JudeOneThree

[Mike Winger @MikeWingerii]

Thank you Bill Maher (words I didn’t expect to say)

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

@UcheMaryOkoli The devil has been using the Pope to test (and persecute) biblical Christianity for centuries.

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

@UcheMaryOkoli This marks another chapter in the long history of shoring up power in the unbiblical office of the papacy, and marking more disunity in the so-called “Catholic” church.

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

When Catholics speak of theirs being one unified church, they are either ignorant of, or lying about, the factions and divisions throughout Catholicism.

[Michael Haynes 🇻🇦 @MLJHaynes]

BREAKING: Pope Leo XIV writes to the SSPX warning against the planned consecrations

Says it would be a “sin of the utmost gravity”

Adds: “The Church is open to a path of dialogue and understanding that the Holy Spirit can make possible and fruitful”

Full letter below
——

With a paternal heart, and aware of the responsibility entrusted to me by the Lord as the Successor of the Apostle Peter, I address you and, through you, the bishops, priests, seminarians and faithful connected to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.

The Church recognizes the devotion to liturgical life, commitment to priestly formation, apostolic zeal and desire for fidelity to Tradition that characterize many people and communities connected to your Fraternity. This has motivated the attentive and generous attitude that my Predecessors have consistently shown to you.

In this spirit, and filled with Christian affection, I plead with you and ask you with all my heart: please turn back! I urge you to consider carefully the spiritual good of the faithful, because the schismatic act you are about to undertake would deprive them of the licit and, in some cases, even valid reception of the Sacraments, which they love and seek for their sanctification.

The Church is open to a path of dialogue and understanding that the Holy Spirit can make possible and fruitful.

I pray for you, because to tear the seamless garment of Christ is a sin of extreme gravity. May the Lord enlighten your consciences and awaken your hearts. With a sorrowful yet hopeful heart, I feel it is my duty, through the authority received from Christ, to ask you to desist from your intended act. I entrust these intentions to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mother of Good Counsel.

From the Vatican, 29 June 2026
Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul

LEO PP. XIV

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

@BishopJaxi @JustMe174913954 You think confessing secretly to a man in a veiled box provides accountability??? 🙄🙂‍↔️

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

@BishopJaxi The same can be said of most Catholics.

They remain in a religion that accommodates sinful lifestyles thru sacraments that justify the parishioner’s Pharisaical hypocrisy.

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

@BishopJaxi Once again, “Bishop,” you misrepresent Protestantism in a weak attempt to attack it.

I suppose that’s because the fruit of Catholicism is the freedom to bear false witness, so long as you go to confession and do a little penance.

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

John does not mention the servants coming to Mary first. She simply reported to Jesus that they ran out of wine.

How did she know? John does not tell us. It’s not an important detail.

And it does not justify reading a Marian intercession doctrine into the text.

What John does record is Mary telling the servants to listen to Jesus directly (i.e., they should have gone to Him directly in the first place).

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

@sarahtexe Yes.

And I don’t support the MLBTQ+ joining the Alphabet Mafia.

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

@sarahtexe Sin

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

@BishopJaxi If I’m incorrect, then you should:

1. Reject your Catholic Mariology,
2. Dispose of your statues and pictures of Mary, and.
3. Stop praying the Rosary.

But you won’t, because Mary is central to your identity as a Catholic.

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

@TiffanyFong This happened back in game four of the 2024 World Series.

This guy and his friend have already been banned from all MLB stadiums for life.

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

@judeokeyvlogs Baptizing babies only gets them wet, nothing more.

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

@IranArmySpoofX Raiders of the Lost Ark came out in 1981, but the film was set in 1936.

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

Sorry it took me some time to respond. I've been busy. And, you wrote a LOT. This comment will also be long, and probably my last.

Believe it or not, I seriously consider what you offer, and closely examine my own position. I don't presume to be correct in everything, but exercises like this build my confidence that I am believing what is right and true.

I say that because, as I read through your comment, I hoped to find some biblical support FOR your position that "personal salvation is by doing good...obtained through how you live, your deeds, etc." Once again, you did not offer any. Instead, you spent all your time and energy protesting every sentence I wrote, as usual.

And as I considered everything you shared, I realized what keeps us from moving forward isn't merely how we define "works of the Law" differently. It's more fundamental than that. Yes, it is in your rejection of the sufficiency of Scripture. But I saw three tendencies in your approach that undermine your understanding of the Bible.

1. You major on the minors, and vice versa.
2. You miss the forest for the trees.
3. You dismiss and ignore Scripture altogether.

That you major on the minors was evident in your repeated banging of the baptism drum, even calling it, "The FOUNDAMENTAL Christian event. It’s the beginning, the cornerstone of Christianity----and by reading the Bible you don’t know what it means, what it does, at what age to baptize, and if it’s even required!"

That proposition is absolutely incorrect! Jesus Christ, not baptism, is the beginning and cornerstone of Christianity (see Mt 21:42; Mk 12:10; Lk 20:17; Acts 4:11; Eph 2:20; and 1 Pet 2:6-7). Christianity is built on the "foundamental" person and work of Jesus Christ, not baptism. In fact, the entire Bible is the revelation of God's redemptive plan in and through Jesus Christ, not baptism (more on this later).

Your statement also indicates a priority in looking outside the Bible to learn about baptism, which is no "minor structural problem." It's a HUGE problem! Borrowing your words, it represents "a fundamental issue that negates t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ your entire r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶h̶i̶p̶ ̶t̶o̶ understanding of Christianity, in my opinion." It allows you to define Christianity however you want.

In doing that, you take a non-essential issue and elevate it to an essential issue, according to your outside sources. You major on the minors, and then say, "Remember, I’m not unfamiliar with the Protestant world," before asserting, "Many Protestants would say it (baptism) is [essential for salvation]." You even asked me, "You think baptism isn’t needed for salvation, while you fellow Protestant thinks it is?"

I beg your pardon, but which of the "many" Protestants do you think believe baptism is necessary for salvation, or essential?

To my knowledge, only some Lutherans and Anglicans believe it is, but not all of them. Incidentally, even the Episcopal Church, which is the Anglican spinoff in the US, does not believe baptism is necessary for salvation, despite being part of the Anglican Communion and also falling under the province of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The majority of Protestants do not believe baptism is necessary for salvation. What differences they have on the topic of baptism are non-salvific, meaning they have no direct bearing on someone's salvation. That makes their differences "non-essential," or minor.

And no, those differences are not "'cause none of [them] actually knows who is reading the Bible correctly." After all, that's a moot point if you think that "by reading the Bible you don’t know what [baptism] means, what it does, at what age to baptize, and if it’s even required!" According you you, what we need to know about baptism isn't even in the Bible! So why do you even care about Protestants disagreeing about baptism?

Of course, I believe that God did give us everything we needed to know about something as important as baptism in His Word.

Despite the differences over whether or not baptism is a replacement for covenant sign of circumcision, or whether or not baptism is a symbolic public proclamation made in baptism - that by immersion one is demonstrably buried with Christ and raised to walk in newness of life, as the Presbyterians and Baptists believe, respectively, neither views baptism as necessary for salvation. They agree on that major point, while charitably disagreeing on the minor points.

That you would major on a minor issue in such a way, while minoring on the major issue of salvation by grace through faith, is fundamental to our disagreement.

That fundamental divide is also reinforced when you turn your misgivings about Protestants disagreements causes you to turn to a "church" that has evolved over the centuries to incorporate lots of things they regard as essentials, but are both absent from and antithetical to Scripture.

But, that's your prerogative. So I move on.

That you major on the minors, and minor on the majors, seems to also lead you to miss the forest for the trees.

You seem to think baptism is SO important that the apostles "didn't write about baptism enough," and ask, "Why there is no book on baptisms?" The answer is simple: because baptism is not essential for salvation! And, the apostles DID write enough for us.

So, if baptism is not essential for salvation, what is? In the words of a famous first century rabbi name Jesus of Nazareth, the essential is, "Repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:15). That gospel is why Paul wrote Romans, to explain the very thing he longed to preach in Rome, and then later in Spain, before he got there.

Because you miss the forest for the trees, you disagree with that and say, "Romans is a letter about how Gentiles can be part of the people of God," that Rom 4 is about the Abrahamic Covenant, and, "Romans is not a book on how to obtain eternal life."

Does Romans talk about Gentiles becoming part of God's covenant people? Yes. But is it about that? No.

Romans is, for all intents and purposes, Paul's dissertation on the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ - what he preached - that is applied equally to Jews and Greeks. Both are equally under sin, and both that equally are descendants of Abraham and heirs with Christ through faith, not via "Jewish things." There is no partiality with God (Rom 2:11), and you are wrong to apply your partiality to Romans in such a way.

Does Rom 4 reference the Abrahamic Covenant? Yes. But is it about the Abrahamic Covenant? No.

Rom 4 is part of Paul's overall explanation of the gospel, in which he explain that Abraham was justified by faith and by not works, and that that same justification extends to anybody who believes in Christ. The point is that for Abraham, and for the Jews and Gentiles, people have always been God's people because of faith, not circumcision or birthright or any other "Jewish things," which is emphasized in both Rom 5 and Rom 9.

Finally, does Romans tell us "how to obtain eternal life?" YES, it does!

Have you really been a Protestant and never heard of the famous "Romans Road" method of preaching the gospel? It is the very thing that affirms your statement, "[The apostles] started with God's dealings with Jews and the covenant of Abraham. But they didn't end there."

You're exactly right. They didn't end there. Paul spoke about God's dealings with the Jews, and even the Abrahamic Covenant, in Romans. He also talked about how Gentiles could be part of God's people. But he didn't end there.

The "Romans Road" begins by telling people that everybody has sinned (Rom 3:23), and that the consequence for sin is death (Rom 6:23). The solution is the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ paid the penalty for their sin, and that He took their place by shedding His blood and dying on their behalf (Rom 3:24-25; 5:8). Their response, then, is to receive God's grace through faith in Jesus - by believing in His resurrection and confessing him as Lord (Rom 10:9), because anybody who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Rom 10:13). This provides assurance of salvation because they have peace with God through the justification that comes by faith (Rom 5:1), and they no longer face condemnation (Rom 8:1). Finally, Paul punctuates all this by exhorting the evangelistic mission to reach others with the same gospel message (Rom 10:14-15).

You see, Paul certain DOES tell his readers (and us) how to obtain eternal life in his letter to the Romans. Why? Because the letter is about the gospel!

That you don't see that indicates you really do miss the forest for the trees. And in doing so, you also miss a lot of other verses that could rightly inform your religious beliefs.

This has been evident in your insistence that justification and salvation are not synonymous, because you evidently have not read Rom 5:1-10. In that passage the "dots" connecting justification and salvation are NOT "miles apart," but are rather close and conspicuous:

Sinners/enemies -> Reconciled to God by Christ's blood -> Justified by faith -> Saved from the wrath of God

Reading a bit farther, Rom 8:29-30 offers us a soteriological connection between the two, with this progression:

Foreknew -> Predestined -> Called -> Justified -> Glorified

Paul speaks of this glorification earlier in chapter 8, and we see that it refers to something future, eternal. He also elucidates it in other places, as well.

Passages like Eph 2:5-8 says God saved us by grace when He "made us alive together with Christ" and "raised us up with Him (Christ) in the heavenly places in Christ."

Col 3:1-4 says that those who "have been raised up with Christ...died and their lives have been hidden with Christ in God...and will be manifested with Him in glory."

In 1 Cor 15, which is an entire chapter on the resurrection, Paul writes in verse 49, "Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly."

Phil 3:20-21 ties all this back to Rom 8:29 by saying a believer's "citizenship is in heaven," and that our "Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory."

So, when we see in Rom 8:30 that a) there is no break between "justified" and "glorified," and that b) "glorified" is in the past tense though speaking of a future event, we can know that it is with 100% certainly that those whom God justifies, He also glorifies...saves. There are none who are justified who are not glorified (pardon the double-negative).

You see, no matter how much you try to avoid it or deny it, justification is synonymous with salvation, or glorification. And when Paul speaks of justification in Romans, he is speaking of a certain salvation that results from it.

Another example of your ignoring passages is in your response to me offering Greek for Rom 2:15, 3:20, and 3:28, when you said, "I realize that, but you don’t know Greek and I don’t...So you can’t go in and tell me what the Bible really means in Greek."

How do you know what I know or don't know about Greek? Regardless, in your presumptuous and dismissive attitude you seemed to have missed that I said I didn't rest my case on the Greek. And you showed that you didn't even read the English...give to us by teams of translation scholars!

You can see the point I made with the Greek for Rom 2:15, 3:20, and 3:28 is plainly evident in English translations. Paul referred to the same thing in each of the verses, and "works of the Law" refers to ALL of the Mosaic Law, not just "Jewish things."

Of course, you make the inference that "Jewish things" is implied by the context to define "works of the Law" as "Jewish things." But if you read Rom 2:25-29 (even in English), you'll plainly see that Paul is referring to all that the Law requires, and that by doing what the Law requires (the "works of the Law"), a Gentile's uncircumcision becomes circumcision. Why? Because doing the "works of the Law" is not an external "Jewish thing," but an internal matter of the heart. And that includes circumcision.

I'm not sure what English translation you prefer or use at your local church, but even the translators of the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition made this conspicuously obvious when they rendered Rom 2:29 to say, "Real circumcision is a matter of the heart - it is spiritual and not literal."

Moreover, before Paul got to Rom 3:20 and 3:28, he indicted the Jews in Rom 2:17-24 for not keeping the Law, including the moral laws. The "works of the Law," then, includes ALL that the Law requires, not just "Jewish things." (Paul even emphasizes this in Gal 3:10.)

So, when the NRSVCE translators render Rom 2:15 as, "They (the Gentiles) show that what the law requires is written on their hearts," we know they internally knew what to do as "deeds prescribed by the law" in Rom 3:20 and "works prescribed by the law" in 3:28.

To the Catholic translators "what the law requires" = "deeds prescribed by the law" = "works prescribed by the law."

So, I will agree with in that "Bible interpretation is not so simple as 'knowing the Greek.'" That's right, it starts with simply reading the passage, even if it's an English translation, and considering what is said in context.

But you don't even do that.

When I offered you several passages to demonstrate the priority the apostles placed on Scripture, and that they wrote what they taught, as an example for us to follow, it's as if you didn't take the time to read the passages in English, but responded with reckless haste.

You wondered why I offered 1 Cor 15:1-4, dismissively asking if it might be to simply say the OT is important. Again, you miss the forest for the trees.

Did you notice what Paul wrote in those verses? He said that he shared the gospel with the Corinthians - the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus - which was according to the Scriptures!

The Scriptures weren't just important. They contained the "first importance" gospel message that was starting point of Paul's ministry! And it didn't end there for Paul.

Incidentally, Romans is FULL of direct quotes, paraphrases, and allusions to about half of the Old Testament books. In fact, Romans accounts for nearly 20% of OT references.

Practically speaking, Romans IS what Paul reasoned from the Scriptures with the Jews in bringing the OT into gospel focus.

That you don't see that Paul begins and builds his gospel message from the OT is because you miss the forest for the trees, which couldn't be more blatantly obvious than in your response to Acts 17:2.

You said that Paul's reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jews in Acts 17:2 was about "God making a covenant with Abraham----the topic of Romans." What? Did you notice that Acts 17:2 was the first half of a sentence that ended in the very next verse? Apparently not. So, here's the entire sentence, with verse 3 highlighted:

"And according to Paul's custom, he went to them (the Jews), and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗱, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴, '𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗝𝗲𝘀𝘂𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗺 𝗜 𝗮𝗺 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁.'"

Paul was not reasoning with them about the Abrahamic Covenant. He was using the Scriptures to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Jews. He did exactly what Jesus did on the road to Emmaus: "Beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, [Jesus] interpreted to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27).

Even Jesus made the Scriptures a priority, and confirmed that the Bible DOES contain everything essential for salvation!

Furthermore, it bears repeating that this accentuates the fact that Jesus Christ, not baptism, the beginning and cornerstone of Christianity, for He is the center of Scripture from start to finish.

That the Scriptures were a priority in the ministry of Jesus and the apostles, especially for Paul, is unmistakable and undeniable. And it serves as quite and example for us...an example Catholics don't follow.

Finally, you dismissively characterized what Peter said of Paul's writings in 2 Pet 3:15-16 "an off-hand line at the end of one of Peter's letters." Hold on a second! Did you bother to read the entire passage...verses 14-18?

Do you think Peter's exhortation to "consider the patience of our Lord as salvation" is just another "off-hand line" to be dismissed? Or, should disregard Paul's writings about the salvation of the Lord? And, what about Peter's instruction to "be on guard" and "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?" Are those also "off-hand lines" to be disregarded?

I have to ask that because Peter claimed to be writing the "more sure prophetic word...of Scripture" by the Holy Spirit (1 Pet 1:19-21). To suggest that the Holy Spirit would have him write "off-hand lines" in God-breathed Scripture is borderline blasphemous.

I also ask that because, according to Catholic mythology, Peter is the first pope. And you dismissing the first pope's Holy Spirit-inspired revelation as "off-hand lines" raises a lot doubt in the revelatory authority of the Pope through so-called "apostolic succession."

But, there's more behind all this. Your dismissive handling of Scripture, coupled with your insistence that salvation is by "faith and many other things," in a doctrinal paradigm that does not view justification and salvation synonymously, and being part of a "church" that concocts so many other unbiblical requirements for salvation - from the distinction between venial and mortal sins, to telling people priests can absolve them of their sins through confession and penance, to creating a make-believe place called purgatory for indefinite penance, to offsetting purgatory with "the treasury of merit" and "indulgences" and "last rites," to worse, perpetually re-sacrificing Christ at every Mass - begs a MUCH bigger question.

Do you also think Jesus was simply making an off-hand line at the end of His passion when He said in John 19:30, "It is finished," just before dying on the cross?

You see, Catholics affirm the "material sufficiency" of Scripture - that all their doctrines can be found in Scripture. But none of those I listed above, plus more that exist (like most of their Mariology) cannot be found in Scripture. So the RCC, and you in what you've expressed in our conversation, suggests that justification and subsequent salvation by Christ's blood was NOT finished.

But because it WAS finished on the cross, we ARE justified by His blood, in a grace that is to be received by faith, and we are subsequently saved from the wrath of God because of Him (Rom 3:24-25, 5:9). It's not because of us, but by God's grace through faith...alone (Eph 2:8-9). There is nothing else required.

If and when you start majoring on majors and minoring on minors, see the forest and the trees, and read the Bible without "dismissing verses" (or ignoring them altogether), I hope you will see that we are indeed saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

It is finished.

Then, will you place 100% of your faith in the person and finished work of Christ, and not "other things?"

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

@gcs_singh @TallTree1010 @MikeWingerii “Just statements and suggestions” you just had to delete. 🫤🙄

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

@TallTree1010 @gcs_singh @MikeWingerii At least you admit to judging.

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

@Monica1776 You were born as a Pharisee. You were raised as a Pharisee. And you will die as a Pharisee.

[JudeOneThree @JudeOneThree]

@Monica1776 At least you know to dress for hot weather.