A conversation about unity.

[ARBITER01]

Since "church" doesn't mean "building" I do not understand why you persist with the contrast between body and building. It is inaccurate and misleading.

It's more accurate than you are able to realize I guess.

We are added to the body of Christ by The Holy Spirit, so it does not matter what church/building/denomination you adhere to if you are truly one of His. Christianity is spiritual not material.

Spiritual maturity though, does play a significant role in our choices, so at this point, I wouldn't really see myself entertaining much time with any Catholic/traditionalist type churches in my city, since I wouldn't find their routines or worship very interesting or edifying for myself.

Church services for me are only there for some fellowship and the sprinkling of the blood during the service, and the connection with GOD, otherwise I'm not interested in the social aspects.

 

[concretecamper]

And also, why would you want to deny communion to fellow Christian?

So you are complaining

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Is a matter of unity and fellowship as Is called for in scripture. Other than the way your cracker is made the look is still the same and the remembrance of our Jesus sacrifice for our sins is the same. Sometimes we loose ourselves in our individual theologies and forget about loving our fellow Christian. Christ did not die in the cross for only members of a particular church but for all of us. When you take communion your thoughts and prayers should remain cemented in Jesus not in if my theology matches the others.

And also, why would you want to deny communion to fellow Christian?

You are right to affirm that Christ died for all (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], §605), and that love of neighbour is a commandment inseparable from fidelity to Christ (cf. CCC §1825). Yet Holy Communion is not merely a symbolic act of fellowship or remembrance. According to Catholic teaching, the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ, substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine (cf. Council of Trent, Session XIII, canon 1; CCC §1374). To receive it worthily, one must be in full communion with the Church, professing her faith and sacramental discipline (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, §81; CCC §1385).

The Church does not deny Communion out of exclusion or pride, but out of reverence for the sacrament and concern for the spiritual well-being of the recipient. Saint Paul warns that “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27, cf. CCC §1385). Thus, the Church requires that those who receive the Eucharist share the Catholic understanding of its nature and be properly disposed. This is not a rejection of other Christians, but a safeguard of the sacrament’s integrity and a call to deeper unity in truth.

True ecumenism seeks unity not by minimising theological differences, but by pursuing full communion in faith, sacraments, and ecclesial life (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, §2–4). You are called to love your fellow Christian, yes—but also to uphold the sacred mysteries with fidelity. To do otherwise would be to compromise both charity and truth.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Not all

Correct, but this confirms that having a divine beginning does not guarantee a glorious end. (in reference to an individual church)

 

[concretecamper]

Correct, but this confirms that having a divine beginning does not guarantee a glorious end. (in reference to an individual church)

Not all who claim to be Churches are really part of The Church.

 

[Hentenza]

You are right to affirm that Christ died for all (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], §605), and that love of neighbour is a commandment inseparable from fidelity to Christ (cf. CCC §1825). Yet Holy Communion is not merely a symbolic act of fellowship or remembrance. According to Catholic teaching, the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ, substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine (cf. Council of Trent, Session XIII, canon 1; CCC §1374). To receive it worthily, one must be in full communion with the Church, professing her faith and sacramental discipline (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, §81; CCC §1385).

The thing is that adherence to church dogma in order to have communion is not biblical. To receive communion worthy the Christian has to be in the frame of mind of loving our Lord and the remembrance that it brings. To thank the Lord for His sacrifice for us.

The Church does not deny Communion out of exclusion or pride, but out of reverence for the sacrament and concern for the spiritual well-being of the recipient. Saint Paul warns that “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27, cf. CCC §1385). Thus, the Church requires that those who receive the Eucharist share the Catholic understanding of its nature and be properly disposed. This is not a rejection of other Christians, but a safeguard of the sacrament’s integrity and a call to deeper unity in truth.

In order to understand 1 Cor. 11 one must read beyond verse 27.

“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a person must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For the one who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not properly recognize the body. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number are asleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, have him eat at home, so that you do not come together for judgment. As to the remaining matters, I will give instructions when I come.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭11‬:‭27‬-‭34‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

1 Corinthians 11:27-34 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a person must examine himself, and in so doing he is to ea | New American Standard Bi

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a person must examine himself, and in so doing he is to ea

bible.com

There is nothing here about sharing the Catholic Church understanding or any kind of dogma really. The point the Paul is trying to get accross is the state of mind during communion (this is not a meal to nourish the stomach but to nourish the heart and soul). There are many Christians that are weak in the faith as attested by the parable of the soils. All of them need to be reminded of the work of our Lord through communion. Human beings, including priests and pastors, are not qualified to know the state of the heart of an individual, only the Lord knows so when the Catholic Church denies communion to a self professed Christian they are dividing the body of Christ and failing their pastoral duties.

True ecumenism seeks unity not by minimising theological differences, but by pursuing full communion in faith, sacraments, and ecclesial life (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, §2–4). You are called to love your fellow Christian, yes—but also to uphold the sacred mysteries with fidelity. To do otherwise would be to compromise both charity and truth.

I will disagree. Jesus did not come for the sake of any religion. He came to give eternal life to all people that believe in Him (John 3:16) not only those that profess a particular church dogma. If you want unity then the wall must come down.

 

[Hentenza]

Not all who claim to be Churches are really part of The Church.

All that believe in Christ will have eternal life not just those that belong to your church. All of those that believe in Christ are part of the church universal (not the RCC).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The son of one of my friends - The son would be about 40 years old now - has been having a conversation with me about the meaning of unity, in the Church. He is a Calvinist christian doing studies in a Baptist-like theological school. As a part of his studies, he's been looking into the question of church unity, and disunity. And since he knows me, he's been asking me questions about the Catholic perspective on the issues he's studying. We have had several rounds of discussion already and it would be unfair of me to reproduce those discussions, without first consulting with him about whether he wants anything that he's written, to appear in this forum. So, I will reproduce only my most recent reply to him regarding The question of unity. It is shown below the line.

---

Thank you for your considered reflections. You rightly note that various ecclesial communities articulate differing conceptions of the Church’s nature and unity. However, from a Catholic perspective, the Church founded by Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him” (Lumen Gentium, §8). This formulation affirms that while elements of sanctification and truth exist outside her visible structure, the fullness of Christ’s Church remains uniquely and enduringly present in the Catholic communion.

The Catholic critique of Protestant ecclesiology is not a dismissal of sincere faith or doctrinal convergence, but a theological response to the revealed structure of the Church. As Dominus Iesus (§16) clarifies, “the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery are not Churches in the proper sense.” This is not a polemical assertion but a doctrinal distinction rooted in sacramental and apostolic continuity. Unity, in Catholic understanding, is not merely mutual recognition but visible communion in faith, sacraments, and governance.

Your concern for ecumenical charity is well placed. The Church teaches that “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of her visible structure” (Lumen Gentium, §8), and she earnestly seeks unity through dialogue and mutual understanding. Yet, fidelity to Christ’s intention for His Church requires clarity: unity must be more than doctrinal harmony—it must be sacramental and hierarchical, as instituted by Christ and perpetuated through apostolic succession.

....y'know, to be honest, I've never experienced this 'unity' that everyone talks about. I have experienced a lot of lip service from those who claim to be in the extra-special, creme of the crop, extra-exclusive super-church of God and who let me know that I'm somehow on the 'outside' of it. And in my saying this, I'm not specifically citing Catholics as being guilty of this form of lip service; no, I've received my share from plenty of various Protestants as well on this point.

Needles to say, this inflated notion of 'unity' that some Christians seem to push has never quite sat well with me and my own view of Ecclesiology is a bit more non-exclusive than that of the average joe.

 

[caffeinated.hermit]

All that believe in Christ will have eternal life not just those that belong to your church. All of those that believe in Christ are part of the church universal (not the RCC).

Honestly, at this point, I feel like the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, there is something original, ancient, Apostolic, and unique about the Catholic Church in God's eyes. They've got some next-level saints, and kind of have "all the stuff" one could admire or seek out in other denominations.

But there are some awesome theologians, Christ-like people, and definite saints in other denominations, too. Having a wonky founder who kind of got some stuff wrong but probably meant well should not make it impossible to receive or respond to grace, grow more like Christ, or understand something real of who God is. And even the wonky guys generally came up with some thoughtful, good stuff, too.

 

[concretecamper]

All that believe in Christ will have eternal life not just those that belong to your church. All of those that believe in Christ are part of the church universal (not the RCC).

Incorrect. According to Scripture, Baptism makes one part of His Body, which is the Church.

When one receives the Grace of Baptism, they become part of His Church.

Salvation comes by no work of ourselves (Proclaiming I believe), it is a free gift.

 

[Hentenza]

Incorrect. According to Scripture, Baptism makes one part of His Body, which is the Church.

Show me where it says the RCC. You do know that the early churches were independent churches right?

When one receives the Grace of Baptism, they become part of His Church.

Through Baptism a p rein becomes part of His body not just part of the RCC. A baptism in the name of the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit is valid in any church not just yours.

Salvation comes by no work of ourselves (Proclaiming I believe), it is a free gift.

Almost correct. God must call us to repentance first (soften our hearts) before we can believe.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In order to understand 1 Cor. 11 one must read beyond verse 27.

What is this? Do you think I have not read the whole book?

The thing is that adherence to church dogma in order to have communion is not biblical. To receive communion worthy the Christian has to be in the frame of mind of loving our Lord and the remembrance that it brings. To thank the Lord for His sacrifice for us.

Why do you think that? Surely belief is necessary. And the contents of one's beliefs matter, do they not?

The Catholic Church teaches that worthy reception of Holy Communion requires more than interior devotion; it demands full communion with the Church and freedom from mortal sin. This is grounded in Scripture—St Paul warns against receiving the Eucharist “in an unworthy manner” (1 Corinthians 11:27–29)—and affirmed by dogmatic sources such as the Council of Trent, which states that those conscious of grave sin must first receive absolution (Session XIII, canon 11; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1415).

While love for Christ and thanksgiving for His sacrifice are essential, they do not suffice apart from doctrinal assent and ecclesial unity. The Eucharist is not merely symbolic but the real presence of Christ (CCC 1374), and its reception signifies full communion with the Church’s faith and sacramental life (Ecclesia de Eucharistia §45; Redemptionis Sacramentum §84). Thus, adherence to Church dogma is biblically and theologically necessary for worthy participation in the sacrament.

There is nothing here about sharing the Catholic Church understanding or any kind of dogma really. The point the Paul is trying to get accross is the state of mind during communion (this is not a meal to nourish the stomach but to nourish the heart and soul). There are many Christians that are weak in the faith as attested by the parable of the soils. All of them need to be reminded of the work of our Lord through communion. Human beings, including priests and pastors, are not qualified to know the state of the heart of an individual, only the Lord knows so when the Catholic Church denies communion to a self professed Christian they are dividing the body of Christ and failing their pastoral duties.

You are misreading both Scripture and Catholic dogma. St Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27–34 is not merely about emotional reverence—it is a doctrinal and sacramental admonition. He writes, “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (v.27). That presumes a correct understanding of what the Eucharist is: not a symbolic meal, but the true Body and Blood of Christ. The Church dogmatically affirms this in the Council of Trent: “If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ… let him be anathema” (Session XIII, canon 1).

You cannot separate the Eucharist from ecclesial communion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “the Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being” (CCC 1325). To receive it worthily, you must be in a state of grace (CCC 1415), and you must be in full communion with the Catholic Church, which includes assent to her dogmas (Ecclesia de Eucharistia §45; Redemptionis Sacramentum §84). The Church does not judge the hidden heart, but she is divinely mandated to safeguard the sacrament from profanation and to uphold the visible bonds of communion—faith, sacraments, and ecclesial governance (Lumen Gentium §14; Unitatis Redintegratio §3). Denying Communion to those outside full communion is not divisive; it is doctrinal fidelity. You do not get to redefine the Body of Christ on your own terms.

I will disagree. Jesus did not come for the sake of any religion. He came to give eternal life to all people that believe in Him (John 3:16) not only those that profess a particular church dogma. If you want unity then the wall must come down.

You are wrong. Jesus did not come to abolish the Church—He came to establish it. He founded one visible, sacramental, hierarchical Church, not a vague spiritual collective. The Catholic Church teaches infallibly: “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)—a dogma rooted in Scripture and Tradition (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 846–848; Lumen Gentium §14). John 3:16 is not a licence for doctrinal relativism. Belief in Christ includes obedience to His Church, which is His Body (cf. Colossians 1:18; CCC 791).

You do not get to redefine unity on your own terms. Christ prayed “that they may be one” (John 17:21), and that unity is visible, doctrinal, and sacramental. The Church is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic”—not optional, not invisible, not pluralistic (CCC 811–813). The “wall” you want torn down is the boundary between truth and error. The Church does not divide the Body of Christ; she safeguards it. To reject her dogma is to reject Christ’s own teaching authority (Luke 10:16). If you knowingly refuse to enter or remain in the Church Christ founded, you reject the means of salvation He gave you (CCC 846; Lumen Gentium §14). That is not unity—it is rebellion.

 

[Strong in Him]

Incorrect. According to Scripture, Baptism makes one part of His Body, which is the Church.

Protestant churches baptise as well, you know.
I think most denominations do.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What is this? Do you think I have not read the whole book?

Why do you think that? Surely belief is necessary. And the contents of one's beliefs matter, do they not?

The Catholic Church teaches that worthy reception of Holy Communion requires more than interior devotion; it demands full communion with the Church and freedom from mortal sin. This is grounded in Scripture—St Paul warns against receiving the Eucharist “in an unworthy manner” (1 Corinthians 11:27–29)—and affirmed by dogmatic sources such as the Council of Trent, which states that those conscious of grave sin must first receive absolution (Session XIII, canon 11; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1415).

While love for Christ and thanksgiving for His sacrifice are essential, they do not suffice apart from doctrinal assent and ecclesial unity. The Eucharist is not merely symbolic but the real presence of Christ (CCC 1374), and its reception signifies full communion with the Church’s faith and sacramental life (Ecclesia de Eucharistia §45; Redemptionis Sacramentum §84). Thus, adherence to Church dogma is biblically and theologically necessary for worthy participation in the sacrament.


You are misreading both Scripture and Catholic dogma. St Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27–34 is not merely about emotional reverence—it is a doctrinal and sacramental admonition. He writes, “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (v.27). That presumes a correct understanding of what the Eucharist is: not a symbolic meal, but the true Body and Blood of Christ. The Church dogmatically affirms this in the Council of Trent: “If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ… let him be anathema” (Session XIII, canon 1).

You cannot separate the Eucharist from ecclesial communion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “the Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being” (CCC 1325). To receive it worthily, you must be in a state of grace (CCC 1415), and you must be in full communion with the Catholic Church, which includes assent to her dogmas (Ecclesia de Eucharistia §45; Redemptionis Sacramentum §84). The Church does not judge the hidden heart, but she is divinely mandated to safeguard the sacrament from profanation and to uphold the visible bonds of communion—faith, sacraments, and ecclesial governance (Lumen Gentium §14; Unitatis Redintegratio §3). Denying Communion to those outside full communion is not divisive; it is doctrinal fidelity. You do not get to redefine the Body of Christ on your own terms.


You are wrong. Jesus did not come to abolish the Church—He came to establish it. He founded one visible, sacramental, hierarchical Church, not a vague spiritual collective. The Catholic Church teaches infallibly: “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)—a dogma rooted in Scripture and Tradition (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 846–848; Lumen Gentium §14). John 3:16 is not a licence for doctrinal relativism. Belief in Christ includes obedience to His Church, which is His Body (cf. Colossians 1:18; CCC 791).

You do not get to redefine unity on your own terms. Christ prayed “that they may be one” (John 17:21), and that unity is visible, doctrinal, and sacramental. The Church is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic”—not optional, not invisible, not pluralistic (CCC 811–813). The “wall” you want torn down is the boundary between truth and error. The Church does not divide the Body of Christ; she safeguards it. To reject her dogma is to reject Christ’s own teaching authority (Luke 10:16). If you knowingly refuse to enter or remain in the Church Christ founded, you reject the means of salvation He gave you (CCC 846; Lumen Gentium §14). That is not unity—it is rebellion.

Well, by that measure, I guess I'm going to Hell! ................................ See ya!

I'm that 'ONE' who is going to say so unabashedly and unapologetically. I ALWAYS---ALWAYS---- put Critical Reasoning before faith and apply that contextual sauce on anyone and everyone who thinks to engage me with their truth claims. And I don't care what source or foundation they claim to stand upon or come from, whether it's Catholic, Orthodox or one of too many Protestant denominations, or even from atheistic and skeptical scalawags.

What's strange to me here is that a while back, you asked us what our favorite choice for a "Systematic Theology" happened to be, and I just tossed out that I sort of like (even if I don't strictly adhere to) Millard J. Erickson's tome on Christian Theology. But from what you're saying here, something like that wouldn't (or shouldn't be thought) to cut the mustard.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well, by that measure, I guess I'm going to Hell! ................................ See ya!

I'm that 'ONE' who is going to say so unabashedly and unapologetically. I ALWAYS---ALWAYS---- put Critical Reasoning before faith and apply that contextual sauce on anyone and everyone who thinks to engage me with their truth claims. And I don't care what source or foundation they claim to stand upon or come from, whether it's Catholic, Orthodox or one of too many Protestant denominations.

You wrote flippantly of damnation, yet the Catholic Church teaches that Hell is no rhetorical flourish. It is eternal separation from God, freely chosen by obstinate rejection of divine truth. The Council of Florence (1439) solemnly defined: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into Hell immediately after death and there suffer eternal punishments” (DS 1306). If you knowingly reject the truths revealed by God and taught by His Church, and persist in mortal sin without repentance, then yes—by that measure, you condemn yourself.

You claim to place critical reasoning above faith, as though reason were sovereign and revelation subordinate. That is a grave error. The First Vatican Council (1870) defined that “faith is a supernatural virtue by which we believe that what God has revealed is true, not because its intrinsic truth is seen by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God who reveals it” (Dei Filius, ch. 3; DS 3008). Reason is not abolished by faith, but perfected by it. To exalt reason above faith is to enthrone pride and dethrone God.

You dismiss all sources—Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant—as irrelevant to your judgements. That is intellectual arrogance masquerading as independence. The Catholic Church alone possesses the fullness of truth, as affirmed by Dominus Iesus (2000): “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him” (§4). To reject this is not merely to differ in opinion; it is to reject Christ’s own authority, for He said to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18).

You may speak “unabashedly and unapologetically,” but truth is not subject to your bravado. The Church does not bend to your rhetorical flair. She proclaims what God has revealed, whether you accept it or not. If you persist in rebellion, you will face the consequences—not because the Church condemns you, but because you condemn yourself by refusing the grace offered to you. “He who believes and is baptised will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16).

You are not beyond redemption. But you must humble yourself before the truth, not wield reason as a weapon against it. The Church calls you to repentance, not applause. One may walk away now—but no one will not walk away from judgement.

 

[Hentenza]

What is this? Do you think I have not read the whole book?

I think it has been spoon fed to you through your church’s erroneous teachings.

Why do you think that? Surely belief is necessary. And the contents of one's beliefs matter, do they not?

Only as far as belief in Christ. Show me in scripture where in order to receive God’s grace one MUST believe a particular dogma (other than the resurrection for example).

The Catholic Church teaches that worthy reception of Holy Communion requires more than interior devotion; it demands full communion with the Church and freedom from mortal sin. This is grounded in Scripture—St Paul warns against receiving the Eucharist “in an unworthy manner” (1 Corinthians 11:27–29)—and affirmed by dogmatic sources such as the Council of Trent, which states that those conscious of grave sin must first receive absolution (Session XIII, canon 11; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1415).

Totally disagree. No where in scripture does it say that one must belong to a particular Christian church to receive communion. No where.

Even the concept of transubstantiation did not come about until the fourth Lateran council in 1215.

While love for Christ and thanksgiving for His sacrifice are essential, they do not suffice apart from doctrinal assent and ecclesial unity. The Eucharist is not merely symbolic but the real presence of Christ (CCC 1374), and its reception signifies full communion with the Church’s faith and sacramental life (Ecclesia de Eucharistia §45; Redemptionis Sacramentum §84). Thus, adherence to Church dogma is biblically and theologically necessary for worthy participation in the sacrament.

At best misinterpretation of Scripture. Mostly not scriptural,

You are misreading both Scripture and Catholic dogma. St Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27–34 is not merely about emotional reverence—it is a doctrinal and sacramental admonition. He writes, “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (v.27). That presumes a correct understanding of what the Eucharist is: not a symbolic meal, but the true Body and Blood of Christ. The Church dogmatically affirms this in the Council of Trent: “If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ… let him be anathema” (Session XIII, canon 1).

Again, at best misinterpretation of scripture.

You cannot separate the Eucharist from ecclesial communion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “the Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being” (CCC 1325). To receive it worthily, you must be in a state of grace (CCC 1415), and you must be in full communion with the Catholic Church, which includes assent to her dogmas (Ecclesia de Eucharistia §45; Redemptionis Sacramentum §84). The Church does not judge the hidden heart, but she is divinely mandated to safeguard the sacrament from profanation and to uphold the visible bonds of communion—faith, sacraments, and ecclesial governance (Lumen Gentium §14; Unitatis Redintegratio §3). Denying Communion to those outside full communion is not divisive; it is doctrinal fidelity. You do not get to redefine the Body of Christ on your own terms.

Your church does not get to define the Body of Christ. I read and studied the CCC and I’m not impressed. The interpretations of this extra biblical resource causes as much division (even among the Catholics) that is better to just refer to the holy scriptures. I don’t think you would go as far as calling the ccc the Holy CCC.

You do not get to redefine unity on your own terms.

That’s rich. Instead you are trying to define it for me.

Christ prayed “that they may be one” (John 17:21), and that unity is visible, doctrinal, and sacramental. The Church is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic”—not optional, not invisible, not pluralistic (CCC 811–813). The “wall” you want torn down is the boundary between truth and error. The Church does not divide the Body of Christ; she safeguards it. To reject her dogma is to reject Christ’s own teaching authority (Luke 10:16). If you knowingly refuse to enter or remain in the Church Christ founded, you reject the means of salvation He gave you (CCC 846; Lumen Gentium §14). That is not unity—it is rebellion.

The only mention of the RCC in scripture is “our friends from Rome” statement on those present during Pentecost (Acts 2). The church that Peter established in not the RCC. The usurpation of power came later.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You wrote flippantly of damnation, yet the Catholic Church teaches that Hell is no rhetorical flourish. It is eternal separation from God, freely chosen by obstinate rejection of divine truth. The Council of Florence (1439) solemnly defined: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into Hell immediately after death and there suffer eternal punishments” (DS 1306). If you knowingly reject the truths revealed by God and taught by His Church, and persist in mortal sin without repentance, then yes—by that measure, you condemn yourself.

You claim to place critical reasoning above faith, as though reason were sovereign and revelation subordinate. That is a grave error. The First Vatican Council (1870) defined that “faith is a supernatural virtue by which we believe that what God has revealed is true, not because its intrinsic truth is seen by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God who reveals it” (Dei Filius, ch. 3; DS 3008). Reason is not abolished by faith, but perfected by it. To exalt reason above faith is to enthrone pride and dethrone God.

You dismiss all sources—Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant—as irrelevant to your judgements. That is intellectual arrogance masquerading as independence. The Catholic Church alone possesses the fullness of truth, as affirmed by Dominus Iesus (2000): “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him” (§4). To reject this is not merely to differ in opinion; it is to reject Christ’s own authority, for He said to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18).

You may speak “unabashedly and unapologetically,” but truth is not subject to your bravado. The Church does not bend to your rhetorical flair. She proclaims what God has revealed, whether you accept it or not. If you persist in rebellion, you will face the consequences—not because the Church condemns you, but because you condemn yourself by refusing the grace offered to you. “He who believes and is baptised will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16).

You are not beyond redemption. But you must humble yourself before the truth, not wield reason as a weapon against it. The Church calls you to repentance, not applause. One may walk away now—but no one will not walk away from judgement.

What is this sudden onslaught of Catholic righteous indignation and posturing??? You weren't doing this a while back. No, you seemed to be more ecumenically inclined. Was all of that just a put on? A facade?

And no, I don't "dismiss" all sources—Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant. Give me a break!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You wrote flippantly of damnation, yet the Catholic Church teaches that Hell is no rhetorical flourish. It is eternal separation from God, freely chosen by obstinate rejection of divine truth. The Council of Florence (1439) solemnly defined: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into Hell immediately after death and there suffer eternal punishments” (DS 1306). If you knowingly reject the truths revealed by God and taught by His Church, and persist in mortal sin without repentance, then yes—by that measure, you condemn yourself.

You claim to place critical reasoning above faith, as though reason were sovereign and revelation subordinate. That is a grave error. The First Vatican Council (1870) defined that “faith is a supernatural virtue by which we believe that what God has revealed is true, not because its intrinsic truth is seen by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God who reveals it” (Dei Filius, ch. 3; DS 3008). Reason is not abolished by faith, but perfected by it. To exalt reason above faith is to enthrone pride and dethrone God.

You dismiss all sources—Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant—as irrelevant to your judgements. That is intellectual arrogance masquerading as independence. The Catholic Church alone possesses the fullness of truth, as affirmed by Dominus Iesus (2000): “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him” (§4). To reject this is not merely to differ in opinion; it is to reject Christ’s own authority, for He said to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18).

You may speak “unabashedly and unapologetically,” but truth is not subject to your bravado. The Church does not bend to your rhetorical flair. She proclaims what God has revealed, whether you accept it or not. If you persist in rebellion, you will face the consequences—not because the Church condemns you, but because you condemn yourself by refusing the grace offered to you. “He who believes and is baptised will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16).

You are not beyond redemption. But you must humble yourself before the truth, not wield reason as a weapon against it. The Church calls you to repentance, not applause. One may walk away now—but no one will not walk away from judgement.

Also, what's strange to me here is that a while back, you asked us what our favorite choice for a "Systematic Theology" happened to be, and I just tossed out that I sort of like (even if I don't strictly adhere to) Millard J. Erickson's tome on Christian Theology. But from what you're saying here, something like that wouldn't (or shouldn't be thought) to cut the mustard.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I think it has been spoon fed to you through your church’s erroneous teachings.

You presume error where the Church teaches infallibly. The Catholic Church does not “spoon feed” doctrine; she transmits divine revelation safeguarded by the Holy Spirit. The First Vatican Council (1870) dogmatically defined that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra… possesses that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed” (Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4; DS 3074). You may reject this authority, but you cannot refute it by mere assertion.

To call the Church’s teachings “erroneous” is to accuse Christ Himself of falsehood, for He promised, “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18) and “He who hears you hears Me” (Luke 10:16). The Magisterium does not invent truth; it guards and articulates what God has revealed. Your claim betrays ignorance of the Church’s doctrinal foundations and the rigorous theological tradition that undergirds them.

You speak as though your private judgement supersedes two millennia of apostolic continuity. That is not intellectual courage—it is spiritual presumption. The Church does not appeal to sentiment or manipulation; she appeals to reason illuminated by grace. As Dei Filius affirms, “faith is not a blind sentiment of religion springing from the depths of the soul… but a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing” (ch. 3; DS 3010).

If you reject the Church’s teaching, you reject the means by which Christ communicates saving truth. You may call it “spoon feeding,” but it is in fact the nourishment of eternal life. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). That is not metaphor. That is dogma. And it is not yours to dismiss.

Only as far as belief in Christ. Show me in scripture where in order to receive God’s grace one MUST believe a particular dogma (other than the resurrection for example).

You appeal to Scripture while dismissing dogma, yet Scripture itself presupposes the authority of the Church to define dogma. You ask where one must believe a “particular dogma” to receive grace—yet the very act of believing in Christ entails assent to His teaching, His sacraments, and His Church. To isolate the resurrection as the sole necessary belief is to mutilate the Gospel and reduce Christ to a slogan. “He who hears you hears Me” (Luke 10:16) was spoken to the apostles, whose successors define dogma not arbitrarily, but as guardians of divine revelation.

You demand a verse that lists dogmas as prerequisites for grace. That is a category error. Grace is freely offered, but not received apart from faith rightly ordered. “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6), and that faith is not generic—it is ecclesial, sacramental, and doctrinal. The Council of Trent (Session VI, ch. 7) teaches: “Justification… must proceed from the predisposing grace of God… whereby man is moved to believe those things which are divinely revealed.” That includes the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence, and the authority of the Church.

You cannot receive Christ while rejecting what He instituted. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53) is not optional. It is dogma. The Eucharist is not a symbolic add-on—it is the source and summit of Christian life (cf. Lumen Gentium, §11). To deny it is to deny Christ’s own words. Likewise, baptism is not a suggestion: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). That is dogma. That is grace mediated through sacrament.

You cannot pit Scripture against dogma, for dogma is the Church’s authoritative interpretation of Scripture. To reject dogma is to reject the Church. To reject the Church is to reject Christ. “If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). That is not metaphor. That is ecclesial judgement. You may claim to believe in Christ—but if you reject what He taught through His Church, your belief is self-fashioned, not salvific.

I shall leave the rest of your reply unanswered because answering it will in all likelihood be unfruitful.

 

[public hermit]

This formulation affirms that while elements of sanctification and truth exist outside her visible structure, the fullness of Christ’s Church remains uniquely and enduringly present in the Catholic communion.

That doesn't make sense. The Catholic, Orthodox, Syrian, and Ethiopian Churches each believe they are the true church and preserve the original teachings and practices of Christianity. @2PhiloVoid is right, good reason begs to differ. Some AI help:

Roman Catholic Church​

• The Roman Catholic Church believes it is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ, with the Pope as the successor of Saint Peter. It emphasizes the importance of apostolic succession, sacraments, and the authority of the Church in interpreting Scripture.

Orthodox Church​

• The Eastern Orthodox Church also considers itself the true church, maintaining that it preserves the original teachings and traditions of Christianity as handed down from the apostles. It emphasizes the importance of the seven ecumenical councils and the continuity of the faith through the ages.

Syrian Orthodox Church​

• The Syrian Orthodox Church views itself as the true church, rooted in the apostolic tradition and the teachings of the early church fathers. It emphasizes its Miaphysite theology and the importance of its unique liturgical practices and heritage.

Ethiopian Orthodox Church​

• The Ethiopian Orthodox Church believes it is the true church, with a direct lineage to the early Christian community established by Saint Frumentius. It holds a strong sense of national identity intertwined with its faith, emphasizing its unique traditions and practices.

Unity will never be realized until all these "true" churches, and others, gain some humility.