MMF
@vfddp7799.bsky.social
They did not only say a few years ago: “gay people could get into heaven”. Where did you learn this? What’s A Matter U? 🤣
Anyone having committed a mortal sin without confession & repentance would go to hell.
Urges & thoughts are not themselves sins.
Anyone having committed a mortal sin without confession & repentance would go to hell.
Urges & thoughts are not themselves sins.
January 30, 2026 at 10:24 PM
They did not only say a few years ago: “gay people could get into heaven”. Where did you learn this? What’s A Matter U? 🤣
Anyone having committed a mortal sin without confession & repentance would go to hell.
Urges & thoughts are not themselves sins.
Anyone having committed a mortal sin without confession & repentance would go to hell.
Urges & thoughts are not themselves sins.
Yes they literally do!
January 29, 2026 at 10:40 PM
Yes they literally do!
Armel, you are not understanding me. Councils, doctors of the church, popes, theologians, have PROPOSED possible outcomes but the church has never definitively taught “This is DEFINITELY what happens to unbaptized babies”.
It’s like…dude… you are not getting this!
It’s like…dude… you are not getting this!
January 29, 2026 at 10:25 PM
Armel, you are not understanding me. Councils, doctors of the church, popes, theologians, have PROPOSED possible outcomes but the church has never definitively taught “This is DEFINITELY what happens to unbaptized babies”.
It’s like…dude… you are not getting this!
It’s like…dude… you are not getting this!
“Choice & freedom” are not valuable in of themselves, and in the USA, never have been. This was explicit even in Roe V Wade. I don’t see your logic of “it’s cowardice to ban immoral acts”.
January 23, 2026 at 11:34 PM
“Choice & freedom” are not valuable in of themselves, and in the USA, never have been. This was explicit even in Roe V Wade. I don’t see your logic of “it’s cowardice to ban immoral acts”.
Emphasis on “CAN” be saved or “MAY” be. The possibility of the salvation of unbaptized people does not lessen any impetus to share the fullness of truth with them.
January 22, 2026 at 8:43 PM
Emphasis on “CAN” be saved or “MAY” be. The possibility of the salvation of unbaptized people does not lessen any impetus to share the fullness of truth with them.
Furthermore, the catechism and canon law explicitly condemn the grave heresy of “Indifferentism”, the notion that all religions are equal and there is not obligation to receive the fullness of truth which the Catholic Church holds the exclusive keys to.
January 22, 2026 at 8:29 PM
Furthermore, the catechism and canon law explicitly condemn the grave heresy of “Indifferentism”, the notion that all religions are equal and there is not obligation to receive the fullness of truth which the Catholic Church holds the exclusive keys to.
This is one of the greatest misunderstandings in regard to the second Vatican council. CC affirms that other religions can prepare one for the fullness of truth, but no one can presume salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Baptism, Eucharist, the sacraments etc are essential.
January 22, 2026 at 7:51 PM
This is one of the greatest misunderstandings in regard to the second Vatican council. CC affirms that other religions can prepare one for the fullness of truth, but no one can presume salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Baptism, Eucharist, the sacraments etc are essential.
It’s funny you cite the constitution in your meme, because even Roe V Wade affirmed that there is NO absolute right to one’s body. In 1973, most states had laws restricting or banning abortion. The notion that the US constitution / 14th amendment included right to kill your child is a fantasy.
January 22, 2026 at 7:40 PM
It’s funny you cite the constitution in your meme, because even Roe V Wade affirmed that there is NO absolute right to one’s body. In 1973, most states had laws restricting or banning abortion. The notion that the US constitution / 14th amendment included right to kill your child is a fantasy.
Listen, I’m being sincere. Whoever you are, I wish you’d just be honest with me, and have a clear conversation.
A nine month old is a fetus.
You’re being very loose and fancy free with your terms here. Apparently the life inside the mother is not a human, fetuses aren’t delivered.
A nine month old is a fetus.
You’re being very loose and fancy free with your terms here. Apparently the life inside the mother is not a human, fetuses aren’t delivered.
January 22, 2026 at 5:24 PM
Listen, I’m being sincere. Whoever you are, I wish you’d just be honest with me, and have a clear conversation.
A nine month old is a fetus.
You’re being very loose and fancy free with your terms here. Apparently the life inside the mother is not a human, fetuses aren’t delivered.
A nine month old is a fetus.
You’re being very loose and fancy free with your terms here. Apparently the life inside the mother is not a human, fetuses aren’t delivered.
…most wise providence ordained for the support of human life, from causing intolerable evils and thus rushing to its own destruction; it does not destroy private possessions, but safeguards them; and it does not weaken private property rights, but strengthens them.” — Pius XI
January 22, 2026 at 1:49 AM
…most wise providence ordained for the support of human life, from causing intolerable evils and thus rushing to its own destruction; it does not destroy private possessions, but safeguards them; and it does not weaken private property rights, but strengthens them.” — Pius XI
Individualism overemphasizes individual ownership at the expense of social responsibility. Collectivism over emphasizes social use, often precluding private ownership altogether, which the church affirms is a natural right.
January 22, 2026 at 1:49 AM
Individualism overemphasizes individual ownership at the expense of social responsibility. Collectivism over emphasizes social use, often precluding private ownership altogether, which the church affirms is a natural right.
No, it’s the principle of Subsidiarity.
Distributism, my friend.
Distributism, my friend.
January 22, 2026 at 1:13 AM
No, it’s the principle of Subsidiarity.
Distributism, my friend.
Distributism, my friend.
…into the hands of something improper.
The common good isn’t “what is good for the most amount of people” rather, it consists in those goods which can be possessed in common: truth, justice, virtue etc. The common good exists to order us unto our highest end: God. NOT “freedom” or “prosperity”.
The common good isn’t “what is good for the most amount of people” rather, it consists in those goods which can be possessed in common: truth, justice, virtue etc. The common good exists to order us unto our highest end: God. NOT “freedom” or “prosperity”.
January 21, 2026 at 8:57 PM
…into the hands of something improper.
The common good isn’t “what is good for the most amount of people” rather, it consists in those goods which can be possessed in common: truth, justice, virtue etc. The common good exists to order us unto our highest end: God. NOT “freedom” or “prosperity”.
The common good isn’t “what is good for the most amount of people” rather, it consists in those goods which can be possessed in common: truth, justice, virtue etc. The common good exists to order us unto our highest end: God. NOT “freedom” or “prosperity”.
It is demonstrably & factual the Catholic Church has always been against socialism.
Since the existence of capitalism & socialism, Catholic Social Doctrine has always criticized both, and promoted the third way: Distributism.
PLEASE read or at least skim Rerum Novarum from Pope Leo XIII
Since the existence of capitalism & socialism, Catholic Social Doctrine has always criticized both, and promoted the third way: Distributism.
PLEASE read or at least skim Rerum Novarum from Pope Leo XIII
January 21, 2026 at 8:29 PM
It is demonstrably & factual the Catholic Church has always been against socialism.
Since the existence of capitalism & socialism, Catholic Social Doctrine has always criticized both, and promoted the third way: Distributism.
PLEASE read or at least skim Rerum Novarum from Pope Leo XIII
Since the existence of capitalism & socialism, Catholic Social Doctrine has always criticized both, and promoted the third way: Distributism.
PLEASE read or at least skim Rerum Novarum from Pope Leo XIII
Legally, slaves had next to no rights. Human rights are not granted by the state, and the law is not always one to one with morality.
And besides, legally, a woman has NEVER had an absolute right over the unborn inside of her.
And besides, legally, a woman has NEVER had an absolute right over the unborn inside of her.
January 20, 2026 at 2:58 PM
Legally, slaves had next to no rights. Human rights are not granted by the state, and the law is not always one to one with morality.
And besides, legally, a woman has NEVER had an absolute right over the unborn inside of her.
And besides, legally, a woman has NEVER had an absolute right over the unborn inside of her.
Overturning of RoeVWade did not “upend 50 years of precedent”, it restored precedent. RvW was hugely unpopular at the time, & it used a wholly new understanding & redefining of the 14th amendment. 2022 ruling explicitly lists the ways in which RvW contradicted almost 200 years of precedent.
January 20, 2026 at 12:11 PM
Overturning of RoeVWade did not “upend 50 years of precedent”, it restored precedent. RvW was hugely unpopular at the time, & it used a wholly new understanding & redefining of the 14th amendment. 2022 ruling explicitly lists the ways in which RvW contradicted almost 200 years of precedent.
My original quotes were enough. It was imprudent to disbelieve them, and you seem strangely uninformed on current events.
January 20, 2026 at 11:35 AM
My original quotes were enough. It was imprudent to disbelieve them, and you seem strangely uninformed on current events.
If the unborn have no rights, where does the “right to choose” come from?
January 20, 2026 at 10:14 AM
If the unborn have no rights, where does the “right to choose” come from?
People love spreading around that NIV translation, but that original passage makes no mention of miscarriage, pregnancy, being with child, abortion etc
This is an ancient Jewish tradition, it was not an abortion. The punishment was infertility, it’s just described in different ways “womb will drop”
This is an ancient Jewish tradition, it was not an abortion. The punishment was infertility, it’s just described in different ways “womb will drop”
December 23, 2025 at 5:15 PM
People love spreading around that NIV translation, but that original passage makes no mention of miscarriage, pregnancy, being with child, abortion etc
This is an ancient Jewish tradition, it was not an abortion. The punishment was infertility, it’s just described in different ways “womb will drop”
This is an ancient Jewish tradition, it was not an abortion. The punishment was infertility, it’s just described in different ways “womb will drop”
Venerable Pius XII permitted study of evolution, even if he was personally skeptical of it. An issue occurs when someone defines evolution in a purely materialistic sense, denies original sin, or otherwise claims ensoulment occurred outside of God.
Ven Pius XII in Humani Generis:
Ven Pius XII in Humani Generis:
December 22, 2025 at 4:39 PM
Venerable Pius XII permitted study of evolution, even if he was personally skeptical of it. An issue occurs when someone defines evolution in a purely materialistic sense, denies original sin, or otherwise claims ensoulment occurred outside of God.
Ven Pius XII in Humani Generis:
Ven Pius XII in Humani Generis:
