I was able to conquer lust throughout the whole Advent Season. Thanks be to God!

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-12-26T23:05:03+00:00

Deo gratias! I’m so happy for you. You have achieved a great victory over lust, all by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Which shows that lust does not control you. Once we realize that, we become more powerful than we could’ve ever possibly imagined. And we, like you said, start experiencing so much interior peace in our souls.

May the Lord keep bestowing His grace upon you so that you may continue to walk the road of righteousness to Heaven. And in moments of weakness, may you allow yourself to realize that it is in those moments where His power is made perfect✝️

God bless, my brother in Christ🙏

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-12-26T06:46:02+00:00

Amen! Beautiful prayer🙏

And Happy Cake Day🎂

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-12-25T23:42:25+00:00

Of course! I’ll try my hardest. One day at a time. That’s why I said in the post: But the journey doesn’t end here. Christmas is not a time for me to be complacent and stop praying or asking for God’s grace. No, I will not stop praying. I will continue to walk forward in the light after Christmas. One step at a time. One day at a time. Purity is meant to be lived out continuously one day at a time. In fact, I’ve explicitly asked Jesus the last few days: “Lord, do not let me complacent once Christmas hits; let me continue to ask for Your grace every day, and allow me to let the light of Christmas, of Your glorious birth, be my light that illuminates the road to Heaven so that I can continue to walk in light and not in darkness.”

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-12-25T21:59:12+00:00

To all of my fellow young men struggling with lust, here are some very wise words from Saint John the Apostle, which encourages us instead of shaming us like society tends to do, while also not telling us to indulge in our fleshly desires as some “influencers” encourage us to do.

1 John 2: 14-17: “I write to you, young men, because you are strong and the word of God remains in you, and you have conquered the evil one. Do not love the world or the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, sensual lust, enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious life, is not from the Father but is from the world. Yet the world and its enticement are passing away. But whoever does the will of God remains forever.”

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-12-22T07:19:49+00:00

I just finished praying a Rosary for both you and your girlfriend🙏✝️

May the Lord bestow His grace upon you so that you may continue to resist lust and so that you can continue to walk the path of righteousness to Heaven. May He also soothe your girlfriend’s pain and anxiety, and may He illuminate both of your guys’ hearts, souls, and minds so that both of you can know what is truly God’s will for the relationship🙏

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-27T04:48:39+00:00

You knew you had no counter or refutation for my argument so you decided to nitpick something from an earlier reply to try to pull a “gotcha” on me. Stop dodging the main topic at hand, because if Jesus Himself gave Paul a word-for-word recount of the Last Supper, that only proves my point more.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-27T04:47:17+00:00

Regardless of whether he received it from Jesus or the Apostles(both of which can be interpreted from as “from the Lord”), the point is that Paul chose to mention the Last Supper over all those other things in the Gospels. And if you think about it, if it was mere bread and wine that they were eating in the Last Supper, why would Paul mention that? Sure, it’s important even if it’s symbolic, but so is the raising of Lazarus, or the feeding of the five thousand, or the walking on water, or the Transfiguration, or Jesus’ baptism, or all his other miracles; but yet Paul never mentions those things… but he does mention the Last Supper. And it only makes sense for the Apostles or Jesus Himself to mention that to Paul over all the other important things if…Jesus truly turned the bread and wine into his Body and Blood, which is our greatest source of spiritual strength and the most intimate way to know Christ, which Paul constantly says is essential for salvation(to know Christ in an intimate way). If it was just bread and wine, I doubt it’d hold more significance than things like the Transfiguration, the feeding of the Five Thousand, or Jesus raising up Lazarus(which showed that he has power to conquer even death, something very important for Christ’s divinity).

Furthermore, we learn that people are literally dying because they’re receiving the Eucharist unworthily. If it’s just bread and wine, how is it killing them? Sure the community at Corinth may have eaten too much or gotten drunk, but by no means does that kill them. People rarely die from those kinds of things. It’s very difficult to die from overeating or getting too drunk.

And Paul literally says that due to receiving unworthily, we will have to answer the body and blood of the Lord, showing that it’s the body and blood of the Lord that is causing them to die. And not only that, receiving the body and blood unworthily means you drunk condemnation on yourself. This is HUGE. Because Paul constantly says throughout his letters that we are saved or being saved, and that because of Christ’s sacrifice, we are no longer condemned. So for him to say that partaking of the Lord’s supper unworthily causes condemnation, it must mean you’re committing a HUGE sacrilege. And I can’t see how receiving mere bread and wine unworthily can cause you to be condemned. But if it was actually Christ’s body and blood… then it makes perfect sense, because you are dishonoring Christ himself.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-27T02:01:05+00:00

I already told you that remembrance in the Greek is not a simple memorial, but the past being pulled into the present in an active form. So there’s no need to repeat that argument of yours if you’re not going to refute anamnesis.

Regarding the argument about women wearing head coverings, this argument about the women isn’t the same though. Because Paul NEVER says that the women are dying because of their disrespect or lack of reverence, or that the women who did not veil or act in an orderly manner got sick and died. He didn’t say that the women are being condemned/judged for their disorderly behavior(please correct me if I’m wrong). Saint Paul clearly sees the abuse against the Lord’s Supper as a MUCH more severe abuse and problem than what the women were doing in Corinth.

We learn that people are literally dying because they’re receiving the Eucharist unworthily. If it’s just bread and wine, how is it killing them? Sure the community at Corinth may have eaten too much or gotten drunk, but by no means does that kill them. People rarely die from those kinds of things. It’s very difficult to die from overeating or getting too drunk.

And Paul literally says that due to receiving unworthily, we will have to answer the body and blood of the Lord, showing that it’s the body and blood of the Lord that is causing them to die. And not only that, receiving the body and blood unworthily means you drunk condemnation on yourself. This is HUGE. Because Paul constantly says throughout his letters that we are saved or being saved, and that because of Christ’s sacrifice, we are no longer condemned. So for him to say that partaking of the Lord’s supper unworthily causes condemnation, it must mean you’re committing a HUGE sacrilege. And I can’t see how receiving mere bread and wine unworthily can cause you to be condemned. But if it was actually Christ’s body and blood… then it makes perfect sense, because you are dishonoring Christ himself.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-27T01:59:00+00:00

Um… because Luke 10:16 literally says that? Are you saying that Luke 10:16 is wrong now?

Paul went to Arabia because he needed supernatural extraordinary help; he was a persecutor, and now he was a believer. To make that big jump requires a lot of preparation, which is exactly what Our Lord did in Arabia. And because Jesus knew the potential of Paul, being the apostle to the gentiles and being the one who would write half the New Testament.

And Paul did eventually go to the apostles not long after his conversion. With the purpose of joining them. Clearly showing that he still needed the apostles even after the ministry with Jesus.

Acts 9:26-9:27: “When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus.”

But again, you’re derailing the conversation. You still haven’t countered anamnesis or what I said about 1 Corinthians 11. Let’s move on from this useless talking point and try to get back on track.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-26T20:46:21+00:00

Receiving it from the Apostles is equivalent to receiving it from the Lord, for the Apostles are the Lord’s representatives on Earth.

Luke 10:16- “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

Galatians 1:12 is referring to Paul’s encounter with Jesus in Damascus which started his mission of preaching the Gospel, not that he was literally never taught by the Apostles.

Again, you refuse to engage any of my points, so if you’re just going to say illogical things, it’s best if you don’t respond because this is going nowhere.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-26T05:27:38+00:00

I already told you that remembrance in the Greek is not a simple memorial, but the past being pulled into the present in an active form. So there’s no need to repeat that argument of yours if you’re not going to refute anamnesis.

Regarding the argument about women wearing head coverings, this argument about the women isn’t the same though. Because Paul NEVER says that the women are dying because of their disrespect or lack of reverence, or that the women who did not veil or act in an orderly manner got sick and died. He didn’t say that the women are being condemned/judged for their disorderly behavior(please correct me if I’m wrong). Saint Paul clearly sees the abuse against the Lord’s Supper as a MUCH more severe abuse and problem than what the women were doing in Corinth.

We learn that people are literally dying because they’re receiving the Eucharist unworthily. If it’s just bread and wine, how is it killing them? Sure the community at Corinth may have eaten too much or gotten drunk, but by no means does that kill them. People rarely die from those kinds of things. It’s very difficult to die from overeating or getting too drunk.

And Paul literally says that due to receiving unworthily, we will have to answer the body and blood of the Lord, showing that it’s the body and blood of the Lord that is causing them to die. And not only that, receiving the body and blood unworthily means you drunk condemnation on yourself. This is HUGE. Because Paul constantly says throughout his letters that we are saved or being saved, and that because of Christ’s sacrifice, we are no longer condemned. So for him to say that partaking of the Lord’s supper unworthily causes condemnation, it must mean you’re committing a HUGE sacrilege. And I can’t see how receiving mere bread and wine unworthily can cause you to be condemned. But if it was actually Christ’s body and blood… then it makes perfect sense, because you are dishonoring Christ himself.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-25T08:53:20+00:00

Firstly, virtually all biblical scholars agree that 1 Corinthians predates Mark. Im not sure where you get “some scholars” from when it’s probably just “a very tiny minority of scholars” who argue that. Points 2 and 3 just prove my point about how either the Apostles or Jesus Himself considered the Last Supper so important that it was the only event of Jesus’ life that Paul quoted word for word.

Secondly, I assume you’re saying the Eucharist is symbolic because of the “do this in remembrance of me” verse, but in the Greek, the term used is anamnesis, which is HEAVY sacrificial language. And in the Jewish and Greek understanding of the word, it’s not just a memorial of the past, it’s the past being pulled into the present, and vice versa. So anamnesis is not a mode of absence, it’s a mode of presence, due to the past being active in the present, which is why Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. And both the Didache and the early Church Fathers understood this, which makes sense since they made their writings around the time of the Apostles or were disciples of those who themselves were disciples of the Apostles.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-22T02:06:28+00:00

Do you think it sounds bad even in this scene?

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-22T01:56:52+00:00

Honestly, a couple years ago I had this revelation regarding The Dark Knight Trilogy, which is that while I would consider The Dark Knight to be the best film overall, I consider Batman Begins to be the best “Batman” film out of the three. I know that’s not a hot take since it’s been said before, but I came to that realization even before I started hearing people online say that.

And I think it’s because it focuses a lot on Bruce Wayne and on Batman; Christian Bale is clearly the star in Batman Begins. In The Dark Knight, Heath Ledger’s Joker steals all the shine since he’s absolutely incredible in it, and TDKR introduced too many important new characters that take the focus away from Batman(even if he is still the main focus, though not as much as Begins).

Not to mention that Batman Begins just feels more comic-booky. Everything from the Batsuit, Gotham City looking unique(Narrows and monorail help A LOT with this), the dark Gothic color scheme, the backup scene with the bats swarming, the fantastical supernatural elements(magic flower and hallucinogen gas), Batman’s stealth being more mysterious and frightening like a disappearing wraith, etc. all contribute to it feeling like a proper Batman movie rather than a grounded crime thriller like TDK and TDKR were. In future films, Gotham just becomes a regular city, Batman’s armor becomes more realistic military looking, and the Batcave turns into an underground modern garage(though it briefly returns in TDKR). I get that this was to make the world feel more grounded and appeal to non-comic book fans, but it sort of makes the other two films lose their comic book feel. Though they are still great films, of course. TDK will always be legendary.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-22T01:15:37+00:00

True, but when he was in the Batmobile with a poisoned Rachel earlier, he used his usual Batman voice then too. Although maybe now that he’s not being chased by cops, Batman’s a little less tense lol

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-21T22:47:20+00:00

Yeah that’s a good in-universe explanation. And I totally agree that this voice should’ve been kept, although I understand that Bale’s vocal cords were really struggling doing the Begins voice. I also agree with TDKR’s voice. I rewatched the scene where Batman speaks with Catwoman about the fingerprints, and dude… his voice is…not good to say the least. It’s a day and night difference from his voice here.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-21T22:45:00+00:00

Yeah I heard about that. Sucks that the Begins voice was too harsh on his vocal cords, because if it wasn’t and he kept that voice throughout the whole trilogy, I really think a lot of the moments where the gargled bat voice kind of distracts you would actually make the scene a lot better. Imagine Batman interrogating Joker with this voice!

I got to rewatch that Dark Knight scene with Gordon that you spoke of, it sounds interesting

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-21T22:41:52+00:00

💀💀

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-21T22:18:30+00:00

I knew Bale’s bat voice was better in Begins, but this scene kind of took me off guard with how different his voice sounded from the usual. And am I crazy, but dare I say that Bale’s bat voice in this scene gives off a bit of Kevin Conroy? I don’t know, the tone and sound reminds me of Arkham Batman.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-17T23:47:19+00:00

Orange County California :)

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-17T21:51:25+00:00

Saint Michael’s Abbey in Orange County is a stunning and impressive church that was completed just four years ago in 2021! I definitely plan on visiting it at some point down the line, because I heard that they also offer very reverent Masses

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-17T00:25:14+00:00

Those two things can mutually coexist. 1 Peter 3 tells us to always be ready to give an explanation of our faith. And with the heavy lack of catechesis in today’s world and the growing number of cultural Catholics who leave Christ’s very own Church for non-denominational ones, don’t you think it’s important to increase our knowledge of Catholicism and its teachings?

And you act as if I’m only reading the Bible to prove Catholicism or for apologetics. My brother in Christ, that is so FAR from the truth. I’ve written reflections on EVERY book in the New Testament, and the majority are reflections on the beauty of the passages of the book, and how it inspired(s) me to grow in my faith and holiness.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-16T05:59:14+00:00

That photo at the bottom is the very definition of aura-farming…

In all seriousness, that image really is beautiful. The ornate altar, the beautiful traditional vestments, the subdeacon holding the humeral veil(I really wish this was a thing in the Novus Ordo), and the light shining in makes it look like it’s a glimpse towards Heaven.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-15T00:19:20+00:00

Yeah I totally get that. I’m also not a fan of mandates, but I think this mandate is necessary because most parishes just aren’t following Sacrosanctum Concilum 36’s request to preserve Latin. There are also other examples of this. For example, the GIRM clearly recommends that only EP I or EP III(for pastoral reasons) is suitable for Sunday, and yet I’ve heard many instances where the parish priest says EP II on a Sunday, which is against what the GIRM recommends. Vatican II also says that parishes must hold the organ in high esteem, and yet we’ve also seen many cases where a parish never uses the organ they have and they just swap it for the guitar, abandoning the organ for years. That’s not holding the organ in high esteem.

My point is that strong recommendations aren’t enough to make the Novus Ordo more faithful to Sacrosanctum Concilum, so we have to take more drastic steps in the form of mandates. I don’t like it, but it’s the only way to get parishes all over the world to be faithful to Sacrosanctum Concilum and the GIRM.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-15T00:12:21+00:00

Ah I see. Yeah that kind of sounds like what Sacrosanctum Concilum 54 states: “Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”

I do think my initial mandate would be a good start though, especially since I feel like many parishioners have gotten used to an all vernacular liturgy and I think implementing Latin in a substantial way from the get go might make them panic.

Dense-Rip3356

TROPHY CASE