Hello everyone,

I’ve been pondering something fascinating regarding conversions and church history. Why is it that some people from a strict Protestant background experience a sudden spiritual awakening or intellectual realization that draws them to the Catholic Church, while their family members or peers—living in the exact same situation and environment—never feel it at all? What makes certain individuals open to seeing the historical and sacramental fullness of Catholicism while others remain completely closed to it?

Additionally, looking deeper into this dynamic, I wanted to ask: What is the underlying spiritual "sin" or core flaw that drives anti-Catholic hatred, and what is considered the foundational underlying flaw or "sin" of the Protestant movement itself from a historical and theological perspective?

I would love to hear your insights, especially from converts or theologians!

This post is not about demonstrating or debunking Fatima but about debunking a false claim that has been made by many people to the extent that it can even be called a "lie".

The claim goes through a second-hand witness who said:

No one in the more educated classes told me they had seen the celestial apparition, but it is certain that everyone, educated and not, expressed their faith. And what a magnificent and imposing manifestation of faith was that of that enormous crowd of some 50,000 people, almost all of them driven by faith, by the desire to be certain of the truth of the facts they had heard narrated! In almost all of their eyes were tears, but tears of the boundless joy that filled their souls. Everyone was convinced that something supernatural had occurred, and they thanked God for still remembering this poor and so guilty Portugal.

The equivocation is on the word "celestial apparition" and "Sun Dance", in the context he is talking about people who are claiming to see celestial apparitions and celestial visions of Jesus, Mary, Joseph etc She distinguishes between dance sun and celestial court/vision

A paragraph earlier he said:

I spoke to the people, they told me the same thing, although, in other words. They told me they had seen Our Lady, St. Joseph, the Baby Jesus, and that I know The entire celestial court, at the same time, had seen the dance sun. I didn't believe in so much vision.

He continues with saying this is credulous people etc the next paragraph is the paragraph in discussion.

Why this interpretation, that is equating 'Sun dance" & "Celestial Apparition" is deceptive:

Three paragraphs earlier he is regretting that he missed the "wonderful phenomena" and he has even read the O Seculo newspaper report which is obviously witnessed by educated people. Not only that the author says that she met people and they "all" told her they saw miracle of the sun.

We continued our journey, and finally arrived in Fátima, but only half an hour after the wonderful phenomenon occurred, now known to everyone through the beautiful descriptions published by “Século” and other newspapers. What an immense iron I didn't see! Arriving in Fátima, I try to see people I know, to exchange impressions. They all tell me the same thing, they all saw... But what did they see? I ask them: "We saw the sun, covered as if by a silver plate, in a constant rotation, sending out red, yellow, and purple rays, and seeming to detach itself from the sky and approach the earth.

It is to be noted that skeptics went out of their way to find "non-seers", and could only muster up 4 over 100 years.

To equivocate on celestial phenomena and saying "saw nothing" is extremely deceptive", when the same author has said that everyone she met saw miracle of the sun. An apparition by itself is of figures etc not bizarre "Light phenomena" or "Sun dance" as the words he has used. The context is about visions of Jesus & Mary.

This post is neither intending to argue for or against Fatima, but a lie that has been perpetuated by our atheist, Muslim interlocutors such as IrishKiev and Debunking the Christian “Miracle of Fátima” | Muslim Skeptic

Ósea aunque mucha gente venga y diga que todos tenemos libre albedrío y es la consecuencia de nuestras acciones , ya puede ser pero que me dices de un niño que nació con cancer y posiblemente no pase de los 5 años , que culpa tenía ese niño de tener cancer , Porque Dios elige quien sufre y quien no ?

We have a clear example of people adding good works to salvation in order to obtain justification in the Bible.

People came against the church of Galatia and tried to introduce a combination of circumcision/the law and grace to obtain salvation.

Paul wrote to them (Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.) Galatians 5:2-4

It started with circumcision. Paul extended it to include the whole law

(every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.)

The whole law is just that. The whole law includes both moral and ceremonial commands.

When Paul says, "the law," many people try to limit it to just be things like circumcision or sacrifices.

But no, Paul wrote (What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”) Romans 7:7

A bit later, he emphasized (So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.) Romans 7:12

The moral command of coveting, one of the ten commandments, is included in his application of "the law." And this law is good and righteous and good, but it is still the law.

Ten verses after Paul condemns those who would be justified by "the law," Paul wrote (For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”) Galatians 5:14

Again, "the law" is good and righteous and love, but the law cannot save.

That is to say that no amount of you loving God by following His commandments will justify you.

As Paul also writes (But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.) Romans 11:6

Grace is unmerited favor. Trying to merit it defeats the purpose.

This is why (Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking.)

Just like the people who introduced the circumcision command to the Galatians, Isreal was condemning itself by trying to be holy enough/work enough to obtain heaven.

Is it any wonder this mindset has held until even today? People trying to be good enough to go to heaven through their righteousness instead of relying on the righteousness of Christ alone.

The point of this is that Paul's words seem clear.

(You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.) Galatians 5:4

If you try to be justified by the law, even a little bit, you will be condemned.

At the foundation of original sin resides a potential category error—confusing condition with culpability. The condition belonging to an actualized person (what) is mistakenly treated as though it establishes something about the culpability of their relational identity (who).

Catechism §404, states that original sin is a state rather than an act and is called sin analogically. Section 405 denies that Adam's descendants bear personal fault for his transgression. So the Church recognizes the distinction I’m drawing.

But notice—It relocates original sin from the category of personal wrongdoing into the category of an inherited deprivation. What makes that deprivation a condition of sin rather than a consequence of someone else's sin? That needs its own premise.

Genesis 3:14 - “cursed are you”, God tells the serpent.
Genesis 3:17 - “cursed is the ground,” God tells Adam.
Genesis 4:11 - “you are cursed from the ground,” God tells Cain.

The author of Genesis plainly knows how to describe a person being cursed. Yet with Adam, the wording shifts. He is held responsible for his disobedience, but the object explicitly cursed is the ground environment. The ground suffers the consequences of Adam's transgression, but nobody would argue that the ground possesses Adam's moral guilt. This establishes that the transmission of consequences is not equivalent to the transmission of guilt.

I do acknowledge that the concept of original sin is not contingent upon a verbatim “curse” being placed on humanity. Likewise, the absence of a personal curse does not automatically entail absence of divine punishment. I grant these two arguments.

If Genesis distinguishes the person responsible for sin from the creation affected by it, what warrants transforming an inherited consequence into an inherited condition of sin? Inheriting what became of humanity does not establish who each descendant is morally or spiritually before God.

We can universally start at this premise: Human beings inherit a condition altered by Adam's transgression.

Catholicism quickly jumps to the theological conclusion: Every human being enters existence in a state of original sin.

The missing normative premise: Inheriting that condition constitutes a deprivation that places the individual in a state of sin.

If Adam's descendants never personally possessed original holiness, in what sense can its absence be attributed to them as a loss rather than simply a condition into which they were born? A person can inherit the effects of a loss without being the subject who incurred that loss. Imagine a football coach makes a terrible decision that costs his team the championship. The entire team loses, but there are three separate propositions:

The coach caused the loss = agency and responsibility.

The whole team suffered the loss = collectively shared.

Every player is guilty = corporate responsibility.

The first two can be 100% true without the third. Adam's disobedience can be the event where humanity's loss is historically realized without every proceeding human being becoming culpable of that disobedience.

There is an important asymmetry we need to realize: A coach's instructions are instrumental; God's commandments are morally normative. My football analogy is about the attribution of consequences, not the equivalence of rules. Adam's descendants didn't voluntarily join as teammate participants in Adam's historical decision.

✨The light is not proprietary; the kingdom is not arriving from outside; the works are not limited to one man.

Greater works are available to “whoever believes”

John 14:12

“Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.”

This is the clearest statement that the works themselves are not proprietary to Jesus the man. The capacity is transferable and even expandable.

Healing is attributed to the person’s own faith, not to Jesus as exclusive intermediary

Jesus repeatedly says variations of:
• “Your faith has healed you / made you well / saved you.”

(Mark 5:34; Matthew 9:22; Luke 8:48; Luke 17:19; Mark 10:52; Luke 18:42)

He does not say “My power has healed you” or “Because I am the unique Son.” He points the person back to the faith already present in them.

Only God is good...deflecting personal elevation.
Mark 10:18 / Luke 18:19

“Why do you call me good? No one is good...except God alone.”
When someone tries to place him in a special moral category, he immediately redirects the compliment upward and away from his own person.

"You are gods”
John 10:34–36

Jesus answers the charge of blasphemy by quoting Psalm 82:6:

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came...and Scripture cannot be set aside...what about the one whom the Father set apart…?”
He uses the scripture that already applies divine language to human beings who received the word of God. The implication is that the category is not closed.

The kingdom is already within / among you.
Luke 17:20–21

“The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

No future external arrival is required; the reality is already present and accessible.

You are the light of the world
Matthew 5:14–16

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden… let your light shine before others…”
He does not say “I am the light and you merely reflect me.” He declares that they are the light, and that the light must not be hidden under a bushel...the same image he used for himself.

Perfect as the Father is perfect
Matthew 5:48

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
This is an open invitation to the same standard of completeness, not a standard reserved for one unique individual.

Mutual indwelling and shared glory
John 17:20–23 (from the long prayer)

“…that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us… The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one…”

Jesus explicitly prays that the same oneness and the same glory he shares with the Father be given to others.

"I can do nothing of myself”
John 5:19 & 5:30

“The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing… I can do nothing on my own.”
He consistently disclaims independent personal power and attributes everything to the Source. This undercuts any reading that makes the historical Jesus a self-sufficient, exclusive channel.

Taken together, these statements form a consistent pattern: Jesus refuses to let people make an idol of his personality or his historical uniqueness. He keeps redirecting attention to the same Source that is available to anyone whose “eye is single,” whose faith is present, and who is willing to become empty enough for the light to shine through.

This is the same current that runs through the reading of the Sermon on the Mount...the light is not proprietary; the kingdom is not arriving from outside; the works are not limited to one man.

✨The light is not proprietary; the kingdom is not arriving from outside; the works are not limited to one man.

Is not practicing NFP while married through the church a mortal sin? For example if a couple is using coitus interruptus, that’s technically not artificial birth control but I do understand that it prohibits the completion of the unitive act. However, if a couple wishes to connect within their marriage to strengthen their bond during a turmoils time and doesn’t currently have the resources to practice NFP (but is working towards enrolling with an instructor once they have the means to do so in the near future) would that be permissible? Also to note, wife is healing from a medical condition that requires her to not get pregnant at this moment, would they be not allowed to receive communion for this alone? If it is a mortal sin, which commandment is being broken? Thanks for the discussion!

As far as I can tell, there are two kinds of "explanation" familiar to human reason.

The first is physical explanation: a father "explains" his son, and is in turn explained by his own father. A flame is explained by the match. This sort of explanation is, ultimately, the configuration and reconfiguration of matter. I'll call this Explanation 1

The second is constitutive explanation. The triangularity of a triangle is explained by the fact that it has three sides. This sort of explanation is, unlike the first, definitionally true, and also causally inert. I'll call this Explanation 2.

In my view, nothing actually connects these two sorts of "Explanations," and the fact that we use the same word for both is ultimately a quirk of human psychology and language rather than an indication they belong to a single category.

And neither is the sort of explanation argument like Aquinas' De Ente requires. Rather, this is a third kind of explanation. or, Explanation 3.

The classic example is the infinite regress. The Thomist points out the infinite regress is impossible. The skeptic answers that each member in the series is explained by the prior member in the series. Aha, says the Thomist, but then what explains the existence of the series itself?

To confuse Explanation 1 with Explanation 3 is a category error.

It's not clear to me Explanation 3 is a necessary, or even coherent notion.

Explanation 1 just is causal, material dependence.

Explanation 2 just is constitutive dependence.

The first is empirically demonstrated, the second is self-evident. We know what "Explanation" means in these two cases, but we don't know what it means in the case of Explanation 3.

What reason is there to think that Explanation 3 is a real category?

In short, I suspect the question, "why does physical reality, or a given physical object, exist?" is malformed. It's like the question, "Why did John Wilkes Booth shoot JFK?" The answer is neither, "Because the South lost the Civil War," nor is it "for no reason." Rather, the question is intelligible but unanswerable, because its premise is false.

Изначально мне казалось, что в христианстве всего лишь три направления: православие, католицизм и протестантизм с его течениями. Но нет, их очень много! Не учитываются Ассирийская церковь Востока, Ориентальное христианство (Коптская Церковь, Эфиопская Церковь, Армянская Апостольская Церковь и тд), мормоны, унитарии, свидетели Иеговы и даже течения в течениях внутри самих течений!!

К примеру, в православии есть два направления: новообрядчество и старообрядчество. Старообрядчество делится на поповство и беспоповство. Беспоповство делится на множество «согласий».

Такая же аналогия есть и в протестантизме: внутри него есть англиканство, которое делится на Высокую, Низшую и Широкую церкви.

Как будто бы наталкивает на мысль, что это издевательство над религией 🤷🏻Экуменисты, отзовитесь

P.S пожалуйста, без оскорблений в сторону любой религии и верующих

Hi Everyone,

I often see "Peter has spoken thus through Leo" used as a prooftext to "prove" that concepts like Papal Infallibility existed in the pre-schism period. I have a number of issues with this evidence.

1. Roman Catholics almost never cite the whole acclamation just a tiny part. Here is the whole thing.

"This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe." Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 2, page 24 in Volume 2 of the translation)

1. Context - this acclamation of the bishops at the Second Session follows the public reading of the Tome of Leo on the two natures. The bishops judged the Tome to be Orthodox (many had read it previously). Their acclamation expresses the conviction that Leo is teaching in accordance with the Apostolic Faith and that his teaching tallies with Cyril (who was dead by this stage). The bishops at Chalcedon were happy to say Pope Leo was a successor of Peter. None of this remotely implied a belief in ex cathedra Infallibility, the Papacy having a unique divine mandate, the Pope having unlimited jurisdiction or the ability to unilaterally define doctrine.

2. The minutes of the 16 Sessions of Chalcedon run into hundreds of pages in the three volume English translation by Price and Gaddis.

Volume 1 - pages 122 to 365

Volume 2 - pages 5 to 312

Volume 3 - pages 3 to 91

That's a total of 600 pages of minutes (with some other pages of commentary). However, the term "Peter has spoken thus through Leo" is used ONCE.

Other examples of acclamations at Chalcedon

"Cecropius the most devout bishop of Sebastopolis said: ‘The faith was well defined by the 318 holy fathers and confirmed by the holy fathers Athanasius, Cyril, Celestine, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, and now again by the most holy Leo. We request that the creed of the 318 holy fathers and the letter of the most sacred Leo be read.’" Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 2, page 11 in Volume 2 of the translation)

or

"The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘This is the faith of the orthodox. This we all believe. In this we were baptized, in this we baptize. The blessed Cyril taught accordingly. This is the true faith. This is the holy faith. This is the eternal faith. Into this we were baptized, into this we baptize. We all believe accordingly. Pope Leo believes accordingly. Cyril believed accordingly. Pope Leo expounded accordingly.’" Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 2, page 12 in Volume 2 of the translation)

or

Paschasinus and Lucentius [the Papal legates] said "The holy and blessed council upholds and follows the rule of faith of the 318, issued by them at Nicaea. In addition the council of 150 that assembled at Constantinople under Theodosius the Great of blessed memory confirmed the same faith. The teaching of this creed, taught by the man Cyril of blessed memory at Ephesus, when Nestorius was condemned for his craftiness, it similarly embraces.’ Thirdly, the letter sent by that most blessed man Leo, archbishop of all the churches, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, reveals what is the true faith. The holy council likewise holds fast to this faith and follows it, allowing nothing further to be added or subtracted.’" Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 4, page 127 in Volume 2 of the translation)

or

"Sabas the most devout bishop of Paltus in Syria said: ‘The 318 holy fathers who assembled at Nicaea by the will of God and were instructed by the Holy Spirit defined our orthodox faith. This faith was followed by the holy orthodox fathers, and it was followed by the 150 who assembled at Constantinople. Likewise in harmony with it was the teaching of the blessed Cyril at Ephesus; also in harmony was the teaching of the most sacred Leo archbishop of Rome in his own letter. The whole world has been taught and instructed accordingly, and we too uphold and teach the same. | have signed it, and | anathematize those who either add or subtract anything.’" Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 4, page 131 in Volume 2 of the translation)

or

"All the most devout bishops and clergy of Constantinople exclaimed: ‘The truth is such; we all say the same. Eternal is the memory of Flavian. Eternal is the memory of the orthodox one. Mark the vindication, mark the truth. Flavian lives on after death. The martyr will pray for us. Flavian has expounded the faith after his death. Flavian is here; the orthodox one is here. Many years to the emperor! Flavian judges together with us.’" Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 11, page 14 in Volume 3 of the translation)

This line of thinking comes from the idea that while belief in Jesus may grant initial salvation, justification is kept through good works and avoiding evil. (Through catholic teachings)

My question is regarding verses such as these.

(And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”) Luke 10:25-28

I don't think catholics will disagree with this framework.

The lawyer directly asked what he must do to inherit eternal life.

The answer was to love God will all your heart, soul, mind, strength, and your neighbor as yourself.

"Do this, and you will live."

This mirrors how catholics interpret the interaction with the rich young man as well from Mark 10:17-22.

To love God correctly, you must (For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.) 1 John 5:3

This is not limiting. It simply says to keep His commandments, so the mortal/venial distinction shouldn't apply.

If your going to read what I just wrote plainly without going to protestant theology, then by keeping Gods commandments and loving God with all your everything, and neighbor, this is how you will inherit eternal life.

Feel free to correct me if anything I said so far doesn't match the catholic position.

My question is, does anyone reading this post meet these requirements to inherit eternal life?

Does anyone here love God with all heart, soul, mind, strength, and love neighbor while keeping God's commandments?

Have you ever had such an experience for even a few days of time?

Hi, so i've been researching more about my faith and ended up in this verse from Exodus where the word "Temunah" is translated to "form", "image" or "representation" of something, and then im questioning: If in the original language, it was written to not make any representation of something, so i can't have a Mary icon or a Crucifix in my house? Please anwser, im very worried about this.

John Plousiadenos (1423? or 1429 to 1500) belonged to the second generation of Greek Unionists. He was too young to attend the Council of Florence but continued the work of Bessarion and Isidore.

He was born on Crete, which had been a Venetian colony since 1204. The Venetian's had exiled all Orthodox bishops from Crete and banned the arrival of new bishops. Venetian rule was originally harsh but a series of revolts made the Venetians grant the native Cretans a lot more religious tolerance. Union with Rome mainly operated in the cities such as Candia and Rethymno. No Greek Unionist bishops ever operated in Crete. All Greek Unionist priests (about a dozen in each major city) were under Latin bishops.

John Plousiadenos was appointed bishop of Methone (a Venetian fortress town in the Peloponesus) and adopted the name "Joseph of Methone." The town was captured by the Ottomans in 1500 and John Plousiadenos disappears from history.

Due to the low number of Greeks in union with Rome, John Plousiadenos devoted his time to writing, including polemics against his fellow Greeks.

The works of John Plousiadenos can be found in Migne Patrologia Graeca volume 159. These are his works with the Latin titles given by Migne:

1. De differentiis inter Graecos et Latinos - P.G. 159, col. 959 - 1022
2. Responsio ad libellum Marci Eugenici, Ephesi metropolitae - P.G. 159, col. 1023 - 1094
3. Canon per acrostichidem in synodum Florentinum, ex Pasini Cod. Taurin - P.G. 159, col. 1095 - 1100
4. Synaxarium synodi Florentinae, sive brevis narratio forum quae in ea gesta sunt - P.G. 159, col. 1101- 1106
5. Editorum Patrologiae Monitum in quo Defensio quinque capitum concilii Florentim, quae sub nomine Gennadii Scholarii prodierat, Josepho Methonensi asseritur - P.G. 159, col. 1107- 1109
6. Expositio pro sancta et oecumenica synodo Florentina; quod legitime congregata est; et Defensio quinque capitum quae in Decreto ejus continentur, nempe: 1.de processione Spiritus sancti; 2.de azymis et fermentato; 3.de purgatorio; 4.de fruitione; 5.de primatu Papae. - P.G. 159, col. 1110 - 1394

Pinakes also lists John Plousiadenos as the author of a canon (laudatory hymn) on Thomas Aquinas.

I find text 3 to be very interesting. Almost nothing from John Plousiadenos has been translated into English. However the scholar Charles Yost has recently translated the text, which he calls the "Liturgical Canon for the Eighth Ecumenical Council of Florence." To my surprise I see that Plousiadenos wasn't aware of the prior Roman Catholic Ecumenical Councils between the Second Council of Nicaea II and Florence.

Yost's introduction and translation can be found via the links

https://medieval.nd.edu/news-events/news/new-from-our-research-blog-translating-john-plousiadenos-liturgical-canon-for-the-iix-ecumenical-council/

https://sites.nd.edu/manuscript-studies/2025/09/03/translating-john-plousiadenos-liturgical-canon-for-the-iix-ecumenical-council/

https://sites.nd.edu/manuscript-studies/liturgical-canon-for-the-eighth-ecumenical-council-of-florence/

I'm interested in people's thoughts on this. There is a lot of discussion on what makes a council ecumenical around the internet, with Roman Catholics often claimi g that Florence is obviously ecumenical. Yet Plousiadenos, a Unionist and a citizen of Venice who grew up in a Roman Catholic environment, is not aware of the Fourth Coouncil of Constantinople (869-870 ), First Lateran Council (1123), Second Lateran Council (1139), Fourth Lateran Council (1215), First Council of Lyon (1245), Second Council of Lyon (1274), Council of Vienne (1311-12) and the Council of Constance (1415).

So, what is going on?

Que opinan del sacerdote que le cayó la cruz encima?

Si era un ciervo de Dios porque no fue salvado?

Por qué si era discípulo de Dios porque le pasó eso?

Porque no se salvó de milagro?

So hi. Marcionite here, but grew up Catholic and still believe in the full bodied Transubstantiation into blood and flesh.

And funny enough, it was the concept of Transubstantiation that led me away from traditional Christianity to Marcionism.

Because if Jesus wasn't actually from YHWH, then everyone who participated in the Eucharist is boinked, because we actively engage in ritualistic cannibalism every week or so.

And remember that if imagining committing adultery is enough to make you guilty of it then engaging in a highly drawn out magical theurgy ritual centered around the cannibalism and blood drinking of a human being. Who was also a God.

And Jesus said this was a requirement. Saint Peter is going to be waiting at the gates with a checkbox and pen hovering over "Has eaten the flesh of a human being" so he can give me entry into Heaven.

So I've begun to see the Eucharist as an "exit ritual" of sorts. Participation in the Eucharist is a stout statement to the collected Elohim that you care very little for Leviticus 17. Paul drives this home in 1 Corinthians 11.

²⁷ Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. ²⁸ Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. ²⁹ For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

It does get weird when you list "I ate you..." in the list of sins you beg for forgiveness for, but it does make sense...

But if you actually read Leviticus 17... there's zero forgiveness for eating blood.

And either an unchanging God changed his mind about arguably one of the foundations of Judaism, or Marcion may have had a point about the practices and beliefs of Christianity being incompatible with Judaism.

So how does performing a holy ritual every Sunday to assert your guilt of eating flesh and drinking blood show that Catholicism is the logical continuation of the worship of a God that explicitly forbids blood from every passing your lips?

Also, if crucifixion kills by asphyxiation, doesn't that make Jesus's flesh "strangled meat"?