What don't you believe is correct in a non Catholic religion?

What don’t you believe is correct in a non Catholic religion denominations?
What do you think they got wrong?

Everything that is correct is from the Catholic ‘start’ from which they went on to diverge.

All that is incorrect is what they then diverged from.

Most protestants do not believe in the Real Presence, but only a symbolic Eucharist.

Many protestants believe in women priest/ministers, abortion being either morally neutral or even good in some circumstances, in remarriage after divorce, often multiple times, in artificial contraception (thank the Lambeth Conference in 1930 for THAT one). . .to name just a few things I do not believe are ‘correct’ in nonCatholic Christian denominations.

However, I’d like to mention more what I think is CORRECT, for example, worship of the Triune God, belief in salvation through Jesus Christ, love of the Bible, love of one’s fellow human beings, for example.

A lot more unites us than divides us.


What is incorrect in non-Catholic religious and spiritual beliefs is anything that is counter to Catholic dogmas of faith. See the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and dogmas from the councils of the Catholic Church (about 255 dogmas of faith).

Only Christianity recognizes original sin and the atonement of Jesus Christ by his death and resurrection, and that man stands in need of salvation from God. Only some Christians recognize free will cooperation with grace leading to salvation.


The Eucharist is the big one for me. I don’t understand a lot of Catholic dogma and frankly I have a hard time reconciling a lot of what I’m learning with what I had always believed, but my devotion to the Eucharist keeps me here.


It would be there attachment of saved and eternal life to the afterlife. In the Garden Jesus defines eternal life and it’s later defined similarly by John in his letters in way that has nothing to do with the afterlife. In the book of acts the word saved was used to describe receiving the HG. Neither of these terms were used to describe any afterlife benefits.

John 3

36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.

1 Like

1.)Bible ONLY when for hundreds of years after Jesus came, died and resurrected there was no Bible only oral Tradition handed down from those who had been there with him.

2.)Not giving weight to the Papacy that Jesus Himself instituted. No one authority to guide them that’s why there are thousands upon thousands of churches with pastors who may not have even gone through any type of spiritual or theological training. Each church on each block says what it’s pastor wants to say with no one to check them on it.

3.)Eucharist being ignored when Jesus stated it plainly many times emphasizing what he wanted the Apostles to do—as He did and it not just being a symbol but Jesus Himself.

4.)The Sacraments especially Confession because again Jesus gave this ability on His Apostles and He wanted them to do as He did or He wouldn’t have given them the ability to do so.

5.)Again with Sola Scripture picking out what they don’t care to follow but stating that everything in the Bible must be followed.

6.) Just the individual interpretation of the Bible and whatever else they want to say with no concrete leader or rules to follow–almost anything goes.

7.)The ignoring of Our Blessed Mother and the Saints. These are people with Our Lord in Heaven today why wouldn’t we acknowledge them and ask for their intercession and prayer.


You literally knocked it out of the ballpark with that one!!!


I am curious as to how you can read “this is my body, …this is my blood” as literal when Jesus was standing there holding grape juice in a cup and bread in His hand. If it wasn’t really his blood and body then, why do you think it is now?

1 Like

It is not what they have. It is what they lack.


Because it was no longer bread and wine once He declared it otherwise. As the Son of Man, He has the power to declare it otherwise. He told us that His body is real food and His blood is real drink, and that unless we ate the Body of the Son of Man, we would not have life in us. Because He wasn’t speaking figuratively.

Also, because I’ve tasted the Eucharist. I’ve experienced it. I’ve experienced profound changes that didn’t happen until I returned to the Church.

1 Like

Jesus Himself said it and I’m not denying anything Jesus said. He specifically stressed it many times. Had He wanted it to be remembered only as a symbol of Him He would have specified that but He didn’t. He was pretty adamant about what He was saying to His Apostles.


No need to get defensive. I didnt accuse you of denying anything. I am trying to understand.

So you think Jesus was actually holding in his own hand , his own blood and his own flesh? And this before it had any redemptive power, since he had not yet been given for the sins of the world?

I’m not sure why that’s so hard to believe. The Son of Man had the power to forgive sins (before He was crucified), heal the sick, and cast out demons. Why couldn’t He have been doing what He said He was doing, holding His own body to be given up for many?

1 Like

Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity. If He declared the bread He is holding has become His Body when He says “This is My Body” it is His Body. Same when He took the cup of wine and said the words “This is My Blood!”. He is God and He can do this.


I see. So you are actually eating his flesh and drinking his blood when you engage in the sacrament of the Eucharist?

When Jesus was with the Woman at the Well, he also said that the water He would give her would be as a well springing up into eternal life. Was this also literal?


No. I don’t think so, anyways. Read the entire Bread of Life discourse in John chapter 6. How many times does He say that His Body is real food? And why did He compare Himself to the Mana that the Israelites ate, which was “Supernatural food from heaven”?
If you want a comprehensive understanding of it, I highly recommend the book, “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” by Brant Pitre. He goes into detail about why the Jews at the time knew very well that He was speaking of His actual body and blood, and that is why some of them left Him.

I’ve got two kids and a third on the way and a sick husband so that’s all I can contribute to the conversation. Peace.

1 Like

He is the living water and His words are the words of eternal life. When we drink normal water we become thirsty again but when we are filled with Our Lord and know, love and serve Him we will be with Him in Heaven for eternity and never thirst again.

1 Like

Of course, Jesus is God. He can do anything. It just doesn’t make sense to me within the context of the Bible narrative - my opinion of course. I do not see for one thing - how can His blood have any redemptive quality prior to Him shedding it? That is the whole purpose of shedding of Blood and the giving of Himself (His Body). The Bible says. “…without the shedding of Blood there is no remission of sin”. (heb 9:22) With the idea of the Eucharist we have Christ, before the atonement was actually made , offering the atonement to his disciples.

And in light of verses such as: Heb 10:10 that says “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Also, Jesus said during the last Supper; "This do in remembrance of me. It sounds like a memorial. Why would he say that if we were supposed to eat His actual body and drink His actual blood every time?

Jesus also said, I am the door,” “I am the vine,” “You are the salt of the earth,” and “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-14) Everyone knows we don’t take such statements literally. Why should we take the Eucharist literally - Especially since Jesus clarified that it was a memorial at the same time he said “this is my body, …this is my blood”?

What about the other Gospel narratives of the Eucharist? In Luke’s Gospel: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luk 22:20). Here, if we were really to take Christ literally, the “cup” is the new covenant, not the work of Christ. But we know that would be an absurd construction of the passage.

Then we have the Book of John and this verse: John 20:31 “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” Here we have John saying that the book was written so that we may be saved, yet not one mention of the Lords supper in the entire book. This is really weird if the Eucharist is that important to our salvation.

It is just very hard to take the Eucharist at face value when there are such verses in contradistinction to it. While I respect the people of the Catholic church, I must admit how hard it is for me to believe that a doctrine that is so difficult to defend biblically is held to such a degree that abiding anathemas are pronounced on those who disagree.

No disrespect here. Why of course it’s hard for you to believe biblically when you try and pick other verses to disprove the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Who can pick up a book 2000 years later and fully understand such hard teachings? It was hard for the Jews even back then. You are relying on “your” interpretation, and you are disregarding the fact that the Church was well established before the Bible. There are about ten churches on one street I know of, why? Because there are at least ten differences on interpreting the Bible. Each one clings to the “tradition” of their founder. Well, we Catholics cling to the tradition of our founder too, Jesus Christ. That is why you can not give me a date or any names of who invented such a hard belief as the Real Presence. It was understood from the beginning. Where is the backlash from other early Christians for coming up with such a notion??? There isn’t any because it was understood.

Now about Jesus saying He was a door, a vine, and living water. Did he hold a door up in His hands and command us to do the same? What about a vine? It is very plain to see the difference in context. Go one step further, did St. Paul warn the Church that they would profane the BODY & BLOOD of Christ if they opened a door unworthy, or cut a vine unworthy? No, the early Christians knew and believed, it’s why even a secular authority, way before a single Bible existed, accused them off being cannibals, even they knew the early Christians believed in the Real Presence and understood that was their worship.

As far as Jesus holding Himself, He is God. Did He not already prove He can transfigure? That He can remain hidden even if in front of those who knew Him? That His Spirit could become flesh? Every miracle it takes to make Himself present in the Holy Eucharist He has already done and proven. It’s all right there in Scripture.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.