For those who believe we Catholics are not allowed to study the Bible.

If the Church does not allow and encourage personal reading of the Word of God then why are there indulgences attached to it and published in many catechisms and the fronts of many Catholic Bibles.

These are there to specifically encourage the practice of reading the Bible.

Quote:

• A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who read sacred Scripture with the veneration due God’s word and as a form of spiritual reading. The indulgence will be a plenary one when such reading is done for at least one-half hour [provided the other conditions are met].

Myths about Indulgences (scroll down to HOW TO GAIN AN INDULGENCE and then to the list near the bottom of the article).

Many also have the encyclical Dei Verbum in the front as well. You might also read Verbum Domini which also deals with the Church and the Word of God.

Anyone who is confronted with this myth might want to referthe persons to these sources.

Oh, and the only time that the Church came down Bibles and reading them was back when "reformed" versions were published that had anti-Catholic notes in them or grossly mistranslated passages. Mostly the former.

Refuting Mike Gendron’s ‘Another Jesus?”

Mike Gendron has many anti-Catholic tracts and articles out. In this one he alleges that we Catholics do not believe in and preach the same Jesus Christ of the New Testament. But…is this true, or just more of his propaganda by which he deceives people…and makes his living?

What follows is my analysis and refutation of this particular tract from his site.

It can be found at this link and it will be in italics to separate it from my responses..   

Quote:

Is the Jesus of the Roman Catholic Church the biblical Jesus? Knowing and believing the real Jesus is critical because Jesus said, "If you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins" (John 8:24). A different Jesus is preached by many deceivers (2 Corinthians 11:3-4) who deny His finished work of redemption. As John Martignoni often says, Catholics have no problem at all with what those verses say, though we might take issue with Gendron’s personal interpretation of them. In this case, as he so often does, he is inferring in that last line that this is what the Catholic Church does, but by the end of this article you’ll see that that is anything but the case. The Mormons preach Jesus is the brother of Lucifer and was a man who became God. The Jehovah Witnesses preach Jesus was not God but claim he was Michael the arch angel. This of course is irrelevant to his topic here. Catholics too recognize these two positions as heretical errors. What this actually is, is Gendron seeking to make the Catholic faith guilty by association, when in fact no such authentic association exists. The Catholic Church condemned the Arian heresy in its day and continues to refute it in its modern revival by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Church has also condemned the errors of Mormonism and does not accept their Baptisms as Christian, citing that although they baptize using a Trinitarian formula, their definition of the Trinity is not at all in accord with the authentic Christian doctrine.  Roman Catholicism preaches a Jesus that was unable to purge all sin or pay the complete penalty for sin. Here is where Gendron begins his attack on Catholic doctrine, but let’s see if this is really a true statement.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches it this way. (Quoted Catholic documents will be bolded for emphasis.) Christ's death is the unique and definitive sacrifice 613 Christ's death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world",439 and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the "blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins".440 614 This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices.441 First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience.442 Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience 615 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous."443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities".444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445 Jesus consummates his sacrifice on the cross 616 It is love "to the end"446 that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.447 Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died."448 No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all. 617 The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ's sacrifice as "the source of eternal salvation"449 and teaches that "his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us."450 And the Church venerates his cross as she sings: "Hail, O Cross, our only hope."451 Our participation in Christ's sacrifice 618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the "one mediator between God and men".452 But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, "the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery" is offered to all men.453 He calls his disciples to "take up [their] cross and follow [him]",454 for "Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps."455 In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries.456 This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering.457 Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.458 Scripture references from its footnotes 439 Jn 1:29; cf. 8:34-36; 1 Cor 5:7; 1 Pet 1:19. 440 Mt 26:28; cf. Ex 24:8; Lev 16:15-16; 1 Cor 11:25. 441 Cf. Heb 10:10. 442 Cf. Jn 10:17-18; 15:13; Heb 9:14; 1 Jn 4:10. 443 Rom 5:19. 444 Isa 53:10-12. 446 Jn 13:1. 447 Cf. Gal 2:20; Eph 5:2, 25. 448 2 Cor 5:14. 449 Heb 5:9. 452 1 Tim 2:5. 454 Mt 16:24. 455 1 Pet 2:21. 456 Cf Mk 10:39; Jn 21:18-19; Col 1:24. 457 Cf. Lk 2:35. The Biblical Jesus assures Christians they have been saved from condemnation. "Now that we have been justified by His blood, it is all the more certain that we shall be saved by Him from God's wrath" (Roman 5:9). The one time, perfect and all sufficient sacrifice of Jesus completely satisfied the wrath of God (1 John 2:2).  Ah, but is this true based on the above citation of authentic Catholic teaching? We Catholics certainly agree with what the two cited verses above say, but let’s look at the context of Gendron’s 2nd citation for context, okay? [2] and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. [3] And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [4] He who says "I know him" but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; [5] but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: [6] he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. So…it would seem that Mr. Gendron has a problem with his theology vs what the New Testament actually says. He will say that we Catholics practice a works based salvation, which is not true, but we are obedient to the context of his cited passage in 1st John 2 as anyone can plainly see. Roman Catholicism denies this fundamental teaching and deceives its people into believing that the sacrifice of the Mass satisfied God's wrath not only for the sins of the living but also for the sins of the dead (Canon 3, Council of Trent). Let’s have a look at his citation for its context. First. Gendron does his readers a disservice in his citation in that the Canon he referenced is actually in Chapter 9, and it states… CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema. What he’s doing here is deceiving you by alleging something that the Church does not actually teach. This Canon is not saying that the Mass is the only sacrifice, or that it replaces the death of Our Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary and again, you can see that from my citation of the Catechism above. Further from the Catechism… 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.611 609 2 Macc 12:46. 610 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274):DS 856. 611 St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Cor. 41,5:PG 61,361; cf. Job 1:5. Now, we Catholics readily profess that the Mass is a miraculous re-presentation of that same timeless sacrifice of Christ on Calvary,  but that’s not the point here (and if you want to see more on that then see my article The Eucharist IS Scriptural).  Catholics are cursed with anathema by their church if they claim they are saved from God's wrath, (Canon 30, Council of Trent).  Again, let’s go find the actual Canon for context. CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema. Here again, Gendron misrepresents what the Church is saying here. Notice how he phrases it. Yet look at what the catechism teaches us. 2822 Our Father "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."95 He "is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish."96 His commandment is "that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another."97 This commandment summarizes all the others and expresses his entire will. 2823 "He has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ . . . to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will."98 We ask insistently for this loving plan to be fully realized on earth as it is already in heaven. 2824 In Christ, and through his human will, the will of the Father has been perfectly fulfilled once for all. Jesus said on entering into this world: "Lo, I have come to do your will, O God."99 Only Jesus can say: "I always do what is pleasing to him."100 In the prayer of his agony, he consents totally to this will: "not my will, but yours be done."101 For this reason Jesus "gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father."102 "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."103 95 1 Tim 2:3-4. 96 2 Pet 3:9; cf. Mt 18:14. 97 Jn 13:34; cf. 1 Jn 3; 4; Lk 10:25-37. 98 Eph 1:9-11. 99 Heb 10:7; Ps 40:7. 100 Jn 8:29. 101 Lk 22:42; cf. Jn 4:34; 5:30; 6:38. 102 Gal 1:4. 103 Heb 10:10. Catholics know Jesus only as a "gate opener" to heaven. For Catholics to go through the gates of heaven they must save themselves through the Mass and sacraments. Yet is this true based upon my citations of authentic Catholic teaching? No…it is not. The Jesus of the Bible expiates sin. "Through His blood, God made Him the means of the expiation for all who believe" (Roman 3:25). Yet the Catholic Church teaches Catholics must expiate their own sins. "This may be done through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments of purifying punishments" (Vatican Council II).  Now, as usual, my first question to you all as my Catholic brothers and sisters is, "Is this true?" Has Mr Gendron accurately stated the doctrines of the Catholic Church and its councils? It's easy to check. I just copied his quote, "This may be done through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments of purifying punishments" which he attributes to Vatican Council II, yet I searched through every document from Vatican II on the Vatican's own site and got not one single hit in any of them. See for yourselves by doing the same at The Holy See - Archive - Documents of the II Vatican Council I also searched the Catechism for it, and again...not a single hit. So...one wonders just where Gendron took his quote from. After much digging, using my hardcopy of the Vatican II documents, (and discovering that our "buddies" at CARM also use this quote in an article on Purgatory) I did finally find this quote In Pope Paul VI's INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA on the Vatican website. However, as we all know context is everything, right? So look here at what the section of the document actually says, and notice what it is actually talking about, okay? 2. It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death,(3) or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or "purifying" punishments.(4) Therefore it has always been the conviction of the faithful that the paths of evil are fraught with many stumbling blocks and bring adversities, bitterness and harm to those who follow them.(5) These punishments are imposed by the just and merciful judgment of God for the purification of souls, the defense of the sanctity of the moral order and the restoration of the glory of God to its full majesty. Every sin in fact causes a perturbation in the universal order established by God in His ineffable wisdom and infinite charity, and the destruction of immense values with respect to the sinner himself and to the human community. Christians throughout history have always regarded sin not only as a transgression of divine law but also—though not always in a direct and evident way—as contempt for or disregard of the friendship between God and man, (6) just as they have regarded it as a real and unfathomable offense against God and indeed an ungrateful rejection of the love of God shown us through Jesus Christ, who called his disciples friends and not servants. (7) So...does the church teach what Gendron (and CARM) allege they do? In fact, have you ever encountered a Christian who would not be able to agree with this as stated in its context? The fact is that it correctly states what the Bible teaches; that all sin has a price  (See Romans 6:23) The Jesus of the Bible is the only mediator between God and man (I Timothy 2:15), yet the Roman Catholic Church offers Mary as the mediator. Pope Pius IX proclaimed that "God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will: that we obtain everything through Mary." This is a common attack that has no merit because it’s not based on fact. Look again at what the Catechism specifically says about who is our mediator. In communion with the holy Mother of God 2673 In prayer the Holy Spirit unites us to the person of the only Son, in his glorified humanity, through which and in which our filial prayer unites us in the Church with the Mother of Jesus.27 2674 Mary gave her consent in faith at the Annunciation and maintained it without hesitation at the foot of the Cross. Ever since, her motherhood has extended to the brothers and sisters of her Son "who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties."28 Jesus, the only mediator, is the way of our prayer; Mary, his mother and ours, is wholly transparent to him: she "shows the way" (hodigitria), and is herself "the Sign" of the way, according to the traditional iconography of East and West. 2675 Beginning with Mary's unique cooperation with the working of the Holy Spirit, the Churches developed their prayer to the holy Mother of God, centering it on the person of Christ manifested in his mysteries. In countless hymns and antiphons expressing this prayer, two movements usually alternate with one another: the first "magnifies" the Lord for the "great things" he did for his lowly servant and through her for all human beings29 the second entrusts the supplications and praises of the children of God to the Mother of Jesus, because she now knows the humanity which, in her, the Son of God espoused.  So, did Mr. Gendron tell the truth about Catholic teaching on our mediator? Furthermore, look at the context from which he takes his citation. The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.[3] The fact is that this encyclical has nothing at all to do with our mediator and nowhere even mentions it.  It is merely speaking of the Biblical fact that all we have received from God in Christ’s Incarnation came to us through the Blessed Virgin Mary. Furthermore, although there has been some discussion of Mary as “Mediatrix of all graces”, that is not a teaching of the Catholic Church. Some folks need to get clear on the fact that though many things may be discussed,, it does not mean that they are Catholic beliefs or ever will be. As John Martignoni has said, Catholics have no problem with people arguing against what we believe, but they need to make sure that it’s actually something we do believe. The Jesus of the Bible claimed He was the only way to the heavenly Father (John 14:6). Vatican II denies this by stating, "the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst who are the Moslems." Vatican II actually denies no such thing, and you’ll notice that Gendron does not offer a citation for his allegation. His quote is sort of from the Catechism, but as always, let’s have a look at this in its context.  Fact is, Gendron can’t even get his quote right, because the word “Moslems” is nowhere found in it, nor is there any such word as he spelled it. Adherents to Islam are called Muslims. The Church and non-Christians  839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325 The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329 840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus. 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330 842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race: All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331 843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332 844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them: Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333 845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334 325 LG 16. 326 Cf. NA 4. 327 Roman Missal, Good Friday 13:General Intercessions,VI. 328 Rom 9:4-5. 329 Rom 11:29. 330 LG 16; cf. NA 3. 331 NA 1. 332 LG 16; cf. NA 2; EN 53. 333 LG 16; cf. Rom 1:21, 25. The key phrase here, (that Gendron does not want people to see, lest they fail to damn the Catholic Church!) is these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. It’s important to read what’s actually there, not what one might wish was there. It is a fact, that the Muslims do indeed profess what the Church states here. Whether, upon closer scrutiny we Catholics agree with their doctrines is another matter altogether.   So why does the Roman Catholic Church hide the real Jesus from its followers? Because the real Jesus sets people free! In contrast, the Roman Catholic Church maintains control of its people through legalistic rituals, sacraments and threats of anathema's. The biblical Jesus saves believers from the bondage of sin, deception and religion. Yet I have shown that this is not the case at all many times over here on my blog. For instance, Who REALLY Preaches "A Different Gospel"? The better question might be, “Why do so many people pay Mike Gendron’s salary in order to be fed his inaccurate and often specious anti-Catholic propaganda instead of doing what his “ministry” is called and really “Proclaiming the Gospel?

Does the Bible teach that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in its pages?

A Catholic buddy of mine offered this list as a start...

Hmmm...things non-Catholics believe that are not in the Bible. Lets see.
1. Evangelistic appeals.
2. Vacation Bible School.
3. Youth groups and youth pastors.
4. Church picnics,
5. Praise bands.
6. Bible Colleges.
7. Short hair on men, long hair on women. ( I once knew a preacher who insisted Jesus had a crew cut)

A non-Catholic then asked, "Can you show me where in the Bible it calls tradition God breathed?" to which I replied, Sure...2nd Thessalonians 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

So still no one has shown me where the Bible says that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in the pages of the Bible. I need to see this if I'm going to abandon my Catholic faith and return to what you have.

In fact...you need to show it to all of us Catholics because so long as you can't, every Catholic reading this has no chance of converting away from our most holy faith. Worse still...it makes it appear that we are right to reject this and (God help us all!), that would mean that you would be wise to seriously consider converting to the Catholic faith ASAP. 

If it's not in the Bible then it violates the very tenet that virtually every n-C doctrine is based upon, that such things must be found in the pages of the Bible. That's probably the fundamental foundation of most n-C belief and teaching in the last 500 years. 

This is a doctrine is one that many non-Catholics hold very dear and I'm serious...if you can show me this and not be refuted by me and my Catholic brothers and sisters, then you have a chance to really dent our Catholic faith. If you can't....well...that dent might be somewhere else.

I have Bibles all over the place right here and you even get the benefit of the 73 book canon to use. I absolutely need to see this. Seriously. 

This article is about getting some non-Catholic to show me where this idea is found within the pages of the Word of God. That's all I'm asking here.

If you want to shake me as a Catholic loose from my faith then this is what it will take.

I've read the Bible several times and cannot find this taught there, even with 73 books to work with.

I re-converted to the Catholic faith in part because of this very thing. If the Catholic Church is wrong on this...it should be pretty simple to show me.  

which is one of the things that a lot of people on both sides of this issue don't understand. My friend John Martignoni has a kinda neat way of explaining that here.

 A friend of mine said that his church takes the Bible literally, but that the Catholic Church doesn't...is that true?

The Fullness of truth is important. In John 14:6 Jesus tells us that He is "the truth" and I for one want nothing less.

I am trying to get you or any of the other n-Cs here that hold that belief to show us where it is found in the Word of God. 

Again though....where is this scriptural mandate that all that we believe and practice must be found in the pages of the Bible? 

I don't understand how people can believe this idea since St. Paul plainly tells Timothy that he's to withdraw from anyone who doesn't walk according to that tradition. If it wasn't inspired, the why would he make a big deal of it?

2nd Thessalonians 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

The following article from my blog points out some other ways in which the apostles showed their thinking on Sacred Tradition.
Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.

One of the big problems in discussing this topic is that so many different non-Catholics have differing definitions of what this actually means and that makes it really hard.

This is another case where we Catholics have difficulty seeing that often propagated "Unity in essentials" that they speak of.

Perhaps this is also another by product of this very foundational doctrine of post reformation non-Catholic Christianity?

Here are scriptures that one non-Catholic offered me..and my responses.

Quote:

1 Cor 4:6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

Which is a very good point to make about that same interpretation which goes beyond what is written.

Quote:

Luke 1:1-4: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Here again, this does not say that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in the Bible. In fact....it actually is saying that the purpose of Luke's Gospel is to affirm oral tradition.

Quote:

In Matthew 4:1-11. Three times Jesus was tempted by the Devil and each time Jesus replied exactly the same three dangerous words that defeated the Devil: "IT IS WRITTEN" If any one could have used oral tradition, it was Jesus, yet he chose the only safe and sure way to defeat Satan: Scripture.

Still, this does not tell us what you claim it does. It infers much, such as that scripture is useful for resisting temptation, which certainly agrees with 2nd Timothy 3:16, but being useful is not the same as being the only and ultimate authority, which is something that I have not found in the Word of God.

Quote:

Mark 12:24 24 Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?

We've already discussed that ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ, but this also fails to make the claim that would make your belief scriptural.

Quote:

2 Timothy 3:15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Again...where does that even infer a sole and final authority to the Bible? In point of fact, St. Paul is here referring to the Old Testament, which by the same logic that you have used would eliminate the New Testament from any inspired authority. That's just based upon your own logic and not something that either of us believe.

 Quote:

1 John 5:13 13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Does not claim the authority asserted. Another case of interpretation going beyond what is written?

Quote:

2 Timothy 3:16-17: 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Catholics have no problem at all with this verse. We believe that is means exactly what it says and we do not believe it means anything more. This does not claim a final and ultimate authority. Like I said before...it's inspired and useful...

Quote:

Luke 10:26 What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" Jesus expected even his enemies to correctly interpret the Bible by simply reading and studying it.

Again...this refers to the Old Testament and by your own logic would cast aside the New Testament as well as open the door for an interpretation that says we need to read and obey the law to be saved. That won't wok now, will it?

Quote:

Acts 17:11-12 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men. Even though the apostles were inspired with genuine oral revelation, they always directed people to the scriptures for the final determination of truth.

They were talking to Jews about the Messiah. What other source would one expect them to use seeing that even Our Lord pointed out, "For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many."  Still there is no claim of final and ultimate authority here in this passage.

Quote:

Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

But by this logic this verse would deny inspiration and acceptance of the New Testament (again) since it specifically refers to the law. Further (and again) this would mean that we are still to obey the law in order to be saved. I know that that is not what most non-Catholics believe nor are trying to say, but that is where it logically and specifically leads. 

Quote:

I maintain that the Bible is the sole INFALLIBLE authority, to which all other authority is subordinate.

If that is true then I would like to see the Biblical passages that lay claim to that authority. Please show me.

Quote:

Sola Scriptura means that the Bible alone is the SUPREME canon of faith. There are other authorities. I, for instance, consider my pastor an authority, but his words should be measured against the Scriptures. If they collide, he is the one who's in error.

Since this belief requires that any such belief has its basis in the Bible, I would like to see the scriptures where that is taught.

And who is the authority that decides when that happens and where do they derive their authority from?

What I believe we see here is a assertion of conclusion drawn from a fallacious premise not supported by the text of the scriptures quoted.  

The reason why I like this one that it occurred to me one day that I do not feel that I have to logically prove this is true in some debate format in order for me to believe this is true. Maybe some other folks are up to this, but I think I will pass myself..

Certainly your prerogative, however, it is not a matter of feelings, which can mislead us, but of facts. Facts as to what given passages of scripture actually say, or do not say in order to ascertain objective truth. If it is untrue that the Bible lays claim to the infallible authority that your definition ascribes to it, then, even by the errant standard of Sola Scripture (as you have defined it) one would have to reject that interpretation.

Quote:

It occurred to me that it is a fact that today I do not hold to any other infallible rule of faith and conduct So logically unless I am convinced that there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct out there (be it the Book of Mormon, your pope speaking on faith and morals, or David Koresh), the Bible is my only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

Just because you are convinced does not make it correct. One can be sincerely in error and this is one reason I suspect some people ascribe to this belief.

To me it's fairly simply. If you want me to believe that everything that we believe and practice must be found in the Word of God, then you need to show me precisely where the Bible says that. So far I haven't seen anything like that, but have seen a lot of verses and then interpretations of men telling me they mean something other than what they actually say. 

Quote:

Now of course convincing me that there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct is a very difficult sell. Per 1 Thess 5:21 I am to examine everything carefully and hold fast to that which is good. So I don't know how one can convince me that there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct except through the rule of faith and conduct that I know is infallible. And I have not seen anything in the Bible that gives me the license to elevate any other rule of faith to the status of infallible.

Yet I have not seen anything that gives anyone the license to elevate the Bible to that status while I do see the simple statement from St. Paul as to what the pillar and ground of the truth is.

1st Timothy 3:15 "if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth"

Quote:

I approach this based on the presumption that the Word of God, the Bible is indeed God's Word. Your line of questioning does not appear to accept the presumption, therefore no matter how I would answer, it would not make any difference to you. What your view of the Bible is will be the determining factor of how one receives the Word of God. When you cite the church as being the pillar and support of the truth; it simply means that God has chosen to work through His elect to maintain the purity of His word and all that is contained.

Presumption does not work. It comes to a conclusion even before it has looked at the facts. Would anyone want to be the subject of any case where presumption was the basis for conclusion? Very risky.

Where does 1st Timothy 3:15 even infer such a belief as you assert? I'll have to disagree with your interpretation and go with what the Word of God actually says right there.

Quote:

There is no place in the Bible that explicitly states that all Christian teachings MUST BE in the Bible, but a logical and rational thought will lead you to that conclusion; simply put, where else will you find it?

You express a gross fallacy because that may be your own opinion, but even if one accepts the authority ascribed to the Bible by Sola Scriptura, one would have to reject that.

As to your last question...you already answered that when you touched on 1st Timothy 3:15 above. What does that verse literally tell us is the pillar and bulwark of the truth?

Quote:

You have two premises that must be true for what you said above to be true and is a source of major doctrinal error within your church. First you must put your church above the authority of scripture to make the claim that your church interprets the bible.

Which is the only option supported by the New Testament.

Quote:

Second you presume that "scared tradition" were taught by Jesus adn passed down to the apostles and are outside of Scripture. How can you derive this and prove it is of divine authority unless you just make the claim that your church says it is that way; therefore it is.

Not so at all. I examined the evidence in the New Testament and wrote the following article on my blog based upon what I found.Take a look. Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.

Quote:

The logic make no sense and I don't believe it to be possible to show Jesus taught anything that is not in the written pages of Scripture. Jesus himself said that Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God; where do all Christians go to find what proceeded out of the mouth of God? the Bible?

So then teachings that the apostles offer in their New Testament writings, (and there are a great many) that Our Lord never spoke about are invalid? Surely you didn't mean that! Yet that is the only logical conclusion to arrive at based upon what you have just said. 

Quote:

I cannot force a reasonable and logical deduction on any person; you either get it and see it or you don't. Jesus said the Man shall not live on bread alone but by every word the proceeds from the mouth of God; where does a Christian go to find what proceeds from the mouth of God? The Bible?

Was the New Testament written at that point when Our Lord said that? Isn't He quoting an Old Testament proverb? (Deuteronomy 8:3 to be exact) In all 3 places recorded, there is no New Testament scriptures...as a result you cannot correctly use that to support a premise that involves the New Testament Christian faith.

Quote:

The antithesis of you question is where does it not say we are to use the Bible for all teaching of moral principle and practices? Where does it say we are to obey "traditions" not written and contradict the teaching God has given. traditions are okay if they don't contradict, but when they do then they need to be done away with otherwise god's word becomes perverted and another gospel will emerge..right?

There are no such contradictory Sacred Traditions, and the link to the article on my blog will refute that idea.

Quote:

All of you keep repeating the same fatal fatal flaw. You are putting the authority of your church above that of scripture;

Not so! The New Testament puts the Church above scripture, as has been shown already, while no one has yet given me a single passage of the Bible that tells us that everything that we believe and practice must be found in its pages.

People can argue all day that we Catholics don't understand, but if you don't have a scripture text that specifically says what you say is true, then even by a Sola Scriptura standard one would have to reject it as a false teaching.   

NOTE: See page 21.

Mike Gendron's lies and he wanted to see Pope Benedict XVI

Divine Appointments in Europe

Our ministry in Europe was a huge success with many divine appointments and open doors of opportunity to share the glorious Gospel of grace. On our first day at the Vatican, I approached the Pope's residence to see if we could meet with him to talk about the Gospel and his strategy for ecumenical unity. The Swiss guard told me I could see him at noon (along with the other 500,000 people waiting to see him in St. Peter's square). It occurred to me that I have immediate access to God through one mediator but had no access to the pope because of one obstruction. Later, when the pope appeared at his window to "bless" the crowd, we were astonished to witness the misplaced and excessive exaltation of this man. Our hearts were filled with compassion for the many nuns whose eyes were transfixed on him as if he were a god.

As usual Gendron proceeds to lie and deceive his readers. Notice that like some politicians have done he declares victory without having actually achieved it. He can't tell us that he didn't know that personal meetings with His Holiness are scheduled far in advance. This is just another of his outright lies that he propagates as an attack on the Catholic faith. Is this the kind of Christian integrity that he should display? I think not.

During our tour of St. Peter's Basilica and the Vatican Museum, we were taken back by the immense idolatry and paganism that is thinly veiled by a counterfeit form of Christianity.

Notice that he doesn't bother to detail this, probably because he knows full well that any Catholic whose remotely knowledgeable about our most holy faith would make him look like even more of a liar than he already does. For those of you who might not have seen it, I answer this sort of specious propaganda in an article on my blog called. Iconoclasm: Or: Catholics Worship Graven Images NOT

 Clearly Satan has blinded the minds of unbelievers from the light of the Gospel and the glory of Christ.

Any of you feel blinded? Any of you unbelievers? Odd...all the faithful Catholics I know are not only very strong believers and followers of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but can explain and defend what we believe and why.

We left with a greater sense of thanksgiving to God for delivering us from this kingdom of darkness into the glorious light of the Savior.

Hmmm, I seem to express that same feeling about coming home to the Catholic faith in My Testimony.

Many of the Catholics we witnessed to showed no interest in the Word of God because of their fierce and unbending loyalty to their religion. We were, however, encouraged by some who had a teachable spirit and expressed an interest in the truth we shared from Scripture.

Sure Mike, and just how much Italian do you even speak? More likely, he couldn't make himself understood and they were bored with this rude American anti-Catholic. Truth from scripture? Really? If it's so true then how come I've been able to refute so many of your newsletter articles with abundant scriptures and well documented Catholic teaching?
Response to Hard Questions to Ask Good Catholics (By Mike Gendron)
Refuting anti-Catholic tract: "Rome vs The Bible" by Mike Gendron
Refuting: "Is a Catholic Christian an Oxymoron?"
Refuting Mike Gendron's attacks on Eucharistic Adoration

We continued to sow the imperishable seed of God's Word in Naples. It was somewhat of a homecoming for me since I lived there 52 years ago while in middle school. At that time, as a devout Catholic and altar boy, I had what I thought, was a great privilege to meet Padre Pio. He was the stigmatist who bore the 5 wounds of a crucifixion and was recently named a saint. In his autobiography he said souls from purgatory would stop by his window on the way to heaven to thank him for suffering on their behalf.

Irrelevant...

As our merciful God set us free from this religious deception, we now pray that the truth of His Word will do the same for all the divine appointments He set for us.

And I will pray a Rosary and a Divine Mercy Chaplet (Please join me in this my Catholic brothers and sisters.) in thanksgiving that I am not deceived by lying men like you Mike Gendron and my intention will be the collapse of your anti-Catholic "ministry" and your final reversion by the mercy of God.

Refuting Mike Gendron's attacks on Eucharistic Adoration

News from Evangelist Mike Gendron July 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Congress on Eucharistic Adoration meets in Rome

quote The church must be warned that worshipping the Eucharist is perhaps the worst kind of idolatry.
Of course he's way out of whack here. We know that The Eucharist IS Scriptural and he really needs to get out his time machine and go back and explain that to the Early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch who plainly told the church at Smyrna...

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16)
quote The Lord Jesus Christ said, "If anyone says to you,'Behold, here is the Christ, do not believe him, for false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect'" (Matthew 24:23-24).
Nicely snatched right out of context, since this speaks of to an entirely different context. Again though, we have St. Paul saying the following about the Eucharist. 1 st Corinthians 11:23-30 [23] For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, [24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." [25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." [26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. [27] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. [28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. [29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. [30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
quote According to Catholic priest John O'Brien in his book, The Faith of Millions, the priest "reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command."
Let me know when Fr, O'Brien is declared an infallible source, okay? In 1938 this may have been the way he explained this. I don't know because I don't have this book and can't find the context of this quote online. However, the way it is explained is actually. The Institution of the Mass
quote The priest is said to perform great signs and wonders by changing the Eucharist into "the body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ such that the whole Christ is truly, really and substantially contained" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1374).
Here Gendron pulls a reference in the CCC out of context (along with the passage from Fr. O'Brien above) and uses it to misrepresent authentic Catholic teaching. Look here at paragraph 1375 of the Catechism.
1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

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

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

So here again Mike Gendron blatantly misrepresents Catholic teaching to try to make his case.

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

Would he have preferred that the Church be deceptive about it, as he is? Obviously, as my linked blog article above shows, neither the New Testament nor the early church considered the Eucharist idolatry, so then who are we going to believe?
quote This abstract "thing" called the Eucharist, in which "the faithful" around the world, will be able to apply whatever definition of "god" that they believe in. They have found a neutral symbol to worship. Demonically ingenious!" Jose Oller, PTG Board Member
This doesn't help his case at all, since it's just vitriolic polemics from another member of his own organizations staff.
quote Truly the Eucharist is a false Christ because the Bible gives precise details about the return of Christ so that no one will be deceived. We are told when, where, how and why Jesus will return.
Again, not according to the Word of God, or even authentic and authoritative Catholic teaching, since nowhere in Eucharistic teaching does it refer to Christ's 2nd coming, except in in 2 passages of the New Testament. The first from Our Lord Himself and the 2nd from St. Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians as follows. (Emphasis mine)
John 6:53-55.
[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

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

So in this case Gendron "goes beyond what is written" and far overreaches in his effort to make his specious case against the Catholic faith.
quote He does not return daily as a "victim for the sins of man" but "a second time, without reference to sin" (Heb. 9:28). He will return immediately after the tribulation with power and great glory and everyone will see Him (Matthew 24:27-30). The Lord will return in a physical body to the Mount of Olives, the same way He ascended to heaven (Acts 1:11).
This is nothing but a specious straw man argument that tries to draw a connection to events that Catholic teaching does not even espouse as I have shown above.
quote Evangelicals, who continue to sign unity accords with the Catholic religion, are in essence, giving their stamp of approval for the false Christ of Catholicism.
Misrepresentation and specious straw man, since any such accords are quite specific, They speak of unity of beliefs which are there...not those which are not.
quote They are also helping the Vatican reverse the Reformation by embracing Catholicism as a valid expression of Christianity.
When and where have we ever said that the "Reformation" was an especially good thing that did not need to be reversed? Did we miss a memo somewhere?
quote The end result is mass confusion
I'm not confused guys...Are any of you? The only real serious confusion seems to be the result of Gendron's specious anti-Catholic messages, which feed gross misrepresentations to his readers.
quote Christians don't know whether to evangelize Catholics or to unite with them to evangelize the world together.
Well, Mike maybe if you'd stick to facts and not misrepresent Catholic beliefs and teachings like this that would be less of a problem.
quote Clearly the truth must be told and people must be warned of the eternal consequences awaiting those who embrace and worship a false Christ.
Catholics would agree with that, which is why guys like me refute your propaganda, so that all Christians...Catholic and non-Catholic are not misled and deceived.