Religious Movements, Roman Catholicism

Email blues with Patrick Madrid from the Open Line Show through EWTN Catholic Radio Station

I would like to share a story with you.  See, over the last 20 years I have been a studious researcher in various areas of Christianity, Theology, Cults, and Religions.  I really do not want to toot my own horn but sometimes you need to say things as they need to be said, despite those who oppose.  Recently I posted a blog in regards to a man named Patrick Madrid from the Open Line radio show which is sponsored and aired through EWTN Catholic radio station.  As I shared in my last post, I listen occasionally to the EWTN Catholic station and I like to check out the Open Line show, which is a live call show for people to ask or give comments in regards to the Catholic faith.

So with saying all of that I posted a blog, sent a few emails to Patrick Madrid as he stated on his show to do, thinking he really wanted to have some dialogue.  It turns out he really did not want to have an authentic discussion, but he wanted his listeners to think so.  I wonder how many others are treated the same, hmmm.  See after a some time when I did not get any replies I sent another email to Patrick Madrid asking him if he got my emails and if he would so graciously reply to what I have posted.  It turns out he got the emails, knew about them, says he was busy (which I can understand at times), but he was to busy to have a dialogue with me and really did not want to waste his time with me, and points me to contact some other people from another Catholic ministry.  I found that very amusing.

Ok, ok.  Some of you wanted to know how things went so I give some of the discussion that took place, though there really is not much.  I will post a few quotes and then give some thoughts.

Quote: “As I said on the “Open Line” show when you called in, you are deeply mistaken if you think that the Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by the Blessed Virgin Mary.”

Patrick Madrid gives me a few references from the Catechism stating it is in Jesus that we are saved, but he never makes any reply or reference to the references I posted from the Glories of Mary and the Catechism of the Catholic Church in regards to Mary being involved and essential for a person’s salvation.  Anyone who reads the references from the previous blog can easily see what Patrick Madrid stated to me is wrong.  But the problem is not what he is saying now but what he said before, because on the show he stated if a person rejected the Catholic church authority and Mary’s role in salvation they would go to hell.  He did say that!

Quote:  “As you admitted on the show, you are not a Catholic. I have been a Catholic for over 50 years, and I know what the Church teaches on this subject.”

That is a very interesting statement.  Patrick, which is it?  You said one must believe in the authority of the church and Mary’s role for salvation or they will go to  hell.  Or, Jesus only?  You are not being consistent with your theology.  Why not just say it as it is, that a person must be Catholic, hold to the church authority and traditions and sacraments in order to be saved.  Click Here for the proof (The Gospel of Roman Catholicism)

One comment in regards to me admitting I was not Catholic.  That was not an admission, it was a statement.  However what I did say is that I was around Catholicism for many years of my life, family, friends, and I have personally taken the time to study and get the resources on Catholicism.  I have been a Christian for 33 years, I know Christianity, do not tell me what Christianity is!  Does that make it so?  I know of many Mormons who have been Mormons for 30-60 years, who am I to share with them what they truly believe?  Secondly, who are you to take about Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses on your show since you have never been one?  Your comment is hypocritical when you think it and what you said and it does not prove anything :)

Quote:  “Now, the other point I made on the show to an earlier caller is that, because the Catholic Church’s Marian doctrines are de fide and, therefore, cannot be willfully and knowingly rejected, any Catholic who does willfully and knowingly reject them cannot be saved. The point I made to you when you called is that if you, a Protestant, know that these teachings are true (you obviously do not know that), and if you nonetheless willingly and knowingly reject them (again, even though you know they are true), then you will not be saved.”

Can you say that out loud to yourself and explain that one more time?  You say that if a person willfully and knowingly rejects them, they will not be saved.  That was the main thing I was sharing on the show, though I was cut off on the show attempting to clarify.  If a person has been informed concerning the Catholic church’s view on their authority, their doctrines, and a person rejects them, they will be lost and go to hell.  That is clearly what you stated on the show, and this is what official Roman Catholicism teaches.

Quote:  “The mistake you are making is to assume that the above fact somehow entails the wholly erroneous notion that the Blessed Virgin Mary can save you or anyone. As Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church make very clear, she cannot.”

You contradict yourself and the Catholic Church…   There really is not much else needed to reply in this quote except that the Bible is clear that salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ, not of works, not of the Catholic church, not of Mary, but grace through faith in Jesus Christ.  If a person has truly given their heart and life to Jesus Christ and have become a new creation, they are saved by the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and they can know they have eternal life.

Quote:  “If you still wish to debate this, I’d respectfully suggest you contact the staff apologists at Catholic Answers whose full-time job is to interact with folks such as yourself on issues such as this.”

What?  This is seriously funny.  After all the hype on the show about getting in touch with you and my emails to you to contact you, this is your view?  I thought you were a theologian, an apologist, a person who takes the time to answer people’s questions?  Why ask for someone to contact you to dialogue further and point them to someone else?

In closing I would like to say this was an interesting experience.  It shows where people really are at and how they want to hold on to their tickling ears theology and not have an actual discussion.  I am sad for the many upon many who listen to the EWTN radio programs and blindly take what they are being told as truth when in fact it is misleading, non Christian, and false.  I wish no disrespect or evil upon Patrick Madrid, but he and others who teach another gospel will be held accountable one day for themselves and for leading people astray. (Galatians 1:6-9)

For a very good and informative article on what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is click here.

You are encouraged to share your comments and questions here.  Be a Berean, examines these for yourselves and the truth will set you free.

Kelly Powers


9 thoughts on “Email blues with Patrick Madrid from the Open Line Show through EWTN Catholic Radio Station

  1. This letter borders on the brink of insanity or vanity, I can’t decide which one. To think Patrick Madrid is going to debate you on his radio show makes no sense. Patrick has many debates and other resources adressing the issues you wanted to bring up. You think it is your world and we just live in it. I have discussed and debated you online, used only the bible, and out of your own frustration you red dotted me. Funny how that discussion did not make your web site. Kelly you are an amatuer, who thinks he is a scholar. You called his radio show he gave you 5 min. what more did you want. If you want a debate I will give it to you. I will set up an online room which you can record in. We can talk about anything and everything. The only contition would be that it would make your website. Remember the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.


    Posted by Kevin | September 28, 2011, 9:25 PM
  2. Hello Kevin. I will address your comments first about Patrick and then your comments concerning me.

    When I was on his show I was patient, kind, asked some questions concerning what Patrick said, and I was cut off and not allowed to share properly. I was not saying this was a debate, I did not try to make it a debate, but simply a discussion concerning his views and what he had said. I then challenged him in emails but he avoided the discussion, thus I shared the dialogue because I believed it was very relevant concerning this interaction.

    Now on to you. Yes, we have chatted a few times online in my live study room discussion. In regards to you being dotted, your view of reality is a bit clouded. You were dotted for being rude, contentious, and not staying on the issues which were discussed, of which you were warned of many times but you continued. You say you only used the Bible, and that proves what? The Jehovah’s Witnesses, United Pentecostals (Oneness), and others say the same thing, does that make them right? Thus through your words here you have demonstrated that you are very opinionated, rude, arrogant, and really do not wish for a real discussion but you wish to attack and slander.

    With that being said, I do hope one day you truly the know grace in Jesus Christ and that you become born again.


    Posted by Kelly | October 10, 2011, 12:06 AM
  3. I am born again. Through baptism. What was the next thing Jesus did after telling nicodemus he must be born of the Water and the Spirit. He baptised. You miss that part. You failed to acknowledge the part of my letter about a debate. Remember your church only started just before the Jehovah witnesses. I think a debate would fit well on your website. So when could we arrange this. Please in your next response if you could either just accept a debate or decline it.


    Posted by Anonymous | October 13, 2011, 8:13 PM
  4. Hello Kevin. As I shared in my post you are not truly open to a real discussion, as you have shown in paltalk and here with your attitude. Funny, my church started just before the JWs, are you for real? That is to funny. Which church would that be? In John 3:3-6 where is the word baptism? Jesus said in verse 6 that which is born of the flesh is flesh, meaning we are born into this world in the flesh. Jesus said in verse 6 being born of the spirit, meaning a new creation/ born again spiritually. THERE IS NOTHING about water baptism here.

    There will be no debate with you as you have shown in the rooms that you attack, you are rude, and you really do not wish to discuss, which you have demonstrated here. If you really want people to take you more seriously learn 1 Peter 3:15 and Colossians 4:5-6. You will at least get people to take you more seriously if you do.


    Posted by Kelly | October 15, 2011, 11:19 PM
  5. John 3 22 After this Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. You must read in context. Follow along please. After talking to Nicodemus Jesus and his disciples went out and Baptised. This is the only account of them doing this in the Bible. You see there is much about water baptism here. I have been very firm, but rude, not at all. I find your false attacks and lies about the Catholic church to be rude. I am just willing to defend the bride of Christ. Finally you and I both know why you will not debate me. It is because we have done it before and it will not make you look good. The truth hurts. The church is the Pillar and foundation of truth. 1 tim 3:15


    Posted by Anonymous | October 17, 2011, 4:32 PM
  6. 1 Tim 3:15 in case I am delayed, to let you know how people ought to conduct themselves in the household of God, because it is the church of the living God, the support and bulwark of the truth.

    Kelly you didn’t tell me you had started a church, and I had no idea you were a scholar. When did you start your church, and what was your field of study?

    I see what you were getting at, Kelly. I think your question is… Should the church allow dogma to be equal to scripture?

    But what if one adheres to the first seven ecumenical councils, that would make them catholic in a universal sense? The JW’s surely would not embrace those councils. But if Kelly’s church is new as you state and he would accept at least those first seven, then how is his church really new? (supposing he has a church in a proprietary sense). I think too many people confuse what has taken place between the splitting of the church. Who can blame them really with the corruption that allows politics to get in the way of truth. As the saying goes… absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    In my opinion the catholic church has lost its zeal long ago. While I fit that term, catholic, I can’t say I do as the Romans when in Rome.

    I will end with this quote:

    Josh 5:13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?

    Josh 5:14 And he said, Nay; but as prince of the host of Jehovah am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?

    Posted by Cup of Java | November 5, 2011, 8:38 AM
  7. Java to claim that you embrace the first 7 councils is obsurd, do you believe in the eucharist, in purgatory, or even in the writings of the early church fathers, NO!! You don’t. Second you also failed to continue on with the essential discussion of baptism (which is also covered as being essential for salvation in the first councils). Don’t you see how your ideas part from the church much earlier than you originaly thought, your position is flawed and your little speal is off topic and has no substance. Try addressing baptism within the context of the early church fathers and the early councils. Or even the bible.


    Posted by Anonymous | November 10, 2011, 11:57 AM
  8. Hello Java, this reply is long over due but I still wanted to share my appreciation for your comments. The problem with people like Kevin is they are stuck in their traditions and set perspectives in which they accuse and slander people with things that are not true. I see that he accused you of silly things in which baseless.

    The problem with with the “I am right and your are wrong mentality” is what was originally posted here and this type of attitude will be common with those who are stuck in their traditions. We, as followers of Jesus Christ, are to examine the Scriptures to see what is right and wrong based upon truth, not denominationalism or some religious organization. (Acts 17:11/ 1 Thess.5:21)

    Posted by Kelly Powers | December 24, 2011, 2:10 PM
  9. [quote]Java to claim that you embrace the first 7 councils is obsurd, do you believe in the eucharist, in purgatory, [/quote]

    Yes I do claim to embrace the first 7. Now where is purgatory defined within those first seven again? I believe in the Lord’s supper, and am aware of the leavened and non-leavened bread issues. I would not accept the wafer over bread, not necessarily. Is there a provision for a wafer in the first 7 councils? I am open to change my mind. Did Jesus ever speak of a wafer or purgatory? Has anyone for that matter raised anyone from the dead since the 12 apostles?

    [quote]or even in the writings of the early church fathers, NO!! You don’t.[/quote]

    Of course I do believe in some of the early church fathers, is that essential for salvation? If I read Tertullian on his view of the Trinity will it save me? Nope, do I have to agree with all of them, no. Show me scripture or a creed within the 7 that states I have to agree with all Church fathers, surely you are aware of some of the ideologies of Origen that got himself into trouble, no?

    [quote]Second you also failed to continue on with the essential discussion of baptism (which is also covered as being essential for salvation in the first councils). Don’t you see how your ideas part from the church much earlier than you originaly thought, your position is flawed and your little speal is off topic and has no substance. Try addressing baptism within the context of the early church fathers and the early councils. Or even the bible.[/quote]

    Well Kevin your anti-spiel has no substance to back up your claims. The discussion was not really about baptism, was it? Is it baptism only that saves, or is it Jesus? Can one merely be Baptized and deny the Trinity and it be just fine? I am well aware of the necessity view of Baptism for the early church. I am also aware of the astute position of sinning after Baptism for the early church. I believe you have a nonstarter here, as the topic is not about baptism (either by water, fire). No need to deflect the topic at hand.


    Posted by java37 | January 4, 2012, 8:21 AM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: