Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June, 2013

It finally happened. Brother Peter Dimond and I debated an issue concerning Baptism of Desire. It was a lot of fun. I love it when I’m called a “total liar” and “Heretic” and that I’m “possessed by the Devil” over and over again for defending my Catholic Faith and good bishops and priests who do the same. 

The reason for the debate to happen so soon was due to an email exchange which began with me writing to Bro. Peter, “Quite frankly, I thought your debates were good. I wish you could have capitalized on Sungenis on a few points, but that’s okay. Hindsight is 20/20. I actually like you and Sungenis.” 

Bro. Peter replied Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:49:49 -0400 (EDT)

To your comment, Sungenis’ position was clearly exposed and refuted.  I don’t need your pointers on that.  Also, it’s simply demonic for you to actually give credit to Sungenis for bringing you out of the Novus Ordo Church, when he defends the New Mass, Vatican II, etc. 

Would you even say that Sungenis, who obstinately defends Vatican II and the antipopes as Catholic, is a heretic?

 

I responded Thu, Jun 27, 2013 11:18 PM

 

Dear Bro. Peter,

I didn’t give you any pointers. I said that I wish you “could have capitalized on Sungenis on a few points.” That’s not a pointer. A pointer would have been to tell you how you could have done it. I didn’t do that. I simply told you what I would have like to have seen. You don’t have to agree with me.

I do give credit to Sungenis because before anyone else, he showed me the first problems with Rome such as the Assisi Events and rightly criticized them. This woke me up. However, Sungenis doesn’t follow through with the implications with what he criticizes. In personal emails, I saw that he couldn’t answer certain things which led me to believe that things were more serious. Then I looked deeper and that’s when I discovered you, Cekada, Lane, etc. To call it demonic for me to give credit to Sungenis misses the point. 

I like Sungenis for the good that he does, as I like you for the good that you do. I don’t like the fact that Sungenis defends Vat2 and the antipopes as Catholic. I believe his soul is in great peril if he doesn’t own up to the truth, but I’m not God. Only God judges his interior heart, but on the objective level he’s terribly wrong, and yes a heretic if he really believes Vat2.

I like you for the great work in exposing Rome. I don’t like how you judge the interior hearts and intentions of people. I don’t like how you speak to others like the comment you made on my blog. I also don’t like how you misrepresent and reject BOD/BOB. I believe your soul is in great peril. That’s why I’m going to debate you. For the sake of your soul and those who believe like you on this point.

 I can’t wait. Please let me know when you’re ready.

 Sincerely,

Steven

 

Bro. Peter came back Thu, 27 Jun 2013 23:42:25 -0400 (EDT)

Notice how you misrepresent what I said.  I didn’t say you gave me any pointers. I said I don’t need your pointers. Your response is thus a misrepresentation of what I said.

Second, you have no problem with the many lies that other posters on your site spread about us, but when we respond you have a problem with it. That’s hypocrisy.

You say my soul is in peril.  Well, I tell you with certainty that your soul is on the road to Hell.  I will let you know as we get closer to the first debate.

  

I replied Fri, Jun 28, 2013 12:17 AM

 

You implied that I gave you pointers or else you wouldn’t have said it. Thus, I didn’t misrepresent you.

Secondly, I didn’t say anything about the other posters, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a problem with them. You don’t know if I let others know personally how I feel about what they say about you. To say,”hypocrisy” implies that you have made a judgment about me before getting all the whole facts. You jump to conclusions and like I said, you judge intentions, hearts, and things only God knows. Your email proves me right, thank you very much.

 

Bro. Peter replied Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:33:15 -0400 (EDT)

No, you are wrong.  Do you want to have the first debate right now?  If you stick to the topic, rather than throw in other objections, we can have the first debate right now.

 

My reply Fri, Jun 28, 2013 12:45 AM

What are you talking about, topic and other objections? You made statements and you have been shown to be wrong on very simple points. Can you not admit that you have rushed to judgment?

What debate are you wanting right now?

  

Bro. Peter Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:51:26 -0400 (EDT)

Right now, we can debate the specific topic of whether your priests believe that souls can be saved in false religions.  That will be the topic; but if you stray from it in this debate, that will be inadmissible.

 

I wrote Fri, Jun 28, 2013 12:57 AM

You just now, about a minute ago, lied about me on my blog saying that I believe souls can be saved in false religions. I’ve made it abundantly clear to youthat no one can be saved in false religions.

Will you take it back what you said on my blog and admit that you have misrepresented me? 

Steven

 

Bro. Peter responded Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:59:06 -0400 (EDT)

I’ll prove that’s what you believe in the debate.  Let’s debate.

I wrote Fri, Jun 28, 2013 01:00 AM

Do you want to go first or me?

I gave him my phone number and he called me at 1:22 AM

 

THE DEBATE

(really just a phone discussion as I would have with a friend…hardly a real debate)

 

If the above email exchange was any indication how this debate was going to go, you knew it wasn’t going to be pretty. However, in my arrogance and vanity (the sin I struggle with), I wanted to prove that I’m willing to go the distance even though I work 15 hour days with very little sleep, not to mention that I’m a father of 3. In my mind, I told myself to be humble and patient as I can regardless how often he twists my words or attacks me with liar, demonic this or that, etc. Hopefully, people can hear in my voice that I’m not a bully or anything else that is thought of me. I’m a person who will talk, listen, and be kind when the other party is not.

First of all, the recording has Br. Peter booming loud and strong and I sound like I’m deep in a cave. This is great advantage to him for debate purposes. He’s overpowering what I’m saying at times.

As you will hear, Bro. Peter had no intention of listening or understanding what I’m saying. I must defend Bp McKenna and other priests for the statements they have made. For instance, It is possible that a member of the Jewish Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.’

I have to say that supernatural life is heretical as it is stated if it means life of grace. Therefore, I have to admit to Bro. Peter that it’s heretical if that is what is meant.

Is that what is meant in the statement? I don’t think so. I would give the benefit of the doubt that Fr. Fahey and Bp. McKenna mean a life well intentioned rather than a life of grace. Of course, Bro. Peter will not hear any of it. I’m trying to be sincere in the debate, but Bro. Peter thought that I was just lying and being dishonest about it.

NOTICE THAT HE DOESN’T SAY “LIFE OF GRACE” but rather “SUPERNATURAL LIFE WHICH GOD WISHES TO SEE IN EVERY SOUL.” Bro. Peter translates the statement to mean Life a Grace. At 15:15 into the debate, Bro. Peter actually LIES when he says that Fr. Denis says, “A Jew who rejects Christ can have a state of grace.” THAT’S NOT WHAT Fr. Denis stated, but rather “supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul.” BRO. PETER LIED AND MISLEAD ME to think that’s what Bp. McKenna fully agrees with. He called me the liar, yet it was Bro. Peter who did the lying. That lie by Bro. Peter bugged me all night, because I never saw a quote by Fr. Denis or McKenna that stated what Bro. Peter stated. Now I know the truth about what was really said. Bro. Peter is the liar.

I did admit that I would admit defeat in the debate “if” they really said and mean it the way Bro. Peter thinks. But it really doesn’t matter what any of us hold, because Bro. Peter doesn’t believe that God can save a person at death in a mystery that we don’t understand. No matter what is meant, our position is heretical because Bro. Peter holds that BOD is heretical. Keep this in mind when you listen. 

The bottom line of the debate is this: Anyone who at death God wishes to be saved will enlighten that person with the true Faith and repentance. I repeated it several times to make sure that point was understood no matter how bad Bro. Peter would attempt to twist my position. Baptism of desire is a type of conversion at the moment of death, but Bro. Peter said conversion at death is not the issue because we all believe that people who convert at death will be saved. The problem is the conversion that Bp. McKenna, etc. and myself hold is a conversion that Bro. Peter rejects is possible. IT’S THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE.

Regardless if McKenna and the others use phrases that could mislead, they understand BOD as I just explained.

I was asked if the invincibly ignorant can be saved. I’ve explained over and over that invincible ignorance doesn’t save. Those who are invincibly ignorant must be given grace at death of repentance and infusion of the true Faith.

So if I say the invincible ignorant can be saved, Bro. Peter could say that I believe that you don’t need to know Christ to be saved. I was careful with my words. It’s all a matter of perspective. I can say the invincible ignorant can be saved and not be saved and both statements be true. The former in the sense that the can be saved in a future tense by given the grace to know better, and the latter in the sense they can’t be saved at death. However, I kept it to the point.

The whole debate is about perspective, but Bro. Peter only wants me to say what he wants me to say to win a debate. He simply wouldn’t hear that BOD is a type of conversion at death. 

We spoke about judging in the internal forum. We can say that someone is not in grace if that person is not baptized which is part of the internal forum, but we can’t judge the intentions of one’s heart. Bro. Peter tried hard to make me look like I’m contradicting myself with the example of Christopher Hitchens.

I’ll let you listen and be the judge whether I was really lying and contradicting myself. If so, please let me know where specifically.

Bro. Peter Dimond said he would continue on with another debate with me soon. I suggest the next debate to be on the words of the popes themselves. Bro. Peter calls me a heretic for believing that man can be saved without water baptism. I’ll like to turn the debate around and let him answer the numerous teachings from popes that teach precisely to what I hold to which he rejects. Are these pope not heretics in his eyes? It’s the same debate but in reverse.

We’ll see if Bro. Peter Dimond can use the same logic against me as he does with the popes that say or imply what I said over and over in the first debate. 

Click below to hear the debate:

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/wma/steve_deb.WMA

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Sun, Jun 23, 2013 11:39 PM, Bro Peter Dimond wrote to Justin and me a lengthy letter that I’m only wanting to make a name for myself so that I can make money from books (which has quotes and material taken from them) and get the glory.

I wrote back Mon, Jun 24, 2013 02:04 AM and accepted their challenge on their terms for Justin’s sake and to prove I’m not in this for money or glory. I also admitted that I used many quotes from their materials and that they were instrumental in my seeing the apostasy in the beginning along with Dr. Sungenis, Dr. Coomaraswamy, John Lane, John Daly, and Hutton Gibson.

Let me clear something up.

I’m not doing this thing (books and website) for money or glory.

I’m interested in the truth!

Most of all the quotes and such that I have used come from those like the Dimond brothers who have made public the information. Much of it has been taken from them. Much of it was taken from Fr. Cekada, CMRI and others, too. I take no credit for any of this. I have only borrowed from others, check up the sources, compiled the info, and placed it a format that I think is easier to understand.

Perhaps the only arguments I’ve come up with on my own are the historic precedences, the counter-arguments against Feeneyism, and whatever happens in email exchanges.

If I appear prideful or vain, I don’t mean it that way even if those sinful conditions occupy my life which they do. Anytime you’re writing or doing something in the public eye, those things will creep into your soul and it’s terrible! We should all strive to be humble and remember that every good thing comes from God.

Therefore, I’m accepting the challenge since the only thing that matters is the truth…not my name. I really am a nobody.

Read Full Post »

Brother Peter Dimond of The Most Holy Family Monastery emailed me and Justin (a commenter on my website) on Sat, Jun 22, 2013 06:34 AM. I replied at Sun, Jun 23, 2013 01:25 AM below…

Dear Bro. Peter,

I’ve decided to reply to your debate challenge letter and post it on my website. I will post all replies on my website. My replies below…

This is Bro. Peter Dimond to Steve Speray.  I would be interested in debating you in a debate or series of debates on the topic of salvation & ‘baptism of desire.’ 

The conditions would be the following:

– Even if the debate gets heated and condemnations are lodged, you cannot give out your website or mention your books during the debate.

SPERAY: I see no reason to concede to this condition. If you want to debate me, then you will man-up and establish who it is you’re debating by giving a brief description of who I am, what I hold, and where I explain it. 

-Even if the debate gets heated and condemnations are lodged, you cannot give out your full name during the debate (for then people can find your website); however, if at any point we choose to give out your full name before, during, or after the debate, we can do so.  You will go by Steve.  Frankly, these are quite reasonable since almost no one looks at your website and many people look at ours.  Debating you gives you an opportunity you would otherwise never have.

SPERAY: So let me get this straight. You want me to wear a paper bag over my head and disguise my voice (so to speak), and this gives me an opportunity for exposure, seriously? You don’t want my name, website, and books to be known in a debate. This indicates to me that you’re not interested in the full truth to be known, but that you’re only interested in an argument for argument’s sake. It also sounds pretty cowardly on your part, not to mention arrogant. So if I don’t bow down to your conditions by keeping quiet about who I am, you won’t debate me? I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous! My website may be small compared to yours, but I’ve taken on Catholic Answers several times. I’ve informally debated Rev. Brian Harrison through email several times. You only called him on the phone unexpectedly and asked him whether he can answer the “Pastors in the Church of Christ” question AFTER my big website exchange with him on that very question. I’ve taken on many big names and I’m not afraid of taking on you. I’ll be more than happy to debate you, but my full name, website, and books will be established at the top of the debate. That’s the only reasonable and noble condition I demand, other than the common courtesy of equal speaking time. 

-If, out of frustration, you attempt to bring up irrelevant issues or topics that are separate from the salvation/baptism debate, as part of an attempt to malign us or divert from the issues – a tactic people can use to corrupt a recording when they are losing a debate – they will not be included as part of the debate.

SPERAY: You mean things like going after you for worshiping with heretics in masses “una cum” Roman apostates? Don’t worry. I would keep it the topic. However, I might address points relative to the discussion that you’ve made in the past that are blatantly false.

(Within a few days after the debate, we will provide you with a copy of the recording unless you are recording it yourself.  Other than that, we have no obligations to you with respect to the recording and we have full freedom to distribute the recording or recordings if we so choose.)

SPERAY: I don’t fully agree. I want you to agree that the recordings will indeed be distributed, placed on YouTube, but first, you will advertise to your audience that you will debate me on the subject sometime in the future.

In charity I must tell you that your position is without question false and opposed to Catholic teaching, as will be demonstrated.

SPERAY: According to your position (at least as I have understood it) my position is heretical. Is that correct? Rejecting Baptism of Desire is not a heresy per se since it’s not a dogma, but it’s still false and opposed to Catholic teaching. So right back at you!

Since the topic we disagree about is vast, many areas cannot be covered in sufficient depth in one debate. It would simply be too long. 

SPERAY: Perhaps, but I’m not sure if it’s all that vast. It’s quite simple really. It’s only a vast subject when you try to malign the teaching of BOD, which you have done numerous times. While you’ve done great work on sedevacantism, I think you have done a great disservice to the doctrine of BOD/BOB.

Therefore, I desire to do a series of separate, mini-debates.  This will enable us to look more carefully at particular claims/topics within the BOD/salvation issue.  Also, since we are involved with many things at this time, these debates will be done on my schedule and at my convenience, with the first debate hopefully in the upcoming weeks, and obviously I would make sure you are free on the day we do it. 

SPERAY: That’s fair enough.

The first topic or mini-debate I propose concerns a claim you’ve repeated many times: that the priests you support or regard as Catholic (e.g., Bishop Mckenna, CMRI, etc.) don’t hold that souls can be saved in false religions, that Muslims, Jews, etc. can be saved,  You have made this claim numerous times. 

SPERAY: This is interesting especially when I have the endorsement of my book by Bishop McKenna where I give the explanation. I even explain it on my website. Have you not read it? Yet, I can’t bring up this fact, since you don’t want my website and books to be known.

I had lunch with Bishop McKenna in June 2011, and we spoke briefly about your comments against him on this very issue. I’ve read your article here: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/McKenna_on_baptism_of_desire.php

I’d be happy to explain this in a debate. It’s simple really, but apparently you haven’t tried to understand what it means and how it applies. However, I think the words of Bishop McKenna, CMRI, etc. are a secondary issue. I propose the first topic to be central to the issue such as the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, the post-Trent popes, and all the implications of this Catechism which are found in the laws of the Church, other catechisms, etc.

 Let’s debate it as part of the first mini-debate, and see if you are willing to stand by that claim. 

SPERAY: I do stand by that claim since BOD would be meaningless to them if it were untrue.

This debate can perhaps be fifteen or twenty minutes, but it should be focused on that topic; and then we can move on to other aspects of the BOD/salvation issue and various arguments.  It’s crucial to debate the aforementioned topic at the beginning, so that it’s clear where your side really stands on that issue.

SPERAY: The foundation of the sides should be noted at the beginning. Perhaps you’ll need 10 minutes or so explaining why Baptism of Desire is false, and I’ll explain why it’s not. It’s crucial to debate the central issues first rather than what a bishop meant with this or that statement. That will become clear with discussing the Roman Catechism.

An idea for the next debate after that would be: 1) you pick one argument/quote/authority/topic you think proves that BOD is Catholic teaching – we cross examine each other on it; and then I bring up one argument/quote/authority/topic which I believe disproves BOD – and we cross examine each on it.  That debate would then be limited to those two arguments, enabling us to discuss each of our arguments/claims more carefully, rather than throwing them out there quickly and in passing among a dozen or more claims.

SPERAY: I’d be surprised if we get to a second debate after discussing the Roman Catechism and its implications. I think it’s over right here. However, there are other things I’d like to discuss on the subject based on things you’ve stated in the past.

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond 

Sincerely,

Steven Speray

Read Full Post »

After months of failed promises, on May 31, Catholic Answers Live finally did a 2-hour show on “radical traditionalism” with Patrick Coffin as host, and Tim Staples as guest speaker.

During the first hour, Staples got some of the facts wrong. For instance, Staples said Archbishop Lefebvre signed all sixteen documents of Vatican II. 

In fact, Lefebvre refused to sign Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes and spoke out against them (The Spotlight, 1988 interview with Lefebvre.)

If you can’t get simple facts straight, then you have to wonder how your theological arguments can be trusted. Over the years, I’ve spent countless hours in email exchanges with Tim Staples dealing directly with his accusations, yet he continues to misrepresent sedevacantism over and over on the airwaves.

About 38 minutes into the program, Staples used his old straw-man argument against sedevacantism. In brief, it goes like this: Vatican I declared that Peter will have perpetual successors. Pope Pius XII legislated that only cardinals can elect a new pope. Sedevacantists believe the cardinal-elect is extinct. Therefore, no future pope is possible and Vatican I’s declaration goes up in smoke, making Christ’s promise fail and the Gates of Hell would prevail against the Church. 

I’ve already given Staples the answer to this argument. You can read the exchange here: Open Letter to Tim Staples of “Catholic Answers” and His Two Replies

This is now the fourth time that I’m aware of since our exchange that Staples has used his argument on the radio after I have thoroughly debunked it using Vatican approved Catholic canonists and historic precedence. This is extremely dishonest! Apparently, Catholic Answers Live has no problems bearing false witness against their neighbors.

Patrick Coffin asked if radical traditionalists could be called “High Church Protestants.” In the past, I wrote Coffin and challenged him to explain how he’s not the real “High Church Protestant” here: A Challenge to Patrick Coffin of “Catholic Answers”

Of course, he never replied.

The rest of the first hour was lot of nothing, along with the second hour until the last 15 minutes of the program. Much to their surprise, Father Anthony Cekada called in and nicely explained how canon law arguments don’t apply to the papacy. Staples tried to use canon 2232 which doesn’t apply to heresy anyway, particularly to the pope. The Divine law is never dealt with by Staples, because this law ends the debate with Catholic Answers coming out defeated at their own game. 

Fr. Cekada tried to explain the Frankenchurch heresy only to be interrupted over and over again by Staples, who refuses to listen to anyone who can challenge Catholic Answers.

Staples didn’t answer how heretics and schismatics are part of the Church, because the Frankenchurch heresy taught by Vatican II and the conciliar popes includes heretics and schismatics as part of the Church of Christ. Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII taught otherwise.

Finally, Fr. Cekada was asked how his name is properly pronounced and after Fr. Cekada told them, Coffin and Staples continued to mispronounce it. This shows how Catholic Answers doesn’t really pay attention. If they can’t even get simple things like how to pronounce someone’s name correctly after being told, how can they understand theological arguments? They simply can’t, therefore, they will continue to use silly straw-man arguments and misrepresent the Church’s theology.

Read Full Post »