Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

As a veteran, I can tell you that I love my country, and I will not idly sit back while a vial, anti-Catholic, pro-abortion, lying, murdering, and thieving woman is on the verge of sitting in the White House to run this great nation that I love so much!

Being a patriot of the United States of America is a duty of every American Catholic. Making sure the lesser of the two evils is elected Nov. 8 is our Catholic responsibility. A vote for a third party candidate is the same as a non-vote in this case. It’s a failure in our Catholic duty as patriots.

Donald Trump is not the evil villain the media paints him out to be. It’s the media that is evil. They are part of the establishment that attacks truth while spreading lies and error. In fact, calumny and detraction is their way of life.

I will vote for Donald Trump! I will not believe the lie that he’s behind in the polls. Will you? If so, prove them wrong.

Below are two fantastic videos, short and to the point.

Also, I suggest checking out any Donald Trump speech from the past week on youtube. You won’t hear them from the mainstream media.

Read Full Post »

display_thumbnail-php

Now available is a “How to” book for every Catholic to help articulate the Catholic position of sedevacantism.   After years of trial and error, I have developed a proven method to evangelize family, friends, and neighbors. All the necessary questions and answers are provided along with papal citations, Church law, and Catholic commentary from saints, canonists, and theologians.

The book is only 77 pages long. The table of contents below…

Be a Fisher of Men
Chapter I – What Makes a Person a Catholic
Chapter II – Papal Authority
Chapter III – The Heretic
Chapter IV – Application of Law
Chapter V – The First Principal Heresy
Appendix I – Two More Principal Heresies
Appendix II – Information for Questions and Objections

Perfect your ability to explain sedevacantism with this book. You won’t regret it!

Email me at catholicwarrior@juno.com and I’ll send you a link to buy the book.

 

Read Full Post »

John Salza and Robert Siscoe have done it again. They have completely misrepresented me, got all the facts wrong, and have become the very definition of hypocrisy. The title of their latest childish article is:

SPERAY’S CATHOLICISM IN A NUT HOUSE:
Cracking His Nutty Arguments about
St. Robert Bellarmine One at a Time [1]

Salza/Siscoe have complained over and over again about sedevacantists using ad hominem attacks, but have no problem of doing the same to me. I personally have no problem with ad hominem, but to use it (and use it excessively) after deriding others for it is hypocritical.

They begin their nutty article with an utter lie. They write:

In fact, Speray ups the ante by even claiming that “Bellarmine’s position requires private judgment.” You read that correctly. Steve Speray claims that St. Robert Bellarmine requires (!) Catholics to individually judge (and decide for themselves) whether or not the Pope, who has been elected by the Church, is the true Vicar of Christ, even if their judgment is contrary to the public judgment of the Church.

What they don’t tell their readers is that I was referring to what John of St. Thomas says against St. Robert Bellarmine. The full quote reads, “John of St. Thomas is also saying that Bellamine’s position requires private judgment for which Salza/Siscoe condemn sedevacantists.”

Just as John of St. Thomas gets Bellarmine wrong about private judgment, Salza/Siscoe get sedevacantists wrong about private judgment. I’ve explicitly repeated in many articles that private judgment is not how popes get into office or how they lose their office. Salza/Siscoe argue throughout their entire article against a position I don’t hold.

I’ve also defined what private judgment means in my article, The Gates of Hell and the Gates of the Church (The Best Defense for Sedevacantism). However, you won’t find Salza/Siscoe defining what they mean by the phrase, because they know they’re actually guilty of doing so against their church. Again, they’re hypocrites.

Salza/Siscoe end their first nutty straw-man argument:

Thus, contrary to Steve Speray’s delusional assertions, Bellarmine, far from requiring Catholics to declare bishops depose by their by private judgment, actually condemns such a practice, and affirms that such a judgment must be made by the Church.

I’ve never said or implied that individuals depose bishops. I totally agree that only the Church deposes bishops. In fact, I’ve explicitly written to Siscoe several times that the Church can’t even depose a pope, much less by private judgment. But Salza/Siscoe have no problem bearing false witness against me in public.

Salza/Siscoe continue to malign me with the tired old argument that Bellarmine required two warnings by repeating his fourth opinion. They write:

Bellarmine explains that one who remains in heresy “after two warnings” thereby shows himself to be “manifestly obstinate,” and, consequently, can be considered a “manifest heretic.” It is clear that this proof of obstinacy (pertinacity) is established by virtue of the “two warnings” (refusing to “hear the Church”) which is the Scriptural authority upon which Bellarmine relies.

As I’ve explained a dozen times, Bellarmine was answering what happens to a manifest heretic. Cajetan is already speaking about a manifest heretic, so there’s no reason for Bellarmine to use St. Paul to demonstrate what is already presumed in Cajetan’s objection. Salza/Siscoe continue by trying to refute the rest of my argument by quoting Bellarmine, then me, and twisting it:

“For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.” (On the Roman Pontiff, 29).

Speray then concludes: “If two warnings are necessary to prove obstinacy and thus a manifest heretic is made, why would he say that a pope doesn’t even have to be a heretic at all, but only appear as one to lose his office? The reason is that St. Robert Bellarmine never said or implied that two warnings were necessary.” Yes, Speray actually argues that a Pope loses his office automatically if he simply appears to be a heretic. He argues that this takes place not upon the judgment of the Church, but according to the private judgment of individual Catholics, and he attributes such an absurdity to a saint and Doctor of the Church.

I didn’t say he lost it automatically. I was pointing to the fact that two warnings aren’t necessary; the point that proves Salza/Siscoe wrong about Bellarmine requiring two warnings.

Salza/Siscoe continue their nutty argument by claiming Liberius lost office by “sede impedita (the inability of the Pope to function as Pope). Liberius was not available to answer any charges of heresy.”

The problem is that’s not what Bellarmine taught. He taught,

“For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.” [2]

Salza/Siscoe can’t admit they’re wrong, so they twist the facts and mock me in the process. They continue by saying that I “didn’t want you to see” that the authorities stripped Liberius. It didn’t happen by private judgment. But that wasn’t the issue in the article. The article was dealing specifically about two warnings. However, I wrote about the entire event in my book “Papal Anomalies and Their Implications” providing the full quote on page 37 that Salza/Siscoe claim I didn’t want you to see. They have the book and quoted from it in their article “Sedevacantists Reject Pre-Vatican 2 Popes” misrepresenting me in it as well.

Again, Salza/Siscoe seem to have no conscience lying about me in public. They continue to misrepresent me on Wernz/Vidal and Pope Innocent III. They also misrepresent Wernz/Vidal and Pope Innocent III, so I’m in good company. They don’t deal with the actual teaching of Wernz/Vidal at all, because W/V taught that Salza/Siscoe’s position is indefensible. Again, Wernz/Vidal:

The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others [John of St. Thomas, Fr. Laymann, etc.], contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. “Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible” as Bellarmine teaches.

Salza/Siscoe don’t stop there. They play God by judging me guilty of mortal sin. They end their article with, “Steve Speray should either rename his apostolate ‘Speray’s Catholicism in a Nut House,’ or better yet, shut it down completely.”

This translates as I’ve proven them wrong on every point and they can’t stand it. They want me to shut down so that they’ll stop looking like the “gates of hell” that they are. The first thing that came to mind when I read this last sentence was the passage in Holy Scripture that reads, “And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” [3]

Now, I better qualify it, because Salza/Siscoe will twist it to mean that I think I’m Christ now. What I mean is that the devil wants me to quit, like he wanted Our Lord to quit.

 

Footnotes:

[1]http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantist-watch-sperayscatholicism.html

[2] (Book IX, Ch IX, n. 15)

[3] (Mark 15:29-30)

Read Full Post »

Michael Matt is the editor of the anti-sedevacantist newspaper The Remnant. Below is how his endorsement of Salza/Siscoe’s book reads. [1]

“For 50 years we at The Remnant have fought against the false conclusions of the Sedevacantist thesis. We have insisted that, despite the revolution, the Church is still ours–our castle, our home, our mother and we cannot abandon her. Taking their lead from St. Athanasius during the Arian crisis, John Salza and Robert Siscoe have elevated the discourse of this pivotal debate to an entirely new level that encourages Catholics to keep the old Faith and fight for our Church under siege. This book serves notice to the occupiers of the Catholic Church: Traditional Catholics are not going anywhere. We’ll stay and we’ll fight until all of “our buildings” are in the hands of Catholics once again.”

-MICHAEL MATT
Editor, The Remnant newspaper

Mr. Matt begins by saying the conclusion of sedevacantism is false and ends by endorsing the conclusion of sedevacantism.

The conclusion of the sedevacantist thesis is that Francis and his supporters have the Church under siege and have taken over “our buildings.”

Salza/Siscoe’s book is saying Francis I and his supporters are Catholic.

During the Arian heresy, the Arians were not members of the Catholic Church. It’s the sedevacantists that follow St. Athanasius’ lead, who taught to shun the Arians and to avoid those who worship with Arians even though they themselves hold to the true Faith. (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 26, pp. 1185D-1188C) [2]

Michael Matt is one of those that worship with the new Arians today as he condemns the position of St. Athanasius that sedevacantists are following.

 

Footnotes:

[1]True or False Pope Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors
[2] Latitudinarian Maxims – The Divine Law on Catholic Communication in Religion with Non-Catholics, p. 49, Steven Speray, Confiteor.

Read Full Post »

Click below to read and old article written in 2010.

https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/my-article-the-new-oxford-review-wouldnt-publish/

Read Full Post »

In his book “Pope Fiction,” Patrick Madrid makes the claim that Sedevacantists “come up empty-handed when it comes to the hard facts needed to make their case. Colorful fantasies are about all the Sedevacantists can muster to support their claim.” p. 273.

Yet, Madrid ignores the real “hard facts” and the two easiest and most important arguments used by Sedevacantists to support the position that the Chair of Peter is empty. I cover one of them directly with Madrid with  The Heresy on the Nature of the Church .  The other argument is found in my book here.

However, Madrid does attempt to answer the argument on religious liberty, and it is here that Madrid accidentally proves himself wrong and sedevacantism right.

Madrid quotes Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors that condemns that “Each one is free to embrace and profess that religion which, led by the light of reason, he thinks is true,” and remarks, “This statement condemns relativism, not the freedom from coercion advocated by Vatican II. It’s true, no one has the right to believe in and follow a false religion; all rights come from God, and He doesn’t endorse error. This fits perfectly with the Declaration’s statement on the ‘moral duty’ of people to pursue the ‘true religion and the one Church of Christ.’ In the pursuit, however, no one is to be forced against his free will. They must embrace the truth of their own accord.” Pp. 276-277.

While it’s true that Vatican II rightly condemns coercion, Madrid missed the second part of Vatican II’s declaration, which is contrary to Madrid’s own admission.

After Vatican II defined that religious liberty consists in the freedom from coercion it continues with, “4. The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself…

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government…

in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties.

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.”

Madrid has implied that sedevacantism would have a case if Vatican II is shown to have taught heresy.

Madrid admitted that “no one has the right to believe in and follow a false religion.”

Madrid falsely concluded that Vatican II declared that religious liberty consists only in the freedom from coercion, because Vatican II taught that men do have a right to believe in and follow a false religion in religious communities, to erect buildings, acquire property for their false religion, and to spread their false religion publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.

Unknowingly, Madrid proved the truth of sedevacantism, since Vatican II rejects and contradicts what Madrid has admitted is Divine law.

Read Full Post »

New Book in Print

product_thumbnail.php

Today, Rome makes the claim that Vatican II introduced no reversal of doctrine and no discontinuity with the past. In fact, in 2007 we were told by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), quoting Paul VI on the changes of the council: “What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach.”

The scope of this study examines the accuracy and truthfulness of this statement given by Paul VI and the CDF based on numerous teachings and practices of the Catholic Church prior to the council. This study focuses on the Divine law particularly and will be divided into two parts beginning with forgotten principles spelled out in writing taken by Bishop George Hay (1729-1811). Also provided are numerous traditional teachings of the Church then contrasting them with the Vatican II popes.

To buy the book, just click  here

Read Full Post »

John P wrote an excellent criticism of my debate with Bro. Peter in the comment section:

Hello Steven,
I listened to the debate with Robert Dimond with interest.  My first comment is that you should never have agreed to debate him. The reason is that you were unprepared and it really showed.  I am surprised that you have been involved with Sedevacantism for as long as you have, and were not prepared to debate Dimond in the least, neither on your own position which came across as unsure and contradictory, but also in the cheap tactics used by Dimond on his opponents.  Frankly you acted shell-shocked.  It reminded me of a Mike Tyson fight from the 80’s where a challenger wanted a shot at the title fight and made all kinds of noise in the press in the months leading up to the big fight.  But once the fight began his opponent was knocked out within 30 seconds.  Frankly, you debated so poorly that I wouldn’t clearly know what your position was were it not for reading the comments and some of your Website.  You had very little to offer in counter arguments, nor did you effectively question Dimond on his.  As you should have known, one of Dimond’s tactics is to bombard his opponents with questions “let me ask you this then, etc.” and keep them always on the defense.  You walked right into it as though you never heard him “debate” before, if that is what you can call what he does, and you got schooled on a topic you should have been able to stand your ground on.  Please understand that it’s neither brave nor smart to pick a fight with a superior fighter and not prepare yourself for his best shots.  I suggest the next time you debate Dimond that you prepare in advance for the topic, suggest a moderator for equal time, get a neutral party to control the microphone volume and prepare yourself better for the barrage of assaults he employs against his opponents. He can be led to lose composure if you actually stand in there with him.  But you can’t do it unprepared like that or you will end up embarrassing yourself.  IF you debate him again, on behalf of those who believe in Baptism of Desire as a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, please prepare for the debate, or just don’t do it at all. All my best,
John P

I apologize to everyone that I have let down, if you felt let down by my phone conversation with Bro. Peter. It was hardly a real debate. It’s true that I wasn’t prepared with the quotes. I should have known that  Bro. Peter Dimond would misquote the bishops and priests, but I assumed he would tell the truth.

Also, I should have recorded it myself so that my voice didn’t come out sounding so small. You can hear him overpower me, when in fact this wouldn’t have been the case if I recorded it. The conversation would have sounded differently and you could hear me say things that wasn’t heard because of Peter’s interruptions.

Anyway, I greatly appreciate the criticism from John. If he felt I did poorly, I’m sure many others have as well, but are afraid of hurting my feelings by telling me so. It’s funny that John used the analogy of a story from boxing. When I was in the ring 10 years ago, there was no mister nice guy. I broke noses and make people quit in the middle of the round. I’m not too proud of it now, because it doesn’t reflect the life of Christ Who is supposed to live in me. The fact is you need to be ready for a fight as John correctly pointed out and you have to be tough with certain people.

You can’t be friendly with Bro Peter Dimond.

A good friend of mine told me today that it’s all a good learning experience and to make the best of it.

The one good thing that has definitely come out from all of this is my ability to explain and clarify my position here on the website and to point out the facts that might have been missed, and I have learned what not to do the next time.

Thank you John for your correction! God bless you!

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 »

Older Posts »