I received a strange comment a few days ago. It was of a man who was desperately angry at his own obsolescence as well as the existence of Absolute Truth and wanted to take it out on me. Only thing that is new is that this one decided to waste my time with it here.
The comment was this:
To answer: It is meant to be read, as it was written. There was no provision for a sneering bore to scream like a butthurt child over it. The post ended with the post, it was not incomplete and waiting for your fit in the attempt to salvage YOUR EGO THAT HAS NO RIGHT TO EXIST.
The Church is indefectible, indivisible, and eternal. The Church was created by God at Pentecost and the Church is headed by God. The Church is God, the angels, the Saints (Church Triumphant), those in Purgatory (Church Suffering), and those on earth (Church Militant), The Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and is without blemish. The Church is run by God, it is comprised of the Faithful, and facilitated on earth by those in Holy Orders; and what God has established, man cannot affect.
Mass is the highest form of worship and it is required to go on each Holy Day to renew your baptismal vows. The Church is not a nebulous idea that you can handwave away like a inhuman coward, it is a concrete thing, the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the New & Eternal Covenant, and the Perfection of Israel.
There is no need for God to take from the devil, and what you claim is pagan originated in the Church and was posthumously attributed to the pagans in a vain attempt to inflame your bigotry in the hopes it helps you forget the Church.
When I call you evil, it is out of truth. When you call the Church evil, it is out of deception.
But why does a reprobate like this get so confused by the Church? Chesterton stated it is because they were so offended by the Sacraments of the Church and so they assume that the Church is entirely the mere ritual that Catholics perform. It was stated as this:
They are not felt as being preached; and therefore they are not called propaganda. Yet they have in practice all the double character of propaganda; they involve certain views with which everyone does not agree; and they do in fact spread those views by means of fiction and popular literature. What they do not do is to state them clearly so that they can be criticised. I do not blame the writers for putting their philosophy into their stories. I should not blame them even if they used their stories to spread their philosophy. But they do blame us; and the real reason is that they have not yet realised that we have a philosophy at all.
The truth is, I think, that they are caught in a sort of argument in a circle. Their vague philosophy says to them: “All religion is dead; Roman Catholicism is a religious sect which must be particularly dead, since it consists of mere external acts and attitudes, crossings, genuflections and the rest; which these sectarians suppose they have to perform in a particular place at a particular time.” Then some Catholic will write a romance or a tragedy about the love of a man and woman, or the rivalry of two men, or any other general human affair; and they will be astonished to find that he cannot preach these things in an “unsectarian” way. They say, “Why does he drag in his religion?” They mean, “Why does he drag in his religion, which consists entirely of crossings, genuflections and external acts belonging to a particular place and time, when he is talking about the wide world and the beauty of woman and the anger and ambition of man?” In other words, they say, “When we have assumed that his creed is a small and dead thing, how dare he apply it as a universal and living thing? It has no right to be so broad, when we all know it is so narrow.”
Of course, the Church is Universal. That is what Catholic means: according to the whole.