Archive for July, 2010

Dear TIA,

I would like to say that you have one of the best and most informative websites on the web. I especially like your history page and anything written by Dr. Horvat. The story about Antonio Margil is simply awesome! Your pictures of the revolution bring out all kinds of emotions. They are both funny and disgusting. I’m glad you post them for the world to see.

The purpose, however, for this letter is to address your position of resistance against sedevacantism.

You stated, “Even though there is a serious probability that the conciliar Popes can have fallen into heresy and, as such, stop being Catholics before God, they continue to be recognized as Popes before the visible Church. For them to cease to be recognized as Popes, one of two conditions must be met: either the due authority must declare them heretics, or their heresy must become known throughout all the Catholic Church.

Until this happens, they are still Popes before the visible Church.” (TIA Responds to “Your Position of Resistance Is Wrong; Sede-Vacantism Is Right”)

You have clearly demonstrated by your own website that the “conciliar popes” are heretics by their rejection of historic teachings.

These rejections or heresies have been published by the Vatican’s own newspaper, spread all over the internet, and have for all intents and purposes become known throughout the world much less the Catholic Church.

Yet, by your own admission, one of the conditions has been met for them to cease to be popes.

So, why are you still resisting rather than outright rejecting them?

If not, then how must your condition, of a universal known heresy, be met?

Surely, not every single Catholic must know those heresies or else the condition is essentially impossible.

Now, whether everyone recognizes these as heresies is another story.

You continue, “This is a simplistic solution based on an extremely simplistic reasoning: because the Popes fell into heresy they completly lost the papacy, and the entire Church who follows them is no longer Catholic. Like many simplistic solutions, this one is wrong, it cuts the living flesh of the Church, and the new institutions that adopt it run a grave risk of falling into Protestantism.”

Of course, sedevacantists don’t believe the entire Church who follows them is no longer Catholic. Material schism does not make one a non-Catholic. Therefore, Catholic sedevacantists are not cutting the living flesh of the Church, but yet, you do recognize your “popes” who have already been cut away from the Church by automatic anathemas as those living within the Church.

Also, those sedevacantist churches are not new institutions unless they reject the historic faith as well.

However, many of those who call themselves Catholic know the heresies of the “conciliar popes” and still praise them as saints and heroes of the faith. Even the world famous “Catholic Answers Live” radio show has told its listeners to stop reading your (TIA) website since it attacks the pope.

What good is the requirement that the heresy of a pope must be universally known if everyone you hold as living members of the Church believes and supports the same heresies?

Therefore, your understanding of your own required condition is flawed.

You also say that the other requirement is that, “due authority must declare them heretics,” but what authority?

You use Dan O’Connell’s quote, The fact of the matter is the Pope cannot lose his office unless by an act of God, as Pope Boniface VIII clearly and infallibly teaches in Unam Sanctam (Novemebr 18, 1302): “Therefore, if the temporal power (the State) errs, it will be judged by the spiritual power (the Church); but if a minor spiritual power errs, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all (the Pope) errs, it can be judged only by God, and not by man.”


What if God delays in correcting the situation? Well, we wait and pray and follow what the Church has always taught.” (Sede-vancantism?)

A pope who loses the faith is not the pope.

If a pope could be a heretic until everyone must recognize the heresy or heresies, then you have the gates of hell actually running the Church until it’s recognized. In other words, you would have a non-Catholic as head of the Catholic Church.

Where is your condition found in Church protocol?

If we interpret Unam Sanctum the way O’Connel and TIA does, then we’d be forced to say that Sts. Robert Bellarmine, Francis de Sales, and Alphonsus Liguori were rejecting Pope Boniface VIII.

St. Robert Bellarmine’s resistance approach was for civil matters only. You may resist a pope who would attempt to destroy the church “if” as Bellarmine states, “he tries to kill souls by his bad example” but this quote has nothing whatsoever to do with resisting disciplines, and doctrines.

St. Bellarmine couldn’t possibly be referring to doctrines, disciplines, or laws because in the following chapter in the very same writing De Romano Pontifice, St Bellarmine states as a matter-of-factly that a pope can become a heretic and if he does then he would automatically lose his office.  This means that a pope cannot destroy the church by giving us false doctrines, disciplines, etc because he would not be pope if held to false teachings that would destroy the church. It is that simple!

Also, sedevacantists don’t believe the last 5 claimants to the papacy were validly elected in the first place, so the argument is moot anyway.

God corrects the situation by immediately removing a manifest heretic. This is what the Church has always taught.

Therefore, your other required condition also has a major flaw.

Lastly, O’Connell’s argument against sedevacantism with the charge that a “Pope can do no wrong” is a straw-man.

The fact is there is a time for resistance as in the case of Peter’s wrong doing in Galatians or as in the case of Pope Stephen who held a mock trial of the deceased Pope Formosus. My reference to St. Bellarmine’s teaching is the answer for rightly resisting a pope.

However, there is a time for outright rejection of so-called popes as in the cases of antipopes Boniface VII, Anacletus II, and, of course, now, as affirmed by the other teaching of St. Bellarmine.

O’Connell’s argument that Christ was against sedevacantism for recognizing Annas and Caiphas as the High Priests is another straw-man.

He states, “Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us the proper example when He said in Matthew (23: 2-3): “The scribes and the Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say and do not.” No sede-vacantism there.”

Didn’t they reject Jesus?

Now are we to obey them and also reject Jesus because Jesus said to obey them in “all things”?

O’Connell’s interpretation is silly.

He is arguing that sedevacantism is an impossible position and that a pope remains one even if he were to become an apostate.

Even you, TIA, have given conditions on when a pope loses his office. Not so according to O’Connell since he believes that Christ is against sedevacantism under all circumstances.

The Office of the Papacy has a much higher standard than the High Priest of the Old Covenant since the Papacy is that of the Vicar of Christ.

This is why the Church through its Saints, Doctors, and theologians has told us that the popes cannot be heretics since heretics and their heresies are the gates of hell according to Popes Vigilius and Leo IX.

If Benedict XVI, who rejects The Syllabus, and the condemnations against Modernists, is a true pope, then Christ’s promise has failed indeed!

O’Connell’s argument makes a mockery out of Christ’s promise and I’m quite surprised that you posted it.

I will post this open letter on my website and await for your reply.


Steven Speray


Read Full Post »

On Tuesday, July 6, the question was posed to the Rev. John Trigilio on the Q and A Forum of “Catholic Answers Live.”

Trigilio says that sedevacantists use the “very convoluted argument” that the last 5 “popes” are heretics and therefore are not valid.

He stated that the problem with this position is as long as all the cardinals recognize the validity of the pope then there is a valid pope regardless of his private position.

He continues to say that a heretical pope would be prevented from teaching ex cathedra “so that even if one could establish a heresy of the pope,” he would still be pope as this has been the position since Peter and therefore “the sedevacantist position falls apart.”

Trigilio also mocks sedevacantists by stating that the Holy Spirit must have been asleep leaving the Church without a pope for the last 50 years.

What’s wrong with these arguments posed by “Catholic Answers Live”?

First, how is it a very convoluted argument by saying that a pope cannot be a heretic?

The only thing convoluted is the reasoning given by “Catholic Answers Live” as to why a pope can be a heretic.

A true pope can have a personal error about the Faith insofar that he doesn’t knowingly reject some doctrine. The distinction must be made between material and formal heresy. Material heresy is merely an error which comes from ignorance but one with good intentions to believe the truth. Formal heresy comes from full knowledge while rejecting some point of doctrinal truth.

Ex Cathedra statements have nothing to do with it.

Many popes have been material heretics, but it is the universal teaching of the popes and saints that a pope cannot be a formal heretic.

As a matter of fact, “Catholic Answers” contributor to “This Rock” magazine, Rev. Brian Harrison, invented the idea (or at least made popular) that a pope could be a formal heretic with his article “White Smoke, Valid Pope A Heretic Pope Would Govern Illicitly—but Validly.”

His argument is based on a faulty understanding of Pope Pius XII’s teaching in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis along with the Canon Laws.

You can see a complete refutation of his argument in my book “Debunking Sedevacantism?”

But simply put, Harrison has to reject the universal teaching of the popes and saints on the subject not to mention the sheer nonsense that a non-Catholic can be a pope.

This is what Rev. Trigilio is trying to say without actually stating it because it is so ridiculous that even he wouldn’t buy it. He simply is not looking deeply at what he is proposing.

Secondly, Pope Paul IV was very clear that if all the cardinals and even all the world recognize a heretic as a valid pope, he would still not be one.

Pope Pius XII never abolished this teaching as it is the Divine Law of God that a pope must be a member of the Church which a heretic is not!

Trigilio said that he personally has not seen any heresy come from the last 5 “popes.”

I’ll give you a very simple one.

Click on EWTN’s own website here http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP890111.HTM and read my exposition here https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/one-of-the-great-heresies-of-john-paul-ii-in-his-own-words/ of John Paul II’s outright rejection of the historic understanding of a very basic doctrine.

Lastly, “Catholic Answers Live” uses the argument that the Holy Spirit would have been asleep for 50 years if the Church would be left without a pope.

This is a straw-man since the Church during The Great Schism left doubt about who was the true pope for 51 years. Was the Holy Spirit asleep then?

It is precisely because of the Holy Spirit was active and working to keep the Church alive during The Great Schism then and The Great Apostasy now.

Trigilio even mentions The Great Schism in his reply without realizing the consequences.

Earlier in the radio show, he tells how disciplines are not infallible because they change, but this is a heresy. In fact, this is the same heresy of Tim Staples, of “Catholic Answers,” found here. https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/against-catholic-answers/

The doctor of theology confuses infallibility with immutability, a common error with Vatican2-ites.

I first came to the conclusion of sedevacantism, not because of the heresies of the last 5 claimants to the papal throne, but because the Vatican 2 Church has harmful laws and practices (disciplines) which have been previously condemned by the Catholic Church. This is impossible!

In other words, if the Vatican 2 Church is the Catholic Church, then the Gates of Hell prevailed because of the teaching of spotless laws and practices which have been breached.

When it comes to the position of sedevacantism, “Catholic Answers Live” is not the place to turn for answers.


Read Full Post »






Hello Debbie,

You stated: Hi, Steve, I did this pretty quickly before work, so forgive any errors, please; and give me the same consideration as to “tone of voice.”

Thank you,

MY 2nd REPLY: No problem. Glad to see the fight in you! To be honest, I don’t let any tone or words really bother me. I am enjoying this and it is a very good exercise. So here I go again with 2nd REPLY. If you see me using caps, it is to emphasize not yelling. One young man took me to shouting at him when I used caps. Never do I shout.

You stated: Hi, Steve,

Debbie: Sorry to take so long to answer this email. I spent Saturday with my friend Monica. She was a Catholic but after hearing the gospel from me and others for 14 years, she recently trusted Christ alone for her salvation. She still attends the Catholic church with her mom but no longer believes in things like Purgatory and Canon Law.

MY REPLY: I don’t see you trusting in Christ alone but rather you trust in yourself by your theology in trusting Christ alone. Your theology is totally from a personal interpretation as you have made yourself your own pope. This is classic Protestantism. However, I doubt your friend attends a Catholic Church, but rather a Vatican 2 Church that claims to be a Catholic Church. This is what my books and website are all about. What is and is not the Catholic Church.

Debbie: Don’t take this the wrong way, but I don’t care what kind of Catholic Church it is, if it’s adding your own merits to your salvation instead of depending wholly on Christ, it’s not Christianity.

2nd REPLY: But you’re not depending wholly on Christ but your own man-made theology. You not only depend on yourself, but you depended on someone else to tell you what the Word of God is since you use the Bible that was put together by men and written by men. You believe in a type of merit and but don’t understand it. Acceptance itself is a merit, but not a strict merit.

You stated: We are not acted upon by God in any way when we choose to accept Christ or reject him. I don’t even believe as some do that the Holy Spirit “comes alongside” us and nudges us in the right direction. God is a gentleman and does not intrude upon our free will. He does not send the “right people” to us when we are unbelievers in answer to our grandma’s prayers either. He is no respecter of persons. He could have raptured each believer home the moment they trusted Christ, but he didn’t; he left us here to do the work of an ambassador and it’s OUR job to get the gospel out.

MY REPLY: If you chose to accept Christ, then you did something ON YOUR OWN which automatically qualifies as a type of merit. There is no getting around it no matter how much you don’t want to admit to this fact. As matter of fact, if you can freely choose to accept Christ, how can you say that you can’t freely choose to reject Christ later? Your position has it that you are free in the beginning but not really free later. You used to love the rosary, but later stopped. Some people love their spouses but later choose to stop loving them. The same goes with many Christians. My best friend used to love Christ but now rejects Him. Some will say that he never really loved Jesus, but I know better. Those who make such claims do so to fit into a theology because it doesn’t work without making such claims.

Debbie: You may consider it to be a merit, but give me one scriptural example that God does. God calls us to make a decision and when we decide to trust Christ, he allows us to spend eternity with him. It doesn’t change the fact that Christ did it all; it just means we agree with God that he did.

2nd REPLY: YOU DECIDED. You didn’t just agree with Him but you ACCEPTED HIM ON YOUR OWN POWER AND FREE WILL. Your decision came from you, not God alone. Merit in the Catholic sense is to be worthy or deserving by, not to earn. Therefore, God considers merit, “and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” (Matt. 10:38) This implies that if you do take up your cross and follow Christ you are worthy of Him. He is your salvation.

“Therefore we ourselves boast of you in the churches of God for your steadfastness and faith in all your persecutions and in the afflictions which you are enduring. This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be made worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering.” (2 Thess. 1:4-5)

Since you believe the Rapture is part of the Gospel and it comes from this writing of Paul then you must believe Paul when he says that one is made worthy of the Kingdom of God by steadfastness and faith in all persecutions and afflictions.

I could many more examples but these 2 suffice.

Debbie: As far as eternal security goes, 2 timothy 2:13 says, “If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself.” Paul is speaking to a believing audience here and telling them that if they stop believing, God will still keep his promise. He cannot deny himself: Believers are sealed into Christ’s body and are a part of him which he won’t deny. From our perspective, it may look as if a believer has lost his salvation for various reasons. God still sees him in Christ and will reward him for his initial belief when the time comes. When a person who’s turned his back on Christ finds himself in heaven, I doubt if he’ll be mad at God for insisting on keeping his promise!

2nd REPLY: Wow. We’ll never see eye-to-eye on this one. But since every Catholic that I know has accepted Christ, then what difference does any of this make? We’re all saved according to your theology.

You stated: I’ve never worried about anyone in history who may have believed the same way I do, before the Reformation or after. There were probably some who didn’t write any books or letters that survived but they’re now in heaven with Christ for believing the words God left for us through Paul.

MY REPLY: The reason I asked this was to prove to you that your position is anti-historical. The fact is your position didn’t exist at all for at least 1,500 years after Christ, which makes it a man-made theology. You won’t find a single book or letter because there aren’t any. Of course, you won’t accept this statement, but it is true. The Catholic Church has always stamped out heresies and done so in public keeping all records. History is very important, but like the Mormons who claim 2 Indian tribes were visited by Jesus without any record whatsoever that those tribes even existed just proves my point. You can’t make a claim without a single bit of evidence to back it up. I’Il finish this topic at the end of this reply.

Debbie: You probably already realize that I don’t give a rip about man-made historical documents. The early institution that became the Roman Catholic Church had a lot of temporal power and I’m sure they controlled the flow of information in the direction they wanted. The RCC realized they could wield more control over the masses with the kingdom gospel of Israel with its laws and rules than they could with the glorious liberty we have in Christ according to Paul’s gospel.

2nd REPLY: I’ll repeat what I said. You have no evidence to back up your theology historically WHICH PROVES IT’S MAN-MADE! By the way, being part of the Catholic Church gives me the glorious liberty in Christ, which doesn’t truly exist apart from the Catholic Church that Christ founded.

You stated: Adding one drop of doctrine from Israel’s scriptures poisons grace with law. At the close of this dispensation, “God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel,” wrote Paul in Romans 2:16. He didn’t say, “Peter’s gospel.” He and Peter shook hands in Galatians 2:9 and Peter forever stepped down from the world stage of evangelism and gave the reins to Paul with his new gospel. Peter never goes to another soul with Israel’s good news after that day. If anyone is our “pope,” or “papa” to the body of Christ, it’s Paul, not Peter! (1 Cor. 4:15).

MY REPLY: There is not one drop of truth to your statement! When Paul said “my gospel” it is the same at Peter’s, John’s, James’, and every other Christian throughout history. The reason why he said “my” was because he was speaking to those without the truth.

As for Gal. 2:9, you don’t see shaking hands but rather Peter, James, and John giving authority to Paul and Barnabas.

Debbie: Um, what does “right hand of fellowship” mean to you?

2nd REPLY: It means given the same authority. All bishops have the same authority as bishops.

Peter didn’t step down as you make another claim without any evidence. However, Peter was the one at the Council of Jerusalem and settles the matter after much debate in (Acts 15:7). Barnabas and Paul confirm the truth in verse 12 and then James puts in his two-cents worth. James has to say, “Listen to me” since his words need everybody’s attention unlike Peter’s, who already has everybody’s attention. Peter does not have to say, “listen to me” because they listen and when he spoke, “the assembly kept silence” (Acts 15:12). James then gives his judgment on about how Peter’s words are to be applied.

Debbie: Galatians 2 is in the same time frame as Acts 15. They describe the same meeting. And I take it to mean that Peter’s authority over the kingdom saints was naturally waning, what with their program being set aside, and James was easily able to usurp the power.

2nd REPLY: Not at all and that’s why all of their successors understood it the way I described it. Again, you must know your history!

It is Peter most mentioned in the Book of Acts; over 50 times.

Debbie: But Peter is never mentioned again after Acts 15 when he stepped down from evangelism.

2nd REPLY: Where do you get the idea he stepped down? From where? All of Peter’s and Paul’s successors didn’t say this.
Also, Peter most definitely goes to other souls as he went to many places including Antioch and finally Rome where he was put to death upside down for preaching the Gospel!

Debbie: Those are simply legends. There’s no real evidence he ever went to Rome. He may have traveled around, sure, but he never ever preached the gospel to anyone again. In his letters, he tells his readers to listen to what Paul has to say and explains that we are now under the longsuffering of God (instead of the wrath that was next on the schedule) because of what Paul has to say.

2nd REPLY: Legends? He appointed St Evodius for the See of Antioch. He preached everywhere! In his letters, he tells the Church not to privately interpret Paul as you are doing. His tomb was found directly under the Basilica in Rome!

He was THE pope, and all the other Apostles and priests are “popes” or fathers.

Debbie: He was the head of the little flock kingdom church, yes, but that church has been set aside until God is done with the mystery we’re under today. No succession occurred in the kingdom church after Peter stepped down. The grace age church has no succession of apostles at all. Paul is our apostle (Rom. 11:13).

2nd REPLY: Linus was Peter’s immediate successor and is mentioned in the NT. Clement was Peter’s 3rd successor. History tells us so.

Not only do I confirm this statement, but every early Church Father does the same, including PAUL’S CO-WORKER CLEMENT (Phil 4:3) who became the 4th Pope of Rome.

Debbie: I’d be interested to see some proof that the same Clement left any writings. I seriously doubt it and would not put it past the numerous forgers of the time to publish something in that name just to make it look authentic.

2nd REPLY: He left 2 writings and they were used at Mass in the first and second centuries.

You stated: John Nelson Darby, I guess, divided the scriptures between Israel and the Church and re-discovered the mystery of the rapture. Doesn’t matter to me, though, because I just want to believe what God says in his book, not what men say.

MY REPLY: Darby was a major heretic and didn’t re-discover anything. He invented the rapture and I disprove it as being anti-Scriptural, anti-historical, and illogical in two of my books. You say that you “want to believe what God says in His Book and not what men say,” but the fact is, you believe what men say including what you say. You can’t get around the fact that you are being the final arbiter of truth because it always comes down to your own personal interpretation.

Debbie: A heretick in your estimation maybe. If he preached a gospel of grace through faith alone in Christ then he’s my brother in Christ in mine. The rapture is plainly taught in Paul’s letters (alone). The kingdom saints knew nothing of it and fully expected to go through the tribulation that Christ warned them about in Matthew 24.

We all give the Bible our personal interpretation. You just happen to choose the one the RCC is serving up. In the end, each of us must choose what we believe God is telling us in his word.

2nd REPLY: Ah Ha! You admit that it you’re using your own personal interpretation. You have become your own “pope.” I choose the Catholic Church as Christ gave it the authority, not myself. Since you choose yourself, then you’re trusting in yourself, not in Christ alone.

You stated: Now for those verses:

Eph. 1:13-14. Yes it does mean you can’t lose your salvation. Why else would Paul say, “sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession…”? The Holy Spirit is making a promise that he will seal us with himself until Jesus Christ comes to redeem our bodies forever. You do believe the Holy Spirit can keep his promises, right? I don’t see Paul adding any conditions to this in these verses, do you?

MY REPLY: You have made a definition of sealed that doesn’t exist. It means an impression made, or imprint to prove authenticity or to secure something.

This verse can mean both. You have been imprinted and authenticated and I already said in my last email that this verse means, “You’re even guaranteed salvation by the promise of the Holy Spirit by which you’re sealed.”

Where do you get that sealed can’t be broken or taken away? This is the question.

When you can vegetables, you seal in the freshness by sealing it with a top plate and heat. It is good UNTIL you break it.

When you do plumbing, you seal the fixtures, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be broken or removed.

Even the Book of the Apocalypse uses the word showing that it does not imply a forever. “and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years were ended. After that he must be loosed for a little while.” (Ap 20:3)

You have already admitted that you have a free will. This means that as long as you remain abiding in Christ through your own free choosing, then you are sealed with the Holy Ghost. However, you can freely choose not to abide and break the seal.

So, yes, the Holy Spirit keeps his promises, He won’t break the seal, but YOU CAN IF YOU FREELY CHOOSE.

You’re entire theology is based on this one verse and you have completely misunderstood the basic understanding of the word sealed.

Debbie: Where do you get that mere man can break God’s seal? And if the Holy Spirit IS the seal of God, how can you break him? I believe we can’t. Believers are God’s “purchased possession.” Past tense: purchased. We’re bought with a price and God will redeem his merchandise.

2nd REPLY: I get it from the passages that I cited. The Holy Spirit doesn’t force salvation on someone who doesn’t want it. I have no problem with a past tense, but the question is the future. If I purchased a dog from the pound, he is mine, too, but he’s not going to live in my home if he runs away and gets lost, nor will he live in my home if he bites me and continues to bite me.

You stated: 1 Cor. 15:1-2. Paul is simply reminding believers of what he preached to them and by what they are saved, the fact that Christ died for our sins and rose again. “If ye keep in memory” just means “if you remember.” Nothing scary here. If they don’t believe that, they’ve believed in vain.

MY REPLY: Sorry, but “if” means “on the condition that” which makes sense of the words believing in vain. In other words, you can believe and be saved, but if you stop believing and holding fast the faith, then your past belief and salvation is of no use to you now. You’re right, nothing scary as long as you love and maintain the faith.

Debbie: “If” can also be used in the sense of a reminder; I. e., “If you’re 18 now, start acting like it!”

2nd REPLY: My dictionary doesn’t give me this in the way that it is used here. Why does Paul use “if” when it is already presumed?

You stated: James 2:24: Not by Faith alone. Here’s a perfect example of Israel’s kingdom gospel. they weren’t and won’t be in the future saved by faith alone like we are. Works played an integral part in their gospel. The Catholic church thinks she’s Israel so works play an integral part in Catholicism’s gospel, but she is sincerely, tragically mistaken.

MY REPLY: Nowhere does the Gospel teach a “Faith Alone.” It comes exclusively from Martin Luther the ex-Catholic. Be that as it may, the Epistle of James was to the Body of Christ as it has always been known as the “Catholic or Universal Letter.” It is true the Catholic Church is the New Israel under the New Covenant but not the Old. I explain this in my book.

Debbie: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Romans 3:28. Can’t be said plainer than that. Of course, your Council of Trent condemns the plain words of scripture in regard to justification.

2nd REPLY: Deeds of the law are not the same as Works of Love. Romans is speaking about the former not the latter. I have no problem with saying that man is justified by faith, I also would have no problem with saying man is justified by works, but never with alone coming after either faith or works.

Debbie: The Epistle of James is addressed, not to the Body of Christ, but to the “ten tribes which are scattered abroad.” That’s Israel. The epistles of Hebrews thru Revelation were inspired and written for use in the age to come “the tribulation” although they had some relevance to the time they were written, of course. The remnant will need some basic doctrine to navigate the time of Jacob’s trouble, the 70th week of Daniel.

2nd REPLY: James was addressing the Body of Christ. Where do you get that he isn’t? But even if he isn’t then by your interpretation it would still be incorrect.

You stated: 1 John 5:16. As I explained earlier, the “sin unto death” is taking the mark of the beast during the tribulation. That act will spell the end of the hope of salvation for any who take it, for whatever reason. That’s why John says don’t bother to pray for it.

MY REPLY: How can the “sin unto death” be the mark of the beast if he was speaking in the present tense and the mark of the beast is a future event?

Debbie: As I said above, these letters will be present tense to those future believers.

2nd REPLY: Sure, but they aren’t to those living then which would be meaningless to them then.

You stated: There is no sin we can commit today that isn’t already taken care of at the cross.

MY REPLY: Really? What about not accepting Christ? Is that a sin? If so, then He paid for that too…right? Why should we have to accept Christ if He already paid for all sins for all the world? If I follow your logic, everybody should go to heaven even those who take the mark of the beast. Did not Christ die for all sins? Of course, the Catholic Church understands this different than you do.

Debbie: God considers accepting or rejecting Christ a decision, not a sin.

2nd REPLY: You didn’t answer the question. Is not accepting Christ a sin? All decisions that you make are either sins or not.

Debbie: The fact that Christ died for the sins of the world is offered only to those who live in this dispensation of the grace of God. We are saved by believing that. However, God deals differently with the nation of Israel -when her program is in force, which it isn’t right now “in that he will apply that redemption to their account IF they have faith in him and prove that faith by doing the works he requires during the dispensation in which they live. Israel was and will be in the future still working out the curses of Leviticus 26 and so will not be given a free pass. We were never under that specific curse, although God did cast away the Gentile nations when he began dealing with the world through Israel. Now that curse is broken and the middle wall of partition is broken down so that we may be saved by coming directly to God and telling him we believe that his Son, Jesus Christ, paid the penalty for our sins in our stead.

2nd REPLY: You completely avoided my questions…

You stated: There’s no need for repentance or asking forgiveness from God; it’s already forgiven. We should thank him instead. But Israel will come back under law for that final installment of the Leviticus 26 curses. Don’t take the mark is law. In Genesis 3, don’t eat the fruit was law, too. That’s Israel’s earthly law program. We’re under grace.

MY REPLY: What difference does it make if Christ died for all men taking away all sins?

Debbie: That would be covered by my previous answer detailing Israel’s courses of punishment they must endure before being given their promised earthly kingdom.

2nd REPLY: Punishments for what? Didn’t Christ die for all their sins too?

You stated: 1 Cor. 9:27. Paul subdued his body so as not to be disqualified…for a crown or reward at the Bema. Not disqualified for salvation. No one deserves salvation, so how can anyone be disqualified for something they’re not qualified for in the first place…except in Jesus Christ?

MY REPLY: Paul’s words were in Greek “reprobate.” The word is used 8 times in the NT and means becoming apostate or losing faith. Disqualified or rejected is not the accurate translation but are given in translation since it is poetic way of saying being a reprobate will disqualify one from salvation. To answer your question; it is true no one deserves salvation, but when saved which makes one qualified then you can be disqualified or lose salvation. It is that simple.

Debbie: Prove from scripture that Paul believes he can lose his salvation by his actions. He never says it in so many words. Even though he lamented that the good he would do, he didn’t do, he never questioned whether he would be in heaven with Christ. “to live is Christ; to die is gain.”

2nd REPLY: I just proved it. He said it, here. What else do you want?

You stated: Romans 11:22-23. God’s mercy and long-suffering continues so we “continue in his kindness,” but someday that kindness will end and judgment will begin and the day of God’s wrath will come. We’ll be “cut off” by the rapture and any chance to be saved by grace thru faith alone for those left behind will also be cut off.

MY REPLY: We’ll be “cut off” by the rapture??? Sorry, the “cut off” is in reference to those who did not continue in his kindness.

Debbie: This age of grace is God’s kindness to the world. This world will not always continue in God’s kindness. He will stop it with our rapture and then start Israel’s prophetic time clock with all of its attendant wrath and judgment to follow.

2nd REPLY: The Rapture is a man-made myth.

You stated: Hebrews 3:12-14; 6:4-6; 10:26-29. The letter to the Hebrews is to the Hebrews! Jews. Israel when her program resumes following our departure. Israel will need to believe that Jesus is their promised Messiah and that he still lives and intercedes for them as their high priest, and that he’s coming back to deliver them from their enemies. If they want to enter the promised kingdom, they have to remain faithful, never turning back, and keep themselves pure and unspotted from the evil world system of the antichrist. It will be a perilous time for Israel, but it has nothing to do with the Body of Christ saved by grace, for we are “not appointed unto wrath” and “delivered from the wrath to come” by Jesus Christ.

MY REPLY: Your explanation makes no sense. Jews who become partakers of the Holy Ghost, taste salvation, which means they become part of the Body of Christ, could possible lose it, but you cannot lose it? These verses already presume that once anybody Jew or Gentile becomes partakers of the Holy Ghost tasting salvation, they are under God’s grace like everybody else. I fail to see how you think that your interpretation is even logical. In all your replies, you pick and choose what you want the Bible verses to mean and to whom they belong so as to fit into your theology. As a Catholic, I don’t have to do that. It works just fine.

Debbie: Hebrews is a letter to Israel when their program resumes after the rapture. The dispensation of grace will be over and their final installment of punishment will begin. The Body of Christ will have been raptured to heaven and cannot be added to any more; the “fulness of the Gentiles” will have come in. (Rom. 11:25). The Covenant nation of Israel is in view during this time and whether the true Jews qualify for it.

2nd REPLY: You didn’t address my points.

You stated: As a nation, Israel failed her first test, which was Christ’s appearance on earth as their messiah. The tests will just keeping getting harder and harder when their program resumes and now they truly have to prove themselves to God in order for him to accept them as a bride for his Son. (Today, we’re not the Bride of Christ…we’re his Body!)

MY REPLY: Sorry, but the Jews can never under any circumstances be accepted as a bride unless they accept Christ. Once they accept Him they are under grace like everybody else. AND yes, we are the Bride of Christ which makes us His Body, not the other way around. (Eph 5:22-33)

Debbie: Sorry, I don’t agree.

You stated: John 15:6. “If a man does not abide in me, etc.” It was Israel’s responsibility to “abide in Christ” by remaining faithful and doing the required works (sell all; be water baptized, etc.). We’re supernaturally sealed into Christ by the Holy Spirit, so it’s not up to us to abide in him; it’s the Holy Spirit that keeps us sealed into him, no matter what we do.

MY REPLY: Israel that rejects Christ does not and has never abided in Christ. When they accept Him, they also become sealed with the Holy Ghost. By stating, “no matter what we do” you are saying that you have no free will and become something like a puppet or robot of Christ. Again, the Holy Spirit keeps us sealed into Him provided we continue in faith and works which is how we show our love in, through, and to Christ. If we ever choose not to love Christ, then we break or remove that seal. I already explained this above. The Holy Spirit does not force you to love.

Debbie: We have free will but we do not have power that supersedes that of the Holy Spirit. He doesn’t force you to do anything, but he does keep you sealed for all eternity when you truly trust Christ.

2nd REPLY: If he keeps you sealed in the way that you mean it, then you have no free will. You’re just that puppet or robot.

You stated: Two different gospels. One law; the other grace. I’ll take grace, thank you very much! I’ll take the gift of God that doesn’t depend on me, please. Why don’t people realize how fortunate we are to be living in the dispensation of the GRACE of God (Eph. 3:2) and not back in Israel’s program? Beats me!

What about you?


MY REPLY: There is no true gospel of law. There was an old covenant of law but it was fulfilled in Christ who gave us the only Gospel of the New Covenant. I’ve taken that gospel of grace. Since I accepted it, then the accepting the gift depended on me to accept it. Grace is a free gift, but you must accept it and continue to accept it every moment of your life. It is not and never has been a one-time act. Israel’s program was fulfilling the Mosaic Laws to the letter.

Christ’s program is to Love Always. This is done by Faith and works.

I show love to my wife by believing, trusting, listening, and doing things for her. Love must be proven by this showing. I could always stop loving my wife if I so chose out of selfishness. Then, I would stop believing, trusting, listening, and doing things for her. People don’t do these things if they hate someone.

If you love Jesus then prove it. He knows your heart but if you don’t continue in faith and works of love, then He knows that you don’t really love Him.

The Catholic Church is the WAY.

Debbie: Good luck with that, Steve.

2nd REPLY: Well, I’ve accepted Christ, so I’m good even by your self-made theology.

Any other way, is another gospel.

This is why history is so important. Without it, you wouldn’t even have the Bible, which by the way, was given and affirmed by the Catholic Church in 380 AD. It was preserved by the Irish monks who copied it.

Debbie: The manuscripts favored by the Catholic Church (and its predecessors) subtly do teach adding works and merit to faith. The true words of God were preserved for us and re-copied by true Christians and are to be found in modern English in the Authorized King James Version. The Reformers recognized that and so do I.

2nd REPLY: You got me laughing here. KJV borrowed from the Catholic Douay. And you’re right, they were copied by true Christians which were those Catholic Irish monks.

Debbie: “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.” (2 Cor. 2:17).

MY REPLY: We are told to hold fast to the faith that was delivered from the beginning and calls to mind the warning of St. Paul, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8-9)

Debbie: “another gospel, which is not another.” I believe that this means the gospel in question is not another unlike the real one, but is one like it enough that some may fall for it. And that is, Israel’s kingdom gospel, now set aside, which cannot save anyone today because it adds works to faith.

MY REPLY: Christ said, “The path to destruction is a wide one and many are those who take it, but the path to paradise is a narrow one and few who even find it.” We may live in a confusing world but the narrow path can be found for Christ would not have left us without being able to find it.

Debbie: And look how huge the Catholic Church has always been! And how few there are that believe in rightly dividing the scriptures between Israel and the Church today! Seems like I’m on the narrow path.

2nd REPLY: The Catholic Church was huge, not anymore. But even when it was, most all Catholics go to hell anyway because they didn’t and don’t live their Catholic Faith. The path is the faith and you must live it. It is narrow by way of the rest of the world. You’re path is not narrow at all. All you have to do is accept Christ once which comes from your self-made theology. That is as about as wide as it gets.

I submit the Catholic Faith is that path for it is the only faith that can be found throughout the entire history of Christianity.

All the Bible interpretations in the world would mean nothing to me, unless you can show me that they existed (or at least didn’t go against a universal one) in every generation.

Debbie: One constant throughout history is the presence of Satan and his “ministers of righteousness.” It was in his best interest to promote a defunct gospel of salvation at the outset of this grace age to deceive people into thinking they’re on the road to salvation when they’re not.

2ND REPLY: Satan doesn’t have ministers of righteousness, only demons to deceive to which I agree with you on the rest. Anything not Catholic is that deception of Satan. And I repeat, if you can’t show me that gospel of yours throughout history, then I one would have to conclude that it did not come from God but man.

Debbie: I bet he’s going to entice people during the tribulation to come to believe they’re saved by grace through faith in Christ alone when Israel’s gospel of the kingdom with its attendant works is the gospel that saves! I was a Catholic and I know that the popes and priests, as well as the laity, have a long history of the most filthy hedonism imaginable.

2ND REPLY: I agree with you about the most filthy hedonistic popes, priests and laity. Only proves my point. Satan attacks the true Faith

Debbie: I see very little evidence of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church.

2ND REPLY: This is why my website and books are so important. You aren’t seeing the Catholic Church at all and to which the Holy Spirit doesn’t exist. The real Catholic Church is filled with God, the Holy Spirit. You shouldn’t judge the Judas’ of the Church nor a misrepresentation of the Gospel of Christ.

Debbie: The people are superstitious, use images and idols, and are constantly patting themselves on the back for participating in all the empty rituals the Catholic church has to offer.

2ND REPLY: The Catholic Church has no empty rituals! Christ didn’t give us empty rituals.

Debbie: Pedophilia abounds in unregenerate priests of all ages. I would never, ever go back. Sorry.

2ND REPLY: Again, you judge Christ based on Judas and who would have ever accepted Christ if they judged Him based on Judas? The Catholic Church should not be judged based on the Judas’s of the Faith. I TRULY HOPE YOU WILL COME BACK, BUT NOT THE VATICAN 2 CHURCH. IT’S NOT IT!

If that can’t be done, then you have already subverted your own arguments. It means they are man-made.

Debbie: It’s the RCC that’s man-made. I follow the Bible, rightly divided. (2 Tim. 2:15).

In his grace,

2ND REPLY: The Bible is rightly divided by Old and New Testaments only. The RCC is God/man-made since it was Christ who made it by the working of the Holy Ghost.

I truly think that you have missed the points that I’ve made. The Gospel that I have written about is LOVE. It’s all about love and I don’t see that coming from the gospel that you have presented. I don’t even see the love of Christ in the way and reason for which you accept Him. You have already said that you can reject Christ but the Holy Spirit will still bring you to salvation. Where’s the love?

For the Catholic Faith, I love Jesus! I show him my love by obeying Him and all lawful authorities and the commandments. I show Him my love by living out the Catholic Faith no matter how difficult or inconvenient it may be. I show Him my love through Faith and Works; works of Love as the works of mercy. Do you remember the works of mercy when you were a Catholic? By loving Him first and my neighbor second.

I want to go to Heaven because I love God!

This is what the Catholic Church teaches, not just some one-time acceptance of Christ and that’s it, as I would go to Heaven even if I later rejected Him. This doesn’t make any sense.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is that of Love of God and then of neighbor. If you love Christ, you will obey Him and all those of lawful authority. You can’t love Christ and be disobedient to His laws while rejecting His teachings and sacraments.

Acceptance of Christ is only as good as your willingness to show Him your love through faith and works.

Debbie: Hi, Steve,

It looks like you and I are at pretty much of an impasse what with both of us so entrenched in our opinions.  I’m going to ask for leave to bow out at this point because it’s doing no good to get so bogged down in the different arguments.

Read Full Post »