and its so sad because its by people claiming to be Christians. The Eucharist is what makes me Catholic. No protestant who believes in Sola Scriptura or a literal interpretation of the Bible can offer any kind of legitimate explanation for John Chapter 6. When realization dawned on me I almost felt betrayed… after that it was a short road to Rome.

 

[Church_Militant]

"As the RCC pursues being the head of an ecumenical church, that this kind of idolatry, with its accompanying symbols - in this case the monstrance/Eucharist, will play a prominent role.

Would he have preferred that the Church be deceptive about it, as he is? Obviously, as my linked blog article above shows, neither the New Testament nor the early church considered the Eucharist idolatry, so then who are we going to believe?

This abstract “thing” called the Eucharist, in which “the faithful” around the world, will be able to apply whatever definition of “god” that they believe in. They have found a neutral symbol to worship. Demonically ingenious!" Jose Oller, PTG Board Member

This doesn’t help his case at all, since it’s just vitriolic polemics from another member of his own organizations staff.

Truly the Eucharist is a false Christ because the Bible gives precise details about the return of Christ so that no one will be deceived. We are told when, where, how and why Jesus will return.

Again, not according to the Word of God, or even authentic and authoritative Catholic teaching, since nowhere in Eucharistic teaching does it refer to Christ’s 2nd coming, except in in 2 passages of the New Testament. The first from Our Lord Himself and the 2nd from St. Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians as follows. (Emphasis mine)
John 6:53-55.
53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

1st Corinthians 11:26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

So in this case Gendron “goes beyond what is written” and far overreaches in his effort to make his specious case against the Catholic faith.

He does not return daily as a “victim for the sins of man” but “a second time, without reference to sin” (Heb. 9:28). He will return immediately after the tribulation with power and great glory and everyone will see Him (Matthew 24:27-30). The Lord will return in a physical body to the Mount of Olives, the same way He ascended to heaven (Acts 1:11).

This is nothing but a specious straw man argument that tries to draw a connection to events that Catholic teaching does not even espouse as I have shown above.

Evangelicals, who continue to sign unity accords with the Catholic religion, are in essence, giving their stamp of approval for the false Christ of Catholicism.

Misrepresentation and specious straw man, since any such accords are quite specific, They speak of unity of beliefs which are there…not those which are not.

They are also helping the Vatican reverse the Reformation by embracing Catholicism as a valid expression of Christianity.

When and where have we ever said that the “Reformation” was an especially good thing that did not need to be reversed? Did we miss a memo somewhere?

The end result is mass confusion

I’m not confused guys…Are any of you? The only real serious confusion seems to be the result of Gendron’s specious anti-Catholic messages, which feed gross misrepresentations to his readers.

Christians don’t know whether to evangelize Catholics or to unite with them to evangelize the world together.

Well, Mike maybe if you’d stick to facts and not misrepresent Catholic beliefs and teachings like this that would be less of a problem.

Clearly the truth must be told and people must be warned of the eternal consequences awaiting those who embrace and worship a false Christ.

Catholics would agree with that, which is why guys like me refute your propaganda, so that all Christians…Catholic and non-Catholic are not misled and deceived.

 

[Church_Militant]

Its guys like this who helped lead me from Protestant Evangelicalism to the Roman Catholic Church in the first place. I firmly believe these (often, but not always) well meaning but totally ignorant and deluded people are the tools of Satan. Only the One, True Church, could be the target of such malicious attacks against it… and its so sad because its by people claiming to be Christians. The Eucharist is what makes me Catholic. No protestant who believes in Sola Scriptura or a literal interpretation of the Bible can offer any kind of legitimate explanation for John Chapter 6. When realization dawned on me I almost felt betrayed… after that it was a short road to Rome.

I understand and have felt that same way. It was a bit sad and upsetting at first, but after that came a great peace and sense of freedom that I had never known before. You can read about my reversion in My Testimony.
God bless you.

 

[Shannon9791]

Its guys like this who helped lead me from Protestant Evangelicalism to the Roman Catholic Church in the first place. I firmly believe these (often, but not always) well meaning but totally ignorant and deluded people are the tools of Satan. Only the One, True Church, could be the target of such malicious attacks against it… and its so sad because its by people claiming to be Christians. The Eucharist is what makes me Catholic. No protestant who believes in Sola Scriptura or a literal interpretation of the Bible can offer any kind of legitimate explanation for John Chapter 6. When realization dawned on me I almost felt betrayed… after that it was a short road to Rome.

I do believe that there are some very well meaning and misguided folks out there who don’t have any idea about the real Catholic Church and only go by what they’ve heard. While most would consider that intellectually lazy, I’m willing to give them a pass because it’s all they know and all they’ve been taught. I think, though, that Mike Gendron has an ax to grind, and a lot of the things he does are so he can run back to his small group of evangelical anti-Catholic home boys and say “Look what I did!” An open minded non-Catholic apologist is not going to crash a confessional or write the things about the Church like Gendron does. I’ve talked/debated with him, and if you ask him the right questions, he’s like a dog chasing his tail. I don’t understand why he even gets air time, b/c 98% of what he says has already been refuted time and time again.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

So… instead of continuing his debate with Staples he’s moved on to Catholic bashing???

 

[Godith]

What a comparison between the French priest in the video talking about love for Christ, and the accusations in the article. There’s no doubt in my mind who is more godly, and it’s not Mr. Gendron.

Again, not according to the Word of God, or even authentic and authoritative Catholic teaching, since nowhere in Eucharistic teaching does it refer to Christ’s 2nd coming, except in in 2 passages of the New Testament. The first from Our Lord Himself and the 2nd from St. Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians as follows. (Emphasis mine)
John 6:53-55.
53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

1st Corinthians 11:26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes

I’m not sure if I can explain my question about this clearly, but here goes.

1 Corinthians 11 shows that the Real Presence in the Eucharist doesn’t equate to the Second Coming of Christ. I get that. But, if Jesus is present body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist, how is that different from how He will be present when he returns to earth in the Second Coming? Then too, He will be present, body, blood, soul and divinity, surely? If Christ is present in the consecrated gifts on the altar, how has He not ‘come’ at that moment? Can someone help me understand the difference?

Sorry it that’s a stupid question. It is a genuine one, though. I’m not intending to offend anyone, or show any disrespect.

 

[Church_Militant]

What a comparison between the French priest in the video talking about love for Christ, and the accusations in the article. There’s no doubt in my mind who is more godly, and it’s not Mr. Gendron.

Thank you Sir!

I’m not sure if I can explain my question about this clearly, but here goes.

1 Corinthians 11 shows that the Real Presence in the Eucharist doesn’t equate to the Second Coming of Christ. I get that. But, if Jesus is present body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist, how is that different from how He will be present when he returns to earth in the Second Coming? Then too, He will be present, body, blood, soul and divinity, surely? If Christ is present in the consecrated gifts on the altar, how has He not ‘come’ at that moment? Can someone help me understand the difference?

Sorry it that’s a stupid question. It is a genuine one, though. I’m not intending to offend anyone, or show any disrespect.

I think I understand what you mean, but keep in mind that Our Lord told us that at His 2nd coming it would be as obvious as lightening flashing from East to West. (see Matthew 24:27) That is the nature of the 2nd coming. However, if you look at 1st Corinthians 11, you can see that St. Paul obviously taught that he believed that the Eucharist makes real Christ’s presence and yet there’s no question or confusion with the 2nd coming, right?

Though not taught anywhere that I know of and this is just my own conjecture, I suppose one could say that in the Eucharist we experience some kind of foretaste of Christ’s return, which would make it all the more of a blessed gift.

Does this help you at all?

 

[wanner47]

I replied to this and we had an amusing e-mail exchange… which he has, so far, neglected to continue after I cornered him with how one of his beliefs clearly contradicted Scripture.

 

[Church_Militant]

I replied to this and we had an amusing e-mail exchange… which he has, so far, neglected to continue after I cornered him with how one of his beliefs clearly contradicted Scripture.

Excerpts?

 

[wanner47]

Excerpts?

Sure.

My initial reply to his newsletter,

It’s only idolatry if the Eucharist is not the body of Christ… learn more here!

catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

His responses are in green:

Did you not read how the Scriptures prove when, where, how and why Jesus will return a 2nd time, not every day.
Mike Gendron

I did, and I wholeheartedly disagree with your personal interpretation of those Scriptures, especially given that they conflict with the early Church fathers (the disciples of the Apostles).

Did you not read my link, which explains why your interpretation is incorrect?

catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

Another good resource you might want to check out is “This is My Body: An Evangelical Discovers the Real Presence” by Mark Shea.

See, I take Jesus as His word in John 6. Do you think He was a liar when he called His flesh true food and his blood true drink?

How do you interpret Heb. 9:28?
Yes I read your words of men, I submit to the Word of God.

I submit to the Word of God too – especially when it tells me to listen to the Church. It seems you don’t submit to the Word of God in that respect, Mike. Although when I was a Protestant, I conveniently skipped over that verse, too.

Regarding Hebrews 9:28, I encourage you to read the following:

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309sbs.asp

Specifically (emphasis mine),

You might also agree that his blood in heaven is presented to God the Father as an acceptable sacrifice for our sins. This seems to be what Paul is teaching in several passages. For example, in Hebrews 9:12, he says that Christ “entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing eternal redemption.” Then 9:14 goes on to say that Christ “offered himself without blemish to God.” This is no doubt why it is possible for Paul to say in 10:19 that Christians can “have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus.” Now, if Christ’s body and blood in heaven can be applied to sinners on earth without repetition of his sacrificial death when they believe on him, why can’t he be present on earth in the Eucharist forgiving sins without any repetition of his death?

I ask you how you interpret the plain meaning of a verse and you refuse. You don’t know your Bible - nowhere does it say listen to the church. Instead it encourages us to test even an apostles’s teaching with Scripture Acts 17:11

Mike, I gave you my interpretation, which is the same interpretation held by the Catholic Church (the same interpretation used for 2,000 years!).

The Bible doesn’t say to listen to the Church? Is your Bible missing the book of Matthew, by any chance?

If your brother sins, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that “every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses”. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the Church. If he refuses to listen even to the Church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mt 18:15-18).

Jesus also said to the Apostles, “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16). This pertains to the Church authority today, especially the successors of the Apostles (the Bishops) and the successor of Peter (the Pope).

What about 2 Peter 3:16, Mike? How does that square, in your view, with Acts 17:11? Seems to me that your interpretation of Acts 17:11 contradicts 2 Peter 3:16. Or is 2 Peter 3:16 one of the parts of the Bible you like to ignore (just like John 6 and Matthew 18:15-18)?

Since then… no response. Notice how he refused to directly address any of my questions and tried to reframe the argument each time. He never addresses any of the Bible verses I ask him to explain, but merely tosses out others in an attempt to throw me off. He also tries to accuse me of not answering *his *questions, which is truly ironic.