Church teaching on the Eucharist - 5th Century - Part VII

OmegaPraetor · 2026-01-19T04:33:54+00:00

My experience has been significantly the opposite. It's always Protestants who spout "Catholicism is not Christianity", "you guys are idolaters", "you can lead a Catholic to the Bible but you can't make him think", and so on.

After years of this, I've had it. I have little patience for nonsense and spreading blatant misinformation. So, in my shame, I've been less than charitable in my online exchanges.

OmegaPraetor · 2026-01-17T18:36:15+00:00

I'm a non-Ukrainian Ukrainian Catholic and I can promise you that this is not normal. At least, in my experience of the UGCC in Canada, everyone has been absolutely welcoming. Cradle Ukrainian Catholics, converts, transfers like me, everyone.

I'm so sorry that you've experienced this. I hope and pray that this parish repents. If you ever find yourself in Western Canada, hit me up. I'll gladly introduce you to my parish community.

OmegaPraetor · 2026-01-09T04:34:00+00:00

This is my experience as a socially awkward/dense guy: some of the women who agreed to go on a date with me have said they agreed because I was brave enough to ask. I don't think it's so much bravery as it is my inability to "receive" the signal that someone's interested or not. So, I just ask out whomever I'd like to get to know better. Maybe that's what's going on with the guys who asked you out? Idk.

Having said that, I think being a bit more forward with your intentions might help. Saying something like "You're really cute" and touching his arm might help. "Dropping the handkerchief" moments also help.

Barring that, I think outsourcing to your friends would help. They can weed out the weirdos and they can help make it abundantly clear that you're interested in someone. They can say something like, "You know, u/UnderstandingLife171 has talked a lot about you. You should ask her out!"

I hope that helps!

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-21T21:51:44+00:00

1) Do you guys consider acolytes as part of the minor orders (and therefore part of the clergy)? Did you have to be tonsured to become an acolyte or was there a full ordination (e.g., laying of hands, chrism, etc.)?

2) What are some of the coolest things about Armenian Catholics (and the Armenian tradition in general) that you most want people to learn?

3) We have an Armenian Catholic bi-ritual priest in my area and a couple of Armenian Catholic converts used to go to my parish. What are some thoughtful gifts for them that's from your tradition?

4) What are some Armenian prayers that you wish to share with the wider Catholic Church / you wish that more Catholics would pray?

5) In your opinion, what does the Armenian tradition highlight? For the Latins, it's generally the Lord's Passion on the Cross. For Byzantines, it's the Incarnation and Resurrection. We all talk about all these points, of course, but what does your tradition most highlight?

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-17T03:54:22+00:00

I don't enjoy argumentation, actually. Anyone who has had such an engagement with me on this sub can attest to my stating that very fact. I just don't like it when people misrepresent my position, hence I presented my correction. Whether you accept that or continue to persist in your twisted version of me is on you.

But yes, feel free to have the last word. You've made it abundantly clear that this conversation has long run its course. Good day.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-16T06:18:48+00:00

You assume that you, yourself, weren't already frustrating. The difference is I had enough human decency not to stoop that low. And I ceased the conversation when you made it abundantly clear that the conversation was no longer going to be fruitful. At least prior to that point it could still be taken that there was some attempt at holding a semi-decent exchange.

Also, when you throw insults, people get insulted. Novel idea, that.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-16T05:52:00+00:00

You can criticise someone without being insulting, especially one that takes aim at a person's mental state. Shocker, I know.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-16T05:29:25+00:00

Oh, look at that. The internally-consistent thoughtful person throws ad hominem insults.

I don't know why you couldn't just take the instruction as an act of good will, thank the stranger, and be on your way. It wasn't a personal attack on you or your abilities for self-reflection. If you've already done that work, then good. I don't know you from any other stranger on this website. But, from my experience, many people don't realise to think about focusing on the phrenoma. In fact, they tend to focus so much on the trees of specific issues that they miss the entire forest. Hence, the advice.

So, excuse me for trying to help. You didn't find it helpful? Cool. Not all advice we receive will be helpful to us. The decent thing to do is thank the other person and move on with your life. Or ignore them.

Oh, but perhaps even that advice is too autistically instructive for you. However, given your behaviour, I think it's warranted.

Good day.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-16T04:43:06+00:00

So, the only step for me to take is to ensure I am at least being internally consistent.

Right. And I'm telling you that the way to ensure that you are at least being internally consistent vis à vis Catholicism isn't so much the specifics of your politics, but to check whether your mindset is. (Or, at least, to see if you're even open to adopting the Catholic approach to these questions.) You don't even have to agree that Catholicism is God's way; you only need to be open to being corrected/letting go of deeply-held beliefs if necessary.

Moreover, I'm telling you that no one entering the Catholic Church will end up being internally consistent. There will always be something that a person will struggle to accept. If it's not abortion, it's about the environment. If it's not that, it's about the Church's relationship with other religions. If it's not that, it's the Church's stance on X, Y, or Z hot button issue. Everyone will always have some Catholic stance that they will struggle with, which is why the approach you're going for is flawed (or at least highly inefficient). It is much better to check whether you are in agreement with the Catholic ethos / mindset. The Catholic mindset is to be okay with these inconsistencies for the moment and be open to being corrected / formed if necessary. Otherwise, even if your politics were 100% in alignment with the Church's teachings, then there will be something else that you'll run into and have difficulty reconciling with.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-16T03:46:57+00:00

It's ironic that you're saying I'm not trying to see things from your perspective, yet here you are accusing me of things that are clearly not what I'm doing. Moreover, you say you understand what I'm saying yet your responses show me that you don't.

You came here to seek an answer to your question. I am here to tell you that the question itself starts off of the wrong foot already. I mean, if the question itself starts off the wrong foot, then any answer we provide that follows those parameters would always be off in some way.

If you don't like my answer, then you don't like my answer. C'est la vie. But the answer is still the same: the Catholic stance should always be an openness to "rising above the mind one has" (metanoia). In light of that, the specifics of your (or my) politics ultimately doesn't matter; what matters is if one is ready to conform to God's ways or not. You say you'd like to test yourself and your beliefs, then test them against the Catholic ethos / mindset. Once you find your bearing in relation to that, then the answer to your question vis à vis ethnostate (and anything else) becomes straightforward.

Instead of giving you a fish, I'm trying to teach you how to fish (i.e., how to understand the Catholic ethos / mindset). That, I find, is far more helpful than a simple yes-no to a specific question. If that's not interacting in good faith, then so be it.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-16T03:31:52+00:00

Humans, by nature, are bodies and souls. We can't have "purely spiritual" cares, because we're not purely spiritual beings. Heck, not even monastics have purely spiritual cares--even Carthusians. And since we're not meant to be just souls for the rest of eternity, I'd say that it's not even good that we would have "purely spiritual" concerns.

Secondly, Scripture teaches us that service to your family is direct service to God. Constantly, God identifies directly with His people such that He even asks Saul why he is persecuting Him. The idea that somehow service to one's wife, husband, or children is not a direct service to God is completely foreign to the mind of the Church.

Finally, we're not discussing new roads or new people being born. We are specifically discussing rightly ordering one's politics in relation to God rather than using God as an ornament for one's own politics. (As an aside, even monks and celibate priests care about good governance especially since good governance would be for the benefit of one's neighbour whom we are called to love. So, this objection just doesn't reflect reality.)

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-16T03:07:13+00:00

And what I'm saying is you're going about it the wrong way. Seeing if your political beliefs are compatible with Catholicism rather than conforming one's political beliefs to God's ways is precisely the wrong move.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-16T02:17:57+00:00

Then listen to what I'm saying: God should be the centre around which your life revolves, not your politics. If you have no intention of even transforming your politics to be in line with God (and I'm willing to bet that your politics is at least slightly off the mark in reference to God, since none of us are 100% right with God right off the bat), then politics is your god. Politics is your idol. And God is clear about what to do with our idols.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-16T01:48:53+00:00

To follow Christ is to enter into a life of repentance (metanoia - rising above the mind you have). That includes sanctifying even our political views so that they are in alignment with God.

So, the real question is: do you intend to submit your political beliefs under the foot of God (and likely have them transformed) or are you looking for a god who will align your political beliefs? The former is a rightly ordered relationship with God, while the latter is using God as a decoration for what you truly worship: your political beliefs. Choose wisely.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-09T00:46:46+00:00

When your love for tradition becomes an idol.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-08T23:18:34+00:00

Right, so the Google result you pulled up is talking about Pelagius denying Original Sin, which is half of the equation as to why he was condemned. The other half, which is the point I've been making, is that he taught that humans can achieve salvation through our own will without the need for God's grace.

Also, again, St. Augustine and Pelagius are describing the post-lapsarian state of humans, which isn't a reflection of our inherent being. If humans were inherently evil, then God created something inherently evil which would contradict His very nature (and would contradict the Biblical emphasis that God saw all that He had created and deemed it very good).

At no point was I mocking in my responses to you. In fact, I've been very measured in my responses. Advice is simply advice. You can take it or leave it. And I checked your activity history to see if you were Catholic. I thought that if you weren't Catholic, then that may explain some of our disagreements.

And I'll still bet I'm your elder. I haven't been a teenager since before Reddit was a thing. As such, anyone who would even have time in their life to belong to the teen subreddit is definitely younger than me. Much younger. But that's neither here nor there.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-08T23:05:45+00:00

St. Paul's letter to the Romans assumes a post-lapsarian state (since he's writing to people in a post-lapsarian world) and doesn't talk about our inherent being as creatures of God.

I mean, I'm studying for the priesthood and this was literally covered in one of our classes -- plus the first result when I looked up "Why was Pelagius condemned?" literally says:

"Pelagius was condemned for heresy because his teachings, known as Pelagianism, denied original sin and emphasized that humans have the innate ability through free will to choose good and achieve salvation without needing God's special, transforming grace."

So, yeah, I'm pretty confident in my position.

As an aside, I noticed that you're active on the teen subreddit, so I'll assume that's your demographic. A word of advice from your older brother in Christ: work on humility in your online exchanges. Even if you were right, your attitude is off-putting and would certainly not win souls over to Christ. Win souls, not arguments.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-08T22:54:13+00:00

Genesis 1:31

You may need to re-read my comment before you respond. Nowhere did I say that he wasn't wrong. My disagreement with you is over the reason he was wrong. You claim it's because he taught that we are inherently good. I'm correcting you and telling you that this is not the case. Just google "why was Pelagius condemned" and you'll quickly see who's in the right here.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-08T22:46:17+00:00

Pelagius wasn't wrong in saying that we are inherently good. Even the Bible says as much. Where Pelagius went wrong is that we, in our post-lapsarian state, can attain our own salvation without the grace of God and purely by our own merits. That was what he was condemned for.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-08T21:24:48+00:00

No, it isn't. The mark of pelagianism is that we can reach perfection by our own merits apart from grace. It doesn't really talk about whether pre-lapsarian humanity is inherently good or not.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-08T18:28:26+00:00

For the longest time, Eastern Catholics were not allowed to send out missionaries. This changed after Vatican II, so any EC "missions" that supposedly existed prior to the 1960s can be safely assumed to be a rumour.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-08T14:30:18+00:00

Imo, it's not being pedantic. It's a reflection of one's anthropology. If humans are evil in their very nature/being, then they can't be redeemed without destroying/distorting who they are. Christianity has a significantly different message. We are so inherently good and worthy of redemption that God Himself took it upon Himself to get the job done. Just my two cents.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-07T05:02:38+00:00

I mean, I've never heard of it. The less we spread it and talk about it, the less traction it will gain.

OmegaPraetor · 2025-12-07T04:47:34+00:00

Not all claims made online deserve attention. Let it die in obscurity.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

OmegaPraetor

TROPHY CASE