Hatred Converted Me To Catholicism

Whenever God does ANYTHING in this world, He is opposed and hated. Anything at all. If God makes His mark, here on Earth, either the Devil tries to wreck it, or Satan inspires his children to do so. This disdain for all creation and any constructive thing is an anti-Logos, pernicious spirit of ruin. This deep brand of hate is a religious way of thinking, and this feeling can be as shallow or go as deep as it wants. The hate I’m talking about can be a subtle inclination, or it can be an overt obsession. For example, you can be either a Soviet-minded Bolshevist, or you could simply be a vandalizer—you’re serving the Evil Cause in some capacity.

Help me get this straight by answering a few very simple questions.

We are here to help you infool7. The first hour will be free.

1) I(daniel1212) believe The Catholic Church is: His One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church Yes or No

NO!

2) I(daniel1212) feel that myself and / or others are demeaned by its claims that it is: His One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church Yes or No

Yes, as meaning the RCC is the One True Church of Christ so that all outside of it are not part of the OTC. Got it?

3) I(daniel1212) feel: a. I’am inside His One True Church b. I’am outside of His One True Church c. there is no such thing as His One True Church 4) I(daniel1212) believe that ___ Catholics are inside His One True Church All, Some, No

A: I’am inside His One True Church. Thus to assert that those who are not part of the usurper of that title, the RCC, are not part of the His One True Church, is demeaning. Got it?

Now for some more questions for you:

1) I (infool7) believe that The Roman Catholic Church is: His One Church. Yes or No

2) I (infool7) feel that all who are not part of the Roman Catholic Church are not part of The One True Church. Yes or No

3) I (infool7) do not feel that relegating all who are not part of the Catholic Church as being one part of The One True Church is not demeaning them. Yes or No

5) I believe that the visible Roman Catholic Church under its visible pope is as described by the author of the original O.P. Yes or No

6) I believe that the visible Roman Catholic Church does not have a visible pope as the O.P. of the article seems to believe, and many of the TradCaths on FR opine. Yes or No

You started it.

1) I (infool7) believe that The ~~Roman~~ Catholic Church is: His One (True) Church. Yes or No
You're kidding me right? Yes (the "Roman" part is a Rite of His One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church)

2) I (infool7) feel that all who are not part of the ~~Roman~~ Catholic Church are not part of The One True Church. Yes or No
Yes, as understood in the Catechism (again the "Roman" part is a Rite of the Catholic Church)

3) I (infool7) do not feel that relegating all who are not part of the Catholic Church as being one part of The One True Church is not demeaning them. Yes or No
No, It would be wrong to mislead souls by being less than completely truthful.

4) I (infool7) do not believe that The One True Church can only be that which only and always only 100% consists of true believers. But that it must refer to a visible church under its visible pope. Yes or No
Essentially, yes but it's not up to me to judge who the members of His One True Church are, that's up to Him and I don't know what you mean by "under" it's visible Pope

Since you dodged my last question, I'll skip your last two.

Seriously, if you would just take an RCIA course you could

clear up all of your misunderstandings with someone far more qualified then I.

Here's another one for you:

Exactly how many "One True Churches" do you think there can be? hint: the answer is one

You're kidding me right? Yes (the "Roman" part is a Rite of His One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church)

You must not be reading what denies that attempted diversion as valid. See post 109 .

2) I (infool7) feel that all who are not part of the Roman Catholic Church are not part of The One True Church. Yes or No Yes,

But,

3) I (infool7) do not feel that relegating all who are not part of the Catholic Church as being one part of The One True Church is not demeaning them. Yes or No 3) I (infool7) do not feel that relegating all who are not part of the Catholic Church as being one part of The One True Church is not demeaning them. Yes or No. No, It would be wrong to mislead souls by being less than completely truthful. Another response of sophistry/being less than completely truthful, or of sound reasoning. Irregardless of whether one feels the RCC or the Mormon church is the OTC, by placing souls outside of it is demeaning, as is relegating most Catholics to being lost, outside the kingdom of God, based upon what they say.

Which is sadly the case, and it would be wrong to mislead souls by being less than completely truthful.

But if do do not find relegating most Catholics to being lost to be a position demeaning to them, then you need to dialog with another profession.

4) I (infool7) do not believe that The One True Church can only be that which only and always only 100% consists of true believers. But that it must refer to a visible church under its visible pope. Yes or No Essentially, yes but it's not up to me to judge who the members of His One True Church are, that's up to Him and I don't know what you mean by "under" it's visible Pope

The question was not who you believe the members of His One True Church are, while "under" it's visible Pope" means you have a visible Pope, contrary to what some FR RCs profess.

Since you dodged my last question, I'll skip your last two.

Two for one? I did not doge any question, but did not notice it, while the answer has already been given to:

4) I(daniel1212) believe that ___ Catholics are inside His One True Church All, Some, No 7

The answer is some/most, which also applies to varying degrees to all visible churches, in contrast to the body of Christ, which is the only one true church of 100% believers.

So, now answer my last two questions.

Seriously, if you would just take an RCIA course you could clear up all of your misunderstandings with someone far more qualified then I.

You have shown exactly zero warrant for insinuating I an a victim of some misunderstandings: You did not ask me what your church believed, but what I believed, while my questions to you were as regards what you believe, in order to show the sophistry of your answers and the problems of your position.

Here's another one for you: Exactly how many "One True Churches" do you think there can be? hint: the answer is one

It should not be hard to see that I believe that, "The One True Church can only be that which only and always only 100% consists of true believers." Which as said in another post here, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.

The one true God cannot be an admixture of light and darkness, and the one true church cannot be an admixture of true and false believers, or of true and false gospels, by faith in which they enter the body of Christ. And again, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

It's an open thread yet you're whining about censorship.

Not so: I am censuring your duplicity. Expecting to be able to post provocative articles about an elitist OTC which traditional dammed those without,or at the least exclude them as worthy of the proper title "church," and thus which beg reproof, and then refusing to read such and dismissing the authors as hateful. Try to follow the argument.

Have you no better a stance?

You mean you have you no better a stance than to engage in in ad hominem while I provide substantiated reproof?

And what provokes you so much? The Truth?

You never got warrant for that idea from me. That your church, including your pope-less version of it, is teaching error, and whose distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed , is what is provocative.

4,5,6) Does the Catholic Church have a visible pope? Yes

So your answer to 5): "I believe that the visible Roman Catholic Church under its visible pope is as described by the author of the original O.P." is Yes?

Then you disagree with Edd Tide who rejects the current pope (and has refused to tell us who the last valid pope was), while concurring with the author of the OP who, as linked to, states that the visible Catholic church has,

"lost all credibility in the public mind." In which "A large portion of our hierarchy has been screwing men. They’ve created a network of gay buddies, and they protect each other and promote each other. If investigators get too close to exposing their shenanigans, they could potentially get killed off by henchmen in a mafia run by sodomites." "We have a pope with close ties to the sodomite network who denounces investigators as detractors." "We can’t even go to confession with the confidence that we’ll be properly absolved. The authority of the priests has been taken hostage, and the world and most Catholics cannot understand this." "they’ve captured the dioceses by violence, and you are on the outside. They have the buildings, but you have the Apostolic Faith. They got those buildings, but they are outside the Faith." - http://forge-and-anvil.com/2019/02/24/stay-sane-during-the-sex-synod/

To which could be added the rather liberal products of your magisterium (which includes the NABRE with many of its required notes, and "Muslims worship the true God with us" heresy, among other things TradCaths reject), besides the distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed

When you get your visible one true holy church straightened out then you can tell us to leave our conservative "ecclesia communities" and join your church, in which your brethren include even prohomosexual, proabortion public figures, since your church manifestly typically considers them to be members in life and in death.

Till then, as the author of the article states ,

And now? It’s near impossible to get anyone to even consider the Church’s legitimacy.

I don't agree with all the words

you are attempting to put in my mouth but

it's hard to blame you for being

disappointed with what flawed men and women

have done with His Bride, The Church.

When Christ Jesus walked the earth one of

His very own apostles betrayed Him so

it shouldn't be surprising that here some

two thousand years later people are

still sinning against Him.

Here is the over arching premise.

Jesus came and

established One Church for all time

that Church today is:

The

One

True

Holy

Catholic and

Apostolic

Church. that built Christendom(Western Civilization)

see the Catechism for details.

I don't agree with all the words you are attempting to put in my mouth but it's hard to blame you for being disappointed with what flawed men and women have done with His Bride, The Church. When Christ Jesus walked the earth one of His very own apostles betrayed Him so it shouldn't be surprising that here some two thousand years later people are still sinning against Him. Here is the over arching premise. Jesus came and established One Church for all time that Church today is: The One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. that built Christendom(Western Civilization)

Repeating a mantric delusion that is not what the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed testifies to is actually an argument against being a RC. In addition to false doctrine, Christianity would have gone South if it had not just ne Judas but the testimony that the O.P. frankly states (and advocates a RC monarchy). And the church of Rome was anti-American, and thus the opposition by noble men.

But you have taken enough of my time. May God peradventure grant you "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.