Donald Head

Please stop acting surprised or naively outraged that faithful bishops, traditional masses, or timeless doctrines are being persecuted, silenced, or distorted. We've been warned for 2000 years. I learned this would happen as a child. Realize the time is now. You were born for this fight. Put on your armor. Viva Cristo Rey!

Catholics confess directly to God. Protestants attack the priest as a "middleman" because sacramental confession requires what their private version avoids: contrition, accountability, and the humiliation of actually naming your sin. The Bible says to confess your sins to one another. Christ gave His apostles authority to forgive and retain sins. It does not teach "go hide alone, say a quick prayer, and call that repentance." A quick "God forgive me" costs nothing. Real confession humbles you, exposes your sin, and demands that you actually turn away from it. Something the majority of Protestants simply do not want.

@UpholdInc ✅️ 💚

𝗛𝗮𝗽𝗽𝘆 𝗙𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘆! We’re giving away XRP to say thanks to our community for the support at XRP Vegas 🎰 How to enter: ◼️ Follow @UpholdInc ◼️ Like this post ◼️ Leave a comment 5 winners will receive $100 in XRP each. Good luck! U.S. only. Terms apply. Ends in 24 hours.

What a great answer from @michaeljknowles!

@OgAn0n661 The Great One, Rush Limbaugh. He'd appeal to all the boomers who would struggle to understand. The way he smoked though, cancer could have really take him out.

Let’s see where you all stand on this one. Here’s my list of “dead” people who I believe are more than likely still alive, along with how sure I am about it. Followed by purpose. Jeffrey Epstein 95% (cooperating witness) Seth Rich 90% (Testimony at trials) Michael Jackson 85% (Population control/Testimony) Charlie Kirk 80% (Potential future politician) Virginia Giuffre 80% (Testimony at trials) Prince 75% (Riot control/Testimony) JFK Junior 75% (Uniter of both parties) Kobe Bryant 70% (Riot control) Chadwick Boseman 60% (Riot control) If you’re wondering why I included these celebrities on this list, it’s because I believe these four black celebrities were universally loved and I think they were chosen because they all knew what was going on in the celebrity world and chose not to partake. That and because of the influence they can wield over the black population once the truth about everything starts to come out. Someone will need to help keep people from destroying cities. Would inner city youth be more likely to listen to Trump or Kobe? 5:5? Thoughts? Anyone you’d like me to weigh in on?

Catholics dedicate May to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Not because Mary is God. Not because Mary replaces Jesus. Not because Catholics “invented” Marian devotion. But because the woman who said YES to God gave birth to Jesus Christ, true God and true Man. That is why the Church calls her Mother of God. This title is not emotional Catholic poetry. It is ancient Christian doctrine. Elizabeth said it first: “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”~ Luke 1:43 The Council of Ephesus in 431 defended Mary as Theotokos, God-bearer, because denying her this title threatened the truth about Jesus Christ Himself. St. Cyril’s anathema was clear: if anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is truly God, and that the Holy Virgin is therefore Theotokos, “let him be anathema.” The Catechism teaches the same: Mary is truly “Mother of God” because the one she conceived by the Holy Spirit was truly the eternal Son of the Father made man. So here is the undeniable truth: If Jesus is God, and Mary is His mother according to the flesh, then the ancient Church rightly calls her Mother of God. May belongs to Mary because Mary always leads us to Christ. This was already debated and settled by the councils and the early Church. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.  Amen.

The Eucharist is the most confrontational claim in Christianity. Not because Catholics are trying to be dramatic. Because if the Eucharist is only bread, then Catholicism is excessive. But if the Eucharist is truly Jesus Christ… Then the Mass is not optional. Adoration is not strange. Genuflection is not outdated. The tabernacle is not decoration. The altar is not a stage. And Communion is not a symbol of community. It is the living God giving Himself to sinners. That is why the saints trembled before the Host. That is why martyrs risked death for the Mass. That is why the Church refuses to reduce the Eucharist to a metaphor. Jesus did not say, “This represents My Body.” He said: 👉🏽 “This is My Body.” 👈🏽 And Catholics have never redefined those words. Truly Present.

If I come across a Fr Mark Beard video I post the fr Mark Beard video I will not apologize

@peterpeccavi Nothing?...

@peterpeccavi @Dark_Justice_21 Can you show us where Peter or the apostles taught or instructed the early Christians on the Canon of the Bible? If they didn't practice it at their time and hand it down as binding doctrine, it must not have been important to them by your standard, and could never be binding.

If Peter is the first Pope, why is it that he never “venerates” Mary? I ask because if Rome stands on Peter, then Peter’s silence matters. And if Rome stands on apostolic tradition, then the apostles’ silence matters. Let’s look at Peter first. We don’t need tradition about him. We have his written testimony. Peter’s preaching is recorded in detail in places like Acts 2, 3, and 10. His focus is relentlessly on Christ--His life, death, resurrection, and lordship. Mary is never invoked, addressed, or presented as an object of devotion. Not once. When Mary does appear, like in Acts 1:14, she’s simply counted among the believers praying. She’s not singled out, not exalted, not approached. She’s *in* the Church, not over it. In Peter’s own letters, there is zero Marian language. No appeal to her, no special honor, no hint of intercession. For someone supposedly establishing a pattern of Marian veneration, his silence is deafening. This all lines up with the broader New Testament witness. When a woman in the crowd tries to elevate Jesus’ mother, Christ redirects the blessing to those who hear and obey the Word (Luke 11:27-28). The emphasis consistently moves away from biological proximity toward faith and obedience. Now widen the lens across the apostles as a whole. In their preaching, in their letters, and in their instruction to the churches, there is no instance of Marian veneration as it is later defined in Roman Catholic practice. No invocation. No devotional address. No liturgical pattern. Nothing that even approximates it. That matters, because doctrine doesn’t emerge ex nihlio. It emerges from what is taught, practiced, and handed down within the apostolic witness. And here the pattern is not mixed or ambiguous. It is uniformly Christ focused and entirely silent on Marian veneration. So the question is not whether one can locate a verse that explicitly forbids it. The question is whether there is any positive apostolic pattern that gives it warrant in the first place. And when the entire apostolic record is taken together, the answer is that there is none. So here again is the papist dilemma: If your standard is Peter, then your first pope never practiced it. If your standard is apostolic tradition, then the apostles never transmitted it. Either way, it’s not grounded in the apostolic witness. It’s something that shows up later and then gets read backward into texts that never contained it. Which is error. And that’s the point. Not that silence alone proves falsity, but that the total apostolic pattern gives no positive warrant for it. Marian dogma is none other than idolatrous deception. Repent.

@dlongenecker1 @DemokratikNiko Fr. Longenecker - to your knowledge, do any protestant churches claim or recognize any Eucharistic miracles of their own? The RCC obviously has many; I would think the lack of such miracles, although them believing in the "real presence", would prove its not real enough.

@DemokratikNiko "Real Presence" is a flexible friend. It means whatever the different Protestant groups think it means. What they don't believe in is what Catholics believe: the "Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the altar."

Wrong. Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and even 1689 Baptists believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Thank you for playing, you may go home with a consolation prize.

One of the most fascinating phenomenons on X is watching Protestant Christians post completely heretical content, then watching other Protestant Christians – whom I agree with – getting offended and correcting them. We're watching, in real time, the effects of rejecting Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. As a Protestant, you actually have no authority to correct what you know in your heart and mind to be objectively wrong because each man and woman has become their own authority. And in making everyone their own authority, there is no authority. There is no correct interpretation. There is no incorrect interpretation. Everyone is right. Everyone is wrong. The Reformation keeps on reforming to the point where many of the beliefs held by Protestants Christians today would be condemned by Martin Luther and John Calvin themselves. This is not an attack on many of the amazing Protestant Christians I've come to know through this platform who are incredibly knowledgable and faithful Christians, but explains why so many are returning to the Catholic – and by extension Orthodox – Church. However, if you do choose to remain Protestant, at least return to the more traditional forms of magisterial Protestantism.

@MikeNellis He left because he divorced his wife of 20+ years so he could remarry his co-worker. The Catholic Church would not have approved of his lifestyle choice; any other excuse is just a smokescreen.

If you’re leaving the Catholic Church because Pope Leo is calling for peace, then you probably weren’t much of a Catholic to begin with. Looking at you, Sean Hannity.

I mentioned that the Holy Spirit influences the selection of Popes, and the Protestants started protesting again. So some began listing “bad Popes” and asking if the Holy Spirit was involved in choosing them too Let’s be honest for a second. Being chosen by God has NEVER guaranteed that a man won’t lose his way. God chose Saul - he fell. God chose Solomon - he fell into idolatry. God chose David - he committed grave sins. God chose Judas - he betrayed Christ. So what exactly is your point? The pattern in Scripture is clear; God calls, man responds, man can also FAIL. The Holy Spirit guiding the Church does NOT mean every Pope will be morally perfect. It means the Church will not be led into doctrinal error. Even in the Bible, priests and kings held divine offices and still acted corruptly. So bringing up “bad Popes” doesn’t disprove anything. It actually CONFIRMS the biblical pattern. God has always chosen men. And men have always had the freedom to either stay faithful, or fall. As Catholics, that’s why we pray for our priests. That’s why we pray for our Pope. Because being chosen is one thing. Remaining faithful is another.

The reason why so many protestants misquote St. Paul to support their errors about faith and works is because they quote St. Paul talking about the faith that precedes baptism, and act as if this is the same as the faith that follows baptism, which is “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6), which is only possible AFTER “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Rom. 5:5). The person who receives this divine love into their hearts through the gift of the Holy Spirit both received that gift without ANY preceding works or merits, and also received that gift IN ORDER TO produce good and meritorious works before God, by participating in the life of God Himself. Hence Our Lord’s numerous parables about people receiving a free gift, and then being expected to bear fruit. Some of them did not produce the fruit that was expected of them, and were thereby condemned. In other words, many protestants take verses that speak about our state prior to regeneration, and apply it to our lives as Christians post-regeneration, despite the extraordinary words from both Christ and the Apostles that speak to the transformative change that takes place between the two. After that change, we are no longer speaking about the old and dead man incapable of pleasing God, but the NEW CREATURE, who is now responsible (and capable, with God’s grace, His own divine life in their souls) for producing good fruit. Our Lord Himself is the model. Obviously He did not need to be reborn or regenerated. But He showed us what to do. He was baptized. The Holy Spirit descended. God the Father affirmed His Divine sonship (just as we too become sons and daughters by adoption). And then He went into the desert to fight the devil, and won. Through God’s grace and power, which we receive through no works or merits of our own, we—as NEW CREATURES—are expected to do the exact same thing.

@TranscendNWO Anima Christi is a good one

As a new Catholic, what are some prayers I should memorize? I know there's the meal prayer, and the prayer for passing a graveyard - are there any others?

As a Protestant I asked why this passage was taken literally and not “I am the door”, the usual evangelical retort. I wished someone would have answered me like this: After multiplying loaves for the crowd, Jesus makes a shocking claim: “The bread that I will give is my flesh (sarx) for the life of the world.” (John 6:51) The Greek word sarx, meaning literal, physical flesh, is rarely, if ever, used metaphorically in Scripture. Even many Protestant scholars acknowledge that this language is unusually graphic and difficult to read symbolically. The crowd is immediately disturbed: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52) If they had misunderstood Him, this was the moment to explain. Jesus often corrected misunderstandings, like when Nicodemus thought being “born again” meant re-entering the womb (John 3), or when the disciples thought He spoke of literal bread in Matthew 16. But here, Jesus does the opposite. He repeats and intensifies the teaching. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53) In fact, He repeats this teaching six times in just ten verses, each time making it more explicit and direct. This repetition signals the importance of His words and indicates that He intends them to be understood literally rather than metaphorically. The Greek word for “eat” shifts to trogein, which means “gnaw” or “chew,” a term that implies a physical, bodily act. This Greek term is used nowhere else in Scripture metaphorically, further emphasizing the literal nature of His command. For a Jewish audience, consuming flesh and blood would have been scandalous, which underscores the radical nature of Jesus’ teaching. Remarkably, this is the first instance recorded in Scripture where a crowd walks away because of a teaching, highlighting the difficulty and gravity of His words. The result? Many of His disciples are scandalized: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (John 6:60) “Many of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with Him.” (John 6:66) Rather than back down, Jesus lets them leave. If He had merely meant a symbol, He had every opportunity to explain it away or soften His language. But He doesn’t. Instead, He turns to the Twelve and asks: “Do you also want to leave?” (John 6:67) Peter’s response is telling: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68) Peter affirms the reality of Jesus’ words. The disciples understood exactly what Jesus was saying: He wasn’t offering a symbol of His body and blood; He was offering His actual body and blood, and they were ready to receive it.

@NFAdotcrypto 'Cicada' Covid variant now in the news...

Not to mention... 😳x.com/NFAdotcrypto/s…

ONDO knows… 👀

@fuzzy_xrp Brad G and Stu A (Ripple) - also there is a ship in the picture behind them (taken at Mar-a-lago I believe)

@fuzzy_xrp Cuba is colored in red (Trump has talked about Cuba is next?). There is a white marker box near the Cienfuegos area, of which there looks to be a little village by the name of Perseverancia... which is similar to the name of the ship below it.

Rubrik is soiss su.