So says Goofy

Not all you say is nonsense, but you're clearly a person of extremes. Learn to discern and tread carefully when it concerns people's personal reputations.

Aren’t you here defending the conciliar church and saying non Catholics can be saved in other posts?

Thanks for finally answering my question. So, in essence, you are a Candace Owens fan, repeating everything she says as if it is the gospel truth. She is a Trump MAGA Creature influencer first and foremost. 

This idolization of Owens would explain why you regurgitate every talking point she says. So, in my defense, Candace is a "pro (meaning she is being paid to play this role)" and because you regurgitate her every word, maybe you can understand why I said what I said about you. You sound just like her.

Having said that, I apologize that I said you were being paid to say what you said. You apparently didn't say those things because you were being paid, but simply because you are a sycophant of someone who is paid.

Now, let's go to the heart of the matter. The fact is that you are claiming things about Charlie Kirk that the objective evidence does not support.

1. You claimed that he was converting to the Catholic faith. There is no objective evidence of that.
2. You claimed that he was no longer a tool of the zionists. There is objective evidence contrary to that in the final Charlie Kirk podcast that I posted.

I have been primarily focused on those facts. I have presented my evidence of those facts in the external forum. I said that your repetitive claims of points 1 and 2 (above), even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, was itself evidence of either "intentional deception" or "blabber-mouth" lying.

Why did I say that? Because you refused to address the specific points of evidence undermining your repetitious talking points. You continue to this moment to refuse to address the specific evidence presented. If you want me to think you are acting in good faith, then logically address the objective evidence and stop repetitiously emoting about "lovely families" and nonsense like that.

You have now admitted that you don't have any direct personal knowledge of private life of Candace Owens. You don't know if she and her husband "mix with nice people." You lied when you said that, didn't you? Similarly, you have made a number of unsupportable statements about Kirk and his wife. About Kirk you are at the very least exaggerating about his conversion. Exaggeration in serious matters is a form of lying. I suggest you consult a handbook of Moral Theology if you are not sure about that.

I'll try, if you stop conflating the issues. I repeat, my statement about Candace having a good marriage and mixing with nice people was in response to both her marriage and her personal character being attacked. Ok. This means it is a separate issue to which you have yet again, called me a liar over. 

Let us clear this up. "Nice" is an adjective that means pleasant, agreeable, or satisfactory. It can also refer to someone who is kind, friendly, or polite. Ok. Candace has a pleasant and agreeable husband. Lovely man in fact. A traditional Catholic so I'm told. Her group of friends include the Kirks, Tucker Carlson, and Brett Cooper and her husband (very NICE lass).  So, how am I lying? These are nice pleasant, pro-life people who promote Christian values.

Now for the meat of your post:
(1) I claimed that there are solid markers - indications (my precise word) - that Charlie Kirk was converting to the Catholic Faith. The objective evidence is as follows: his friends say he was converting. He began attending regular Mass with his wife and children. His friends tell us he began saying the rosary daily. He made a recent video encouraging protestants to venerate Our Lady more. These actions are the very definition of converting; a changing of belief.

(2) It is an established fact that Charlie Kirk began publicly questioning the Israe-li narrative. I watched a podcast between himself and Ben Shipero where Kirk openly suggested that they should challenge the Israe-li narrative as they challenged the Covid narrative. A few weeks before his assassination, he attended a meeting with Bill Ackman where Candace Owens says Kirk said he felt he was being blackmailed. In a an exchange with Megyn Kelly, Kirk complained about his pay rollers turning on him because he had begun questioning the Israe-li narrative.  Candace Owens also states that Kirk refused Benjamin Netan yahu's money and invitation to return to Israel. Again. these are good indications that he was wakening up to the real enemy.

No. I am here defending the Catholic Church and stating that it was possible that Kirk had actually spiritually converted to the Catholic faith before his assassination.

You keep framing media personalities as if everything they say is truth, while ignoring what isn’t proven or is highly questionable. For example, it is not a fact that Charlie Kirk started questioning Israel, his appearance with Ben Shapiro followed approved talking points. You bombard posts with claims but skip over the parts that lack verification.

Totally different video. This is the one "making the rounds."

I'll try, if you stop conflating the issues. I repeat, my statement about Candace having a good marriage and mixing with nice people was in response to both her marriage and her personal character being attacked. Ok. This means it is a separate issue to which you have yet again, called me a liar over.

Let us clear this up. "Nice" is an adjective that means pleasant, agreeable, or satisfactory. It can also refer to someone who is kind, friendly, or polite. Ok. Candace has a pleasant and agreeable husband. Lovely man in fact. A traditional Catholic so I'm told. Her group of friends include the Kirks, Tucker Carlson, and Brett Cooper and her husband (very NICE lass).  So, how am I lying? These are nice pleasant, pro-life people who promote Christian values.

Now for the meat of your post:
(1) I claimed that there are solid markers - indications (my precise word) - that Charlie Kirk was converting to the Catholic Faith. The objective evidence is as follows: his friends say he was converting. He began attending regular Mass with his wife and children. His friends tell us he began saying the rosary daily. He made a recent video encouraging protestants to venerate Our Lady more. These actions are the very definition of converting; a changing of belief.

(2) It is an established fact that Charlie Kirk began publicly questioning the Israe-li narrative. I watched a podcast between himself and Ben Shipero where Kirk openly suggested that they should challenge the Israe-li narrative as they challenged the Covid narrative. A few weeks before his assassination, he attended a meeting with Bill Ackman where Candace Owens says Kirk said he felt he was being blackmailed. In a an exchange with Megyn Kelly, Kirk complained about his pay rollers turning on him because he had begun questioning the Israe-li narrative.  Candace Owens also states that Kirk refused Benjamin Netan yahu's money and invitation to return to Israel. Again. these are good indications that he was wakening up to the real enemy.

This is the problem. You have no evidence other than hearsay, from media outlets and paid personalities, for believing you know the interior motivations, the "hearts" of these people. All of the people you mentioned manage their public image very carefully. Their career and lifestyle depends on that. You are naive if you think that the image these people portray on camera or whatever is the "real thing." How do I know this? Look for contradictions.

Let's start with Candace, the "Latin Mass, traditional Catholic convert." You don't know that she has a "good marriage." How could you know this? Why do you make these statements as if you know they are factual. You don't know these people. Maybe she has a good marriage, maybe she doesn't. You simply don't know. And you don't need to bring it up.

Oh, and the "nice people" Candace associates with include Donald Trump and friends. She and her husband were married, not in a Catholic Church, but at the Trump Winery, of all places. But according to your standards, Trump must be a "nice" person too. And I'm guessing you think he's in a "good marriage" too. And he's married to a good Catholic, Melania, right? If you think this, you are not thinking with the Church. Not to mention that he is a Zionist, Melania is his third wife, and that he loves that his daughter converted to Judaism. Trump is a big believer in IVF and not truly pro-life.

So, Candace rises to stardom on whose coattails? Donald Trump's. Her "best friend," Charlie Kirk, rises to stardom in the same way. Candace's husband, the scion of a British baron and billionaire, was also cut from the same cloth as the leader of TurningPointUK. So Trump and billionaires and Jews are the "nice people" that they mix with. Don't fool yourself or try to fool us.

What I have stated above are facts.

Now let's talk about Kirk.

1. You give as "objective evidence" of his conversion that "his friends say that he was converting." That is not "objective evidence." That is "subjective evidence" of third parties. You unreasonably trust the opinions of those third parties. Those people cannot know Charlie Kirk's heart anyway. Attendance at the Novus Ordo does not prove he was converting. Friends telling you he said the rosary daily is subjective. The video that he made about Mary was standard Protestant theology with an anti-feminist political motive. It certainly does not indicate conversion. By using the term "over-correction," he implies that the Catholic teaching about Mary needs some correction. This makes sense because, objectively, he never renounced his evangelical heresies.

2. There is some evidence that in the last few months Kirk has been at odds with the Zionists. However, in his last podcast, he let Zionist Ben Shapiro tell his audience what to think about the Zionist agenda. Kirk did not substantially disagree with anything Shapiro said. In fact, he indicated that it was laughable to think that the media was controlled by Jews. So his "questioning" did not rise to a public challenging of his Zionist masters. Kirk was their creation and he knew it. Your subjective opinion that he was waking up might be correct, but allowing his audience to be bamboozled by Shapiro the day before the shooting does not objectively indicate that he was changing his position in a significant way. More likely, he was feeling pressure from conservative Americans and he wanted Shapiro to provide cover for him. But again, objectively speaking, he was a supporter of Trump and MAGA until the shooting. That, in and of itself, should tell you enough about his convictions.

This is the problem. You have no evidence other than hearsay, from media outlets and paid personalities, for believing you know the interior motivations, the "hearts" of these people. All of the people you mentioned manage their public image very carefully. Their career and lifestyle depends on that. You are naive if you think that the image these people portray on camera or whatever is the "real thing." How do I know this? Look for contradictions.

Let's start with Candace, the "Latin Mass, traditional Catholic convert." You don't know that she has a "good marriage." How could you know this? Why do you make these statements as if you know they are factual. You don't know these people. Maybe she has a good marriage, maybe she doesn't. You simply don't know. And you don't need to bring it up.

Oh, and the "nice people" Candace associates with include Donald Trump and friends. She and her husband were married, not in a Catholic Church, but at the Trump Winery, of all places. But according to your standards, Trump must be a "nice" person too. And I'm guessing you think he's in a "good marriage" too. And he's married to a good Catholic, Melania, right? If you think this, you are not thinking with the Church. Not to mention that he is a Zionist, Melania is his third wife, and that he loves that his daughter converted to Judaism. Trump is a big believer in IVF and not truly pro-life.

So, Candace rises to stardom on whose coattails? Donald Trump's. Her "best friend," Charlie Kirk, rises to stardom in the same way. Candace's husband, the scion of a British baron and billionaire, was also cut from the same cloth as the leader of TurningPointUK. So Trump and billionaires and Jews are the "nice people" that they mix with. Don't fool yourself or try to fool us.

What I have stated above are facts.

Now let's talk about Kirk.

1. You give as "objective evidence" of his conversion that "his friends say that he was converting." That is not "objective evidence." That is "subjective evidence" of third parties. You unreasonably trust the opinions of those third parties. Those people cannot know Charlie Kirk's heart anyway. Attendance at the Novus Ordo does not prove he was converting. Friends telling you he said the rosary daily is subjective. The video that he made about Mary was standard Protestant theology with an anti-feminist political motive. It certainly does not indicate conversion. By using the term "over-correction," he implies that the Catholic teaching about Mary needs some correction. This makes sense because, objectively, he never renounced his evangelical heresies.

2. There is some evidence that in the last few months Kirk has been at odds with the Zionists. However, in his last podcast, he let Zionist Ben Shapiro tell his audience what to think about the Zionist agenda. Kirk did not substantially disagree with anything Shapiro said. In fact, he indicated that it was laughable to think that the media was controlled by Jews. So his "questioning" did not rise to a public challenging of his Zionist masters. Kirk was their creation and he knew it. Your subjective opinion that he was waking up might be correct, but allowing his audience to be bamboozled by Shapiro the day before the shooting does not objectively indicate that he was changing his position in a significant way. More likely, he was feeling pressure from conservative Americans and he wanted Shapiro to provide cover for him. But again, objectively speaking, he was a supporter of Trump and MAGA until the shooting. That, in and of itself, should tell you enough about his convictions.

Angelus, if you are going to debate, please debate sensibly. I have twice now stated why I brought up Candace Owen's marriage. It was to make a very valid point. Obviously we can only judge by the exterior but thus far, the exterior tells us they are happily married. So why say different without evidence? That's just plain nasty. THIS IS MY POINT.

I must also call you out on your statement "She and her husband were married, not in a Catholic Church, but at the Trump Winery, of all places."  Candace Owens was a protestant at this point. And was working with Trump. It makes sense that he would offer her a nice big place with its own private chapel to get married in. Again, there is nothing sinister in that. You must keep things in context. Candace and her husband George have grown in their faith since that time. Much has changed. You must allow for human growth and wisdom. It doesn't come at once. It's a process.

Trump cannot be classed as 'nice' nor a friend. He is a divorced man who sought a younger woman. And yes, both he and his third woman are pro-abortion. Not nice. Neither does Candace hang out with him as a friend. Politically they were all working together for what they saw as a greater good for America. It's the same with the pro-life movement. You get all sorts, with all sorts of beliefs who have come together to fight for a common cause. It was via this common cause that Candace and Charlie Kirk became known influencers. Nothing sinister in that.

Interestingly, we do see - exterior evidence - a spiritual growth in both Candace and Kirk during this time. An awakening I call it. Candace converted to the Catholic faith and Kirk began leaning into Catholic ideology. This occurred at roughly the same time they began feeling the Joo-ish pressure. This is was followed by a pull back from their puppet masters. What this paints is two well intentioned, idealistic Americans who began to be awake to who and what they were actually supporting. This strongly indicates they were good honest people. These are the known facts. Anything else is groundless imagination. Kirk was a believer in the MAGA concept. There is absolutely nothing wrong in that.

I am not ultimately interested in the personal lives of Candace or Kirk. You brought that false "evidence" into the conversation about Catholic dogma. The only reason I engaged in that was to contradict your lies with the truth.

The problem is that people like you, who claim to be Catholic, are saying that a person (Kirk) who is objectively, demonstrably, publicly NOT CATHOLIC is LIKELY to be saved. This files in the face of the dogma of EENS. You, and other "Catholics," are witnesses to a falsehood through your words and deeds.

You think it is charitable to claim that Kirk might be saved, grasping at ridiculous straws one after the other. But Charity is always charity to GOD FIRST. Charity to God is defined in the Gospel of John as "keeping His Commandments." His Commandments and all other doctrinal teachings are safeguarded by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (a different entity from the conciliar/synodal church). You must keep those things first.

By speaking out that manifestly non-Catholics might be saved contradicts the Church, numerous Saints who have said the opposite, and leads Catholics and non-Catholics to believe that conversion to the true Faith is not necessary to attain heaven. So it is not only uncharitable to God to refuse to follow his Church. It is uncharitable to countless souls who you confuse with your "hopes" and "prayers." Instead, you should double down and use Kirk as an example of why more people need to convert to the true Catholic Faith (not the counterfeit Church).

It is your job to tell Catholics and non-Catholics the hard truth that outside the one true Church there is no salvation. Stop catering to human respect and virtue signaling. Be a witness to the Truth backed by the infallible teaching of the Church. You have neither the intellect nor the authority to question or wiggle around an infallible dogma of the Church. You are creating true scandal when you do so. You create a stumbling block to the conversion of non-Catholics. You are professing heresy, and you have been warned about this numerous times. Repent and go to Confession.

You summed this up perfectly!