Mike Gendron attacks Eucharistic Adoration

[thomas_jd]

Congress on Eucharistic Adoration meets in Rome

Video is above. Notice who the real deceiver is…

“Reverse the Reformation” is a desperate attempt at justification of a religion developed without Authority! To try and tie into the Church thru such statements is a pitiful attempt to legitimize false teachings!
The “reformation” was neither a reform nor a part of church teachings but rather a attack and plunder of the Church.
The above writer will soon meet " The Real Presence in the Eucharist" face to face.

" psalm 144 : " Man is like a breath, his days are like a passing shadow."

 

[wanner47]

Heh, figures, Mike just responded. sigh

Interesting you bring up 2 Pet 3:16 since that is exactly what your popes and bishops have to do - twist and distort the Scriptures to give credence to ungodly traditions such as Purgatory. 1 John 1:7 destroys purgatory unless you twist its meaning. How do you interpret it?

This is what Jesus did for BELIEVERS so that we will not be deceived by false religions.
I need nothing else.

• He testified to the truth. Truth seekers will listen to Him (John 18:37)
• He came from heaven as the only way back to the Father (John 14:6)
• He provided the only way for them to be saved (Acts 4:12)
• He came to give life to people who are spiritually dead (John 14:6)
• He bore our sin in His body on a tree (1 Peter 2:24)
• He gave His righteousness in exchange for all of our sins (2 Cor. 5:21)
• He forgave all our sins by canceling the eternal sin debt (Col. 2:13-14)
• He expiated our sins such that God will never count them against us (Heb. 9:26; Rom. 4:6-8)
• He redeemed us from being slaves to sin and Satan (Gal. 3:10-14, 22; 2 Tim. 2:25)
• He died for the ungodly, the just for the unjust (Romans 5:6; 1 Pet.3:18)
• He suffered the wrath of God so that we may be with HIm forever.(1 Thes. 5:10)
• He reconciled us to God, changing our relationship from one of hostility to one of harmony and peace (Eph. 2:14-18)
• He gave His life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28)
• He gave Himself as a sacrifice to God completely satisfying (propitiating) divine justice (Eph. 5:2; 1 John 2:2)
• He shed His blood to purify His people from all sin. (Titus 2:14; 1 John 1:9)
• He died for sins, once for all, to bring us to God. (1 Peter 3:18)
• He saved us from condemnation. (John 3:18, 5:24)
• He delivered us from darkness and the dominion of Satan into His glorious light (Acts 26:18; 1 Pet. 2:9; 1 John 3:8)
• He transferred us into His kingdom. (Col. 1:13; 2 Tim. 4:18)

My response:

Why do you refuse to answer my question, Mike? How do you square 2: Peter 3:16 with your interpretation of Acts 17:11? It seems to me that the two contradict one another, given your interpretations.

Regarding Purgatory, John Martignoni has already (quite expertly, I might add) proven on you false there, so I’ll just echo his sentiments: biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter_details.php?id=194

I’m glad you believe in Christ. I’m glad you know He died for your sins. (I believe the same, and I renew my commitment to Him weekly, at each and every Mass, when I do as He instructed in John 6 and eat His body and blood).

I just wish you listened to Him when He told you to listen to His Church (again, you’ve never responded to those verses in Matthew - do you agree with me that Christ instructed us to listen to the Church?).

 

[Saintlucy]

Heh, figures, Mike just responded. sigh

My response:

I notice that nowhere in his list does he quote John:6. Maybe he has a faulty bible.

 

[wanner47]

I guess all I have to do to get Mike to respond is to post on CAF about it.

No he did not say to listen to His Church, if you want to know the truth this is what He said to do John 8:31-32, 14:6, 17:17 but you probably distort the interpretations.

Words don’t have meaning to Martignoni, he is blinded from the glory of Christ by Satan 2 Cor. 4:4

Mike, what about these verses from Matthew (emphasis mine)?

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. (Matthew 18:15-18).

John 8:31-32 - “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Absolutely! The Catholic Church believes this 100% and teaches this as well. However, one of Jesus’ teachings was to listen to the Church (see above). Why do you not believe that teaching? Another of His teachings was to eat His flesh and drink His blood (John 6:53-58). Why do you ignore that teaching?

John 14:6 - “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” Absolutely! The Catholic Church also believes and teaches this 100%.

John 17:17 - “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.” Absolutely! And some Jesus’ words, as per Matthew, are to listen to His Church; others are to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Why do you ignore His words of truth?

Why do you say that “words don’t have meaning” to Martignoni? I read his responses to your assertions and they seemed both logical and coherent. Can you tell me, specifically, why he is wrong with each of his rebuttals? He seems to make a very good case for the fact that YOU twist and distort the Scriptures.

biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter_details.php?id=194

Regarding 2 Corinthians 4:4 - “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

Why do you call Martignoni an unbeliever?

If he believes that Christ has died, Christ has risen, and Christ will come again (as we proclaim at each Mass), doesn’t that make him a believer? If he recites the Nicene Creed at Mass every Sunday (as I do) and believes it with his whole heart (as I do), isn’t he a believer? Again, why do you call him an unbeliever if he believes that Chris died for our sins and rose again, and now reigns in heaven? Seems to me that’s the very definition of a believer in Christ, even if you and he disagree on aspects of theology.

 

[wanner47]

Mormons believe what Martignoni believes and they are just as lost. The Gospel is the power of God for all who believe (Rom. 1:16). what is the one and only Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). Nothing can be added to the finished, sufficient, perfect work of Christ.

God saves sinners ONLY by grace which means no human merit or works or law keeping can be added to what Christ accomplished. Do you even know how many requirements the RCC has added to the Gospel of grace? If the Judaizers were condemned for adding circumcision, the RCC is condemned 7 times over for adding baptism, sacraments, good works, law keeping, indulgences, purgatory and the Mass as requirements for salvation.

Mormons believe what Martignoni believes and they are just as lost. The Gospel is the power of God for all who believe (Rom. 1:16). what is the one and only Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).

Actually, Mormons don’t believe what Catholics believe. I’d advise you to study the doctrines of each religion a bit more, because your assumptions are very off-base. See this article for more information about the polytheistic beliefs of Mormons, and how the Christ they proclaim is not the Christ of the Bible: catholic.com/library/Gods_of_the_Mormon_Church.asp

Nothing can be added to the finished, sufficient, perfect work of Christ.

It is entirely correct in terms of Catholic doctrine to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that does not settle the question of how this redemption is *applied *to us.

God saves sinners ONLY by grace which means no human merit or works or law keeping can be added to what Christ accomplished.

Absolutely! The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by grace alone, by faith working through love.

Do you even know how many requirements the RCC has added to the Gospel of grace?

None that Christ and/or his Apostles did not already teach.

If the Judaizers were condemned for adding circumcision, the RCC is condemned 7 times over for adding baptism, sacraments, good works, law keeping, indulgences, purgatory and the Mass as requirements for salvation.

You believe that baptism is not required for salvation? Doesn’t that contradict Scripture? “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

How can purgatory be a requirement for salvation? If you are in purgatory, it means you have already been saved and are in the process of being “washed clean” of the attachment to sin prior to seeing God. By definition, purgatory can only happen AFTER salvation and thus has no affect whatsoever on attaining salvation. Your statement makes no sense whatsoever to anyone who has a basic knowledge of Catholic doctrine.

It appears, Mike, that you are confused as to the differences between justification (what saves us) and sanctification (what sanctifies us, or makes us holy). Most of what you list above applies to our continued sanctification as opposed to our justification. This article is an excellent explanation of the difference: catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp

 

[pablope]

wanner47:
Good Job, Joana…

I am learning from your posts too…keep em coming. God bless your efforts.

 

[wanner47]

Your false religion teaches justification is apart from personal faith as in infant baptism and regeneration occurs at the same time which denies the sovereign grace of God. Where in the Bible is ANYONE justified w/o personal faith???

Actually, the Catholic Church does not teach that justification is apart from personal faith. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, all emphasis mine:

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God

, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent…

and

2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. However, according to the Lord’s words “Thus you will know them by their fruits” - reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.

Mike, again, how does 2 Peter 3:16 square with your interpretation of Acts 17:11? You’ve never answered that very simple question; you keep bringing up other topics. I’m more than happy to discuss these issues with you but I would appreciate an answer to my original question.

pablope, I’m glad the exchange has been helpful for you. I hesitated posting it at first lest anyone think I was trying to “toot my own horn,” but I just hope it helps anyone who may be facing these questions from other Protestants.

 

[Church_Militant]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Great Horny Toads! That boy…I say, that boy ain’t right!

Seriously though…all this when you wrote him about this message? Really? And he can’t seem to stay on topic can he?

And then he simply shifts over to rhetoric and polemics rather than actually address your point of the conflict between his interpretation and the actual Word of God.

And they actually pay this guy for this kind of stuff? Really?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Church_Militant]

pablope, I’m glad the exchange has been helpful for you. I hesitated posting it at first lest anyone think I was trying to “toot my own horn,” but I just hope it helps anyone who may be facing these questions from other Protestants.

Especially n-Cs who have been unfortunate enough to be misled by this guy’s teaching. http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/3.gif

 

[wanner47]

Looks like he’s taking his toys and going home…

Infants who are baptized have no faith yet read Paragraph 1266 " The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:

• enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues." Now will you acknowledge your false religion speaks out of both sides of its mouth and cannot be trusted?

Mike, again, how does 2 Peter 3:16 square with your interpretation of Acts 17:11? You’ve never answered that very simple question; you keep bringing up other topics. I’m more than happy to discuss these issues with you but I would appreciate an answer to my original question.

Regarding your question, we were talking about personal faith being required for justification, not for reception of the sacrament of baptism when one is below the age of reason. You claimed the Church taught that personal faith was not required for justification. I proved your claim false with my quotes from the Catechism.

Will you admit that you were wrong when you accused the Church of teaching that personal faith is not required for justification?

Additionally, you need to read up a few passages in the Catechism:

The Baptism of infants

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53

If you believe that personal faith is required for baptism, do you also believe that all children who die prior to baptism are in hell? I’ve had two miscarriages; are my children, who died before they could be born, now burning in hell since they never received baptism?

I do not have any more time with someone who cannot respond logically or rationally.

What about my response has not been logical or rational? You don’t rebut my arguments at all, or try to show my why they are illogical; you merely bring up a different topic.

I’m really interested to know your opinion of my two questions:

(1) How do you square your interpretation of Acts 17:11 with 2 Peter 3:16?

(2) Are the children I miscarried currently burning in hell because they were not baptized?

It seems to me that if you knew your faith as well as you claim to do, you would have no problems responding to my points.

 

[Church_Militant]

Back to his polemics again…“your false religion talks out of both sides of its mouth”. That’s a non response and meant to be insulting. A fairly common tactic among a-Cs when they encounter a Catholic who knows the Bible and our most holy faith, and points out their inconsistencies that they cannot answer without jeopardizing their credibility as Gendron has done here.

I do not have any more time with someone who cannot respond logically or rationally.

I think that we can all see the gaping holes in Gendron’s propaganda and in the context of JoAnna’s exchange with him can see who his quoted remark (above) would really apply to.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

Congress on Eucharistic Adoration meets in Rome

Video is above. Notice who the real deceiver is…

Hello CM.

I appreciate your posting this, and have enjoyed reading the ensuing posts. I intend to watch the video later. However, (doesn’t there always have to be a “however” involved?) I wonder how useful “debating” such a person is. If this cat is really a former Catholic and Catechist, isn’t it obvious that he’s either off his rocker, or being disingenuous? From the tenor of his language (polemics) it seems that he has some axe to grind beyond a theological disagreement. Rather than give him more attention by debating wouldn’t he be better off ignored?

 

[pablope]

Looks like he’s taking his toys and going home…

Still a good job, Joana. I would send a thank you note to him and say that the correspondence with him has helped strengthen your faith in the CC.

Hopefully, it will ring a bell in his head.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hello CM.

I appreciate your posting this, and have enjoyed reading the ensuing posts. I intend to watch the video later. However, (doesn’t there always have to be a “however” involved?) I wonder how useful “debating” such a person is. If this cat is really a former Catholic and Catechist, isn’t it obvious that he’s either off his rocker, or being disingenuous? From the tenor of his language (polemics) it seems that he has some axe to grind beyond a theological disagreement. Rather than give him more attention by debating wouldn’t he be better off ignored?

Well, in m any ways we do ignore him, but it is not a good idea to ignore his stuff because he is actively disseminating it to n-Cs and it ultimately finds its way down to interactions between rank and file Catholics and n-Cs, so its best that we expose and refute it here so that when that happens, Catholics are prepared and can respond with accurate information.

As for his being “either off his rocker, or being disingenuous”, it’s possible that like much of the Catholic faith…it’s a both/and.

 

[Holly3278]

Unfortunately, I fear for this man. I think God will judge ex-Catholics who turn anti-Catholic much more harshly than He will judge those anti-Catholics who were never Catholic to begin with.

 

[wanner47]

Unfortunately, I fear for this man. I think God will judge ex-Catholics who turn anti-Catholic much more harshly than He will judge those anti-Catholics who were never Catholic to begin with.

Especially given that he has been clearly shown, time and time again, the error of his positions but refuses to acknowledge that information. You’re absolutely right that he is in need of serious prayer.

 

[Cristiano]

He is trying hard to figure out what is true, but he just confuses himself. Here in the south they would say of him " He is trying hard, God bless his heart!"

 

[Godith]

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?

Thank you, yes, I found this helpful. Scripture doesn’t explain the difference, so I guess that means the authors thought it should be obvious.

I like your idea of the ‘foretaste’ of Jesus’ return. That makes sense to me, and it helps make sense of the apparent ‘contradiction’ in the ideas that Christ is yet to return, but also that He’s present on earth in the Eucharist.

 

[Church_Militant]

Thank you, yes, I found this helpful. Scripture doesn’t explain the difference, so I guess that means the authors thought it should be obvious.

I like your idea of the ‘foretaste’ of Jesus’ return. That makes sense to me, and it helps make sense of the apparent ‘contradiction’ in the ideas that Christ is yet to return, but also that He’s present on earth in the Eucharist.

God bless you.

 

[babylonsfalling]

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.

Some of the biggest lies I’ve heard about the Catholic Church have come from ex Catholics, the absolute biggest being “the Catholic Church never taught me that Christ rose from the dead”…the most common lie being “Catholics worship Mary.”

If I hear either of those two accusations from an ex Catholic, I KNOW I’m dealing with an intentional liar.