1)I see it as destructive and looking at its history with the crusades and inquisition, hard to believe it's the church of God 2)intercesory prayers. I've heard all of your arguments but sitting down, closing my eyes and asking for help from someone other than God Himself is freaky to me. 3) Catholics themselves. Whenever I get into a debate with you guys and you and then you try to 'get me' with the "that's just your fallible interpretation" argument. It doesn't even convince me but pisses me off. It just shows that you can't defend your beliefs biblically so you use these tricks. 4)Your apostolic succession. I get what you're saying but I feel like it really has no meaning when the church can make up whatever it wants and as long as it's a part of this apostolic succession, no matter how far removed it is from the apostles or apostolic faith, it has validity because the 'infallible' magisterium says so just seems meaningless. 5)when I read the bible it's just so hard to think this is what Christ, the apostles and Paul wanted the church to look like. Like, I imagine that if you got Paul, zapped him to today, or for you sedes the years before v2 happened, I think think he would freak out. He would be like "what religion is this? 6)I feel like you have taken a lot of focus away from Christ with the devotion to the saints, indulgences and youre, what seems to me to be, innovative prayer methods like the sacred heart. Like, what even is that?
If you guys could answer this, and please be charitable, I would consider becoming a Catholic or even an eastern orthodox. I'm leaning more on eo but who knows.
Also, I forgot the most important issue I have with you guys. It's the mass. That's by far my biggest concern.
Let's start their then what is your concern with the mass?
The idea that it's a propitiatory sacrifice that represents the sacrifice on the cross when Christ's death on the cross was once and for all. Not to be repeated.
Tradition dating back to the Apostles who taught the Early Church Fathers the way to conduct Mass. That's the easy answer.
I don't care what cyprian said. Hebrews 10:10-11 states?
And also: Hebrews 10:1-3
Which is it you are quoting letters written by the people who taught the mass to Cyprian from a book compiled after Cyprian.
Can you rephrase that? My point is, the bible says that the sacrifice on the cross was once and for all and there was no need to repeat it. Cyrpian doesn't even discuss the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice in that text you know quoted
I am afraid if I continue with this discussion anymore I will sin more then I have. Sorry someone else will answer this better then I ever could.
I see it as destructive and looking at its history with the conquest of Canaan and killing of heretics by Elijah or Maccabees, hard to believe it's the people of God Inquisition was most just judicial system at the time and capital punishment was rare. Crusades, at least those not excommunicated by the Church meet all requirements to name them just wars. Beatific vision. Or, just read this: newadvent.org/summa/5072.htm#article1 Your personal feelings ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MATTER IN ANY POSSIBLE CASE PERIOD 3) Catholics themselves. Whenever I get into a debate with you guys and you and then you try to 'get me' with the "that's just your fallible interpretation" argument. It doesn't even convince me but pisses me off. It just shows that you can't defend your beliefs biblically so you use these tricks. Church is NOT sum of Believers. That's heretical idea. Church is made of believers but it's greater than them. Your personal feelings ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MATTER IN ANY POSSIBLE CASE PERIOD Then you don't get what apostolic succession is. Or how magisterium works. Or how infallibility works. Apostolic Succession - line of priesthood and authority coming from apostles to bishops. Magisterium - teaching authority of faith that explains deposite of faith. Depoite Faith - Forver closed with death of last apostle sum of all public revelations from God recived by Church. Infallibility - Charcteristic of the Church in which Magisterium in form of it's head or collage judge definitely given proposition in its accordance with Deposit, for example "Christ is One Divine Person" Your personal feelings ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MATTER IN ANY POSSIBLE CASE PERIOD Go read and Taylor Marshall book on Paul.
Doesn't even answer my questions. Ignored.
Can you at least talk about the mass?>>685133
Mass is THE SAME sacrifice that Christ offered. Hebrews 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle.
You can call it the same but it's still repetitive. Read Hebrews 10:1-3 and the mass fits this. It doesn't perfect the person who partakes of it but You need to do it continuously and always be reminded of how much of a sinner you are.
Huh. Wow. You could actually criticize them for legit reasons like papal infallibility and purgatory meme, but you actually went against the good things. sage
I answered first question. Crusaders were just wars and inquisition was just institution. When you judge Church by them judge Church of old too, since Israelites done the same.
I answered second question. Beatific vision is what allows saints to be cognizant of your prayers. Your personal feelings ("it is freaky to me") do not matter in this or any other case.
I answered thrid question. Church is not to be judged by their members because sum of members is not what Church is. Church is mystical body of Christ and as such you ought to judge it by accordance to its Head - the Truth. Your personal feelings ("they piss me off.") do not matter in this or any other case.
I answered fourth question. You have no idea what youre talking about. I explained terms that you erroneously used in proper way.
I answered fifth question. That you don't feel like Paul would be be ok with the Church today shows that you do not Paul very well. Your personal feelings do not matter in this or any other case.
I answered sixth question. You want to behead Christ. Christ have mystical body and he is glorified in his saints. Not to mention that you have no idea what indulgences is and have no idea that when Holy Ghost said "Sing NEW song to Lord" he meant it. Your personal feelings ("I feel like.") do not matter in this or any other case.
If it's the same thing then it cannot be repetitive. It's basic logic It does not. Mass is the thing to come since it's the selfsame sacrfice of Christ In fact Hebrews 10:3 use the same, sacrficial word that Christ used to establish new priesthood "Do this for the commemoration of me"
Hebrews 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle.
Yeah kid you clearly want to learn
You say the mass is selfsame but that's just a distinction without difference to me. You use a different word to describe the same thing. Ultimately, it is a repeated act that you do and it is a propitiatory sacrifice. Was not Christ's death once and for all? Or did He need His sacrifice to be represented again and again and again.
Your personal feelings ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MATTER IN ANY POSSIBLE CASE PERIOD Sacrifice of Christ is once FOR ALL. And without Mass it is not for all. Since "We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle."
Fam, stop posting; you’re letting your anger get to you.
The texts from Hebrews you’re posting about refer directly to the Jewish Sacrificial laws of the old covenant, which sacrificed live animals throughout the year as an imperfect form of atonement for sins.
Christ of course perfected this atonement of sin through his death upon the cross, and it is this perfected form of atonement that is presented through the Eucharist in Mass, since it shares in the exact substance of Christ’s flesh and blood which perfectly stoned for the sins of the word.
This is repeated over and over again is because souls still need it, for even though we have been saved from our sins through Christ’s death it does not make us immune from falling again into sin. Therefore, in the same way that one would pray and confess their sins often so that they can stay right with God, Catholics offer up the Eucharist at mass often so that they too can remain in God.
The following is not an answer to a question by the OP. But I think, it is somewhat relevant. In the mass we unite together. The following are words of St. John of Damascus (between the [braces] are my additions):
"The Son of God in person did not take the nature of the angels; He took the nature of man. The angels did not participate in the divine nature, but in [the divine] operations [Greek: energeia] and grace. Now, men do participate, and become partakers of the divine nature when they receive the holy Body of Christ and drink His Blood. For He is united in [His] person to the Godhead, and the two natures in the Body of Christ [human and divine] shared by us are united indissolubly in person. So we partake of the two natures, of the body bodily, and of the Godhead in spirit, or, rather, of each in both. We are made one, not in person, for first we have a person and then we are united by blending together the body and the blood.
How are we not greater than the angels, if through fidelity to the commandments we keep this perfect union? In itself our nature is far removed from the angels, on account of death and the heaviness of the body, but through God's goodness and its union with Him it has become higher than the angels."
Let's make this a debate.
Are catholics christian? By that i mean: is catholic teaching christian?
If yes then it means Jesus kept His promise to build his church on Peter and no evil will be able to destroy it. Therefore the church started right after Jesus died and is still today.
If not, (shame on you, go on wikipedia and start reading about christianity) then that means that the church Christ talks about started in 1500 AD! What happened 1500 years? No christians? No church Jesus promised?
It's hard to take this point seriously when you consider joining the equally violent and corrupt EO as an apparent metric of comparison. Using the crusades as a justification for converting to EO, the same faction which invited the Franks to the East for help in the first place? Come on.
I am sorry but this means nothing. If you would ask for prayers on this board, then asking the saints and angels in Heaven ought to be no trouble. Why is this?
This isn't really an argument. I think it's fair to say that if we took believers rather than the Beloved in the the account, absolutely none of us would be Christian at all.
AS isn't some bureaucratic rubber stamp to approve any old BS so long as it sounds right. The reason we believe in things like the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption/Dormition, the Infallibility and Invincibility of the Church etc. is because according to Sacred Tradition, the Apostles themselves did. AS is also just as applicable in the East as in the West.
Thought experiments aren't really arguments. I imagine St Paul would have the same reaction to sacrament-free Baptist "churches" taking operating out of warehouses. This also implies that St Paul (to say nothing of Christ Himself), despite being in Heaven, is ignorant of how the Church he himself helped to establish is faring on earth, which is contrived, to say the least.
The saints would be worthless if they did not have both power from and proximity with Christ. We don't ask them to pray for us because they were neat, but because they themselves reflect the glory of God back to Him.
I just want to say that please be aware, if you are considering EO (and it's not for you to decide, but His Who draws you to Him) then all of your concerns are equally applicable to there, too.
Don't worry, OP. The Catholic Church doesn't need you.
nobody functions in Christ's place but Christ himself.
is this how the true church would act? turning people away?
you are on the right path, brother. don't let the Cathedral of satan put doubt in your heart.
The ignorance of some Catholics truly amazes me. They honestly believe that their faults are Orthodox faults too.
Careful, pal! For many Orthodox the crusades are not an abstract notion from the past. What did crusades do? First, they destroyed the peace between Christians and Muslims in the Muslim lands with lasting effects up to this day, and second, they destroyed the only barrier before the Muslim hordes, namely the Byzantine Empire, also with lasting effects to this day. The voice of your brother's blood is crying to God from the ground. (Genesis 4:10)
I am sory, OP, that I am using your thread for something that does not concern you.
Please, ignore this comment, OP. We don't even know if it is written by a catholic. Judge a Church by the best people in it, not by the worst.
That's cute but I didn't say that. I said that it's either ignorance of history or pure hatred for "Romanism" to imply that Papists are uniquely evil and violent, and then imply that Eastern Orthodoxy is somehow better, when the Byzantine empire was imfamous for its own shady shit.
I didn't know the Seljuks, who effectively banned or sabotaged traditional pilgirim routes to the Holy Land and more heavily taxed the infidels, were Catholic crusaders.
Covadonga, Tours, Vienna, Lepanto, Malta, etc. beg to differ.
My post was not an empty rhetoric, user. Don't enter this debate, you will answer for it before God.
Lord, forgive us, for we don't know what we do.
What on earth are you talking about?
There's several reasons i haven't joined which is why i'm gonna be lurking once i post this. First i want to help you overcome some hurdles.
the church is made up of humans and is thus prone to human error. We hold it to higher standards because it is the church and thus SUPPOSED to be the body of christ, but again, because of human fault it will sometimes fail to meet that standard. Most of the time though it does a pretty OK job and several times it has gone above and beyond its mission. Why do you feel it is destructive user?
Yes and we were told to shake the dust off our feet as a testament to these people not receiving the word. The Church only has to accept those willing to submit to Christ and humble themselves before him it is their choice after all.
Implying there's anything wrong with crusades and inquisition. We need to bring these things back.
Fun fact: the inquisition is still around, only now it’s called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and is slowly becoming everything it was created to fight against.
Wow dude, thanks for actually understanding and answering my questions. Not gonna lie, they do seem somewhat trivial and unimportant questions but they deal with th psychological reasons why I have issues with Catholicism. Thanks for helping me out on this.
It's probably because you have an incomplete and biased knowledge of its past. Scandals get more publicity, and with our society's attitude to the Church, they are actively sought after and published wider than the good things - and because of how strongly we hold that our church is the Church Christ founded and promised to protect and our faith is the only true, pure faith given by Him, it's only natural that those historians/journalists/etc. who believe in something else than Catholicism (so, in our modern times, most of them) will gladly publish bad episodes, without caring much about the much more prominent and common good done by the Church.
This creates a distorted view of the Church history, view stemming from selective treatment of this history, from handpicking the bad things and overblowing their historical importance.
The cure for this is to read a complete account of the Church's history, a one which concentrates on effects and actions that the Church produced and undertook throughout history according to how important and widespread they are, rather than how scandalous and amusing they are. You will quickly discover that the good fruits, which stem directly from what we believe, vastly and overwhelmingly outweigh, in importance, frequency, amount and scale, the abuses - abuses which were contrary to our faith and stemmed from acting against it, rather than according to it.
And anyway, Inquisition and Crusades were both in principle, and not rarely in practice, good things. Although abuses like forced conversions or unjustified violence did happen, there is a lot of myths regarding their scale and frequency.
Humanity in general is sinful and prideful, and Catholics are no exception. That said, it's possible (I'm not claiming this is the case, but I can see this being true) that the arguments you are referring to - since I haven't seen them, I won't judge - are actually legitimate, and you refuse to listen to them.
The Bible is in places hard to understand and different Churches understand e.g. some verse differently. It's often easy to mistakenly understand some verse in a way contrary to its true meaning.
The reason we trust the Church is because we believe, based on God's promise, that God actively protects it from teaching error. The Church can't just make new dogmas up which would contradict what God revealed to us - we trust that God remains faithful to His promised and will protect us from this happening.
My pleasure. Even though i still have some disagreements with the catholic church's practices and policies, i believe that they are still the closest we have (theologically) to the original church and the original faith. Check out their catechism, it explains what they affirm and why.
Fortunately, we don't have to rely on feelings of random moderns living 2000 years after the fact - fortunately, we have actual, historical sources, on what the Church looked like during and directly after the Apostles' times - namely writings of the people who actually belonged to this early Church. You are welcome to read them and see if what you expect the Apostolic Church to have looked like matches what it really looked like. The writings of Ignatius of Antioch, the third bishop of Antioch (lived through the second half of 1st century AD), very early and at the same time rich in detail, are a good start.
Don't forget Ignatius was made a Saint by John the Apostle and made Bishop by Peter the Apostle.
Read therefore about the lives of those people whom the Church recognised as Saints, since they provide us great examples of what living the Catholic faith looks like - how they would grow in love towards Christ, how they would constantly set their whole lives towards His greater glory.
Wait, why would having new prayers be forbidden? If someone e.g. writes a beautiful prayer to God, are we forbidden from using it because it's a new prayer? There isn't any verse in the Bible or anything like this that teaches us this, is there? God doesn't forbid us from writing new prayers ourselves, or in general using new ones.
Sure, all valid points, but I'm starting to seriously lean Catholic. What I see is that it takes a lot of courage to be Catholic, given the amount of apostasy, clerical abuses and bad Catholics, I think the fact that they stick with it says something infinitely more grand and important than your petty and pseudo-revolutionary objections.
I'd rather hear Jay Dyer talk real shit about why Catholicism is flawed than deal with your feelz anyway.
Think of it like the thorn in the side of St Paul. St Paul was able to heal people and many more miracles but could not heal his own pain the schismatics and scandals are the thorn in the Churches side. Even the Lord's church must be humbled before the Lord and must never think itself bigger then God for it is only because of his grace the Church has anything.
Please read books for yourself. Jay Dyer is an e celeb on par with the most meme monastery and most of the things he says make little sense if you don't fall for fancy rhetoric
lol. Surely not at all user. You see how can anyone take you seriously. Crusades did not start the war between christians and muslims. Muslim conquests did. Spain was occupied for a long time if you recall that. Or was it that they were not muh ORDODOXES, so it does not count? The so called Golden age of Islam.Claiming Crusades somehow destroyed the harmony and led to the neocon wars is pretty stupid. There was no real peace mate and you know it. I am not saying every single crusade was an ideal one but it's completely different to say that crusades are to blame for those wars and for wars of today.
Thank you for your post user. It represents almost everything I detest about "muh based ordodoxy" hipsters online and also about some Orthodox scholars. I am past the stage of considering to become Orthodox now and I must say that you guys made me dig deeper into Catholicism and I will always choose Catholicism over you. Bending the history the way you can condemn "muh latins" even if it means siding with evil, blatant lies. Using strawman arguments against infallibility of Pope without debating the dogma itself. Then there are "based orthodox leaders" and "evil catholic dictators" when it suits you even though they both represent the same worldview. But they're bad because muh Romanism and muh papists.
One advice:If you seek to convert people to the faith you believe to he the true one: Do not use lies of any sort, stop bending history when it suits you, stop using silly rhetoric and strawman arguments when people care about the content, not about the optics. People tend to be more receptive once you do not act like little child that goes on and on lying.
shaking the dust off your feet is one thing, but that should only happen when the people in question are not seeking the truth. those who seek the truth should be given the truth. Catholics do not seek truth, only power over their fellow man.
how can you say the inquisition was a bad thing? I'm an atheist and even I believe the inquisition was great. the only problem was allowing converts instead of just getting rid of everyone that had non-christian (and thus non-European) ancestors
Catholics have the true Church, those who seek Christ another way, through another Church, should be treated as heathens and publicans.
One could argue that the Catholic church gradually began teaching things that were not in the Bible and doing things that went against the Bible (things like the selling of indulgences and purgatory, among other things) and that a return to the original teachings based on scripture was needed in order to put the focus back on Jesus' sacrifice and forgiveness. So, the Catholic church while it taught Christianity, drifted away from the Bible and became its own religion for a time. Personally I think that it's safe to say that it's back to what the original church's teachings were, unless you guys still do purgatory. I don't like the concept of purgatory. (Feel free to correct me, I'm no religious history buff)
It helps no one to be dismissive of someone seeking the truth. You represent the Catholic church poorly. Even if you must act like your fellow Christian isn't saved, we are meant to minister to heathens and pagans. of course, the catholic church doesn't exactly have a history of attempting to be kind to heathens and pagans
tbh I can rarely have a reasonable conversation with a Catholic here. They just start whining and sperging. I'm not impressed.
Well the same goes for orthodoxes and prots. Each denomination has guys that get triggered by baitposts - for catholics it may be things like papal infallibility - intentionally misrepresenting the dogma without even using search engine to look up for the definition. Surely if you want to convert people you should be charitable and present the truth the way it is without sperging. But then sperging and standing behind the stuff you believe and rejecting heresy are completely different things. IRL prots get triggered when you tell them that it matters what denom you are. Then they go on about how mean you are. This this and this >>685281 is why caths are sometimes hostile…you reap what you sow. If you start the debate in bad faith…on purpose… you may just expect this kind of attitude. Don't be surprised when you're being dismissed. I got no problem answering questions in a kind way but if you go full "cathedral of satan" or "muh evil latins" as your initial statement, then leave the debate once you run out of gas, unable to disprove counter-arguments, do not expect a kind attitude. If any catholic approached you ith your kind of attitude you would whine about "mean catholics" for weeks. This is no different, user.
But every Nation in Europe was once pagan before it was Catholic, same as literally every Catholic Nation today. Coercion of a greater or lesser degree isn't inherently unjust, that's a tenet of liberalism, not Christianity (though this obviously shouldn't be done flippantly, and may be unadvisable in many cases).To say there's no History of ministering to the Heathens by Catholics is as absurd as saying the police never arrest anyone because they sometimes have to shoot them.
In fact, if anything, the precise opposite is true, what Countries which weren't already a different Christian denomination have been effectively Christianized by protestants? Catholics have all of converted pagan Europe, South America, the Phillipines… Protestants have… the remainder of the Christians left in former African colonies, maybe?
I'm not crazy on all the folk religion crap that gets mixed in with Catholicism in places like South America or the Philippines, but they're practically walking saints compared to some of the ooga-booga tier shit throughout most of colonial Africa.
I'm guessing anywhere the Dutch went, such as South Africa and the East Indies. You could also argue anywhere in what is now the United States and Canada that wasn't under French or Spanish control.
I was just joking about the crusades 'n shiet. Like I said, not a religious history buff. Also Decisions made in a split second in a tense situation are much more excusable. I wasn't saying that the Catholic church never ministers, just saying that they've done more garbage than the Protestant church has (that I know of anyways).
They didn't convert the pagans in North America, they replaced them with Europeans via genocide. Most of re converted North American natives are Catholic.kcawbo
stop this meme unless you have an axe to grind, there's no reason to keep spouting it
Wrong on both. Look at history and demographics in the US
The reason your name is not Abdul or some bullshit and your country standing today is because of the Crusaders. Stop spreading heresy.
One thing I'll point out, it's the Catholic church that evangelized the world, you can't say the same about either protestants or the eastern orthodox.
Selling indulgences is simony and was an abuse done by corrupt clergy, it's was never something that was instituted by the church. However purgatory isn't something that contradicts the scriptures, it's also a spiritual reality
Roman Catholicism is not all good or all bad. It has a long complicated history… some of which is amazingly good and some of which is horrifically awful… just like the history of humanity.
The Crusades is a seriously overblown bit of history in terms of besmirching their legacy. Read the history and understand the reason why they fought.
Inquisition on the other hand… f*cked up shit. Book burning… f*cked up shit. Burning "heretics"… f*cked up shit.
To me though the biggest accusation you can level at them is basically ignoring Christ as the divine whistleblower.
He came in like Assange and pointed at the powers that be… the Sanhedrin, Pharisees and Sadducees and accused them of hypocricy and making up bullshit restrictions and idolatry and circumventing God's law with their own and elevating themselves… and he was 100% right.
Powerful institutions draw ambitious Luciferians… this isn't exclusive to the church but governments, corporations, unions, member associations… all hierarchies tilt towards tyranny and corruption over time.
Even a cursory glance at the Roman Catholic Church vis-a-vis The Vatican shows a scale of man made corruption and tyranny that the Sanhedrin of old couldn't have dreamed of.
I can't imagine that was the church Jesus envisioned.
Nice copy pasta. Where did u get it? 5 minths ago?
Me or OP?
poor little babby has never read the OT which is orders of magnitude more hardcore about fighting heresy
Different time, sunshine. Christ commands otherwise.
Plus I didn't say I'm anti-crusade.
This is about leading children who believe astray from belief in Christ.
Is it advocating burning people who don't believe a heterodox theological position which is still faithful in Christ? Bit of a stretch.
If that heterodox theological position leads to damnation, then yes. And we're all God's children.
I stopped reading there. Putting your faith in the lies of Christ-killers and their minions is unwise.
But what one scripturally leads to damnation? Also why do you care if someone is damned beyond feeling like you have license to play out your sick violent fantasies? Just leave people be and save yourself and loved ones.
That is clearly not what he's talking about by saying that we must be as little children (figuratively) to inherit the Kingdom of God nor is it the children (literal) he's talking about coming unto him or being cause to stumble.
Do you think these rationalized positions that aren't scripturally sound are going to save you? God is going to hold you accountable for how you interpret.
Just because he says it would be better if they drowned it's not telling you to go drown them. The sin is against God and the judgment is his to bestow.
Thou shalt not murder.
Love each other as I have loved you.
These are commandments… not the bullshit you use to justify violence and hatred. You twist the scriptures.
Oh sorry, I didn't know I was having a conversation literally with Satan here. Good day.
And that's your response? You need to repent, son. You are falling a long way short of the glory of God. Wake up.
Please seek a priest asap.
I think the premise of Christianity in general is in part to save souls. Seems like a good enough reason to care for anyone on the board, really, unless they aren't Christian.
I don't really have a strong opinion on the Inquisition one way or the other, but in general I'm reminded that one is to "be perfect". To be perfect, one logically would have to follow His teachings to within perfect tolerances, in order to ensure a spot in Heaven. Deviation at all by definition is not perfection, and any inaccurate doctrine would also as a natural matter of course be "not perfect" and thus a grave impediment potentially. Now perhaps its' graded on a curve depending on the lives and circumstances of people, maybe it isn't, but even so there is an upper limit to the amount of deviance permitted. As such it makes complete sense that, when interpretations become too extremely different to reconcile with each other, self-correction takes place. Basically, it's an effort to cleanse out perceived imperfection. Now what you define as heresy or imperfection would depend on your tradition, of course…
Now I know I am not perfect, but I am also not proud of that. I will be constantly trying to improve myself until my death. But I can never be certain that I will, and I imagine there's many people who die in some distress over their state of affairs. Essentially, I put myself a mini-inquisition all the time. I can't tell how effective it is, since I (who am imperfect) am applying it on myself, but if I can cast away disorder from my body then I believe it will be worth it.
Don't preach or try to convert people to save them? Doesn't seem really Christian (or at the very least nothing other than lukewarm) to me, but I will remember your advisement, I'll probably ignore it however.
(((Christianity))) You are either Catholic or a heretic. May God convert you so that you don't have to go to hell.
mfw Catholics have to use their own personal judgement to understand the teachings of the church