Beginning a Video by Shad M. Brooks (To Prove I'm Not a Mormon) · Being Un-Catholic is Not a Solution · Answering Testify Cafe on Catholicism
Who Decides the Gospel That Saves: The Bible or Rome? | Cornerstone
Testify Cafe | 4 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsb9YtH5uI8
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- 9:40 Constantine did NOT try to unify all religions.
Antipopes Prevost, Bergoglio, Ratzinger, Wojtyla, and you can arguably add Montini and perhaps Roncalli, do not represent the Catholic Church and do not represent the Constantinian peace.
- Testify Cafe
- @TestifyCafe
- Hi there, thanks for sharing your views. Despite Constantine legalizing Christianity under his rule, he was still allowing religious tolerance of Roman pagan practices in order to unify the Roman Empire. Mixing Christian and pagan practices, even initially, was a dangerous melting pot for false teaching and is one point we bring up about why the RCC has adopted practices not found in Scripture.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @TestifyCafe "he was still allowing religious tolerance of Roman pagan practices"
Not in the Catholic Church.
He did allow the c. 50 % still pagans to continue being pagans.
"Mixing Christian and pagan practices"
False claim.
"the RCC has adopted practices not found in Scripture."
Witnessing about what Jesus did in your life (when it's not a medical miracle) or holding a sermon after the Bible readings of the faithful is not found in Scripture.
@TestifyCafe "religious tolerance of Roman pagan practices"
You do understand this means, he didn't close the temple of Delphic Apollo and things like that?
The one banning Paganism (or Pagan worship in public) was Theodosius.
"It was shut down during the persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire by Theodosius I in 381 AD."
Wikipedia on "Delphi" references Grecia. Guida d'Europa (in Italian). Milano: Touring Club Italiano. 1977. p. 126.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 10:09 Mike Gendron is also probably lying about his story:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Contacting Jane Gendron and Others About Mike Gendron's Uncle the Priest
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2024/10/contacting-jane-gendron-and-others.html
and Certainly wrong about the Deformation:
New blog on the kid: Claims by Gendron
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/10/claims-by-gendron.html
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 10:26 For someone who had an uncle who was a Catholic priest, he's noticeably off on Catholic theology.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 10:40 And for someone who pretends to take up the cause of the Bible, he's noticeably off on Matthew 26:26.
- Testify Cafe
- In Matthew 26:26, Jesus was with the disciples, He had not died yet, so the elements are shown right from the start as symbolic. Jesus was not in the elements just like when Jesus says, "I am the door"(John 10:9), the Lord is not a physical door, He is the way to salvation. Jesus doesn’t need to be repeating His sacrifice for sin in the mass, as He proclaimed on the cross, “it is finished”, the debt of sin has been paid. (ref. Hebrews 9:25-26) John 6:56 in context also speaks of “the words I speak to you are spirit and life,” which indicates the elements of communion aren’t to be taken literally, but symbolic.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @TestifyCafe "Jesus was with the disciples,"
Yes.
"He had not died yet,"
Yes.
"so the elements are shown right from the start as symbolic."
No, does not follow.
All your arguments about there existing passages where Jesus uses metaphors fail, unless you can show how it follows from His not having died yet that the elements are symbolic.
By the way, before you try, how about reviewing not just John 6 (Lizzy Reezay has a funny but very apt video on the verb "trogo"), but also:
For these things were done, that the scripture might be fulfilled: You shall not break a bone of him
[John 19:36]
You see, the OT passage referred to isn't a Messianic prophecy, it's Mosaic law about how the Paschal Lamb is eaten. John just called Jesus our Paschal Lamb in a way featuring His being eaten as such.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 11:10 He totally forgets the unity of Calvary and altar.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 11:16 And as to his argument.
Do you have to accept Jesus in order to be forgiven? Because you arguably did so some time after 1968. You are younger than I and I was born that year.
But on Gendron's view, your sins were forgiven in AD 33 (or thereabout, some debate about the exact year).
- Testify Cafe
- God is not limited by time and space, the cross was ever planned from the beginning. Genesis 3:15 tells us what God will do through Christ on the cross, Jesus will crush Satan. Praise God for His plan and saving power. We are being put to death because of our breaking of God's law (1 John 3:4), and without the shedding of blood, sinless blood, there is no remission of sins (ref. Hebrews 9:22). Christ is our unique sinless Saviour, there can be no other, as we all have fallen short of His glory (ref. Romans 3:23).
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @TestifyCafe "God is not limited by time and space"
And therefore God can also make the sacrifice of Calvary present whereever a priest turns bread into His body and wine into His blood.
And God does precisely that:
For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
[1 Corinthians 11:26]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 11:54 Come on!
Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ
[1 Peter 3:21]
This doesn't exclude infant baptism.
And given the unity of Calvary and altar, this is not against the Catholic Mass:
Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit
[1 Peter 3:18]
If we taught the Mass were a different sacrifice from Calvary, you might have a point.
As to Romans 16, if Paul and Peter were next door on that occasion, that would have shown why the former didn't salute the latter. Equally if St. Paul wasn't yet aware Peter was in Rome, since St. Peter had for long been in Antioch (some presume he was the "Niger" mentioned in Act 13) and again if Peter actually arrived later (2 Peter 3 shows Peter wrote after many of Paul's epistles, probably wrote in Rome after Paul had written to Romans).
Currently, the true Pope, Michael II, is a married man (he was already married before his Episcopal consecration).
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 12:16 Where in the Bible is either believer or duties of one defined as to include "witness what Christ has done in his life"?
- Testify Cafe
"And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death." Revelation 12:10
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @TestifyCafe Their testimony was arguably not and was certainly not defined as being "what Christ had done in their lives" ... try again.
More probably "Christ is risen" or "Christ is King" or "I can't deny He rules and I dare not disobey Him just for you guys"
@TestifyCafe Or, "I'm the King's loyal servant, but God's first" (St. Thomas More on the scaffold)
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 12:32 Misrepresentation.
Baptism, belief, freedom from other excommunications than for heresy and apostasy as well. Not just baptism.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 13:19 The sin of Adam was, given his freedom from original sin up to committing it, a mortal sin.
We teach that mortal sins do cause death.
Here is Bible for venial sins:
For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man. He is able also with a bridle to lead about the whole body
[James 3:2]
A voluntary direct breaking of God's undoubted command cannot be venial.
St. James is talking of justified persons, not of sinners who need to repent and get right with God.
- Testify Cafe
- The payment for sin is always death (Romans 6:23), there are no degrees of sin, but praise God, Jesus can deliver us from the power of sin and death by His atonement on the cross.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @TestifyCafe "The payment for sin is always death"
St. Paul is talking of mortal sin and also of original sin.
"there are no degrees of sin"
That's not what St. James said what I just quoted. See also:
He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask.
[1 John 5:16]
So, the argument "there are no degrees of sin" fails.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 13:42 One cannot die "in" venial sin, it's not a state, one can die "with" venial sins not yet fully forgiven.
- Testify Cafe
- The Bible says we must be born again (John 3:3) in order to have a new heart and see God. We all die in sin unless they are covered by Jesus' atonement. "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." - Romans 8:1
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @TestifyCafe Justified and born again are synonyms.
They are opposed to original sin and to mortal sins, which are a state.
You can die in mortal sin, and if you do, you go to Hell ... unless God raises you to give you a second chance, it's eternal.
Atonement doesn't just cover, it vivifies. Christ is not just a camouflage before the Father, He's alive inside the justified person.
That's why their good deeds have merit, because it's ultimately the merits of Jesus.
Eph 2:8—10 makes it clear this happens once we are justified, and nothing we do before justification could earn us justification.
So, venial sins don't take away justification, that's why they are not a state and you cannot die "in" venial sin. If the moment you die you have venial sins, but no mortal and not original sin, you die in Christ and not "in sin."
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 13:44, have you ever read this one?
If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
[1 Corinthians 3:15]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 14:01 Indulgence for almsgiving:
For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness
[Tobias (Tobit) 4:11]
For sacrifices of the OT and obviously even more so for the one of the NT:
And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead, And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins
[2 Machabees 12:43-46]
- Testify Cafe
- Helping others is good, but God judges the motive of our hearts. Thinking we will gain deliverance from sin from doing a good deed is not the heart of the Lord and says our offering could even come close to His sacrifice on the cross. Only Jesus is worthy of making a once for all offering for sin on the cross:
“Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life”
- Psalm 49:7
We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
- Isaiah 64:6
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @TestifyCafe "Thinking we will gain deliverance from sin from doing a good deed is not the heart of the Lord"
Would you mind trying to substantiate that?
The arguments you offered are not about alms leading us to an occasion of repentance and therefore to the Cross or about blotting out venial sins while you are already justified by the Cross, they are about the parodic idea that alms were to deliver us from sin instead of the Cross, which is absolutely not how we view alms or other indulgenced deeds.
