BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Seems like the attacks always ramp up around Holy Week

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Relevant:

Are you, a U.S. senator, calling to have Catholic Americans investigated for our opposition to dispensationalist Zionism, you treacherous fkn slob?

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 15, 2026

---

I've seen this lady's comments before. Didn't listen to what Cruz said, but this gal is an absolute nut

BTW, the shared disdain for Israel does make for some strange bedfellows. I've never seen an Orthodox Christian defend Catholicism as much as you have.

---

Its quite complex actually. There's been a major threat to evangelical/reformed world. Basically baptist or non denom churches are losing ground.

There's been a huge and recent conversion of Protestants to Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy. Also Pentecostalism and the broader charismatic movement are widely considered the fastest growing Christian movement in the world: Its wild that the charismatics and the more radical groups of the reformation are statistically going to win the race.

So there's very much a move toward anti dispensationalism and that's a major threat to this current war and how Christians in the US view Israel. If you don't really understand modern politics, just know its all about narrative control.

Where I'm concerned:
You have guys like Dough Wilson (Pete Hegseth's pastor) who just publicly stated that he wants to outlaw Catholic public worship which would also include Orthodoxy. He basically just said public acts of adoration of the Eucharist, artwork/icons should not be permitted because he views them as idolatrous and he would gladly get behind banning it.

Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans all have sacraments, a magisterium and are mostly against dispensationalism. I see a future where they're persecuted for their differences. I see them as brothers, not some demonic foreign religion that most non denoms and baptists think they are.
I think our government could easily persecute these groups. Ex. "We fear Orthodox churches are filled with Russian agents, and we're going to shut them down".

---

I am not sure the numbers I've seen support your position. While Christianity in general has experienced significant growth the past few years, non-denominational churches are likewise experiencing significant growth, with roughly 14% of Americans (nearly 40 million people) now identifying as non-denominational. They have become the second-largest religious tradition in the U.S. behind Catholicism, growing by 9,000 congregations over the past decade.

The overall percentage of U.S. adults identifying as Catholic has been stable at roughly 20% since 2014. They are obviously the largest group, but I've seen no evidence they've grown in any large numbers over the last 10 years.

I have seen statistics that the Orthodox sects are likewise growing in number, mostly among the younger generations. Of course, it still remains less than 1% of the population.

It would seem to me that if you are Orthodox, you would be concerned for the souls of Catholics. But to be blunt, it sounds like you are more interested in your common cause - dislike of Israel, and anti-biblical positions on the Jews, and in particular, Romans 9 and 11.

The idea that your faith or the Catholic faith are under attack is a new one for me. I think it will be damn near impossible for Pete Hegseth's pastor, whoever that is, to violate any of your 1st Amended rights.

---

I'm concerned for all souls, but Orthodox don't deny salvation outside of the Church. They know where salvation is, but not necessarily where it isn't. They're not going around telling everyone they're automatically damned because they're not Orthodox. There's a respect between Catholic and Orthodox in the modern world.

I think you might be shocked by the hatred for Catholics/Orthodox.

Amazing how the Atlantic, the FBI, and Neocons all agree on this pic.twitter.com/o0ITrvXyjf

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) March 16, 2026

---

So, sounds like you and the Catholics disagree then, as they do deny salvation outside of the Church. In that sense, you're more akin to my reformed theology brethren.

But that really wasn't my point. My point had more to do with being concerned with Catholicism because they believe false gospel that their works can save them. Sounds like you don't take issue with such heresy.

As for the Atlantic, it's a liberal rag and doesn't speak for anyone but the leftists. I didn't see Orthodoxy mentioned, BTW.

---

Catholics don't flatly damn Orthodox Christians either, they tend to recognize Orthodox baptism and apostolic succession as valid, placing them in a category of "separated brethren".

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Seems like the attacks always ramp up around Holy Week

---

Do you now, or have you ever, prayed the Rosary?

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Relevant:

Are you, a U.S. senator, calling to have Catholic Americans investigated for our opposition to dispensationalist Zionism, you treacherous fkn slob?

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 15, 2026

---

I've seen this lady's comments before. Didn't listen to what Cruz said, but this gal is an absolute nut

BTW, the shared disdain for Israel does make for some strange bedfellows. I've never seen an Orthodox Christian defend Catholicism as much as you have.

---

Its quite complex actually. There's been a major threat to evangelical/reformed world. Basically baptist or non denom churches are losing ground.

There's been a huge and recent conversion of Protestants to Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy. Also Pentecostalism and the broader charismatic movement are widely considered the fastest growing Christian movement in the world: Its wild that the charismatics and the more radical groups of the reformation are statistically going to win the race.

So there's very much a move toward anti dispensationalism and that's a major threat to this current war and how Christians in the US view Israel. If you don't really understand modern politics, just know its all about narrative control.

Where I'm concerned:
You have guys like Dough Wilson (Pete Hegseth's pastor) who just publicly stated that he wants to outlaw Catholic public worship which would also include Orthodoxy. He basically just said public acts of adoration of the Eucharist, artwork/icons should not be permitted because he views them as idolatrous and he would gladly get behind banning it.

Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans all have sacraments, a magisterium and are mostly against dispensationalism. I see a future where they're persecuted for their differences. I see them as brothers, not some demonic foreign religion that most non denoms and baptists think they are.
I think our government could easily persecute these groups. Ex. "We fear Orthodox churches are filled with Russian agents, and we're going to shut them down".

---

I am not sure the numbers I've seen support your position. While Christianity in general has experienced significant growth the past few years, non-denominational churches are likewise experiencing significant growth, with roughly 14% of Americans (nearly 40 million people) now identifying as non-denominational. They have become the second-largest religious tradition in the U.S. behind Catholicism, growing by 9,000 congregations over the past decade.

The overall percentage of U.S. adults identifying as Catholic has been stable at roughly 20% since 2014. They are obviously the largest group, but I've seen no evidence they've grown in any large numbers over the last 10 years.

I have seen statistics that the Orthodox sects are likewise growing in number, mostly among the younger generations. Of course, it still remains less than 1% of the population.

It would seem to me that if you are Orthodox, you would be concerned for the souls of Catholics. But to be blunt, it sounds like you are more interested in your common cause - dislike of Israel, and anti-biblical positions on the Jews, and in particular, Romans 9 and 11.

The idea that your faith or the Catholic faith are under attack is a new one for me. I think it will be damn near impossible for Pete Hegseth's pastor, whoever that is, to violate any of your 1st Amended rights.

---

I'm concerned for all souls, but Orthodox don't deny salvation outside of the Church. They know where salvation is, but not necessarily where it isn't. They're not going around telling everyone they're automatically damned because they're not Orthodox. There's a respect between Catholic and Orthodox in the modern world.

I think you might be shocked by the hatred for Catholics/Orthodox.

Amazing how the Atlantic, the FBI, and Neocons all agree on this pic.twitter.com/o0ITrvXyjf

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) March 16, 2026

---

So, sounds like you and the Catholics disagree then, as they do deny salvation outside of the Church. In that sense, you're more akin to my reformed theology brethren.

But that really wasn't my point. My point had more to do with being concerned with Catholicism because they believe false gospel that their works can save them. Sounds like you don't take issue with such heresy.

As for the Atlantic, it's a liberal rag and doesn't speak for anyone but the leftists. I didn't see Orthodoxy mentioned, BTW.

---

That's not what modern Catholics believe. Works based salvation is a tired trope built from medieval Catholicism and it's not what they believe nor what's in their doctrines.

If actually read Aquinas, or the Catechism, or any Orthodox father, you won't find "do enough good deeds and earn heaven." Grace is absolutely central to both traditions. Rejecting sola fide doesn't automatically land you in a position where works earn salvation. That's not what Catholicism or Orthodoxy actually teaches.

Catholics don't flatly damn Orthodox Christians either, they tend to recognize Orthodox baptism and apostolic succession as valid, placing them in a category of "separated brethren".

---

Unfortunately this is just a misguided attempt to repackage a works based faith in an attempt to apologize for heresy. When you believe sacraments have to be performed to be saved, that's not only a works based faith but actual heresy. Baptism, confession, communion - none of these things are requirements tor salvation. Yet that is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches and has been the subject of numerous debates on this board.

It's unfortunate that your hyper focus on sola fide has led you to defend heresy. You get it badly wrong here

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Seems like the attacks always ramp up around Holy Week

---

Do you now, or have you ever, prayed the Rosary?

---

Lots when I was younger. I started learning more about Catholic traditions over the past 3 years and try to pray it about once a week now

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Relevant:

Are you, a U.S. senator, calling to have Catholic Americans investigated for our opposition to dispensationalist Zionism, you treacherous fkn slob?

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 15, 2026

---

I've seen this lady's comments before. Didn't listen to what Cruz said, but this gal is an absolute nut

BTW, the shared disdain for Israel does make for some strange bedfellows. I've never seen an Orthodox Christian defend Catholicism as much as you have.

---

Its quite complex actually. There's been a major threat to evangelical/reformed world. Basically baptist or non denom churches are losing ground.

There's been a huge and recent conversion of Protestants to Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy. Also Pentecostalism and the broader charismatic movement are widely considered the fastest growing Christian movement in the world: Its wild that the charismatics and the more radical groups of the reformation are statistically going to win the race.

So there's very much a move toward anti dispensationalism and that's a major threat to this current war and how Christians in the US view Israel. If you don't really understand modern politics, just know its all about narrative control.

Where I'm concerned:
You have guys like Dough Wilson (Pete Hegseth's pastor) who just publicly stated that he wants to outlaw Catholic public worship which would also include Orthodoxy. He basically just said public acts of adoration of the Eucharist, artwork/icons should not be permitted because he views them as idolatrous and he would gladly get behind banning it.

Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans all have sacraments, a magisterium and are mostly against dispensationalism. I see a future where they're persecuted for their differences. I see them as brothers, not some demonic foreign religion that most non denoms and baptists think they are.
I think our government could easily persecute these groups. Ex. "We fear Orthodox churches are filled with Russian agents, and we're going to shut them down".

---

I am not sure the numbers I've seen support your position. While Christianity in general has experienced significant growth the past few years, non-denominational churches are likewise experiencing significant growth, with roughly 14% of Americans (nearly 40 million people) now identifying as non-denominational. They have become the second-largest religious tradition in the U.S. behind Catholicism, growing by 9,000 congregations over the past decade.

The overall percentage of U.S. adults identifying as Catholic has been stable at roughly 20% since 2014. They are obviously the largest group, but I've seen no evidence they've grown in any large numbers over the last 10 years.

I have seen statistics that the Orthodox sects are likewise growing in number, mostly among the younger generations. Of course, it still remains less than 1% of the population.

It would seem to me that if you are Orthodox, you would be concerned for the souls of Catholics. But to be blunt, it sounds like you are more interested in your common cause - dislike of Israel, and anti-biblical positions on the Jews, and in particular, Romans 9 and 11.

The idea that your faith or the Catholic faith are under attack is a new one for me. I think it will be damn near impossible for Pete Hegseth's pastor, whoever that is, to violate any of your 1st Amended rights.

---

I'm concerned for all souls, but Orthodox don't deny salvation outside of the Church. They know where salvation is, but not necessarily where it isn't. They're not going around telling everyone they're automatically damned because they're not Orthodox. There's a respect between Catholic and Orthodox in the modern world.

I think you might be shocked by the hatred for Catholics/Orthodox.

Amazing how the Atlantic, the FBI, and Neocons all agree on this pic.twitter.com/o0ITrvXyjf

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) March 16, 2026

---

So, sounds like you and the Catholics disagree then, as they do deny salvation outside of the Church. In that sense, you're more akin to my reformed theology brethren.

But that really wasn't my point. My point had more to do with being concerned with Catholicism because they believe false gospel that their works can save them. Sounds like you don't take issue with such heresy.

As for the Atlantic, it's a liberal rag and doesn't speak for anyone but the leftists. I didn't see Orthodoxy mentioned, BTW.

---

That's not what modern Catholics believe. Works based salvation is a tired trope built from medieval Catholicism and it's not what they believe nor what's in their doctrines.

If actually read Aquinas, or the Catechism, or any Orthodox father, you won't find "do enough good deeds and earn heaven." Grace is absolutely central to both traditions. Rejecting sola fide doesn't automatically land you in a position where works earn salvation. That's not what Catholicism or Orthodoxy actually teaches.

Catholics don't flatly damn Orthodox Christians either, they tend to recognize Orthodox baptism and apostolic succession as valid, placing them in a category of "separated brethren".

---

Unfortunately this is just a misguided attempt to repackage a works based faith in an attempt to apologize for heresy. When you believe sacraments have to be performed to be saved, that's not only a works based faith but actual heresy. Baptism, confession, communion - none of these things are requirements tor salvation. Yet that is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches and has been the subject of numerous debates on this board.

It's unfortunate that your hyper focus on sola fide has led you to defend heresy. You get it badly wrong here

---

Baptism, confession, communion are all very cool and very based.

High School Musical Christian Rock Bands and Israeli flags hanging down from the rafters is very cringe and very sacrilegious...

For those who don’t know, “Pastor” Greg Locke is a genocidal psychopath who supports killing over 2M people in Gaza because he thinks it will help usher in the return of Jesus. https://t.co/r9vEl6XcFO pic.twitter.com/WHhg1NYm7F

— Murray 🇺🇸 (@Rothbard1776) March 13, 2026

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The future is very big 🙏 pic.twitter.com/w9mUtjCebq

— Patristic Nectar (@PatristicNectar) March 12, 2026

---

Don't disagree with these comments. But it's a shame they feel they have to separate themselves from other Christians by the way they' look and dress.

Do they also want to be called "your imminence"?

---

These are Priests and they're not called "your eminence", that's reserved for metropolitans and archbishops.

The purpose of the clothing is not to personally adorn the clergy or elevate them above common people, any more than judges wearing black robes or physicians wearing white coats are being aggrandized. It's like a uniform instead.

There's a symbolic and theological reason behind it: it reminds the priest and the faithful that he is to be clothed with divine grace, enabling Christ to lead the Church through him. When they're fully vested before the altar, a priest is no longer an individual but basically a sign of the "beauty and glory" that will belong to all in the Kingdom of Heaven.

You'll see the literal opposite with Orthodox monastics:
Monks and nuns all wear rough black cloth, owning almost nothing. They live extremely poor. Most saints come from these monastics. The Church doesn't see this as contradictory because they serve different functions. The bishop's splendor belongs to his liturgical office, not himseld. The monk's poverty belongs to his personal calling.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Relevant:

Are you, a U.S. senator, calling to have Catholic Americans investigated for our opposition to dispensationalist Zionism, you treacherous fkn slob?

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 15, 2026

---

I've seen this lady's comments before. Didn't listen to what Cruz said, but this gal is an absolute nut

BTW, the shared disdain for Israel does make for some strange bedfellows. I've never seen an Orthodox Christian defend Catholicism as much as you have.

---

Its quite complex actually. There's been a major threat to evangelical/reformed world. Basically baptist or non denom churches are losing ground.

There's been a huge and recent conversion of Protestants to Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy. Also Pentecostalism and the broader charismatic movement are widely considered the fastest growing Christian movement in the world: Its wild that the charismatics and the more radical groups of the reformation are statistically going to win the race.

So there's very much a move toward anti dispensationalism and that's a major threat to this current war and how Christians in the US view Israel. If you don't really understand modern politics, just know its all about narrative control.

Where I'm concerned:
You have guys like Dough Wilson (Pete Hegseth's pastor) who just publicly stated that he wants to outlaw Catholic public worship which would also include Orthodoxy. He basically just said public acts of adoration of the Eucharist, artwork/icons should not be permitted because he views them as idolatrous and he would gladly get behind banning it.

Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans all have sacraments, a magisterium and are mostly against dispensationalism. I see a future where they're persecuted for their differences. I see them as brothers, not some demonic foreign religion that most non denoms and baptists think they are.
I think our government could easily persecute these groups. Ex. "We fear Orthodox churches are filled with Russian agents, and we're going to shut them down".

---

I am not sure the numbers I've seen support your position. While Christianity in general has experienced significant growth the past few years, non-denominational churches are likewise experiencing significant growth, with roughly 14% of Americans (nearly 40 million people) now identifying as non-denominational. They have become the second-largest religious tradition in the U.S. behind Catholicism, growing by 9,000 congregations over the past decade.

The overall percentage of U.S. adults identifying as Catholic has been stable at roughly 20% since 2014. They are obviously the largest group, but I've seen no evidence they've grown in any large numbers over the last 10 years.

I have seen statistics that the Orthodox sects are likewise growing in number, mostly among the younger generations. Of course, it still remains less than 1% of the population.

It would seem to me that if you are Orthodox, you would be concerned for the souls of Catholics. But to be blunt, it sounds like you are more interested in your common cause - dislike of Israel, and anti-biblical positions on the Jews, and in particular, Romans 9 and 11.

The idea that your faith or the Catholic faith are under attack is a new one for me. I think it will be damn near impossible for Pete Hegseth's pastor, whoever that is, to violate any of your 1st Amended rights.

---

I'm concerned for all souls, but Orthodox don't deny salvation outside of the Church. They know where salvation is, but not necessarily where it isn't. They're not going around telling everyone they're automatically damned because they're not Orthodox. There's a respect between Catholic and Orthodox in the modern world.

I think you might be shocked by the hatred for Catholics/Orthodox.

Amazing how the Atlantic, the FBI, and Neocons all agree on this pic.twitter.com/o0ITrvXyjf

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) March 16, 2026

---

So, sounds like you and the Catholics disagree then, as they do deny salvation outside of the Church. In that sense, you're more akin to my reformed theology brethren.

But that really wasn't my point. My point had more to do with being concerned with Catholicism because they believe false gospel that their works can save them. Sounds like you don't take issue with such heresy.

As for the Atlantic, it's a liberal rag and doesn't speak for anyone but the leftists. I didn't see Orthodoxy mentioned, BTW.

---

That's not what modern Catholics believe. Works based salvation is a tired trope built from medieval Catholicism and it's not what they believe nor what's in their doctrines.

If actually read Aquinas, or the Catechism, or any Orthodox father, you won't find "do enough good deeds and earn heaven." Grace is absolutely central to both traditions. Rejecting sola fide doesn't automatically land you in a position where works earn salvation. That's not what Catholicism or Orthodoxy actually teaches.

Catholics don't flatly damn Orthodox Christians either, they tend to recognize Orthodox baptism and apostolic succession as valid, placing them in a category of "separated brethren".

---

Unfortunately this is just a misguided attempt to repackage a works based faith in an attempt to apologize for heresy. When you believe sacraments have to be performed to be saved, that's not only a works based faith but actual heresy. Baptism, confession, communion - none of these things are requirements tor salvation. Yet that is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches and has been the subject of numerous debates on this board.

It's unfortunate that your hyper focus on sola fide has led you to defend heresy. You get it badly wrong here

---

Do you not know that Sacraments are actions of God? Sacraments are gifts of grace that we receive, not human achievements that earn salvation. They're not our works whatsoever. That's also why we can't call them symbolic.

You've received a sacrament yourself if you're married. You and your wife exchanged vows. Surely you believe it was witnessed by the Church and blessed before God?

…your wife might slap you if you tell her that your marriage is just symbolic lol

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The future is very big 🙏 pic.twitter.com/w9mUtjCebq

— Patristic Nectar (@PatristicNectar) March 12, 2026

---

Don't disagree with these comments. But it's a shame they feel they have to separate themselves from other Christians by the way they' look and dress.

Do they also want to be called "your imminence"?

---

These are Priests and they're not called "your eminence", that's reserved for metropolitans and archbishops.

The purpose of the clothing is not to personally adorn the clergy or elevate them above common people, any more than judges wearing black robes or physicians wearing white coats are being aggrandized. It's like a uniform instead.

There's a symbolic and theological reason behind it: it reminds the priest and the faithful that he is to be clothed with divine grace, enabling Christ to lead the Church through him. When they're fully vested before the altar, a priest is no longer an individual but basically a sign of the "beauty and glory" that will belong to all in the Kingdom of Heaven.

You'll see the literal opposite with Orthodox monastics:
Monks and nuns all wear rough black cloth, owning almost nothing. They live extremely poor. Most saints come from these monastics. The Church doesn't see this as contradictory because they serve different functions. The bishop's splendor belongs to his liturgical office, not himseld. The monk's poverty belongs to his personal calling.

---

Can you give me any biblical support for everything you just said? I'm particularly interested in the verses that support costumes and beards and being called your eminence.

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Relevant:

Are you, a U.S. senator, calling to have Catholic Americans investigated for our opposition to dispensationalist Zionism, you treacherous fkn slob?

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 15, 2026

---

I've seen this lady's comments before. Didn't listen to what Cruz said, but this gal is an absolute nut

BTW, the shared disdain for Israel does make for some strange bedfellows. I've never seen an Orthodox Christian defend Catholicism as much as you have.

---

Its quite complex actually. There's been a major threat to evangelical/reformed world. Basically baptist or non denom churches are losing ground.

There's been a huge and recent conversion of Protestants to Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy. Also Pentecostalism and the broader charismatic movement are widely considered the fastest growing Christian movement in the world: Its wild that the charismatics and the more radical groups of the reformation are statistically going to win the race.

So there's very much a move toward anti dispensationalism and that's a major threat to this current war and how Christians in the US view Israel. If you don't really understand modern politics, just know its all about narrative control.

Where I'm concerned:
You have guys like Dough Wilson (Pete Hegseth's pastor) who just publicly stated that he wants to outlaw Catholic public worship which would also include Orthodoxy. He basically just said public acts of adoration of the Eucharist, artwork/icons should not be permitted because he views them as idolatrous and he would gladly get behind banning it.

Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans all have sacraments, a magisterium and are mostly against dispensationalism. I see a future where they're persecuted for their differences. I see them as brothers, not some demonic foreign religion that most non denoms and baptists think they are.
I think our government could easily persecute these groups. Ex. "We fear Orthodox churches are filled with Russian agents, and we're going to shut them down".

---

I am not sure the numbers I've seen support your position. While Christianity in general has experienced significant growth the past few years, non-denominational churches are likewise experiencing significant growth, with roughly 14% of Americans (nearly 40 million people) now identifying as non-denominational. They have become the second-largest religious tradition in the U.S. behind Catholicism, growing by 9,000 congregations over the past decade.

The overall percentage of U.S. adults identifying as Catholic has been stable at roughly 20% since 2014. They are obviously the largest group, but I've seen no evidence they've grown in any large numbers over the last 10 years.

I have seen statistics that the Orthodox sects are likewise growing in number, mostly among the younger generations. Of course, it still remains less than 1% of the population.

It would seem to me that if you are Orthodox, you would be concerned for the souls of Catholics. But to be blunt, it sounds like you are more interested in your common cause - dislike of Israel, and anti-biblical positions on the Jews, and in particular, Romans 9 and 11.

The idea that your faith or the Catholic faith are under attack is a new one for me. I think it will be damn near impossible for Pete Hegseth's pastor, whoever that is, to violate any of your 1st Amended rights.

---

I'm concerned for all souls, but Orthodox don't deny salvation outside of the Church. They know where salvation is, but not necessarily where it isn't. They're not going around telling everyone they're automatically damned because they're not Orthodox. There's a respect between Catholic and Orthodox in the modern world.

I think you might be shocked by the hatred for Catholics/Orthodox.

Amazing how the Atlantic, the FBI, and Neocons all agree on this pic.twitter.com/o0ITrvXyjf

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) March 16, 2026

---

So, sounds like you and the Catholics disagree then, as they do deny salvation outside of the Church. In that sense, you're more akin to my reformed theology brethren.

But that really wasn't my point. My point had more to do with being concerned with Catholicism because they believe false gospel that their works can save them. Sounds like you don't take issue with such heresy.

As for the Atlantic, it's a liberal rag and doesn't speak for anyone but the leftists. I didn't see Orthodoxy mentioned, BTW.

---

That's not what modern Catholics believe. Works based salvation is a tired trope built from medieval Catholicism and it's not what they believe nor what's in their doctrines.

If actually read Aquinas, or the Catechism, or any Orthodox father, you won't find "do enough good deeds and earn heaven." Grace is absolutely central to both traditions. Rejecting sola fide doesn't automatically land you in a position where works earn salvation. That's not what Catholicism or Orthodoxy actually teaches.

Catholics don't flatly damn Orthodox Christians either, they tend to recognize Orthodox baptism and apostolic succession as valid, placing them in a category of "separated brethren".

---

Unfortunately this is just a misguided attempt to repackage a works based faith in an attempt to apologize for heresy. When you believe sacraments have to be performed to be saved, that's not only a works based faith but actual heresy. Baptism, confession, communion - none of these things are requirements tor salvation. Yet that is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches and has been the subject of numerous debates on this board.

It's unfortunate that your hyper focus on sola fide has led you to defend heresy. You get it badly wrong here

---

Do you not know that Sacraments are actions of God? Sacraments are gifts of grace that we receive, not human achievements that earn salvation. They're not our works whatsoever. That's also why we can't call them symbolic.

You've received a sacrament yourself if you're married. You and your wife exchanged vows. Surely you believe it was witnessed by the Church and blessed before God?

…your wife might slap you if you tell her that your marriage is just symbolic lol

---

So your position is because sacraments are actions of God and not a man, these don't fall within the works based ideology that Paul preaches against?

Now that's a take. So if these are the mere actions of God, I suppose we just have to wait for God to put the bread and wine in our mouth? And I guess he confesses for us? And will he dial us with water to baptize us? There's no actions involved on our part?

That's really your position???

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The future is very big 🙏 pic.twitter.com/w9mUtjCebq

— Patristic Nectar (@PatristicNectar) March 12, 2026

---

Don't disagree with these comments. But it's a shame they feel they have to separate themselves from other Christians by the way they' look and dress.

Do they also want to be called "your imminence"?

---

These are Priests and they're not called "your eminence", that's reserved for metropolitans and archbishops.

The purpose of the clothing is not to personally adorn the clergy or elevate them above common people, any more than judges wearing black robes or physicians wearing white coats are being aggrandized. It's like a uniform instead.

There's a symbolic and theological reason behind it: it reminds the priest and the faithful that he is to be clothed with divine grace, enabling Christ to lead the Church through him. When they're fully vested before the altar, a priest is no longer an individual but basically a sign of the "beauty and glory" that will belong to all in the Kingdom of Heaven.

You'll see the literal opposite with Orthodox monastics:
Monks and nuns all wear rough black cloth, owning almost nothing. They live extremely poor. Most saints come from these monastics. The Church doesn't see this as contradictory because they serve different functions. The bishop's splendor belongs to his liturgical office, not himseld. The monk's poverty belongs to his personal calling.

---

Can you give me any biblical support for everything you just said? I'm particularly interested in the verses that support costumes and beards and being called your eminence.

---

Jesus himself had a beard...that's why they have beards.
Eminence is to show positional authority within the Church, second temple judaism had the same thing.

Orthodox Christianity is frequently viewed as a continuation and fulfillment of Second Temple Judaism, which Jesus engaged with its traditions: strong structural, liturgical, and theological parallels, including a sacrificial understanding of worship (Eucharist as sacrifice), strict hierarchical priesthood, monastic traditions, and the use of sacred spaces. So yeah, scripture shows this.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 commands Christians to "stand firm and hold to the traditions" taught by the apostles, whether spoken (oral) or written (epistle).

Can you identify any oral traditions they were taught for nearly two decades that you're commanded to hold to? Or do you think everything is off limits except scripture and have no faith that Christ could create a physical/seen Church?

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Relevant:

Are you, a U.S. senator, calling to have Catholic Americans investigated for our opposition to dispensationalist Zionism, you treacherous fkn slob?

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 15, 2026

---

I've seen this lady's comments before. Didn't listen to what Cruz said, but this gal is an absolute nut

BTW, the shared disdain for Israel does make for some strange bedfellows. I've never seen an Orthodox Christian defend Catholicism as much as you have.

---

Its quite complex actually. There's been a major threat to evangelical/reformed world. Basically baptist or non denom churches are losing ground.

There's been a huge and recent conversion of Protestants to Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy. Also Pentecostalism and the broader charismatic movement are widely considered the fastest growing Christian movement in the world: Its wild that the charismatics and the more radical groups of the reformation are statistically going to win the race.

So there's very much a move toward anti dispensationalism and that's a major threat to this current war and how Christians in the US view Israel. If you don't really understand modern politics, just know its all about narrative control.

Where I'm concerned:
You have guys like Dough Wilson (Pete Hegseth's pastor) who just publicly stated that he wants to outlaw Catholic public worship which would also include Orthodoxy. He basically just said public acts of adoration of the Eucharist, artwork/icons should not be permitted because he views them as idolatrous and he would gladly get behind banning it.

Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans all have sacraments, a magisterium and are mostly against dispensationalism. I see a future where they're persecuted for their differences. I see them as brothers, not some demonic foreign religion that most non denoms and baptists think they are.
I think our government could easily persecute these groups. Ex. "We fear Orthodox churches are filled with Russian agents, and we're going to shut them down".

---

I am not sure the numbers I've seen support your position. While Christianity in general has experienced significant growth the past few years, non-denominational churches are likewise experiencing significant growth, with roughly 14% of Americans (nearly 40 million people) now identifying as non-denominational. They have become the second-largest religious tradition in the U.S. behind Catholicism, growing by 9,000 congregations over the past decade.

The overall percentage of U.S. adults identifying as Catholic has been stable at roughly 20% since 2014. They are obviously the largest group, but I've seen no evidence they've grown in any large numbers over the last 10 years.

I have seen statistics that the Orthodox sects are likewise growing in number, mostly among the younger generations. Of course, it still remains less than 1% of the population.

It would seem to me that if you are Orthodox, you would be concerned for the souls of Catholics. But to be blunt, it sounds like you are more interested in your common cause - dislike of Israel, and anti-biblical positions on the Jews, and in particular, Romans 9 and 11.

The idea that your faith or the Catholic faith are under attack is a new one for me. I think it will be damn near impossible for Pete Hegseth's pastor, whoever that is, to violate any of your 1st Amended rights.

---

I'm concerned for all souls, but Orthodox don't deny salvation outside of the Church. They know where salvation is, but not necessarily where it isn't. They're not going around telling everyone they're automatically damned because they're not Orthodox. There's a respect between Catholic and Orthodox in the modern world.

I think you might be shocked by the hatred for Catholics/Orthodox.

Amazing how the Atlantic, the FBI, and Neocons all agree on this pic.twitter.com/o0ITrvXyjf

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) March 16, 2026

---

So, sounds like you and the Catholics disagree then, as they do deny salvation outside of the Church. In that sense, you're more akin to my reformed theology brethren.

But that really wasn't my point. My point had more to do with being concerned with Catholicism because they believe false gospel that their works can save them. Sounds like you don't take issue with such heresy.

As for the Atlantic, it's a liberal rag and doesn't speak for anyone but the leftists. I didn't see Orthodoxy mentioned, BTW.

---

That's not what modern Catholics believe. Works based salvation is a tired trope built from medieval Catholicism and it's not what they believe nor what's in their doctrines.

If actually read Aquinas, or the Catechism, or any Orthodox father, you won't find "do enough good deeds and earn heaven." Grace is absolutely central to both traditions. Rejecting sola fide doesn't automatically land you in a position where works earn salvation. That's not what Catholicism or Orthodoxy actually teaches.

Catholics don't flatly damn Orthodox Christians either, they tend to recognize Orthodox baptism and apostolic succession as valid, placing them in a category of "separated brethren".

---

Unfortunately this is just a misguided attempt to repackage a works based faith in an attempt to apologize for heresy. When you believe sacraments have to be performed to be saved, that's not only a works based faith but actual heresy. Baptism, confession, communion - none of these things are requirements tor salvation. Yet that is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches and has been the subject of numerous debates on this board.

It's unfortunate that your hyper focus on sola fide has led you to defend heresy. You get it badly wrong here

---

Do you not know that Sacraments are actions of God? Sacraments are gifts of grace that we receive, not human achievements that earn salvation. They're not our works whatsoever. That's also why we can't call them symbolic.

You've received a sacrament yourself if you're married. You and your wife exchanged vows. Surely you believe it was witnessed by the Church and blessed before God?

…your wife might slap you if you tell her that your marriage is just symbolic lol

---

So your position is because sacraments are actions of God and not a man, these don't fall within the works based ideology that Paul preaches against?

Now that's a take. So if these are the mere actions of God, I suppose we just have to wait for God to put the bread and wine in our mouth? And I guess he confesses for us? And will he dial us with water to baptize us? There's no actions involved on our part?

That's really your position???

---

When a surgeon operates on you, you're not healing yourself just because your body is physically present on the table or you showed up for the surgery.

I guess God just beams the knowledge of salvation directly into your head?! If any human action involved in receiving grace disqualifies it from being God's act, then Scripture itself is disqualified as a means of salvation too.

You can't actually argue against human actions being involved. You're selectively objecting to certain human actions (sacramental ones) while you absolutely would exempt others (reading, believing, praying, walking an aisle, repeating a sinner's prayer) from the same scrutiny.

By what principle do you distinguish the human actions involved in sacraments from the human actions involved in hearing and receiving the Gospel?

Paul's target in his works-righteousness argument is specifically human moral achievement as the basis for standing before God: the idea that your law-keeping, your virtue, your religious performance earns or merits right standing and can get you to God without Christ.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Relevant:

Are you, a U.S. senator, calling to have Catholic Americans investigated for our opposition to dispensationalist Zionism, you treacherous fkn slob?

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 15, 2026

---

I've seen this lady's comments before. Didn't listen to what Cruz said, but this gal is an absolute nut

BTW, the shared disdain for Israel does make for some strange bedfellows. I've never seen an Orthodox Christian defend Catholicism as much as you have.

---

Its quite complex actually. There's been a major threat to evangelical/reformed world. Basically baptist or non denom churches are losing ground.

There's been a huge and recent conversion of Protestants to Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy. Also Pentecostalism and the broader charismatic movement are widely considered the fastest growing Christian movement in the world: Its wild that the charismatics and the more radical groups of the reformation are statistically going to win the race.

So there's very much a move toward anti dispensationalism and that's a major threat to this current war and how Christians in the US view Israel. If you don't really understand modern politics, just know its all about narrative control.

Where I'm concerned:
You have guys like Dough Wilson (Pete Hegseth's pastor) who just publicly stated that he wants to outlaw Catholic public worship which would also include Orthodoxy. He basically just said public acts of adoration of the Eucharist, artwork/icons should not be permitted because he views them as idolatrous and he would gladly get behind banning it.

Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans all have sacraments, a magisterium and are mostly against dispensationalism. I see a future where they're persecuted for their differences. I see them as brothers, not some demonic foreign religion that most non denoms and baptists think they are.
I think our government could easily persecute these groups. Ex. "We fear Orthodox churches are filled with Russian agents, and we're going to shut them down".

---

I am not sure the numbers I've seen support your position. While Christianity in general has experienced significant growth the past few years, non-denominational churches are likewise experiencing significant growth, with roughly 14% of Americans (nearly 40 million people) now identifying as non-denominational. They have become the second-largest religious tradition in the U.S. behind Catholicism, growing by 9,000 congregations over the past decade.

The overall percentage of U.S. adults identifying as Catholic has been stable at roughly 20% since 2014. They are obviously the largest group, but I've seen no evidence they've grown in any large numbers over the last 10 years.

I have seen statistics that the Orthodox sects are likewise growing in number, mostly among the younger generations. Of course, it still remains less than 1% of the population.

It would seem to me that if you are Orthodox, you would be concerned for the souls of Catholics. But to be blunt, it sounds like you are more interested in your common cause - dislike of Israel, and anti-biblical positions on the Jews, and in particular, Romans 9 and 11.

The idea that your faith or the Catholic faith are under attack is a new one for me. I think it will be damn near impossible for Pete Hegseth's pastor, whoever that is, to violate any of your 1st Amended rights.

---

I'm concerned for all souls, but Orthodox don't deny salvation outside of the Church. They know where salvation is, but not necessarily where it isn't. They're not going around telling everyone they're automatically damned because they're not Orthodox. There's a respect between Catholic and Orthodox in the modern world.

I think you might be shocked by the hatred for Catholics/Orthodox.

Amazing how the Atlantic, the FBI, and Neocons all agree on this pic.twitter.com/o0ITrvXyjf

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) March 16, 2026

---

So, sounds like you and the Catholics disagree then, as they do deny salvation outside of the Church. In that sense, you're more akin to my reformed theology brethren.

But that really wasn't my point. My point had more to do with being concerned with Catholicism because they believe false gospel that their works can save them. Sounds like you don't take issue with such heresy.

As for the Atlantic, it's a liberal rag and doesn't speak for anyone but the leftists. I didn't see Orthodoxy mentioned, BTW.

---

That's not what modern Catholics believe. Works based salvation is a tired trope built from medieval Catholicism and it's not what they believe nor what's in their doctrines.

If actually read Aquinas, or the Catechism, or any Orthodox father, you won't find "do enough good deeds and earn heaven." Grace is absolutely central to both traditions. Rejecting sola fide doesn't automatically land you in a position where works earn salvation. That's not what Catholicism or Orthodoxy actually teaches.

Catholics don't flatly damn Orthodox Christians either, they tend to recognize Orthodox baptism and apostolic succession as valid, placing them in a category of "separated brethren".

---

Unfortunately this is just a misguided attempt to repackage a works based faith in an attempt to apologize for heresy. When you believe sacraments have to be performed to be saved, that's not only a works based faith but actual heresy. Baptism, confession, communion - none of these things are requirements tor salvation. Yet that is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches and has been the subject of numerous debates on this board.

It's unfortunate that your hyper focus on sola fide has led you to defend heresy. You get it badly wrong here

---

Do you not know that Sacraments are actions of God? Sacraments are gifts of grace that we receive, not human achievements that earn salvation. They're not our works whatsoever. That's also why we can't call them symbolic.

You've received a sacrament yourself if you're married. You and your wife exchanged vows. Surely you believe it was witnessed by the Church and blessed before God?

…your wife might slap you if you tell her that your marriage is just symbolic lol

---

So your position is because sacraments are actions of God and not a man, these don't fall within the works based ideology that Paul preaches against?

Now that's a take. So if these are the mere actions of God, I suppose we just have to wait for God to put the bread and wine in our mouth? And I guess he confesses for us? And will he dial us with water to baptize us? There's no actions involved on our part?

That's really your position???

---

When a surgeon operates on you, you're not healing yourself just because your body is physically present on the table or you showed up for the surgery.

I guess God just beams the knowledge of salvation directly into your head?! If any human action involved in receiving grace disqualifies it from being God's act, then Scripture itself is disqualified as a means of salvation too.

You can't actually argue against human actions being involved. You're selectively objecting to certain human actions (sacramental ones) while you absolutely would exempt others (reading, believing, praying, walking an aisle, repeating a sinner's prayer) from the same scrutiny.

By what principle do you distinguish the human actions involved in sacraments from the human actions involved in hearing and receiving the Gospel?

Paul's target in his works-righteousness argument is specifically human moral achievement as the basis for standing before God: the idea that your law-keeping, your virtue, your religious performance earns or merits right standing and can get you to God without Christ.

---

Is mere thought a work in your book? Is repentance work? Is belief work? Not according to scripture, certainly. Moreover, it is God's work that puts the thought in our head. We are his elect, who he had called. That is not the work Paul argues against.

As any reasonable person knows, that is QUITE different than taking a sacrament. Baptism requires a physical act on the part of the believer. At a minimum, it requires him or her to be dunked or allow himself to be sprinkled. Same goes for confession - it requires a physical action on the part of the believer. The same holds true of communion. We physically perform the act of eating and drinking.

To argue that these are the same as mere belief is intellectually dishonest. We know they are not. We also know that Christ and the NT scriptures don't talk about any of these sacraments as a requirement for salvation.

While I understand why you would try to spin the sacraments into non-acts, we both know that is disingenuous. Paul is clear that no works will save us.

Your position, once again, can find no biblical support and is heretical in nature. Moreover, it is my understanding that it's also contrary to Orthodoxy. It was my understanding that the sacraments did not require any of the foregoing for salvation.

---

Your theology has effectively made the Christian life a spectator sport. God acts, you watch, and whatever happens was already decided before you were born. God picks and chooses who he saves and damns, nobody has willpower and he thankfully picked you because he created you to be worthy and predestined others to be unworthy. Pure Calvinism.

Paul tells Timothy to "flee youthful lusts." He doesn't say "wait and see if God flees them for you." Peter says to "add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge." That's a construction project. it requires a builder. James says "resist the devil and he will flee from you." That's a direct command assuming you have the capacity to actually resist something.

But nah, you're exempt from these commands and if you dare to cooperate with God or ask Him to help you stop being a degenerate…well that's crossing the line.

If God has already determined whether you will overcome your addiction, your laziness, your anger…then what exactly are you supposed to do on Tuesday morning when temptation comes? Pray that God already decided you'd resist?

Once grace begins waking you up, you have to cooperate with that awakening or it withers.

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" Philippians 2:12. Not "watch God work it out for you."

"He who endures to the end will be saved" Matthew 24:13. Endurance is active.

The Parable of the Talents: the servant who buried his gift and did nothing with it was condemned. Passivity was itself the sin.

"Faith without works is dead" James 2:17. A dead faith saves nobody.

Grace is genuinely offered to everyone. It is not irresistible. You can grieve the Holy Spirit. You can quench Him. Scripture explicitly says both. That means your response is real and consequential. If you consistently refuse to cooperate with grace, refuse to repent, refuse the sacraments, refuse to fight sin: you are not demonstrating passive election. You are walking away from a door that was genuinely open.

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Relevant:

Are you, a U.S. senator, calling to have Catholic Americans investigated for our opposition to dispensationalist Zionism, you treacherous fkn slob?

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 15, 2026

---

I've seen this lady's comments before. Didn't listen to what Cruz said, but this gal is an absolute nut

BTW, the shared disdain for Israel does make for some strange bedfellows. I've never seen an Orthodox Christian defend Catholicism as much as you have.

---

Its quite complex actually. There's been a major threat to evangelical/reformed world. Basically baptist or non denom churches are losing ground.

There's been a huge and recent conversion of Protestants to Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy. Also Pentecostalism and the broader charismatic movement are widely considered the fastest growing Christian movement in the world: Its wild that the charismatics and the more radical groups of the reformation are statistically going to win the race.

So there's very much a move toward anti dispensationalism and that's a major threat to this current war and how Christians in the US view Israel. If you don't really understand modern politics, just know its all about narrative control.

Where I'm concerned:
You have guys like Dough Wilson (Pete Hegseth's pastor) who just publicly stated that he wants to outlaw Catholic public worship which would also include Orthodoxy. He basically just said public acts of adoration of the Eucharist, artwork/icons should not be permitted because he views them as idolatrous and he would gladly get behind banning it.

Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans all have sacraments, a magisterium and are mostly against dispensationalism. I see a future where they're persecuted for their differences. I see them as brothers, not some demonic foreign religion that most non denoms and baptists think they are.
I think our government could easily persecute these groups. Ex. "We fear Orthodox churches are filled with Russian agents, and we're going to shut them down".

---

I am not sure the numbers I've seen support your position. While Christianity in general has experienced significant growth the past few years, non-denominational churches are likewise experiencing significant growth, with roughly 14% of Americans (nearly 40 million people) now identifying as non-denominational. They have become the second-largest religious tradition in the U.S. behind Catholicism, growing by 9,000 congregations over the past decade.

The overall percentage of U.S. adults identifying as Catholic has been stable at roughly 20% since 2014. They are obviously the largest group, but I've seen no evidence they've grown in any large numbers over the last 10 years.

I have seen statistics that the Orthodox sects are likewise growing in number, mostly among the younger generations. Of course, it still remains less than 1% of the population.

It would seem to me that if you are Orthodox, you would be concerned for the souls of Catholics. But to be blunt, it sounds like you are more interested in your common cause - dislike of Israel, and anti-biblical positions on the Jews, and in particular, Romans 9 and 11.

The idea that your faith or the Catholic faith are under attack is a new one for me. I think it will be damn near impossible for Pete Hegseth's pastor, whoever that is, to violate any of your 1st Amended rights.

---

I'm concerned for all souls, but Orthodox don't deny salvation outside of the Church. They know where salvation is, but not necessarily where it isn't. They're not going around telling everyone they're automatically damned because they're not Orthodox. There's a respect between Catholic and Orthodox in the modern world.

I think you might be shocked by the hatred for Catholics/Orthodox.

Amazing how the Atlantic, the FBI, and Neocons all agree on this pic.twitter.com/o0ITrvXyjf

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) March 16, 2026

---

So, sounds like you and the Catholics disagree then, as they do deny salvation outside of the Church. In that sense, you're more akin to my reformed theology brethren.

But that really wasn't my point. My point had more to do with being concerned with Catholicism because they believe false gospel that their works can save them. Sounds like you don't take issue with such heresy.

As for the Atlantic, it's a liberal rag and doesn't speak for anyone but the leftists. I didn't see Orthodoxy mentioned, BTW.

---

That's not what modern Catholics believe. Works based salvation is a tired trope built from medieval Catholicism and it's not what they believe nor what's in their doctrines.

If actually read Aquinas, or the Catechism, or any Orthodox father, you won't find "do enough good deeds and earn heaven." Grace is absolutely central to both traditions. Rejecting sola fide doesn't automatically land you in a position where works earn salvation. That's not what Catholicism or Orthodoxy actually teaches.

Catholics don't flatly damn Orthodox Christians either, they tend to recognize Orthodox baptism and apostolic succession as valid, placing them in a category of "separated brethren".

---

Unfortunately this is just a misguided attempt to repackage a works based faith in an attempt to apologize for heresy. When you believe sacraments have to be performed to be saved, that's not only a works based faith but actual heresy. Baptism, confession, communion - none of these things are requirements tor salvation. Yet that is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches and has been the subject of numerous debates on this board.

It's unfortunate that your hyper focus on sola fide has led you to defend heresy. You get it badly wrong here

---

Do you not know that Sacraments are actions of God? Sacraments are gifts of grace that we receive, not human achievements that earn salvation. They're not our works whatsoever. That's also why we can't call them symbolic.

You've received a sacrament yourself if you're married. You and your wife exchanged vows. Surely you believe it was witnessed by the Church and blessed before God?

…your wife might slap you if you tell her that your marriage is just symbolic lol

---

So your position is because sacraments are actions of God and not a man, these don't fall within the works based ideology that Paul preaches against?

Now that's a take. So if these are the mere actions of God, I suppose we just have to wait for God to put the bread and wine in our mouth? And I guess he confesses for us? And will he dial us with water to baptize us? There's no actions involved on our part?

That's really your position???

---

When a surgeon operates on you, you're not healing yourself just because your body is physically present on the table or you showed up for the surgery.

I guess God just beams the knowledge of salvation directly into your head?! If any human action involved in receiving grace disqualifies it from being God's act, then Scripture itself is disqualified as a means of salvation too.

You can't actually argue against human actions being involved. You're selectively objecting to certain human actions (sacramental ones) while you absolutely would exempt others (reading, believing, praying, walking an aisle, repeating a sinner's prayer) from the same scrutiny.

By what principle do you distinguish the human actions involved in sacraments from the human actions involved in hearing and receiving the Gospel?

Paul's target in his works-righteousness argument is specifically human moral achievement as the basis for standing before God: the idea that your law-keeping, your virtue, your religious performance earns or merits right standing and can get you to God without Christ.

---

Is mere thought a work in your book? Is repentance work? Is belief work? Not according to scripture, certainly. Moreover, it is God's work that puts the thought in our head. We are his elect, who he had called. That is not the work Paul argues against.

As any reasonable person knows, that is QUITE different than taking a sacrament. Baptism requires a physical act on the part of the believer. At a minimum, it requires him or her to be dunked or allow himself to be sprinkled. Same goes for confession - it requires a physical action on the part of the believer. The same holds true of communion. We physically perform the act of eating and drinking.

To argue that these are the same as mere belief is intellectually dishonest. We know they are not. We also know that Christ and the NT scriptures don't talk about any of these sacraments as a requirement for salvation.

While I understand why you would try to spin the sacraments into non-acts, we both know that is disingenuous. Paul is clear that no works will save us.

Your position, once again, can find no biblical support and is heretical in nature. Moreover, it is my understanding that it's also contrary to Orthodoxy. It was my understanding that the sacraments did not require any of the foregoing for salvation.

---

Your theology has effectively made the Christian life a spectator sport. God acts, you watch, and whatever happens was already decided before you were born. God picks and chooses who he saves and damns, nobody has willpower and he thankfully picked you because he created you to be worthy and predestined others to be unworthy. Pure Calvinism.

Paul tells Timothy to "flee youthful lusts." He doesn't say "wait and see if God flees them for you." Peter says to "add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge." That's a construction project. it requires a builder. James says "resist the devil and he will flee from you." That's a direct command assuming you have the capacity to actually resist something.

But nah, you're exempt from these commands and if you dare to cooperate with God or ask Him to help you stop being a degenerate…well that's crossing the line.

If God has already determined whether you will overcome your addiction, your laziness, your anger…then what exactly are you supposed to do on Tuesday morning when temptation comes? Pray that God already decided you'd resist?

Once grace begins waking you up, you have to cooperate with that awakening or it withers.

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" Philippians 2:12. Not "watch God work it out for you."

"He who endures to the end will be saved" Matthew 24:13. Endurance is active.

The Parable of the Talents: the servant who buried his gift and did nothing with it was condemned. Passivity was itself the sin.

"Faith without works is dead" James 2:17. A dead faith saves nobody.

Grace is genuinely offered to everyone. It is not irresistible. You can grieve the Holy Spirit. You can quench Him. Scripture explicitly says both. That means your response is real and consequential. If you consistently refuse to cooperate with grace, refuse to repent, refuse the sacraments, refuse to fight sin: you are not demonstrating passive election. You are walking away from a door that was genuinely open.

---

Two things: 1) None of what you just said is incompatible with what I said; and 2) none of what you just said was an answer to the issues I raised.

Does salvation require sacraments (i.e. an action on our part) or not? It's a simply yes or no. Do you believe we are required to engage in sacraments for salvation - like Catholicism - or not?

Raising strawmen arguments are not an answer to the questions posed. So first, we need to establish what it is you believe before we can address the many strawmen and assumptions in your latest post.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Relevant:

Are you, a U.S. senator, calling to have Catholic Americans investigated for our opposition to dispensationalist Zionism, you treacherous fkn slob?

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 15, 2026

---

I've seen this lady's comments before. Didn't listen to what Cruz said, but this gal is an absolute nut

BTW, the shared disdain for Israel does make for some strange bedfellows. I've never seen an Orthodox Christian defend Catholicism as much as you have.

---

Its quite complex actually. There's been a major threat to evangelical/reformed world. Basically baptist or non denom churches are losing ground.

There's been a huge and recent conversion of Protestants to Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy. Also Pentecostalism and the broader charismatic movement are widely considered the fastest growing Christian movement in the world: Its wild that the charismatics and the more radical groups of the reformation are statistically going to win the race.

So there's very much a move toward anti dispensationalism and that's a major threat to this current war and how Christians in the US view Israel. If you don't really understand modern politics, just know its all about narrative control.

Where I'm concerned:
You have guys like Dough Wilson (Pete Hegseth's pastor) who just publicly stated that he wants to outlaw Catholic public worship which would also include Orthodoxy. He basically just said public acts of adoration of the Eucharist, artwork/icons should not be permitted because he views them as idolatrous and he would gladly get behind banning it.

Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans all have sacraments, a magisterium and are mostly against dispensationalism. I see a future where they're persecuted for their differences. I see them as brothers, not some demonic foreign religion that most non denoms and baptists think they are.
I think our government could easily persecute these groups. Ex. "We fear Orthodox churches are filled with Russian agents, and we're going to shut them down".

---

I am not sure the numbers I've seen support your position. While Christianity in general has experienced significant growth the past few years, non-denominational churches are likewise experiencing significant growth, with roughly 14% of Americans (nearly 40 million people) now identifying as non-denominational. They have become the second-largest religious tradition in the U.S. behind Catholicism, growing by 9,000 congregations over the past decade.

The overall percentage of U.S. adults identifying as Catholic has been stable at roughly 20% since 2014. They are obviously the largest group, but I've seen no evidence they've grown in any large numbers over the last 10 years.

I have seen statistics that the Orthodox sects are likewise growing in number, mostly among the younger generations. Of course, it still remains less than 1% of the population.

It would seem to me that if you are Orthodox, you would be concerned for the souls of Catholics. But to be blunt, it sounds like you are more interested in your common cause - dislike of Israel, and anti-biblical positions on the Jews, and in particular, Romans 9 and 11.

The idea that your faith or the Catholic faith are under attack is a new one for me. I think it will be damn near impossible for Pete Hegseth's pastor, whoever that is, to violate any of your 1st Amended rights.

---

I'm concerned for all souls, but Orthodox don't deny salvation outside of the Church. They know where salvation is, but not necessarily where it isn't. They're not going around telling everyone they're automatically damned because they're not Orthodox. There's a respect between Catholic and Orthodox in the modern world.

I think you might be shocked by the hatred for Catholics/Orthodox.

Amazing how the Atlantic, the FBI, and Neocons all agree on this pic.twitter.com/o0ITrvXyjf

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) March 16, 2026

---

So, sounds like you and the Catholics disagree then, as they do deny salvation outside of the Church. In that sense, you're more akin to my reformed theology brethren.

But that really wasn't my point. My point had more to do with being concerned with Catholicism because they believe false gospel that their works can save them. Sounds like you don't take issue with such heresy.

As for the Atlantic, it's a liberal rag and doesn't speak for anyone but the leftists. I didn't see Orthodoxy mentioned, BTW.

---

That's not what modern Catholics believe. Works based salvation is a tired trope built from medieval Catholicism and it's not what they believe nor what's in their doctrines.

If actually read Aquinas, or the Catechism, or any Orthodox father, you won't find "do enough good deeds and earn heaven." Grace is absolutely central to both traditions. Rejecting sola fide doesn't automatically land you in a position where works earn salvation. That's not what Catholicism or Orthodoxy actually teaches.

Catholics don't flatly damn Orthodox Christians either, they tend to recognize Orthodox baptism and apostolic succession as valid, placing them in a category of "separated brethren".

---

Unfortunately this is just a misguided attempt to repackage a works based faith in an attempt to apologize for heresy. When you believe sacraments have to be performed to be saved, that's not only a works based faith but actual heresy. Baptism, confession, communion - none of these things are requirements tor salvation. Yet that is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches and has been the subject of numerous debates on this board.

It's unfortunate that your hyper focus on sola fide has led you to defend heresy. You get it badly wrong here

---

Do you not know that Sacraments are actions of God? Sacraments are gifts of grace that we receive, not human achievements that earn salvation. They're not our works whatsoever. That's also why we can't call them symbolic.

You've received a sacrament yourself if you're married. You and your wife exchanged vows. Surely you believe it was witnessed by the Church and blessed before God?

…your wife might slap you if you tell her that your marriage is just symbolic lol

---

So your position is because sacraments are actions of God and not a man, these don't fall within the works based ideology that Paul preaches against?

Now that's a take. So if these are the mere actions of God, I suppose we just have to wait for God to put the bread and wine in our mouth? And I guess he confesses for us? And will he dial us with water to baptize us? There's no actions involved on our part?

That's really your position???

---

When a surgeon operates on you, you're not healing yourself just because your body is physically present on the table or you showed up for the surgery.

I guess God just beams the knowledge of salvation directly into your head?! If any human action involved in receiving grace disqualifies it from being God's act, then Scripture itself is disqualified as a means of salvation too.

You can't actually argue against human actions being involved. You're selectively objecting to certain human actions (sacramental ones) while you absolutely would exempt others (reading, believing, praying, walking an aisle, repeating a sinner's prayer) from the same scrutiny.

By what principle do you distinguish the human actions involved in sacraments from the human actions involved in hearing and receiving the Gospel?

Paul's target in his works-righteousness argument is specifically human moral achievement as the basis for standing before God: the idea that your law-keeping, your virtue, your religious performance earns or merits right standing and can get you to God without Christ.

---

Is mere thought a work in your book? Is repentance work? Is belief work? Not according to scripture, certainly. Moreover, it is God's work that puts the thought in our head. We are his elect, who he had called. That is not the work Paul argues against.

As any reasonable person knows, that is QUITE different than taking a sacrament. Baptism requires a physical act on the part of the believer. At a minimum, it requires him or her to be dunked or allow himself to be sprinkled. Same goes for confession - it requires a physical action on the part of the believer. The same holds true of communion. We physically perform the act of eating and drinking.

To argue that these are the same as mere belief is intellectually dishonest. We know they are not. We also know that Christ and the NT scriptures don't talk about any of these sacraments as a requirement for salvation.

While I understand why you would try to spin the sacraments into non-acts, we both know that is disingenuous. Paul is clear that no works will save us.

Your position, once again, can find no biblical support and is heretical in nature. Moreover, it is my understanding that it's also contrary to Orthodoxy. It was my understanding that the sacraments did not require any of the foregoing for salvation.

---

Your theology has effectively made the Christian life a spectator sport. God acts, you watch, and whatever happens was already decided before you were born. God picks and chooses who he saves and damns, nobody has willpower and he thankfully picked you because he created you to be worthy and predestined others to be unworthy. Pure Calvinism.

Paul tells Timothy to "flee youthful lusts." He doesn't say "wait and see if God flees them for you." Peter says to "add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge." That's a construction project. it requires a builder. James says "resist the devil and he will flee from you." That's a direct command assuming you have the capacity to actually resist something.

But nah, you're exempt from these commands and if you dare to cooperate with God or ask Him to help you stop being a degenerate…well that's crossing the line.

If God has already determined whether you will overcome your addiction, your laziness, your anger…then what exactly are you supposed to do on Tuesday morning when temptation comes? Pray that God already decided you'd resist?

Once grace begins waking you up, you have to cooperate with that awakening or it withers.

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" Philippians 2:12. Not "watch God work it out for you."

"He who endures to the end will be saved" Matthew 24:13. Endurance is active.

The Parable of the Talents: the servant who buried his gift and did nothing with it was condemned. Passivity was itself the sin.

"Faith without works is dead" James 2:17. A dead faith saves nobody.

Grace is genuinely offered to everyone. It is not irresistible. You can grieve the Holy Spirit. You can quench Him. Scripture explicitly says both. That means your response is real and consequential. If you consistently refuse to cooperate with grace, refuse to repent, refuse the sacraments, refuse to fight sin: you are not demonstrating passive election. You are walking away from a door that was genuinely open.

---

Two things: 1) None of what you just said is incompatible with what I said; and 2) none of what you just said was an answer to the issues I raised.

Does salvation require sacraments (i.e. an action on our part) or not? It's a simply yes or no. Do you believe we are required to engage in sacraments for salvation - like Catholicism - or not?

Raising strawmen arguments are not an answer to the questions posed. So first, we need to establish what it is you believe before we can address the many strawmen and assumptions in your latest post.

---

Salvation is not a one time event but a journey of repentance and union with God.
Salvation is healing, it's not a prize to be earned. Sin is a spiritual sickness, the Church is a hospital for souls, and Christ is our physician. To be healed of our sin, we trust in Christ and follow his directions, keeping to the prescription given to us by the Church and regularly receiving our medicine in the sacraments.

You view salvation as a change of legal status, you're either in or out. Orthodoxy teaches something more akin to a spectrum that you can't even calculate outside of humility and truth in your own heart and God's knowledge of your heart. You're either eternally moving closer to God, or further away from Him. So your question is literally incompatible with this paradigm.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Relevant:

Are you, a U.S. senator, calling to have Catholic Americans investigated for our opposition to dispensationalist Zionism, you treacherous fkn slob?

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 15, 2026

---

I've seen this lady's comments before. Didn't listen to what Cruz said, but this gal is an absolute nut

BTW, the shared disdain for Israel does make for some strange bedfellows. I've never seen an Orthodox Christian defend Catholicism as much as you have.

---

Its quite complex actually. There's been a major threat to evangelical/reformed world. Basically baptist or non denom churches are losing ground.

There's been a huge and recent conversion of Protestants to Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy. Also Pentecostalism and the broader charismatic movement are widely considered the fastest growing Christian movement in the world: Its wild that the charismatics and the more radical groups of the reformation are statistically going to win the race.

So there's very much a move toward anti dispensationalism and that's a major threat to this current war and how Christians in the US view Israel. If you don't really understand modern politics, just know its all about narrative control.

Where I'm concerned:
You have guys like Dough Wilson (Pete Hegseth's pastor) who just publicly stated that he wants to outlaw Catholic public worship which would also include Orthodoxy. He basically just said public acts of adoration of the Eucharist, artwork/icons should not be permitted because he views them as idolatrous and he would gladly get behind banning it.

Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans all have sacraments, a magisterium and are mostly against dispensationalism. I see a future where they're persecuted for their differences. I see them as brothers, not some demonic foreign religion that most non denoms and baptists think they are.
I think our government could easily persecute these groups. Ex. "We fear Orthodox churches are filled with Russian agents, and we're going to shut them down".

---

I am not sure the numbers I've seen support your position. While Christianity in general has experienced significant growth the past few years, non-denominational churches are likewise experiencing significant growth, with roughly 14% of Americans (nearly 40 million people) now identifying as non-denominational. They have become the second-largest religious tradition in the U.S. behind Catholicism, growing by 9,000 congregations over the past decade.

The overall percentage of U.S. adults identifying as Catholic has been stable at roughly 20% since 2014. They are obviously the largest group, but I've seen no evidence they've grown in any large numbers over the last 10 years.

I have seen statistics that the Orthodox sects are likewise growing in number, mostly among the younger generations. Of course, it still remains less than 1% of the population.

It would seem to me that if you are Orthodox, you would be concerned for the souls of Catholics. But to be blunt, it sounds like you are more interested in your common cause - dislike of Israel, and anti-biblical positions on the Jews, and in particular, Romans 9 and 11.

The idea that your faith or the Catholic faith are under attack is a new one for me. I think it will be damn near impossible for Pete Hegseth's pastor, whoever that is, to violate any of your 1st Amended rights.

---

I'm concerned for all souls, but Orthodox don't deny salvation outside of the Church. They know where salvation is, but not necessarily where it isn't. They're not going around telling everyone they're automatically damned because they're not Orthodox. There's a respect between Catholic and Orthodox in the modern world.

I think you might be shocked by the hatred for Catholics/Orthodox.

Amazing how the Atlantic, the FBI, and Neocons all agree on this pic.twitter.com/o0ITrvXyjf

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) March 16, 2026

---

So, sounds like you and the Catholics disagree then, as they do deny salvation outside of the Church. In that sense, you're more akin to my reformed theology brethren.

But that really wasn't my point. My point had more to do with being concerned with Catholicism because they believe false gospel that their works can save them. Sounds like you don't take issue with such heresy.

As for the Atlantic, it's a liberal rag and doesn't speak for anyone but the leftists. I didn't see Orthodoxy mentioned, BTW.

---

That's not what modern Catholics believe. Works based salvation is a tired trope built from medieval Catholicism and it's not what they believe nor what's in their doctrines.

If actually read Aquinas, or the Catechism, or any Orthodox father, you won't find "do enough good deeds and earn heaven." Grace is absolutely central to both traditions. Rejecting sola fide doesn't automatically land you in a position where works earn salvation. That's not what Catholicism or Orthodoxy actually teaches.

Catholics don't flatly damn Orthodox Christians either, they tend to recognize Orthodox baptism and apostolic succession as valid, placing them in a category of "separated brethren".

---

Unfortunately this is just a misguided attempt to repackage a works based faith in an attempt to apologize for heresy. When you believe sacraments have to be performed to be saved, that's not only a works based faith but actual heresy. Baptism, confession, communion - none of these things are requirements tor salvation. Yet that is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches and has been the subject of numerous debates on this board.

It's unfortunate that your hyper focus on sola fide has led you to defend heresy. You get it badly wrong here

---

Do you not know that Sacraments are actions of God? Sacraments are gifts of grace that we receive, not human achievements that earn salvation. They're not our works whatsoever. That's also why we can't call them symbolic.

You've received a sacrament yourself if you're married. You and your wife exchanged vows. Surely you believe it was witnessed by the Church and blessed before God?

…your wife might slap you if you tell her that your marriage is just symbolic lol

---

So your position is because sacraments are actions of God and not a man, these don't fall within the works based ideology that Paul preaches against?

Now that's a take. So if these are the mere actions of God, I suppose we just have to wait for God to put the bread and wine in our mouth? And I guess he confesses for us? And will he dial us with water to baptize us? There's no actions involved on our part?

That's really your position???

---

When a surgeon operates on you, you're not healing yourself just because your body is physically present on the table or you showed up for the surgery.

I guess God just beams the knowledge of salvation directly into your head?! If any human action involved in receiving grace disqualifies it from being God's act, then Scripture itself is disqualified as a means of salvation too.

You can't actually argue against human actions being involved. You're selectively objecting to certain human actions (sacramental ones) while you absolutely would exempt others (reading, believing, praying, walking an aisle, repeating a sinner's prayer) from the same scrutiny.

By what principle do you distinguish the human actions involved in sacraments from the human actions involved in hearing and receiving the Gospel?

Paul's target in his works-righteousness argument is specifically human moral achievement as the basis for standing before God: the idea that your law-keeping, your virtue, your religious performance earns or merits right standing and can get you to God without Christ.

---

Is mere thought a work in your book? Is repentance work? Is belief work? Not according to scripture, certainly. Moreover, it is God's work that puts the thought in our head. We are his elect, who he had called. That is not the work Paul argues against.

As any reasonable person knows, that is QUITE different than taking a sacrament. Baptism requires a physical act on the part of the believer. At a minimum, it requires him or her to be dunked or allow himself to be sprinkled. Same goes for confession - it requires a physical action on the part of the believer. The same holds true of communion. We physically perform the act of eating and drinking.

To argue that these are the same as mere belief is intellectually dishonest. We know they are not. We also know that Christ and the NT scriptures don't talk about any of these sacraments as a requirement for salvation.

While I understand why you would try to spin the sacraments into non-acts, we both know that is disingenuous. Paul is clear that no works will save us.

Your position, once again, can find no biblical support and is heretical in nature. Moreover, it is my understanding that it's also contrary to Orthodoxy. It was my understanding that the sacraments did not require any of the foregoing for salvation.

---

Your theology has effectively made the Christian life a spectator sport. God acts, you watch, and whatever happens was already decided before you were born. God picks and chooses who he saves and damns, nobody has willpower and he thankfully picked you because he created you to be worthy and predestined others to be unworthy. Pure Calvinism.

Paul tells Timothy to "flee youthful lusts." He doesn't say "wait and see if God flees them for you." Peter says to "add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge." That's a construction project. it requires a builder. James says "resist the devil and he will flee from you." That's a direct command assuming you have the capacity to actually resist something.

But nah, you're exempt from these commands and if you dare to cooperate with God or ask Him to help you stop being a degenerate…well that's crossing the line.

If God has already determined whether you will overcome your addiction, your laziness, your anger…then what exactly are you supposed to do on Tuesday morning when temptation comes? Pray that God already decided you'd resist?

Once grace begins waking you up, you have to cooperate with that awakening or it withers.

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" Philippians 2:12. Not "watch God work it out for you."

"He who endures to the end will be saved" Matthew 24:13. Endurance is active.

The Parable of the Talents: the servant who buried his gift and did nothing with it was condemned. Passivity was itself the sin.

"Faith without works is dead" James 2:17. A dead faith saves nobody.

Grace is genuinely offered to everyone. It is not irresistible. You can grieve the Holy Spirit. You can quench Him. Scripture explicitly says both. That means your response is real and consequential. If you consistently refuse to cooperate with grace, refuse to repent, refuse the sacraments, refuse to fight sin: you are not demonstrating passive election. You are walking away from a door that was genuinely open.

---

Two things: 1) None of what you just said is incompatible with what I said; and 2) none of what you just said was an answer to the issues I raised.

Does salvation require sacraments (i.e. an action on our part) or not? It's a simply yes or no. Do you believe we are required to engage in sacraments for salvation - like Catholicism - or not?

Raising strawmen arguments are not an answer to the questions posed. So first, we need to establish what it is you believe before we can address the many strawmen and assumptions in your latest post.

---

Salvation is not a one time event but a journey of repentance and union with God.
Salvation is healing, it's not a prize to be earned. Sin is a spiritual sickness, the Church is a hospital for souls, and Christ is our physician. To be healed of our sin, we trust in Christ and follow his directions, keeping to the prescription given to us by the Church and regularly receiving our medicine in the sacraments.

You view salvation as a change of legal status, you're either in or out. Orthodoxy teaches something more akin to a spectrum that you can't even calculate outside of humility and truth in your own heart and God's knowledge of your heart. You're either eternally moving closer to God, or further away from Him. So your question is literally incompatible with this paradigm.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Relevant:

Are you, a U.S. senator, calling to have Catholic Americans investigated for our opposition to dispensationalist Zionism, you treacherous fkn slob?

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 15, 2026

---

I've seen this lady's comments before. Didn't listen to what Cruz said, but this gal is an absolute nut

BTW, the shared disdain for Israel does make for some strange bedfellows. I've never seen an Orthodox Christian defend Catholicism as much as you have.

---

Its quite complex actually. There's been a major threat to evangelical/reformed world. Basically baptist or non denom churches are losing ground.

There's been a huge and recent conversion of Protestants to Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy. Also Pentecostalism and the broader charismatic movement are widely considered the fastest growing Christian movement in the world: Its wild that the charismatics and the more radical groups of the reformation are statistically going to win the race.

So there's very much a move toward anti dispensationalism and that's a major threat to this current war and how Christians in the US view Israel. If you don't really understand modern politics, just know its all about narrative control.

Where I'm concerned:
You have guys like Dough Wilson (Pete Hegseth's pastor) who just publicly stated that he wants to outlaw Catholic public worship which would also include Orthodoxy. He basically just said public acts of adoration of the Eucharist, artwork/icons should not be permitted because he views them as idolatrous and he would gladly get behind banning it.

Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans all have sacraments, a magisterium and are mostly against dispensationalism. I see a future where they're persecuted for their differences. I see them as brothers, not some demonic foreign religion that most non denoms and baptists think they are.
I think our government could easily persecute these groups. Ex. "We fear Orthodox churches are filled with Russian agents, and we're going to shut them down".

---

I am not sure the numbers I've seen support your position. While Christianity in general has experienced significant growth the past few years, non-denominational churches are likewise experiencing significant growth, with roughly 14% of Americans (nearly 40 million people) now identifying as non-denominational. They have become the second-largest religious tradition in the U.S. behind Catholicism, growing by 9,000 congregations over the past decade.

The overall percentage of U.S. adults identifying as Catholic has been stable at roughly 20% since 2014. They are obviously the largest group, but I've seen no evidence they've grown in any large numbers over the last 10 years.

I have seen statistics that the Orthodox sects are likewise growing in number, mostly among the younger generations. Of course, it still remains less than 1% of the population.

It would seem to me that if you are Orthodox, you would be concerned for the souls of Catholics. But to be blunt, it sounds like you are more interested in your common cause - dislike of Israel, and anti-biblical positions on the Jews, and in particular, Romans 9 and 11.

The idea that your faith or the Catholic faith are under attack is a new one for me. I think it will be damn near impossible for Pete Hegseth's pastor, whoever that is, to violate any of your 1st Amended rights.

---

I'm concerned for all souls, but Orthodox don't deny salvation outside of the Church. They know where salvation is, but not necessarily where it isn't. They're not going around telling everyone they're automatically damned because they're not Orthodox. There's a respect between Catholic and Orthodox in the modern world.

I think you might be shocked by the hatred for Catholics/Orthodox.

Amazing how the Atlantic, the FBI, and Neocons all agree on this pic.twitter.com/o0ITrvXyjf

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) March 16, 2026

---

So, sounds like you and the Catholics disagree then, as they do deny salvation outside of the Church. In that sense, you're more akin to my reformed theology brethren.

But that really wasn't my point. My point had more to do with being concerned with Catholicism because they believe false gospel that their works can save them. Sounds like you don't take issue with such heresy.

As for the Atlantic, it's a liberal rag and doesn't speak for anyone but the leftists. I didn't see Orthodoxy mentioned, BTW.

---

That's not what modern Catholics believe. Works based salvation is a tired trope built from medieval Catholicism and it's not what they believe nor what's in their doctrines.

If actually read Aquinas, or the Catechism, or any Orthodox father, you won't find "do enough good deeds and earn heaven." Grace is absolutely central to both traditions. Rejecting sola fide doesn't automatically land you in a position where works earn salvation. That's not what Catholicism or Orthodoxy actually teaches.

Catholics don't flatly damn Orthodox Christians either, they tend to recognize Orthodox baptism and apostolic succession as valid, placing them in a category of "separated brethren".

---

Unfortunately this is just a misguided attempt to repackage a works based faith in an attempt to apologize for heresy. When you believe sacraments have to be performed to be saved, that's not only a works based faith but actual heresy. Baptism, confession, communion - none of these things are requirements tor salvation. Yet that is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches and has been the subject of numerous debates on this board.

It's unfortunate that your hyper focus on sola fide has led you to defend heresy. You get it badly wrong here

---

Do you not know that Sacraments are actions of God? Sacraments are gifts of grace that we receive, not human achievements that earn salvation. They're not our works whatsoever. That's also why we can't call them symbolic.

You've received a sacrament yourself if you're married. You and your wife exchanged vows. Surely you believe it was witnessed by the Church and blessed before God?

…your wife might slap you if you tell her that your marriage is just symbolic lol

---

So your position is because sacraments are actions of God and not a man, these don't fall within the works based ideology that Paul preaches against?

Now that's a take. So if these are the mere actions of God, I suppose we just have to wait for God to put the bread and wine in our mouth? And I guess he confesses for us? And will he dial us with water to baptize us? There's no actions involved on our part?

That's really your position???

---

When a surgeon operates on you, you're not healing yourself just because your body is physically present on the table or you showed up for the surgery.

I guess God just beams the knowledge of salvation directly into your head?! If any human action involved in receiving grace disqualifies it from being God's act, then Scripture itself is disqualified as a means of salvation too.

You can't actually argue against human actions being involved. You're selectively objecting to certain human actions (sacramental ones) while you absolutely would exempt others (reading, believing, praying, walking an aisle, repeating a sinner's prayer) from the same scrutiny.

By what principle do you distinguish the human actions involved in sacraments from the human actions involved in hearing and receiving the Gospel?

Paul's target in his works-righteousness argument is specifically human moral achievement as the basis for standing before God: the idea that your law-keeping, your virtue, your religious performance earns or merits right standing and can get you to God without Christ.

---

Is mere thought a work in your book? Is repentance work? Is belief work? Not according to scripture, certainly. Moreover, it is God's work that puts the thought in our head. We are his elect, who he had called. That is not the work Paul argues against.

As any reasonable person knows, that is QUITE different than taking a sacrament. Baptism requires a physical act on the part of the believer. At a minimum, it requires him or her to be dunked or allow himself to be sprinkled. Same goes for confession - it requires a physical action on the part of the believer. The same holds true of communion. We physically perform the act of eating and drinking.

To argue that these are the same as mere belief is intellectually dishonest. We know they are not. We also know that Christ and the NT scriptures don't talk about any of these sacraments as a requirement for salvation.

While I understand why you would try to spin the sacraments into non-acts, we both know that is disingenuous. Paul is clear that no works will save us.

Your position, once again, can find no biblical support and is heretical in nature. Moreover, it is my understanding that it's also contrary to Orthodoxy. It was my understanding that the sacraments did not require any of the foregoing for salvation.

---

Your theology has effectively made the Christian life a spectator sport. God acts, you watch, and whatever happens was already decided before you were born. God picks and chooses who he saves and damns, nobody has willpower and he thankfully picked you because he created you to be worthy and predestined others to be unworthy. Pure Calvinism.

Paul tells Timothy to "flee youthful lusts." He doesn't say "wait and see if God flees them for you." Peter says to "add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge." That's a construction project. it requires a builder. James says "resist the devil and he will flee from you." That's a direct command assuming you have the capacity to actually resist something.

But nah, you're exempt from these commands and if you dare to cooperate with God or ask Him to help you stop being a degenerate…well that's crossing the line.

If God has already determined whether you will overcome your addiction, your laziness, your anger…then what exactly are you supposed to do on Tuesday morning when temptation comes? Pray that God already decided you'd resist?

Once grace begins waking you up, you have to cooperate with that awakening or it withers.

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" Philippians 2:12. Not "watch God work it out for you."

"He who endures to the end will be saved" Matthew 24:13. Endurance is active.

The Parable of the Talents: the servant who buried his gift and did nothing with it was condemned. Passivity was itself the sin.

"Faith without works is dead" James 2:17. A dead faith saves nobody.

Grace is genuinely offered to everyone. It is not irresistible. You can grieve the Holy Spirit. You can quench Him. Scripture explicitly says both. That means your response is real and consequential. If you consistently refuse to cooperate with grace, refuse to repent, refuse the sacraments, refuse to fight sin: you are not demonstrating passive election. You are walking away from a door that was genuinely open.

---

Two things: 1) None of what you just said is incompatible with what I said; and 2) none of what you just said was an answer to the issues I raised.

Does salvation require sacraments (i.e. an action on our part) or not? It's a simply yes or no. Do you believe we are required to engage in sacraments for salvation - like Catholicism - or not?

Raising strawmen arguments are not an answer to the questions posed. So first, we need to establish what it is you believe before we can address the many strawmen and assumptions in your latest post.

---

Salvation is not a one time event but a journey of repentance and union with God.
Salvation is healing, it's not a prize to be earned. Sin is a spiritual sickness, the Church is a hospital for souls, and Christ is our physician. To be healed of our sin, we trust in Christ and follow his directions, keeping to the prescription given to us by the Church and regularly receiving our medicine in the sacraments.

You view salvation as a change of legal status, you're either in or out. Orthodoxy teaches something more akin to a spectrum that you can't even calculate outside of humility and truth in your own heart and God's knowledge of your heart. You're either eternally moving closer to God, or further away from Him. So your question is literally incompatible with this paradigm.

---

Salvation is not a journey. Sanctification is. But there's no scriptural support for the position that salvation is some long and winding road, IMO. One of the many things orthodoxy gets wrong.

But this doesn't answer my questions. It's a pretty simple yes or no. Is there a reason you are not willing to answer them?

Must Christians partake in the sacraments to be saved, as Catholics teach, or not?

---

I'm not Catholic. I don't think you are automatically damned without the sacraments and I don't think non orthodox can't be saved.

I mean if we're going go with the reductionist approach, then go by the thief on the cross. Do you think that's now the normative means of salvation and how we should all comport with faith?

You have to understand that the early church had a completely different paradigm that cannot identify a single slot for salvation. It's not a legal or juridical system. It's about your heart instead.

Yall don't even agree on what justification by faith alone means. Does your faith in atonement, death and resurrection mean justification by faith alone? Or is it how the classical reformed and Lutherans said, that you also have to know and believe in justification by faith alone, to be justified by faith alone?

Then you say sanctification is separate, but is it necessary?
Sanctification can't appear without your own willpower and cooperating with Christ…so is that works?

It's very unclear. That's why you have so many denominations and hyper grace, once saved always saved etc.

We still haven't determined why you have to choose a single thing like faith alone for salvation. That concept didn't come up until the 1600s. Why is it correct?

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra's fake version of Christianity that was invented 30 seconds ago believes those who bless Israel will be blessed... when 80 years of experience has proven the exact opposite to be true.

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Let's say, for example, that a person has the heart change resulting from salvation, and appears to be filled with the Holy Spirit, but doesn't get baptized? ...Let's just say he forgot and didn't get around to it.

---

Think about what you just wrote there.

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Relevant:

Are you, a U.S. senator, calling to have Catholic Americans investigated for our opposition to dispensationalist Zionism, you treacherous fkn slob?

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 15, 2026

---

I've seen this lady's comments before. Didn't listen to what Cruz said, but this gal is an absolute nut

BTW, the shared disdain for Israel does make for some strange bedfellows. I've never seen an Orthodox Christian defend Catholicism as much as you have.

---

Its quite complex actually. There's been a major threat to evangelical/reformed world. Basically baptist or non denom churches are losing ground.

There's been a huge and recent conversion of Protestants to Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy. Also Pentecostalism and the broader charismatic movement are widely considered the fastest growing Christian movement in the world: Its wild that the charismatics and the more radical groups of the reformation are statistically going to win the race.

So there's very much a move toward anti dispensationalism and that's a major threat to this current war and how Christians in the US view Israel. If you don't really understand modern politics, just know its all about narrative control.

Where I'm concerned:
You have guys like Dough Wilson (Pete Hegseth's pastor) who just publicly stated that he wants to outlaw Catholic public worship which would also include Orthodoxy. He basically just said public acts of adoration of the Eucharist, artwork/icons should not be permitted because he views them as idolatrous and he would gladly get behind banning it.

Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans all have sacraments, a magisterium and are mostly against dispensationalism. I see a future where they're persecuted for their differences. I see them as brothers, not some demonic foreign religion that most non denoms and baptists think they are.
I think our government could easily persecute these groups. Ex. "We fear Orthodox churches are filled with Russian agents, and we're going to shut them down".

---

I am not sure the numbers I've seen support your position. While Christianity in general has experienced significant growth the past few years, non-denominational churches are likewise experiencing significant growth, with roughly 14% of Americans (nearly 40 million people) now identifying as non-denominational. They have become the second-largest religious tradition in the U.S. behind Catholicism, growing by 9,000 congregations over the past decade.

The overall percentage of U.S. adults identifying as Catholic has been stable at roughly 20% since 2014. They are obviously the largest group, but I've seen no evidence they've grown in any large numbers over the last 10 years.

I have seen statistics that the Orthodox sects are likewise growing in number, mostly among the younger generations. Of course, it still remains less than 1% of the population.

It would seem to me that if you are Orthodox, you would be concerned for the souls of Catholics. But to be blunt, it sounds like you are more interested in your common cause - dislike of Israel, and anti-biblical positions on the Jews, and in particular, Romans 9 and 11.

The idea that your faith or the Catholic faith are under attack is a new one for me. I think it will be damn near impossible for Pete Hegseth's pastor, whoever that is, to violate any of your 1st Amended rights.

---

I'm concerned for all souls, but Orthodox don't deny salvation outside of the Church. They know where salvation is, but not necessarily where it isn't. They're not going around telling everyone they're automatically damned because they're not Orthodox. There's a respect between Catholic and Orthodox in the modern world.

I think you might be shocked by the hatred for Catholics/Orthodox.

Amazing how the Atlantic, the FBI, and Neocons all agree on this pic.twitter.com/o0ITrvXyjf

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) March 16, 2026

---

So, sounds like you and the Catholics disagree then, as they do deny salvation outside of the Church. In that sense, you're more akin to my reformed theology brethren.

But that really wasn't my point. My point had more to do with being concerned with Catholicism because they believe false gospel that their works can save them. Sounds like you don't take issue with such heresy.

As for the Atlantic, it's a liberal rag and doesn't speak for anyone but the leftists. I didn't see Orthodoxy mentioned, BTW.

---

That's not what modern Catholics believe. Works based salvation is a tired trope built from medieval Catholicism and it's not what they believe nor what's in their doctrines.

If actually read Aquinas, or the Catechism, or any Orthodox father, you won't find "do enough good deeds and earn heaven." Grace is absolutely central to both traditions. Rejecting sola fide doesn't automatically land you in a position where works earn salvation. That's not what Catholicism or Orthodoxy actually teaches.

Catholics don't flatly damn Orthodox Christians either, they tend to recognize Orthodox baptism and apostolic succession as valid, placing them in a category of "separated brethren".

---

Unfortunately this is just a misguided attempt to repackage a works based faith in an attempt to apologize for heresy. When you believe sacraments have to be performed to be saved, that's not only a works based faith but actual heresy. Baptism, confession, communion - none of these things are requirements tor salvation. Yet that is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches and has been the subject of numerous debates on this board.

It's unfortunate that your hyper focus on sola fide has led you to defend heresy. You get it badly wrong here

---

Do you not know that Sacraments are actions of God? Sacraments are gifts of grace that we receive, not human achievements that earn salvation. They're not our works whatsoever. That's also why we can't call them symbolic.

You've received a sacrament yourself if you're married. You and your wife exchanged vows. Surely you believe it was witnessed by the Church and blessed before God?

…your wife might slap you if you tell her that your marriage is just symbolic lol

---

So your position is because sacraments are actions of God and not a man, these don't fall within the works based ideology that Paul preaches against?

Now that's a take. So if these are the mere actions of God, I suppose we just have to wait for God to put the bread and wine in our mouth? And I guess he confesses for us? And will he dial us with water to baptize us? There's no actions involved on our part?

That's really your position???

---

When a surgeon operates on you, you're not healing yourself just because your body is physically present on the table or you showed up for the surgery.

I guess God just beams the knowledge of salvation directly into your head?! If any human action involved in receiving grace disqualifies it from being God's act, then Scripture itself is disqualified as a means of salvation too.

You can't actually argue against human actions being involved. You're selectively objecting to certain human actions (sacramental ones) while you absolutely would exempt others (reading, believing, praying, walking an aisle, repeating a sinner's prayer) from the same scrutiny.

By what principle do you distinguish the human actions involved in sacraments from the human actions involved in hearing and receiving the Gospel?

Paul's target in his works-righteousness argument is specifically human moral achievement as the basis for standing before God: the idea that your law-keeping, your virtue, your religious performance earns or merits right standing and can get you to God without Christ.

---

Is mere thought a work in your book? Is repentance work? Is belief work? Not according to scripture, certainly. Moreover, it is God's work that puts the thought in our head. We are his elect, who he had called. That is not the work Paul argues against.

As any reasonable person knows, that is QUITE different than taking a sacrament. Baptism requires a physical act on the part of the believer. At a minimum, it requires him or her to be dunked or allow himself to be sprinkled. Same goes for confession - it requires a physical action on the part of the believer. The same holds true of communion. We physically perform the act of eating and drinking.

To argue that these are the same as mere belief is intellectually dishonest. We know they are not. We also know that Christ and the NT scriptures don't talk about any of these sacraments as a requirement for salvation.

While I understand why you would try to spin the sacraments into non-acts, we both know that is disingenuous. Paul is clear that no works will save us.

Your position, once again, can find no biblical support and is heretical in nature. Moreover, it is my understanding that it's also contrary to Orthodoxy. It was my understanding that the sacraments did not require any of the foregoing for salvation.

---

Your theology has effectively made the Christian life a spectator sport. God acts, you watch, and whatever happens was already decided before you were born. God picks and chooses who he saves and damns, nobody has willpower and he thankfully picked you because he created you to be worthy and predestined others to be unworthy. Pure Calvinism.

Paul tells Timothy to "flee youthful lusts." He doesn't say "wait and see if God flees them for you." Peter says to "add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge." That's a construction project. it requires a builder. James says "resist the devil and he will flee from you." That's a direct command assuming you have the capacity to actually resist something.

But nah, you're exempt from these commands and if you dare to cooperate with God or ask Him to help you stop being a degenerate…well that's crossing the line.

If God has already determined whether you will overcome your addiction, your laziness, your anger…then what exactly are you supposed to do on Tuesday morning when temptation comes? Pray that God already decided you'd resist?

Once grace begins waking you up, you have to cooperate with that awakening or it withers.

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" Philippians 2:12. Not "watch God work it out for you."

"He who endures to the end will be saved" Matthew 24:13. Endurance is active.

The Parable of the Talents: the servant who buried his gift and did nothing with it was condemned. Passivity was itself the sin.

"Faith without works is dead" James 2:17. A dead faith saves nobody.

Grace is genuinely offered to everyone. It is not irresistible. You can grieve the Holy Spirit. You can quench Him. Scripture explicitly says both. That means your response is real and consequential. If you consistently refuse to cooperate with grace, refuse to repent, refuse the sacraments, refuse to fight sin: you are not demonstrating passive election. You are walking away from a door that was genuinely open.

---

Two things: 1) None of what you just said is incompatible with what I said; and 2) none of what you just said was an answer to the issues I raised.

Does salvation require sacraments (i.e. an action on our part) or not? It's a simply yes or no. Do you believe we are required to engage in sacraments for salvation - like Catholicism - or not?

Raising strawmen arguments are not an answer to the questions posed. So first, we need to establish what it is you believe before we can address the many strawmen and assumptions in your latest post.

---

Salvation is not a one time event but a journey of repentance and union with God.
Salvation is healing, it's not a prize to be earned. Sin is a spiritual sickness, the Church is a hospital for souls, and Christ is our physician. To be healed of our sin, we trust in Christ and follow his directions, keeping to the prescription given to us by the Church and regularly receiving our medicine in the sacraments.

You view salvation as a change of legal status, you're either in or out. Orthodoxy teaches something more akin to a spectrum that you can't even calculate outside of humility and truth in your own heart and God's knowledge of your heart. You're either eternally moving closer to God, or further away from Him. So your question is literally incompatible with this paradigm.

---

Salvation is not a journey. Sanctification is. But there's no scriptural support for the position that salvation is some long and winding road, IMO. One of the many things orthodoxy gets wrong.

But this doesn't answer my questions. It's a pretty simple yes or no. Is there a reason you are not willing to answer them?

Must Christians partake in the sacraments to be saved, as Catholics teach, or not?

---

I'm not Catholic. I don't think you are automatically damned without the sacraments and I don't think non orthodox can't be saved.

I mean if we're going go with the reductionist approach, then go by the thief on the cross. Do you think that's now the normative means of salvation and how we should all comport with faith?

You have to understand that the early church had a completely different paradigm that cannot identify a single slot for salvation. It's not a legal or juridical system. It's about your heart instead.

Yall don't even agree on what justification by faith alone means. Does your faith in atonement, death and resurrection mean justification by faith alone? Or is it how the classical reformed and Lutherans said, that you also have to know and believe in justification by faith alone, to be justified by faith alone?

Then you say sanctification is separate, but is it necessary?
Sanctification can't appear without your own willpower and cooperating with Christ…so is that works?

It's very unclear. That's why you have so many denominations and hyper grace, once saved always saved etc.

We still haven't determined why you have to choose a single thing like faith alone for salvation. That concept didn't come up until the 1600s. Why is it correct?

---

We can address the issues raised, most of which are again incorrect assumptions about my faith and it appears other denominations. However, the preliminary questions asked 3 posts ago needed to be answered. You finally have provided some semblance of a response, but it requires further clarification.

So, you are not "automatically damned" but can be damned if, say, you don't partake in certain of the sacraments. Indeed, it appears from your answer that you believe one may be damned if he or she doesn't partake in certain of the sacraments, correct? Let's say, for example, that a person has the heart change resulting from salvation, and appears to be filled with the Holy Spirit, but doesn't get baptized? Is he "damned" according to your belief and faith tradition. Is the ministerial act of sprinkling or dunking, whichever the case may be, something that will prevent him from entering Heaven? Or does it perhaps depend on why he didn't get baptized? Let's just say he forgot and didn't get around to it. Damned?

Same thing goes for the other sacraments. Let's say he doesn't partake in the Eucharist because he has an aversion to germs. Eternally damned?

Again, these may seem like silly questions, but it is indeed what our Catholic friends believe. It's not about a heart change, but a ministerial act, sadly. This is what you are defending.

---