Seeking the True Church

[PJM]

• If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along in the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never had learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because he came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims to be infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called himself Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of it’s Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is definitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is Divine. *

WOW! Great post and right on the Mark too!

It would seem opportune to ask WHY is it so many seem UNABLE to see the truths right in front of them.

WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE YOU HAVE EYES, EARS, A MIND, A INTELLECT AND A FREEWILL?

If you doubt this, review the yesterday last posted STRING: “A Question for Agnostics OR Atheist” in the THIS Non –Catholic Religions FORUM. Many are literally unable to grasp reality & Truth as being necessarily singular per defined issue.

The bible’s Old Testament is some 4,000 years old & the New Testament is about 2,000 years old; so it’s teachings flow from actual experiences; real fist hand knowledge.
The bible contains literally HUNDREDS of instructions relating to hard Hearts; Eyes that cannot see and Ears that refuse to hear.

LET THOSE WITH EYES SEE WHAT GOD WOULD HAVE THEM SEE; AND THOSE WITH EARS USE THEM TO HEAR WHAT GOD WOULD HAVE THEM HEAR

Acts.2:14 “But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words”

Rom. 9:15 “For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

Job.17: 4 “Since thou hast closed their minds to understanding, therefore thou wilt not let them triumph.

Acts.28: 27 “For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.’

2nd. Cor. 4:3-4 “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.

Eph.4:18 “they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart”

2Chr.16: 9 “For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show his might in behalf of those whose heart is blameless toward him”

2Chr.30: 8 “Do not now be stiff-necked as your fathers were, but yield yourselves to the LORD, and come to his sanctuary, which he has sanctified forever, and serve the LORD your God, that his fierce anger may turn away from you”

Matt.13: 15 “For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes,
and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.’

Duet. 32: “35-37 “ Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly. For the LORD will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants, when he sees that their power is gone, and there is none remaining, bond or free. Then he will say, `Where are their gods.

Expect the unexpected: there will be a day of judgment even if ones chooses to deny such a reality

Psalms: Ps.33: 16 “A king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength”

Ps.94:8” Understand, O dullest of the people! Fools, when will you be wise?”

Prov.23: 12 “Apply your mind to instruction and your ear to words of knowledge”

Rev.2: 23 “and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve”

**A FINAL THOUGHT TO SHARE:

GOD WILL, BECAUSE AS GOD {ALL THINGS PERFECTED} HE MUST PASS JUDGMENT UPON EACH HUMAN –SOUL NOT BASED UPON WHAT WE CHOOSE TO ACCEPT, BELIEVE AND LIVE; NO! FINAL JUDGMENT, WHICH DOES NOT DEPEND UPON OUR BELIEF IN IT, WILL BE BASED UPON WHAT GOD HAS MADE POSSIBLE FOR EACH HUMAN SOUL TO KNOW, ACCEPT AND LIVE**.

GBY
Patrick

 

[Marie5890]

Truth is not determined by happiness or any other feeling, for that matter.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I believe that Jesus Christ created his one true church, with characteristics specific to it only, now I understand that Protestants may have another view ---- that is the truth relative to the church of Jesus Christ.

Kind regards.

Thanks for answering…I think this is an important question. Because if you are seeking the “True Church,” you need to know what true means.

Yes, I think that Protestants in general would have another view; they mostly think there is no such thing as a “true” church. Protestants have denominations, not true churches. The Protestant view of “church” is a somewhat amorphous, ill-defined collection of all Christians, all of the “saved.”

So for Protestants, Jesus Christ did not create a true church, of which He is the head, and which is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. No, for Protestants, God provided a Scripture instead which individuals read and come to their conclusions about what to believe. Or, more often, they listen to persuasive preachers who read Scripture for them and tell them what it says. For Protestants, Jesus’ true church is not the means He uses to spread the gospel and provide salvation, because Jesus has no true church nor denomination.

Does that sound like a reasonable state of affairs? No, it doesn’t, and also not to Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, nor LDS. JW’s and Mormons, bless their hearts, along with Catholics, do believe that a church should exist of which Jesus is the head and is the divinely sanctioned interpreter of Scripture. A “true” church.

Which to choose from of these three who claim to be true churches? I’ve chosen the Catholic Church, which to me seems to have the most likely and least contrived beginnings. Of course, there are others who have chosen differently.

 

[Horton]

No — within the rules of the forums, I am not here to speak for my church – I am not a offical spokeperson – just my own which I have a right to do under the US Constitution.

Again, exercising my opportunity to be a part of the forums.

Regarding your statement regarding who goes to heaven, I know of no LDS member or General Auhority who is God. Your view is common among some that I know who choose not to have any religion or believe in God — the notion of being “the judge”, if you will.

You can believe as you as do I, and of course the nonbeliever should have their liberty.

Kind regards.

Kind regards.

This is just insulting. I am obviously a Catholic but yet you liken me to one who does not have religion or does not believe in God.

Your Joseph Smith and other “prophets” down the line have created the concept of who does & doesn’t go to heaven. And I agree wholeheartedly than NONE are God.

 

[JMM1957]

I came to same view years ago, leaving Catholicism, mainly because its lacked characteristics of the true church, with all due respect the loyal and/or cradle Catholics here on the forums.

I submit further folks here who are loyal to Catholicism or preparing to become members in the future can join whatever brings them to Jesus Christ and his gospel.

Nothing here on the forums here, books, etc talks I have heard over years will convince to repent and return to Catholicism. My happiness is decades old.

Kind regards.

You should be prepared to explain further when you make statements such as this, don’t you think? Is this statement grounded in Biblical teaching, or is it some man’s opinion?

 

[Marie5890]

You should be prepared to explain further when you make statements such as this, don’t you think? Is this statement grounded in Biblical teaching, or is it some man’s opinion?

Im going to take a stab at this based on what was at the time when I was LDS (80’s).
It was never LDS doctrinal teaching, but there was this list of 17 points of the “true church” that was used as a missionary tool at times.

str.org/blog/discussing-“17-points-of-the-true-church”-with-mormons#.WYgzfsbMyqA

This could be what CT was referring to, perhaps. Again it was only a tool for missionary work.

 

[gazelam]

• If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along in the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never had learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because he came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims to be infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called himself Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of it’s Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is definitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is Divine.

                                                                           Ven. Msgr Fulton Sheen

The good bishop identified several important traits of the true church in this paragraph. I’m sure he would have identified a few other traits listed in the scriptures had he more time.

Baptism is required (John 3:5) by immersion alone (Romans 6:4, Matthew 3:16, Acts 8:38, John 3:23, Colossians 2:12)

Holy Spirit received by the laying on of [multiple] hands (Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6)

Praying the God the Father alone (Matthew 6:9, 1 Peter 1:17, Ephesians 3:14) in the name of Christ alone (John 16:23, John 14:13)

Surely he would have noted that there is no record in the Bible of infants being baptized, and that in each of the 5 times where the “household” was baptized the actions of each household involve actions that infants are incapable of doing.

The true church would today have apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists (Ephesians 4:11-13)

Communion would require both eating and drinking each time it is performed (Luke 22:19, 20; Matthew 26-28)

Bishops would be married (1 Timothy 3:2)

 

[mackbrislawn]

The good bishop identified several important traits of the true church in this paragraph. I’m sure he would have identified a few other traits listed in the scriptures had he more time.

Baptism is required (John 3:5) by immersion alone (Romans 6:4, Matthew 3:16, Acts 8:38, John 3:23, Colossians 2:12)

Holy Spirit received by the laying on of [multiple] hands (Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6)

Praying the God the Father alone (Matthew 6:9, 1 Peter 1:17, Ephesians 3:14) in the name of Christ alone (John 16:23, John 14:13)

Surely he would have noted that there is no record in the Bible of infants being baptized, and that in each of the 5 times where the “household” was baptized the actions of each household involve actions that infants are incapable of doing.

The true church would today have apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists (Ephesians 4:11-13)

Communion would require both eating and drinking each time it is performed (Luke 22:19, 20; Matthew 26-28)

Bishops would be married (1 Timothy 3:2)

Another trait would be continuous existence from the time of Jesus.

After all, if Jesus abandoned his church once, and restore it, how can we be sure he won’t in turn abandon the restoration, or hasn’t already?

 

[Dorothy]

“Gazelam”

Our Lord Jesus gave authority to the Church. (Magisterium). There is also Tradition with a capital “T”, and Sacred Scripture.

Peace,

Dorothy

 

[Marie5890]

The good bishop identified several important traits of the true church in this paragraph. I’m sure he would have identified a few other traits listed in the scriptures had he more time.

Had he more time??

 

[mackbrislawn]

Had he more time??

The poster was being snide.

 

[Vonsalza]

The good bishop identified several important traits of the true church in this paragraph. I’m sure he would have identified a few other traits listed in the scriptures had he more time.

I’m also confident that we would have covered polygamy, everyone having spirit stones (STILL waiting on mine, Gaz…), black folks being sub-human until the 1970s, ancient submarines, Jesus and the Devil being brothers, Mary actually conceiving Christ through vaginal intercourse with a guy named Elohim, the God-head not actually being triune and many, many, many other Mormon oddities and innovations courtesy of the late 19th century American southwest, Amen?

Baptism is required (John 3:5) by immersion alone (Romans 6:4, Matthew 3:16, Acts 8:38, John 3:23, Colossians 2:12)

There you guys go again. Adding “alone” to ancient texts just like your reformed forebears.

Holy Spirit received by the laying on of [multiple] hands (Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6)

Acts 8 won’t help you because there are multiple people involved - ergo multiple sources for “hands”.

Are you arguing that they couldn’t invoke the spirit if they used one hand? Do you have a scriptural source for that? And what about the pinkie fingers? If the pinkies were up on both hands, would that prohibit the power of the Spirit, as the entirety of their “hands” would not be fully committed to contact? And in the event of a pirate with a hook-hand. Is that hook capable of invoking the Spirit?

Seriously, Gaz?

Praying the God the Father alone (Matthew 6:9, 1 Peter 1:17, Ephesians 3:14) in the name of Christ alone (John 16:23, John 14:13)

There you guys go again with the fast-and-loose addition of the word “alone”… I picture a guy in your camp sitting around with loads of freshly printed bibles on the left and a stack of printed stickers with just the word “alone” printed on them on the right; furiously going through the sacred texts and slapping “alone” stickers down all “willy-nilly”.

Surely he would have noted that there is no record in the Bible of infants being baptized, and that in each of the 5 times where the “household” was baptized the actions of each household involve actions that infants are incapable of doing.

He probably would have pointed out that baptismal regeneration is something God does, so the adults of the households still weren’t “doing” it either.

The true church would today have apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists (Ephesians 4:11-13)

As she does today… Could you clarify your snark a little better?

Communion would require both eating and drinking each time it is performed (Luke 22:19, 20; Matthew 26-28)

Unless you’re studying it through John 6 where verses 52 and 58 makes no mention of the blood, or you see the word “or” in 1 Corinthians 11:27 as the literal translation gives.

Bishops would be married (1 Timothy 3:2)

Or, they followed Paul’s advice that it is better to be single 1 Corinthians 7.

The consensus on the Timothy text about marriage is that the bishop couldn’t have been “getting around” or remarried with a living ex.

 

[Horton]

I’m also confident that we would have covered polygamy, everyone having spirit stones (STILL waiting on mine, Gaz…), black folks being sub-human until the 1970s, ancient submarines, Jesus and the Devil being brothers, Mary actually conceiving Christ through vaginal intercourse with a guy named Elohim, the God-head not actually being triune and many, many, many other Mormon oddities and innovations courtesy of the late 19th century American southwest, Amen?

There you guys go again. Adding “alone” to ancient texts just like your reformed forebears.

Acts 8 won’t help you because there are multiple people involved - ergo multiple sources for “hands”.

Are you arguing that they couldn’t invoke the spirit if they used one hand? Do you have a scriptural source for that? And what about the pinkie fingers? If the pinkies were up on both hands, would that prohibit the power of the Spirit, as the entirety of their “hands” would not be fully committed to contact? And in the event of a pirate with a hook-hand. Is that hook capable of invoking the Spirit?

Seriously, Gaz?

There you guys go again with the fast-and-loose addition of the word “alone”… I picture a guy in your camp sitting around with loads of freshly printed bibles on the left and a stack of printed stickers with just the word “alone” printed on them on the right; furiously going through the sacred texts and slapping “alone” stickers down all “willy-nilly”.

He probably would have pointed out that baptismal regeneration is something God does, so the adults of the households still weren’t “doing” it either.

As she does today… Could you clarify your snark a little better?

Unless you’re studying it through John 6 where verses 52 and 58 makes no mention of the blood, or you see the word “or” in 1 Corinthians 11:27 as the literal translation gives.

Or, they followed Paul’s advice that it is better to be single 1 Corinthians 7.

The consensus on the Timothy text about marriage is that the bishop couldn’t have been “getting around” or remarried with a living ex.

 

[gazelam]

I’m also confident that we would have covered polygamy, everyone having spirit stones (STILL waiting on mine, Gaz…), black folks being sub-human until the 1970s, ancient submarines, Jesus and the Devil being brothers, Mary actually conceiving Christ through vaginal intercourse with a guy named Elohim, the God-head not actually being triune and many, many, many other Mormon oddities and innovations courtesy of the late 19th century American southwest, Amen?

If you would have had the opportunity to collaborate with the good Bishop on such a statement, I say more power to you.

There you guys go again. Adding “alone” to ancient texts just like your reformed forebears.

You make a good point. since “baptism” is a transliteration of the Greek work “baptizo” which literally means “to immerse”. Adding “alone” is redundant since “baptizo” only means to immerse.

Acts 8 won’t help you because there are multiple people involved - ergo multiple sources for “hands”.

Are you arguing that they couldn’t invoke the spirit if they used one hand? Do you have a scriptural source for that? And what about the pinkie fingers? If the pinkies were up on both hands, would that prohibit the power of the Spirit, as the entirety of their “hands” would not be fully committed to contact? And in the event of a pirate with a hook-hand. Is that hook capable of invoking the Spirit?

Seriously, Gaz?

I see you’re unable to refute Acts 19:6.

He probably would have pointed out that baptismal regeneration is something God does, so the adults of the households still weren’t “doing” it either.

But the households were believing, rejoicing, and serving others, which is something infants cannot do.

As she does today… Could you clarify your snark a little better?

Can you provide and example of a Catholic apostle, Catholic prophet, Catholic pastor, Catholic teacher, and a Catholic evangelist?

Unless you’re studying it through John 6 where verses 52 and 58 makes no mention of the blood, or you see the word “or” in 1 Corinthians 11:27 as the literal translation gives.

John 6:53, 54, 55, & 56 each mention drinking Christ’s blood.

Or, they followed Paul’s advice that it is better to be single 1 Corinthians 7.

This is a very odd claim since the USCCB heading/summary of this chapter is “advice to the married”

usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/7

 

[Marie5890]

Anyone who has read Sheen’s works and watched “Life is Worth Living”, he would have shown Mormonism to be a house of cards in a very methodical way.

Those who truly know what he has taught and his background.

I say this as someone who has been associated with his cause for canonization prior to it being stalled out a couple of years ago

 

[Vonsalza]

If you would have had the opportunity to collaborate with the good Bishop on such a statement, I say more power to you.

I was using the same approach you used. Good for both goose and gander, right?

You make a good point. since “baptism” is a transliteration of the Greek work “baptizo” which literally means “to immerse”. Adding “alone” is redundant since “baptizo” only means to immerse.

Non-Christian translations (thus, less biased) also give it as “to dip”, particularly in the context of ceremony.

Moreover, the Didache records affusion and it is written contemporarily with the last books of the NT.

For another, Christ told the leaders of the Church “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

As a last consideration, you assume a text-based approach to a religion that predates your specific canon by nearly two millennia (as your canon is an abbreviated form of the King James). If your approach isn’t anachronistic (though it is), you’ve got the tremendous duty of explaining how the faith even functioned for the majority of its history.

I see you’re unable to refute Acts 19:6.

The text is descriptive rather than prescriptive. You never successfully made your case in the first place. “One man, two hands” as a clear requirement is simply nowhere in scripture.

But the households were believing, rejoicing, and serving others, which is something infants cannot do.

So you agree then; baptism is something God does, not people?

Can you provide and example of a Catholic apostle, Catholic prophet, Catholic pastor, Catholic teacher, and a Catholic evangelist?

Sure. The clergy covers them all and the laity covers the last.

John 6:53, 54, 55, & 56 each mention drinking Christ’s blood.

The literal text of 1 Corinthians still disjuncts them.
The whole bible or none of it, Gaz.

This is a very odd claim since the USCCB heading/summary of this chapter is “advice to the married”

You can hand-wave all you want. Paul advocated that it was better for servants of the Lord to be single. Period. And if you were going to be married, the Timothy text lets us know that you can’t be a “Casanova” and/or a divorcee.

 

[zaffiroborant]

– just my own which I have a right to do under the US Constitution.

Kind regards.

Actually under the constitution you don’t have a right to say what every you want where ever you want especially when it comes to another person’s domain. You do not have a right to say as you please on private property, or in a business, or on a website. Most websites have terms you agree to in order to post material, these terms can limit your language, your intent, and many other things.

For instance on this site you can not post in the message boards advertising your business or proselytize for your church, those are the rules. These rules limit your speech, you have no constitutional right to advertise or proselytize here. Your constitutional rights only pertain to the government limiting your speech and even that is not universal and the government can limit your speech in, what you are allowed to say, where you are allowed to say it and the times you can say it.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Baptism is required (John 3:5) by immersion alone (Romans 6:4, Matthew 3:16, Acts 8:38, John 3:23, Colossians 2:12)

Not a thing in any of the them says they must be immersed.

 

[gazelam]

I was using the same approach you used. Good for both goose and gander, right?

Clearly not the same approach. I provided a tongue-in-cheek speculation of what the good Bishop might have said had he incorporated verses not followed by the RCC. You speculated on what you and the good Bishop might together have said.

Non-Christian translations (thus, less biased) also give it as “to dip”, particularly in the context of ceremony.

More accurately would be “to dip under”, which to my simple mind sounds an awful lot like immersing. See biblehub.com/greek/907.htm

Moreover, the Didache records affusion and it is written contemporarily with the last books of the NT.

Does the RCC view the Didache as authoritative now?

For another, Christ told the leaders of the Church “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

What’s the point here? That any apostle can make any random gesture or motion which in turn can be willy nilly applied to any sacrament? Isn’t there something in Catholicism about proper form?

As a last consideration, you assume a text-based approach to a religion that predates your specific canon by nearly two millennia (as your canon is an abbreviated form of the King James). If your approach isn’t anachronistic (though it is), you’ve got the tremendous duty of explaining how the faith even functioned for the majority of its history.

I’ve been referencing canon written in the 1st Century AD.

The text is descriptive rather than prescriptive. You never successfully made your case in the first place. “One man, two hands” as a clear requirement is simply nowhere in scripture.

CCC 1300 states: The essential rite of the sacrament follows. In the Latin rite, "the sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the laying on of the hand, and through the words: ‘Accipe signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti’ [Be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.]

Either the RCC views Acts 19:6 as Paul incorrectly confirming, or CCC 1300 is flat out wrong.

So you agree then; baptism is something God does, not people?

Did I say that?

Sure. The clergy covers them all and the laity covers the last.

Could you provide an example of each?

 

[CourtingTex]

Actually under the constitution you don’t have a right to say what every you want where ever you want especially when it comes to another person’s domain. You do not have a right to say as you please on private property, or in a business, or on a website. Most websites have terms you agree to in order to post material, these terms can limit your language, your intent, and many other things.

For instance on this site you can not post in the message boards advertising your business or proselytize for your church, those are the rules. These rules limit your speech, you have no constitutional right to advertise or proselytize here. Your constitutional rights only pertain to the government limiting your speech and even that is not universal and the government can limit your speech in, what you are allowed to say, where you are allowed to say it and the times you can say it.

I beg to differ. This from whomever who does not know me and know what I know and do not know. If any here have been offended by what I said, that is a personal choice.AGAIN YOU CHOOSE TO BE OFFENDED. I have nothing to do if someone is offended by what I say. AGAIN, OFFENSE, THEIR INTENTIONS ARE NOT MY CONCERN ---- I am confident that the cradle Catholics here loyal to Catholicism lose no sleep or are offended by anything this Latter Day Saint says, particularly since their interest to have this former Catholic go to my nearest parish and come back to Catholicism fully loyal and obedient.

Further, it is within the rules of the forum and lastly as a student of the law I know the this great and sadly today under constant attack document well enough that no one could teach me otherwise or try to convince me that my views can not be stated, whether on the forums or otherwise. The Founders of the USA and writers of the Constitution certainly understood that fully.

Right now, as result of what happened in Charlottesville VA, some in the country believe it is their choice in life to shut down, shut up any who have a view that they hate or are indifferent with.

I will continue to pray for the good news of Christ to have effects on others lives versus the secular view of trying to shut down different views that are not in concert with their secular view of the world and life in general.

Kind regards.