I do not see anywhere in post 125 where he expresses he is an ex-Catholic. He quotes a supposedly Calvinist preacher who thought Rev. 14:13 refutes sola fide, which is absurd, and makes the account dubious, because (as has been said), sola fide teaches that that the faith that appropriates justification is one that effects works.
Maybe he is either a type of SSPX and subscribes to the Three Secrets of Fátima, (www.fatima.org/crusader/cr67/cr67pg03.asp), in which such interpreters see Rv. 12:4 as speaking of one-third of the Catholic clergy following the dragon – i.e. the devil. And as they undermine the authority Vatican II, judging it according to their interpretation of infallible teachings (as they judge them to be), and thus they reject many teachings of it, those who follow the devil would include those who affirm the rejected teachings of V2.
But as said (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2901874/posts?page=175#175), he has been reproved by other Catholics for his posting of unapproved prophecies, and has exhausted efforts in seeking to have a meaningful objective exchange with him.
to which he replies I am not a “sour puss”,
to which he replies I am not a “sour puss”, , secondly, he refers to a "Remnant" -- we don't know this Rapture terminology, it's an exclusive baptist-type or evang type
thirdly, his references are not SSPX.
finally, the sheer level of stupidity in the posts by a newbie looks like definite flame-bait....