Are Catholics Christians? From a former priest

Dear Friend,

We have an investigative, new article called “Are Catholics Christians?” While one analyzes Catholicism in the light of biblical faith, one reaches an irrefutable answer; the outcome must also be carefully investigated.

Many Evangelicals will be dismayed that such a question need even be asked. Moreover, the question will be totally abhorrent to those in ecumenical movements as “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” and “Christian Churches Together.” Thus, in this article the Christian response to the effects of the incontestable answer are clearly outlined.

I ask that you respond to this important article by your prayers and by forwarding it to others.

I request also that is possible that you place it on your website.

Yours in Jesus Christ and His Gospel of grace,

Richard Bennett


Are Catholics Christians?

By Richard Bennett

The Catholic Church presupposes itself to be Christian. Nothing could be further from the truth; yet, the Catholic Church has been ardently promoting that image, particularly since the close of Vatican Council II in 1965. A primary, non-negotiable goal of Vatican Council II was to lay the groundwork and to establish the rules and parameters for a multifaceted, ecumenical outreach. Evangelical Christians, now called “separated brethren,” rather than “heretics,” are the primary target of Catholic ecumenism. The goal is to draw them into the Roman Catholic fold. Thus, in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the word “Christian” occurs more than 100 times in these official teachings. Buzzwords such as “dialogue,” “ecumenism,” and “social justice” are being used under the guise of promoting Christianity to advance the Roman Catholic agenda.

Assurances to Evangelicals Negated

Evangelicals are assured that Catholics who believe in the incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ are true Christians, even though they misunderstand some of the “technicalities” regarding salvation. Such reasoning is negated by the fact that Catholicism differs from biblical faith—not only on minor details, but more importantly on what is essential to salvation.

The most dangerous aspect of Catholic Church doctrine is that it appears to be based on the great, indispensable truths of God’s revelation. In reality, however, the blatant fact is that Catholic doctrine denies essential, biblical doctrines by what it affixes to biblical truths. For example, while Catholic doctrine holds that in the Godhead there are three distinct Persons worthy of the same worship, it adds divine adoration for Mary by addressing her in prayer as “the All Holy One.” The exact words of the official statement are, “By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the ‘Mother of Mercy,’ the All Holy One.” Another example is the fact that the Catholic Church demands that the worship, which is due to the true God, is to be given also to their Communion element. Thus, she officially declares,

“There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind ‘that all the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament the worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the Catholic Church. Nor is it to be adored any the less because it was instituted by Christ to be eaten.’”

These two official teachings of the Church of Rome show that the divine worship due to God alone is being given to Mary and to the communion element.
Then the essential doctrine of man’s redemption by Jesus Christ is totally different in Papal Rome from what it is in the Bible. The Scripture declares that sinners dead in trespasses and sins are “by grace” “saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: It is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” This Scripture shows that God directly saves sinners by His grace alone through faith alone. However, the Catholic Church introduces the necessity of her sacraments and consequently states,

“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ‘Sacramental grace’ is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament.”

The sacraments that are declared to be indispensable negate the biblical doctrine of man’s redemption. With these explicit examples of the Catholic Church’s negation of essential biblical truths, the Papacy’s official doctrine and teaching on all the major topics of biblical truth needs to be carefully examined.

The Basis of Truth

The first topic to address is, “What is the basis of truth?” In other words, what is the norm by which we can know truth? The absolute standard set by the Lord Jesus Christ is the fact that “the scripture cannot be broken.” The Lord also declared the truth of God’s Word by saying, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” From this statement we understand that God’s Word not only contains the truth, but rather, it is truth itself. The Holy Scripture is the source of the believer’s standard of truth. Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of all human tradition and reasoning. Accordingly, the commandment of the Lord states, “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Thus, in His written Word, the absolute authority of the Lord God is totally sufficient for all the believer’s needs, as outlined by the Apostle Paul when he wrote, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” The Lord rebuked the Pharisees because they placed their human tradition on the same level as the written Word of God. Thus, the Pharisees corrupted the people’s understanding by confusing them in regards to God’s Word as the very basis of truth. Jesus declared to them, “[You are] making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered.”

In spite of this clear standard of truth, the Catholic Church declares her own standard of truth. She begins her reasoning with the following words,

“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other” “And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God, which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.”

The fact is that no “tradition” transmits in its entirety the Word of God. This task is solely that of the Holy Spirit. First, in an exclusive sense, the Scriptures are the composition of the Holy Spirit; as stated by the Apostle Peter, “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” The Holy Spirit is fully fitted for this work because He is “the Spirit of truth.” He has perfect knowledge of the truth because He is God, one with the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth of the written Word to believers. For this reason the Lord Christ Jesus said, “He shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” Thus, the Holy Spirit perfectly transmits the Word of God in its proper fullness.

Having equated her “Sacred Tradition” with Sacred Scripture, and stating that her tradition transmits the Word of God in its entirety, the Catholic Church reaches its conclusion with the following words,

“As a result the [Catholic] Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, ‘does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

This statement is a formal denial of the sufficiency of Scripture and a repudiation of its unique authority. For a church, claiming to be Christian, to affirm her equal love for tradition as she does Scripture is to make Scripture of no unique value. It is like a husband who declares that he loves his wife and at the same time states that he also loves equally the woman across the street. Such love would be adulterous; so also are Papal Rome’s “equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” Such a declaration is tantamount to a rejection of Scripture and unfaithfulness to the God of Scripture.
Catholicism, however, does have a standard for truth that is taken to be absolute. It is not the unqualified authority of God in His written Word; rather, it is the authority of a man, the Pope of Rome. For Catholics, the ultimate authority lies in the decisions and decrees of the reigning Pope. This is seen in their official teaching which states,

“The Supreme Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful...he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held as such.”

Thus, in practice, the Catholic Church’s basis for doctrine is her Pope and what he states to be truth. In other words, this is claimed truth by decree. How ludicrous the claim is when we realize that some popes were declared to be heretics and thus condemned by Church councils.

Salvation by Grace Alone Denied by Catholic Sacramental System

That salvation is by grace alone must be clearly understood. Unredeemed sinners, of whom all are “dead in trespasses and sins,” can only be saved by grace alone, through faith alone, because salvation is “the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” It is God who graciously saves by His unmerited free gift. In total contrast to this, salvation in the Catholic Church is said to come about by “grace” that is merely a “help” with the intention that people will respond. Thus, the Catholic Church officially states, “Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons. It introduces us into the intimacy of the Trinitarian life.” In this view, human beings are presumed to be good enough to respond to the help that God gives to them. According to the Catholic Church, grace is not a manifestation of God’s sovereign action in salvation but merely a “help” given to humans that they may respond, should they decide to believe. The Catholic teaching contradicts the very concept of grace. As the Scripture states, “and if by grace, then is it [salvation] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” God’s sovereign action is what is at stake and not uncertain, human response.

The Catholic concept of “grace” denies God’s sovereign grace. Therefore, the Papacy needed to construct a mechanism by which Catholics can profess that they have received grace. The primary tools of their invention are called the sacraments. Accordingly, the Catholic Church states,

“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ‘Sacramental grace’ is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament.”

This teaching is appalling. In the Bible, salvation is given to an individual by the absolute power of God’s grace alone – because in God alone is the power to deliver a man spiritually “dead in trespasses and sins” to being spiritually alive in Christ. However, the Catholic Church adamantly disagrees with the Bible on this primary issue, for it officially claims “man has only been wounded by sin.” Thus, her Catechism describes God’s grace as a “help” accessible through her sacraments. These sacraments are in turn totally under the control of the Catholic priesthood.

We absolutely praise the Lord God that from Scripture we know His grace is totally His free gift, “wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.” In salvation, we are accepted not in any institution, or by partaking of any sacrament, but in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ alone.

Papal Substitute for Christ Alone as Object of Faith

The object of faith is clearly seen in Scripture as the person of Christ Jesus Himself. Consequently, it is stated, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” This faith is God-given faith, as declared by the Apostle Peter, “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

This God-given faith comes by hearing the Word of God as is stated, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” The topic of faith is so clear in Scripture that one would doubt that it could be twisted by any church. The Catholic Church, nonetheless, completely changes the concept of faith. Regarding faith, she focuses attention on herself as “the Church,” as the one that first believes. Thus she teaches, “It is the Church that believes first, and so bears, nourishes and sustains my faith.”

Then she has the audacity to declare that faith comes through the Church because the Church is our Mother. As a result she officially teaches, “Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother…” In the Catholic Church the result is that a person believes in Mother Church and not on the Lord Jesus Christ. Her official words stating this are the following,

“‘Believing’ is an ecclesial act. The Church’s faith precedes, engenders, supports and nourishes our faith. The Church is the mother of all believers. ‘No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother.’”

Therefore, the position for Catholics is that they are compelled to submit to holy Mother Church and accept what she teaches. The Catholic Church basically attempts to replace Jesus Christ as the object of saving faith with a substitute: faith in Mother Church.

What this change does is to enslave an individual to the Roman Catholic Church rather than to make him free in Jesus Christ. To maintain the Catholic Church as the object of faith, the Papacy curses all who believe on Christ by faith alone. Their official words are,

“If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato [from the work worked], but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema [cursed].”

Christ’s Sufficient Finished Sacrifice

The unique oneness of Christ’s sacrifice is the fact that it was one offering—once made. The concept “once” is deemed so important that it is asserted seven times by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. The perfection of Christ’s sacrifice is contrasted with the repeated daily sacrifices of the Old Testament.

The truth of the excellence of Christ’s sacrifice is highlighted by the word “once.” For example, the Apostle Paul teaches, “for in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.” The Apostle Peter likewise declares, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” The same truth is taught five times in the book of Hebrews with the conclusion, “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” The majestic truth is found in the Lord’s declaration from the cross, “It is finished.”

In total contrast, the Catholic Church declares that Christ’s sacrifice, which was offered on the cross, is contained and offered in her Mass. Her official words are the following,
“In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.”

Quite unbelievably she states an even worse conclusion. She declares that the sacrifice of Christ is also a sacrifice of the Church offering herself with Him. The official words are, “The Church, which is the Body of Christ, participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire.” It is utterly blasphemous for a church to teach its members to offer themselves with Christ’s sacrifice. The doctrine of participating in Christ’s sacrifice is entirely perverse and immoral. This proposition is an utter lie as it denies the repeated statements of God’s truth in Scripture. The work of redemption is “by Himself,” “without the deeds of the law,” “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.” To teach people such a proposition is a dreadful abomination before the Lord God!

The Nature of God as the Only All Holy One

The Bible clearly teaches that God alone is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His Being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Most important is the fact that He is the All Holy One. His holiness is the divine attribute that covers all attributes so that His righteousness is holy, His truth is holy, and His justice is holy. He is each of His attributes, and the overall attribute of holiness is that which separates Him from all beings. His holiness is distinctive and matchless. This is the reason why we need to be saved by Him, the All Holy God. Thus, we read in Scripture, “there is none holy as the Lord.” Again, the Word of the Lord proclaims, “who shall not fear thee O Lord and glorify Thy name for thou only art holy and all nations shall come and worship before thee.”

The Lord God is utterly holy in the words of Scripture, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.” In addition to declaring the holiness of God, the official teaching of the Catholic Church declares Mary to be “the All Holy One.” The capital letters are there in print, and there is no disclaimer or footnote to explain differently what is said. The following is stated, “By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the ‘Mother of Mercy,’ the All Holy One.”

Furthermore, Catholic teaching also officially states, “From the Church he [the Catholic] learns the example of holiness and recognizes its model and source in the all-holy Virgin Mary…” This blasphemous teaching is an attempted theft of the very essence of the divine glory reserved unto God alone. It comes as a shock to see that in this doctrine alone the Papacy has shown its total disregard for the Godhead. We know that Lord God alone is the All Holy One and that He is protective of His glory, opposing all that are hostile to it, “I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another.”

Idolatry

The Scriptures are absolutely clear in declaring that we are neither to make a graven image nor show any veneration to such images, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything...Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.” Then Scripture explains how this is to be understood, “and he [God] declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even Ten Commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake...Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure....” Hence, there is to be no similitude (or likeness) of God made by mankind. That which is forbidden in Scripture is the making of any likeness of Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church, however, rationalizes that one can indeed practice idolatry. Paragraph 2132 of the 1994 Catechism states,

“The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype, and whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.”

The reason given is that one venerates the person portrayed by the image and not the image itself. Yet, this is exactly what the Bible forbids and why God’s second commandment had forbidden Aaron from making the golden calf. The second reason given by Papal Rome to justify the practice of idolatry, uses an 8th century council, it states the following,

“Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified…the veneration of icons—of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new ‘economy’ of images.”

When the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea decided that the incarnation of Jesus Christ introduced a new “economy” of images, the unstated logic of their decision required them to maintain that God changed His mind regarding the Second Commandment. This reasoning is blasphemous. God does not change His mind. Jesus Christ and the Apostles were equally forceful in condemning idolatry, as were the commandments in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church claims that a “tradition comes from the Holy Spirit” which justifies the making of graven images and these are to be publicly displayed. In its Catechism, Paragraph 1161 states,

“Following the divinely inspired teaching of our holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church (for we know that this tradition comes from the Holy Spirit who dwells in her) we rightly define with full certainty and correctness that, like the figure of the precious and life-giving cross, venerable and holy images of our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, our inviolate Lady, the holy Mother of God, and the venerated angels, all the saints and the just, whether painted or made of mosaic or another suitable material, are to be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, in houses and on streets.”

This is idolatry plain, simple, and condemned by the Lord God.

The Holy Spirit is forthrightly blasphemed in their claim that He established tradition to justify the use of images. Rather, the Bible makes abundantly clear that God hates idolatry and forbids a representation in art of what is divine (Exodus. 20:4-6). Making images to represent God corrupts those who use them (Deuteronomy 4:13, 15-16). Images teach lies about God (Habakkuk. 2:18-20). God cannot be represented in art and all who practice idolatry are commanded to repent (Acts 17:29-30). The Holy Spirit orders in the New Testament as He did the Old, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen” (I John. 5:21). Some of the evil fruits of bringing into the worship of Holy God the idolatry that He hates are the many pagan superstitions and traditions of Roman Catholicism. But the worst fruit of the idolatry that Roman Catholicism offers under the guise of being Christian is its false gospel.

The topic of idolatry is of utmost importance as many Bible-believing churches in the present day attempt to justify pictures and videos of Christ. They argue that both we, and those who cannot read, can come to a fuller understanding of the person of Christ from these images. Yet, the Bible clearly states that such images lie. Jesus Christ is the only one with two distinct natures – both divine and human – in one body. Therefore, to attempt to make any kind of an image of Jesus Christ, graven or two dimensional or moving, still falls under the Second Commandment. No image can portray Christ’s divinity, for He “is the brightness of his [God’s] glory and the express image of his person,” “in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”

If we are to be biblical, we do not have any pictorial representation or video showing the persons of Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. The punishment for idolatry is severe, as both the Old Testament and New Testament make clear. The temptation to visualize Christ, the Father, or the Holy Spirit must be repented of, for God is Holy and the truth of Bible is sufficient for all our knowledge of things divine.

Conclusion

As has been shown above, the Roman Catholic Church most certainly is not Christian. Rather, it is an apostate church. The Bible God’s written word is the great authority against the apostasy of the Catholic Church and against her false gospel. The Bible states that by nature, we are all born “dead in trespasses and sins,” and in practice, we rebel against the All Holy God. Therefore, we justly fall under the curse of the Law. Yet, the love of the heavenly Father, through the Gospel of grace, rescues His own from His fiery wrath. By means of the conviction of sin, placed on the human heart by the Holy Spirit, He by His grace alone turns us to Himself in faith alone for the salvation that He alone gives. This salvation is based on Christ’s death and resurrection for His own. As a result we believe on Jesus Christ the Lord alone, “for by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” Such grace and love engages our hearts in an ever deepening gratitude so that we proclaim with our whole heart, “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”

Permission is given to copy and distribute this article.

Our MP3s are easily downloaded and our DVDs seen on Sermon Audio at: http://www.sermonaudio.com/go/212

Our website is: http://www.bereanbeacon.org

She says divorce is her "God-given right," but Jesus and the pope say "no" (series)

You may remember from a previous post that I told you that my wife was adamant: “she will do what she wants to do, when she wants to do it,” and she believes that is her “God-given right.” She told me she believes that’s exactly what she was doing—exercising her God-given right—when she filed for divorce from me without so much as a marriage counseling session back in March of 2001 (despite the fact that she's a Roman Catholic who is not supposed to believe in divorce).

Thankfully, both Jesus and the pope disagree with her. Yes, it seems the only problem with her “God-given right” complaint is that neither her church nor Jesus himself support her claim. In fact, both flatly reject her claim to such a so-called “right.” Both the pope and Jesus are real clear on the matter.

The pope says a marriage is an “indissoluble bond” and that without some sort of obvious defect, which means someone entered a marriage without the intent to be married or really try (our marriage lasted 19 years) to remain married, or there was something that made it impossible for the couple to have intercourse, etc..(we had two children) then the marriage must be considered valid.

In fact, the pope insists that, even if there is a doubt about the validity of the marriage, without ironclad evidence, the pope says the local tribunal must find that the marriage is valid.

“Marriage enjoys the favour of the (canon) law. Hence, in case of doubt, a marriage must be held to be valid until the contrary is proven. Otherwise we run the serious risk of remaining without an objective point of reference for pronouncements of nullity, transforming all conjugal difficulties into a symptom of a failed union whose essential nucleus of justice - the indissoluble bond - is thus effectively denied.”

In other words, the pope says you can’t just uphold the flimsy reason a person may have used to get a divorce, such as “irreconcilable differences” just because she or he wanted a divorce. And just because the civil government gave it to them easy, you cannot take the easy rout. In fact, the pope told the Rota, the highest authority on Roman Catholic marriages, that easy way must be avoided:

This latter virtue (justice) “becomes more important when injustice seems the easiest path to follow, in as much as it involves giving in to the desires and expectations of the parties involved, or to the conditioning of the social environment.”

My wife has told me she plans to pull out all the stops to make sure she gets her annulment and that means she’s planning to use a lot of character assassination tactics. In other words, she plans to trump up reasons to try to prove that I was immature (at the age of 23) and not ready for marriage and she will come up with reasons that the same might apply to her ( at the age of 21) as well. Of course, the idea is to try to give the tribunal some sort of ammo to come to a declaration that will nullify the marriage.

God the Father forgive me that I left his (God the) Son’s comments on the matter for last. But the fact of the matter is that Jesus specifically mentions the woman’s role in a divorce only once in Mark 10:12 and he is very specific:

And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commits adultery.

In other words, no matter what the Tulsa tribunal may rule, Christ himself insists that if my wife marries another man, now that she has divorced me, she commits adultery.

Of course, my wife believes all she has to do is ask Jesus for forgiveness and everything will be alright. She doesn’t seem to realize that every time she and her “new squeeze” have “relations” they commit adultery—even if its his first marriage. Jesus says they will never be able to come together except in a state of sin—adultery. In other words, what they are doing is “unforgiven” until my wife leaves him, truly repents and seeks to return to me.

Does any of this make me feel better? Not really. My concern is for my wife and her ultimate salvation. As her husband, I can only do what I can to try to seek reconciliation with her and trust in the Lord to at least help me endure whatever I must.

It’s been tough, but he has been good to me for more than nine years now. Bless his name. Jesus is Lord and I thank him so for saving me completely. My prayer is that it will be his will to awaken the love of my earthly life for her sake first, and mine second.

Mitch, Mitch check the meaning of "justified" --quit forcing it to say what you want

(I know it's been a full month since my last post, but here is the third and final installment since we ran the original piece on Mitch Pacwa, Sept. 3, 2009. Photo of Mitch in action.)

Mitch Pacwa and numerous other Roman Catholic apologists use the following verse to support the Roman Catholic teaching that we are saved, not by faith alone, but by faith combined with good works—that is faith plus good works.

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

To hear Mitch and the others explain it (see three installments back), this one verse is all a Christian needs to read to know that the Roman Catholic gospel of free will choice (as Mitch notes, same gospel that Billy Graham preaches) is the true gospel. No matter how many times Christ tells us that he is the chooser (past posts) for the salvation of our souls (see immediately past posts), Mitch and Billy insists, we are the choosers.

Mitch claims that St. James, the individual who wrote the above verse, is telling us that our salvation is not a matter of the gift of faith that Christ alone can give us, but also a matter of our own good works—and both of them (faith plus works) are necessary for our salvation. Of course, in order to do that, Mitch may as well tells us that Jesus himself is a liar, because Jesus is clear on this matter and what he says totally contradicts St. James.

He who believes in me has everlasting life. (John 6:47)

He who hears my word and believes in the One who sent me, has eternal life and will not be condemned. He has passed from death to life. (John 5:24)

Jesus tells us we know we are saved if we believe in him as our only savior, if we have the faith to put all our trust in him for salvation, which is a gift that only he can give. (Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. (Romans 6:23 ..the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus.)

The only real difference between Billy Graham’s false gospel and Mitch’s is that Mitch’s church puts its teaching in writing and condemns to hell anyone who believes that are saved by faith or trust alone in Christ:

“If anyone says that the faith which justifies is nothing else but trust in the divine mercy (of God), which pardons sins because of Christ; or that it is that trust alone (faith alone) by which we are justified; let him be anathema (accursed, condemned to hell).” -Council of Trent, session six, “Decree on Justification”, canon 12.

Once again, this teaching contradicts Christ’s own promises by denying that we are indeed saved through the gift of faith that comes only from Christ--the gift of being able to put our trust in him alone for our salvation. In making this a required belief, the pope and his bishops implicitly deny that Christ was the sole reason or basis for our salvation.

Because Mitch Pacwa is a Bible scholar, he should also know that, correctly interpreted, the verse in James 2:24 doesn’t have to contradict Jesus. So what is the correct interpretation of James 2:24 that allows James to uphold what Christ says about salvation? Let’s start by repeating the verse,

“You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”

As Mitch knows, the word “justified” can have more than one meaning. In this case the word “justified” is used as a verb in the same way that Jesus used it in Luke 7:25 (“wisdom is justified by all her children”). Here, the word “justified” is used as meaning “proof of a prior claim.” When we apply that meaning to James’ use of the word “justify” in this verse, we find that James was telling us: “works were proof of faith.” And that interpretation fits well with the rest of the Bible. James was merely saying that the good works we do, justify or prove our faith to those who observe us. As Christ told us “…let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)

You see, it’s not always terribly complex as Mitch would try to have you believe. However, it is a benefit to the Roman church to try to make it seem as complex as possible. That way most people will throw up their hands in either exhaustion or fear and trembling and say, “Okay tell me what to believe and what to do and I trust that you the Roman Church will get me to heaven.”

If you believe what Jesus says about faith or belief in him, you don’t have to be exhausted or in a state of free and trembling. In fact, Jesus invites us to take comfort in him.

(Matthew 11:28-30) “Come unto me, all you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and you shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Another wonderful promise from the Savior of the souls of all who believe in him. --Bro. Jim

A "free willingness" to oppose Christ for a false gospel, part II

To hear Mitch Pacwa emphasize free will as a way to rail against “absolute assurance of salvation” or absolute assurance of heaven, you would think that free will must be pretty important. But that’s not true at all. At issue is not our free will, the real issue is the central act of Jesus for our salvation, our rescue from hell. Christ’s savage death and glorious resurrection means everything for us in this life and the next. Although Mitch is a Bible scholar, his take on the supposed worth of what he calls our “free will” is totally at odds with the words of Christ himself in holy scripture.

As we explained in our last blog, Mitch has whittled down the issue to the point that we can see with ease the false gospel of Roman Catholicism that he preaches. It’s a false gospel that explains Christ died for us only to give us a mere “opportunity” to get to heaven someday—to make heaven “possible” for us. This is the key reason free will is so important to Mitch and why he preaches it as so important to others. If our salvation is only a possibility, he reasons we must have the free will choice to choose it.

Mitch’s false gospel proposes that our free will is so important that it actually serves as the tie breaker—deciding which way it will be for us, heaven or hell! But in our last blog, we saw that Christ’s disagreed with that assessment. Jesus’ own words soundly oppose the suggestion that Mitch or Mitch’s friend Billy Graham or anyone can make a free will decision for heaven or hell. Why? Only because Jesus himself insists that he and his Father in heaven make such decisions (see specific Bible verses at last blog). Here’s some more verses from Christ:

“It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you….” (John 15:16)


“Thou has given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou has given him.” (John 17:2)


“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.” (John 6:37)

The apostle Paul confirmed all that Jesus said by insisting that we were chosen…
In him, we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will. (Ephesians 1:11)


“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love, he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the one he loves.” (Ephesians 1:4-6)


“All who were destined for eternal life came to believe.” (Acts 13:48)
Jesus, the Lord himself and the apostle Paul unmistakably confirm that we were chosen for everlasting life-- and not that we choose everlasting life. So why does Bible scholar Mitch teach to the contrary? Folks, Mitch is a good Jesuit soldier who tells us what his church insists is truth whether that’s what Jesus and the apostles tell us or not. And sadly, and obviously, it is not.

As we mentioned earlier, it is Mitch’s false gospel, the gospel that Mitch explains is held by Roman Catholicism and many Protestants. This false gospel is the real basis for Mitch’s emphasis on something that he can find no where in the Bible, no matter how long he has studied it – free will – it’s just not there folks. You can look until the cows come home.
Despite his extensive educational background, Mitch can't point us to any verses in the whole Bible that indicate that any of us has the free will that Mitch insists is so very important for us to believe in. That’s why, Mitch falls back on the one weak argument that he and other second-hand Roman apologists run to when things get serious—gospel serious—James Chapter 2. There’s one verse there that Roman Catholic apologists seem to cherish more than all the words of Christ. We’ll get to that in part 3 of our blog series.  -- bro. Jim

Responding to the false free will gospel of no assurance, Part I

First, if you think for a second that I don’t like Mitch Pacwa, you’re wrong. It’s hard for me to think of a man who seems more dedicated and longsuffering than Mitch, who has formally studied the scriptures for many years as a Jesuit priest. And that is just more reason that I must love Mitch enough to tell him he’s headed to hell, if he continues to preach this “other” gospel that Paul so soundly condemned. (Galatians 1:8-9)

In attempting to explain why he and other Roman Catholics cannot know for sure whether they are going to heaven, (see Sept. 3, 2009 blog) Mitch shows you that man’s “free will” and not Christ, is at the center of Rome’s twisted gospel of no absolute assurance in Christ’s work as well as no absolute assurance in their own free will, as Mitch put it the other night:

“The only reason we don’t like to say it is “absolute” (assurance) is that…going back to the first thing I mentioned, we do believe in free will. And, because we believe in free will, we as Catholics, believe we chose—matter of fact—many Protestants also believe this now…”

Mitch is certainly correct from the standpoint that Roman Catholics (and some Protestants) are indeed told they cannot believe they have any assurance of salvation, despite the fact that they are taught that Christ died for them. So what is the real worth of Christ’s death on the cross for the Roman Catholic?

Mitch himself has said it before, Christ sacrifice gives him, and those who believe like him, no more than “a chance” to attain heaven through faith and works, based on the “willingness” of their own “free will.”

“Because of him (Jesus), I have a chance of not going to hell and a chance to get to heaven.” (Pacwa, EWTN Threshold of Hope - 9-9-08)

Their “gospel” is that Christ died only for the forgiveness of sins and the mere “possibility” of their salvation and no more. Jesus did no more than make salvation possible. In other words, he didn’t actually save anyone (according to Mitch and company).

And as Mitch indicates in his “explanation” which you can read on my Sept. 3, 2009 blog, there are many Protestant churches that believe the same way.

“…many Protestants also believe this now—they don’t follow Luther or Calvin. And they do…Billy Graham for instance, says ‘Make a decision for Christ.’”

Of course, those who read the Bible find that Jesus repeatedly addresses the matter of who is able to choose him. Jesus clearly tells us NO ONE. So, whether you believe you have a free will or not, you are included among NO ONE who can come to him…unless…

NO ONE can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. (John 6:44)


NO ONE can come to me unless it has been granted him by my Father. (John 6:54)


NO ONE knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Luke 10:22)

Clearly, if, as the Roman Church teaches, everybody has a “free will,” Christ himself is telling us that no one has the ability to use a free will to choose him. Anyone who has read the Bible closely, knows better than to argue such a thing, including Mitch Pacwa.

Mitch himself got sidetrack as he was trying to explain this free will stuff and in doing so he linked it directly to the twisted gospel he preaches.
More on my next blog.—bro. Jim

Roman Church teaches no assurance of heaven because of our free will. They call Jesus "Lord" but ignore his promises.

A pointed illustration of the sad state of what once was the true church. Now it is no more than a giant monster that doesn't even know the assurance of salvation the Lord purchased for those who believe in him and his completed work on the cross.

This learned Roman Catholic Jesuit scholar, Mitch Pacwa, explains why Roman Catholics do not believe they can know they are going to heaven, in other words, why they do not believe in assurance of salvation or assurance of heaven.

(The following word-for-word transcript comes from the show "Threshhold of Hope" which aired live on EWTN-TV Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2009 at 9 p.m. C.D.T.).

The show begins with Pacwa answering a few questions submitted from viewers at home:

Dear Father Mitch,
On another EWTN show (The Journey Home), someone told a story where he asked the local priest if he was saved and the priest replied “Only God knows who is going to heaven.” What can a Catholic, who believes in Jesus Christ and is living in obedience to God, hope to expect regarding salvation and going to heaven? Richard from California

Pacwa word-for-word answer: Well, here’s one of the things. The Catholic Church says you….we don’t have absolute assurance of our salvation, but we can have moral assurance.

Now, what are we talking about there? Absolute assurance is one that comes in some denominations where they, first of all, have begun the whole process by denying freewill to choose grace.

So, for instance, Luther and Calvin taught that you don’t have free will to choose grace, you have free will to choose which sins you’re going to commit, but you can’t even say “yes” to faith (Pacwa hands lifted in the air quizzically). God makes you say "yes," to faith or… you don’t get grace and you don’t say "yes."

Now, in that kind of understanding, then, if you get the grace of faith, it’s because God gave it to you and made you take it…cause you can’t choose it on your own (hands back up in the air in exasperation).

He (God) made you take it, and since…God won’t take back what he made you take, then you can have complete assurance, and so that would be an absolute kind of assurance. Ok? That would be one position.

The Catholic position is, we know what Christ has taught, including a, a,a, we know some things he didn’t say. He never said you are justified by faith alone, allrighttt?

The only time that the Bible even mentions being justified by faith alone…is once. Once. Now a lot of people say, well, that should be enough. God said it once and that’s enough for me. I, I agree with you and it’s enough for me too, as long as you keep in mind is what it (really) says is: you are NOT justified by faith alone (big smile) in James, chapter two.

So…that would be one thing. You know, not justified by faith alone…but you are justified by faith and you are saved by hope, and unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you cannot have eternal life. And we also see in 1 Peter, chapter 3, aaa around verse 19, “baptism now saves you.”

So, what we know is that our Lord has given us this richness of salvation, and in giving us that richness, he has also given us the ability to say that, well, if I do believe, if I have accepted these gifts he’s offered me, then I can be sure, you know, rrrelatively sure, or morally certain that I am going to go to heaven. And you can accept that that’s where I’m going to go. Of course, most people are aware, I don’t deserve it. Y’know, who deserves to go to heaven? I mean, yyyou can’t go on saying “I believe and therefore I deserve,”…nobody, not, not, Protestants, not Catholics believe that.

It’s not a matter…it’s a free gift, it’s God’s grace. But, you also have a sense of being able to say that “I have done what Christ has asked of me, to the best of my ability and I hand myself, I commend myself to him…and pray like the publican, “Lord have mercy on me a sinner.” And we can trust in his mercy. So we can have that kind of confidence.

The only reason we don’t like to say it is “absolute” is that…going back to the first thing I mentioned, we do believe in free will. And, because we believe in free will, we as Catholics, believe we chose—matter of fact—many Protestants also believe this now—they don’t follow Luther or Calvin. And they do…Billy Graham for instance, says “Make a decision for Christ.” Now, that would be contrary to Luther and Calvin, because they say that you CAN’T make a decision, but many Protestants know, of course, you make a decision for Christ. And they do that, invite Jesus into their life—motivated by grace and moved by grace—just as we (Catholics) believe. But, what we also believe, is that, while we make a decision for Christ, we still have freedom to turn away from him. So we don’t ever claim absolute assurance. As if, “once I am saved, I am always saved.” We gave a sense that, God has given me this grace, and all these many graces, and I want to do everything I can to preserve until the end. And, by preserving, a, a —read Hebrews by the way—chapter 10, beginning right around verse 20 or so. You see that that need for perseverance is essential, so that we stay faithful all the way to the end. - Mitch Pacwa

Quick note from bro. Jim:

Mitch Pacwa is so well educated that it is sad to hear his halting response to a very basic question. It is all the more sad to listen to this error of "free will" and see how it so thoroughly twists the gospel of Roman Catholicism. At the very least, Pacwa's explanation seems to be undermined by a "free willingness" to totally ignore scripture and the centrality of Christ. Please see my series of responses, which I will start posting tomorrow on Sept. 4, 2009.

The "lion" sought consolation and got it, but is it good for an eternity?

Ted Kennedy, who was buried yesterday, wrote a letter to the pope some months before his death and got an answer.

If you read it close, it might seem Kennedy's letter is that of a youngster who is seeking some reassurance from his father that he will fare ok in the next life.

As Kennedy puts it, “I know that I have been an imperfect being, but with the help of my faith, I have tried to right my path.”

Yes, sadly, Mr. Kennedy had decided that somehow—he himself could “right his own path.”

Without writing anything that would show remorse, sorrow, or repentance for his stand in favor of abortion, Kennedy instead simply promised the pope that any health care package would include assurances that health care workers would not have to participate in abortions or other procedures that went against their consciences.

Kennedy then offers the pope highlights from his career in the Senate that he obviously expects the pope to appreciate--maybe the things he did to "right his path": “I want you to know, Your Holiness, that in my nearly 50 years of elective office, I have done my best to champion the rights of the poor and open doors of economic opportunity. I've worked to welcome the immigrant, fight discrimination and expand access to health care and education. I have opposed the death penalty and fought to end war…”

And so to the very end, we see that Senator Kennedy, the so-called “Lion of the Senate” thought quite highly of himself—though he still apparently wanted some confirmation from the pope of his work to "right his path."

And, despite Kennedy’s pro-abortion track record, the pope apparently responded with just that, a letter of great consolation that avoided the subject of abortion altogether:

“His Holiness prays that in the days ahead you may be sustained in faith and hope, and granted the precious grace of joyful surrender to the will of God our merciful Father. He invokes upon you the consolation and peace promised by the Risen Savior to all who share in His sufferings and trust in His promise of eternal life.

"The pope then commended Kennedy and his family to “the loving intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Father cordially imparts his Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of wisdom, comfort and strength in the Lord.”

And so another Roman Catholic dies, is buried with great pomp and circumstance, after insisting he did things to help make him right with God. All of which the pope confirms by indicating that was the way that Kennedy shared in Christ’s sufferings, which coupled with trust in Christ, should clear the way to eternal life.

It’s just more evidence that what the pope said last November about faith alone for salvation was no more than talk, and countless Roman Catholics die daily trusting in their own works coupled with some help (perhaps a little mercy) from Christ.

This so-called “gospel” that they preach and use to assure each other, is no gospel at all, because it allows and promotes the addition of our own works to the only work that actually saves true believers—that of Christ’s death on the cross. As long as it mixes our works with Christ’s works for salvation, it is a false gospel, which condemns all who preach it, according to Galatians 1:8-9 and offers no real comfort to those who hear it.

Ted Kennedy went to his grave apparently believing he had done some work that would help him enter heaven. Will you go to your death believing that lie too? Turn now to the true Christ, the true God who alone has saved all who put their trust in him alone! --bro. Jim

Misusing verse for their own purposes

The verse below has been used by those who claim “Christ died for all men—believers as well as those who reject him forever” by insisting that the verse indicates Christ died to buy (bought) everlasting life even for false prophets and teachers. Is that really what it means? Not so said Herman Hoeksema as he answered the question before going onto his reward.

Denying The Lord That Bought Them Question — From a reader in Jenison, Michigan I received the following question:"I have a problem understanding II Peter 2:1 in the light of sovereign election.

The text is: 'But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.' "It would seem that those who 'even deny the Lord that bought them . . .' cannot have been bought in the first place, since they are false teachers or hypocrites. Please explain."

Reply — My questioner is basically correct when he views his problem in the light of sovereign election. More specifically, of course, the question comes down to this: does this passage teach a falling away of the saints, that is, a falling away of those whom Christ bought by His atoning death? But basically it is a question of sovereign election: for Christ died for those given unto Him by sovereign election. Hence, ultimately the question becomes: can God's election be rendered ineffectual?

And my questioner recognizes that the latter is impossible, in the light of Scripture. Hence, how must this passage be explained? There are two possible explanations. 1) We may follow the rendering of the King James Version, and then, as my questioner suggests, the explanation lies in the fact that these false teachers are hypocrites. That is, they are outwardly and according to their profession members of the church. They are of those who profess with the mouth that the Lord bought them, that is, atoned for them. But in process of time they become manifest as false teachers, who then deny the very Lord Whom they once professed to be the Lord Who bought them. They never had been bought by the Lord: for as Canons V, 8 puts it, "the merit, intercession, and preservation of Christ cannot be rendered ineffectual." But they once professed to be Christians, to have been bought by the Lord; and later they deny by their heresies that very Lord. If we adopt this explanation, then the text says nothing as to the specific nature of their heresy, except that it is a denial of the Lord.

2) It is also possible to read the text as follows: ". . . even denying the-having-bought-them-Lord." Or: " . . . even denying that the Lord bought them." In that case, the text purposes to specify the extent of the damnable heresies of these false teachers. They even deny that the Lord bought them, deny the atonement. Then these false teachers are pictured as teaching a salvation by works, rather than by the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. Personally, I am inclined toward this interpretation for various reasons. But whatever explanation is adopted, it must certainly be emphasized that this passage does not teach a falling away of the saints, that is, of the elect.

--(the late, great) Herman Hoeksema, Protestant Reformed Christian Church

American Catholic split identified in NCR

While describing some of the aspects of the pope’s recent encyclical, John Allen Jr. with the National Catholic Reporter offered the following on what constitutes the current divide among Roman Catholics is America:

“…Statements of principle, however, often fail to account for the gap between what we say and what we do. In that sense, Caritas in Veritate amounts to a direct challenge to the sociology of American Catholicism.

"Both at the grass roots and among the chattering classes, the American church is often described as split between its pro-lifers and its peace-and-justice contingent. More accurately, it's divided between those who see Catholic teaching as a useful tool to support their partisan preferences, whatever they may be, and those for whom the faith comes first and secular politics second.

…. (As a footnote, if I had the authority to decree a reading assignment for every Catholic in America, it would be Bill Bishop's 2008 book The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart. His observations about broad trends in American society can be applied almost point-for-point to the internal life of the church.)

"Thus the question implicitly posed by Benedict's encyclical: Can the church in this country develop a new way of "breathing with both lungs," bringing its pro-life and peace-and-justice energies into greater alignment? Or are we fated to continue the present pattern of "Big Sort Catholicism"? ...

(Blogmaster's note:) We are headed for :"Big Sort Catholicism" that Allen didn't come near touching by identifying "pro-lifers vs. peace and justice contingent." The National Catholic Reporter, which clearly represents the so-called "peace and justice contingent," (cafeteria Catholics--pick and choose your doctrine) pulled out all the stops for Obama to insist that people can be proabortion and remain Roman Catholic. What baloney.

They don't want to know what the Bible says about abortion either. I side with the prolifers on this one (although I am no longer a Roman Catholic myself) and I know why the traditonal and sedevacanists Catholics are growing and will continue to grow. They realize that once you concede that murder is permissible at any level of life, it is permissible at all levels of life from infants to the elderly. Aside from belief in the true Gospel that Christ fully won (secured) the salvation of all who believe in him (which most Roman Catholics refuse to believe)...there is no issue more important than respect for life at all levels.

Is Catholicism really good enough, mom?

My mom, a Roman Catholic modern church worshipper, still says if it was good enough for her mom and dad it is good enough for her. Really? How sad.

The following is what was good enough for our ancestors…is it really good enough for us in the eyes of the Christ we say we worship? Surely not for people who have read and believe his word--the Bible.

Yet Roman Catholics are taught that each time they receive the body and blood of our Lord at Holy Communion they are giving their ascent and approval to all the teachings of the Church’s Magisterium. That means they agree to go along with all the following formal teachings of that same Magisterium (which is the pope and those bishops in union with him). In fact, they are told that not to do so is heresy, which is defined as...

Heresy consists in a pertinacious denial of doubt of a Catholic truth (c. 1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law) and it severs one completely from the Roman Catholic Church (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum). Which means you lose salvation for refusing to believe all of the church's teachings.

That's not all. There are many more required-for-salvation Roman Catholic teachings, here's just a few...

The Magisterium (the pope and the bishops in union with him) of the Roman Catholic Church is free from all error – Pope Leo XIII

All prayer with the heretics is condemned to hell. – Pope Pius IX

Whoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress – Pope Leo XIII

Only Catholics can be considered Christians – Pope Pius VI

Heretics such as Protestants, Jews, and Muslims are completely separated from the Body of Christ – Pope Eugene IV

Catholics must anathematize (condemn to hell) all heretics – Pope St. Martin 1

It is not against the will of God to burn heretics – Pope Leo X

Protestants have not the Trinity, life or salvation. – Pope Leo XIII

Outside the Church there is no true worship of God – Pope Gregory XVI

Non-Catholic worship is a disgrace and forbidden – Pope Clement V

The State must forbid non-Catholic religions – Pope Pius IX

To be Christian, one must believe in the Papacy – Pope Pius VI

One is not the child of God the Father, unless he takes the Church for his mother – Leo XIII

Whoever is outside the Catholic Church is not our brother. – Pope Leo XII

Outside the Church there is absolutely no salvation. – Pope Leo X

Heretics are the gates of Hell – Pope Vigilius

Ecumenism can meet with no kind of approval among Catholics – Pope Pius XI

To foster ecumenism is to reject the true religion – Pope Pius XI

Civil authority must be subject to the Church’s authority – Pope Boniface VIII

Those who die in mortal sin are destined for Hell – Pope Benedict XII

Only Catholics worship God – Pope Gregory XVI

The Catholic Church condemns all contrary opinions – Pope Eugene IV

One of the things that shows how different the official Roman Catholic Church of today is from its traditional Roman Catholic past is the treatment of Jews. While I thank God that we treat Jews with the human dignity they deserve, should that include praying with them though it is plainly known that they reject Jesus, the Son of the living God and God in the flesh? Especially since the Bible clearly warns Christians against such fellowship?

Yet, as we have all seen, the popes have joined Jews in prayer in synagogues and praised them as their “elder brothers.” This despite the fact that the church still must uphold the teachings of former popes which soundly condemned to hell all Jews who reject Jesus as the Son of God.

Lately the popes, following the lead of Vatican II, have clearly taught and acted to the contrary of church teaching. No wonder traditionalists are gaining steam.

Here’s an example from Pope Hardrian I: “Jews are anathema (cursed--condemned to hell) from God, completely cut off from His communion and splendor. DC: 168 (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, edited by Norman P. Tanner)

Think about it. We're talking about teachings that the Roman Catholic Church itself teaches are irreformable--unchangable. They have made their errors unchangable. How very sad. --Bro. Jim