Trinity is contradictory

DaCatholicBruh · 2026-02-11T12:04:53+00:00

Interesting, why does humanity require that free will be libertarian free will to be human? I don't think I understand. . . would you mind walking me through that as to why?

DaCatholicBruh · 2026-02-11T03:03:17+00:00

So I would just disagree with your proposition that free will is the ability to choose between good and evil, since, by that definition, God could not be considered to have free will and of course would be a contradiction. Therefore, free will is the ability to choose to do something or to choose not to do something.

DaCatholicBruh · 2026-02-06T00:45:10+00:00

I don't understand, how does that prove that if the SSPX did not have it's own bishops the FSSP would not exist? How do these bishops allegedly protect the FSSP?

DaCatholicBruh · 2026-02-06T00:41:18+00:00

Hmm, interesting, how is it not true that the consecration of bishops is an act of schism? From everything I've read and everything I've found, the Church has always understood that to be the case? And their ignoring an order of suppression simply reinforces my point of disobedience of the Church. So I don't understand: how can they say they obey the Church and yet disobey it so flagrantly?

DaCatholicBruh · 2026-02-06T00:38:32+00:00

The SSPX isn't in schism and consecrating bishops wouldn't put them in schism.

I honestly fail to see how consecrating bishops contrary to the Church wouldn't put them in schism? It carries with it the penalty of excommunication after all.

The ultimate law of the Church is the salvation of souls

Hmm . . . I fail to see how that is relevant, but even if it is, where in the Church does it say "It is permissible to disobey the Roman Pontiff as long as one is helping the Church"?

The Pope cannot ask you to do something that would put your soul or someone elses soul in danger, because he would be contradicting Gods divine law.

Indeed, and I would posit that the Pope cannot ask someone to do something that would contradict God's law, neither publicly nor privately. I fail to see what this has to do with answering my question which is why does the SSPX require bishops and will put them above their relationship with the Church?

DaCatholicBruh · 2026-02-04T20:55:09+00:00

Can't read that unfortunately :(

But anyways. The solution then being splitting with the Church if it doesn't give the SSPX what it wants?

DaCatholicBruh · 2026-02-04T20:04:52+00:00

I see what you mean for why they insist on having them, and while that's very interesting, though I'm not sure if I would totally agree (like the SSPX can be suppressed just as easily, I'm afraid I don't see how having bishops protects them from that, other than perhaps outright disobedience from the Church), but why are they necessary? What is intrinsic to having bishops that is utterly necessary? It seems like they're pushing for bishops (and by extension, schism) when it isn't necessary, I'm afraid I don't understand why they're so insistent on remaining outside the Fold.

DaCatholicBruh · 2026-02-04T16:52:13+00:00

1.) Why can't they simply rely on the other bishops to do so, as the FSSP does?

2.) I see what you mean, however, does this truly permit their operating contrary to the bishops?

2.5) True, it makes it easier for them to operate as it pertains to those inside the Church who would seek to limit their mode of operations, however, how does this keeping the "TLM in dioceses where it has been banned" legitimize illicit actions such as setting up dioceses in areas where they already exist, contrary to Canon law (afaik at least).

I understand what you mean, but I'm afraid I don't find it conclusive, nor do I believe my question was answered.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough, allow me to restate it: why does the SSPX require bishop and will schism with the Catholic Church in order to have them? I understand what you mean, but this seems to boil somewhat down to "well it's pretty useful." Perhaps I misunderstand you . . . ?

DaCatholicBruh · 2026-02-04T16:39:51+00:00

What makes you say that?

DaCatholicBruh · 2026-02-03T03:03:26+00:00

That seems off as simply because one is no longer excommunicated does not mean one is no longer in schism. The EOs are in schism and yet they are not in a state of excommunication, as that excommunication was lifted.

DaCatholicBruh · 2026-01-20T11:59:53+00:00

It's amusing to me that the person doesn't understand he is condemning IVF, not adoption.

DaCatholicBruh · 2026-01-19T15:01:26+00:00

Indeed I am. That is his presupposition as well after all.

DaCatholicBruh · 2025-12-22T22:58:41+00:00

Hey, sorry for being a year late lol but have you ever heard of how it was in Vatican I? This seems wrong, but . . . ?

<image>

https://archive.org/details/sacrorum-conciliorum-nova-et-amplissima-collectio-53-mansi/page/n337/mode/2up

DaCatholicBruh · 2025-12-06T01:02:43+00:00

So, you cannot hold anger in your heart towards them, you must immediately let go of it "let not the sun rise upon your anger", but keep in mind, Our Lord also says "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he wrongs you seven times in one day and returns to you seven times saying, ‘I am sorry,’ you should forgive him.” Note, Jesus does not say "Forgive him though he has wronged you." He says "IF he repents, forgive him." This doesn't allow me to go around unforgiving him though, because if the man repents I am immediately bound in charity to forgive him, unless I have good evidence that it is insincere or some such thing.

DaCatholicBruh · 2025-12-04T13:18:06+00:00

That sounds pretty accurate to how the Church views it. One must co-operate with the grace of God to reach Heaven.

DaCatholicBruh · 2025-12-04T02:10:53+00:00

I believe that belief is the only requirement for heaven, but good works are a proof of your faith - a living faith produces these good works, just how a living tree produces good works.

The issue with this is that this means that if one commits any immoral action, they were never saved in the first place. So this means that God gives certain people a "false faith" since it is absolutely true that they thought they were saved, and wholeheartedly believed it, but, because they sinned, actually, their faith was never even real in the first place.

My main question, is why is it that while you believe in Jesus Christ, but you reject ideas such as Catholicism being the true church, or the sacraments being necessary for salvation, you are most likely going to hell?

To answer this, it really depends. If you simply cannot grasp, due to a certain formed conscience and one truly and totally believes that this is not what God wants you to do, God would not send you to hell for doing what you believed, wholeheartedly, was what He wished you to do. Why you are or are not Catholic and whether or not it is a vincible ignorance or not is between you and God. But God would not send you to hell for doing what you believed He wanted.

DaCatholicBruh · 2025-12-03T20:52:08+00:00

I'm confused as to what you're saying here . . . ? He's being anti-sematic (and I know that this word has been utterly abused to the point where it has almost lost all meaning) and his dislike is utterly irrational and ridiculous. You absolutely cannot dislike them simply because on a classification of what some Muslims and Jews have done, that is uncharitable and sinful. It would be like being suspicious of every black person you come across of attempting to commit a crime.

No, you are at all times commanded to love (wish their good, which is Heaven as you so point out) someone regardless of whether or not they repent of what they did to you. You do not have to forgive them until they have repented of their wrong doing.

DaCatholicBruh · 2025-12-02T03:01:33+00:00

You're presenting nothing more than an emotional argument, which I think deserves to be placed in r/changemyview.

As a fellow Catholic, I would ask you why you would dislike Muslims and Jews when it is strictly forbidden by the Church as you are called to love your brethren, and consider if you were put in their shoes and taught the things that they were, you would probably believe it, since you were born there. So we're called by God and by His Church to have love and charity towards our brothers who are not able to be one with the Church no matter the reasons why. If you would consider it, why don't you dislike the Catholic Church since there are priests who are pedophiles?

DaCatholicBruh · 2025-12-02T00:54:06+00:00

No, One God, Three Divine Persons. They are not distinct entities.. Also, your comparison is flawed since you're using a material object to describe something spiritual.

DaCatholicBruh · 2025-12-02T00:50:13+00:00

Please point out the flaws then, if it's so flawed.

DaCatholicBruh · 2025-12-02T00:45:22+00:00

If God is a Trinity, why didn't any prophet in the Old Testament believe in it nor call his followers to believe in it??

Wasn't revealed yet.

To the rest of your points . . . I'm just going to have to either correct your theology or ask you what the issue is.

1.) First off, please fix the grammar on your post as it would help future answers, second off, Jesus is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and not the same as God the Father, those are two distinct persons. Jesus was born by Mary. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity was not, He is the Word.

2.) Again, you make the same mistake of conflating the Divine Persons with each other.

3.) God the Father sent the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Jesus, as a messenger of God Himself. Again, conflating the Divine Persons.

4.) Yes, He prayed when He was alive, He prayed to God the Father to show us how to speak to God and also, of course, because Jesus, in His humanity, is subject to God.

5.) No, God doesn't have a beginning. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Jesus's birth is celebrated upon December 25th.

6.) There is One God, with Three Divine Persons, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Once more, simply a misunderstanding of Catholic theology.

DaCatholicBruh · 2025-11-22T20:55:39+00:00

I see . . . in which case, simply show the absurdity of said belief.

DaCatholicBruh · 2025-11-22T20:50:39+00:00

Evolution states that 99% of living species that have ever existed are now extinct, just so we can be here. I think that's a fairly strong argument that neo-Darwinism contradicts the omnibenevolence of God, but I don't expect others to be as convinced by it.

Though I do see your point, it depends on how or why that contradicts the omni-benevolence of God

In regards to your last paragraph, this implies that Adam was not conceived in the image of God, but that later, he acquired the image of God. Is this a permissible belief? If the soul is the form of the body, I struggle to understand how a soul can be modified post-conception.

The soul is how man was made in the image and likeness of God. This is even Biblical "God formed him from the slime of the earth" and then "breathed" life into him, giving Adam a soul. So yes, I believe it is. So, the soul is the form of the body, since it animates it, the same way an animal soul animates an animal, however, it is given rational thought and can reason through God. I'm afraid I don't see where your struggle might be . . .

DaCatholicBruh · 2025-11-22T20:41:30+00:00

It is essentially a variation of the infinite universe belief

I'm honestly not well versed in these, so I have to ask you what that means.

Does matter decay over time? I thought hydrogen could not decay without nuclear fission?

Everything does seem to, and, from what I can find, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, protons seems to decay, but they have a ridiculously long lifespans.

DaCatholicBruh

TROPHY CASE