Refuting Mike Gendron's "Do Pope Francis's Remarks Have Prophetic Implications?"

Now let's take his remarks apart so that everyone who sees this post will have some idea of how to counter his anti-Catholic propaganda.
Do Pope Francis's Remarks Have Prophetic Implications?

                         Written by Mike Gendron on 20 September 2013.

                                                              As Christ is calling His people out of the world with the truth of His Word, Satan is holding people captive with his lies. While Christ is preparing His bride for the wedding feast of the Lamb, Satan is using his harlot to gather all unbelievers together to worship the AntiChrist.

This is nothing more than vitriolic a-C polemics without any semblance of Biblical basis. We could use this same kind of specious allegation against Gendron and pretty much anyone anywhere else were we willing to stoop this low. 

In a wide-ranging interview published Thursday from Jesuit journals, Pope Francis said the church is not to "interfere spiritually" in the lives of gays and lesbians. This comment comes after the explosive comments he made in July about not judging homosexuals. His motivation for such statements is not known, but he appears to be overly tolerant as he suppresses the truth of God's Word. Christians know the only hope for any unredeemed sinner, including homosexuals, is to be lovingly confronted with God's Word and then called to repentance and faith in the Gospel. For the pope to say the church is not to interfere spiritually in the lives of sinners is the same strategy of Satan. It is his goal to keep people from hearing the Word of Christ because he knows the truth with set them free from the power of sin and religious deception (Rom. 10:17; John 8:31).

This of course flies completely in the face of the very words of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ when he tells us in Matthew 7:1-2 & Luke 6:37 which is precisely the message that His Holiness is putting forth to the Church.

Now let's look at His Holiness' exact words and see if he's saying what Gendron alleges.
We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner,” the pope says, “preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing, even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound. In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.

“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them with mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the priest to say the right thing.

Obviously Gendron is lying to intentionally mislead his readers as to what Pope Francis said and means. In fact, Gendron nowhere offers a link to the actual interview so that his readers might see for themselves. I feel that this qualifies and specious deception on Gendron's part.

By the way, this was the same reason the Catholic Church put the Bible on the list of forbidden books at the Council of Trent.

This is a straight up lie because no such thing was done by the council of Trent and the Catholic Church has always sought to make the Bible more available to people and protect it from corruption. It's easy to find what the council actually did say about the Bible. DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS 

When asked if he approves of homosexuality, he replied, "Tell me, when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?' This pope continues to show his ignorance of God's word. All sinners, including homosexuals are condemned by God until they repent and believe His Gospel. Only then is there legal status before the holy judge changed from condemnation to justification.

We've already seen the context of what His Holiness said and meant, and all I can see here is that Gendron makes the same Pharisaical allegation against Pope Francis that we saw in last Sunday's Gospel reading which is as true today of Pope Francis, as it was of Our Blessed Lord Jesus. “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

The pope said, "The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent...We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards." Tragically, the false and fatal gospel of the Roman Catholic religion has no power to overcome the flagrant immorality of the unregenerate Catholic clergy and their followers. Quite frankly, I am surprised the Catholic church has not yet fallen like a house of cards. Catholics should be leaving their religion in droves as they witness the growing corruption and scandals of pedophile priests preying on young boys.

 Okay, again here we have more specious vitriolic polemics. It also flies completely in the face of the factual evidence of the literal host of heroically virtuous lives of saints beginning in the early church through this very day, and implies that all Catholic clergy are involved in abuses and sins, while giving n-C clergy a free pass which they obviously do not deserve. (sex abuse protestant - Google Search)

As for the remarks about the Catholic gospel being false and fatal, I have answered this allegation before in my blog article Who REALLY Preaches "A Different Gospel"?

To bad for you Mr. Gendron but perhaps the problem is that what you so often condemn, and what has survived and thrived for 2,000 years and the reason for that is the same as the reason that the Jews of Christ's time couldn't stop us as Gamaliel said in
Acts 5:39. "but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" 

Sadly, many Catholics ignore it all because of their fierce loyalty to what they believe is the "one true church" that will get them to heaven after they are purified in purgatory. This is a great time to evangelize Catholics since they don't know who or what to believe. We must point them to Christ and His Word for truth!

This is just pep talk propaganda to encourage Gendron's misguided and misinformed followers (and I guess it helps him keep his cash flow up, since without pushing his anti-Catholic propaganda he'd have to settle for doing what all Christians are called to do, which is proclaiming the Gospel.

The fact is that more and more faithful Catholics are learning more about our most holy faith and getting the facts for themselves (even as we have been doing right here in this discussion) and thanks be to God for sites like Catholic Answers and their forums and all those faithful Catholics who constantly learn and grow in our Christian faith.

As you have all seen in my response, Gendron lies and misleads his followers about what the Church teaches and about Pope Francis is actually saying, (why else would he not offer citations of source for the things he alleges Pope Francis said and what Trent declared so that people can see it all for themselves?)
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum    


Jason Hauser.'s latest attack: "A Humble Pope?"

A Humble Pope?
Written by Jason Hauser.
When Pope Benedict XVI's successor, Jorge Bergoglio, was announced as the new Pope, the one word that many used to describe him was "humble." The Italian born pope from Argentina is of the Jesuit order which is known for their vows of poverty and work among the poor.

Hauser here displays his lack of due diligence in his articles because look at Pope Francis bio.

Pope FrancisFrancis is the 266th and current Pope of the Catholic Church, elected on 13 March 2013. As such, he is Bishop of Rome, the head of the worldwide Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State.

Born: December 17, 1936 (age 76), Buenos Aires

Nationality: Argentine

Education: University of Buenos Aires

Parents: Regina Maria Sivori, Mario Jose Bergoglio

Pope Francis is Argentinian and only his dad was Italian born.

 Pictures and articles have surfaced revealing that as an archbishop, Bergoglio took the public bus and cooked his own meals. When it was announced that he would be known as Pope Francis I, the connection was quickly made to St. Francis of Assisi, who renounced his wealth to live a life of poverty and service to others. Many have rejoiced that this is just the kind of humble leader that will further ecumenical relationships and win greater favor for Roman Catholicism.
He is also wrong on the small point that His Holiness is simply Pope Francis. There is no Pope Francis I until and unless there is a Pope Francis II.

Francis of Assisi is known as "the mirror of Christ", so how can a Pope who chooses his name as a patron and so far has been so exemplary of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ be a problem?

There is great irony however with the premise of a humble Pope. The papacy overseeing and affirming the teachings of Roman Catholicism has long been anything but humble. In the 14th century, Pope Boniface VIII was so bold as to claim in his papal bull, Unam Sanctum: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Fifty years later, Pope clement VI declared in his writing, Super Quisbusdam, "...no man of the wayfarers outside of the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved...all who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church and have died in final impenitence have been damned and have descended to the eternal punishments of hell." Just before the turn of the 20th century, Pope Leo XIII declared, "He who would separate himself from the Roman Pontiff has no further bond with Christ." These papal declarations, by popes who claim to speak infallibly on faith and morals, couldn't be more clear, that salvation is dependent upon obedience and submission to popes. The Biblical response to this nonsense can be found in Acts 4:12; Col. 1:18, 1 Tim. 2:5; John 14:6 and Eph. 5:23.

Which has been the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years. The fact is that those who are fully informed as to the truths of the Catholic faith and then chose to reject them, do so at the peril of their souls. This is no different than so many non-Catholics who preach that anyone who does not "get saved"/"accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" face the same fate.

Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ established only one Church. and this is no news

 Over the last 1500 years, Rome has written her own history and would lead all to believe that such bold and arrogant statements by Popes are fully justified.
Naturally Hauser offers no documentation of this rewriting of any history, because no such thing has occurred and so no evidence exists. Sadly some of his readers will be gullible enough not to question that and that is one problem with propaganda like this.
 But throughout history we see continual opposition to Rome's unbiblical claims. In the third century, for example, Cyprian called out the bishop of Rome, Stephen I, for claiming to excommunicate all churches who disagreed with him. Cyprian wrote that no one should "set himself up as a bishop of bishops" or by "tyrannical terror force his colleagues to the necessity of obeying."
Naturally this is removed from context and the smart man will carefully review the following. SAINT CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE
Later in the 6th century, the bishop of Rome, Gregory I, was very outspoken against the bishop of Constantinople, John IV, using the title "Universal Bishop." He warned him of "all who flatter you and offer you this name in error" and not to "foolishly consent to be called by the proud title." While history reveals that Gregory used his powerful position in questionable ways, he was resolved to reject such antichristian pride and usurpation of Christianity by a singular bishop.
 This is just more inaccurate anti-Catholic propaganda that does not prove true in the context of the historic facts, Take note:
In view of later developments Gregory's dealings with the Oriental Churches, and with Constantinople in particular, have a special importance. There cannot be the smallest doubt that Gregory claimed for the Apostolic See, and for himself as pope, a primacy not of honor, but of supreme authority over the Church Universal. In Epistle 13.50, he speaks of "the Apostolic See, which is the head of all Churches", and in Epistle 5.154, he says: "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church." As successor of St. Peter, the pope had received from God a primacy over all Churches (Epistle 2.46; 3.30; 5.37; 7.37). His approval it was which gave force to the decrees of councils or synods (Epistle 9.156), and his authority could annul them (Epistles 5.39, 5.41, 5.44). To him appeals might be made even against other patriarchs, and by him bishops were judged and corrected if need were (Epistles 2.50; 3.52; 3.63; 9.26; 9.27). This position naturally made it impossible for him to permit the use of the title Ecumenical Bishop assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, at a synod held in 588. Gregory protested, and a long controversy followed, the question still at issue when the pope died. A discussion of this controversy is needless here, but it is important as showing how completely Gregory regarded the Eastern patriarchs as being subject to himself; "As regards the Church of Constantinople," he writes in Epistle 9.12, "who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious lord the emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it."

At the same time the pope was most careful not to interfere with the canonical rights of the other patriarchs and bishops. With the other Oriental patriarchs his relations were most cordial, as appears from his letters to the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria.

Regardless of any winsome humble acts that Pope Francis might display, his very position and affirmation of the teachings of Roman Catholicism reveal that he is, in fact, a cleverly disguised deceiver of a false gospel (2 Pet. 2:1-3). 
Which is your errant opinion Mr Hauser and you are entitled to it, but the rest of the world is entitled also to the truth. I feel pretty certain that few people will accuse you or your boss Mike Gendron of many "winsome humble acts" especially after seeing how you misrepresent Catholic teachings and attempt to distort them by cherry picking them over out of context.

Perhaps readers here will also be interested in my blog article that speaks to who exactly is offering " a cleverly disguised deceiver of a false gospel".
Who REALLY Preaches "A Different Gospel"?
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

Mike (Gendron's) Observations of the First Jesuit Pope: Refuted

Mike (Gendron's) Observations of the First Jesuit Pope: Refuted

Mike's Observations of the First Jesuit Pope Within minutes after appearing for the first time to hundreds of thousands of Catholics in St. Peter's Square, Pope Francis, the first Jesuit pope, announced that he would be praying to Mary for the protection of Rome. Not once did he mention the name above all names, the name of Jesus. The Vatican released this statement about his first official act: "Francis began his first day as pope with a visit to a Roman basilica dedicated to the Virgin Mary and prayed before an icon of the Madonna." No one must have told him that praying to anyone other than God is forbidden by the Word of God (Ex. 20:4; 1 Tim. 2:5). Okay...here we go again with this guy. As usual Gendron wants to make an issue of Catholic Marian devotion, but of course he doesn't even understand it even though he claims that he was once Catholic.
Those who want an excellent and factual source for apologetics on Marian belief should invest $10.00 on.

During his first papal Mass, his message was not about the Lord Jesus Christ, but on Joseph, the husband of Mary. He asked, "How does Joseph respond to his calling to be the protector of Mary, Jesus and the Church?" "By being constantly attentive to God, open to the signs of God's presence and receptive to God's plans."This is nothing more than a desperation attempt with polemics. Who does Gendron think His Holiness is inspired by? Mickey Mouse? This is so shamefully weak as to be almost pitiful. Furthermore, isn't what Pope Francis said a very clear statement of what being a fully committed Christian really is all about?
Delegations from 33 Christian denominations and 132 national governments or international organizations, as well as Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist leaders, came to Rome for his inauguration mass. Among the many religious leaders who attended was the spiritual head of the world's Orthodox Christians, Bartholomew I. He became the first patriarch to attend a papal ordination since the two branches of Christianity split nearly 1,000 years ago. Also attending for the first time was the chief rabbi of Rome. Their presence underscores the broad hopes for the pope's ecumenical and interfaith dialogue for unity.Gendron loves to bang on about this as if it's wrong, but if he didn't waste so much time on his anti-Catholic drivel and propaganda, he might actually win some souls. (See Proverbs 11:30)
The next day, the new pope met representatives of other Christian communities and other religious groups, including Jewish, Muslim and Jain communities. He described the spiritual bond between Catholics and Jews as "very special" and expressed gratitude to Muslim leaders. He also said he feels close to atheists, even praising them as allies; "who, although not claiming to belong to any religious tradition, still feel themselves to be in search of truth, goodness and beauty."Gendron would never make a good soldier because with this statement he shows he has no compunction about "friendly fire". A person who has some truth, even though it is not the fullness of same, at least has a point at which one can enter into dialog and this is exactly the tactic Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ used on many occasions. (See John 3, John 4, and Matthew 8:8-10 just for example). If Christ Himself sought the common ground from which to begin His evangelism then how can Gendron fault Pope Francis for doing that same thing?

The election of the new pope has polarized many evangelicals on the issue of Roman Catholicism. Many do not know whether Catholics should be treated as our brothers and sisters in Christ or as unbelievers who need to be evangelized. Evangelist Louis Palau, megachurch leader Rick Warren, former presidential candidate Gary Bauer and others have enthusiastically welcomed Pope Francis and his calls for ecumenical unity.Well Mike, maybe that's because, unlike you, they actually listen to what His Holiness says and don't just attack out of hand the way you do.
Others such as Pastor John MacArthur, Mike Gendron and Tom McMahon of the Berean Call have released strong warnings against the ecumenical compromise of the Gospel. John MacArthur gave a "must hear" message on the new pope entitled Usurping the Seat of Christ. It is a message that every evangelical and Catholic needs to hear.Big surprises here. NOT! That's like a short list of the most vitriolic anti-Catholic polemicists and propagandists around. The only reason that I would even consider listening to MacArthur's stuff is to refute it. "Berean Call", just like Gendron's own "Proclaiming the Gospel" are nothing more than ongoing anti-Catholic organizations that(as I have proved many times in my refutations of Gendron's tracts and articles) do anything but proclaim the authentic New Testament Gospel of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ.

When Argentina was on the verge of approving gay marriage, the Roman Catholic Church stood in firm opposition to it, with one notable exception. Cardinal Bergoglio, who is now Pope Francis, supported the idea of civil unions for gay couples. ... I suggest that we actually read the context of what the New York Times (never a very Catholic friendly media) article says.Faced with the near certain passage of the gay marriage bill, Cardinal Bergoglio offered the civil union compromise as the “lesser of two evils,” said Sergio Rubin, his authorized biographer. “He wagered on a position of greater dialogue with society.”

In the end, though, a majority of the bishops voted to overrule him, his only such loss in his six-year tenure as head of Argentina’s bishops’ conference. But throughout the contentious political debate, he acted as both the public face of the opposition to the law and as a bridge-builder, sometimes reaching out to his critics.

“He listened to my views with a great deal of respect,” said Marcelo Márquez, a gay rights leader and theologian who wrote a tough letter to Cardinal Bergoglio and, to his surprise, received a call from him less than an hour after it was delivered. “He told me that homosexuals need to have recognized rights and that he supported civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.” 

Evangelicals must be ready to contend earnestly for the faith because this Jesuit pope's primary agenda is to bring undiscerning separated brethren back home to Rome.That's funny because all the converts I have met and talked with here at CAF have been very discerning people who took their time to check it all out before swimming the Tiber. Read any of the many threads on here where people talk about their conversion and you'll see that (as usual) Mike Gendron doesn't know what he's talking about. 
He will use Catholic mysticism, apparitions of Mary, social gospels, liberation theology, unity accords and deceptive propaganda to accomplish his objectives.Really Gendron? So far, all His Holiness' messages have been calls to be more saintly and more diligent followers of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ and his own personal actions have been exemplary of Christ-like humility and love for others. Hate it for ya Mike, but your assertion just doesn't hold water.
The glory of God and the purity of the Gospel is at stake if Christians refuse to fight the good fight of faith. Don't worry Mr. Gendron. We Catholics will keep right on presenting the fullness of the original, full Gospel, New Testament, Christian message. We haven't refused "to fight the good fight of faith."
A Catholic sister then asked: I wonder, did he not hear the Holy Father's first homily about how if the Church forgets about Christ it ceases to be a Church and becomes a NGO?? I don't have the link to the homily but I thought it was really beautiful and perfectly sums up Pope Francis' beliefs. Catholicism is all about Christ.Well said my friend! Here's a quote and a link. Thirdly, professing. We can walk as much as we want, we can build many things, but if we do not profess Jesus Christ, things go wrong. We may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord. When we are not walking, we stop moving. When we are not building on the stones, what happens? The same thing that happens to children on the beach when they build sandcastles: everything is swept away, there is no solidity. When we do not profess Jesus Christ, the saying of Léon Bloy comes to mind: "Anyone who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil." When we do not profess Jesus Christ, we profess the worldliness of the devil, a demonic worldliness.

Journeying, building, professing. But things are not so straightforward, because in journeying, building, professing, there can sometimes be jolts, movements that are not properly part of the journey: movements that pull us back.
This just shows all the more how this particular anti-Catholic misrepresents almost anything Catholic and (it seems to me) that this is a serious effort at deception that is unworthy of anyone who names themselves as a follower of Christ. This propaganda is generally pretty simple to refute by just looking at the facts.

I always marvel that so many people are fooled into paying this guy's salary to be fed such misinformation. If I were someone who had supported Gendron's "ministry" and saw this kind of stuff, I think I'd be angry enough to cut off any support. That only makes common sense, doesn't it?


How effective is apologetics in evangelism in your opinion?

Very effective. There are quite a few members here at CAF who came into or back to the faith mainly from apologetics interactions with some of us. (one dear brother embarrasses me often by claiming that I carried him across the Tiber on my back. )

Evangelism isn't the same as apologetics. It's more like apologetics is a vital part of evangelism since by definition apologetics is explaining the Catholic faith and I can't imagine any of us fulfilling Our Lord's commission in Matthew 28:19-20
without it. [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Emphasis above is mine of course, but isn't teaching explaining? First one has to know the faith in order to effectively share it with others and part of that catechesis is apologetic in nature.

Why was I a bit embarrassed? Because I know that it was not me but the Holy Spirit that accomplished it. (See Luke 17:10)

I'm not sure I believe in "cold calls" per se. If you look at most of the conversions in the New Testament you see Our Lord and the Apostles personally interacting with people wherever they are, (i.e. the apostles mending their nets, sitting at a tax collector's booth, drawing water from a well, sitting in a tree in order to see Jesus, and even crying out to Him begging for mercy) so, though I will often carry and leave Catholic Tracts with folks I meet, I generally prefer to follow the advice of Father John McCloskey who says that Friendship is the Key to the Evangelization of Men. Having done street evangelism about 40+ years ago as a "Jesus Freak" and seeing the approach of many n-Cs who "witnessed" on the street, I came to prefer getting to know people in order to share the faith with them.

How effective is the Catechism in evangelism/apologetics?

Someone said that they were disappointed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church because it didn't go far enough in depth but I'll have to disagree with you about that since the footnotes can and do lead to ever deepening studies.

I am pretty sure that the Catechism is designed to be a compromise between concise information and brevity (and I think it cuts it pretty close on the brevity part. Look at the difference between it and the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church). The catechism is not intended for evangelism anyway, but general instruction of Catholics.

The fact is that the study of our most holy faith is a lifetime personal project.

Mike Gendron doesn't like me. (Glory be to God!!!)

Check this out from One of Mike Gendron's recent e-newsletters.

He calls it the latest attacks on his propaganda, but I'd have to call it my latest counter to his a-C attacks on our most holy faith. Appreciate the plug there Mike!
The Fruit of Rome Displayed on the Internet

In the 20 years of serving in the ministry of Proclaiming the Gospel, God has protected us from many of the fierry darts of the enemy. The attacks are usually in the form of malicious slander, defamatory words or false accusations. There have also been threats to destroy the ministry and several attempts to demolish our web site. Two of the attempts were traced back to the Archdiocese of Santa Fe and the Vatican. You can see the latest attacks here. 
That's funny, but he's not alleging that I have attacked his site. I wouldn't do that even if I knew how. It's illegal and immoral. I would have to say that just because someone from Santa Fe tried to hack his site (assuming that's what happened) that by no means proves it was orchestrated, or sanctioned by the Church...and the Vatican? C'mon man, your paranoia is showing Mike. Your site manager should know about proxies and other such stuff. But as the saying goes..."People believe what they want to believe.

I ever do is refute his propaganda and post it here (on CAF) and on my blog. The first article that he linked makes no misstatements since he went to Rome and then disingenuously told people that they wouldn't let him in to see the Pope, when virtually every one who ever even thinks about it knows that that's not how it works and that those visitors make their requests a very long time in advance. The man claims to have once been a Catholic and didn't know that? C'mon...that's stretching waaay too far for anyone with a brain to believe.

Posted by A Catholic friend
CM - Your a Jesuit infiltrator aren't you.
My joking response was this graphic.
Originally Posted by Another Catholic Friend
Wasn't he complaining about people libeling him just recently? The way he worded that paragraph, grammatically, he refers to your blog post that he linked as an attempt to destroy his ministry/demolish his website. He actually libeled you by making a false claim, even if it was unintentional. He may not actually mean that you've attacked his site, but that is technically what he said due to his choice to refer to your actions as an "attack", the exact same word used to refer to attempts to demolish his website.

I'm not suggesting you do, but if I've learned anything from my law-school housemates, you could sue him for libel and win pretty easily.
Yeah, perhaps so, but I just write it off to his further misinformation and propaganda. All he's really done in his phrasing is make himself look net ignorant and display his penchant for polemics instead of facts. The top article in his link is the one where I show that he outright lied about the Pope and access to him. This from a guy who repeatedly claims he was Catholic? Perhaps he was, but in this case he knew better and he never mentions making any effort to contact the Vatican to even attempt to secure a private audience with His Holiness Benedict XVI, so you can see right through his propaganda.

Anyone can look over the refutation articles on my blog and see that I essentially take his stuff apart by citing authentic Catholic documents and the Word of God and showing the difference between what he says and the truth. It's not personal ...it's factual, which is the way apologetics is best done.

Bishop Sheen used to say that the Catholic faith is like a lion in a cage. You don't need to defend it, just open the cage door. That's what I do...I open the door by offering the facts of what we believe in answer to his polemics, rhetoric, and misinformation. Any reader can see for themselves what the truth is and if that bothers him so much, then perhaps he needs to reconsider his ways and stick to actually "Proclaiming the Gospel" (the name of his ministry) and get off his anti-Catholic efforts.

I am nothing (see Luke 10:17) compared to guys like Tim Staples, Steve Ray, Pope John Paul the Great and His Holiness Benedict XVI and several other members here at CAF so I would just have to cite for him the following scripture.

Jeremiah 12: [5] "If you have raced with men on foot, and they have wearied you,
how will you compete with horses?
And if in a safe land you fall down,
how will you do in the jungle of the Jordan?
Another Catholic Brother joked:
Hey Church Militant,

The below mentioned organization asked me if I would post the following message on their behalf. Being such a nice guy, I naturally agreed...

We Represent


(the "Society To Oppose Nearly Everything!")

Like Mike Gendron, we accuse the Vatican spy known as Code Name: Church Militant of "malicious slander, defamatory words and false accusations."
Therefore, we would greatly appreciate it if Church Militant could sometime actually resort to malicious slander, defamatory words and false accusations
(rather than solely utilizing the truth) in order to allow our accusations to have some merit.
We hope that we can count upon Church Militant's cooperation in this matter so that we (and other anti-Catholic activists)  can have a better chance (in the interest of fair play) of actually refuting his positions rather than having to rely upon ad hominem attacks instead.

In closing, Mr Gendron, I want to thank you again for that plug and I pray that every one of your followers who clicks it is convicted by the Holy Spirit to more carefully and prayerfully assess your anti-Catholic propaganda and ministry.
You have quoted Our Lord Jesus Christ yourself many times when he tells us, "and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." 
The peace of the Lord be with you always,


Refuting Mike Gendron's tract "Are You Being Deceived?"

Are You Being Deceived?
If I were to insult you, you'd feel the sting immediately. If I were to embarrass you, you'd be the first to know. But if I were to deceive you...you might never know it!
As painful as being insulted or embarrassed can be, at least you're aware of what's taking place. But deception can be deadly because you don't realize you are being betrayed, misled, seduced or ensnared. It's much more than a clever slight of hand.
Deceived people are not even aware they are being misled unless they are confronted with the truth. Tragically, many go to their graves deceived about their relationship with God.

The Importance of Your Source for Truth
What is your source for truth? Is it trustworthy? Will it protect you from the schemes and lies of the master deceiver, Satan?
The biblical prophet Jeremiah gave wise counsel for choosing who to trust. He said if you put your trust in man you will be cursed like a withered bush in a barren desert. However, if your ultimate trust is in God, Jeremiah said you will flourish like a tree planted by the water (Jeremiah 17:5-8).
Still many people today disregard Jeremiah's advice and in their search for truth put their trust in man--religious leaders--instead of God.
Well, here we go again. notice firstly that Mr. Gendron fails to connect his own teachings to the cited passage, even though I have pointed out many times over that he regularly teaches things that depart from the straight reading of the Word of God. Could this actually be a form of self-deception?
Who Will You Trust?
Catholics, for example, believe that the pope and the Roman Catholic Church teach exactly what Jesus and the Bible teach. But how do we know if the popes' teachings or the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church are true?
The only way we can be 100% sure is to do what the church of Berea did in New Testament times. They examined the Scriptures to see if what the Apostle Paul taught them was true (Acts 17:11).
We must use the same scriptural standard for the teachings of all religious leaders. Disregarding the objective truth of God's Word in favor of the subjective teachings of men can be a tragic mistake.
(Bold emphasis is mine) Didn't I just point out that I've shown this man to be doing exactly that in previous articles of mine?

I have been comparing Catholic teaching to the Word of God for many years now and it was just such comparisons, sparked by a-C remarks, (See My Testimony) that both led me home and maintains me in the Catholic faith. My examinations of Mike Gendron's a-C propaganda has also shown that he is not a reliable source for correct teaching.

Furthermore, we know that the Bereans did not set the example that he seeks to make of them. Catholic Answers has a number of articles on this.

The Danger of Deception Would it surprise you to learn that many religious teachings go against the Bible? Shouldn't that concern you, since your eternal destiny may depend on such teachings?
Here is how Catholic doctrine misleads people about God's plan of salvation:
  • All graces needed to attain eternal life can be merited (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2027).
Now here, (again) we see that Gendron cherry picks his citations of source for catholic teaching in order to mislead his readers and followers. her cites CCC 2027, but fails to cite the actual section of the catechism that that 'IN BRIEF" statement actually refers to Section III, paragraphs 2006-2011, which read.


You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts.59 2006 The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.
2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.
2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God's gifts."62
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.63 

Now, does his citation accurately reflect authentic Catholic teaching in its context and does it disagree with or contradict the New Testament? No, it does not. So who is being deceived here?
Catholics are reborn as sons of God and freed from sin through water baptism (1213).
As is taught in the New Testament and was taught by the early church. The whole teaching on baptism is too long to include here, but I encourage you all to take the time to carefully enter the Catechism at this paragraph and note for yourselves the accuracy of this Catholic doctrine.

Just because Gendron denies it and argues against it, by no means he is correct.
(See also "I Find No Sacraments In the Bible" he said.)
Purgatory is a cleansing fire that achieves the holiness necessary for heaven (1030-31).
He doesn't even cite the whole passage, which reads,

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611

Nor does he touch on the fact that we share this essential belief with the Jews even to this day. See Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory

Jesus is offered daily as a sacrificial victim on Catholic altars (1367).
Which, because of his misleading and specious citation, (In fact, how many a-Cs are actually going to research this by checking the Catechism for context?) would not help anyone to understand the facts of our beliefs.

Again, the relevant Catechism portion is too long to post here, but I urge you all to enter the Catechism at this paragraph (More accurately at CCC 1356 and following.)
Venial sins are not deserving of hell (1863).
He really should begin to properly cite catechism topics if he intends to contend with knowledgeable Catholics about our most holy faith. The Catechism actually reads...
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.
1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134

While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135 1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

This would rather well summarize the teaching of many n-Cs even though they would not use Catholic terminology. For example:
These two circles represent two kinds of lives:
Self-Directed Life
S-Self is on the throne
-Christ is outside the life
-Interests are directed by self, often
resulting in discord and frustration Christ-Directed Life
-Christ is in the life and on the throne
S-Self is yielding to Christ,
resulting in harmony with God's plan
-Interests are directed by Christ,
resulting in harmony with God's plan
By performing acts of penance, Catholics can expiate their own sins (1459,1477)
Again he likes to "short cite" the catechism, which in context reads:
1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."
1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him."63

The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of "him who strengthens" us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth "fruits that befit repentance." These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.64
His other citation, CCC 1477 actually has nothing to do with his point, though he seeking to attack the merit of the intercession of and the Communion of Saints.
I answer this in my blog article The Intercession & Communion of Saints.

The Bible says man is saved by believing God's truth (Ephesians 1:13-14).
Again, this is a very shallow and lite gospel of salvation. Does Gendron's scripture citation accurately reflect the many passages of the New Testament that deal with salvation? No, it does not. For instance, consider the following 2 articles I wrote. The differences will be pretty clear I think.

God can never deceive anyone (Titus 1:1-2). But man remains condemned if he continues in deception.
Well as we all know, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so there is nothing wrong with this scripture citation, however, as one who has been proved many times to teach error and misinformation, who would actually be the deceived and continuing in their deception?

False religious systems hold people in bondage to deception by perverting God's truth and grace. Any religion that teaches its followers that salvation is obtained through human effort and merit is nullifying the grace of God. Yet grace is the only means by which God saves sinners! The Bible says "if by grace, it is no longer because of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (Romans 11:6).
Of course, by inference he means the Catholic Church, but so far, have any of you reading this seen any such perversions of God's truth and grace in authentic Catholic teaching? I haven't...
Misplaced Faith Some people blindly put their faith in religious leaders, assuming that their leaders would never seduce anyone with a false plan of salvation. Yet the Apostle Paul warned that "from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them" (Acts 20:30).
The complete relevant passage reads:[28] Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. [29] I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; [30] and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Now, in our discussion and analysis of Mike Gendron's messages, who is actually better described by these verses?

Other people simply choose not to respond or conform their lives to truth. Instead they turn away to listen to teachers who say what they want to hear (2 Timothy 4:2-4).
Here again, who has this proved to be true of in our examinations of Gendron's messages?
Then there are people who have a zeal for God, but not in line with the truth. Many people have been indoctrinated with false teaching and have difficulty believing the truth. They fail because they refuse to let go of unbiblical beliefs.
It was disobedience to God, a lack of faith in His purpose, plan, and word that separated Adam and Eve from Him. Instead they chose to put their faith in the deceiver, which brought spiritual and physical death to us all.
By his own words he convicts himself I think. God be merciful to him and to all those who also, for the same reasons he gives here, do not carefully study to show themselves approved unto God, rightly handling the word of truth. (2nd Timothy 2:15)

God uses the very instrument that separated us from Him--faith--to restore us back to Him. By repenting of our dead works and turning to God in faith, we receive spiritual and eternal life: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Sola Fide anyone? Yet Matthew 25:31-46 refutes this unscriptural gospel of "Christianity Lite".

God's Truth Determines Destiny
The Bible makes it clear that:
  • We are either children of the devil (John 8:43-45) or children of God (John 1:12),
  • We live as slaves to sin or as slaves to righteousness (Romans 6:16-18), and
  • We will spend eternity under the wrath of God or in His loving presence.
As does the Catholic Church! Anyone remember your Baptismal promises?

V. Do you reject Satan?
I do.
And all his works?
I do.
And all his empty promises?
I do.
Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth?
I do.

V. Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?
I do.
Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?
I do.
V. God, the all-powerful Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has given us a new birth by water and the Holy Spirit, and forgiven all our sins. May he also keep us faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ for ever and ever.
R. Amen.
"Whoever believes in Him [Jesus Christ] will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18).
Check...that's Catholic.
God has revealed that trusting in anything other than Christ and His Word is evidence of deception. Those who choose to follow the traditions, opinions, and philosophies of men will be condemned. Jesus said "Whoever rejects Me and does not accept My words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day" (John 12:48).
Sadly for Gendron, he has failed to accept the very scriptural fact of the inclusion of Sacred Tradition as mentioned in the New Testament and cited by the apostles themselves. So then this would not qualify as the "traditions of men" that he wishes to allege against the Catholic faith.

Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.

Tradition? No way!
By contrast, how wonderful are the words, "to those who did accept Him He gave power to become children of God to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12). Are you basing your life and eternal destiny on the eternal truths of God's Word or on the Catholic traditions added to God's truth? How will you respond to God's truth?
Sorry Mike but having weighed you message against the Word of God and found them seriously wanting of the fullness of truth, and having compared the Word of God and the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church, I have not found said additions, though I have found you yourself misrepresenting Catholic doctrine and teachings and teaching contrary to the New Testament, therefore I base my life and eternal destiny on the eternal truths of God's Word and on the Catholic traditions documented for the 2,00 years of Christian history.

 In conclusion, Gendron offers the following as a chart showing alleged contradictions between Catholic teaching and what he says "God teaches". The chart won't reproduce here so I have broken it down so I can address it in its particulars.

God Teaches Salvation is only through Christ (Acts 4:12).

The pope Teaches
Salvation is through the Roman Catholic Church and its sacraments (846, 1129).
First notice the way he seems to intentionally disrespect the Pope by failing to follow proper English standards and capitalizing His Holiness' title. If I wanted to be equally petty, I suppose I could just decapitalize his last name and call him "gendron", but I'm not like that.

Catholics have absolutely no problem at all with what Acts 4:12 says.
"And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

Now Look at his Catechism citations:
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. "Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

Now...do these citations contradict the verse from the Word of God that Mike Gendron cited? Why no...they do not. In fact, nowhere in authentic Catholic teaching will you anywhere find any assertion that salvation is by any means other than Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We never did, do not now, and never will.

Moreover, consider this, if Our Lord didn't want the church to serve the purpose it does, then why did He specifically found it as he did in

Matthew 16:18-19 (Douay Rheims)

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Show with Knox Bible :: New Jerusalem Bible :: Latin Vulgate :: Haydock Commentary
Bible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com

God Teaches You are saved by faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The pope Teaches You are saved by faith plus works (1815,1821,2010,2027).
We've all seen the Ephesian passage so often we can quote it from memory, right? I know I can. However, notice what is missing here. see any reference to

Matthew 25:31-46 (Douay Rheims)

31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty.
32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.
34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.
37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee?
39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee?
40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink.
43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me.
44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee?
45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
Show with Knox Bible :: New Jerusalem Bible :: Latin Vulgate :: Haydock Commentary
Bible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com

God Teaches All who rely on observing the law--commandments--for salvation are under a curse (Galatians 3:10).

The pope Teaches Obedience to the commandments is necessary for salvation (2068).
Really Mike? Better go back and read your New Testament again because you seems to have totally missed the following passages, which your statement totally contradicts.

John 14:15 (Douay Rheims)

15 If you love me, keep my commandments.
Show with Knox Bible :: New Jerusalem Bible :: Latin Vulgate :: Haydock Commentary
Bible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com

John 14:23 (Douay Rheims)

23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.
Show with Knox Bible :: New Jerusalem Bible :: Latin Vulgate :: Haydock Commentary
Bible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com

John 15:10 (Douay Rheims)

10 If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father's commandments, and do abide in his love.
Show with Knox Bible :: New Jerusalem Bible :: Latin Vulgate :: Haydock Commentary
Bible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com

God Teaches Salvation occurs at the moment you repent and believe the gospel (Acts 20:21,Ephesians 1:13).

The pope Teaches Salvation is a process from baptism through purgatory (161, 162, 1254, 1255).
First, look at what his verse citations actually say.

Acts 20:21 (Douay Rheims)

21 Testifying both to Jews and Gentiles penance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Show with Knox Bible :: New Jerusalem Bible :: Latin Vulgate :: Haydock Commentary
Bible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com

Now, does that in any way even infer what he says it does? No.

Ephesians 1:13 (Douay Rheims)

13 In whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth, (the gospel of your salvation;) in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise,
Show with Knox Bible :: New Jerusalem Bible :: Latin Vulgate :: Haydock Commentary
Bible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com

Does this one? Not at all. Neither verse speaks of immediate salvation. In fact,

However, the New Testament does say...

Philippians 2:12 (Douay Rheims)

12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.
Show with Knox Bible :: New Jerusalem Bible :: Latin Vulgate :: Haydock Commentary
Bible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com

So then, how can one work out their salvation with fear and trembling if it takes place in an instant as Gendron has just stated?

St. Paul also tells us...

1 Corinthians 9:27 (Douay Rheims)

27 But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.
Show with Knox Bible :: New Jerusalem Bible :: Latin Vulgate :: Haydock Commentary
Bible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com

Not only does it not speak of instant salvation, but teaches that salvation can be lost by becoming that "castaway/" Paul refers to. So then...is Mike Gendron scripturally correct in what he has taught here?

But what about the Catechism references
? Do they contradict the Word of God? Let's take a look.

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"

Perseverance in faith
162 Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: "Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith."44 To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith;45 it must be "working through charity," abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.46

1254 For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.
1255 For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents' help is important. So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized - child or adult on the road of Christian life.55 Their task is a truly ecclesial function (officium).56 The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism.

Well? In fact, do these not clearly teach the very same things that the New Testament tells us in passages like

Matthew 28:19-20 (Douay Rheims)

19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Show with Knox Bible :: New Jerusalem Bible :: Latin Vulgate :: Haydock Commentary
Bible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com

God Teaches Only Jesus purifies sin (Hebrews 1:3,Colossians 1:22).

The pope Teaches Purgatory purifies sin (1030,1031).
We Catholics have absolutely no problem at all with what both those verses say. In fact we will say "amen" and Alleluia" to them both because we believe every word written in the Bible.

However, in checking these passages for context I discovered that a serious problem for Mike Gendron. Look at the very next verse that he doesn't bother to cite and which blows his whole instant salvation concept right out the proverbial window!
[23] provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
Purgatory is actually pretty easy to explain. See Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory
God Teaches You can know that you have eternal life (John 10:27-30, 1 John 5:13).

The pope Teaches You sin if you presume to be saved without merit (2090-2092).
I think the scripture passages that I have already cited already deal with the fact that we know we can be saved, but that Gendron misrepresents both authentic Catholic teaching as well as the Word of God in the things he has said so far.

Let's look at the Catechism citations anyway though because I think we'll see a very specious misrepresentation of what they say.
* Hope
2090 When God reveals Himself and calls him, man cannot fully respond to the divine love by his own powers. He must hope that God will give him the capacity to love Him in return and to act in conformity with the commandments of charity. Hope is the confident expectation of divine blessing and the beatific vision of God; it is also the fear of offending God's love and of incurring punishment.
2091 The first commandment is also concerned with sins against hope, namely, despair and presumption:
By despair, man ceases to hope for his personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of his sins. Despair is contrary to God's goodness, to his justice - for the Lord is faithful to his promises - and to his mercy.
2092 There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God's almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit).
God Teaches The sacrifice of Jesus is finished (John 19:30).

The pope Teaches The sacrifice of Jesus continues in daily Mass (611, 1405).
Here he attempts to attack the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ in the Mass. We know that this is what the Church teaches and those who know the scriptural teachings on the Eucharist, know full well that we all say "amen' to the verse in John 19:30 that Gendron cites, but let's look at his Catechism citations anyway to see what's going on. (See also my article The Eucharist IS Scriptural)
611 The Eucharist that Christ institutes at that moment will be the memorial of his sacrifice. Jesus includes the apostles in his own offering and bids them perpetuate it. By doing so, the Lord institutes his apostles as priests of the New Covenant: "For their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth."

1405 There is no surer pledge or dearer sign of this great hope in the new heavens and new earth "in which righteousness dwells," than the Eucharist. Every time this mystery is celebrated, "the work of our redemption is carried on" and we "break the one bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ."

No conflict with scripture there, but I guess Gendron feels that if he throws a bunch of numbers at people, they won't check it like I have done and as a result they'll buy into his propaganda. Notice how he concludes.

As you can see, these teachings directly oppose each other. One is truth that will set you free. One is deception that will hold you in bondage.
Yeah, Mike, you're absolutely right.
Which teachings will you choose? Choose carefully. In this life you can be wrong about a lot of things and still survive. But when this life is over, if you were wrong about God's only provision for your sins, you will perish in the lake of fire for all eternity.
Well Mr. Gendron, I urge you to take this part of your message to heart and reconsider for the sake of your eternal soul since it has been shown that you not only wrongly oppose and misrepresent Catholic teachings, but actually contradict specific passages of the Word of God in your messages.

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, take note of James 3:1, which says.
Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.