What is the difference between Christians and Catholics?

As a Catholic, I really dislike this question. Unfortunately it's a very common one. I am assuming that 99% of people who ask this question are not doing so maliciously or with any ill-will whatsoever. It actually makes sense. When someone says they are "Christian" generally it means a non-Catholic / non-Orthodox Christian, especially if said by someone in the United States or Canada.

I remember one time when I and my now wife were in Europe doing a tour and someone asked me this very question. I have heard it in other instances in various different ways. But this isn't just a blog about why I dislike this question, I will also attempt to the best of my ability to actually answer it!

But first, why do I dislike it? As you can probably tell, I primarily dislike this question because of the question implied within it. If you ask the "difference" between two things, it automatically implies they are, in fact, different. If I said what is the difference between an apple and an orange, it would imply those are two separate entities. If, however, one entity subsumed the other within its definition, the question would seem odd at best.

Imagine for example asking "What is the difference between a Canadian and a person?" or "What is the difference between a cell phone and technology?"

Those would seem like strange, almost unanswerable questions. It reminds me of the court room question of "Do you still beat your wife?" If answered with either "yes" or "no", it would imply the person being questioned was at some point guilty. So, the question's baseline premise must be rejected. That's exactly what I am saying with the above question. I reject the initial premise upon which it is based.

A properly phrased question in this case would be "What is the difference between non-Catholic Christians and Catholic Christians?" I know that's a bit bulky, but it maintains an important point: that Catholics are Christians. This is something which must be emphasized. Catholics are 100% Christians. In fact, we would say we are the truest and most complete form of Christianity. It would make more sense to ask "What is the difference between a Christian and a Protestant?" Even though it would make more sense, I'm not saying it does make sense. Most Protestants, in my estimation, would meet the criteria for being called Christian.

So, having said that enormous pre-amble, let's get into what actually sets Catholics apart from others who call themselves Christians?

I cannot really offer a complete and exhaustive list of differences between the two, but I can offer some observations and some of my own personal knowledge on the subject. To list every single difference would take volumes. These are just some that I thought of. If there are others you think are important, please feel free to list them in the comments. Again, this isn't meant to be an exhaustive list. Also, I may not explain everything perfectly in precise theological language.

One thing I find great about the Catholic Church is that it is very open and transparent on its teachings. If you want to know what the Church believes, you just have to look it up. One of the best sources it the Catechism. There are different versions, and not everything has the same level of authority in its teaching, but it gives you a great idea. Many people accuse Catholics of believing certain things even when they don't. There doesn't need to be any confusion. What we teach is available and knowable by anyone.

Not everything I mention here will differentiate the Catholic Church from all other Christian communities in every way. With thousands of denominations, it would be hard to find a particular doctrine not shared by one or more of them.

Sacraments
The Catholic Church has seven sacraments.

The sacraments are “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us” (CCC 1131). In other words, a sacrament is a sacred and visible sign that is instituted by Jesus to give us grace, an undeserved gift from God. (See also CCC 1084).

These seven sacraments are the following:

Sacraments of initiation

• Baptism
• Confirmation
• Eucharist

Sacraments of healing

• Penance
• Anointing of the Sick

Sacraments of service

• Holy Orders
• Matrimony 

In Catholic theology, these sacraments impart grace, which is a free gift from God. The efficacy of the sacraments do not depend on the disposition of the person receiving them. Some of the sacraments are necessary for salvation, such as baptism, and in the case of committing a mortal sin, penance. All of the sacraments bring us closer to God. These are not merely symbolic gesture or symbols, but truly bring God's grace to us.

In some Christian denominations, there are only 2 sacraments instead of 7, and they are not considered necessary for salvation. In some cases, they are seen as merely symbolic.

Priesthood
In order to have the sacraments, the Catholic Church must have a priesthood. Although all Christians, in a certain sense, are priests, prophets, and kings, there is also a special clergy designated by God to perform various sacraments, primarily the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Priests are seen as the spiritual helpers of bishops who are spiritual successors of the Apostles. In theory, each bishop can trace his lineage all the way back to one of the original 12 apostles.

Priests take a vow of celibacy which is a matter of discipline rather than doctrine. On top of this, they make a vow of obedience and in some cases (particularly with religious priests) a vow of poverty. By "religious" priest, I mean a priest belonging to a particular religious order, as opposed to a diocesan priest.

Other Christians do not have the priesthood, especially not a ministerial one. This is a huge difference. Although, for example, both Catholics and Protestants celebrate a form of service or liturgy, Protestants view what is happening in a completely different way. The primary purpose of the Mass is to consecrate the Eucharist, which is an unbloody re-presentation of the eternal sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. It makes present his perfect atonement and allows us to do as he commanded when he said "do this in memory of me".

Most Protestant Christians do not believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament (the Eucharist) and therefore they may infrequently or never have a communion service which they see as symbolic. The primary purpose of a Protestant service is to pray and hear a sermon.

This is an important distinction. As mentioned, even though many families, both Protestant and Catholic, go to their respective churches on Sunday for a service, the intention and idea behind both is dramatically different. There are, however, commonalities, such as Bible readings and a sermon, although Protestant sermons, being the central aspect of a Sunday service, can be much longer than a Catholic homily which generally lasts between 5 to 15 minutes.

Scripture and Tradition
Another big differentiator between non-Catholic and Catholic Christians is their views on Scripture and Tradition. Within Catholicism, both are seen as equal sources of belief and doctrine. However, there is some misunderstanding which must be clarified.

When the Church speaks of "Tradition", it does not simply mean things that are traditional.

The catechism really says it best, so I will quote it here:

The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

Of note, Tradition is not something that is just simply "made up", it comes from the apostles and is transmitted through time. As the catechism explains, the apostles didn't yet have the Bible as we know it today. That didn't come about until the mid-300s or so. There was much debate about which books were in the Bible and so on. Therefore, one could say the Bible came from the Church and not the other way around.

Of course, this is not the view of non-Catholic Christians. Most of them would describe themselves as Bible-alone Christians or Sola Scriptura. This belief, in my opinion, seems to stem from the idea that the Church is not a visible structure with a hierarchy, but rather more a collection of believers. Because of this, it would be impossible to identify the true "Tradition" or the handing down of doctrine and belief from a particular source. It is also a Protestant belief that each individual Christian has the ability to interpret Scripture on his or her own, there is no Magisterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church in Catholicism. The "Tradition" of Catholic teaching simply could not exist in Protestantism. 

Saints
Of course, all Christians believe in saints. Saints are quite simply those who are in heaven. The difference in belief comes from our approach to them. Catholics believe we can ask Saints in heaven to intercede for us, which means we ask them to pray for us. It's important to note, we always ask them to pray to God on our behalf. We are not praying to them as a substitution for God, as if we are deciding: Should I pray to God or to a saint today?

That's important to know. Many people ask why Catholics don't just "go straight to God"? Why have all these middlemen? First, I would say we often DO go straight to God and this is not discouraged in any way. Secondly, asking others to pray for us is something everyone does. We may ask a relative or friend to keep us in their prayers. This goes for Catholics and non-Catholics. The difference is Catholics will ask not only relatives and friends but also saints in heaven.

There are a couple of reasons for this. First of all, we believe in the communion of saints, meaning we are all kind of in this together. Saints are close to God and are virtuous, holy and filled with grace. They are currently experiencing the beatific vision. Their intercessory prayer is powerful. As Catholics, we believe that saints can hear our prayers and bring them to God.

Purgatory and Indulgences

Purgatory in Catholic theology is a place of purification which those who are saved must spend time in order to purge or cleanse vice or attachment to sin before entering Heaven. We are told that nothing impure can enter heaven. Purgatory are for those who die in a state of grace, meaning in friendship with God, but must first be purified before entering into the beatific vision.

To me, purgatory is congruent with God's mercy. Instead of saying a person must have absolutely no attachment to sin or any disordered desires, God says a person must be in friendship with him at the time of death and that he will cleanse them of any leftover vices before they can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Protestants do not explicitly believe in any form of purgatory for the most part. I did, however, discover that many Protestants believe in a sort of cleansing prior to entering Heaven, the difference is that it takes place instantaneously unlike in Catholic theology.

Because of our beliefs surrounding purgatory, we have other beliefs which correspond as well, such as indulgences. An indulgence is the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. This is best explained with an example. If you steal $1000 from someone and then God forgives you for doing so, you must still, to the best of your ability, repay the amount to that person. You must make restitution. It would not be sufficient to say "well God has forgiven me, no further action necessary." This type of "repayment" cannot always take place. How could one repay gluttony, lust, sloth, etc. It's not always clear the exact "value" of these things. That's where indulgences come in. Indulgences can be granted for various actions such as prayers and fasting. Special indulgences are granted by the Church for various specific tasks such as praying at a cemetery during All Souls Day or participating in a Novena. These actions purify us and detach us from sin.

Indulgences get a little more complicated. There are some which are partial and others which are complete or plenary, meaning they either remit some or all of the temporal punishment due to sin (temporal indicating the effects of sin other than eternal consequences). One of the conditions to receive a plenary indulgence is detachment from sin, meaning we are not drawn to a particular sin. That's a big ask. If these cannot be achieved, and a person dies in God's favor, he may have to spend time in Purgatory.

🙏

There are dozens of other differences between Catholicism and non-Catholic Christianity. We could go on and on, but the above at least gives an idea. I did not provide proof, either Biblical or other, for the above, but they are certainly there. I just wanted to provide the differences, not necessarily prove them.

Hope this helps answer the question many people have asked over the years. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to put them in the comments section.

Have a great day and God Bless You.

Problems with the Week for Christian Unity

In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent Cardinal Humber from Rome to Constantinople to bring the two halves of the Church together. Unfortunately the opposite happened when the cardinal excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and the patriarch returned the favor to the cardinal. That's when things got bad and haven't been fully resolved since.

Why did the schism occur? Well, to our modern-day sensibilities, the reasons seem very minor. There were differences in opinion when it came to the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. There were some differences in belief regarding the use of leavened vs. unleavened bread during the Eucharist. Throw in the mix the controversy surrounding the filioque clause, which is a controversy over whether we should say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, or just the Father, in the Nicene Creed.

These theological differences created a rift which ultimately created what is known as the Great Schism of 1054. Historians will say tensions were accumulating in the preceding centuries and that this schism was really a massive overreaction. Modern-day popes have all attempted, along with Eastern Patriarchs, to mend the schism and reunite these who parts of the Church. Partial reunions have resulted in what are known as Eastern Catholic Churches.

Now to the modern day, where there isn't a single schism in the Catholic Church resulting in two slightly different but very similar churches agreeing on 99% of issues. Now we have tens of thousands of Christian churches all over the world with wildly different beliefs. Instead of arguing over the use of leavened vs. unleavened bread, most Protestant churches do not even believe in the Real Presence. Instead of debating Petrine Primacy, or the status of Pope as First Among Equal Patriarchs, most Christian communities outright reject any form of papacy whatsoever.

Yet, despite these facts, for centuries, the Catholic Church has strove to convert the Eastern Orthodox Church back to the Catholic Church established by Our Lord. There was a desire for unity in belief and purpose. There has always been respect between the East and the West, but yet always an underlying desire for reunification.

Fast-forward to now. We hardly ever hear about conversion. We don't hear about missionaries entering into non-Catholic areas to will souls to Christ. We now speak mainly of dialogue and "deep respect" for other "religious traditions". This isn't just for Protestant denominations but other non-Christian religions.

I think this new approach is very problematic. Christ gave us a mission to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. He did not say dialogue with other groups and just come to some kind of mutual respect. He told us to go out there and win converts. Of course, we are not the ones who do the converting, it's God himself.

To me, the new approach goes against the wishes of Jesus Christ who prayed that we be united as one, together. Furthermore, Our Lord tells us repeatedly that he is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through him. Who are we to take all that Christ is saying and ignore it and tell him we know better.

I think all too often we see conversion as something negative, when it's only something positive. Our approach can certainly be negative, there is no doubt about that. We should meek, humble, and loving. Jesus himself said his followers should be recognized by their love. For this we must strive. However, at the same time, we cannot fall into a sense of indifferentism. It is a moral failing on our part to refuse to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

God's love for us is a gift, and God himself became incarnate to teach us the way to eternal life. Who are we to withhold this most incredible gift from others out of a misplaced sense of respect? In a secular sense it would be like finding out our friend had a winning lottery ticket worth millions of dollars but refused to tell him about it because we didn't want to disrupt him.

If we truly believe that Jesus Christ came to Earth to die for our sins so that we may be united more closely with him in this life and the next, it would be incredibly wrong for us to prevent others from knowing about this.

I think about this sometimes when thinking about the idea of conversion. Sometimes as devout Catholics, the question comes up of whether we should tell others of Christianity because by doing so they are held to a higher standard whereas before they would perhaps be living with invincible ignorance and thus lack moral culpability.

However, this is the wrong question. Again, back to the analogy of the million-dollar lottery ticket. Would we refuse to tell someone about the millions they won because maybe they'd have to make decisions as to how to spend it? To prevent them from being burdened, we simply do not let them know.

Of course this is not a great analogy as many people do actually suffer from winning the lottery. However, no one has ever been worse off for coming closer to Jesus Christ.

That's why I have issues with some of the language used in the modern world when it comes to other religions. I agree that we must have the utmost respect towards other people, and we should never address the traditions of others in a derogatory way. We must be kind and humble. But being kind, humble, and respectful does not mean fully consenting or agreeing with others. We have a mission, we have an incredible gift. Christ tells us about a peace that only he can give. Who are we to stop others from receiving the peace of Christ?

Let your light shine and do not hide it from the world. Bring the message of Christ to the whole world. They deserve to know Our Lord like you do.

Should we emphasize Christ's suffering or his resurrection?

A friend of mine a few days ago asked if I believe it's accurate to say that Catholics focus on Christ's suffering and death while Protestants focus on the Resurrection. At first I somewhat agreed with him, but I later had more time to think about it and put it into perspective and I developed a few thoughts on the issue.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Catholics do focus on the suffering and death of Christ, whereas this element of Christ's life is overshadowed in Protestant thinking by his resurrection, which they focus on almost exclusively. Of course this will vary from group to group within Protestantism.

Catholic spirituality places a lot of emphasis on Christ's suffering. This can be seen by our devotions. The Stations of the Cross give a 14-step analysis of Christ's trial, suffering, and death of the cross. This was introduced by St. Francis of Assisi. Around this time, around 800 years ago, more graphic representations of Christ's crucifixion became common. Francis of Assisi was the first person to receive the stigmata, which are the wounds of Christ. The Mass, the main worship of Catholics, is called a sacrifice. We present Christ's body and blood to be eaten by the Christian community, just as Christ did at the Last Supper. We pray the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, which recount five major events of Christ's suffering, and are: 1) His agony in the garden of Gethsemene, 2) Scourging at the pillar, 3) Crowning with Thorns, 4) Carrying the Cross, 5) Crucifixion and death on the cross. We devote an entire season called Lent to align ourselves to the suffering of Christ and be freed from our material desires. Fridays of the year are designated as sacrificial days. In the past, this meant not eating meat on Fridays, but now this can be substituted by another act of penance. There are many more examples of the centrality of Christ's suffering in our theology.

But this emphasis on Christ's Passion is not unnatural, and no devotion will ever go further in the portrayal of Christ's suffering than the amount he actually suffered. Christ suffered more than any person in history, not merely because of the brutal scourging and crucifixion, but because he bore our sins and became the paschal sacrifice of humanity. We should be on our knees praising God for this each and every day.

We believe in Christ ON the cross. The cross without Christ is empty, barren, it does not accomplish our salvation. But our salvation was accomplished by Christ ON the cross. This is where Earth was united with Heaven. Many people say they have an empty cross because Christ conquered death and that he rose from the dead and that he is not on the cross anymore. But if you are showing an empty cross to indicate that Jesus is not on the cross, it would be more accurate to show an empty tomb because that's where Jesus rose from the dead. The point of the crucifix and cross as a symbol of our faith has always been that Christ died for our sins and the cross is where this was accomplished.

It is also important to remember how lovingly and fully we celebrate the Resurrection of Christ. Lent is 40 days (46 if you count Sundays), but the Easter Season is 50 days until Pentecost. We celebrate Advent, the preparation of Christmas, but of course, we also celebrate Christmas itself with much joy. We have the Sorrowful Mysteries as I mentioned above, but we also have the Joyful and Glorious mysteries. We call the Mass a sacrifice, but we also call it a celebration.

The reason for this is we believe suffering and joy are two sides of the same coin. When we suffer, we do not just do it to hurt ourselves, we do it to unite ourselves more fully with Christ. By doing so, we give up our attachments to worldly possessions and material satisfaction and become more aware of our relationship with God.

This reminds me of one of my favorite parts of the Passion of the Christ movie. Jesus has been scourged almost to death, his body is wounded beyond recognition from the sadistic treatment he has received, he is bloody, and now he is made to carry his cross. His can barely stand up and falls several times. His mother sees him and is overwhelmed with grief. She rushes to his side where is face down, on his knees, with his cross above him. He is coughing up blood. He says to his mother, "See, I make all things new". This was very powerful for me. Christ did not say "I am suffering a lot" or "I am defeated", but rather he is making all things new. We are washed with the blood of Christ. He is renewing the world. What we see as weakness, Christ sees as strength. What we see as suffering, Christ sees as redemption. Saints have often spoke of the paradox of the cross. As we often say at Mass, "In dying you destroyed our death, in rising you restored our life."

I could go on for many more pages, because this is the essence of our spirituality. But to summarize, I would say this: We cannot separate Christ's resurrection from his suffering and death on the cross, no more than we can separate his human and divine natures. Therefore to ask which we emphasis more is a false dicotomy. Celebrating one or the other exclusively would contradict the message of Christ. As Fr. John Corapi says, we cannot have the crown without the cross.

The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition

I found the following article very interesting. It was taken from www.catholic.net.

The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition

by Ellen Rice

"The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," a 1994 BBC/A&E production, will re-air on the History Channel this December 3 at 10 p.m. It is a definite must-see for anyone who wishes to know how historians now evaluate the Spanish Inquisition since the opening of an investigation into the Inquisition's archives. The special includes commentary from historians whose studies verify that the tale of the darkest hour of the Church was greatly fabricated.

In its brief sixty-minute presentation, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" provides only an overview of the origins and debunking of the myths of torture and genocide. The documentary definitely succeeds in leaving the viewer hungry to know more. The long-held beliefs of the audience are sufficiently weakened by the testimony of experts and the expose of the making of the myth.

The Inquisition began in 1480. Spain was beginning a historic reunification of Aragon and Castile. The marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile created a unified Hispania not seen since Roman times. Afraid that laws commanding the exile or conversion of Jews were thwarted by conversos, i.e. synagogue-going "Catholics," Ferdinand and Isabella commissioned an investigation or Inquisition. They began the Inquisition hoping that religious unity would foster political unity, and other heads of state heralded Spain's labors for the advent of a unified Christendom. The documentary clearly and boldly narrates the historical context, which intimates that the Spanish were not acting odd by their contemporary standards.

The Inquisition Myth, which Spaniards call "The Black Legend," did not arise in 1480. It began almost 100 years later, and exactly one year after the Protestant defeat at the Battle of Mühlberg at the hands of Ferdinand's grandson, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In 1567 a fierce propaganda campaign began with the publication of a Protestant leaflet penned by a supposed Inquisition victim named Montanus. This character (Protestant of course) painted Spaniards as barbarians who ravished women and sodomized young boys. The propagandists soon created "hooded fiends" who tortured their victims in horrible devices like the knife-filled Iron Maiden (which never was used in Spain). The BBC/A&E special plainly states a reason for the war of words: the Protestants fought with words because they could not win on the battlefield.

The Inquisition had a secular character, although the crime was heresy. Inquisitors did not have to be clerics, but they did have to be lawyers. The investigation was rule-based and carefully kept in check. And most significantly, historians have declared fraudulent a supposed Inquisition document claiming the genocide of millions of heretics.

What is documented is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history. Also documented are the "Acts of Faith," public sentencings of heretics in town squares. But the grand myth of thought control by sinister fiends has been debunked by the archival evidence. The inquisitors enjoyed a powerful position in the towns, but it was one constantly jostled by other power brokers. In the outlying areas, they were understaffed - in those days it was nearly impossible for 1 or 2 inquisitors to cover the thousand-mile territory allotted to each team. In the outlying areas no one cared and no one spoke to them. As the program documents, the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries.

The approach is purely historical, and therefore does not delve into ecclesial issues surrounding religious freedom. But perhaps this is proper. Because the crime was heresy, the Church is implicated, but the facts show it was a secular event.

One facet of the Black Legend that evaporates under scrutiny in this film is the rumor that Philip II, son of Charles V, killed his son Don Carlos on the advisement of the aging blind Grand Inquisitor. But without a shred of evidence, the legend of Don Carlos has been enshrined in a glorious opera by Verdi.

The special may be disturbing to young children. There are scenes of poor souls burning at the stake, and close-ups of the alleged torture devices. Scenes depicting witches consorting with pot-bellied devils are especially grotesque. For kids, this is the stuff of nightmares.

Discrediting the Black Legend brings up the sticky subject of revisionism. Re-investigating history is only invalid if it puts an agenda ahead of reality. The experts - once true believers in the Inquisition myth - were not out to do a feminist canonization of Isabella or claim that Tomas de Torquemada was a Marxist. Henry Kamen of the Higher Council for Scientific Research in Barcelona said on camera that researching the Inquisition's archives "demolished the previous image all of us (historians) had."

And the future of the Black Legend? For many it may continue to hold more weight than reality. There is the emotional appeal against the Church. The dissenters of today may easily imagine Torquemada's beady eyes as a metaphor of the Church's "dictatorial, controlling, damning" pronouncements. The myth is also the easiest endorsement of the secular state: "de-faith" the state and de-criminalize heresy. Who will be the revisionists in this case? Will the many follow Montanas' lead in rewriting history?

Our 20th century crisis of man playing God - usurping power over conception, life, and death - leaves us with no alternative but to qualify our demythologization of the Inquisition with a reminder: 3,000 to 5,000 victims are 3,000 to 5,000 too many.

Ellen Rice is assistant to the editor of Catholic Dossier.

The Basilica of St. John the Baptist

I am very excited about this blog posting, because it is number 50! I would like to thank everyone who has read this blog and is a regular visitor to this site. I appreciate your feedback and comments about this site, and I encourage you to send in your topic suggestions. Thanks. Now on to the article!

The Basilica of St. John the Baptist is located in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada. This is where I am from and write my blog. This basilica, which is now considered a cathedral, has a very special place in the ecclesiastical history of Newfoundland, as well as Canada, and even North America.

The Basilica was completed in the year 1855 after 16 years of construction. Amazingly, at the time of its building, it was the largest church in size in all of North America, including all of Canada, the US, and Mexico. It was built under the direction of Bishop Michael Anthony Fleming, who came from Ireland in the 1800s. Bishop Fleming was integral to shaping Newfoundland culture in those years, and was even responsible for developing the old Newfoundland Flag, which today is used by those seeking an independent Newfoundland. The flag is divided into thirds: pink, white and green. The pink represents Protestants (English pink), the green represents Catholics (from Ireland mostly), and the white in between represents peace between the two. This flag is still in use today, although not officially, as the flag representing those who want an Independent Newfoundland.

The Basilica is the current seat of the Bishop of Newfoundland, Brendan O'Brien, and is the most beautiful structure in Newfoundland. Because of its importance in Newfoundland spirituality and worship, the Basilica of St. John the Baptist holds a special place in the hearts of everyone here.

Cathedrals, Basilicas and Churches Stolen from the Catholic Church

Throughout its history, the Catholic Church has built the most spectacular and awe-inspiring places of the worship the world has ever seen. For centuries, churches were the tallest structures of every town in Europe, and around the world. In many countries, this remains the case. They remain the most breath-taking monuments in society. Often built by members of society as a work of love, these buildings touch the sky, and upon entering, people are transported to a new world. You can feel the presence of God all around you. The Catholic Church realizes the importance of these great structures, and that is why for over 1,000 years, the Church has built some of the most amazing examples of human achievement.

Unfortunately, however, the Church suffered great loss in her history. Many of these amazing places of worship were conquered by heretics and schismatics. Often, the treasures of these churches, preserved for generations for the benefit of all were ransacked and stolen. Often Churches were badly damaged, often left in disrepair. Even if these churches were not damaged, they were still stolen. This is very sad, and unfortunate. Almost every magnificent place for Christian worship that has achieved great fame in a country, be it a church, basilica, or cathedral, was once a Catholic or remains one to this day. I will look at some of the most famous Cathedrals in the World, which were stolen from the Catholic Church.

Ulm Münster

Located in Germany, it is the tallest church in the world, and was the tallest building in the world from 1890-1908. It was built in 1377 by Catholics, and later taken from them by Lutherans. The Cologne Cathedral of Germany is the second tallest church in the world, but it has 2 spires instead of one.



Wells Cathedral

The building of this amazing Cathedral began in 1191 by Bishop Reginald de Bohun. It was worked on during the 12th and early 13th centuries, and was mostly completed by 1239. In the years and decades to come, more expansions were made to accommodate a growing congregation. Eventually the Cathedral was taken over by Anglicans.

Westminster Abbey

Perhaps the best-known Cathedral in the United Kingdom, Westminster Abbey is the Cathedral where the Kings and Queens of England are crowned. This is quite a spectacular building, which resembles the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, France. It was completed before King Henry VIII, but Henry violently took over this Cathedral, like many others, when he broke away from the Catholic Church.

These are just 3 examples of Churches which were apprehended illegally by non-Catholic groups. Fortunately, most of the most beautiful cathedrals in the world remain the property of the Catholic Church. The next time you see a magnificent church, remember that it was probably once a Catholic Cathedral.