Archive for the ‘Fundamentalism’ Category

State Street in Chicago in 1903. Picture taken from McMahan Photo Art Gallery & Archive Website. 

The year is 1903. Horse and buggy is the main way of travel. The airplane was just invented in December and could barely fly 15 seconds over a distance of 200 feet. There are no televisions or radios. Electricity and indoor plumbing are extremely rare. Homes won’t have refrigeration for another 10 years. The city of Las Vegas won’t be established for another 2 years and Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma are only territories. The world has not seen the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of Communism. It has not yet seen the two great World Wars. It has not seen the bomb. The rivers, lakes, and oceans are pristine, because there are no plastics and other modern contaminates to pollute the waters. Lastly, the Catholic Church is flourishing around the world and Pope St. Pius X was just elected Pope.

One would think times were pretty innocent and good, all things considering. Not so according to the newly elected pope and saint. He thought the world was going to hell in a hand-basket. He even suggested that we were entering the end of days.

Read carefully these words of Pope St. Pius X:

“We were terrified beyond all else by the disastrous state of human society today. For who can fail to see that society is at the present time, more than in any past age, suffering from a terrible and deep-rooted malady which, developing every day and eating into its inmost being, is dragging it to destruction? You understand, Venerable Brethren, what this disease is – apostasy from God, than which in truth nothing is more allied with ruin, according to the word of the Prophet: ‘For behold they that go far from Thee shall perish’ (Ps. 1xxii., 17). We saw therefore that, in virtue of the ministry of the Pontificate, which was to be entrusted to Us, We must hasten to find a remedy for this great evil, considering as addressed to Us that Divine command: ‘Lo, I have set thee this day over the nations and over kingdoms, to root up, and to pull down, and to waste, and to destroy, and to build, and to plant’ (Jerem. i., 10). But, cognizant of Our weakness, We recoiled in terror from a task as urgent as it is arduous…

When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the ‘Son of Perdition’ of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. ‘He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God’ (II. Thess. ii., 2).

Verily no one of sound mind can doubt the issue of this contest between man and the Most High. Man, abusing his liberty, can violate the right and the majesty of the Creator of the Universe; but the victory will ever be with God – nay, defeat is at hand at the moment when man, under the delusion of his triumph, rises up with most audacity. Of this we are assured in the holy books by God Himself…we must use every means and exert all our energy to bring about the utter disappearance of the enormous and detestable wickedness, so characteristic of our time – the substitution of man for God” (E Supremi).

We should ponder carefully the words of this holy pope and realize that if he saw how bad things were in 1903, what would he say today?

We’ve not seen a true pope in 64 years. We have a hard time figuring out how to explain the difficulty of the Church being virtually wiped off the face of the earth with all the offices vacant and no end in sight. What everybody thinks is the Catholic Church is nothing more than the greatest hypocritical organization of all time, which has been completely united to the world and its standards.

Abominations are viewed as ordinary and praiseworthy aspects of human life. Homosexuality is found as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. “Transgenderism” is everywhere. The Pentagon has recently estimated that over 14,000 military personal identify as transgender. [1] A highly decorated retired US Navy Seal has been identifying as a woman for the past 10 years and is praised for his transition by his fellow Seals. I believe these abominations have feminism as its root.

In 1909, Pope St. Pius X told French Politicians, “Women can never be man’s equal and cannot therefore enjoy equal rights.” [2] This biblical and Catholic teaching is utterly rejected by practically everyone, including traditional Catholics, who will defend voting “conservative” women into high public offices. Who condemns women working in Congress, as prime ministers, judges, police and military officers, etc.? This is one the greatest evils ever and it’s considered good and righteous by virtually everyone.

“Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20).

Catholics are in complete denial of the gravity of our situation. Some Catholics have a delusional belief that we’re actually coming out of this mess as we spiral faster and faster to hell. These people don’t think the great falling away really exists except on paper. It’s something that will always exist in the future. According to Pope Pius XI, the heresies of Protestantism was the beginning of the great apostasy of mankind from the Church. 

Most of us are numb to the immorality in our society and deny they are immoralities at all. Catholics are as immodest as the rest of the world as they participate in the very evils the Church has always condemned. The Church is to be counter-cultural, yet you couldn’t distinguish a Catholic from the common heathen.

We all live and eat in luxury. Not even King Henry VIII lived as good as the average citizen. We complain about everything as we fill our belly’s in a climate controlled environment on nice furniture and in the softest clothing.

We have become so soft and pathetic. Never do we take up the Cross of Christ and accept suffering. Very few Catholics truly dispose themselves to imitate Jesus. We cast suffering aside and labor to be comfortable in all things. We care little for eternal truths, but ardently seek continual indulgence of its honors, riches, and pleasures of every kind. We contemn poverty, mortification, and the Cross of Christ. Most of us think we’re following Jesus although we exert much energy in self-love and no virtues.

How many of us “glory in tribulation knowing that tribulation worketh patience” (Rom. 5:3)?

“Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). Can we say that we truly do, when we can’t even go one night without having a nice supper?

St. Paul wrote to the Romans, “And they who are in the flesh, cannot please God…For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live…For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him” (Roman 8:8,13,16-17).

How many of us suffer with Him by imitating His life of meekness, humility, mortification, and submission to God’s Will in order that we may go to heaven?

Not even the scariest prophecies are as scary as the state of our world today. The great falling away is more devastating than any pope or prophet could have imaged.

I don’t know if the following prophecy by St. Antony of the Desert is authentic, but the accuracy is close.

“Men will surrender to the spirit of the age. They will say that if they had lived in our day, Faith would be simple and easy. But in their day, they will say, things are complex; the Church must be brought up to date and made meaningful to the day’s problems. When the Church and the world are one, then those days are at hand because our Divine Master placed a barrier between His things and the things of the world. A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, ‘You are mad, you are not like us”. [3]

My own Catholic brethren think I’m mad for posting “extremist” and unpopular ideas. Yet, they were commonplace when the world was Catholic. The false prophets of the world have steered Catholics away from Catholic thinking.

We’re more concerned about who’s conservative or liberal, democrat or republican. We care more about the latest ballgame winner or what celebrity is sleeping with who than with the four last things; death, judgment, hell, and heaven. The devil’s bread and circuses keep man aloof. His greatest lies are that most people go to heaven, sin is not that bad, and God is not that severe. 

“And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved” (Matt. 24:11-13).

We’re in a living nightmare. It’s frightening to think just how many will perish for all eternity. Man is oblivious to his path of destruction. Catholics aren’t far from the rest of mankind.  

“But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth” (Apoc. 3:16).

Fr. Leo Haydock explains this Apocalypse verse in his biblical commentary, “A dreadful reprehension, whatever exposition we follow. According to the common interpretation, by the cold are meant those who are guilty of great sins; by the hot, such as are zealous and fervent in piety and the service of God; by the lukewarm or tepid, they who are slothful, negligent, indolent, as to what regards Christian perfection, the practice of virtue, and an exact observance of what regards the service of God. On this account they are many times guilty in the sight of God of great sins, they forfeit the favour and grace of God, fancying themselves good enough and safe, because they live as others commonly do, and are not guilty of many scandalous and shameful crimes, to which they see others addicted. 

The Church and world are one, because lukewarmness is universal.




[1] 14700-Transgender-Troops-.pdf (palmcenter.org)

[2] NYT April 22, 1909

[3] [Disquisition CXIV] Quoted in Voice of Fatima, 23 January 1968

Read Full Post »

Paul VI presiding over the introductory ingress of the Council, flanked by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (left), Cardinal Camerlengo Benedetto Aloisi Masella and Monsignor Enrico Dante (future Cardinal), Papal Master of Ceremonies (right), and two Papal gentlemen.


The Second Vatican Council declared in Lumen Gentium ch2, “15. For several reasons the Church recognizes that it is joined to those who, though baptized and so honored with the Christian name, do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve communion under the successor of St. Peter.”

The council continued in Unitatis Redintegratio: 3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, (19) which the Apostle strongly condemned. (20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church – whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church – do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, (21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. (22)”

This last sentence is false on several levels and sounds much like the fundamental heresy of the Protestant Revolt of the 16th century, once saved, always saved.

Being justified in baptism does not mean one automatically remains justified, nor does it mean one will always remain a member of Christ’s body. Even Scripture tells us so.

“If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth  (John 15: 6).”

To be cast off as a branch, one must first be a member of the tree. This verse implies that a member of Christ can be cut off from Christ. 

“See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again (Rom 11: 22).”

The context is in believing. Has every baptized individual remained believing in our day?  None has fallen away and been cut off? That’s the implication of Vatican 2.

The next problem with Vatican 2’s declaration that “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian” is the fact that if it were true, then no one, not even the Church, would have a right to call such persons heretics, schismatics, or apostates. They could only be called Christians in error or separated brethren.

The Vatican 2 religion is quite aware of this, because you might find the word heresy, schism, or apostasy in their language, but you’ll be hard-pressed to find them officially calling someone a heretic, schismatic, or apostate. If you did, it would only show their hypocrisy and/or ignorance of their own teaching.

Even the Vatican 2 saint Faustina claimed that Jesus identified Protestants as heretics and Eastern Orthodox as Schismatics. In St. Faustina’s Diary, she records Our Lord’s words in 1937, long before Vatican II, for the fifth day of the Divine Mercy Novena: “Today, bring to Me the souls of heretics and schismatics and immerse them in the ocean of My mercy.”

However, the Vatican 2 religion’s Official Novena for Congregational use declared:

It was decided to adopt the designation “separated brethren” in place of heretics and schismatics because of Vatican II’s unambiguous designation concerning the relationship of Christians not in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome in the Body of Christ. The continuous and consistent use of that designation by every Pope since the Council reaffirms that decision.

However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation, those who at present are born into these communities, and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.,span>

Apparently, the Vatican 2 religion didn’t think Our Lord knew how improper it was to call baptized non-Catholics heretics and schismatics, since they have a right to be called Christian.

True popes have been abundantly clear that only Catholics are Christians.

Pope Pius XII declared: “To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth” (Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957).

Pope Leo XIII declared in Satis Cognitum, “5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a hereticthe life of the spirit follows not the amputated member.”

The implication of the Vatican 2 teaching is that the Church was guilty of prohibiting a God-given right of certain individuals to be called Christian, which necessarily means the Church was evil. It also means the Church has been wrong for years.

Vatican 2 is good at accusing the Catholic Church of being evil for prohibiting God-given rights to individuals. It also taught in Dignitatis Humanae that men have a God-given civil right to give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance. [1]

Again, the implication is that the Church was guilty of prohibiting this right to Muslims at the Council of Vienne in 1312. [2] It also means that Martin Luther was right “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit” which was condemned by in Bull Exsurge Domine, June 15, 1520 by Pope Leo X. Not only would it be against the will of the Spirit to burn them, but to call them heretics to begin with. All have a right to be called Christian.

To follow Vatican 2 is to reject the Catholic Faith as it was believed before the council. In other words, Vatican 2 is taking its queues from the Protestant Revolt with its own revolution. The Church was wrong and we’re going to set it right.

So the next time a pseudo-Catholic calls you a heretic, tell them their magisterium tells you we have a right to be called Christian. Get with your program or get out of your religion.


[1] Dignitatis Humanae # 4: “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.”

[2] Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “It is an insult to the holy nameand a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens (i.e., The followers of Islam, also called Muslims) live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful.      These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine maje sty.  We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands.  We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”


Read Full Post »

Many Protestants believe in a once-saved-always-saved doctrine. They believe a true Christian can never lose his salvation. They will point to verses such as Heb. 10:14:

For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Rom: 8:38-39:

For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

and John 10:28:

And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand.

We can answer the Hebrews quote by saying that the sacrifice of Christ does prefect forever those that are sanctified provided we never sin again. Each time we sin, we turn to Christ and His sacrifice, which once again perfects us forever unless we sin again. A few verses later, we are told that Christians can lose salvation.

We answer the Romans quote by noting that it’s true that no one and no thing can make us cease or even hinder our love for Christ. However, we can choose by our own free will to stop loving Christ. God doesn’t make us love Him.

We answer the St. John quote by noting that God is speaking about His elect of whom only He knows. We don’t know who belongs in the group. I’m sure many damned individuals believed themselves to be part of the elect. Even St. Paul was not sure for he told us in I Cor. 9:27:

But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.

These proof-text Bible verses do not support eternal security for all Christians. The fact remains that true Christians can lose their salvation as the Bible clearly tells us.

He who endures to the end will be saved. (Matt. 24:13, Mark 13:13, James 1:12, Matt. 10:22)

We must endure to the end or else we will not be saved.

John 15: 6:

If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth.

To be cast off as a branch, one must first be a member of the tree. This verse implies that a member of Christ can be cut off to be burned.

Rom 11: 22-23:

See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

Again, to be cut off implies that one was a member first. Thus, salvation can be lost.

I Cor. 6: 9-11:

Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.

St. Paul is warning those who have been sanctified and justified that they could be deceived and go back to their old ways for such people will not be saved. Period!

I Cor. 15: 1-2:

Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand; By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.

St. Paul qualifies his teaching with an “if” or else.

Heb. 3:12-14:

Take heed, brethren, lest perhaps there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, to depart from the living God. But exhort one another every day, whilst it is called to day, that none of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ: yet so, if we hold the beginning of his substance firm unto the end.

This is another warning to those in Christ that they could possibly lose their salvation.

Heb. 6:4-6:

For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, Have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery.

Only a Christian can be made a partaker of the Holy Ghost. He can lose his salvation.

Heb. 10:26-29:

For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace?

II Peter 2:20-21:

For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them.

These two verses are echoing each other. It’s better to never be a Christian than to stop being Christian.





Read Full Post »

The subject of whether Protestants and Orthodox are Christians and their religions are part of the Church of Christ comes up frequently on “Catholic” Relevant Radio, youtube, etc.

According to the religion of Vatican 2, which falls in line with  some Protestants, membership in the Church includes all who are baptized and profess Christ while rejecting dogmas of the Catholic Church.

The Vatican 2 religion has gone out of its way to say that the Eastern Orthodox religion is part of the one Church of Christ in the Balamand statement. [1] It also implied that the Lutheran churches are part of the Church of Christ. [2]

Vatican 2 apologists such as Msgr. Stuart W. Swetland, S.T.D., and Patrick Madrid don’t hesitate for a second to say that the Church has never changed a doctrine while in the same breath saying Protestants and Orthodox are Christians but without the fullness of truth.

To the contrary, the great Pope Leo XIII reiterated in Satis Cognitum what the Church has always taught and practiced. Below are the relevant parts.

“4 Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: ‘I believe in one Church.’ ‘The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts… And so dispersed members, separated one from the other, cannot be united with one and the same head. ‘There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one the people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts’….

5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a hereticthe life of the spirit follows not the amputated member.

9 The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos)….

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium….

St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88)…

And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: “One Lord, one faith,” and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: “that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only – “but until we all meet in the unity of faith…unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ” (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that – “He gave some Apostles – and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (11-12). …

In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others…

Pope Pius XI continued with the subject and declared in Mortalium animos:

11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.

Since the Second Vatican Council, Rome now calls heretics and schismatics Christians or separated brethren, and even denies that they are heretics and schismatics.

For instance, Vatican II states:

The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection…. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” (Second Vatican Council, Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, Chapter 1, para. 3)

Children born and raised in false churches would be accused of the sin of separation if they come to know or should know better and remain separated. We don’t presume that everybody remains invincibly ignorant. Regardless, only God can read hearts. We don’t presume to know if one is truly guilty or innocent. To say they all “are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian” is a reversal in Church teaching.

We demonstrated that Pope Leo XIII taught exactly the opposite in Satis Cognitum.

Pope Pius XII declared:To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth” (Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957).

The terms heretics and schismatics are canonical and doctrinal Catholic terminology referring to the baptized some of whom were justified by faith at one time. Non-baptized persons aren’t called heretics and schismatics, but rather infidels, heathens, pagans, etc. We have long standing and official Catholic terminology which the Vatican 2 religion deems inappropriate, inaccurate, and counterfactual.

We might call heretics “Christians” in conventional language, but to claim they have a “right” to the Christian name would make calling them heretics and schismatics wrong and hateful. Yet, Popes have called Protestants and Orthodox heretics in official documents. Just a few examples include Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo (On the Euchologion – 1756), Pope Pius VI in Charitas (In the Civil Oath in France – 1791), Pope Gregory XVI in Summo Iugiter Studio (On Mixed Marriages – 1832) and Probe Nostis (On the Propogation of the Faith – 1840), and Pope Pius IX in Omnem Sollicitudinem (On the Greek-Ruthenian Rite – 1874). Pope Leo XIII used it the most in several documents.

Pope Leo XIII also declared in Satis Cognitum: “Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man… but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See.”



[1] The 1993 Balamand Statement approved by John Paul II on May 25, 1995, in Ut Unum Sint, n. 59, declared:

  1. In fact, especially since the panorthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the re- discovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church – profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops – cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches.
  2. It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavour of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27).


by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church Nov. 1, 1999

  1. We give thanks to the Lord for this decisive step forward on the way to overcoming the division of the church. We ask the Holy Spirit to lead us further toward that visible unity which is Christ’s will.

John Paul II approved and blessed the Joint Declaration as seen below.


Edward Cardinal Cassidy

President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

  1. On the Catholic side, the Official Common Statement and the Annex have been approved by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. His Holiness Pope John Paul II has been informed accordingly and has given his blessing for the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, together with the Official Common Statement with its attached Annex on the date and in the place to be decided by the two partners.



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 »