Of Baptism


& the

Lie of

‘Faith Alone’

Cast Down



+ + + + +   + + + + +   + + + + +




Protestant Denial of the

Need for Baptism & Other Good Works

In Christ Is Revealed to Be a Diabolic Deception;

Along With a Partial Defense of Saintly & Marian

Veneration, & a Denunciation of ‘Sola Scriptura’,

Talmudic Jews & Modernist Scholars, etc.







+ + + + +   + + + + +   + + + + +



“Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16 DRC)


“Wherefore casting away all uncleanness, and abundance of naughtiness, with meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was. But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty, and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work; this man shall be blessed in his deed.” (James 1:21-25 DRC)


“For you, brethren, have been called unto liberty: only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh, but by charity of the spirit serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’ (Leviticus 19:18c) …Bear ye one another’s burdens; and so you shall fulfil the law of Christ… Be not deceived, God is not mocked. For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in the flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting. And in doing good, let us not fail. For in due time we shall reap, not failing. Therefore, whilst we have time, let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith.” (Galatians 5:13-14, 6:2, 7-10 DRC)


“Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie. I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches.” (Apocalypse 22:12-16a DRC)



+ + + + +   + + + + +   + + + + +



Intended by the Author of This Book

for the Greater Glory of the Adorable Triune Catholic God,

for the Worship of the Sacred Heart of King Jesus Christ of Nazareth,

for the Praise of the Immaculate Heart of Queen Mary, the Blessed Ever-

Virgin Mother of God,

unto the Protection & Propagation of the Holy Roman Catholic Church &

Her Most Precious Heavenly Dogmas,


under the Euphonious Patronage of St. Cecilia, the Eloquent Patronage

of St. Catherine of Alexandria & the Efficacious Patronage of

Ven. Mariana de Jesus Torres, Virgins &




Domine, non est exaltatum cor meum, neque elati sunt oculi mei. Neque ambulavi in magnis, neque in mirabilibus super me. Si non humiliter sentiebam, sed exaltavi animam meam; sicut ablactatus est super matre sua, ita retributio in anima mea. Speret Israel in Domino, ex hoc nunc et usque in saeculum.” (Psalmus CXXX, Vulgata)


St. Francis Xavier, Patron of Catholic Missioners, and Ss. Catherine of Alexandria & Francis of Sales, Patrons of Catholic Philosophers & Apologists, respectively, may you be pleased to guide this arrow to its target, either unto eternal life or eternal death! “Now thanks be to God, who always maketh us to triumph in Christ Jesus, and manifesteth the odour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are the good odour of Christ unto God, in them that are saved, and in them that perish. To the one indeed the odour of death unto death: but to the others the odour of life unto life.” (2 Corinthians 2:14-16b DRC)


St. Francis of Assisi, Humble Seraph of the Incarnate God, and St. Dominic the Preacher, Dogged Cherub of the Triune Deity, pray for your children that they may not fail the test but suffer the malice of the wicked gladly and so gain the Crown of Life!



+ + + + +


Part One of The Dogma of Baptism Upheld & the Lie of ‘Faith Alone’ Cast Down (1 Letter Consisting of 1 Prefacing Note & 23 Chapters)


+ + + + +





I sent the letters which follow to my parents as a final admonishment that they convert to the Catholic Church, abandoning the false religion of a so-called ‘born again christianity’. They are final because I don’t plan --- barring a sudden & miraculous show of good will upon my parents’ part, or an urgent need to prevent the aforesaid from spreading further deception --- to waste my effort on those who are stubbornly blind in their rebellion, and because I have told them already many a time, whether by letter or in person, the Saving Truth of Rome’s Eternal Gospel. Should men heed neither God’s Catholic Church nor His Sacred Scripture nor even reason itself, then “neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.” (Luke 16:31c-d DRC, all emphasis mine in this and other quotations from Sacred Scripture, unless otherwise noted)


Please note, then (for there are some who will accuse me of injustice), that I did not angrily demand anything from my parents immediately after my conversion; I did not illogically expect them to convert without first investigating carefully what I said. And I did not speak severely or stridently to them to begin with. To the contrary, I was far too soft-spoken, kowtowing to their prejudices and not wishing to provoke a fight. No, what led to these letters --- ten years after I’d started converting --- was the mere fact that I had converted. They couldn’t stand seeing me act like a Catholic & couldn’t bear hearing me talk like a Catholic, all the while they insisted on keeping me company. And although I wouldn’t go out of the way to chide them for their heresy, disparaging remarks about the Catholic Faith would slip from my mother’s mouth, usually in emails, and sometimes a fiery tirade. Which in turn would force me to respond in defense of the Faith. Sadly, neither she nor my father would ever grapple realistically with Catholicism, they instead relying upon old Protestant fables & secular biases. No amount of asking or explanations on my part could ever convince them that they needed to take the hard evidence & good sense of the Church seriously… until these letters. Yet even so they wouldn’t back down, admitting their wrongs against God’s Catholic Religion. Hence my final stridency: they had exhausted all other more pleasant & amiable approaches. Anything less was to let them get away with murder --- murder both of Catholicism and of their souls.


The first letter I present refutes the Protestant heresy, very common nowadays, that baptism of water is in no way necessary to the reception of everlasting life, and the still more prevalent lie that it is by ‘faith alone’ that a man shall save his soul. In the shorter letter from me immediately previous to the one that begins this offering, I focused on the necessity of water baptism for entrance into Heaven. My mother, amongst other heretical strategies, tried to respond by arguing that Jesus’ words in John 3:5 about being “born of water” do not mean a baptism of water but, rather, birth in the flesh from the womb of a woman. This is typical of Evangelic Protestants, who arose in reaction against the liberal tendencies of mainline Protestantism in the late 1800s; as a young boy I can remember asking her about this phrase and getting told a similar thing. May God pardon my mother since, even then at the tender age of eight years or less, she was detaining my soul from grasping the truths of the Roman Faith. Ergo, my rebuttal began from that point, using Sacred Scripture & solid reasoning to show how all Protestants, whose ancestors revolted against Catholicism in the early 1500s and attacked every good work as irrelevant to the attainment of salvation, are not only anti-Catholic but are also necessarily --- and thus consequently --- anti-Bible & anti-Christ. Examination of the ‘faith alone’ heresy confirms the same.


I gravely exhort the reader of this book, especially those who bear the name of Catholic, to take to heart what I have said in the paragraph above. Too often during these apostate times, as well as in the centuries of laxity since the Protestant Revolt that led to the Great Apostasy, it has been the naïve assumption that most Protestants are of ‘good will’, being merely ‘innocently misled’ and certain to change their opinion of Catholicism were they only able to know how wrong they have been. Such is not the case.


Men do not end up by ‘accident’ where they are, and do not reside in religious darkness through no fault of their own. God sees all things and is in perfect control of all things; therefore, be a man of truly good will, then God will see to it that such a man receives whatever he needs in order to convert to the Catholic Faith before he leaves his life on earth. Men who do not convert --- who live their whole lives born, raised and dying in Protestant heresy --- are not simply ‘innocently ignorant’, they are culpably blind. My own conversion and the countless heretics I knew prior to my conversion to the True Faith are proof of this sad fact. Most Protestants are not of good will. They are perniciously obstinate, content to remain in their evil lies.


Such men desperately need our prayers. But they also need to be confronted by unabashed Catholics who are not afraid to live & speak the Saving Truth before their eyes. The latter alone will not necessarily effect many conversions; nonetheless, it will impress minds, preparing the fields for later harvest in God’s own good time. So, then, Catholics, fathom the wickedness of your foe. May these letters help you to do just that, forming offensive strategies against their attacks. And should you, my dear reader, be a heretic, then know that Catholics hold the Sword of Truth --- and that we will use it against you, either unto your spiritual death or (which we vastly prefer) unto your spiritual salvation.


That made clear, only a little more is left to preface. It being unavoidably obvious that these letters are meant to refute my parents and this being a concluding rebuke after years of testimony in their sight both by word and in deed, I offer their texts for public perusal, for the Glory of the Triune God of the Catholic Church, and for the conversion of souls to the same, with only the following alterations or policies:


One, I have removed my parents’ given names to protect their privacy.


Two, I haven’t included the overall texts of their letters since they never intended them for publication, and since the responses are often tediously heretical, endangering the soul who reads them, and not necessary for understanding my rebuttals. The sole exceptions are brief quotes from a few of their letters, especially near the end of this book.


Three, in several instances I have removed single paragraphs of purely mundane or otherwise inconsequential significance, for the sake of flow & clarification.


And, four, I have made a scattering of minor revisions --- mainly typos corrected, with some phrases modified and a few paragraphs added, so as to avoid wrong interpretations or needless scandal  --- and especially to the epistle which begins this book, it being the longest & most intricate.


Finally, concerning my use of the King James Version (KJV) and the much more recent yet extremely popular New International Version (NIV) --- being Protestant or Evangelic translations of the Bible --- let what I wrote for the introduction to Catholic Ritual Defended also stand here:


“Incidentally, my relentless citation of Sacred Scripture is not meant to champion the Bible as a final authority for one’s religious beliefs, nor is my quoting from a Protestant translation meant to encourage people to trust in that translation. While a priceless gift from Heaven, the Bible saturates the text below because conservative Protestants claim to respect its words. And I quote from the King James Version (KJV) because it is a classic Protestant rendering and hence impossible for heretics to impugn when it plainly upholds the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, I warn everyone to beware of the many pernicious errors that fill heretical bibles from one end to the other. The only good reason for trolling their pages is to gather bait whereby souls might be fished into the Ark of Salvation, and then only if thoroughly armed against the evil that lies coiled between their covers.”


Whereupon I shortly thereafter closed with the following:


“May anything which is true or praiseworthy in this work be attributed to the efforts of the Blessed Trinity. And may anything that is false or blameworthy be laid firmly in accusation at my own wayward feet.”


+ + +    1. Letter of 14 February 2007    + + +


+ + +   1a. What Makes a Man a Man   + + +


Dear Mother & Father,


If the phrase “born of water” (the KJV bible in John 3:5c, Jesus’ words) means “natural birth” (email of January 24th, your words), then Jesus’ words in John’s Gospel make no good sense. Because He very literally declares:


“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5b-d KJV, all biblical emphasis in either this verse or elsewhere added by me unless otherwise stated)


Now I ask you, when is a man not naturally born?


That is to say, when is a man ever not the product of “natural birth”?


A human being is --- by definition ever since the miraculous making of Adam’s body from the mud of this earth, not to mention the marvelous formation of Eve’s flesh from his rib --- always born naturally from the womb of a woman! Or, to put it differently, a man cannot ever be a man unless he first inhabits a mother’s womb. Therefore, if Jesus by His literal words intended to metaphorically communicate what you claim is their hidden meaning, then Jesus actually said:


“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be a man and born of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5b-d RAMV --- Revised Archaic Mother Version)


This phrasing is not only mindlessly repetitive but also stupidly absurd. And yet it irrefutably results from your willful misinterpretation of Sacred Scripture. Quoting the same verse from the NIV makes your heretical error even more plain to see by putting Jesus’ literal words into today’s language:


“I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5b-d NIV)


Whereas, according to your willful misinterpretation, Jesus actually said:


“I tell you the truth, unless a man is a man and born of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5b-d MMVR --- Mom’s Modern Version Revised)


And again I ask… when is a man ever not a man? When is it ever the case that a man could even be a man --- i.e., a physical descendant of the first man, Adam --- when, in fact, he does not first inhabit the womb of a woman, his mother? Every single man in existence, since the beginning of time in the Garden of Paradise with Adam & Eve following their Fall into Sin, is naturally born, issuing from his mother’s womb!


Grasping this, we see how Jesus’ words become not only mindlessly repetitive, misunderstood as you would have us misunderstand them, but also stupidly absurd. For John 3:5 is a conditional statement. To wit, a sentence that first sets up a condition to be met before a particular result can either follow or fail to follow:


“…unless a man is born of water and the Spirit [condition set up in order to be met], {then} he cannot enter the kingdom of God. [particular result promised to follow when the condition is not successfully met, with an adverbial ‘{then}’ both necessarily inferred and logically required by the grammatical existence of the conjunctive ‘unless’ earlier in the sentence]” (John 3:5c-d NIV, with annotations)


Consequently, how can this conditional statement make any sense when, as your misinterpretation would have it, Jesus actually meant to say:


“…unless a man is a man and born of the Spirit [condition set up to be met], {then} he cannot enter the kingdom of God. [result promised to follow]” (John 3:5b-d MMVR --- Mom’s Modern Version Revised, with annotations)


Yet again I ask, when is a man not ever a man? How can one of the conditions that Jesus supposedly tells a man to meet --- that he first be a man --- make any good sense to say to him when Jesus’ listener, a man, is already that which he’s being told that he must be in order to get what he desires? It’s like telling a butterfly-destined type of caterpillar:


“…unless a caterpillar is a caterpillar and transforms in the cocoon [condition], then you cannot become a butterfly. [result]”


Or as if you told a fish:


“…unless a fish is a fish and lives in water [condition], then you cannot swim. [result]”


When is a caterpillar not ever a caterpillar? When is a fish not ever a fish? A caterpillar is a caterpillar or else we would not call it a caterpillar in the first place. Likewise, a fish is a fish or else we would not call it a fish to begin with! To establish a category of things at the start of a condition, as laid down initially in a conditional statement, by calling a thing what it is, using its common name (whether that be the category of a man, a caterpillar, a fish or what-have-you), is not then in part distinguished further by the rest of a condition that you lay down in the first half of the conditional statement, when the rest of the condition contains only a repetition of what you have already said about it.


Do you comprehend?


Jesus was laying down ground rules. He was telling all men via one particular man --- in this case, Nicodemus --- what were the conditions for a man to enter Heaven. Doing so, He established an initial category, the category of ‘men’, wherein He says, “…unless a man…” He then distinguishes a part of this larger category of all men by making further conditions for certain obedient men to belong to a smaller category within this much larger category. To wit, where He says, “…unless a man [initially established larger category of all men] is born of water and the Spirit… [further distinguished smaller category of some men within this larger group of all men]”


Do you see?


In the technical terminology of ‘set theory’, Jesus first establishes a larger set and then distinguishes a smaller set within this larger set. To wit, He first talks about all men and then makes it clear how only men that are “born of water and the Spirit” can belong to a smaller group of men within that larger group of men --- a subset within a set. The larger set is thus already established, by obvious definition of what a ‘man’ really is, to consist of those who are naturally born, i.e., of those who come from the womb of a woman. The subset therefore cannot be distinguished as a unique subset within this larger set unless it exacts further conditions from its members that consequently separate them in a unique way as a subset from the members of the larger set out of which they are drawn. Talking about “natural birth” --- exiting from the womb of a woman --- does not do this. Because all men already are, by definition in the first place, past inhabitants of a woman’s womb, being naturally born. What then makes the smaller group of men out of all men total any different from this larger group of all men by describing the smaller group as ‘naturally born’ when, in fact, all men are naturally born and the smaller group of men, taken as belonging to the much larger group of all men, is already rightly described as such?


How can this make any good sense of Jesus’ words in John 3:5?


It doesn’t!


But does this seem complicated?


It’s not.


It’s extremely simple. The only reason it sounds complicated is that your heretical prejudices twist the verse into saying what it does not mean, what Jesus never intended His simple and straightforward words here to complicatedly and awkwardly signify. As a result, I have to get very tedious and intricate to make plain what is already obvious! Yet we need not rely on my lengthy explanation. Jesus’ own words are sufficient. For what does He say to Nicodemus right before John 3:5?


+ + +   1b. The Second Birth   + + +


“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3b-d KJV)


To which Nicodemus responds with barely suppressed derision:


“How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?” (John 3:4b-c KJV)


The NIV translates his sarcastic disbelief a little more easily for modern minds to see:


“How can a man be born when he is old? … Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” (John 3:4 NIV)


Note carefully Jesus’ words and Nicodemus’ response. Jesus was talking about being born again --- and not about a first birth, which is the natural birth of a man exiting his mother’s womb. The proof of this, as if any were needed, is in Nicodemus’ derision of the very idea of a man entering “a second time into his mother’s womb to be born…” (John 3:4 NIV) A derision that Jesus does not in factual substance --- in contrast to the human sentiment of Nicodemus’ response --- refute but allows to stand. Therefore, Jesus could not have been referring to a first or ‘natural birth’ in John 3:5 since he makes quite clear immediately after John 3:5 how it is the second or ‘supernatural birth’ that He is talking about. Namely, where He says:


“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:6 KJV)


Consequently, how can He at all, even if only in part, have been talking about a man being born the first time in flesh via a natural birth by saying “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit” (John 3:5c KJV), when, in fact, He’s already made plain in John 3:3 --- prior to John 3:5 --- that it’s being born again that He speaks of, and when --- after John 3:5 --- He makes it plain once more that it’s not flesh He’s been talking about, but, rather, that it’s being born the second time in spirit via a supernatural birth which He’s announcing? How, then, can Jesus have meant “born of water” to mean, metaphorically, ‘natural birth’, when all of this is very simply, sensibly & literally evident in the Bible?


Furthermore, should you take John 3:6 above and try to have it ‘chastise’ Catholics for teaching water baptism as necessary unto a man’s salvation, saying it makes being “born again” (John 3:3c KJV) into a birth “of the flesh” (John 3:6a KJV) by having this second birth refer to something of a physical nature rather than of a ‘spiritual’ nature, then know that you play with a double-edged sword, slicing yourself just as easily as you would suppose yourself to slice me. Think about it:


If Jesus meant, when He said “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit…” (John 3:6 KJV), to condemn any and all flesh, or the use of any and all flesh, or any and all earthly things, period, in the procurement of Salvation, then what in the world are you doing by daring to teach that the Blood of Jesus has anything to do with Salvation? Was not His Blood a mere physical thing of the flesh, obtained by becoming a lowly man upon the earth?


Or what are you doing by daring to teach that the Death of His Body upon the Cross --- His Flesh dying in excruciating agony --- had anything to do with obtaining Salvation? Was not His Flesh, His Human Body, a mere physical thing, both arisen from the earth via the Holy Womb of His Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and then also residing on the earth eating, drinking and otherwise partaking of mere physical things until His Bodily Ascension into Heaven forty days after His Bodily Resurrection from the tomb?


Do you espy the rank hypocrisy in your position?


To think that you dare to condemn Catholicism, which is the Faith of Jesus Christ & His Apostles from the first century till the end of the world, when you and your diabolical & filthy heresy do espouse the very same thing, in principle, as being necessary unto a man’s salvation! How most foully wicked of you.


Per your imaginations, were you to be consistent in your misinterpretation of John 3:6, then God should never have been born like a man, never lived upon the earth like a man, never done all of the everyday things that men do, never suffered bodily as a man, never died bodily crucified as a man, and never bodily resurrected or bodily ascended into the heavens above as a man. All of these things are utterly pointless if, as you claim out of your imaginations, privately interpreting the Bible to mean whatever in the world you want it to mean, physical flesh and earthly things are completely irrelevant to God’s Sovereign Design to save ‘spiritually’ without regard to the things of this earth.


Instead, God should have remained a Spirit, choosing to speak to men only invisibly through their hearts in an undeniable way that all men could agree upon, and deigning to forgive them merely by their being sorry enough for their sins, no ridiculous and useless (as blinded minds might see it) sacrifice of flesh or blood being necessary in any way at all for the attainment of salvation --- for let us remember that it is He Who decides what is sin and what is necessary for its forgiveness, not some standard that exists apart from and above Him, which somehow commands His submission to it --- not to mention there being no need for a reprehensible and appalling torture of flesh both prior to and during some sort of crucifixion. In this way, His Gift of Salvation would have been purely ‘spiritual’ and not flabbergastingly ‘natural’ or ‘earthly’ or ‘fleshly’.


Nor should you pretend that baptism of water is but a ‘work’, opposed to ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ and thus not worthy in God’s Sight of being a requirement for the reception of salvation. For it is semantics we indulge here, the attainment of salvation achieved --- thinks the ‘born again believer’ like yourself --- by believing in the historical Protestant ‘gospel’. The mere act of belief therefore attains this Salvation from God, according to ‘bible believing christians’.


Ergo, we see how we may accuse the Protestant himself of practicing a ‘gospel of works’. For a ‘work’ is simply what someone ‘does’. And what is ‘believing’ if not something we do’? As the Jews asked, “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” And Christ replied, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” (John 6:28b-c, 29b-c KJV) Believing is thus a work. It is what you do to the exclusion of all else in order to be ‘saved’; it is what you must accomplish (think you) on your part in order for the Creator to uphold His end of the deal. As a result, what you really mean to condemn when you castigate a ‘gospel of works’ is a Gospel which demands certain overt physical actions to please God. This, you dare to say, is wrong.


But, of course, you say wrongly. For not only have we what Jesus said in John 6:29 to refute you --- God not condemning the idea of works being made necessary by Him, in some way, to receive salvation, He instead highlighting the fact of how belief is itself a work --- yet we have the very simple and obvious fact that a man must first believe that God has made baptism of water necessary unto salvation before he will even begin to take baptism of water very seriously. And the proof of this is as plain as day… for when have ‘born again christians’ like yourselves ever either emphatically taught or urgently demanded that your children or one of your new converts gets baptized as soon as is reasonably possible?


Never, my dear mother & father!


And I should know, having been brought up by you and participated in Protestant congregations all my life until I was 33 years old. Never did either you or any of them --- or myself before I converted to the One True Faith of Roman Catholicism --- take water baptism very seriously. It was just an ‘option’, a thing kind of good to do since, indeed, Jesus did say to do it, but in no way urgent or critical. And why?


Because it is not necessary --- say you --- for the reception of salvation.


Yet who are you to say anything regarding religion when you have no legs to stand on? You say you rely on your bibles, nonetheless, it is not your bibles that you rely upon. Rather, it is your opinion of what your bibles say upon which you rely. Yet who are you and what is your opinion worth? Are you infallible? Or is any so-called ‘born again christian’, to whom you may look for leadership, infallible? No? Then how do you, and how does anyone in your religion, guarantee knowledge of the Saving Truth, the whole Saving Truth, and nothing but the Saving Truth, without any possibility of being wrong? How do I know I won’t end up in Hell if I follow you and your private interpretation of the Bible? Why isn’t my interpretation of the Bible to be preferred instead? Or do you just pick and choose, as you feel like it, what you’ll believe and how you’ll interpret verses? Because, my dear parents, that’s what it comes down to. That you choose based upon your purely personal whims --- mere desires subject to the winds & tides of this life as men trace a laborious path about the earth, shaping & persuading one another, the baleful but invisible influence of innumerable demons throughout the world stinging them into all sorts of religious lies and other iniquities --- what you will believe and what you will not, or how you will interpret your bible and how you will not.


In the meantime, and as we have already shown when it comes to the baptism of water, your belief and your interpretation fly squarely in the face of both the text of the Bible and also good sense itself. Jesus’ words are stark. They are so obvious as to be able to reach out and poke the reader in the eye. Never did Jesus use the phrase “born of water” in any other passage to metaphorically refer to ‘natural birth’. Nor is this phrase, to my knowledge, anywhere in Sacred Scripture ever used to refer metaphorically to the exiting of a man from the womb of a woman. And, as if that weren’t enough, never, as far as I know, has this phrase ever been used by Jews, or by people anywhere on earth, to speak metaphorically of being born naturally in the body from a mother’s womb. The phrase is, instead, for the very first time anywhere, used here to describe a new kind of birth. Birth not of flesh but of spirit. A rebirth that, contrary to all the merely natural expectations held by most people living on earth in their flesh corrupted by Adam’s Original Sin, flows forth from simple water applied rightly to a man according to the Express Commandment & Sovereign Will of the Almighty God.


To wit, that the Almighty Creator --- Who made Heaven & earth, and all that exists, out of nothing by the Sovereign Word & Divine Spirit of His Being --- sees fit, in His Mighty Power that is not bound by a man’s carnal wishes or prejudices, to infuse spirit into the man that humbly seeks to know, humbly resolves to believe and humbly carries out in obedience His Commandment to be baptized in water so that he may be born again supernaturally to gain what he could never have attained only by birth the first time naturally. A humility of seeking, believing & obedience much akin to the eventual obedience & humility of Naaman, the Syrian captain afflicted by leprosy. Who, seeking a cure in the land of Israel, was at first furious with Elisha the Prophet for telling him to do such a simple and mundane thing as washing himself in the little known water of the puny Jordan River in order to cleanse his leprosy.


+ + +   1c. A Lesson for the Earthly Minded   + + +


“And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, ‘Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.’ But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, ‘Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper. Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel?  May I not wash in them, and be clean?’ So he turned and went away in a rage. And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, ‘My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? How much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?’ Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.” (2 Kings 5:10-14 KJV)


My dear parents, you are like the haughty and unbelieving Naaman. You want some ‘great’ and ‘spiritual’ means for achieving salvation, a doorway into Heaven that requires nothing of you other than to remain in your religious Syria, bathing in the rivers to which you are accustomed. Or, if you must travel, departing from your former religion into the religion of another to which you are not accustomed --- namely, Catholicism, which you despise --- then you seek for a sufficiently ‘great’ and ‘spiritual’ sign or wonder, a bit of theatricality that would demonstrate to you, in your earthly-mindedness, how powerful the Catholic Faith is in the things of God. When, to the contrary, all God tells you, as revealed in your very own bibles, is to believe and obey all that He has commanded, beginning with baptism of water, such a simple and mundane thing.


Your arrogant derision and worldly unbelief are palpable. Like Nicodemus, the learned and worldly priest, you react with barely contained scorn:


“How can a man be born when he is old? … Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” (John 3:4 NIV)


And we can empathize a little bit with Nicodemus. After all, how could a man be born “a second time”, physically crawling as a big, huge, grown-up body back “into his mother’s womb” to be “born again”? This is, humanly speaking, impossible. It is, under normal circumstances, entirely ridiculous. Hence Nicodemus’ unbelief. Nevertheless, neither Nicodemus nor you are thereby excused for unbelief. As Jesus chided him:


“Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?” (John 3:10b-c KJV)


And He stated further:


“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, we speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:11-12 KJV)


The point is, dear mother & father, that your uncomprehending derision of Jesus’ teaching on the necessity of baptism of water in order to be saved is identical to, in principle, Nicodemus’ uncomprehending derision of the same. Because water is but an earthly thing, and Jesus’ teachings --- His doctrines --- about how men on earth are to attain unto the Hope of Heaven, are “earthly things” since they apply to men who are still on earth. Yet if you “receive not” His witness regarding these things, then “how shall ye believe” whenever you may hear what He said to men regarding heavenly things?”


For His words concerning the ‘earthly thing’ of baptism in water are stark:


“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5b-d KJV)


Perfectly clear. Two things required in order to “enter into the kingdom of God.” Namely, “…except a man be born of water [first condition] and of the Spirit [second condition], he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [the result that follows the two conditions not being successfully met]


Exclude either one of the two conditions, and a man cannot get into Heaven… which is why being “born of water is joined grammatically, and thus logically, to of the Spirit by the connective conjunction word, “and”. The two together are required as conditions to get the result of entering Heaven --- both “water” and “Spirit”.


Which makes still more of a mockery of your misinterpretation of John 3:5. Because if Jesus merely subtly meant by His very literal words that solely being born of the Spirit is necessary for Salvation, then not only are His literal words in John 3:5 both mindlessly repetitious and stupidly absurd, but He should not have said:


“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5b-d KJV)


Rather, He should have said:


“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5b-d RAMV --- Revised Archaic Mother Version)


And Jesus should not have said:


“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16 KJV)


Instead, He should have said:


“He that believeth shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16 RAMV --- Revised Archaic Mother Version)


And Peter should not have said:


“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38b-d KJV)


Rather, He should have said:


“Repent, and believeth every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38b-d RAMV --- Revised Archaic Mother Version)


And Peter also should not have said:


“For Christ… preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us…” (1 Peter 3:18a, 19b-21a KJV)


Instead, He should have said:


“For Christ… preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by belief. The like figure whereunto even belief doth also now save us…” (1 Peter 3:18a, 19b-21a RAMV --- Revised Archaic Mother Version)


And Jesus as well should not have said:


“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:19-20 KJV)


To the contrary, He should have said:


“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, teaching them to say a sinner’s prayer and believe in me and just ask me into their hearts: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:19-20 RAMV --- Revised Archaic Mother Version)


Now, my dear parents, neither Jesus nor Peter said any of these things… did they? In blatant contrast to the imaginary --- but wholly accurate representation of what you want to believe is true --- verses of the Revised Archaic Mother Version (RAMV) of the Bible, both Jesus & Peter said, quite plainly, that which is opposite to what you want to believe is true, being that which is actually true irregardless of what you merely want to believe. Put another way, you twist the words of your very own bibles to fit your preconceived Protestant, Evangelic & Charismatic notions --- indeed, your traditions of men! --- ideas that are in direct contradiction to what Jesus & Peter did most actually, literally and obviously declare in Sacred Scripture.


End of sentence.


+ + +   1d. Water of Holy Obedience, Spirit of True Belief   + + +


So, then, let us dispense with your nonsense about real Catholics thinking it is ‘baptism alone’ that saves a man. The Roman Catholic Church since the AD 30s has never taught this, nor have I ever proclaimed such a silly thing to you. Au contraire, the Catholic Faith infallibly insists --- and I obediently follow Her words, they being the words of Her Lord, King Jesus Christ of Nazareth, spoken by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth (John 14:16-17, 15:26-27), through Her, the Church, “…the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth…” (1 Timothy 3:15 KJV) --- that a man gains the Hope of Salvation by both believing in all that Jesus has commanded to be taught through His Body, the Catholic Church, and by being baptized in water.




Ergo why Jesus said:


“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5b-d KJV)


For to be “born of water” is to be baptized correctly in water, and to be born “of the Spirit” is to believe everything that this “Spirit” --- Who is the Holy Spirit, the “Spirit of truth” (John 14:17a, 15:26c KJV) --- teaches us through His Roman Catholic Church, which alone is Jesus’ Body, being “the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15d KJV) The two together are necessary unto the Hope of Salvation, both of them decreed by the Sovereign Creator as indispensable to a man for him to enter His Kingdom.


Ergo why Jesus also said:


“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16 KJV)


For to “believeth” is to believe everything that Jesus, Who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6b KJV), via the Holy Spirit, Who is the “Spirit of truth (John 14:17a, 15:26c KJV), through His Singular Body, the Roman Catholic Church, which is “the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15d KJV), teaches unto men for them to have infallible certainty about how to save their souls, evading the lies of a wily Devil and the tomfoolery of ignorant, obstinate, constantly dividing & perpetually rebellious men. Meanwhile, to be “baptized” is to be baptized in water, just as Jesus commanded, where He said, letting men know that baptism is one of many things out of “all things whatsoever” (Matthew 28:20a KJV) that He most explicitly commands men to do:


“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:19-20 KJV)


And just as Jesus Himself gave the example to do, as you passingly acknowledge in section six of your January 24th email, by Himself receiving baptism of water at the hands of John the Baptist:


“In those days came John the Baptist… But when he saw many… come to his baptism, he said unto them, ‘I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance…’ Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, ‘I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?’ And Jesus answering said unto him, ‘Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.’ Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water…” (Matthew 3:1a, 7a, c, 11a, 13-16b KJV)


And just as Jesus through His disciples practiced baptism of water, proving it was not only John the Baptist who did so, and that the Baptism which Jesus commanded men to receive was not merely a metaphorical kind of ‘baptism of fire’ or ‘of spirit’, as modern minds might see it, but was both a baptism of the Holy Spirit and also quite actually, concretely, literally & objectively a baptism of water as well:


“When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples), he left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.” (John 4:1-3 KJV)


A literal baptism of water proven by Jesus’ earliest disciples, too, in that they very obviously understood His command to baptize all nations (Matthew 28:19-20) to mean baptizing them in water, and not just baptizing either figuratively or literally in the Holy Spirit, as they inarguably demonstrated by baptizing disciples in water as soon as was reasonably possible. E.g., Philip and the eunuch:


“And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?’ And Philip said, ‘If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.’ And… they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” (Acts 8:36-38 KJV)


And elsewhere Peter and the centurion when the latter --- both by faith in all of the doctrines of Jesus & His Apostles, and as evidence that the Creator intended Gentiles, also, to find Hope of Salvation by entering into His Son’s Body, the Catholic Church --- received the Holy Spirit, causing Peter to order him immediately baptized in water, too:


“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost… Then answered Peter, ‘Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?’ And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” (Acts 10:44-45, 46c-48a KJV)


And Paul as well, who recounted his baptism, clearly inferring the natural cleansing power of earthly water when by the Sovereign Will of God it is miraculously empowered by Him to cleanse a man supernaturally, at the hands of Ananias, by saying:


“And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, ‘Brother Saul, receive thy sight… And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:12-13c, 16 KJV)


Ergo then why Peter said, too:


“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38b-d KJV)


+ + +   1e. Keeping the Commandments   + + +


For what shall a man “[r]epent” of, except that he has sinned? And what is sin, except to break the commandments? And what has God commanded of all men, if not to obey the Ten Commandments that are encompassed in Jesus’ two greatest commandments? Wherein He said:


“‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40 KJV)


Yet how shall a man love God with all of his heart, soul & mind, except that he in his rational mind both have reasonable knowledge of and wittingly choose to obey all God’s Commandments? As Jesus said, and as I have now several times repeated to you:


“If ye love me, keep my commandments... He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me... If a man love me, he will keep my words... He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings...” (John 14:15, 21a, 23b, 24a KJV)


And as I said in my email to you on January 21st regarding these words of Jesus:


“Examine these words carefully, dear father & mother. A man must keep Jesus’ commandments in order to love Him. Nay, more --- a man must have Jesus’ commandments in the first place to even begin obeying them and hence love Him. To not keep them, whether because one does not have them to start with or because one has them but purposely rebels against them, is to hate Jesus.”


Furthermore, as I then noted Jesus saying as well:


“He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” (Luke 11:23 KJV)


Indeed, the penalty for not having all of Jesus’ commandments, or not obeying all of His commandments in spite of having all of them, is, according to Jesus, the following:


“I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word [teachings & commandments] which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.” (John 15:1-6, 9-10 KJV)


There it is, my dear parents. If you don’t “abide” in Jesus --- whether for not obeying His Commandments at some point in time even after entering His Roman Catholic Body and unhappily dying in this rebellion, or for never entering His Body, the Catholic Church, in the first place because you didn’t seek for all His Catholic Commandments --- then you cannot “abide” in the love of Jesus. He will hate you. Dare to continue in this perilous state of existence, eventually dying in it, then you are like one that is “cast forth as a branch” and “cast… into the fire” where you are “burned.” (John 15:6 KJV)


In a word, you die forever in the Fire of Hell!


For how is it a man loves the Almighty Creator with all his heart, all his soul, and all his mind, therein obeying the “first and great commandment”? (Matthew 22:38 KJV) Is not the second greatest commandment, according to Jesus, to “love thy neighbor as thyself”? (Matthew 22:39b KJV) And is not this second greatest commandment a summing up of the last seven (or, as Protestants would have it, the last six) of the Ten Commandments? Does not the Apostle Paul confirm this wherein he says:


“Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ (Deuteronomy 5:18), ‘Thou shalt not kill’ (Deuteronomy 5:17), ‘Thou shalt not steal’ (Deuteronomy 5:19), ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’ (Deuteronomy 5:20), ‘Thou shalt not covet’ (Deuteronomy 5:21); and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’. (Leviticus 19:18c) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Romans 13:8-10 KJV)


Ah, so Paul does not denounce the Law as Protestants like yourselves would like to think, and it is not simply Jesus Himself who ‘fulfills the Law’ for you as you would also like to think. It is real Christians themselves who do so by obeying the commandments, loving their neighbors as themselves. And if the last seven (or six, as Protestants would have it) of the Ten Commandments are summed up in what Jesus said is the second greatest commandment --- Paul having listed them carefully in the paragraph right above for the sake of the Catholics in Rome to read --- then what are we to conclude comprises the “first and great commandment” (Matthew 22:38 KJV), wherein Jesus said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matthew 22:37b-d KJV, Jesus quoting from Deuteronomy 6:5), unless it be the first three (or, as Protestants would have it, the first four) of the Ten Commandments? Accordingly, where God says:


“I am the Lord thy God… Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.” (Deuteronomy 5:6a, 7-15 KJV)


Does not the Almighty Creator here forbid false gods and false religions, being neither true gods nor religions that He commanded, and He forbidding the idolatry of paganism; does He not forbid using His Name for no good reason; and does He not forbid working wrongly in earthly labor on that day of the week He tells men to set aside as holy unto Him and to the Religion that He commanded men to both believe and to practice?


Consequently, when Peter told the first converts in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost that they should, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38b-d KJV), he did so meaning that they should not only eschew the breaking of the last seven of the Ten Commandments --- which are the commandments of morality, being how men are to love their neighbors like themselves --- but he did so meaning that they should also eschew the breaking of the first three of the Ten Commandments. In other words, the commandments of religion, being how men are to love the Almighty Creator of Everything That Exists with all of their hearts, souls and minds!


Nevertheless, the men he spoke to being apparently devout Jews who were come to Jerusalem, some from great distances, to observe a ceremonial liturgical festival of the Old Covenant Church & Mosaic Law, then how is it they were breaking the first three commandments to begin with? And the answer:


By not paying sufficient heed to, and thus not believing in, all that Jesus Christ, their Messiah, had spent three busy years teaching and commanding throughout all their villages and cities, laying the groundwork for the New Covenant Church & Law, they instead murdering Him upon the Cross and carrying on with their Old Covenant ceremonies & sacrifices as if the Sacrifice of Jesus had never occurred, and thus as if He had never fulfilled the Old Covenant or begun the liturgical ceremonies and regular observance of His Sacrifice in the New Covenant!


That’s how.


And if you are confused by, or have a beef with, what I have just stated in the bold-typed paragraph above, then you had better get to business and finally read the article I have sent to you repeatedly (assuming you haven’t done so already), the one entitled Catholic Ritual Defended: How Even a Protestant Bible Shows Catholic Ritual & Liturgy to Be Exactly What God Has Commanded in the Worship of His True Church Everywhere in Heaven & on Earth for All Eternity. Because this article reveals --- from your very own bibles! --- how my assertion isn’t just completely reasonable based on what I’ve shown thus far in this email, but totally inarguable from the ironclad evidence of your bibles themselves. Then, when you have read it carefully unto a complete comprehension, please be industrious enough to talk to me intelligently and honest enough to acknowledge where you have been wrong about Catholicism.


+ + +   1f. Exactly Where the Rebels Rebel   + + +


Notwithstanding, let us not get sidetracked. Because we are seeing why Peter exhorted the Jews in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost to both repent and be baptized.


Repent, because the Jews who still pretended to be under the Old Covenant, while denying Christ, formed a false religion. Hence, they had to denounce their rejection of Christ and their now disobedient attachment to Old Covenant practices (disobedient because they thought such things could still save them), practices superseded by the Covenant that is New and thus become, via this supersession and the perversion of their bad manmade traditions, a false & apostate religion in the wake of Jesus’ ascension into Heaven and the Holy Spirit’s descent upon the 120 disciples gathered in the upper room. In short, they had to let go of the superseded Old in order to believe in the superseding New! That is to say, to believe in all of the teachings & commandments of the New Covenant Religion. These teachings & commandments are the infallible doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church --- She being “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15d KJV) and Her Pope supernaturally prevented by the “Spirit of truth” (John 14:17a, 15:26c KJV) from officially teaching anything false apart from the teachings of Jesus & His Apostles, He Who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6b KJV) --- infallible because only in this way can the Church be guaranteed to stand against the destructive lies and ploys of the Devil, who seeks always to murder the Saving Truth. A God-given indestructibility that cannot be your Protestantism since Protestants cannot, and have not ever for the 490 years of their ever-splintering existence, been able to agree fully on anything except for this: that they each of them hate and detest what God’s One & Only Roman Catholic Church infallibly teaches in order for a man to save his immortal soul.


And baptized, because only in this way, receiving Jesus’ New Covenant baptism of water, could they wholly and adequately partake in the teachings & commandments of the New by obeying that particular commandment of the New Covenant that tells men to be baptized in water. In short, they had to die with Jesus in baptism to the Old Law in order to be born again with Him through baptism to the New Law! In this way men become new creatures, rooted in Jesus Christ. As Paul says:


“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17 KJV)


This occurs, teaches Paul in another passage, by the shared spiritual death with Jesus Christ in water baptism:


“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:3-4 KJV)


And Paul illustrates the God-ordained duality of belief and baptism elsewhere:


“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:26-27 KJV)


Put alternatively --- driving the point home past the traditions of men that have blinded you and enslaved you all your lives, bound as you are by the chains of false religion from your Protestant forebears --- belief and baptism go together like two peas in a pod. God has made it so; it is He Who commands it to be such. He both makes baptism in water miraculously and supernaturally efficacious, effecting new life for the man born again into the New Covenant Doctrine & Law of Christ, and makes it a new rule and precept that men must be baptized in water, once they are prepared properly in New Covenant Doctrine & Law of Christ, in order to someday receive the Promised Life of Heaven, assuming that they persevere. Like Paul also said regarding Jesus Christ, inerrantly inspired by the Holy Spirit as he wrote:


“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:11-12 KJV)


Again, perfect duality of both baptism and belief required by God to be exercised together. One cannot exist without the other in the Creator’s Economy of Salvation. For He has made, by His Sovereign Decree, the two together to be necessary for attaining unto the Hope of Salvation. Viz., a man must both believe correctly (hold all of the teachings & commandments of Jesus’ Catholic Church) and be baptized correctly (it being the first thing commanded by Jesus & His Catholic Church to be obeyed so as to embark successfully upon the Ark of Salvation, which is the Roman Catholic Church, attaining to the Port of Heaven). This is how a man is born again, and this is why I call your religion a so-called ‘born again christianity’, not treating the name as if it really means what it purports to describe. Because, plainly, your false religion does not hold to all the teachings & commands of Jesus’ Catholic Church and does not administer baptism of water rightly. You are not truly ‘born again’ and you are not real ‘christians’. Whereby neither your baptism nor your belief can work correctly, they being held incorrectly. For Christianity to be real Christianity it must teach what Jesus taught --- all of it. Likewise, for Christianity’s members to be good members, then they must obey what He commanded --- everything. As Jesus said:


“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:19-20 KJV)


Or as the NIV puts it into more contemporary lingo:


“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I will be with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18b-20a NIV)


Not something you pay attention to --- is it, my dear parents? Obeying Jesus’ commands? Taking heed to know everything He commanded and taking them seriously lest you lose your souls to the Fire of Neverending Hell for breaking something greater than the least of the commandments, one of which is Jesus’ commandment to be baptized in order to be saved? The much-ballyhooed ‘biblicalness’ of your ‘born again christianity’ evaporates like a mist in the newly-risen sun at points like these… doesn’t it? Which is why, then, I very rightly and piously mock you for stunts like this, the two of you pretending to follow your bibles whilst ignoring their very literal words --- and their very sensible meaning --- left-and-right throughout the precious text of Sacred Scripture. After all, neither one of you wants to believe that God requires both right belief and right baptism for salvation, despite what the Bible very plainly says about them being necessary!


All the same and in spite of what you want to believe, this is why, ergo, Peter says:


“For Christ… preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us…” (1 Peter 3:18a, 19b-21a KJV)


You didn’t even try to explain away this passage in your email of January 24th, whether in section six where you addressed water baptism or elsewhere. And no wonder, because the verses are absolutely inexplicable and mysterious to so-called ‘born again christians’ like yourselves. By your way of thinking, shaped as it is by the manmade traditions of Protestantism, the Apostle Peter should never in the world have said such a thing! The water of baptism saving a man? Is he kidding? The very idea sticks in your craw. For, typical Protestants that you are and divided up against each other over endless variations on doctrines and practices --- not to mention grudges and grievances resulting in untold numbers of congregations and denominations splitting up over the centuries --- you are nevertheless united on but one single thing:


That whatever Catholicism teaches, that’s what you don’t want to believe in!


Not that any of you are now, or ever have been in the past five centuries, very consistent in this united animosity toward the teachings of Jesus & His Body, the Roman Catholic Church. After all, most of you still accept the very important teaching that God is One Being and yet Three Persons (even though none of you very well comprehend the Trinity in all of its nuances and depths) and most of you still accept the less important tradition that Jesus had long hair while residing upon the earth nearly 2000 years ago (a tradition you won’t find anywhere stated in the Bible, but that Protestants have nonetheless always believed, as evidenced in their paintings of Jesus or in their Christmas pageants). Both the Doctrine of the Trinity and the tradition of a long-haired Jesus have always been held by the Roman Catholic Church since the first century.


But, of course, what unites Protestants --- a name the first Protestants acquired in 1529 and which they accepted readily in the following century due to it describing perfectly their position against the once-dominant Catholic Church in Europe, they protesting the teachings of a Church that unabashedly submitted to the Spirit-endowed bulwark of the Pope’s official infallibility --- is an all-consuming hatred toward the responsibility that every man has to actually obey what His Creator commands him to do in order that he might save his immortal soul.


This Protestants will not tolerate.


They will do back flips, they will spin like whirling dervishes, they’ll interpret and reinterpret countless passages of Sacred Scripture (that is, when the usual ploy of not reading the Bible in the first place fails to keep them in ignorance of what their bibles most literally and really say) into pretzel-like absurdity, they will make God’s words mean whatever they want them to mean… and in spite of what His words often clearly say, most blatantly and manifestly opposed to their diabolic traditions of men.


+ + +   1g. And Hence Why They Rebel Against Baptism   + + +


This we have already demonstrated, both in the email you are now reading and in many others that I have previously sent to you. You take very obvious passages regarding the necessity of baptism in water, as spoken by Jesus & Peter, twisting their very plain words like tortured pretzels into meaningless absurdities. The verses from Mark’s Gospel are an especially good example of this at this point in our debate. For Jesus says:


“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16 KJV)


The words are simple and clear, my dear parents. Jesus couldn’t have said it any more straightforwardly. He does not say, “He that believeth shall be saved”; rather, He says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…”


Plain as day.


And if He meant what you merely want to believe He meant to say, then He should never have said what He said above, mentioning in the first half of the sentence that it is baptism together with belief which saves a man! Baptism has nothing to do with it, according to you and your very fallible opinion. So what in the world is Jesus doing, stating quite clearly in the first half of the verse that baptism together with belief is what saves you? Per your heretical teaching, Jesus should have said:


“He that believeth shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16 RAMV --- Revised Archaic Mother Version)


Yet what do you do? Oh, no, Jesus couldn’t possibly have meant that! How do you know? Do you not claim to rely on your bibles for what you believe, or, at least, to not ever contradict them? Then how can you take what the Bible says seriously when you pick and choose at your own personal liberty, according to your preconceived whims, what you will believe and what you will not? How is it you have the audacity to privately interpret according to the prejudices of your manmade traditions and yet still dare to tell me, with a straight face, that your religious beliefs are ‘grounded’ in the Bible?


Grounded? Grounded? Grounded in what? The very term means something firm and unshaken, unchangeable. Whereas you can make your bible mean whatever you want it to mean, causing troublesome verses that plainly don’t fit your preconceived notions to disappear with the wave of an interpretive hand. And all because… you don’t want to believe it. It has nothing to do with The Truth. You have no real desire to know what is really true and what is not. All you have is a set of fallible traditions of men, borne of the rebellious tumult in the 16th century when certain bad or phony Catholics rejected the Religion that had been handed down to them with God-given infallible certainty for 1500 years, and also acquired through the 490 years since then as Protestant rabblerousers have innovated here-and-there, adding willy-nilly as they please to a poisonously concocted stew of doctrinal heresies.


Point in fact:


For how do you interpretively annihilate the passage just quoted above from the Gospel of Mark? You can’t make Jesus not say what he really did literally say in the first half of the sentence… that would be going too far, even for your rebellious tastes. Nevertheless, His words are problematic. You can’t just let them stand as they are, understood at face value. That would mean a work is necessary for salvation. That would mean you have to obey God to enter Heaven. No, Jesus’ words in Mark 16:16a must be done away with!


Therefore, you turn to the second half of the sentence. Ah… there you are. It only says “…but he that believeth not shall be damned…” in that part of the verse. Nothing about baptism there. Ah, that explains it, you want to think. Now you can ignore that ugly little first half of the verse where Jesus says a shockingly ridiculous thing about baptism being necessary to save a soul. Now you can explain it away, calming the nerves of those few ‘born again christians’ who actually bother to both read their bibles and try to take them at face-value without automatically explaining everything away that doesn’t fit into your religion. Although it’s always still there, sticking out like a sore thumb and positively inexplicable as to why Jesus would choose to put things like He did, upholding baptism of water as if it’s part of what a man needs to get into Heaven --- and distressingly so since the Bible nowhere explicitly says that baptism isn’t necessary for salvation but instead explicitly says the opposite.


Shame upon you, mother & father!


Shame upon you for your complacent attitudes and your arrogant hearts, daring to say you ‘serve’ Jesus when, in fact, you won’t even treat His most simple and straightforward words here with decency and respect. When, in fact, you have the gall to say He didn’t mean what He starkly says and most obviously meant by them!


+ + +   1h. Jesus in Mark 16:16 Simply Explained   + + +


Has it never occurred to you --- seeing as how you’re neither infallible nor have you ever said you are, apart from a brief moment at Camp Paradise where you jested sarcastically, mother, in response to my tenaciously holding you responsible for taking this very verse seriously and not tossing it to the side --- that there could be a reasonable explanation for why Jesus mentioned baptism in the first half of the verse while not in the latter half, the two halves harmonizing with perfectly good sense and utter ease?


Then listen up and don’t axiomatically reject what you don’t want to believe just because it isn’t to your preconceived tastes and within your manmade traditions. Consider: what is baptism? Is it something you have to do again and again? No, because neither Jesus nor His Apostles nor any of the writers of the Bible make any explicit mention of it being repeatable. Neither has the Roman Catholic Church ever taught in Her two thousand year history that it must or can be repeated, nor has any early Christian writer extra-biblically ever taught that it is so. To the contrary, every mention of baptism, whether in the Bible or elsewhere, makes it clear, if only inferentially, that baptism, once done correctly, is never to be done again.


It is a one-time thing.


A good-willed adult comes to realize that he must do it, as part of believing & obeying rightly, and therefore he prepares for it properly. He studies all that he must know and believe in order to join with Jesus’ New Covenant Body, the Catholic Church. Then, fully prepared and penitent, he takes the plunge --- no pun intended --- dying with Jesus Christ in water baptism so that he might then have reasonable hope of living with Christ some day to come after life on this earth and, provided he perseveres in all of Jesus’ teachings & commandments from that point in time onward, attaining to the promise of that wondrous hope when he dies a good death in the state of grace.


The upshot?


A man only has to be baptized correctly once in his life. Hence Jesus saying in the first half of His sentence, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…” Yet a man must believe correctly from that point of baptism onward for the rest of his life. Hence Jesus saying in the second half, “…but he that believeth not shall be damned.”


Case closed, verse explained, with utter ease and perfectly good sense and simplicity.


Whereas, to the hideous contrary, self-styled ‘bible-believing christians’ like yourselves must focus on the latter half of the verse solely to the complete exclusion of the baldfaced words and their very obvious meaning in the first half, having no way to explain them being there and why they don’t mean what they clearly say they mean… truly, despite Sacred Scripture nowhere in its text saying that baptism does not save a man!


Who, then, believes the Bible?


The two of you, or me?


+ + +   1i. Meanwhile, Peter Puzzles Protestants   + + +


And Peter’s words are but ammunition all the more for the Catholic side of things. Because he says, and I quote from your very own translation of Sacred Scripture:


“For Christ… preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us…” (1 Peter 3:18a, 19b-21a KJV)


Again the duality of both belief and baptism as necessary unto salvation. For not only does Peter mention the fact that baptism saves him & his fellow Catholics, but mentions at the start of the passage that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison who had been disobedient while alive on earth just prior to the Great Flood. This by itself is a needling puzzle to Protestants like yourselves who bother to ponder it. Spirits in prison? Preaching to them? What in the world was Peter talking about? Or, rather, who in the world --- and where in the world --- was he talking about?


Naturally, well-instructed Catholics have no problem with this passage. Why should we? The Bible is ours, entrusted to our Church by God Almighty for its safe keeping and right interpretation. Catholicism comes from Jesus Christ, having been started by Him and nurtured by His Apostles. Consequently, nothing in the Bible is a true stumper for us. If something is worth knowing, then we can know it. God guarantees it through His Roman Catholic Church’s Holy Spirit-provided infallibility. Be it not worth knowing, it still won’t bother us, it being something we can handle with scholarly aplomb.


Meanwhile, Protestants are baffled. Most just skip over the passage. The more academic types who grapple with it come up with contradictory explanations --- no certainty to be found. And their difficulty stems from a tiny little problem. Or, should I say, a great big problem that looks tiny to them. Because they don’t want to believe God punishes them for anything in the life to come. Once saved, always saved, as the saying goes. Say your ‘sinner’s prayer’, tell Jesus you’re sorry for your sins, just ‘ask Him into your heart’ and voilá! It’s smooth cruising into Heaven for you… nothing ever to suffer or pay for.


The Truth, though, is something very different. And whilst I don’t have the luxury of time to go into all the biblical proofs for Purgatory --- something over which you’d just wave a privately interpretive hand to make go away, using pretzel-like logic and mental gymnastics to avoid at all costs having to accept at good, sensible, face value what the Bible says regarding the place of purgation after certain men die --- the biblical passage here is supremely simple to explain when you know Purgatory exists and how Salvation operated before Jesus came to the earth as a Saviour some 2000 years ago.


Accordingly, then, understand that part of Hell within the earth is a place of purgation, not eternal damnation --- and its outer edge once a place of patiently expectant waiting. During the New Covenant, the purgative part is where most Roman Catholics go who die in the state of grace (no mortal sin left on their souls) but who have temporal (as opposed to eternal) debt left to pay. Purgatory is where that debt is exacted. Upon finishing the debt, the soul thus purged enjoys Heaven free of hindrances.


Prior to the New Covenant, Purgatory was much the same. The only difference is that the souls entering its confines were not, strictly speaking, Catholic. They were not because Jesus had not yet arrived on earth to start His Body, the Catholic Church. As a result, souls entered its confines for failing to practice rightly the True Religion thus far revealed by the Creator at that point in time. Dying in mortal sin would still damn souls forever in the deeper pits of Hell, and dying in the practice of false religion would certainly do the same. However, the souls at the time just before the Great Flood were a rather unique bunch. Because, as is the case now during the Great Apostasy when almost no one is left who is a real Catholic and almost everyone is practicing false religion, so was the case then. But Noah, as Peter tells us elsewhere, not only built the Ark but also preached to the men around him. And what did he preach?


The True Religion, of course, as revealed thus far to men on earth at that time.


Just about everybody rejected him, mocking his words and disbelieving what he taught. They therefore stayed outside the confines of the True Church of that era, refusing to enter the Ark before the Flood came.


But then the Flood struck. And millions, perhaps billions, of souls were trapped outside the Ark at the time of the beginning of devastations. During that short yet terrifying time untold numbers of these souls --- who had listened often enough or close enough to Noah to know what he’d taught, despite disbelieving or even mocking and persecuting him --- then had a sudden change of heart. Suddenly his words became very believable, very serious and very urgent to them. The Mercy of God is here demonstrated. For while God did not have to show them any kindness, considering their hard hearts and awful sins, He had compassion on many of them, allowing them enough time to survive before they drowned or otherwise died in the ensuing mayhem, to make acts of adequate contrition for their rebellion, repudiating their false religions, and believing upon the words of God as spoken to them by Noah for over a hundred years before the Flood burst upon them. These souls, however many they actually were, wound up condemned to Purgatory for a very, very long time. A length of time entirely appropriate considering how terrible was their rebellion and sin in the days right before the Flood.


Thus, when Jesus died upon the Cross, His Soul descended into the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40) there to preach to the souls in prison. Some of these in prison (though not the souls who died repentant in the Flood) had finished any Purgatory due to them for their sins --- they were merely waiting patiently in the Limbo of the Fathers (also known as the Bosom of Abraham) for Jesus to come. Those souls still in Purgatory who had died penitent in the Flood, though, were not. They suffered purgation for the temporal debt (as opposed to eternal debt) of their sins, an enormous debt that had kept them in spiritual chains and rightful torment for thousands of years. In either case Jesus preached to all of these souls, whether suffering or not, in order to teach to them all of the doctrines and all of the commandments of the New Covenant Church. Doing this, He could then release them from their imprisonment into the Kingdom of Heaven.


That, my dear mother & father, is the significance of the passage from the third chapter of Peter’s second letter in Sacred Scripture. In it Peter reveals how both belief (which flows from having the True Religion preached to men) and baptism (which follows on the heels of belief in every teaching & commandment of True Religion, obedience the requirement if men are to begin the Narrow Path unto Salvation at all) are necessary to enter Heaven.


+ + +   1j. The Fantasy of ‘Faith Alone’   + + +


Unfortunately, this is where heretics like yourselves --- and such as I once was --- get tripped up. Because, as I have previously noted, the thing folks like you absolutely hate and detest beyond all means to describe it, is the fact that God requires obedience from men in order for them to receive salvation.


This drives you mad.


“Obedience is not necessary for salvation!” you pontificate, sounding suspiciously as if you think you possess papal infallibility. “Salvation is a free gift of God and nobody has to do anything other than believe in Jesus in order to receive it!”


Yet you are not finished.


“To think otherwise is to be enslaved to the law,” you will continue, still sounding suspiciously pope-like in your utter certainty. “Jesus came to liberate men from the law, so that nobody ever needs to try to be ‘good enough’ to enter heaven. In fact, it couldn’t even have been done during the old testament! God just gave the law to them so as to make perfectly clear how foolish people were to think that they could be righteous enough to merit salvation.”


This despite the fact that by declaring such you have then condemned untold numbers of saintly souls under the Old Covenant to what amounts to having lived a life of worthless drudgery, their entire existence on earth a ludicrous sham, and God some kind of sadistic prankster Who took an odd, irrational and twisted pleasure out of making centuries upon centuries of Israelites practice ‘dead works’ that availed them nothing and from which they could derive no lasting good for themselves other than a rather vague idea, maybe, that they were helping someone down the line to know how stupid it is to practice the type of religion that they were doomed to practice at God’s own behest.


“Law, no --- faith alone!” you chant, laying down the law about no law while sounding suspiciously like a Roman Catholic in your litany of perpetually repeated words and commandments. “Down with law and good works as a way to get into Heaven! We live by faith alone.”


And therein lies the crux --- “faith alone.”


‘Faith alone’ is what you preach, infallibly certain in your officially popish declaration regarding its absolutely inescapable necessity for securing a man’s salvation.


There’s only one problem. Because you also tout ‘scripture alone’. Or, leastwise, that’s what your Protestant ancestors did when first rebelling against God’s Catholic Church, trying to justify their breaking away from His Singular Way to Salvation, the “pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15d KJV) Yet just as it nowhere says in the Bible that it is the Bible alone to which a man must turn as a ‘final authority’ to glean everything he is supposed to believe and follow, so nowhere does it say in Sacred Scripture that it is ‘faith alone’ that justifies or saves a man into Heaven.


I repeat:


Nowhere does the Bible say that it is ‘faith alone’ that justifies or saves a man’s soul.




Go ahead. Meticulously scour your bibles, if you haven’t already, upon this subject. And in the meantime, should you have amply verified the accuracy of my bold statement, then stand quiet and listen. Because, once again, we are confronted by hard evidence of how a Protestant does not take seriously the Bible that he so loves to act like he takes seriously. And if the Bible does not say that it is ‘faith alone’ that justifies or saves a man, then where do you get off pretending that it is? Is not your ‘authority’ for believing what you believe supposed to be your bibles? Then how dare you act for certain like it’s ‘faith alone’ that justifies or saves you when, in actual fact, the Bible says no such thing!


For instance, heretics of your ilk love to cite the following verses, amongst others:


“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ…” (Romans 5:1 KJV)




“…knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” (Galatians 2:16 KJV)


As well:


“But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, ‘The just shall live by faith.’” (Galatians 3:11 KJV, referring to Habakkuk 2:4)


Examine these verses carefully, my dear mother & father. You will not find words of exclusion associated with the term “faith” anywhere in their text --- e.g., words like ‘alone’, ‘only’, ‘solely’ or the like. Nowhere is the idea of ‘faith alone’ to be found in them. Whereas, if your manmade teaching of ‘faith alone’ was everywhere --- or even anywhere --- upheld in the text of Sacred Scripture, then the Bible ought to actually say so. In other words, it ought to be explicit. For instance, the first verse should say:


“Therefore being justified by faith alone, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ…” (Romans 5:1 RAMV --- Revised Archaic Mother Version)


Or the second verse should say:


“…knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith alone of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith alone of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” (Galatians 2:16 RAMV --- Revised Archaic Mother Version)


Or, better yet, the third verse should say:


“But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, ‘The just shall live by faith alone.’” (Galatians 3:11 RAMV --- Revised Archaic Mother Version)


But they don’t. And, I tell you, it is the same throughout Sacred Scripture, in your very own bibles. Nowhere does the Bible say that it is ‘faith alone to which we are to turn in order to save our immortal souls.


+ + +   1k. How to Pull a Rabbit Out of the Bible’s Hat   + + +


As a matter of fact, if you’re going to play the game of wielding the various wordings of certain verses to try to uphold your heretical notion of being justified or saved by ‘faith alone’, then let us realize that the exact phrasings and precise wordings of certain verses can just as easily be used against you. For example:


“…that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:7 KJV)


Aha… so according to this verse, justification is “by his grace” --- faith not being anywhere mentioned within its text! Why, the man possessed by an unreasoning passion to pump up ‘grace’ without any reference to another factor in the process, could go about touting his discovery --- as found in his bible --- that it is grace and not faith that justifies a man, so saving him. From there it’s just another small little step for such a man in his prejudices to wind up declaring, “I am justified and saved by grace alone and not by either faith or works or any other thing!”


Or another example:


“Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” (Romans 5:9 KJV)


Oh, I see. According to this verse, justification is “by his blood” --- neither faith nor works nor grace being anywhere mentioned in its words! Why, the man possessed by an irrational animosity toward faith or works or grace and gripped by an unreasoning passion to vaunt ‘blood’ without reference to any other factor in the process, could go about proclaiming his discovery --- as found in his bible --- that it is blood and not faith or works or grace that justifies a man, so saving him. From there it’s just another tiny step for such a man in his prejudices to wind up declaring, “I am justified and saved by blood alone and not by either faith or works or grace or any other thing!”


Or still another example:


“And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV)


Mmm, I get it. According to this verse, justification is “by the Spirit” --- neither faith nor works nor grace nor blood being anywhere mentioned in its phraseology! Why, the man possessed by a senseless hatred of faith or works or grace or blood and gripped by the talons of an unreasoning passion to laud ‘spirit’ without reference to any other factor in the process, could go about announcing his discovery --- as found in his bible --- that it is spirit and not faith or works or grace or blood that justifies a man, so saving him. From there it’s just another small step for such a man in his prejudices to wind up pontificating like an imaginary ‘pope’, “I am justified and saved by spirit alone and not by either faith or works or grace or blood or any other thing!”


Do you perceive the foolishness in which you dwell by pretending that it is ‘faith alone’ on which you depend, this fantasy in turn resting upon the mirage of ‘scripture alone’ --- neither of which can be found anywhere stated explicitly in the Bible? Moreover, that your interpretation of certain verses, meant to uphold these twin manmade traditions, is everywhere undercut by your constant inability to agree with fellow ‘bible-believing christians’ on an untold number of teachings --- not to mention your clash with me, a real Roman Catholic, who interprets the verses quite differently --- all the while you will not come straight out and insist that you are religiously infallible. Yet if not infallible, then why should anyone believe your interpretation? Even your own peers can’t see eye-to-eye with you on many beliefs! So who are you to put on airs as if your belief in either ‘faith alone’ or ‘scripture alone’ couldn’t possibly be wrong… and especially when neither of them can be found stated explicitly in your own bibles?


What if you’re wrong?


Or is that thought taboo?


But if it is taboo, then you do, indeed, think that you’re infallible. Don’t you?


Oh, my dear parents, the darkness in which you grope! The eyes of your mind are so blind that you can’t see straight enough to look into the mirror of your souls and glimpse the gigantic tumor situated glaringly in the midst of your own face. You are so bedimmed by hubris, by gargantuan pride, that you can’t even admit the obvious… that you are not, and can never be in your present circumstances, infallible. Therefore, you must admit one more obvious thing, at the very least: that you could, after all, be wrong about religion. That your beliefs are nothing more than manmade traditions, being misinterpretations --- and even wholesale fabrications --- of the Bible. That ‘faith alone’ is only your opinion and nothing more… and not a very good one, at that, the pages of your bible nowhere supporting its existence. What’s more, that ‘scripture alone’ is also only your opinion and nothing more… and a lousy opinion, too, since the ‘biblical authority’ it tries to support can’t even be found supported in the Bible. So whence your ‘authority’ for believing that ‘scripture alone’ is your ‘ultimate authority’?


Why, you’re not just imaginary little popes, pretending to be infallible when it comes to religious beliefs. You’re imaginary little ‘gods’, pretending that whatever you say is true must be true since your every word and inclination of your will is infinitely powerful to create out of nothing and destroy into oblivion! Because never would a Pope pretend he can pull a spiritual belief out of nowhere, teaching something as true simply because it is his ‘opinion’ that it is true. Every Pope bases his official teachings upon the unchanging groundwork of Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition, the pair being the full repository of what Jesus & His Apostles gave to His Body, the Roman Catholic Church, to preserve undeformed until His Return at the end of our world. As a result, never does a Pope pull out of thin air a dogmatic declaration, heedless of what’s been taught unwaveringly since the first century nearly 2000 years ago. He does not and cannot. He instead keeps it perpetually unchanged by the Power of the Holy Spirit.


Whilst, in stark contrast, the first Protestants gleefully destroyed that which they had been bequeathed as men raised in the Catholic Church. Pulling a religious rabbit out of the hat, they like immature children make-believed that they could see in the pages of the Bible what men had not ever seen, as a practicing and unchanging whole, for fifteen centuries. They reinterpreted --- against the united and unchanging voice of biblical interpretation for fifteen centuries of orthodox Christians --- a handful of passages into meaning what previous generations of Christians had uniformly condemned as heinous corruptions of the True Faith, of the Roman Catholic Religion that Jesus Himself had established on earth as His Very Own Testimony & Body. Later Protestants like yourselves have continued the innovation, baptism in water being but one of many examples.


An example, incidentally, that the very first Protestants did not hold like you do. However, an example that naturally and sensibly follows when, as all Protestants have insisted, works have nothing to do with the reception of salvation in a Christian life. Later Protestants merely put into logical practice what earliest Protestants had newly coined out of the imaginations of their wayward hearts… faith alone’. Meanwhile, Protestants until this day refuse to face the facts found even in their very own bibles, that God really does, after all, require obedience to His Commandments and hence that, after all, the works of a man’s life really are necessary, in conjunction with, and always following on the heels of, that single faith which God infallibly declares unto men, through His Infallible Church, is necessary to believe --- all of it --- to have real Hope of Salvation. A faith that is not only an act of trust in some sort of ‘niceness’ --- as if God only requires men to ‘trust’ that He will do nice things for them, not sending them to Hell provided they’ve said something like a ‘sinner’s prayer’ --- but is as well an act of trust in very definite propositions, in that God declares very specific things that they must believe are true, thereby gaining Hope of Salvation, provided they be “…doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving…”  their “…own selves.” (James 1:22 KJV)


+ + +   1l. Dead Men’s Bones   + + +


Bringing us to the devastating coup de grâce for you, dear mother & father. For this writer of the Bible, James, delivers an absolutely crushing blow to the Protestant heresy of ‘faith alone’. Because not only have we seen that Sacred Scripture nowhere teaches this manmade notion, it being nowhere explicitly stated that justification or salvation is by ‘faith alone’; and not only have we seen how the precise phrasings or exact wordings of various verses in your bibles can be taken out of context to also mistakenly ‘prove’ the ideas of justification by ‘grace alone’ or ‘blood alone’ or ‘spirit alone’ and not merely the fantasy of ‘faith alone’; but we find now, in the plain words of your very own bibles, the distinct opposite and thoroughly contrary thing said against what you believe, you who claim to base the notion of ‘faith alone’ upon the Bible! Accordingly, where the Holy Spirit-inspired writer of the Bible, James, inerrantly declares:


“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, ‘Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled’; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, ‘Thou hast faith, and I have works’: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.’ (Genesis 15:6) Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? (Joshua 2:3-4a, 15, 21b) For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (James 2:14-26 KJV)


Oh, what a goldmine this is, both in itself and in regard to smashing the manmade tradition of Protestants that it is ‘faith alone’ that saves a man! Because what does James say, my dear parents? After asking, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works?” (James 2:14a-c KJV), he follows with another query, so answering his first question --- “Can faith save him?” (James 2:14d KJV) The answer is… no! It cannot! Faith all by itself, alone, cannot and will not ever save anyone. Why? The solution is in the first question itself: because it does not “profit”. In other words, it does neither God, nor you, nor anyone any good. Faith all alone, by itself, is useless.


Yet he does not end there, with abstract theory. Going on, James makes a practical application to real, concrete, physical life on earth in flesh & blood. For what if a fellow Christian comes to a Catholic destitute in hunger? Shall that man, who calls himself a real Catholic, send away his fellow brother in the Church with nice-sounding words only, still starving? What good does that man’s Catholic Faith do either God (Who commands His children to love another, imitating Himself, Who loves all of His children in the Church), or himself (who is supposed to do good works in Christ in order to imitate Jesus and lay up treasure in Heaven for both his own self and for others), or his brother (who is hungry and needs to be fed, instead ending up scandalized that his fellow Catholic would allow him to starve to death without help)? As James very succinctly puts it:


“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” (James 2:17 KJV)


Say again?


“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” (James 2:17 KJV)


Do you get it, my dear parents?


It’s right there, in your bibles! All you’ve got to do is put two and two together to make four. James states, “Even so faith… is dead, being alone.” (James 2:17a, c-d KJV) We repeat for the sake of minds too blinded by prejudice to see clearly, rearranging the words and putting a few to the side in order to make the message utterly clear and unmistakable:


“…faith… aloneis dead…” (James 2:17a, d, c KJV)


O ye of truncated and heretical faith! Take the beam of ‘dead faith’ out of your own eye before you strain at an imaginary gnat (Matthew 23:24) by trying to pharisaically pluck a mote of so-called ‘dead works’ out of the eye of a real Catholic! (Matthew 7:3-5) Wherefore I make the condemnatory words of Jesus my own unto you:


“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation.” (Matthew 23:27-36 KJV)


You are Pharisees, dear mother & father. Much to your shock and anger, I expose you to be the very thing you love to excoriate others for supposedly being. For you pretend to be so very ‘pleasing’ to God, when, in contradictory fact, you are most repellant and noxious to Him! You who make-believe a kind of ‘imputed’ righteousness, claiming to rely on the grace of Jesus by ‘faith alone’, are shown to be nothing but practitioners of a dead faith, one which is both incorrect in and of itself, having long ago rejected the reality of all of the teachings & commandments that Jesus gave to men via His Roman Catholic Church, and is also incorrect by rejecting the necessity of right works along with right faith in order to receive salvation from the hands of the merciful & just God.


Woe to you, I say! For you may “outwardly appear righteous unto men”, fooling them by the charade of a pleasant demeanor, social charity and friendly banter --- as well as your use of many ‘christian’ words and a few ‘biblical’ references --- but you “are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.” For whatever your exact moral state (your keeping of the last seven of the Ten Commandments, or lack thereof), you most definitely and seriously break the first three of the Ten Commandments, God’s rules regarding the True Religion, by refusing to either seek for His Catholic Faith or, confronted by it, to humbly acknowledge its Saving Truth by doing penance and learning to profess it. You arrogantly persist in your manifest heresies despite a Catholic such as I, a prophet --- for that is what all real Catholics are in the broadest sense, though I make no claim to be one in the strictest and narrowest sense --- warning you repeatedly of your sins against True Faith. You are hypocrites, pretending not only to be pleasing to God through an ‘imputed righteousness’, but also imagining yourselves to be the kind of persons that would have welcomed and embraced the holy prophets of ancient times during the Old Covenant, and have loyally followed after Jesus & His Apostles whilst loudly lambasting the Pharisees & scribes during the earliest part of the New Covenant. Whereas, in actual truth, your actions today prove how you would have been the first to murder the holy Abel in the field along with his heinous brother, Cain (Genesis 4:8), and the first to throw a stone against holy Stephen, casting your cloak at the feet of an approving Saul for him to watch. (Acts 7:57-8:1a)


Yet Saul, who later became known as the Apostle Paul, converted, defending and propagating the Catholic Church that you so disdain and despise! When will you do the same, dropping your wicked religious lie of ‘faith alone’? For know you not, as James says, that “the devils also believe, and tremble”? (James 2:19b KJV) How, then, can mere ‘belief’ do anyone any good? For if ‘faith alone’ would save or justify a man, then why are the devils themselves, the demons of hell, not saved and justified by their ‘faith alone’ in the existence of the One True Creator? Indeed, the demons by now know that Jesus Christ is this Creator’s Only Begotten Son & God Himself, having witnessed His Crucifixion, Resurrection & Ascension into Heaven. Consequently, while they cannot now see Him since they are not permitted to enter into Heaven, then why aren’t they nevertheless justified and saved by their ‘faith alone’ in Him and all that He taught, considering they very well know it to be true and believe that it is so?


Do you see?


‘Belief’ all by itself --- even a correct and thorough belief, being totally Catholic --- cannot justify or save a man. The demons are proof of this. They know, they believe. Yet they are not thereby justified and saved. They are not, because they have already lost the opportunity to be in Heaven, having once been there and then fallen into disobedience. Indeed, the Creator does not give fallen angels the chance at redemption that men have. Notwithstanding, He judges them by the same standard that He judges men by, the only difference being that men can have a fresh start, and that, once freshly begun, a man can, while still alive on this earth in his right mind and capable body, still perform necessary works of penance & virtue in God’s Sight to temporally atone for the sins he commits after his God-given fresh start… a fresh start found only through Catholic Faith and initiated in the good work of baptism, God’s Power through these waters literally washing away all debts temporal & eternal acquired by sin until that instant.


But James continues to obliterate the notion of ‘faith alone’, not resting there. For he says, opposing those who would misinterpret the Apostle Paul’s words in Romans and Galatians just as the Apostle Peter warned against (2 Peter 3:15b-17):


“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.’” (James 2:20-23 KJV, quoting Genesis 15:6)


O ye blind and stubborn souls! How can you see what the Apostle James wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, right there in black and white before your very eyes, and pretend to justify your false ‘justification’, wherein you say men are saved by ‘faith alone’? Can you not see your heresy and peril? Because he says, straight out, that Abraham was “justified by works” and not by ‘faith alone’!


Although, irony of ironies, we are afforded yet more evidence of how an unstable man, such as all Protestants are, could run with this verse by itself and come to the belief that justification is “by works” --- neither faith nor grace nor blood nor spirit being anywhere mentioned in its words! Why, the man possessed by an irrational animosity toward faith or grace or blood or spirit, and gripped by an unreasoning passion to vaunt ‘works’ void of reference to any other factor in the process, could go about touting his discovery --- as found in his bible --- that it is works and not faith or grace or blood or spirit that justifies a man, so saving him. From there it’s just another small little step for such a man in his prejudices to wind up declaring, “I am justified and saved by works alone and not by either faith or grace or blood or spirit or any other thing!”


When, in truth, the reality is very different. For as you well know (even though you do not know rightly, not understanding Paul’s words that are “hard to be understood”, being souls who are “unlearned and unstable” and so “wrest” his words into meaning what they were never intended to mean, either by Paul himself or the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 3:16b, c KJV)), Sacred Scripture elsewhere says:


“For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.’” (Romans 4:2-3 KJV, quoting Genesis 15:6)


And also:


“‘Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’ (Genesis 15:6) Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, ‘In thee shall all nations be blessed.’ (Genesis 12:3) So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.” (Galatians 3:6-9 KJV)


These are passages from the Bible that so-called ‘born again christians’ like yourselves love to trumpet, thinking, in the darkness of your minds, that they justify your heresy of ‘faith alone’. Yet therein lies the problem for a Protestant… for does Paul anywhere plainly say in these verses that a man is justified or saved by ‘faith alone’?


Of course not!


That part of things is made up out of the wicked minds of “unlearned and unstable” men like yourselves who “wrest” what Paul actually does say into something alien to his intent and contrary to what God through him declares. (2 Peter 3:16c KJV) You add words to the Bible by adding the word ‘alone’ to the word “faith” in order to make the scripturally imaginary phrase & idea of ‘faith alone’, and you subtract words from Sacred Scripture by subtracting from the actual and intended meaning of its text, it never having been the purpose of either Paul or the Holy Spirit in its words to deny the efficacy of right works for receiving salvation! That is to say, both faith and works are necessary to be saved.


+ + +   1m. Two Things Needed to Justify a Man   + + +


But do you doubt? Then heed the words of the Bible, which you claim to revere:


“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24 KJV)


We repeat for the sake of ears unwilling to listen and minds unwilling to comprehend:


“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24 KJV)


The NIV paraphrases it into a lingo even easier for moderns to comprehend:


“You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24 NIV)


My dear parents, how much clearer does the Bible have to get? How much plainer could the Holy Spirit be, speaking inerrantly through the mouth of the Apostle James? And the rejoinder:


It could not get any clearer and plainer!


The words are simple, stark and easy to grasp. Were Sacred Scripture to go any further, it could only get more lengthy, going into great detail about how men are to be justified by both faith & works --- and not merely by faith alone --- or it could anticipate religious lies which, at that early time, were still to come, methodically and meticulously closing off every loophole that later heretics might try to exploit by perverting what the Bible says into something other than what it means. Howsoever, that’s not the purpose of Sacred Scripture, is it? The Bible is neither a legal textbook nor a systematic instruction manual. It is not the job of Sacred Scripture, all by itself, to defend against heresy. Mangled by “unlearned and unstable” men (2 Peter 3:16c KJV), how could it speak up on its own behalf? That job --- the job of being a living, present & active voice, interpreting and teaching the Bible as it is intended to be understood and taught --- belongs to living, present & active men, members of, and especially leaders in, God’s Catholic Church, which is why She is “…the pillar and ground of the truth.”  (1 Timothy 3:15d KJV)


The conclusion is unavoidable, then. The Spirit through James makes it plain. ‘Faith alone’ is wrong, dead wrong, being a ‘faith’ that, were it otherwise a rightly-held faith, keeping almost all of the doctrines & commandments apart from this one point of ‘faith alone’, is nevertheless a dead faith, being a lifeless corpse shorn of the works necessary to make it live & breathe and thus incapable of saving or justifying anyone. This is why Paul tells the Corinthian Catholics:


“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing… And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” (1 Corinthians 13:1-3, 13 KJV)


For while a man before conversion begins with the grace given to him by God, next seeking for the faith that will bring him to salvation, he must then --- when finally in possession of all that he needs to know & believe --- obey what he believes in order to secure this salvation as a reality in the life to come. In a word, it is not ‘faith alone’ that justifies or saves. Rather, it is Grace through Faith and Works that ultimately will achieve the Salvation for which all men are commanded to strive. Put even more specifically, it is by God’s Supernatural Grace first, through His True Catholic Faith next, and with Lawful Works ever following, that a man enters the Kingdom of Heaven. Hence Paul admitting, “…and though I have all faith and have not charity, I am nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:2c, d KJV) Nothing, because faith all by itself --- and in spite of you having all of the faith which you could possibly possess! --- profiteth me nothing…” (1 Corinthians 13:3d KJV) This is why Paul in another place says:


“For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.” (Galatians 5:6 KJV)


What do you know… again, faith all alone does not avail. I.e., faith all by itself can achieve nothing. Instead, it must be a “faith which worketh by love.” Misunderstood by most modern minds, “love” here is just another way of saying “charity”. Which in turn is a rather old-fashioned way of talking about the special kind of love that God has for His chosen souls and that they, likewise, have for Him or for each other. It is a love that considers the welfare of another to be as important as --- or, in the case of a chosen soul’s love for God, even more important than --- one’s own welfare. Ergo Paul’s words cited earlier in the email:


“Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ (Deuteronomy 5:18), ‘Thou shalt not kill’ (Deuteronomy 5:17), ‘Thou shalt not steal’ (Deuteronomy 5:19), ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’ (Deuteronomy 5:20), ‘Thou shalt not covet’ (Deuteronomy 5:21); and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’. (Leviticus 19:18c) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Romans 13:8-10 KJV)


Paul quoted five of the last seven of the Ten Commandments in this passage (six of the last seven really, since the last one he cites, “Thou shalt not covet”, encapsulates the final two of the last seven of the Ten Commandments), demonstrating the necessity of obeying God’s Law in order to please Him. These last seven commandments, which comprise right morality, can be summed up with the statement, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself…” (Leviticus 19:18c, as found in Romans 13:9 KJV) In obedience to them is a part of “faith that worketh by love.”


Nonetheless, the last seven of the Ten Commandments are not the only commandments. There are still the first three. And the first three are the first for a reason --- because they are more important than the last seven. Which is saying a lot since the last seven are also very important! The last seven, as I’ve remarked before, tell men how to behave toward their fellow men, their neighbors… right morality. Meanwhile, which I’ve said before as well, the first three tell men how to behave toward God, our Creator… right faith. The former can be summed up in the rule, “Love your neighbor like yourself”, whilst the latter can be summed up in the maxim, “Love God with all of your heart.”


Except, how are we to love God? What, concretely, does this require of us? Is it merely a strong sentiment or pleasant feeling, expressed once in awhile by noble-sounding hymns, catchy choruses or poignant speeches by a favorite Protestant leader? Or an affection, as it were, for Someone invisible, and thus impossible for us to see and touch, but that we evince by rapturous ‘praise gatherings’, glossalalia, the raising of hands into the air, and minutes on end of swaying back-and-forth to gentle, melodic music? Or, perhaps, a loyal attachment to some passionate conviction, such as social justice and the fight to save the lives of unborn babies? Exactly what does it mean to love God?


We’ve grappled with this both pages ago and in previous emails, the answer remaining always the same. As Jesus said:


“If ye love me, keep my commandments... He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me... If a man love me, he will keep my words... He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings...” (John 14:15, 21a, 23b, 24a KJV)


Crystal clear, my dear parents, crystal clear. And to make it even clearer, we quote once more the words of the Prophet Moses, who in turn simply transmitted, straight across, the words of the Almighty Creator:


“I am the Lord thy God… Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.” (Deuteronomy 5:6a, 7-15 KJV)


+ + +   1n. A Very Brief Treatise on Saintly Veneration   + + +


These are the first three of the Ten Commandments. Or, as Protestants would have it, splitting the first commandment into two and collapsing the last two commandments into one, the first four of the Ten Commandments. They split the first commandment into two because they hate the veneration of saints and their images. They suppose the forbidding of “any graven image” to bolster their case, totally ignoring the fact that God prohibited the worship of pagan idols as if they were ‘gods’ and not the veneration of holy men or angels in Heaven as His most pleasing creatures and servants. God Himself proves this, ordering the Israelites through Moses to make statues of angels out of pure gold for the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies where God made His Presence to dwell:


“And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.” (Exodus 25:18-22 KJV)


Hardly consistent of God --- is it? --- to tell the Jews to “…not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth…” (Deuteronomy 5:8 KJV) when He then turns around and tells them to make two golden images of angels from “heaven above” to put over the Ark in His Own Temple! Unless, of course, God didn’t mean it like Protestants want to think He meant it. To wit, that He didn’t mean to say make no “graven image” --- a statue or something similar --- at all. Rather, He simply meant don’t make a “graven image” that you worship as if it stood in the place of God, being but a pagan demon. Or would you go so far as to condemn all statues and similar works of graven art (some earlier Protestants did, incidentally) wherever they might be, my dear parents?


Neither can the prohibition to “not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them” (Deuteronomy 5:9a KJV) mean don’t kneel down before images of saints, don’t honor them and don’t pray to them. For what do we read about the God-fearing parents of Samson, who encountered an angel that foretold his birth?


“And Manoah said unto the angel of the Lord, ‘What is thy name, that when thy sayings come to pass we may do thee honour?’ And the angel of the Lord said unto him, ‘Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?’ So Manoah took a kid with a meat offering, and offered it upon a rock unto the Lord: and the angel did wondrously; and Manoah and his wife looked on. For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar.  And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground.” (Judges 13:17-20 KJV)


Obviously, if the father, Manoah, told the angel that he wanted to “do thee honour” while the angel did not condemn him for this wish, saying only that his name “is secret” (or, as the NIV has it, “wonderful” --- Strong’s Concordance informing us that the Hebrew here translated can mean either ‘secret’ or ‘wonderful’), then how can it be wrong to “honour” angels or other celestial citizens, such as saints, when this heavenly messenger made no attempt to forbid him? Seeing how nefarious ‘born again christians’ like you like to think this ‘sin’ to be, would he not have sternly upbraided him? Or, considering that Manoah did not at first realize that the angel was an angel, would not the angel have at least said he was an angel and hence not to be honored since that could (as Protestants want to think) trespass upon the worship due only to God?


Moreover, did not “Manoah and his wife” react with astonishment when “the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar”? Does it not say that they “fell on their faces to the ground”? (Judges 13:20d, c, e KJV) At this point, reacting to the astonishing miracle, Manoah did indeed know that he was an angel! For the Bible says:


“Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the Lord.” (Judges 13:21b KJV)


Consequently, this God-fearing man could not in the immediate wake of the miracle have paid obeisance to the angel ignorantly, supposing him to be God Himself. Yet neither the angel, nor God, nor the Bible, tells us that Manoah and his wife did wrongly. To the contrary, Sacred Scripture records the fact for us to read till this day, the two of them plainly portrayed as devout servants of the Almighty Creator & His One True Religion of the Old Covenant. Wherefore I say to you, that if it was not wrong for Manoah & his wife to do this during the Old Covenant as recorded in your very own bibles, then how can it be wrong for Catholics to do this during the New Covenant when they kneel down before statues of saints or angels to pay them honor? How can this be forbidden when Manoah & his wife were not chastised for wishing to honor the angel or for falling on their faces before him after the miracle, and when God clearly does not condemn graven images for holy & virtuous purposes but even commanded them to be made for use in His Own Tabernacle & Temple?


But as for praying to saints & angels, I will not take that up in detail now. This is become very long and I address the issue quite thoroughly, exonerating the Catholic Church while condemning Protestant heresy, in an article called Saintly Veneration Defended soon to be published. For now, merely humble yourselves in the face of the evidence already presented, daring no further to attack what you do not understand and do not want to acknowledge --- that every aspect of the Catholic Faith is truly biblical, contrary to Protestants, who are most vehemently, inexcusably & embarrassingly unbiblical.


+ + +   1o. Love, Obedience, Faith, Charity, Works   + + +


Leading us back to our main train of thought. For if God through Moses in Deuteronomy 5 repeats the Ten Commandments first formally stated by Him to the Israelites in Exodus 20, then what is this but His way of telling us how we are to love Him? For Jesus said, and I reiterate:


“If ye love me, keep my commandments... He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me... If a man love me, he will keep my words... He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings...” (John 14:15, 21a, 23b, 24a KJV)


And if the first three of the Ten Commandments are how we are to love God most directly --- in distinction from the last seven of the Ten Commandments on how to love our fellow men, who are in the image of God, and thus letting us love God indirectly --- being the commandments of faith, i.e., right religion, and therefore the most important of them all, at the head of the list, then what can loving God mean except that we are to hold the correct faith & right religion, believing & obeying all that He has commanded us, and as infallibly revealed through His Son’s Body, the Roman Catholic Church, the Pillar & Ground of the Truth? (1 Timothy 3:15d)


As a result, this is a major clue to Paul’s import where he says:


“And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” (1 Corinthians 13:13 KJV)


Because “charity” is “love” writ large, being Divine Love. And when he says, out of the three Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope & Charity, that “the greatest of these is charity”, he means, in the deepest sense, that “faith” is only worthwhile inasmuch as men practice it correctly. Which is as much as to say, that men must practice right religion, trusting in God’s Promise to reward men who do so. And that such men must obey His first three commandments and thus prove beyond all doubt that their love for Him is a love above all other loves, loving Him with all of their hearts, all of their souls, all of their minds, and with all of their strength. (Mark 12:30)


This, then, is Charity; this, then, is Love. And Charity is greater than Faith. Not that Faith is inconsequential --- far from it. Rather, that, for a man on earth, Charity arises out of Faith with Hope, and will someday supersede them both, when, as Paul also says:


“Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away… For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” (1 Corinthians 13:8, 12 KJV)


For Faith cannot remain when the invisible is made visible. As Paul says, too:


“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1 KJV)


Yet a Catholic who has persevered unto Heaven has nothing left of the Faith that he has not seen --- he sees God Face-to-face, and nothing is left unseen that formerly he believed based upon God’s Testimony as given infallibly to us through His Church. As Jesus said:


“Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” (John 20:29b-e KJV)


Blessed is the man who believes, not yet having seen! Nevertheless, blessed all the more is the man who, not having seen, perseveres in the Catholic Faith, dying a good death, till he sees with his own eyes what once he only believed because God’s Church infallibly taught him that it was so and hence to be hoped for.


Nay, more: for blessed is the man who perseveres in Catholic Faith, this faith working through charity by an ever more perfect obedience to the commandments of right faith and right morality, proving he is the one who loves God by keeping His commandments (John 14:15, 21a, 23b, 24a), he being of those who are “…doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving…” their “…own selves.” (James 1:22 KJV) As James also declared for men to hear, exhorting us then to do:


“Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?” (James 2:25 KJV)


Is it not inarguable, dear mother & father? Is there any point in persisting in your stubbornness? Rahab --- a whore, and thus a terrible sinner --- nevertheless did a good work by hiding the Israelite spies and helping them to escape. She did so not in isolation from everything else. That is to say, she did so not being justified in her works alone, as if that’s all it took. Au contraire, she did so believing in the God of the Israelite people, having heard about all His mighty miracles on their behalf and the commandments He had them obey, she, too, longing to enter their One True Religion and obey their Old Covenant Church. Which she did, as Joshua 6:25 reveals, living amidst the Israelites as an Israelite, she becoming one of the ancestors of Jesus Christ Himself. (Matthew 1:5) For by the Power of the One True God through faith in works was she made whole, leaving behind her former wickedness, although she, like many others prior to the New Covenant, had to wait for her promised Divine Descendant to visit the Bosom of Abraham when Jesus came to sacrifice Himself upon the earth.


+ + +   1p. As Spirit Is to Flesh, So Works Are to Faith   + + +


Yet we move on, examining the last verse of the passage we began looking at some pages ago from the Apostle James’ letter. And he asserts with sobering finality:


“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (James 2:26 KJV)


You don’t realize it, my dear parents, but this statement is a death knell for your heresy. Subtly recessed from most minds whilst, once brought forth, undeniably there, the point is powerful and annihilating. Because what is your favorite complaint against Catholics concerning works? That they are merely of the ‘flesh’, and thus not important, being not ‘spiritual’. Certainly they can in no way propel a man unto a hope of salvation (say you), no matter how good & virtuous in God’s Sight according to the objective standard of His Commandments. Similarly baptism of water, the subject of which began this email & its unabashedly Catholic rebuttal. For you feign to ‘respect’ baptism, occasionally troubling its waters (or so you suppose), while never passing up an opportunity to jeer at its God-given ability to effect a man’s salvation. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit…” say you, errantly mimicking Jesus’ words. (John 3:6 KJV) You think by this to denigrate baptism of water into a thing of mere ‘flesh’ --- as opposed to what is of ‘spirit’ --- jeering thereby all the more at its God-ordained power to lift a man, at the first touch of its lifegiving waters to his forehead, into the Ark of Salvation and thither, should he persist in obedience, unto the Port of Heaven.


There’s just one catch. Because you equate obedient works, most of which are overt physical actions (think you) and of which water baptism is the official beginning and a premiere example, to useless (say you in contradiction to all of the evidence of Sacred Scripture) deeds of the ‘flesh’. Only, what does James say above?


“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (James 2:26 KJV)


Notice the perfect dualistic equivalence, mother & father --- the spirit for the body is what works are for faith. We repeat:


The spirit is to the body what works are to faith.


James makes this utterly plain. Therefore, when you deign to call ‘works’, or baptism, mere deeds of the ‘flesh’, the Apostle James, speaking inerrantly at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the text of Sacred Scripture and as revealed in your very own bibles, flat-out contradicts you! After all, were your equating of works of obedience to deeds of the flesh correct, then James should not have said:


“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (James 2:26 KJV)


Instead, he should have said:


“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so works without faith is dead also.” (James 2:26 RAMV --- Revised Archaic Mother Version)


Either the body = faith or the body = works. Which is it, dear parents? And, much to your chagrin, it is the former --- the body equals faith, not works! In other words, God via James shows how works are equivalent to the spirit, and not to the body!


Do you see, then, how awry has been your whole life spent religiously in castigating ‘dead works’? When, the whole time, you should have been castigating a ‘dead faith’! Because that’s what faith is, absent of works. Just as our flesh is dead without spirit to enliven it, so our faith is dead without works to enliven it.


And what can dead flesh do, what can it achieve?


Nothing, except to rot in physical death until the general judgment.


And what can a dead faith do, or what can it achieve?


Nothing, except to burn in spiritual death in the Pit of Hell forevermore!


Your Protestant faith, my poor dear parents, is nought but a dead faith. The point regarding the necessity of works unto salvation drives this home in spades all by itself. Rejecting the necessity of obedient good works, thinking to ‘free’ yourself from an imaginary ‘bondage’ to a so-called ‘empty’ religion, you waltz right into the trap of the Devil, mouthing his lies and aping his rebellion. It is your religion that is empty, void of any real obedience to God’s Commandments, your ‘freedom’ that is bondage, enslaved as you are to the sins of your Protestant forefathers, especially the sins of your heresies, which are a breaking of the three first --- and most important --- of God’s Ten Commandments, His Law given unto men for their salvation.


+ + +   1q. “Be Ye Therefore Perfect”   + + +


And don’t pretend it’s impossible to obey God. That is a very typical Protestant canard. “We can’t obey the commandments. No one can! The Old Testament Law proved this. That’s why it’s just faith in Jesus.”


No, it’s not “just faith in Jesus.” It is God’s grace through right faith --- believing all of His teachings & all of His commandments to be both true and necessary --- and obedient works in light of the same, that saves us. Nor is it ‘impossible’. For Jesus said:


“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48 KJV)


Or would God command men to do that which is impossible for them to accomplish? Such a ‘god’ would be either cruel or irrational. The real God is neither. Which is why, asked by His disciples how many would be saved and they aghast at His answer concerning how hard it is for men to enter Heaven, Jesus said:


“With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26c-d KJV)


Which is why, then, Jesus also stressed the necessity of obedience to God’s Law.


“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-20 KJV)


We have looked at this passage now many a time. Never yet have you come up with a satisfactory answer to its plain and clear words. Truly, you had never even attempted to explain it away until your most recent letter. An explanation that falls utterly flat, Jesus not only stating quite clearly how nothing in God’s Law shall pass “till heaven and earth pass” --- He making the assertion concrete (rather than abstract, metaphorically laid onto the shoulders of Jesus & His Sacrifice, as you would like to pretend is the case) by insisting, quite plainly, on how “whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven” --- but after this passage then going on to demonstrate, for the remainder of the verses in chapter five, how men teach a very modest degree of ‘obedience’ to God’s Commandments while God requires a much higher degree of obedience altogether, far beyond what men dare to teach! E.g., where Jesus says:


“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ (Deuteronomy 5:18): but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:27-28 KJV)


Which of you and your ‘born again christian’ peers takes this seriously, dear parents? And this is not even one of the “least commandments” (Matthew 5:19a KJV), as is clear from the Old Testament, it being a sin on this earth punishable by death!


“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10 KJV)


This and like admonishments in Matthew 5 then lead to the adjuration we perused above at the end of the chapter:


“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48 KJV)


But would you still persist in your contumacy that it is not possible for men to learn to obey God’s Commandments unto perfection and salvation, thereby pleasing Him? Then hear the words of God spoken through the Apostle Paul, your favorite biblical writer since you misinterpret him (2 Peter 3:15b-17) in your “private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20c KJV) to imaginarily ‘uphold’ your heresy of ‘faith alone’. [See your email on 24 January 2007, section 4, for your most recent approbation of, thus evidence that you adhere to, ‘faith alone’.]


“There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13 KJV)


It’s right there, dear parents! Smack dab in the middle of your bibles. God promises men, who are obedient to Him by entering the Catholic Church, to make certain that they are not tempted beyond their ability to endure but that they will, by the Triune Catholic God’s help, be able to resist and do the right thing --- no exceptions admitted. Consequently I ask you:


Seeing that this is true (and you must admit it is true, given that it is plainly stated in your bible) --- and seeing as how you like to think your ‘born again christian’ heresy is correct, however wrong it actually is --- then where do you get the nerve to say it’s impossible to be perfect? Not only has God commanded men to be perfect, He not saying to do what it is not possible to do, but God through the Apostle Paul assures us that it is always possible to escape temptation and so accomplish the right thing, obeying the commandments!


The challenge, then, is not to ‘just believe’ in Jesus (meaning, by your deformed theology, that a ‘born again christian’ should simply trust, all the time without fail, that Jesus will never let him go to Hell or suffer something bad while still here on this earth regardless of what he does or does not do), but to believe rightly and obey perfectly. This is the goal that a real Christian (read: Roman Catholic) sets his eyes upon to achieve. Not solely in his own strength --- indeed, not in his own strength ultimately at all, so critical is humility to the attainment of salvation --- but using what strength God by grace has given him in order for him to cooperate freely with God in all that he does and hence believe rightly and come to obey perfectly until, and especially at, death, gaining salvation.


+ + +   1r. The Inescapable Conclusion   + + +


The flip side is also true. That is to say, just as a man can cooperate freely with grace to practice right faith and right morality and so receive salvation, he can also like a stubborn mule or wicked sheep wander off completely, to his utter destruction. For men on earth in the realm of time have been granted the gift of free will, together with a responsibility to use this free will correctly. Extremely Calvinistic Protestants deny the real existence of a man’s free will. Whereas self-styled ‘born again christians’ like yourselves deny the real existence of a true responsibility to use this free will properly. Not utterly, for even you admit the need to behave morally and hence the necessity of punishment in this life. No, you deny the existence of responsibility for your salvation. Because whether you go to the logical extreme that is to be drawn from the idea of ‘faith alone’, thinking it impossible for a man to ‘lose his salvation’ after saying a ‘sinner’s prayer’ --- or whether you are somewhere in between, supposing it possible for a man to deny your false christ and so end up in Hell --- you nonetheless presume, in most cases if not all, that a man cannot possibly effect the outcome of his eternal fate by either obeying or disobeying God’s Commandments. A situation that, were it true, makes a mockery of every single commandment, every single admonishment to obey a commandment, and every single warning about what will happen to a man should he not obey a commandment, that has ever been recorded in Sacred Scripture.


Think about it, my dear mother & father. Because it doesn’t take too much effort to recognize the implications:


If God does not require obedience to his commandments in order for a man to save his soul, and if all it takes is ‘just believing’ in Jesus like you say (although we ignore for the moment the inconsistency in your thinking that believing is not a ‘work’ or ‘obedience’), then nothing a man does or says from that moment onward of ‘just believing’ in Jesus (apart from, perhaps --- and depending on what kind of ‘born again christian’ you are, exactly --- to stop ‘believing’ in Him by renouncing your ‘born again christian’ faith) could possibly effect the ultimate outcome of his eternal fate. He is going to Heaven, guaranteed, no matter what.


What, then, convinces him to be a good man, aside from him just happening to want to do what the commandments say?


Put differently, how can this man possibly be made to obey the commandments if his temptation to do the contrary is too strong, or his will to resist is too weak, and the inclination of his mind is to do whatever he wants, come what may the consequences?


Eternally speaking, there are no consequences for him!


Such a man has nothing to fear from an Almighty God, his immortal soul guaranteed entrance into Heaven no matter what he does upon this earth, or how horrid and repeated his sins are to the very instant of his death. Such a man, be he depraved enough, can sin willfully to the highest degree, heedless in his passions since there is no eternal punishment for him to fear for giving into them.


As a matter of fact, given that this is the case, then why does God even bother commanding anything to begin with? What’s the use? He’s going to let you into Heaven anyhow, He considers you ‘covered’ by Jesus’ Sanctity, He’s taken care of everything already, so what’s there left to worry about? Why should He take offense when you sin? You can hardly help it, it can’t outweigh Jesus’ Sacrifice, and you’re ‘perfect’ in His Sight due to the ‘imputation’ of His Son’s Righteousness onto you… so what’s the big deal? Why try to be good? Other than that being bad might get someone mad at you, making things difficult --- what’s the point? Ergo, provided no one gets in your way, then be as bad as you want to be… ’cause it’s never going to make you lose Heaven!


Believe it or not, this is essentially what the first Protestant, Martin Luther, taught. Examine the writings of his own words should you doubt me. In many ways he took Protestant principles to their logical conclusion (although his devotion to liturgy and respect for baptism, amongst other things, would have made you very uncomfortable). Later Protestants jettisoned some of his more extreme conclusions, although there is always someone somewhere who espouses them since they do logically follow from common theological ground that all Protestants share, whether they know it or not.


But don’t think that the two of you are exempt from this example, my dear parents, just because you may suppose yourselves to be very ‘moral’ & ‘obedient’ to the last seven of the Ten Commandments despite your eschewal of obedience as necessary for salvation. For you most definitely, inarguably, irrefutably & obstinately disobey the first three of the Ten Commandments irregardless of how you do or do not obey the last seven. These first three commandments, the ones regarding right faith & correct religion, you most willfully break, stubbornly ignoring biblical & historical facts all over the place about how God has made Roman Catholicism to be the One Single Religion that we must believe & obey in order to save our souls!




So, then, we see that you are most certainly wicked rebels against God & His Commandments, as of yet evincing no true love for Him during your now lengthy earthly lives. Wherefore I say to you:


Stop wasting your time!


Take heed of your peril, seize the mercy of God as evidenced in the fact that He has not yet required your souls to appear before His dread tribunal to answer for your foul deeds of false religion or other immorality, and seek entrance into the only haven that He has provided from the Deluge of His Wrath for our sins, the Ark of His Son’s Body, the Roman Catholic Church.


+ + +   1s. Lawless   + + +


“But the Apostle Paul has told us that we are to be free from the law!” you might protest, still pretending to be biblical.


To which I say, he has said nothing of the kind. This ought to be abundantly manifest, based upon all of the good plain sense and solid biblical facts that we have mustered thus far. Yet if you need more proof --- and assuming you’ll cooperate with a good will unto hope of real salvation for your soul --- then consider:


Left to your own devices, having to try to figure the Bible out as you see fit according to your own “private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20c KJV), then Paul’s injunction against the law is necessarily an injunction against all law regardless. I.e., in no way can a man’s salvation be had by any other way than that it doesn’t involve obeying commandments. Not that you don’t try to obey any commandments, merely that your failure or success at obeying them has no bearing on the ‘security’ of your eternal salvation. But, then, if that’s the case, then why does the Bible so often mention obeying commandments?


“Ah,” say you, “because we’re born again and now that we have the Spirit then we’re able to do what we couldn’t do before, to obey the commandments.” The implication being, of course, that God only keeps the commandments around because a man only becomes really or significantly capable of obeying them after he’s been ‘born again’ and because it does make God happy that a man do so, something the man should want to do now that he’s able to do it, especially if he’s been ‘filled with the spirit’. Although, when you think about it, that’s a really strange and completely inconsistent thing to say, seeing as how you will never admit that it’s possible to be perfect --- and despite Jesus ordering His disciples to “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48 KJV) Why insist that perfection isn’t possible when you’ve got the “Spirit” (say you) to help you? Are you not ‘born again’? Or is all of this just phony doubletalk that means nothing, spinning a man in spiritual circles till his head explodes?


Which, when you ponder it, is why heretics like you usually don’t like to think about these things very deeply. How can you when to do so will tie you up in pretzels, unable to explain anything clearly or consistently?


Going on, and overlooking the inconsistency just highlighted, we find heretics like you left grappling with an even bigger and more fatal inconsistency. Because you can try to explain away all of the times the Bible mentions obedience to the commandments by saying it’s meant for ‘born again’ people who have ‘the spirit’ and are thus able to overcome sin… but you can’t explain away all the times the Bible makes it clear that obedience to the commandments is necessary to enter Heaven. For instance:


“And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without [outside] are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.” (Revelation 22:12-16a KJV, annotation added)


Pretty blunt stuff, my dear parents. And this is just one passage out of dozens upon dozens upon dozens of passages, several of which we’ve already looked at. What are you going to do, throw your bibles away? You’re going to have to if you dare to peek at them and yet won’t give up your nonsense about it being ‘faith alone’ that saves you! Because if you’ve got it right, then Jesus could hardly have done a worse job communicating that heretical principle of yours than by what He said in the passage just above. In fact, if your nonsense of ‘faith alone’ is correct, then he should not have said:


“And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without [outside] are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.” (Revelation 22:12-16a KJV, annotation added)


Instead, He should have said:


“And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his faith shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that believe, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without [outside] are unbelievers, persons without faith, those who aren’t born again, and whosoever doesn’t just believe in me, not having asked me into his heart. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.” (Revelation 22:12-16a RAMV --- Revised Archaic Mother Version, annotation added)


Is it getting through to you yet, mother & father?


Simply put, your heretical interpretation regarding ‘faith alone’ cannot be sensibly reconciled with all of those verses throughout Sacred Scripture which plainly speak of a man’s obedience to God’s Commandments playing a critical role in whether or not he receives the Gift of Eternal Life. Hence, should you nonsensically insist on interpreting Paul’s words in Romans, Galatians, Colossians or wherever to mean ‘faith alone’ is how a man enters Heaven, then you are left in a dead end alley --- literally, left holding a dead faith --- with nowhere to reasonably go. You are lawless and must either ignore most of your bible or throw away your entire bible. There is no in-between.


+ + +   1t. Paul Fights Jewish Fables   + + +


Whereas, in stark contrast, Roman Catholics have no problem with Paul’s words. We not only take seriously all the times the Bible tells us obedience to commandments are crucial to receiving everlasting salvation, but we can easily interpret Paul’s words about faith vs. law to mean nothing other than what the Catholic Church has always declared, infallibly, since the very first century with Jesus & His Apostles.


To wit, Paul’s words regarding the law in Romans, Galatians or other epistles, refer to the Old Covenant Law. Specifically, to that part of the Old Covenant Law which pertains to animal sacrifices and their accompanying rituals or ceremonies. Once Jesus finished His Eternal Sacrifice upon the Cross, however, then --- appropriate though they were for their times according to the Will of God --- these animal sacrifices & their ceremonial rituals were superseded shortly thereafter not only by Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross but also by the ceremonies & rituals that He & His Apostles established for the propagation of the New Covenant Law.


This is all spelled out pretty clearly in the Catholic Ritual Defended article that I have sent you several times over, your very own bibles revealed to uphold the practices of the Catholic Church. You need to read it.


In the meantime, we now have the key to understanding how Paul can seem to exhort justification by faith on the one hand whilst appearing to denigrate justification by works on the other hand. Because it is not justification by faith alone that he is exhorting, and it is not justification by works sum total that he is denigrating. Rather, it is justification by the Faith of the New Covenant that he exhorts --- while not excluding justification by the New Covenant Works as well --- and it is justification by the Works of the Old Covenant that he denigrates, particularly any of the animal sacrifices & their accompanying ceremonies or  rituals.


We see this demonstrated in his recurring mention of circumcision, which was the God-given ritual that initiated a man into the Old Covenant Church just as baptism is the God-given ritual that initiates a man into the New Covenant Church. In other words, Paul was fighting against Judaizers, men who pretended to be real Christians, a part of the Catholic Church, but who in secret were nothing but rebellious Jews who wanted to destroy the Church from within by perverting the teachings of Christianity with Judaism. This is evident from the beginning of Paul’s missionary career.


“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers… As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, ‘Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.’ And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away… And when they had preached the gospel… and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and… thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. And there they abode long time with the disciples. And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, ‘Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.’ When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” (Acts 13:1a, 2-3, 14:21, 26-28, 15:1-2 KJV)


In Jerusalem “the apostles and elders” ruled soundly against the Judaizers, stripping them of their ability to spread heresy within the very bowels of the Church. (Acts 15) In short, they could no longer go around saying Catholics had to be circumcised to be saved. And Paul, who had tried to convert his fellow Jews, soon turned his attention to defending the New Covenant Faith against the attacks of his former co-religionists. For instance:


“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, ‘If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.’” (Galatians 2:11-16 KJV)


The Judaizers were put on the defensive after Jerusalem had ruled against them, however, they were not yet down and out. They shifted tactics, persuading Catholic Jews to adhere to Old Covenant ceremonial law. For, whilst they could no longer bluntly get away with saying that Gentile Catholics had to be circumcised in order to be saved, they could still make it look like Jewish Catholics were a special group within a group --- a kind of ‘elite christian squad’ tucked inside the innards of the larger Church as a whole. Doing this entailed convincing sincere Catholic Jews that they had to withdraw to a great degree from their fellow Gentile Christians, following the Old Covenant practice of circumcised Jews not eating with uncircumcised Gentiles since the latter were ‘unclean’. This was complete bunk, of course, but the strategy was to get enough Jewish Christians to go along that Gentile Catholics would then feel compelled to get circumcised, too, thereby poisoning the New Covenant Faith with the religious lies of Judaism. Or, falling short of this, at least causing a serious rupture and schism, assaulting the Unity of the Church.


The Apostle Peter, while not falling for the lie of Judaism, nevertheless capitulated to the pressure of Jewish Christians who had recently arrived from Jerusalem, where James was the first local bishop. Peter was afraid of offending circumcised Catholics should he keep eating openly with those who were uncircumcised. An inexcusable fear since he knew very well from his vision & Cornelius receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 10) how God did not distinguish anymore during the New Covenant between animals that were clean and animals that were not, or men who were circumcised and men who were not. A fear that caused Peter to be a hypocrite as well, he after his vision not deigning to live like an Old Covenant Jew. Ergo Paul’s public rebuke. Peter’s bad example would have led Christians into sin had Paul not spoken up. This is particularly true given that Peter was the Pope and thus leader of all Catholics everywhere, the flock following the shepherd.


Consequently, Paul’s injunction against “the works of the law” (Galatians 2:16a KJV) is an injunction against abiding by the ceremonial rituals of the Old Covenant Law, such as getting circumcised or circumcised Jews separating off from uncircumcised Gentiles due to the latter’s ceremonial ‘uncleanness’. Rituals that could not apply during the New Covenant. For in the New Covenant, Jesus had fulfilled the ceremonies & rituals of the Old. Now it is necessary to believe in the teachings and obey the commandments of the New, not the Old, although the New incorporates the commandments of the Old that are not exclusive to the ceremonies of the Old and adopted some of the rituals of the Old to meet the needs of the New after a proper modification.


This is what Paul means when he lauds “the faith of Jesus Christ” over and against “the works of the law” (Galatians 2:16b, a KJV), not to mention manmade traditions that the Jews had added which were, in many cases, useless & burdensome. Therefore, were the Galatian Catholics to keep “the works of the law” they would have had to keep all of the Old Covenant Law without exception (Galatians 5:3), including manmade traditions that were merely burdensome (as opposed to those that were wise & holy). Everything --- all of the ceremonies, all of the rituals, all of the sacrifices & every single command. Taking bits & pieces out of context is not an option. Wherefore, flub up by one tiny but grave little bit, by one seemingly small point… and you’re done for. This is impossible to avoid from the get-go since men are born in Original Sin inherited from Adam, something Old Covenant circumcision could never remit but which New Covenant baptism can.


Indeed, it is here that we get to the crux of the matter. For by God’s Law a man cannot commit a sin worthy of eternal death --- what the Catholic Church infallibly tells us is a mortal sin --- and ever enter into Heaven by his own merits alone. This is because the debt acquired through such mortal sin is an eternal debt, a debt impossible to pay when already marred by sin. Hence Jesus’ Sacrifice upon the Cross. Hence it being necessary for Him, Who is the Perfect God without any sin, to offer up His Body & shed His Blood in order to atone for the otherwise impossible-to-pay eternal debt of mortal sin. Without this Divine Sacrifice no man could enter Heaven, not even a newborn babe. Because the Sin of Adam, into which all men, except for Jesus & Mary, are conceived, is a mortal sin --- an iniquity worthy of eternal death. Ergo, no man can be justified by the Works of Old Covenant Law. For not only are works all by themselves unable to fully & everlastingly justify the mortal sinner in God’s Sight, but Jesus had not yet come to earth to sacrifice His Flesh to pay the eternal debt of mortal sins (and lesser sins, too) for penitent, professing & obedient men in His Body, the Catholic Church!


Moreover, Jesus having now come to the earth as a man and sacrificed Himself upon the Cross, the Works of Old Covenant Law are not simply insufficient to pay the eternal debt of mortal sin (beginning with the mortal iniquity of Adam’s Original Sin, and in contrast to the temporal debt of such sins, including sins that are lesser, being only venial and not mortal), but are now become a direct denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s Death to pay this eternal debt.


We repeat:


Now that Jesus Christ has come to earth and completed the Sacrifice of His Flesh & Blood in the Temple of His Divine Body, it is a massive affront against & blasphemous assault upon God Himself --- against the offering of His Son & upon the Saving Truth of His Testimony --- as if this Gift of Infinite Measure, of His Son, cannot achieve the redemption God had purposed it to accomplish since Adam’s Fall, or cannot do so apart from the ceremonial rituals & sacrifices of the Old Covenant Church.


Which is why Paul tells the Catholics of Corinth & Rome, contrasting the Obligation of Old Covenant Law with the Redemption of New Covenant Faith by way of Adam’s Seed:


“For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22 KJV)




“For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Romans 2:25-29 KJV. See also Deuteronomy 10:16, where God through the Prophet Moses tells the Jews to circumcise the “…foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked…”, and to which Paul was referring in Romans 2:29b.)


Incidentally, beware of thinking the Apostle Paul here condemns all law by saying, “and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter…” (Roman 2:29b KJV) This is a ploy of clever Protestants, who use it to bludgeon people into rejecting anything to do with the law. However, Paul cannot have meant to put down any and all law by mentioning “the letter” or else he would not say just prior to this, “And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?” (Romans 2:27 KJV) That is to say, Paul is clearly showing a contradiction between “the letter” and “the law” --- the two are not one and the same. Notice how “the letter” is linked to the word “circumcision” in the clause “who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law…” This is a big clue as to what “the letter” is. Because within the milieu of the Bible only Old Covenant Jews practiced “circumcision” and hence “the letter” must have had something to do with Jews.


And so it does, “the letter” meaning that “tradition of men” (Mark 7:8 KJV) that many Old Covenant Jews practiced in opposition to the Commandments of God. In brief, that they had made up many intricate rules about how to interpret and apply the Law of God, rules that ended up, in the wickedness and hardness of their hearts, vitiating that which they claimed to uphold. These rules, in fact, were the origin of what later became known as Talmudic Judaism, a false religion that has totally departed from the Religion of God in every way, not even hardly pretending anymore to practice what Jews of ancient times once practiced, or believe what they once believed, so far has the evil of their hardened hearts perverted them. As a result, Paul says nothing in his letter to the Galatian Catholics to dissuade a real Catholic from being a Catholic; but instead upholds the Faith of Jesus Christ that is Roman Catholic and none other. A Faith that firmly opposes the lies of wicked Judaizers, who years later were still attacking the Church, as Paul reveals.


“For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God… not given to filthy lucre… a lover of good men… holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake… Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth… They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” (Titus 1:7a, g, 8b, 9-11, 13b-14, 16 KJV)


Read carefully, dear mother & father. Paul notes that it is “specially they of the circumcision who are part of the “many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers”. (Titus 1:10b, a KJV) This problem of Judaizers hiding within the Catholic Church lasted for the entire first century, they not being decisively vanquished until the vigilance of the earliest apostles & bishops, along with the overwhelming number of uncircumcised Catholics, finally drove them out. And even then it didn’t completely solve the problem, Talmudic Jews of later centuries still causing difficulties by originating or fostering many heresies, under the guise of being good Christians, in order to try to destroy Jesus’ Body on earth, the Roman Catholic Church. Hence Paul warning about “…not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” (Titus 1:14 KJV) For these kinds of men profess that they know God” --- that is to say, they make-believe they’re only decent Christians, espousing all the dogmas of the Catholic Faith --- “but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” (Titus 1:16 KJV)


Works are important! For by a man’s works, his heart is truly known. How many men will say one thing yet do another? And who of us does not learn to believe the actions of these men rather than their words? Such are heretics and all rebels. And such is why men like yourselves refuse to acknowledge good works as essential for salvation, denying the good God & His words, even as revealed in your own bibles. For by saying ‘faith alone’, you can seem ‘good’ while being bad. Whereas were you to admit the necessity of good works along with right belief, then you would both condemn yourselves and lose all excuse for not obeying the commandments.


+ + +   1u. Some Very Bad News…   + + +


And so we come round-robin right to where we began this latter section, exposing the lie of ‘faith alone’ while condemning the condemnation of so-called ‘born again christians’ like yourselves of “every good work”. For, whereas you do not fault ‘good works’ per se, you attack them ipso facto. Viz., you may not say good works are bad to do, nonetheless, by calling them of no worth for entering Heaven you then open wide the door to all sorts of wickedness, squelching the fear of God in men’s hearts that helps to detain them from sin. And men without fear of God are men left defenseless in the sight of the Devil, that abominable serpent able to pick them off left-and-right as he sees fit or leave them in place that they might do his service, corrupting the world further as they are.


What’s more, my dear parents, you are no different from them. Those of the “circumcision” were men who “profess that they know God”. Likewise you. You claim to know the Creator. You claim to serve Him. You say that you do His Will. All the while you cannot even match up to what His Sacred Scripture reveals, as our lengthy email exchange has demonstrated. You either straight out ignore the Bible (don’t read it at all, at least in part) or covertly ignore the Bible (read it, but carelessly and willfully misinterpret it). Whichever, you don’t pay proper attention to it. Nor can you excuse yourself with a lack of adequate circumstances, as if you haven’t had a chance to figure things out. For you have lived many a year now and have had lots of opportunities to search on your own. In all those decades you could have perceived the outward discrepancies between what your ‘born again christianity’ teaches and what your bibles say, or the internal contradictions that are contained within your false religion’s bowels. And now for the last nine years you have had me repeatedly tell you of what I have found --- that Catholicism is the Religion that Jesus started, not Protestantism. I have been particularly firm in the past six years, and even more tenacious in the last four. But for what? Thus far, to no avail. You will not listen. You are convinced that you are infallible, and absolutely certain that you are right despite all of the historical evidence against you, as a simple survey of ancient Christian writings reveals. Because men of the earliest centuries after Christ were Catholic, not ‘born again christian’. Your ‘born again’ is no rebirth at all, being a charade and a mirage of human foolishness that the Devil is permitted to manipulate once in awhile in order to keep you subordinate.


“They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” (Titus 1:16 KJV)


This is you, mother & father. I don’t care how good many of your moral works may appear to be --- your religious works are objectively abominable. You break God’s first three Ten Commandments by practicing a false religion with a false christ; by taking the real Christ’s Name in vain and refusing to use His Sacred Name rightly via prayer within the Catholic Church; and by failing to keep His Sabbath holy, indulging in the worship of heretical religion or ignoring Sunday as a day of religious obligation altogether. You profess to know God while through your works of religion denying Him, disobeying Him, and in every way proving yourselves thoroughly abominable & reprobate.


That’s the bad news.


+ + +   1v. …Followed by a Good News Valentine   + + +


The Good News is that you don’t have to remain this way!


A few days ago, mother, you had a birthday. In years past we have gotten together for this occasion and given you a material gift. That is no longer possible. Even were we not determined to be bold Catholics, unabashedly living our New Covenant Faith in front of you, you have seen with your own eyes how you cannot stand to witness our Faith. It appalls you, offends you, and infuriates you. You make fun of it, jeer at it and curse it --- if not to our faces, then behind our backs. There is no way we can pretend to be at peace. Either you must convert to the True Religion and stop being our enemies, or else we have to apostatize and join the ranks of the Devil again. By God’s grace we shall not do the latter, through our Catholic Faith instead doing good works in Christ, Who is Our Lord & Saviour. One of those good works that I am doing is this defense of the True Religion. You are the primary beneficiary, this is my birthday gift to you.


My dear mother, I love you. I always have and I always shall until the day that you die. I cannot any longer share the things of this earthly life with you since you are determined to remain in a false religion. Meanwhile, purely obligatory business shall not bring us together anymore, so what is there that remains? Not even physical proximity. Soon, Our Lord Jesus willing and His Blessed Mother permitting, we shall be far, far, far away from here, much farther than the sixty miles that now separates us, seeking to save the lost. You are included in that number. But alas! time is almost now run out. We will be gone and you will be left alone without our immediate presence to light your way out of darkness into Hope of Salvation found only in the Catholic Church.


This is my birthday gift, dear mother. It is not a material gift, but a spiritual gift. I give it on earth, but its origin is from Heaven, containing the precious Gospel of Eternal Life that was given by God to men through His Son & His Son’s Apostles and deposited in the Roman Catholic Church. I place it in your hands. I adjure you and beg you… please do not cast it to the side. It holds the means to save your soul, refuting the lies that the Devil employs to enslave your soul.


It is also St. Valentine’s Day today. How lovely! That upon the day that the Church remembers that wonderful priest and medical doctor who gave his life in martyrdom for the sake of the Catholic Faith around AD 270 in the City of Rome, people of the world should remember it as a day for celebrating love. Their idea of love is much debauched, or terribly insipid, but it holds the seeds of something that can become good. For St. Valentine was a man of great love, of tremendous charity. His feast day as well heralds the advent of spring, the approach of Easter, and the rebirth of life upon this earth as winter loosens it deadly grip. Let this last long letter, then, be a herald of that advent within your souls, my dear parents. Let it be a clarion call of the approach of Easter, of the day my Lord resurrected and secured the victory that had awaited for millennia. A victory that could be yours, too, would you only let down your pride and admit that you are not infallible, that you have been wrong religiously in so much, and that I, your son, really have become a part of the Church that God alone founded, its existence exclusively for His Glory and souls’ salvation, of which you can be a part of that number. That is, provided you take on the rebirth of a right baptism, embracing the Catholic Faith --- all of it --- and become truly born again and filled with the Spirit for the first time in your lives. The thing you’ve had till now is a pitiful fraud of the Devil, designed to damn your souls. This is my Valentine’s gift to you. Like the doctor that he was, I seek to heal your ill. Like the priest that he was, I seek to save your souls. I am neither, but I am Catholic. Such as I have, give I to you. What has healed me will heal you; what is saving me can be the saving of you, too.


There is so much more to tell but no time to say it. This is sufficient. Your last email was a litany of biblical verses intended to support your heresy, little comments or remarks nestled in-between here and there. I have addressed what needs to be addressed. Baptism I have shown to be not only commanded but also necessary for salvation. It is the first work, as it were, of the New Life, causing rebirth into the Covenant of Christ, which gives men a New Law and a New Testimony. This New Covenant does not destroy the Old but fulfills it, giving men a chance to start anew, free of all sin --- even that which was original from Adam at our very conceptions --- and opening the Door of Heaven.


Then comes the challenge of living the New Life, impelled by the Holy Spirit, unto all perfection. It is hard, but not impossible. By the Grace of the Triune Catholic God it can always be done, even in the Old Covenant. The magnificent saints of the Old Law before Christ are proof of this; men like Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Ruth, Samuel, David, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel & so forth. The difference between the Old Law of Moses & the New Law of Christ is simply this:


That whereby the saints of the Old lived by a Promise not yet fulfilled --- the Promise that God would eventually send His Christ, the Son of the Living God, to atone for the eternal debt of their mortal sins, including the Original Sin of Adam in which they were conceived --- the saints of the New live by that Promise fulfilled. To wit, that His Divine Son has come, fulfilling the Old Covenant Law to bring us His New Covenant Law… the Law of Faith in God’s Christ through His Body, the Catholic Church. This fulfillment is the eternal debt of mortal sin (and lesser sins, too) paid by Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross. By faith therefore in the very definite & infallible teachings of Jesus through His Body, the Catholic Church --- that what He says through Her is the actual reality, what God has really done & surely decided about how to save men’s immortal souls from the Fire of an Everlasting Hell --- men embark on the Narrow Path to Salvation, headed for the Door of Eternal Life. This begins in the waters of baptism, wherein men die in Christ to their sins so that they might someday rise again with Him to a Sinless Eternity. Their eternal debt remitted (and their temporal debts, too, at that moment), they begin life anew. Truly, as new creatures in Christ, professing His Roman Catholic Faith & obeying His Roman Catholic Commandments. They are wholly justified in God’s Eyes.


Obedience to the Old Law could not do this. Even the greatest of Old Covenant saints could not enter Heaven after death upon the earth, their souls detained in the Bosom of Abraham until Christ came to pay the eternal debt of their mortal sins. Those who cling to the Old Law are thus headed for damnation since no man can fully justify himself in God’s Sight by adhering to Old Covenant Law, its ceremonies, rituals & traditions of men. Everything the Apostle Paul says in his letters supposedly ‘disparaging’ the Law is merely him driving this fact home, especially the uselessness of superseded ceremonies, rituals & traditions of men. The contradiction is thus not between all law & all faith, but between Old Covenant Law & New Covenant Faith. Add to this the fact that God will not dispense to men of bad will, who remain stubbornly mired in the Old Covenant, the grace to enable them to overcome sin, which is a breaking of His commandments. They will be left to their own strength to do a job that is beyond their strength alone. Nor did He assist men of bad will during the Old Covenant who vitiated His Law with manmade traditions that are wicked. Whereas the good willed man of the New Covenant --- Roman Catholic --- has God’s Spirit living inside him, provided he stays free of the mortal sins of heresy & immorality, allowing him to increase in sanctification unto all perfection. The man of the Old Covenant could do this also. It’s just that he couldn’t be wholly justified, his eternal debt of sin promissorily remitted but not actually remitted till Christ died on the Cross.


+ + +   1w. Catholic from the Beginning   + + +


Finally, the title ‘Catholic Church’ comes from most ancient times. A bishop named Ignatius who went to martyrdom at the beginning of the second century used it with utter ease and absolute familiarity, proving it to have been of no recent invention. Moreover, he was a very old man when he died, nearly ninety years, having been a Christian since earliest youth. To top it off, he knew the Twelve Apostles personally, having been ordained a priest by Peter and made a bishop by John. He thus cannot be accused of reckless ‘innovation’ and his letters, preserved till this day, are available for anyone to read who wants to do so. The particular copies that I have are the translative work of Protestant scholars, who are no friends of Catholicism. Consequently, they cannot be accused of being propagandists for the Church of Rome.


Furthermore, the title ‘Catholic Church’ is preserved in the text of the Apostle’s Creed, an ancient statement of dogmatic belief that comes from, as the name implies, the Twelve Apostles themselves and hence the first century. You do not want to believe this, as is the case with most people nowadays, but the fact remains. It is also a fact that the very first Protestants universally accepted it. Only gradually did later Protestants phase it out of use, offended by its obvious religiosity and stark opposition to what Protestantism was becoming as the years went by. It is still employed by some Protestants, such as certain conservative Anglicans.


And, as if that were not enough, the word ‘Catholic’ is preserved in the titles of the letters of James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1 John & Jude in the Bible. You won’t find the word in modern translations because modern people don’t want to believe Jesus’ Church was Catholic from the beginning. However, it is a fact that the earlier Protestants recognized this, even calling themselves ‘catholic’ during the first fifty years or so after their original rebellion in the 1520s. This is why real Catholics came to be called Roman Catholics --- because they, alone, of all men who wanted to call themselves ‘catholic’, remained loyal to the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, to whom real Catholicism has always clung as the steward of Jesus Christ on earth to lead His Church with Holy Spirit-endowed authority to teach infallibly and so defeat the religious deceptions of a lying Devil. Protestants rejected this truth from day one of their existence. The letters of the Bible mentioned above, though, retain the fact that these epistles were written to men who were Catholic since part of the text of a writing is a title and not just its body. That is to say, look at ancient manuscripts of the Bible and you will invariably see a title at the top of the first page, identifying its contents. Part of the title of these letters was the word ‘Catholic’. As for instance, The Catholic Epistle of James, etc. The term ‘catholic’ simply means ‘general’ or ‘universal’, coming from the Greek word, katholikos. These letters were written to all Christians in general or universally, and not just to one local church in particular. And the reason why katholikos became the Church’s name from the first century is that only the Catholic Church professed the Faith that was held universally throughout the world no matter where She was --- all other versions of so-called ‘christianity’ were limited in scope, being at best regional or continental. The titles of these letters recognized this fact, and old fashioned copies of the KJV bible still reveal it. The KJV scholars chose to render the Greek word katholikos as ‘General’, as in The General Epistle of James, etc., since this is not as plainly Catholic-sounding, but the evidence is still there. Go to a Strong’s Concordance, look up the word ‘general’ and you will find an entry for its place in the title of James’ epistle, referenced numerically to 2526 in the Greek Dictionary in the back. Then look it up. You’ll find the Greek word katholikos, clearly from where the Catholic Church derives Her name --- although a good Webster’s dictionary with etymological notes will prove this derivation to you should you doubt.


All this to say that the title ‘Catholic’ existed in common usage as a name, for the Church that Jesus alone started, since the first century. It is a demonstrable fact and therefore incontestable. And it flies in direct opposition to your contention in section seven of your most recent email that the name ‘Catholic’ did not exist in the early Church. An early Church that cannot ever be identical to your Protestantism --- or ‘born again christianity’, if you prefer --- since no Protestant shares the beliefs of earliest Christians, as both an examination of their ancient writings and an investigation of your bibles reveals. Indeed, how could they share the beliefs of earliest Christians when they can’t even agree with each other? All Protestants are divided on teachings, sometimes dramatically so. This is why your citation of Ephesians 4:4-6 was tragically laughable:


“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6 KJV)


Have you no idea that one in body, one in Spirit, one in Lord, one in faith and one in baptism is the last thing in the world that Protestants or so-called ‘born again christians’ are? Every Protestant congregation or denomination has a different creed, or no official creed at all, no single Protestant ever to be found who espouses the exact same thing as another Protestant when it comes to beliefs. You are not one in faith! In fact, the only way you can even approach to having some kind of doctrinal ‘unity’ is by paring down your teachings to almost nothing, causing them to be so bland and so few that no one who goes by the name of ‘christian’ could possibly take offense at them… unless, of course, you happen to be a real Catholic who knows very well that Jesus taught far differently --- and far more --- than what your meager imitation of ‘christianity’ professes.


In summation, my dearest mother & father, you and your peers are united on almost nothing. You split congregations at the drop of a hat, you switch ‘churches’ or ‘bible studies’ at the blink of an eye. Should one not prove to your satisfaction, then you try another. Should someone at one ‘church’ or in one particular congregation rub you the wrong way, then you ditch it and run off to find another. You’re not even all baptized (leaving aside the fact for a moment that you don’t know what right baptism is), so how in the world could the adherents of your religion possibly be ‘one’ in baptism? A word, by the way --- ‘religion’ --- that you hate, thinking it to represent the purportedly ‘dead’ works of an organized religion like Catholicism, such as a salvifically necessary and ceremonial baptism, but which I showed you several times in past years is used respectfully by the Apostle James in his letter. Accordingly, where he says:


“If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” (James 1:26-27 KJV)


Yet you have never addressed this, preferring to cling to your dead faith and all of its entanglements, one of which is an unreasoning hatred of the word ‘religion’ and anything to do with liturgy, ceremony or ritual. But is this what your bible tells you to do? Not according to James and the Holy Spirit that spoke inerrantly through him!


I pray earnestly for your conversion out of dead faith into living works. May Queen Mary, the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mother of God, obtain for you the graces from Her Son needful to enlighten your minds, soften your hearts, and humble your souls. I am here to assist you into the Catholic Church. Your always loving son,


                                                                             -Paul Doughton



+ + + + +


Part Two of The Dogma of Baptism Upheld & the Lie of ‘Faith Alone’ Cast Down (7 Letters Consisting of 6 Prefacing Notes & 19 Chapters)

Part Three of The Dogma of Baptism Upheld & the Lie of ‘Faith Alone’ Cast Down (2 Letters Consisting of 2 Prefacing Notes, An Afterword & 18 Chapters)


+ + +


Pilate’s query met:



if you have come to this webpage directly from a search

engine or other website, then, when done viewing this webpage

 --- and assuming you wish to view more of this website’s pages ---

please type the website’s address (as given above right before this

note) into the address bar at the top of your browser and hit the

enter’ button on the keyboard of your computer.


Please go here about use of the writings

on this website.


© 2008 by Paul Doughton.

All rights reserved.