Christopher T. 🇻🇦

Just noticed I officially hit 1,000 followers and wasn’t even paying attention. My primary purpose of this account is to build stronger, better informed, and better networked Catholic communities - and offer my best responses those who oppose the Catholic Church. Additionally - this account specifically helps me offer considerations for my own education, as well as those I care for, and heads up in all matters as it pertains to issues that arise in real life. As such, this account supports my ultimate priority on being an overall well-formed Christ-centered Catholic in all components of my life. I believe if you can minimize investing emotional energy and direct what you consume cautiously (to even spiritual risk - but no more than engaging in social settings at all today) with anything social media related, a lot of good can come from it. But in particular - X has an incredible platform to offer. Thanks all!

I thought this was obvious after Trump called out all of the countries by name that refused to help. He didn't actually seemed scorned at all. They've since began to expand their assistance. They didn't realize they went into a negotiation empty-handed when they turned him down the first time.

Just got off the phone with a source tied to European intelligence. He laid out a theory on Hormuz that stopped me cold. It’s a continuation of my previous Hormuz Hypothesis. If true, it explains everything. If true, the strait isn’t reopening this year. Talked to @mercaborglanos. He couldn’t punch a hole in it. Working on how to present this. It could panic markets and unleash hell on me from every direction so I should be careful. Plus the TDS afflicted would do everything possible to discredit me and knives would be out from certain groups in my own party. 🤯​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ What I can say is…. what if Trump really is trying to prevent a mega catastrophe? What if everyone’s worst case scenario right now is too conservative? Why has Big Oil and the other Gulf States been relatively silent while the rest of the world screams for US troops to withdraw? Why would Trump want crappy European frigates in Hormuz? Why wouldn’t he send more extremely capable destroyers? Why is he leaving US Merchant Marine ships in the Gulf unprotected? Why is Joe Kent still so supportive of Trump? Why hasn’t Trump gone on a tirade against Joe? Why can’t anyone tell us if there are mines in Hormuz or not? Why aren’t citizens of Iran overthrowing the government? Why aren’t Iran proxies like the Houthis going on the offensive? Why are we unsactioning Iranian oil tankers? Why are refineries blowing up in Russia and Texas? Why has the US asked China to step in and help? Something is seriously wrong and I’ve only heard one explanation that answers every question. What if my Hormuz Hypothesis is correct but the stakes are MUCH higher than anyone thought? 👇

@_mathisart_ @timotheeology @Catholicizm1 Tim and Joe Enders are an embarrassment to Catholicism. I still can't believe anyone takes them seriously, given their many obvious intellectual failures. 🤦🏻‍♂️

@timotheeology @Catholicizm1 It's important to look at a guy and discern whether or not you'll take marriage advice from him. Heschmeyer is not that guy, but generally in apologetics he has a gift for articulating doctrine

Man. You guys really broke Trent Horn. He doesn’t seem to be doing too good.

Also, Mark 1:15 specifically says that the gospel ("the good news") is that the Kingdom is near. Jesus hadn't even died yet, obviously. So he's saying the gospel is not what you claim it is. 🤦🏻‍♂️ When will you be sincerely addressing my responses to your other arguments? x.com/Christojt/stat…

@CBT_91 @ARTANGELS9 All you do is make arguments, then run away once someone offers a response to your arguments. Really dishonest, man.

JESUS is LORD: Both of my children told me last year they were converting to Catholicism (I’m baptist). They get baptized on Easter and I couldn’t be more proud. It turns out they’re not alone. The lord is at work here in America and I think I know why. Evil has taken hold of the left and there is only one answer…

Not cool for you to offer arguments and not actually address the responses to them. Seems dishonest. 1.) "The Bible is clear that salvation is by grace alone,..." - This is true. So why are you trying to say it's by faith alone? Two things being required for salvation mean neither are alone. Simple math. 2.) "...through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone..." - This sounds like a lot of things that are not alone. So why even use the pop-apologetic language of "saved by faith alone" when none of you guys even mean it? 3.) "...and that Scripture is our sole basis of authority." - Literally nowhere in scripture tells us this. You can't give me a single verse in scripture to support it. Besides, it's only logical that the Apostles never went by this or taught it since the whole New Testament wasn't even completed until only John remained. 4.) "Catholicism abandoned this gospel at the Council of Trent. Repent of your attempts at works-based righteousness and embrace the gospel of Christ." - If Catholicism abandoned "the gospel" at the Council of Trent, then why did nobody articulate your specific view of the gospel as "the gospel" for 15 centuries before that? And Catholicism specifically teaches against "works-based righteousness." You're really confused about Catholicism if you believe this and repeat. Also, dropping a brand new point and running away isn't going to help your optics in this conversation. Again, very dishonest. 5.) "Mary can’t and won’t save you. Praying prayers to her won’t cut your time in your fictional land of “Purgatory”, and if Jesus saves you, He will by no means ever reject you for there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ." - No Catholic has ever stated that Mary will "save us." If they did, they are not Catholic, since the Catholic Church teaches the exact opposite of what you claim. Again, major misrepresentation going on. It seems you just hate what you think the Catholic Church teaches, or you're not interested in being honest about? Disappointed in you, man.

I understand you view everything through a Catholic lens - and I feel no obligation to convince you of your error. I’ll just point it out: The Bible is clear that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone - and that Scripture is our sole basis of authority. Catholicism abandoned this gospel at the Council of Trent. Repent of your attempts at works-based righteousness and embrace the gospel of Christ. Mary can’t and won’t save you. Praying prayers to her won’t cut your time in your fictional land of “Purgatory”, and if Jesus saves you, He will by no means ever reject you for there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ. Choose Christ. /muting

What do you mean a "shortcut explanation"? If you say the Bible is clear, then why does anyone need a "shortcut"? This should be an important point for you, since none of the verses give us the doctrine of "sola fide": 1.) 1 John 2:19: This is describing people who are labeled as "antichrists" which does not match the example of Protestants becoming Catholic. They denied Christ outright. If you are going to argue that they accepted Christ, and were believers before - then you would have to abolish sola-fide anyway. You can't have it both ways. 2.) John 10:28-29: "no one shall 'snatch' them out of my hand" - Here, the word "snatch" in Greek specifically refers to the action of a thief or against the consent of the individual. This is perfectly in line with the Catholic understanding of how mortal sin is us "turning away from Christ" on our own accord. This also does not give you the doctrine of "sola fide." It just means that nobody can forcibly make you fall against your own will. 3.) Ephesians 2:8-9: Catholics affirm every word here. But don't exclude the next verse that says we are "created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Living faith is simply never alone. Galatians 5:6 shows clearly that it is "faith working through love" that saves. None of this gives you reason to assume that Catholics hold a different Gospel. Nobody interpreted the verses you're seeing in a Protestant lens before the 16th century. You need to sincerely ask yourself why that is the case if scripture is clear.

@Christojt Quite a leap you’ve made, there. No, I would not agree. And Sola Fide is an accurate shortcut explanation of a clear Biblical truth. 1 John 2:19, John 10:28-29, and Eph. 2:8-9 are still in the Bible.

@CBT_91 @amuse So then you would agree it’s possible for a Christian to lose their salvation if a Protestant becomes Catholic? Why is “sola fide” only a doctrine until Protestants become Catholic?

Catholicism has a different gospel. This is not a win, Amuse. Be glad they still identify as Christian, but to be sure, they have (perhaps temporarily) abandoned the faith that was “once for all given to the saints”. Who or what is their source of authority? Is their righteousness now contingent on their works? It is not biblical Christianity. I say this in sadness.

In recent days, @CarriePrejean1, a Catholic, was removed from the Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty. She was not given notice as to why she was removed, but it is highly plausible that it was because of comments she made during a hearing. I wish to note both a question she asked and a statement she made. In essence, one of the questions she asked was whether a person who is not a Zionist is therefore antisemitic. The statement she made was that Catholics are not Zionists. Bishop Robert Barron posted on X that she was removed for “browbeating witnesses, aggressively asserting her point of view, hijacking the meeting for her own political purposes.” I must disagree with this statement, having viewed the meeting myself. The purpose of the meeting is to promote religious liberty and to speak out against discrimination and injustice against any person, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise. Defense of religious liberty under the First Amendment is the defense of all human life. Her comment was fitting for the meeting, and for the following reason. Carrie asked an important question, which was directed to Yitzchok Frankel. She asked whether one could reject antisemitism and at the same time condemn the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza, reject political Zionism, or not support the political state of Israel. Carrie was fulfilling her duty as a member of the board in speaking not only for the protection of Jews, but also for Palestinians. It is also a fair question to ask in light of the thousands of Palestinians who have been killed since October 7. As Catholics, we decry the killing of all innocent human life. Her comment and question were also fitting in helping the committee address the evil of antisemitism. In other words, her words can be interpreted as a caution that, in light of evil antisemitic actions, one must not resort to uncontrolled violence against Palestinians in Gaza. There is a fire that was lit, and she was simply pointing out that another fire has been lit, and one cannot put out fire with fire. She wished to hold all persons accountable for violence against innocent human life. Furthermore, defining terms is crucial in arriving at proper justice for all. In resolving the issue of antisemitism, it is important to define exactly what that constitutes. It is not foreign to public discussion to speak of Christian Zionism as it pertains to the present conflict in Iran. She, as a defender of all faiths, must be able to defend her own. That she did courageously in noting that Catholics are in fact not Zionists, and that this should not be remotely part of the definition of antisemitism. The reason this is important is that if rejection of Zionism is equated with antisemitism, it opens the door to the persecution of Catholics, or of people in general. Since this language is part of the current political context when speaking about Israel’s actions, it is just that Catholics, having their own religious liberty under the First Amendment, be able to disagree with religiously or politically motivated actions which do not reflect what it means to be Catholic. Otherwise, we run the risk, as a nation, of gaslighting Catholics as antisemitic, which would itself be a form of religious persecution. The committee cannot serve the purpose of defending religious liberty by denying it to another group, namely Catholics. Therefore, I support Carrie as a fellow Catholic and American for her bravery, and I am proud of her. In fact, she was recently awarded the Catholic Champion Award at the Catholics for Catholics Prayer for America Gala only a few days ago. Countless Catholics from all over the country viewed this moment, where Catholics came together in solidarity to pray for our nation and to support fellow Catholics in responding to our Lord’s command: “Let your light shine.”

The tearing of the veil signifies the end of the sacraments of the Old Law, while the blood and water which flowed forth from Christ’s side signified the institution of the principle sacraments of the New Law, baptism and the eucharist. This was prophecied in Ezekiel 47, where the water that flows from the Third Temple makes the dead sea to come to life and the fish in it (which symbolize Gentiles in scripture) are caught by fishermen. Insurrection Barbie gets this exactly backwards by using the tearing of the veil to attack the Church while insistsing the Jews as the sole Israel. This is a complete inversion of the symbolism.

@HVACwarfare It’s an honest, direct question. The logic entails you would agree with that statement, no?

@Christojt Nice try there

All traditional protestant traditions fully acknowledge that our heritage is from the Roman Catholic Church

👇🏻 x.com/Christojt/stat…

This is essentially "ecclesial voluntarism" in which belief is only binding if the local congregation's own will consents. And yes, it applies to Presbyterianism as the theology is pushed upstream to fallible organizations of men whose "binding opinions" are only human at best.

This is ultimately the same manner in which Mormons claim monotheism when they say "one God of this universe" while allowing infinite gods ruling each "independent universe." Congregationalists are fully democratic at the local level, as synods or associations are merely voluntary and never actually binding. Labeling them as "one Church" is basically speaking in opposition to how they practically function, as each congregation is never truly subject to any authority beyond its own democratic will.

People say Evangelicalism is functionally Congregationalist. It's not. That's an insult to Congregationalists. In congregationalist denominations like LCMS or Puritan Massachusetts, congregations are run democratically and have a lot of freedom, but are still part of a large instutiton Evangelicalism isn't Congregationalist, but Independent, where apart from a few "networks" local churches are just free floating businesses

@ferrismattic @NotThatRBaxter This is also true of a significant portion of Protestants/evangelicals globally. Kreeft's disappointment here is in regards to Catholic youth, and academic demographics. This is also probably 15-30 years ago.

One sometimes hears that Protestants don't understand RC theology. Peter Kreeft, a Roman Catholic professor at Boston College, notes a massive problem the Church itself has: Many within it don't know the gospel. ht:@NotThatRBaxter

I really wish he would stop threatening these things and just do them.

Easy to forget this.

This is true. White Catholics in the US (91% have pre-1965 roots) are a reliable right-wing voting bloc. Catholics of a minority background (85-95% are post-1965 immigrants & their descendants) are a huge left-wing voting bloc. Mass immigration has political consequences.

@rabbriansamuel It’s not an affront to Catholics that God will save Israel, because Israel is the Catholic Church, and God will save us…👇🏻 realclearcatholic.com/2018/06/13/the…

@LizzieMarbach Protestant logic: If you've ever asked a friend or family member for help in comforting you, you are an idolator for not asking Jesus alone.

Candace says in her speech that since Charlie passed, it has been Mary who has helped her grieve. She explains that before Charlie died, she had trouble “connecting” with Mary but once he passed, she was able to. This explains a lot. She is blaspheming Christ & practicing idolatry so of course she has since become more & more wicked. “I feel [Mary’s] presence…she is what I needed.” “Mary has a way.” “I ask Mary to wrap me, and my kids, and my family, all I’m praying for, under HER mantle...” “If you put all the love of all the mothers into one heart, it still not be equal with the love of the heart of Mary for her children.”