| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 12/10/2023 3:49:22 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Locked |
Posted on 12/10/2023 8:41:34 AM PST by patriot torch
(excerpt)
In this video, Mike Gendron, an ex-Catholic, visits Revolve to give a seminar that exposes the twisted, unbiblical, and outright satanic teachings of the Catholic Church that most people are completely unaware of. If you’d like to learn more about Mike, please visit his ministry’s website: https://www.proclaimingthegospel.org
(Excerpt) Read more at m.youtube.com ...
You have statues of Jesus and Mary breaking the second commandment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Complete nonsense, but even if perfectly true, what is your primary point?
Quote:
We are all small “c” catholic (universal) christians.
____________________________
Yes, while it is true that the Word catholic is universal (one body), it is when it became the “roman catholic church” that it departed from the Faith.
The purpose of this video is to illustrate that Truth is corrupted by unbiblical teachings.
For further study:
Revelation 2:
18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.
20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Revelation 3:
14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
While the apostate church is made up of churches, denominations and individuals which departed from the True Church or departed from the faith of the Apostles.
Except that YOUR apostate church has no visible existence before the 16th Century, while HIS true Church is present in every age. Don't believe it? Find someone even remotely Protestant before Wycliffe. They didn't exist, just an actual Protestant church really only started under Luther.
In 1215 the rcc added the false doctrine of transubstantiation, which is a belief that the priest has the power to call down Jesus from Heaven to be transformed into a wafer. Falsely teaching that the wafer becomes the physical Body of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Transubstantiation does not claim that Jesus is "transformed into a wafer". It claims exactly the opposite, that the whole substance of the wafer is transformed into the living flesh of Jesus, leaving only the wafer's appearance present.
And the doctrine, which was first proposed by Hildebert of Tours around 1079, is really just a philosophical explanation of a doctrinal point that was held UNIVERSALLY until the 9th century. That is the doctrine that Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, is truly present under the form of bread in the Eucharist.
Don't believe it? Then open your Bible, and start in Exodus 12 with the institution of the Passover Supper. Question: what part of the Passover supper was absolutely not optional? Well, really, all of it, but you absolutely had to sacrifice the lamb, put its blood on your lintel, and eat its roasted flesh. If you didn't, your firstborn would die.
That scripture passage is read in every western-rite Catholic Church every year on Holy Thursday, when we commemorate the institution of the Eucharist.
Now turn to Malachi 1:11, where we read: For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts. [KJV]
What "pure offering" do you suppose is offered by the Gentiles? What would fulfill Malachi's prophecy?
Keep going to John 1:29, where we read The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. [KJV]
Did you hear that? John the Baptist called Jesus "the Lamb of God"! That could only mean the _Passover_ Lamb of God. What do you have to do with the Passover lamb to be spared, again?
Now go to John chapter 6, where Jesus preaches on Passover, exactly a year before he died: I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. [Jn 6:51, KJV]
Read the whole chapter. Don't try to explain Jesus' words away. They aren't symbol, they aren't metaphor, they aren't there to be ignored.
In all three of the synoptics, we see how that prophecy was fulfilled exactly a year later. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. [Lk 22:19-20, KJV]
Now, if there was ever any doubt, Paul cleans it up for us. In 1 Cor 5:7 we read For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. [KJV]
Catch it? "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us".
In the same epistle, we read in chapter 11:
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. [KJV]
(Also read every Holy Thursday in every western Catholic church.)
Now, please ask yourself how someone can be "guilty of the Lord's body and blood" if they aren't there?
When we turn to the writings of the early Christians, we see that they all believed this. For example, we have Ignatius of Antioch (bishop of Antioch after Peter left; knew some of the Apostles personally) writing on his way to martyrdom in AD110:
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery…
They [i.e. the Gnostic heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.
And we have Irenaeus of Lyons (who was a disciple of Polycarp, who also knew the Apostles personally) writing around AD180:
He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)
(Catch that? Malachi 1:11 is fulfilled in the Eucharist.)
But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)
If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)
There are many other examples here.
I think we can safely put to rest the ridiculous idea that Rome invented transsubstantiation out of nothing in AD1215. The rest of your foolishness can be addressed similarly, but I don't have the time right now.
I would suggest that you read this book and also this one. Trent Horn is a very fine Catholic apologist on Youtube; his channel is called "Counsel of Trent".
Quote:
After all, there are quite a few people who once worked in the Trump Administration that are virulently anti-Trump; does their experience working in his Administration make their opinion more reliable?
___________________________
Gendron however is no Chris Christie!
Gendron forms his thesis on historical data and not temporary fame.
Thank you for the link. Very good presentation. Sadly, this ex-Catholic is not an educated Catholic. Proof: 15:23 the presenter states that “Catholics have Three Authorities.” False. Catholic have two authorities: Scripture and Tradition, both of which support Papal Infallibility in a tiny area called Dogmatics.
Quote:
An ex-catholic is someone who completely missed the understanding of the faith. So you’re going to listen to his misunderstanding to understand?
A bad catholic is anyone but the sinless Jedus and his mother.
____________________________/
If the heretical “infallible dogma” teaching of Mary being sinless were true, then why does it conflict with the Word of God, which holds true?
Romans 3:23
King James Version
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
and why did Mary refer to Jesus as “my Saviour” if she were without sin having no need of a Saviour?
Luke 1:47
King James Version
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Since the Word of God is the Authority over all Truth, the false claim of Mary based on “infallible dogma” collapses.
What does the Bible say about the virgin Mary?
Grace is “unmerited favor”; that is, grace is a blessing we receive despite the fact that we do not deserve it. Mary needed grace from God and a Savior, just as the rest of us do. Mary herself understood this fact, as she declared in Luke 1:47, “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.”
The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary is unbiblical. Matthew 1:25, speaking of Joseph, declares, “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus.” The word until clearly indicates that Joseph and Mary did have normal sexual relations after Jesus was born. Mary remained a virgin until the Savior’s birth, but later Joseph and Mary had several children together. Jesus had four half-brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). Jesus also had half-sisters, although they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:55–56). God blessed and graced Mary by giving her several children, which in that culture was accepted as the clearest indication of God’s blessing on a woman.
https://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-Mary.html
“”””Anti-Catholic slurs are the last acceptable prejudice in America. Grow up.””””
Not true at any level but have you noticed how Catholic politicians are honored and treated with religious respect by the media?
Politicians of faith like the current President, Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, JFK, and constantly we are told about the Catholic politican’s faith at all levels of government and how Catholicism helped them make decisions.
Then look at how the media treats Protestant politicians’ faith, it is almost always seen as a negative causing them to be evil and mean and revealing their ignorance and lack of higher thinking and even how anti-Christian they are.
Nope, an ex-Catholic is often someone who realizes that *the faith* cannot save anyone. Only Jesus can.
And who also can see how much Catholic teaching can either be not found in the Bible or outright contradicts it.
I was born and raised Catholic and quit going when I was a teen. IN my early 20's I accepted Christ, not even really understanding what I was doing, just that I knew I needed Him to save me.
I started reading the Bible voraciously, and started going back to church. And I initially went to the Catholic church because that was what I knew and how I was raised, but saw more and more inconsistencies between Catholic teaching and practice and the plain, clear, simply truths found in Scripture.
I started attending a local Evangelical church that taught and preached the Bible, alternated between the two for a couple months, then finally made the break with Catholicism for good and never looked back.
It's not true that ex-Catholics don't understand the faith. That's simply an excuse or rationalization by some to explain away something they don't want to deal with.
I understood perfectly well what Catholicism taught and it didn't line up with Scripture.
In fact, anyone that gets between us and the Trinity, ever, is a mistake. Whether that be Mary, the Church (Catholic, Protestant, or other), or anyone or any thing is a mistake.
We are accountable to God individually. Period.
That is why it is important for us while we are alive to seek the truth and not let anyone (priest, preacher, pope, wife, or husband) lead us astray.
You must be ignoring the daily anti-pope threads by one who claims to be a roman catholic....and I mean daily.
That's quite an assumption.
It's more than likely it's someone who wants to help others who are having issues with Catholicism as well.
Mary: Do whatever he tells you.
Pontevedra (May 18th, 1936): Sister Lucia asked Jesus why Russia would not be converted except through its Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Jesus responded, “Because I desire My Church to recognize this favor as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and, in this way, to extend the devotion to her Immaculate Heart together with my Sacred Heart.”
And that is an excellent example of the deification of Mary that has gone so wrong.
Mary was NOT sinless. She had a human father, which means she had a sin nature, just like everyone else.
Only Jesus was born sinless.
I've read his book. He makes so many errors in the book it's really sad.
Hahn comes from a Presbyterian background so he was already on iffy theological grounds.
And tell it to the RC posters who daily post anti-Prot screeds.
At least be consistent in your judgment and condemnation about someone who posts stuff about other churches.
Sorry about the triple post. I don’t know how that happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.