John Kidd

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

@PetriOP Seems that the NCW practices are problematic in regard to this.

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

@VaticanNews Make sure you let the Neocatechumenal Way know this.

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

@JendersII This is/or should be, a reason to keep NCW out of our parishes.

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

@Vitus_osst Why we are at it let’s address the sect Neo Catachumenal Way

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

How is it that SSPX is shunned and NCW is accepted? Talk about a sect with significant issues...

#catholic
@TaylorRMarshall
@poperespecter1
@ShaneSchaetzel
@BishopJaxi
@JoshuaTCharles
@MrCasey62

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

@TaylorRMarshall @MLJHaynes @ArchbishopSarah And why in the world NCW is accepted but SSPX is not....

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

@EWTNVatican How is it that NCW is accepted/tolerated and SSPX is not. This makes no sense.

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

https://t.co/dNFsw8in7f

@BishopJaxi
@catholiccom
@cnalive
@EWTN
#catholic

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

@ShaneSchaetzel NCW created a new religion and why Rome tolerates I will never understand.

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

@nettermike @grok is this true?

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

@vulturetrades 11 Flips

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

Augustine is writing against the Donatists, who were essentially the "Bible-only" schismatics of their day, rejecting the authority of the broader Church in favor of their own regional purity standards. His entire argument in De Baptismo is that the Donatists erred by separating from Catholic unity and rejecting the Church's authoritative resolution of the baptismal controversy.
When Protestants cite this passage, they typically emphasize "Scripture stands in a superior position" while quietly passing over everything else Augustine says here. But notice what he's actually describing as the interpretive framework:
The teaching of wiser bishops corrects less wise bishops. Councils correct individual bishops. Plenary councils correct regional councils. Later plenary councils clarify earlier ones. This is an entire ecclesial infrastructure of authoritative interpretation—the very thing sola scriptura denies.
Augustine isn't saying "just read your Bible and figure it out." He's saying Scripture is the supreme norm, but the Church—through her bishops and councils in communion—is the interpreter of that norm. The distinction between Scripture as norma normans and Tradition as norma normata is already present here.

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

@ElonMuskZAB 8

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

Basically this woman is a heretic. There is no correlation with the Catholic church. While CACINA uses Catholic terminology and claims to celebrate Catholic sacraments, it explicitly states it is not part of Roman or Orthodox, church. From a Roman Catholic perspective, CACINA would not be considered to have valid sacraments or apostolic succession, despite their claims to catholicity.

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

The Greek Word Choice Matters
In John 6:51-53, Jesus uses phagō (to eat), but starting in verse 54, he switches to trōgō - a much more graphic, physical verb meaning "to gnaw, chew, or munch." This isn't moving toward symbolism; it's intensifying the physicality. If Jesus wanted to clarify he was speaking symbolically, this was the moment to do so. Instead, he doubles down with more visceral language.
The Jewish Audience Understood Him Literally
The Jews' response in verse 52 shows they took him literally: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They were scandalized precisely because they understood the literal meaning. Throughout John's Gospel, when people misunderstand Jesus symbolically, he corrects them (Nicodemus and "born again," the Samaritan woman and "living water"). Here, he doesn't correct them - he reinforces it.
The Disciples' Reaction
Even Jesus's own disciples found this teaching sklēros - "hard" or "harsh" (v. 60) - and many walked away (v. 66). If this were merely symbolic, why would it cause mass apostasy? Jesus lets them leave rather than saying "Wait, you misunderstood - I was speaking metaphorically."
Contrast with John's Actual Symbolism
When John uses symbolism elsewhere ("I am the door," "I am the vine"), the symbolic nature is obvious and no one misunderstands. But in John 6, the language is juridical, covenantal, and consistently physical throughout.
The Church Fathers Were Unanimous
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD), Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, Augustine - all read John 6 as referring to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. There's no record of early Christians interpreting this symbolically until much later.

And much later is:
Berengar of Tours (c. 1000-1088 AD) is the first significant figure to propose a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist. That's roughly 1,000 years after Christ.
Even then, Berengar faced massive opposition and was forced to recant his views multiple times at various church councils. His position was considered novel and heretical precisely because it broke with the universal tradition.

Before Berengar:
The first 1,000 years of Christianity show unanimous patristic testimony for the Real Presence
There were debates about how it works (the mechanics), but not whether Christ is truly present
No early Christian writer interpreted John 6 as merely symbolic

After Berengar: (Enter the heretics)
John Wycliffe (14th century) denied transubstantiation
The Protestant Reformers (16th century) had mixed views:Luther maintained Real Presence (consubstantiation)
Zwingli took a purely symbolic view
Calvin held a "spiritual presence" position

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

@BibleInContext1 Just stop. Your lack of context and knowledge in this area and your childish hermeneutic is not playing well for you.

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

@BibleInContext1 Once again... dont feed the troll

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

@MrCasey62 Once again, please tell me there are groups of people listening to this Eisegetical slop.

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

@taco_talks The hoops these guys go through to try to justify a position. I hope no one listens to this guy. I surely hope he does not have a flock following his heresy.

[John Kidd @jwkidd3]

CCC 669 - "As Lord, Christ is also head of the Church, which is his Body. Taken up to heaven and glorified after he had thus fully accomplished his mission, Christ dwells on earth in his Church."

CCC 792 - "Christ 'is the head of the body, the Church.' He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father's glory, 'in everything he [is] preeminent,' especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things."