Is it me or are we overthinking this topic. Simply put The Church is that which was founded by Christ himself…this is where the truth lies. All of these other so-called Christian sects are MAN MADE and lack the supernatural spark infused/imparted by our Lord. Thus I don’t really see the need to bend over backwards to accommodate them…rather to have a dialogue to bring them back into the fold. They might be “our brothers “ but they are misguided and should be treated as such…meaning with charity to bring them home. Pax
If Jesus actually founded the Roman Catholic Church, then please explain to me why it took more than a millennium for perhaps the two most important sacraments for the laity — Eucharist and confession — to be dogmatized? Transubstantiation was not dogmatized until the 11th century, and auricular confession was not dogmatized until the 12th century.
Please don’t give me this garbage about doctrine “developing.” The Holy Spirit does not need 1000 years to inspire doctrine. Jesus certainly did not need 1000 years to fundamentally establish his credibility once and for all. It only took him three days.
Besides, if Protestants and Eastern Orthodox embrace Christ as the divine Messiah, do you think his heavenly father would consider them second class citizens the way Catholics seem to?
Thank you for this direct and serious question. From a Catholic perspective, your concerns are not new—they have been addressed through centuries of theological reflection, Church councils, and ongoing dialogue with other Christian traditions. Let’s walk through each part of your question in the light of Catholic teaching.
________________________________________
1. Why did it take so long to formally define the Eucharist and Confession?
The Catholic View: The Truth Was Always There — But Clarified When Needed
Catholicism teaches that Jesus instituted both the Eucharist and Confession directly, and that the Church has always taught and practiced them, even before they were dogmatically defined.
“The Church’s understanding of divine revelation deepens over time, but the content of that revelation does not change.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 94)
So, when the Church "dogmatizes" something, it is not inventing it or waiting to "finally understand it." Rather, the Church is clarifying and protecting a belief that has always existed, usually in response to heresy or widespread confusion.
Eucharist (Transubstantiation)
• Instituted by Christ at the Last Supper: “This is my body... This is my blood.” (Luke 22:19–20)
• Taught by the early Church: See St. Ignatius of Antioch (1st–2nd century), St. Justin Martyr (2nd century), and others who affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
• Dogmatized at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and further clarified at Trent (1551) because of growing heresies (e.g., Berengarius, Wycliffe).
Confession (Sacrament of Reconciliation)
• Instituted by Christ in John 20:21–23: “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them…”
• Practiced in the early Church—though it often involved public confession and penance, later evolving into private confession (auricular).
• Dogmatized at Lateran IV (1215) because the Church sought to standardize the practice and ensure access for all the faithful.
Why didn’t Jesus spell it all out in a catechism?
Because Christ didn’t leave a book—He left a Church (Matt 16:18) with the Holy Spirit to guide it (John 14:26). Catholicism teaches that:
“All truth is safeguarded in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the Magisterium.”
(CCC 97)
Jesus entrusted the apostles with authority (Luke 10:16), and promised the Spirit would lead them into all truth (John 16:13). That doesn’t mean “all truth defined immediately,” but that the Church would remain faithful as history required it to make truths explicit.
So it’s not that the Holy Spirit “needs 1000 years,” but that the Spirit works with and through human history, protecting the deposit of faith until the time is right to define things more clearly.
________________________________________
2. Are Protestants and Orthodox considered “second class citizens”?
No, not in the eyes of the Catholic Church, and certainly not in the eyes of Christ.
Catholic Teaching on Other Christians (Post-Vatican II)
“Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” – Unitatis Redintegratio, Vatican II
• Protestants are considered “separated brethren”—they are brothers and sisters in Christ, though not in full communion with the Church. My perspective is that these sects are manmade and defacto flawed/and in error. Being charitable I want everyone to be Catholic.
• Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments and apostolic succession. The Catholic Church recognizes their Eucharist, priesthood, and confession as valid.
Salvation?
The Church teaches that God offers salvation to all, and that anyone who seeks God with a sincere heart may be saved—even if they do not belong to the visible Catholic Church (see Lumen Gentium, 16). That said, from my perspective, the task is made all the harder by not being one with the Church.
________________________________________
Final Thoughts from the Catholic Lens
• Dogmatic definitions are not the beginning of a belief, but the Church’s defense of truths already present.
• The Church trusts the guidance of the Holy Spirit in preserving and clarifying doctrine over time.
• All baptized believers who embrace Christ are brothers and sisters in Him—none are “second class.” The Church invites all into full communion, but never denies their dignity or the work of grace in their lives.
1. Regarding the Eucharist, Aquinas introduced transubstantiation as a synthesis between Aristotelian philosophy and divine revelation. That analysis takes Jesus' words out of their historical, cultural and theological context (especially since Jesus was Jewish, not Greek). There's no way Jesus could have meant his words in terms of literal flesh and blood because had he done so, he would have been disobeying the Mosaic Law (and would have been encouraging his followers to do likewise). Consuming blood was perhaps *the* biggest religious taboo among the Jews. Had he violated the Mosaic law, Jesus would have forfeited his status as the only perfect sacrifice acceptable to a holy, righteous God to atone for human sin.
That's the reason for the disbelief among the crowd and even his disciples.
Besides, John consistently portrays Jesus as using natural metaphors to describe supernatural facts: being "born again" (which Nicodemus took literally), providing "living water" (which the Samaritan woman took literally), being both the "good shepherd" and the "sheepgate" (which his hearers could not understand). Given that framework, Jesus likely did not mean what Catholics claim he meant.
The key to understanding lies in John 7:37-39 because John gives an interpretation confirming how Jesus used physical metaphors to communicate supernatural truths. Now if he did that in John 7, why would he be any different in John 6?
The key to that whole passage is John 6:63: "My words are spirit and My words are life; the flesh profits nothing." He is saying that his words can't be interpreted in a conventional, natural manner. They're referring to supernatural facts.
So what did Jesus mean? Read John 14:23. He meant the *supernatural* residence of the triune God within the believer. St. Paul alludes to this when he talks about "Christ in you" being "the hope of glory" in Colossians. The whole idea of people being "in Christ" and of Christ being "in" believers points to a supernatural reality, not a physical one.
2. If you are correct, then why do Catholics view Protestants and Eastern Orthodox as apostates? I'm not talking about in formal theology but in popular understanding, especially among traditionalists. Why the demand to submit to Rome?
3. "Why didn’t Jesus spell it all out in a catechism?
"Because Christ didn’t leave a book—He left a Church (Matt 16:18) with the Holy Spirit to guide it (John 14:26). Catholicism teaches that:
'All truth is safeguarded in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the Magisterium.' ”
The NT was completed before 100 A.D., with most of it written before 70 A.D., the only exceptions being John's contributions (his gospel, three epistles and Revelation). During that time, the various texts circulated widely among believers with various degrees of education: soldiers, slaves, merchants, shopkeepers, farmers, shepherds, women, men, Jews, Gentiles, etc. Many (if not most) were illiterate, which is why most of the texts were read aloud. You might argue that a third-century council canonized and organized the texts but that doesn't account for the Holy Spirit's role in inspiring them in the first place, nor for the fact that the earliest Christians considered them inspired.
Besides, God Himself *did* leave a "book": the OT. Paul alludes to this when he told Timothy, "All Scripture is divinely inspired and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the servant of God may be equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Since the NT wasn't fully written when Paul wrote that statement, he *had* to have been referring to the OT. Moreover, and more importantly, all of the NT authors either quoted directly from the OT or alluded to it in their writings. They took great care to portray Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of OT prophecy. How could they do that if they had no OT to refer to?
The Magisterium's reliability, however, is suspect. JPII engaged in arbitrary, unilateral theological revisionism concerning capital punishment for murder. Francis drove his ideological truck through the hole JPII left when the former declared capital punishment to be "morally inadmissible," in direct contravention of centuries of teaching from both Scripture and Tradition. Read the following pieces I wrote:
If the Magisterium changes the catechism to conform to papal agendas, then it has no more credibility than Oceania's Ministry of Truth in Orwell's "1984."
Ya know ya try to be kind and you get back a flowery level one responses that demonstrates only a cursory understanding of the Faith. I neither have the time nor inclination to educate you but I do invite you to study Catholicism as the best method to obtain the Truth and the Beatific Vision.
As to point one, you've made a pretty basic error in your history. The idea behind transubstantiation is ancient, of course, but the phrase was first used in the 11th century, more than two hundred years before Aquinas was born. In 1215, Lateran IV declared that the elements of the Eucharist were "transubstantiated." Importantly, this is before the adoption of Aristotle by the schoolmen as well (Aquinas wasn't even born until around 1225, his master Albert was still only a youth as well).
The Lutheran Confessions confess the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, without trying to explain how…Jesus said it, we believe, teach and confess it. Always have, always will.
Catholics do not consider those of other religions as second class anything! Why would you say something so awful? Being in full communion with the Catholic Church has been such a blessing to me. Why wouldn't I want to share this good news? The Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, are the very life within me because of the presence Jesus. The timing of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not something that is debatable. Whatever your argument. Do as you will. But please do not disparage Catholics in general. What's the point of that?
My response is based on the interactions I've had with Catholics on both social media and in person over the years. I realize that not all Catholics think or behave alike. But the majority share certain tendencies. One is the tendency toward blind, unthinking deference to clerical authority. That's one reason why Francis was able to get away with what he got away with. Another is an arrogance about being Catholic, especially vis-a-vis non-Catholic Christians. I realize full well that non-Catholics (particularly Orthodox and conservative Protestants) hold the same arrogant attitude toward Catholics. But the point is that such an attitude toward fellow believers *regardless of who holds it or why* is a stench in the nostrils of a holy, righteous God. In some ways, Christianity hasn't developed much from the attitude the Corinthians displayed ("I belong to Apollos," "I belong to Cephas," etc.) and that Paul condemned.
God knows his own, and his own can be found in all churches. Some even don't go to church. That's not endorsing reflexive ecumenism. That's giving the blood of Jesus a far greater authority than group membership.
Christians who hold the attitude I described need to realize that if Jesus didn't die on a cross, rise three days later, ascend into the heavenlies and intercede for his own, all theology would be nothing but static and all liturgy would be nothing but kabuki.
Not to mention, the Sacraments! If the Pope or any Catholic fails to spread the truth of the one,catholic and apostolic church, they are withholding from their "brothers" the blessings and graces of the Sacraments and the Holy Eucharist.
Context determines everything. In John, Jesus is describing his ultimate being to people who didn't believe him. In Matthew, Jesus is encouraging those who follow Him to proclaim His truth. In John, Jesus described his essential being. In Matthew, He described the truth He was proclaiming.
The audiences are completely different, which determines the response.
In any event, that doesn't negate what I said about 1 Peter 2:4-8. Read the passage for yourself. Nowhere does Peter refer to himself in the terms Catholics believe Jesus referred to him. Moreover, Peter took great pains in saying Jesus was the "cornerstone," (aka, "rock," if you will) quoting prophecy from Isaiah to make the point.
Peter was not only an eyewitness to the conversation but an object of it. He would know far more about its meaning than people who lived two to three centuries afterward.
Besides, if you're going to say that the church was built on somebody not named Jesus, you could make a case for Paul. After all, he probably did more to spread the Gospel than anybody else in the immediate decades after the Ascension. We know Paul made four missionary trips in the Eastern Mediterranean. We have no knowledge about any missionary trips Peter might have made, except to Rome.
If you really want to be obtuse, you could say the church was built on Judas. How? Well, if Judas didn't betray Jesus to opponents who wanted Him dead, we never would have had the Resurrection, the Ascension or Pentecost. That's certainly not a case for rehabilitating Judas; as I said, the whole concept is obtuse.
Obviously, there's no question Peter led the church in its earliest days; the book of Acts proves that. But saying the church was built *on* him is quite a different thing. It's like saying the United States is built *on* George Washington rather than on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Washington and the other Founding Fathers merely executed the values and ideals those documents embodied. Similarly, Peter merely executed the values and teaching Jesus embodied. Without that teaching, Peter is nothing.
We should all yearn for a re-united Christendom. Regrettably, so much dogma has been wedged between us since the reformation. But restoring the full communion of all baptized trinitarian believers would be a massive step in the right direction.
You guys are really excited about this aren’t you? Don’t know why I’m getting such attitude. “Cherry picking” or “circling squares” are attacks based on the integrity of my character in a dialogue. I think maybe the better discussion would be how to civilize dialogue.
No, they're not attacks on your character. They're criticisms of your positions; your character isn't the issue. It never has been. Where did I attack your character?
To be honest, what you said seemed like rationalization to me. I did not use that term, however. If I wanted to, I would have.
I have a rule of thumb that I think everybody who would expresses an opinion should follow: once you express an opinion, regardless of who you are or what that opinion is, you automatically lose the privilege of having everybody agree with you once you express that opinion. Anybody who does not like those terms of engagement should not express an opinion publicly. It’s that simple.
If you think this is overkill on my part, please realize that I do not like being accused of something I did not do. If you reread my post, you will see that I was attempting to apply reason to your position. Believe me, if I wanted to issue a personal attack, I would have. I didn’t.
I think that is honest that you shared that judgment. But I think it’s better to ask questions rather than offering such statements. Albeit I do have training in rhetoric so it’s perhaps a hangup of mine. I was just adding another perspective for dialogue. My point was that we can see things in more than one way, which is a very normal theological approach for Catholics. For instance God alone is Good yet man was created very good. Fleshing that out requires nuance. Just an example…but Im not telling anyone that they ought to believe it just proposing it for the sake of clarity.
Actually, your attempt to square the circle, as it were, reinforces my point: In Peter‘s first epistle, he never refers to himself the way Catholics believe Jesus referred to him. To me, that’s what a simple reading of 1 Peter 2:4-8 indicates. Considering that Peter was a simple man unaccustomed to rhetorical subtlety, a simple reading seems to be the best bet. Besides, Augustine was not present at the conversation between Peter and Jesus.
So are you suggesting that if non-Catholics embrace the kind of duality (for lack of a better term) that you stated in your first post, that those non-Catholics will automatically become Catholic?
You quote ONE single Church Father?? Talk about cherry picking! Ummm, let’s just go through all of Church History and pick and choose what we want to hear with “itching ears.” Read your history , specifically the first thousand years. Ecumenical Councils employed no such supremacy to one, single bishop. FACTS!!
Ummm, that’s what the Orthodox have been saying all along. The first 9 centuries of Church history contradicts Papal Supremacy. Now we have an actual Pope seeming to admit as much.
Jesus says to Peter..."Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father, AND so I say to YOU, YOU are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates, etc. I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"
Pope Leo is really making us think. I think that the popes since John Paul II have been moving in the direction of a less monarchical papacy. Archbishop Kendrick may yet win the day.
I’m sure some do. The Church won’t become that. That will be an obstacle to a reunion with some churches, well, gay weddings would make reconciliation impossible. Other things that I have thought of that will make reunion impossible are the Real Presence, the ordained priesthood, and even the office of bishop, for those who have a presbyteral order or who have no order at all. The other churches have a lot to accept, we don’t —except for feminism and gay weddings, which we won’t.
If you seriously believe the Catholic Church will never allow gay weddings, you have no idea about the consequences of Fiducia Supplicans. Nor do you understand the fact that Francis tried to normalize homosexuality in the church, and Leo is following suit. Don’t believe that? Read the following piece I wrote:
The Prots have a new schism every day though. Presbyterians already promote gay marriage, Baptists now have female pastors, Episcopalians have lesbian bishops. Seems like Orthodoxy is the only other denomination that meets the standard of Christianity. The Prots are all just different flavors of heresy now.
That’s true. They’re a mess. I think that they’ll have to jump out of their boats and get on board the barque of Peter. Even a less centralized Church may be impossible for the flat out heretics. Pope Leo seems determined to make offers to them, but he, too, is bound in obedience to Tradition and The Magesterium.
Talk is cheap, of course. I think it's standard-issue Vatican II banners-and-balloons. Rome as become so "social gospel"-obsessed in its post-Vatican II form with "relevancy," and the demolition of liturgy and any sense of the mystical in favor of "establishing the Kingdom here and now" that it resembles more a massive social welfare organization staffed by people with important Sunday jobs now. The pathetic bishops' conferences, with endless position papers, debates, gatherings, discussions, and debates--plus the dithering and dickering over what seat complete goofballs and heretics should have at the table (none whatsoever--like Fr. James Martin and similar reprobates), give me the impression that these "overtures" are directed more toward Protestants than Orthodox--traditionalism in the Church was trampled on by Bergoglio, and I don't see Pope White Sox Fan doing anything to rectify the situation. HIs whole placing Christ on an equivalency level with Buddha was pretty bad for one thing, and frankly, there are so many idiotic trad zombies in the Church that have bought the Roman line of Papal Supremacy without doing the historical research and employing some common sense and personal initiative to decide the matter for themselves, relying instead on blind faith, based in fear and ignorance, rather than the actual East vs. West situation as things evolved, went down, and played out over time--that they parrot the old-school line that the Orthodox are "heretics" while not having the foggiest idea of what the hell they're talking about. I'm talking of course about Kennedy Hall, Taylor Marshall, and similar pseudo-intellectual riffraff.
"Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church”)." Could Jesus have put it this way... Peter, you're the smartest of the bunch. I designate you to figure out how to organize and heard these cats, 'cause if you don't they'll mess up my message for sure. Just use the Bible as a blueprint, and don't let the intellectual turkeys get you down.
Yet more political posturing on behalf of globalism to transform the Catholic Church into just another sect of the upcoming One World Religion.
The real agenda is transparently obvious. All calls for “unity” are actually calls to water down the Faith, turn a blind eye in the name of “tolerance” to things that the Catholic Church has taught are sinful & abhorrent and to undermine the fundamental moral and ethical sensibilities held by traditional Catholics.
Francis ➡️ Leo. New boss, same as the old boss. We are NOT DECEIVED by the Lavender Mafia’s sinister machinations ‼️😡🤬
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Churches are not part of “One World Religion” except insofar as Christianity is the one true religion applicable to the whole world.
Where is the love, brother? You need to check your inner compass. It’s all just interpretations… human interpretations of thing we can not know. Everyone’s just trying to be better humans.
What’s got yer goat about promoting love and unity?
Maybe because it's superficial. Life isn't a little house on the prairie set my friend, I wish it was, but it isn't. Humans are very flawed creatures, if we think we can build heaven on earth we think ourselves Gods. We can remain humble and recognise this fallen world, and while we can aim to bring unity, unity at any cost, or superficially only puts a plaster on a gapping wound that won't last. I think that is the unfortunate reality.
Non-Catholic here. Just thinking… This would seem to say that the Catholic Church no longer believes that there is a direct line of authority from Christ, to Peter, and then down to Leo XI. I’m honestly asking if that conclusion is correct.
That Prevost denies Catholic teaching on the death penalty is sufficient to rule him out as a member of the Catholic Church and eligible for the papacy. He has as much authority in Christ’s Church as the Dali Llama.
If you want to understand the crisis in the Church visit wmreview.org
The problem is that the Catholic Church effectively changed its teaching on capital punishment, despite centuries of teaching in the opposite direction from both scripture and tradition. Read the following articles I wrote:
JPII was the ultimate culprit. His unilateral theological revision might sound humane, but what he and Ratzinger (as head of CDF at the time) did what to destroy the credibility of both the magisterium and the catechism. JPII and Ratzinger made both to be as worthless as Oceania’s Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s “1984.“
The concilar/synodal church (named by its adherents) teaches a new religion that is not the Catholic faith.
Those responsible are not visible members of the Catholic Church for they do not publicly profess the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate and actively reject or reinterpret her teachings.
This undeclared sect obscures the Catholic Church. As long as Catholics continue failing to recognise their non-authority and reject them and their teachings the crisis will continue.
Speaking as an Orthodox Christian, I wholeheartedly welcome this.
Me too!
Me as well, brother.
All anyone has to do is read 1 Peter 2: 4-8 to see that the Catholic interpretation of Peter as rock was not something that Peter himself believed.
I’m expecting the hard-core traditionalists to start clutching their pearls any day now. ;)
Is it me or are we overthinking this topic. Simply put The Church is that which was founded by Christ himself…this is where the truth lies. All of these other so-called Christian sects are MAN MADE and lack the supernatural spark infused/imparted by our Lord. Thus I don’t really see the need to bend over backwards to accommodate them…rather to have a dialogue to bring them back into the fold. They might be “our brothers “ but they are misguided and should be treated as such…meaning with charity to bring them home. Pax
If Jesus actually founded the Roman Catholic Church, then please explain to me why it took more than a millennium for perhaps the two most important sacraments for the laity — Eucharist and confession — to be dogmatized? Transubstantiation was not dogmatized until the 11th century, and auricular confession was not dogmatized until the 12th century.
Please don’t give me this garbage about doctrine “developing.” The Holy Spirit does not need 1000 years to inspire doctrine. Jesus certainly did not need 1000 years to fundamentally establish his credibility once and for all. It only took him three days.
Besides, if Protestants and Eastern Orthodox embrace Christ as the divine Messiah, do you think his heavenly father would consider them second class citizens the way Catholics seem to?
Thank you for this direct and serious question. From a Catholic perspective, your concerns are not new—they have been addressed through centuries of theological reflection, Church councils, and ongoing dialogue with other Christian traditions. Let’s walk through each part of your question in the light of Catholic teaching.
________________________________________
1. Why did it take so long to formally define the Eucharist and Confession?
The Catholic View: The Truth Was Always There — But Clarified When Needed
Catholicism teaches that Jesus instituted both the Eucharist and Confession directly, and that the Church has always taught and practiced them, even before they were dogmatically defined.
“The Church’s understanding of divine revelation deepens over time, but the content of that revelation does not change.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 94)
So, when the Church "dogmatizes" something, it is not inventing it or waiting to "finally understand it." Rather, the Church is clarifying and protecting a belief that has always existed, usually in response to heresy or widespread confusion.
Eucharist (Transubstantiation)
• Instituted by Christ at the Last Supper: “This is my body... This is my blood.” (Luke 22:19–20)
• Taught by the early Church: See St. Ignatius of Antioch (1st–2nd century), St. Justin Martyr (2nd century), and others who affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
• Dogmatized at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and further clarified at Trent (1551) because of growing heresies (e.g., Berengarius, Wycliffe).
Confession (Sacrament of Reconciliation)
• Instituted by Christ in John 20:21–23: “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them…”
• Practiced in the early Church—though it often involved public confession and penance, later evolving into private confession (auricular).
• Dogmatized at Lateran IV (1215) because the Church sought to standardize the practice and ensure access for all the faithful.
Why didn’t Jesus spell it all out in a catechism?
Because Christ didn’t leave a book—He left a Church (Matt 16:18) with the Holy Spirit to guide it (John 14:26). Catholicism teaches that:
“All truth is safeguarded in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the Magisterium.”
(CCC 97)
Jesus entrusted the apostles with authority (Luke 10:16), and promised the Spirit would lead them into all truth (John 16:13). That doesn’t mean “all truth defined immediately,” but that the Church would remain faithful as history required it to make truths explicit.
So it’s not that the Holy Spirit “needs 1000 years,” but that the Spirit works with and through human history, protecting the deposit of faith until the time is right to define things more clearly.
________________________________________
2. Are Protestants and Orthodox considered “second class citizens”?
No, not in the eyes of the Catholic Church, and certainly not in the eyes of Christ.
Catholic Teaching on Other Christians (Post-Vatican II)
“Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” – Unitatis Redintegratio, Vatican II
• Protestants are considered “separated brethren”—they are brothers and sisters in Christ, though not in full communion with the Church. My perspective is that these sects are manmade and defacto flawed/and in error. Being charitable I want everyone to be Catholic.
• Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments and apostolic succession. The Catholic Church recognizes their Eucharist, priesthood, and confession as valid.
Salvation?
The Church teaches that God offers salvation to all, and that anyone who seeks God with a sincere heart may be saved—even if they do not belong to the visible Catholic Church (see Lumen Gentium, 16). That said, from my perspective, the task is made all the harder by not being one with the Church.
________________________________________
Final Thoughts from the Catholic Lens
• Dogmatic definitions are not the beginning of a belief, but the Church’s defense of truths already present.
• The Church trusts the guidance of the Holy Spirit in preserving and clarifying doctrine over time.
• All baptized believers who embrace Christ are brothers and sisters in Him—none are “second class.” The Church invites all into full communion, but never denies their dignity or the work of grace in their lives.
Let me examine your points one at a time:
1. Regarding the Eucharist, Aquinas introduced transubstantiation as a synthesis between Aristotelian philosophy and divine revelation. That analysis takes Jesus' words out of their historical, cultural and theological context (especially since Jesus was Jewish, not Greek). There's no way Jesus could have meant his words in terms of literal flesh and blood because had he done so, he would have been disobeying the Mosaic Law (and would have been encouraging his followers to do likewise). Consuming blood was perhaps *the* biggest religious taboo among the Jews. Had he violated the Mosaic law, Jesus would have forfeited his status as the only perfect sacrifice acceptable to a holy, righteous God to atone for human sin.
That's the reason for the disbelief among the crowd and even his disciples.
Besides, John consistently portrays Jesus as using natural metaphors to describe supernatural facts: being "born again" (which Nicodemus took literally), providing "living water" (which the Samaritan woman took literally), being both the "good shepherd" and the "sheepgate" (which his hearers could not understand). Given that framework, Jesus likely did not mean what Catholics claim he meant.
The key to understanding lies in John 7:37-39 because John gives an interpretation confirming how Jesus used physical metaphors to communicate supernatural truths. Now if he did that in John 7, why would he be any different in John 6?
The key to that whole passage is John 6:63: "My words are spirit and My words are life; the flesh profits nothing." He is saying that his words can't be interpreted in a conventional, natural manner. They're referring to supernatural facts.
Moreover, the church sabotages its own theology when its states that the Real Presence vacates the body before the host is digested. If that's true, then what's the point? See https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64057/on-the-eucharist-and-human-digestion
So what did Jesus mean? Read John 14:23. He meant the *supernatural* residence of the triune God within the believer. St. Paul alludes to this when he talks about "Christ in you" being "the hope of glory" in Colossians. The whole idea of people being "in Christ" and of Christ being "in" believers points to a supernatural reality, not a physical one.
2. If you are correct, then why do Catholics view Protestants and Eastern Orthodox as apostates? I'm not talking about in formal theology but in popular understanding, especially among traditionalists. Why the demand to submit to Rome?
3. "Why didn’t Jesus spell it all out in a catechism?
"Because Christ didn’t leave a book—He left a Church (Matt 16:18) with the Holy Spirit to guide it (John 14:26). Catholicism teaches that:
'All truth is safeguarded in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the Magisterium.' ”
The NT was completed before 100 A.D., with most of it written before 70 A.D., the only exceptions being John's contributions (his gospel, three epistles and Revelation). During that time, the various texts circulated widely among believers with various degrees of education: soldiers, slaves, merchants, shopkeepers, farmers, shepherds, women, men, Jews, Gentiles, etc. Many (if not most) were illiterate, which is why most of the texts were read aloud. You might argue that a third-century council canonized and organized the texts but that doesn't account for the Holy Spirit's role in inspiring them in the first place, nor for the fact that the earliest Christians considered them inspired.
Besides, God Himself *did* leave a "book": the OT. Paul alludes to this when he told Timothy, "All Scripture is divinely inspired and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the servant of God may be equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Since the NT wasn't fully written when Paul wrote that statement, he *had* to have been referring to the OT. Moreover, and more importantly, all of the NT authors either quoted directly from the OT or alluded to it in their writings. They took great care to portray Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of OT prophecy. How could they do that if they had no OT to refer to?
The Magisterium's reliability, however, is suspect. JPII engaged in arbitrary, unilateral theological revisionism concerning capital punishment for murder. Francis drove his ideological truck through the hole JPII left when the former declared capital punishment to be "morally inadmissible," in direct contravention of centuries of teaching from both Scripture and Tradition. Read the following pieces I wrote:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3460-killing-capital-punishment-how-pope-john-paul-set-precedent-for-pope-francis
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4010-changing-doctrine-pope-francis-vs-cardinal-john-henry-newman
If the Magisterium changes the catechism to conform to papal agendas, then it has no more credibility than Oceania's Ministry of Truth in Orwell's "1984."
Ya know ya try to be kind and you get back a flowery level one responses that demonstrates only a cursory understanding of the Faith. I neither have the time nor inclination to educate you but I do invite you to study Catholicism as the best method to obtain the Truth and the Beatific Vision.
In other words, you can't refute my points. Maybe you are the one with the "cursory understanding of the faith."
As to point one, you've made a pretty basic error in your history. The idea behind transubstantiation is ancient, of course, but the phrase was first used in the 11th century, more than two hundred years before Aquinas was born. In 1215, Lateran IV declared that the elements of the Eucharist were "transubstantiated." Importantly, this is before the adoption of Aristotle by the schoolmen as well (Aquinas wasn't even born until around 1225, his master Albert was still only a youth as well).
The Lutheran Confessions confess the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, without trying to explain how…Jesus said it, we believe, teach and confess it. Always have, always will.
Catholics do not consider those of other religions as second class anything! Why would you say something so awful? Being in full communion with the Catholic Church has been such a blessing to me. Why wouldn't I want to share this good news? The Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, are the very life within me because of the presence Jesus. The timing of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not something that is debatable. Whatever your argument. Do as you will. But please do not disparage Catholics in general. What's the point of that?
My response is based on the interactions I've had with Catholics on both social media and in person over the years. I realize that not all Catholics think or behave alike. But the majority share certain tendencies. One is the tendency toward blind, unthinking deference to clerical authority. That's one reason why Francis was able to get away with what he got away with. Another is an arrogance about being Catholic, especially vis-a-vis non-Catholic Christians. I realize full well that non-Catholics (particularly Orthodox and conservative Protestants) hold the same arrogant attitude toward Catholics. But the point is that such an attitude toward fellow believers *regardless of who holds it or why* is a stench in the nostrils of a holy, righteous God. In some ways, Christianity hasn't developed much from the attitude the Corinthians displayed ("I belong to Apollos," "I belong to Cephas," etc.) and that Paul condemned.
God knows his own, and his own can be found in all churches. Some even don't go to church. That's not endorsing reflexive ecumenism. That's giving the blood of Jesus a far greater authority than group membership.
Christians who hold the attitude I described need to realize that if Jesus didn't die on a cross, rise three days later, ascend into the heavenlies and intercede for his own, all theology would be nothing but static and all liturgy would be nothing but kabuki.
Not to mention, the Sacraments! If the Pope or any Catholic fails to spread the truth of the one,catholic and apostolic church, they are withholding from their "brothers" the blessings and graces of the Sacraments and the Holy Eucharist.
Compare John 8:12 and Matthew 5:14 and use your same hermeneutic.
Context determines everything. In John, Jesus is describing his ultimate being to people who didn't believe him. In Matthew, Jesus is encouraging those who follow Him to proclaim His truth. In John, Jesus described his essential being. In Matthew, He described the truth He was proclaiming.
The audiences are completely different, which determines the response.
In any event, that doesn't negate what I said about 1 Peter 2:4-8. Read the passage for yourself. Nowhere does Peter refer to himself in the terms Catholics believe Jesus referred to him. Moreover, Peter took great pains in saying Jesus was the "cornerstone," (aka, "rock," if you will) quoting prophecy from Isaiah to make the point.
Peter was not only an eyewitness to the conversation but an object of it. He would know far more about its meaning than people who lived two to three centuries afterward.
Besides, if you're going to say that the church was built on somebody not named Jesus, you could make a case for Paul. After all, he probably did more to spread the Gospel than anybody else in the immediate decades after the Ascension. We know Paul made four missionary trips in the Eastern Mediterranean. We have no knowledge about any missionary trips Peter might have made, except to Rome.
If you really want to be obtuse, you could say the church was built on Judas. How? Well, if Judas didn't betray Jesus to opponents who wanted Him dead, we never would have had the Resurrection, the Ascension or Pentecost. That's certainly not a case for rehabilitating Judas; as I said, the whole concept is obtuse.
Obviously, there's no question Peter led the church in its earliest days; the book of Acts proves that. But saying the church was built *on* him is quite a different thing. It's like saying the United States is built *on* George Washington rather than on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Washington and the other Founding Fathers merely executed the values and ideals those documents embodied. Similarly, Peter merely executed the values and teaching Jesus embodied. Without that teaching, Peter is nothing.
Okay
These are the same prots that have gay weddings at their LGBT church.
As I recall, Anglicans are usually referred to as "separated Brethren ".
I’ve seen all Protestants described like that
That is because Rome thinks that Anglicans, and perhaps Lutherans, have an unbroken line in the priesthood.
The ordination of women muddied that water
Agreed. Lutherans (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod….dumb name) also ordains only men.
Our local Anglican Catholic parish shares space with one of the confessional Lutheran sects.
We should all yearn for a re-united Christendom. Regrettably, so much dogma has been wedged between us since the reformation. But restoring the full communion of all baptized trinitarian believers would be a massive step in the right direction.
And the great schism too
There is room to say it’s both
1 cor 10:4; IS 28: 16;
• St. Augustine (Sermon 76.3):
“For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built”
Christ is the Rock, and Peter participates in a unique way in that role as pontiff.
You guys are really excited about this aren’t you? Don’t know why I’m getting such attitude. “Cherry picking” or “circling squares” are attacks based on the integrity of my character in a dialogue. I think maybe the better discussion would be how to civilize dialogue.
No, they're not attacks on your character. They're criticisms of your positions; your character isn't the issue. It never has been. Where did I attack your character?
Cherry picking implies dishonesty and over assumes that I am only using this source. Circling a square implies rationalization
To be honest, what you said seemed like rationalization to me. I did not use that term, however. If I wanted to, I would have.
I have a rule of thumb that I think everybody who would expresses an opinion should follow: once you express an opinion, regardless of who you are or what that opinion is, you automatically lose the privilege of having everybody agree with you once you express that opinion. Anybody who does not like those terms of engagement should not express an opinion publicly. It’s that simple.
If you think this is overkill on my part, please realize that I do not like being accused of something I did not do. If you reread my post, you will see that I was attempting to apply reason to your position. Believe me, if I wanted to issue a personal attack, I would have. I didn’t.
I think that is honest that you shared that judgment. But I think it’s better to ask questions rather than offering such statements. Albeit I do have training in rhetoric so it’s perhaps a hangup of mine. I was just adding another perspective for dialogue. My point was that we can see things in more than one way, which is a very normal theological approach for Catholics. For instance God alone is Good yet man was created very good. Fleshing that out requires nuance. Just an example…but Im not telling anyone that they ought to believe it just proposing it for the sake of clarity.
Anyways I’m ready to move on.
Actually, your attempt to square the circle, as it were, reinforces my point: In Peter‘s first epistle, he never refers to himself the way Catholics believe Jesus referred to him. To me, that’s what a simple reading of 1 Peter 2:4-8 indicates. Considering that Peter was a simple man unaccustomed to rhetorical subtlety, a simple reading seems to be the best bet. Besides, Augustine was not present at the conversation between Peter and Jesus.
The protestant mind cannot comprehend
Some do. Scott Hahn (ie)…
Well, he’s no longer Protestant.
What you say is true
So are you suggesting that if non-Catholics embrace the kind of duality (for lack of a better term) that you stated in your first post, that those non-Catholics will automatically become Catholic?
It’s not a duality. It’s more of a”participation” through grace.
You quote ONE single Church Father?? Talk about cherry picking! Ummm, let’s just go through all of Church History and pick and choose what we want to hear with “itching ears.” Read your history , specifically the first thousand years. Ecumenical Councils employed no such supremacy to one, single bishop. FACTS!!
Ummm, that’s what the Orthodox have been saying all along. The first 9 centuries of Church history contradicts Papal Supremacy. Now we have an actual Pope seeming to admit as much.
Read Matthew 16:13-20
Jesus says to Peter..."Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father, AND so I say to YOU, YOU are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates, etc. I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"
Pope Leo is really making us think. I think that the popes since John Paul II have been moving in the direction of a less monarchical papacy. Archbishop Kendrick may yet win the day.
Yes, a leaderless Church that does whatever the fleshly, democratic vote wants. It’s the entire goal of Freemasonry. Seems to be going well.
Protestants love fantasizing about Catholicism becoming a feminist church that does gay weddings.
I’m sure some do. The Church won’t become that. That will be an obstacle to a reunion with some churches, well, gay weddings would make reconciliation impossible. Other things that I have thought of that will make reunion impossible are the Real Presence, the ordained priesthood, and even the office of bishop, for those who have a presbyteral order or who have no order at all. The other churches have a lot to accept, we don’t —except for feminism and gay weddings, which we won’t.
If you seriously believe the Catholic Church will never allow gay weddings, you have no idea about the consequences of Fiducia Supplicans. Nor do you understand the fact that Francis tried to normalize homosexuality in the church, and Leo is following suit. Don’t believe that? Read the following piece I wrote:
https://stream.org/queering-the-catholic-church/
The Prots have a new schism every day though. Presbyterians already promote gay marriage, Baptists now have female pastors, Episcopalians have lesbian bishops. Seems like Orthodoxy is the only other denomination that meets the standard of Christianity. The Prots are all just different flavors of heresy now.
Calvary Chapel has remained stable.
That’s true. They’re a mess. I think that they’ll have to jump out of their boats and get on board the barque of Peter. Even a less centralized Church may be impossible for the flat out heretics. Pope Leo seems determined to make offers to them, but he, too, is bound in obedience to Tradition and The Magesterium.
Why should he be bound by “tradition and the magisterium”? Francis wasn’t. Not even JPII was. Don’t believe that? Read the following:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3460-killing-capital-punishment-how-pope-john-paul-set-precedent-for-pope-francis
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4010-changing-doctrine-pope-francis-vs-cardinal-john-henry-newman
Might work with some of the splintered Anglicans.
Not true…..We don’t, why would we want Rome to?
I hope that the Orthodox Church and the Papacy can be reunited first and foremost. We will see about the other Protestant sects.
Either way, amazing news and I am grateful to see the Spirit work amongst us. May we be brothers once again!
And maybe even sisters will be welcomed
Heh of course!
Interesting analysis.
Too little, too late.
Talk is cheap, of course. I think it's standard-issue Vatican II banners-and-balloons. Rome as become so "social gospel"-obsessed in its post-Vatican II form with "relevancy," and the demolition of liturgy and any sense of the mystical in favor of "establishing the Kingdom here and now" that it resembles more a massive social welfare organization staffed by people with important Sunday jobs now. The pathetic bishops' conferences, with endless position papers, debates, gatherings, discussions, and debates--plus the dithering and dickering over what seat complete goofballs and heretics should have at the table (none whatsoever--like Fr. James Martin and similar reprobates), give me the impression that these "overtures" are directed more toward Protestants than Orthodox--traditionalism in the Church was trampled on by Bergoglio, and I don't see Pope White Sox Fan doing anything to rectify the situation. HIs whole placing Christ on an equivalency level with Buddha was pretty bad for one thing, and frankly, there are so many idiotic trad zombies in the Church that have bought the Roman line of Papal Supremacy without doing the historical research and employing some common sense and personal initiative to decide the matter for themselves, relying instead on blind faith, based in fear and ignorance, rather than the actual East vs. West situation as things evolved, went down, and played out over time--that they parrot the old-school line that the Orthodox are "heretics" while not having the foggiest idea of what the hell they're talking about. I'm talking of course about Kennedy Hall, Taylor Marshall, and similar pseudo-intellectual riffraff.
I really nejoyed this article. Thank you!
Thank you for your kind words!
"Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church”)." Could Jesus have put it this way... Peter, you're the smartest of the bunch. I designate you to figure out how to organize and heard these cats, 'cause if you don't they'll mess up my message for sure. Just use the Bible as a blueprint, and don't let the intellectual turkeys get you down.
Yet more political posturing on behalf of globalism to transform the Catholic Church into just another sect of the upcoming One World Religion.
The real agenda is transparently obvious. All calls for “unity” are actually calls to water down the Faith, turn a blind eye in the name of “tolerance” to things that the Catholic Church has taught are sinful & abhorrent and to undermine the fundamental moral and ethical sensibilities held by traditional Catholics.
Francis ➡️ Leo. New boss, same as the old boss. We are NOT DECEIVED by the Lavender Mafia’s sinister machinations ‼️😡🤬
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Churches are not part of “One World Religion” except insofar as Christianity is the one true religion applicable to the whole world.
The Predators and their Zionist co-conspirators will come after these remnant Christian sects in due course. You can count on it.
Where is the love, brother? You need to check your inner compass. It’s all just interpretations… human interpretations of thing we can not know. Everyone’s just trying to be better humans.
What’s got yer goat about promoting love and unity?
Maybe because it's superficial. Life isn't a little house on the prairie set my friend, I wish it was, but it isn't. Humans are very flawed creatures, if we think we can build heaven on earth we think ourselves Gods. We can remain humble and recognise this fallen world, and while we can aim to bring unity, unity at any cost, or superficially only puts a plaster on a gapping wound that won't last. I think that is the unfortunate reality.
God bless the Bishop of Rome! This is wonderful news for all of Christendom, irrespective of denomination.
Non-Catholic here. Just thinking… This would seem to say that the Catholic Church no longer believes that there is a direct line of authority from Christ, to Peter, and then down to Leo XI. I’m honestly asking if that conclusion is correct.
I have no idea how you came to this conclusion
Not a Catholic either… thanks for asking the question. Waiting….
That Prevost denies Catholic teaching on the death penalty is sufficient to rule him out as a member of the Catholic Church and eligible for the papacy. He has as much authority in Christ’s Church as the Dali Llama.
If you want to understand the crisis in the Church visit wmreview.org
The problem is that the Catholic Church effectively changed its teaching on capital punishment, despite centuries of teaching in the opposite direction from both scripture and tradition. Read the following articles I wrote:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3460-killing-capital-punishment-how-pope-john-paul-set-precedent-for-pope-francis
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4010-changing-doctrine-pope-francis-vs-cardinal-john-henry-newman
JPII was the ultimate culprit. His unilateral theological revision might sound humane, but what he and Ratzinger (as head of CDF at the time) did what to destroy the credibility of both the magisterium and the catechism. JPII and Ratzinger made both to be as worthless as Oceania’s Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s “1984.“
The concilar/synodal church (named by its adherents) teaches a new religion that is not the Catholic faith.
Those responsible are not visible members of the Catholic Church for they do not publicly profess the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate and actively reject or reinterpret her teachings.
https://wmreview.co.uk/2021/08/16/membership-of-the-church-part-iii-profession-of-faith/
This undeclared sect obscures the Catholic Church. As long as Catholics continue failing to recognise their non-authority and reject them and their teachings the crisis will continue.