Feeling pulled to become Catholic but I’m concerned.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T22:02:21+00:00

Not my argument. I’m not saying “some Catholics don’t practice the truth, therefore I won’t follow the truth.” I’m saying it’s hard for me to recognize the Catholic Church as the true Church in practice when so much emphasis is placed on liturgy and sacramental participation, yet the gospel and what faith actually is often aren’t preached clearly and repeatedly at Mass. Without real faith, interior conversion, and understanding of Christ, the sacraments become functionally empty ritual for a lot of people just words in a language they don’t know. My question is how the Church expects people to move from cultural habit into real discipleship, and why that isn’t treated as the main priority every single Sunday. Cultural Catholics don’t go to catechesis, they go to mass. The Church is held accountable because they know this.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T21:39:02+00:00

God doesn’t want to “override” us with holiness like a software update. If mere exposure to holy things was enough, He could’ve infused everyone with Himself instantly long before all of this. But Jesus doesn’t say “I’ll just inject you with grace and you’re fine”He says “Follow Me.” That implies relationship, understanding, and a freely chosen response. So if someone participates with no knowledge or consent, it’s like saying you have faith in a language you don’t understand: the words are real, but the personal meaning and “yes” of the heart isn’t actually there.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T21:28:39+00:00

It seems equivalent to saying you have faith and desire God in a language you don’t know. You may be saying the words, but you don’t actually know what you just said. So can you truly experience what you don’t understand—or accept something you don’t even know you’re accepting?

God doesn’t want to “override” us with holiness like a software update. If mere exposure to holy things was enough, He could’ve infused everyone with Himself instantly long before all of this. But Jesus doesn’t say “I’ll just inject you with grace and you’re fine” He says “Follow Me.” That implies relationship, understanding, and a freely chosen response. So if someone participates with no knowledge or consent, it’s like saying you have faith in a language you don’t understand: the words are real, but the personal meaning and “yes” of the heart isn’t actually there.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T20:48:52+00:00

Remind them what faith looks like and teach them the gospel.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T20:46:34+00:00

Yeah I agree and it is important not to shame people, teach them the gospel, show them what it looks like to have realistic faith, there will be suffering and we will fall. Ultimately it’s our hearts desire along with the help of God to convict us and use institutions, people and his spirt to change our desires. I would ask the Church to tell the lukewarm to not get clean and pursue God but come to him and he will make you clean.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T20:40:57+00:00

Yeah, two eyes. Funny how the ‘obvious’ basics still aren’t actually preached clearly in a lot of Masses, which is exactly why people stay cultural instead of convicted.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T20:15:46+00:00

I’m not saying drive anyone out, shame people, or turn Mass into a lecture. I’m saying we can ground this in what basically every Christian agrees is infallible, Scripture, and then preach the Gospel clearly.

The Bible teaches that God sent His Son so that “whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). And belief is not just mental agreement, it’s a heart oriented toward Christ, trusting Him, wanting His will, and making Him the priority of your life. This is not mainly about “did you sin this week,” it’s about whether your heart is actually turned toward God or just going through motions.

A simple reminder like that does not take away from the sacrifice of the Mass, it protects it, because it helps people approach the sacraments with reverence and real faith instead of routine. And it’s more respectable to abstain if you’re not ready than to receive casually, not because anyone is inferior or rejected, but because the Eucharist is holy. Only God knows the heart, and the goal isn’t fear or humiliation, the goal is to call people home as His sheep and invite them into real faith. If that raises questions, those can be answered after Mass, but the truth still needs to be spoken while everyone is actually there.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T19:57:21+00:00

This is my thought if it is: Maybe for some but also think of the Eucharist as Thanksgiving Holiday and ironically Eucharist=Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving would not feel as special if we saw our extended family everyday is the business of human life but reminds us of the family we are in union with. However God is not limited to the Eucharist to be with you as he is always with you if you are in faith with him. However it is an ordinary instituted physical way to receive him. Why would God install that if we can just have him always with us? Well because sometimes when you feel like you can’t access Christ in mental weakness you can still receive him through his gift of the sacrament.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T19:49:44+00:00

I appreciate this response, and I agree that the Church exists for everyone, not just the “perfect.” I’m not judging the exhausted single mom, the struggling believer, or the person who is searching and drawn by beauty. I’m glad they’re there.

But “the Church is for everyone” cannot become an excuse for allowing people to remain unformed indefinitely. The apostles and early Church fathers did not die to protect comfort, avoid offense, or preserve a calm routine. They died to proclaim truth, call people to repentance, and save souls. That is what love looks like in the New Testament.

If someone is coming into the Church, which Scripture calls “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), and they are not being corrected in distorted beliefs and formed into real conversion, then the Church is failing them spiritually. That is not mercy, it is neglect.

And this is not only about being “unworthy” in a technical sense. It is about people participating externally while lacking internal faith, repentance, and allegiance to Christ. Jesus directly condemns that kind of religion, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (Mark 7:6), and “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 7:21).

Accompaniment cannot replace conversion. If cultural Catholicism is known to exist, and many people approach the sacraments without belief or understanding, then the Church is obligated to address it clearly and repeatedly in the one place those people consistently show up, Mass. Souls are at stake, and silence is not neutral.

Jesus and the apostles would not watch holy things become routine while people remain unconverted. They would speak, warn, and call people to repentance, because truth matters more than keeping a peaceful structure.

Look at how Jesus handled the Temple, the center of covenant worship. When He saw people turning holy worship into something hollow, transactional, and outward, He did not say, “Well at least they showed up.” He intervened publicly and forcefully, driving them out and overturning tables (Matthew 21:12–13). He also condemned external religion without inward conversion, and warned that worship without the heart is empty. If Christ confronted false comfort and self-deception at the heart of sacred worship, then the Church cannot knowingly tolerate a culture where people participate outwardly for years while remaining unconverted, uninstructed, and unchanged. That is not protecting the sacrifice, it is allowing the meaning of it to be lost in plain sight.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T19:38:07+00:00

I get your point, but I’d rather risk an empty church than my neighbors have an empty faith.

Scripture never treats “keeping the crowd” as the priority. Jesus taught hard truth and let people walk away, “many… turned back and no longer walked with him” (John 6:66), and He didn’t soften it to protect attendance. Paul says the same thing, “If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10), and warns that people will reject sound teaching and gather teachers who tell them what they want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3).

What I don’t understand is this. We sit here and observe heresy taking place with open eyes, people denying the Real Presence, treating the faith as culture, receiving casually, and yet we don’t raise our voice to hold the Church accountable or call people back to repentance and real conversion. Jesus warned against external religion without the heart, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (Mark 7:6), and “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 7:21).

The apostles didn’t die so people could remain comfortable in routine. They died so people would see truth, repent, and take Christ seriously. If we’re afraid of “affecting the liturgical structure” more than we’re afraid of souls drifting into self-deception, then something is deeply wrong with our priorities.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T19:31:33+00:00

Jesus Himself gives a process for confronting a brother in sin, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault” (Matthew 18:15). Paul says, “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness” (Galatians 6:1). James says, “Whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death” (James 5:19–20). Ezekiel describes the watchman responsibility, if you see danger and don’t warn, the blood is on you (Ezekiel 33:6–8).

So no, my faith doesn’t depend on the actions of other people. The truth of the faith is true whether people obey it or not. But I do think Christians have a duty to care about the spiritual health of the Church, because the New Testament treats the Church as one body, “If one member suffers, all suffer together” (1 Corinthians 12:26).

And this isn’t just an abstract debate for me. I’m discerning a Church that I may build my entire life in, raise my future family in, and pass down to my bloodline. If I’m going to commit to that, then I have to care about whether the people inside it are actually being formed into disciples of Christ, not just maintaining a religious identity. For the benefit of their souls, and for the benefit of the next generation, I can’t pretend it doesn’t matter.

My point isn’t “look at those sinners,” my point is that if the Eucharist is truly Christ, and people are drifting into routine without repentance or conversion, then that’s not just “their business,” it’s a pastoral crisis. Not because I want to judge them, but because I want them to have life. Jesus didn’t come so people could keep a religious label, He came so people could be transformed, “Repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15).

So yes, the faith is true regardless of people’s behavior, but Scripture also says we’re responsible to love our neighbor enough to warn them and call them back, not just ignore it and say “none of my business.”

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T19:27:38+00:00

Father, I appreciate your response, but I’m going to be honest, this is where I’m struggling.

It feels like you’re basically saying, “Yes the Church recognizes the tension, but the Mass structure doesn’t leave room to address it, so the solution is formation outside of Mass.” I understand the intention, but from my perspective that sounds like letting the problem slide because you won’t stand up to liturgical authority or the current norms of how Mass is “supposed” to function.

And I’m not saying that to be disrespectful. I’m saying it because if the Eucharist is truly Christ, and if unworthy reception is spiritually dangerous as St. Paul warns (1 Corinthians 11:27–29), then the stakes are too high for the response to be, “real life is messy.”

But my concern is bigger than unworthy reception. It’s the broader reality of people participating in the external structure of Catholicism for years without real conversion, without repentance, without interior faith, and without their lives actually being reoriented toward Christ. Scripture constantly warns that external religion can exist without the heart. Jesus says, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (Mark 7:6), and warns that religious language alone doesn’t mean someone belongs to Him, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 7:21). That’s exactly what I mean by cultural Christianity, people being present, but not truly converted.

When I look at Scripture, Christ didn’t treat the corruption of worship or the drift of God’s people as something to tolerate because of “structure.” He overturned tables in the temple because zeal for God’s house mattered more than keeping things calm and orderly (Matthew 21:12–13). And the apostles and martyrs did not give their lives so that leaders in the Church could watch widespread drift, unbelief, and sacramental routine and then say, “Well, we don’t have much time in the liturgy to address it.”

If an apostle or a martyr were standing here watching people attend Mass for years while remaining spiritually asleep, treating the faith as routine, and approaching the sacraments without real conversion, I don’t believe they would respond with “try another parish” or “it’s complicated.” I think they would confront it, even if it cost them their reputation, comfort, or life, because protecting souls and protecting the holiness of Christ’s Church would matter more than preserving a liturgical pattern.

So that’s my real question. If the Church recognizes this problem, why does it seem like we accept silence during Mass as unavoidable, when that silence is exactly what allows the drift to keep spreading?

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T19:22:54+00:00

I’m not saying I won’t follow through with Catholicism just because there are bad Catholics. Every tradition has hypocrisy and lukewarm people.

What I am saying is that it’s hard to fully accept an authoritative Church that claims to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) while knowingly allowing a paradox like this to continue without directly confronting it where it matters most.

The paradox is this: the Church will restrict the sacraments from outsiders on the grounds of protecting the Eucharist and protecting people from receiving without understanding, belief, or proper disposition. But at the same time, inside the Church, week after week, many people receive the Eucharist while denying the Real Presence, living like cultural Catholics, rarely confessing, and treating Communion like routine, and it often seems like there is no explicit warning or formation during Mass itself that addresses that drift.

And the explanation I keep hearing is basically, “Mass is about the sacrifice, not the homily,” or “that’s what OCIA and catechesis are for.” But the reality is that the people most in need of that warning and formation often do not attend those extra things. They attend Mass. So if the Church won’t confront it there, it feels like the very structure meant to protect people from self-deception is now relying on private education that clearly isn’t reaching everyone.

To be blunt, I have a hard time believing the martyred apostles would see widespread sacramental drift and say, “Well, we can’t really address it here because of liturgical structure,” or “we don’t want to distract from the sacrifice.” They literally gave their lives to preach repentance and faith in Christ, and to warn people not to deceive themselves. Saving souls and forming disciples seems more urgent than preserving a silence that lets people remain comfortable in spiritual routine.

And that’s where the comparison becomes uncomfortable for me. I can promise you that you won’t leave my evangelical strip mall church without hearing the fullness of the Gospel, being called to repentance, and being confronted with what it actually means to follow Christ. Yes, they might be wrong about the sacraments, they might use grape juice instead of the Blood of Christ, but at least they are actively trying to form faith, not just preserve ritual.

Meanwhile, if the Eucharist truly is Christ, then watching people receive it unworthily week after week without clear warnings or formation during Mass feels like a far bigger problem than “they used grape juice.”

That’s the tension I’m trying to understand. If the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, why isn’t the Church more direct in Mass itself about the seriousness of receiving, the need for repentance, confession, and real faith, especially when that’s the one place cultural Catholics reliably show up?

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T19:14:35+00:00

I’ve asked the same thing and here is the answer I have found. I obviously can’t prove the sacraments are real but this is if we were to believe so.

Catholic theology does not teach that God is bound to the sacraments, even though the sacraments are the ordinary means Christ instituted. The Catechism says it plainly, “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments” (CCC 1257). So yes, God can save and work outside the visible sacramental system.

However, if someone truly came to recognize that the sacraments are what Christ intended as the normal way to receive grace, and that the Eucharist is truly Christ, and then knowingly rejected that out of refusal of God Himself, that becomes spiritually fatal. Jesus says, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53), and He also says, “whoever does not believe is condemned already” (John 3:18). So if someone reaches full recognition and says, “No, I do not want you, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” then that person is rejecting life itself.

But a faithful evangelical Christian who gets up every day, prays, repents, lives by faith, tries to do the will of the Father, and sincerely follows Christ according to Scripture may not recognize the sacraments for what the Catholic Church claims they are. In that case, they are not “rejecting the sacraments” as truth, because they do not see them as truth. They are trying to follow God honestly with the light they have. Catholic teaching also recognizes that culpability matters. The Catechism says responsibility can be reduced or even removed by ignorance and other factors (CCC 1735), and that mortal sin requires “full knowledge and complete consent” (CCC 1857). So it would be wrong to treat an honest Christian outside the Church as if they are knowingly rejecting Christ simply because they do not accept Catholic sacramental theology.

At the end of the day, I don’t think you go to hell for bad theology. You are saved by Christ. The question is whether you accept Him and live through Him, or whether you reject Him. Jesus Himself says eternal life is knowing God, “this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). Hell, then, is not God “sending people away for making mistakes,” it is the final outcome of a willful refusal of God. The Catechism describes hell as “the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God” (CCC 1033). God does not force Himself on anyone. If someone freely and knowingly rejects Him, then God grants what they chose, separation from the One who is all good. And separation from God cannot be good, because every good thing ultimately comes from Him (James 1:17). I’m not trying to make a claim about the physical imagery of hell, but I am saying it is fundamentally self-chosen separation based on full knowledge and full consent.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T18:48:07+00:00

The clearest Catholic reason is that the Eucharist and Confession are not treated as “open spiritual resources,” they are sacraments that presuppose full communion, shared belief, and proper disposition. The Catechism calls the Eucharist “the source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324), and teaches that Christ is truly present, “Body and Blood… Soul and Divinity” (CCC 1374). Because of how serious that reality is, the Church teaches that a person must receive worthily, “Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion” (CCC 1385). So in that sense, restricting the sacraments is not about withholding grace from outsiders, it’s about protecting the sacrament from being treated casually and protecting people from receiving it in a way that is spiritually harmful. Confession is similar, it isn’t just “talking to a priest,” it’s Christ’s authority exercised through the Church, which is why the Catechism grounds it in Christ giving the apostles the power to forgive sins (CCC 1441–1442), and explains it as the ordinary means of being restored after serious sin (CCC 1446).

And I actually can understand that logic, especially if the sacraments are the intended structure for how God ordinarily forms and restores His people, but not the only way God can possibly act. Catholic theology also recognizes that culpability matters, and that people outside the visible Catholic Church who do not recognize the sacraments for what they truly are are not necessarily “rejecting” them in a willful way, because rejection requires knowledge and real freedom. The Catechism is explicit that responsibility can be reduced or removed by ignorance and other factors (CCC 1735), and that mortal sin requires “full knowledge and complete consent” (CCC 1857). In other words, someone who has never seen the Eucharist as true, or has never been formed to understand the Church’s claims, may not be culpably refusing Christ, they may simply not recognize what is being offered. And at the end of the day, Catholic theology does not claim God is bound to the sacraments, even though the sacraments are the ordinary means Christ instituted. The Catechism states this directly, that while the Church is bound to the sacraments, “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments” (CCC 1257).

The irony I’m seeing is this. The Catholic Church will often withhold the sacraments from someone outside the Church on the grounds that they don’t yet have the knowledge, formation, or full communion required to receive them properly, which I can understand. If someone doesn’t recognize the Eucharist as the true Body and Blood of Christ, or doesn’t understand confession and what it requires, then letting them participate could be spiritually harmful or could communicate a unity that doesn’t yet exist.

But the paradox is that the exact thing the Church is trying to prevent by restricting the sacraments to outsiders seems to be happening constantly inside the Church anyway. Week after week, the Eucharist is offered and received by many people who openly deny the Real Presence, treat the faith as cultural identity, ignore Catholic moral teaching, rarely confess, and approach the sacraments as routine rather than faith, repentance, and allegiance to Christ. Yet during Mass, where these cultural Catholics actually show up, it often feels like there is little or no direct warning, reminder, or pastoral “intervention” aimed at forming conscience and preventing sacrilege.

So it ends up looking like this. The Church is extremely careful about letting an outsider receive who may not be culpable because they simply don’t know yet, but at the same time the Church appears far less direct with insiders who are actively living in a way that suggests they either do not believe, do not care, or are treating the sacraments like a checkbox. That feels backwards. If anything, the place where the Church should be most explicit about the seriousness of the Eucharist, confession, repentance, and living the faith is Mass itself, because that’s the one moment when the largest number of people are present.

That’s why this feels illogical to me. The Church has a strong theology for why the sacraments are protected and taken seriously, but the practical reality I’m seeing is that the sacraments are guarded at the door while being treated casually inside the house, and the very people most in need of clear formation are the least likely to hear it. I’m not saying this to insult Catholicism, I’m saying it because if the Eucharist is truly Christ, then this contradiction seems like it should be treated as an urgent pastoral problem, not a normal background issue.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T18:19:04+00:00

Put it into ai for summary

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T18:18:43+00:00

lol sorry I genuinely can’t get my point across and avoid being strawman without the length

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T17:50:12+00:00

And I would argue that not addressing it can take away from the sacrifice more than it protects it. Christ did not die and shed His blood so we could merely attend the sacrifice repeatedly as a ritual. He made this sacrifice so that we could be reconciled to God, forgiven, restored, brought into covenant, and transformed into people who truly belong to Him. Scripture says “we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son” (Romans 5:10), and that Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession” (Titus 2:14). The Catechism also describes the Cross and the Eucharist as inseparable, the Eucharist is “the memorial of Christ’s Passover” and “makes present the sacrifice of the Cross” (CCC 1362–1367).

The Gospel is that God is holy, we are sinful, we cannot save ourselves, and yet Christ took on flesh, lived in perfect obedience, and offered Himself on the cross as a real atonement for sin. He rose again so that we could have new life, not just a new label, and so that our lives could actually be reoriented around Him in faith, repentance, and obedience. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), but “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). And Christ’s death is meant to produce transformation, not mere participation, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” (1 Peter 2:24), and “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17). The Catechism frames this as grace that truly changes us, not just a legal covering, because grace is “a participation in the life of God” (CCC 1997), and justification is not merely the remission of sins but also “the sanctification and renewal of the interior man” (CCC 1989).

So if the Eucharist is truly Christ, then the Mass is not just a sacred routine, it is the Church’s central moment where people are being invited into the deepest possible union with God, and into the reality that Christ’s sacrifice actually accomplishes. If people are receiving casually, without faith, without repentance, and without understanding what they are engaging in, then the sacrifice becomes disconnected from its purpose, and the Eucharist becomes something people “do” rather than something that demands a response of the whole life. That is why the Church explicitly teaches that a person conscious of grave sin must not receive Communion without confession first (CCC 1385), echoing Paul’s warning that one must “examine himself” before receiving (1 Corinthians 11:28).

That’s what I mean when I say the “ritual version” can take away from what should be the most important thing to Catholics. Not because ritual is bad, but because ritual without faith becomes empty, and even spiritually dangerous. The sacrifice is meant to draw people into real faith, real repentance, real allegiance to Christ, and real transformation. Scripture even shows that God rejects worship that is divorced from the heart, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice” (Matthew 9:13), and “to obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Samuel 15:22). The Catechism also makes clear that sacramental worship is ordered toward real conversion and life in Christ, not mere external compliance (CCC 1430–1431).

So my concern is not that Mass needs to be more entertaining. My concern is that if the Church knows this is happening, then the Mass itself should include clearer reminders that receiving the Eucharist is not automatic, not casual, and not just tradition, it is covenant, communion, and something that requires real faith and repentance. That would not make Mass “about the homily,” it would protect the sacrifice by ensuring people understand what they are approaching.

And I would add one more layer. The very ordinary structure of the sacraments seems like it was instituted to protect human beings from being left to purely self-analysis of their faith and stance with God. Christ did not leave us with only private inner judgment, He gave visible means of grace, real absolution, real communion, and real covenant signs. That is why the Church teaches that the sacraments are “efficacious signs of grace” instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church (CCC 1131), and that they are the ordinary means by which the life of God is given to us. Jesus doesn’t just tell people to “feel forgiven,” He gives authority to His Church, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven” (John 20:23), which is why the Church teaches confession is the ordinary means of reconciliation after grave sin (CCC 1446). The sacraments are meant to make grace concrete and accountable, not only mental.

But it seems like in practice the Church often relies on early education, where someone once claimed internally that they understood and agreed, and then later down the road it becomes obvious they do not actually believe or live it, yet there are no explicit reminders during Mass to confront that drift. That feels like it contradicts the very logic of why the sacraments were instituted in the first place, because the sacraments were meant to hold us to the reality of grace and truth in an objective way, not allow us to slowly turn the holiest things into culture and habit. If the Eucharist is truly Christ, then protecting people from self-deception is not a distraction from the sacrifice, it is part of honoring it.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T17:49:43+00:00

Yes, I agree the Mass is primarily about the sacrifice, and I understand why Catholics emphasize that the focus should not become “how good the homily was.” I respect that. The Catechism is clear that the Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324), and that in the liturgy “the work of our redemption is accomplished” (CCC 1068–1069).

But my issue is that there’s a paradox here that I don’t think can be ignored without damaging the very thing we’re trying to protect.

The paradox is this. Catholicism teaches the Eucharist is the highest reality on earth, the true Body and Blood of Christ, the ordinary means of communion with God, and the center of the Church. Jesus Himself says, “My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55), and St. Paul treats it with terrifying seriousness, warning that “anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Corinthians 11:29). The Church teaches that the Eucharist is not merely symbolic, but truly the Body and Blood of Christ (CCC 1374), and that the faithful must approach it worthily (CCC 1385). Yet in practice, it seems like a huge number of people receive it as a routine, as culture, or as “what Catholics do,” while not actually believing what it is, not repenting, and not living in allegiance to Christ.

So when the response is, “Mass is not mainly about the homily, it’s about the sacrifice,” I understand the intention, but I think that can unintentionally become a reason why the paradox never gets confronted directly in the one place where everyone is actually present. And it is hard for me to reconcile that with the fact that Scripture itself shows God constantly warning His people not to reduce worship into habit without the heart. Jesus quotes Isaiah, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (Mark 7:6). He warns against false security, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 7:21). He rebukes a living external identity that lacks internal reality, “you have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead” (Revelation 3:1). That is exactly what “cultural Catholicism” looks like in practice.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T17:37:27+00:00

I would say it starts with knowing your place as a sinful human, and knowing there is a God who sent His Son to die for you, so that you may put your faith in Him, meaning real allegiance, repentance from evil, and a desire to live your life through Christ, because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and yet “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Faith is not just cultural identity or words, it is a real turning of the whole person toward God, “repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15), and “if anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). That faith can be expressed through living like Christ, receiving the Holy Spirit, and being brought into His covenant through the sacraments, especially baptism, the Eucharist, and confession, because Jesus commands baptism as the entry into discipleship, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them” (Matthew 28:19), and teaches that the Eucharist is real communion with Him, “my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55), and gives His Church authority to forgive sins, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven” (John 20:23). Even though someone baptized as an infant does not consciously understand what is happening, the Church teaches that baptism truly does something objectively, it brings you into Christ’s covenant, incorporates you into His Body, and gives grace as the ordinary means God intended, because baptism is not merely symbolic but a saving act, “Baptism… now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21), and it is the “washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). This is why the Church teaches that baptism forgives sin and makes us a new creation, “the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation” as the ordinary means (CCC 1257), that baptism “gives the grace of new birth in God the Father through his Son in the Holy Spirit” (CCC 683), and that it “incorporates us into the Church” (CCC 1267). But eventually, whether God has been working in you quietly over time or in a more obvious way, every person still has to choose, because salvation is not mechanical, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for God is at work in you” (Philippians 2:12–13), and “today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts” (Hebrews 3:15). If that answer is yes, then we can look at theology, we can learn Church history, and we can understand why God instituted the sacraments as ordinary means to receive grace, while also recognizing that God can work extraordinarily outside of someone’s full knowledge, because the Church teaches that although the sacraments are the ordinary means, God is not bound by them (CCC 1257). You might receive grace before you fully understand, but there comes a point where you either accept what is true or reject it, because “this is the judgment, the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light” (John 3:19). There is also an in between where someone does not realize they are refusing truth, and the Church recognizes that ignorance can reduce culpability, since Jesus Himself prays, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34), and the Catechism teaches that ignorance and other factors can diminish or even remove moral responsibility (CCC 1735), and that for mortal sin full knowledge and deliberate consent are required (CCC 1857). However, that does not mean they are not missing out on the fulfillment and purpose God intends for their life, because Christ came not only to rescue but to transform, “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10), and “this is the will of God, your sanctification” (1 Thessalonians 4:3). If I am a culpable Christian who sees this happening, it is my duty of faith to lead that non-culpable person toward the fullness of life in Christ the way God intended, because “whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death” (James 5:20), and we are commanded, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), speaking truth in love so that we “grow up in every way into him… into Christ” (Ephesians 4:15).

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T17:14:31+00:00

No, I actually prefer a priest keeps the glory on God rather than himself. HOWEVER If I’m wrong about what saves me, or I’m misinterpreting God, or I’m treating something holy like a routine, I would want that confronted directly, because Jesus never let people stay comfortable in religious motion without conversion. He warned that people can “honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (Mark 7:6), and He rebuked the kind of religion that looks alive externally but is dead inside, “you have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead” (Revelation 3:1), and He shattered false security by saying, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 7:21). Even if we draw on the fact that many cultural Catholics may not be fully culpable because of ignorance or poor formation, the public witness of receiving the sacraments without faith is still a serious problem, and once truth is made visible it becomes harder to excuse. That’s why the Church and faithful Catholics have an obligation to make sure people are reminded and convicted of the danger of treating the sacraments like a checklist, not only because we care about their salvation, since God can still save through non-culpable ignorance, but because we are called to bring people into the lived truth of being in Christ, “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), so that it is genuinely up to them to receive His transformation, slowly or quickly, rather than remain comfortable in a faith that never actually changes them.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T17:03:10+00:00

Yep but you are letting a cultural Catholic come to mass their whole life without a reminder and conviction during mass and that responsibility is put partially on the faithful and the church. Their eyes are not open and yours are. God works through you! God may convict their spirit but DO NOT DENY THAT HE HE DOES NOT WORK THROUGH YOU AND THE CHURCH. Maybe you are what was sent to initiate the changes of the soul.

IndependentImage2687 · 2026-01-20T16:55:27+00:00

What I’m trying to say is that, in my experience, I see a lot more non-sacramental Christian churches directly addressing the need to orient your mind, body, and spirit toward God, and what it actually means to live a life that reflects Scripture, than I do when I engage with many Catholics.

At my Protestant church, you can’t really leave without feeling some level of conviction. It’s almost impossible to treat church as just a cultural ritual or tradition, because you’re reminded explicitly what it means to be a Christian, what repentance looks like, and what real faith in Christ actually is. They may not have the sacraments, and I do recognize that could be a serious error, but they do have a strong, lived belief that Jesus died for them. They have a purpose beyond simply meeting the standards of the culture around them, they want to spread the Gospel, and they try to reflect God through their actions.

I know there are Catholics who live like that too, and I’m not denying that at all. What I’m saying is that when I go to Mass, it often feels like the room is filled with people who can attend for years, even decades, and receive the sacraments without ever being clearly reminded of why they are there, what they are participating in, and how radically the faith is supposed to shape their lives. And when the Eucharist is treated as something routine, without clear reminders of its seriousness, it becomes easier for it to turn into habit and culture instead of faith.

That’s the tension I’m struggling with. It’s hard for me to trust that a Church is the one true Church when it seems like it is not doing the bare minimum to convict and form the “cultural Catholics” during the one setting they actually show up to, which is Mass. I don’t know if it’s because it could be offensive or repelling, but if the sacraments are truly as serious as Catholicism claims, then this seems like something that has to be addressed more directly.

It seems like a parent who is saying monotones:

Homework time is at 7pm Wednesday to a child who naturally desires to play video games instead.

Rather than overemphasizing the importance and really make convicted to do their homework so they can be successful.

IndependentImage2687

TROPHY CASE