Dishonouring Christ
This is a reproduction of a Facebook conversation from April 2026.
Synopsis
This piece reproduces a Facebook exchange from April 2026. It opens with a viral-style post contrasting Donald Trump’s remarks about Pope Leo XIV with a lengthy moral response attributed to the Pope; a hostile comment quickly reframes the debate as one about genuine faith versus mere rhetoric.
The first substantive reply argues from Hebrews 10—especially verse 29—that Scripture itself defines what it means to dishonour Christ. Working from a Protestant vantage point, it contends that teaching the Mass as a repeating propitiatory sacrifice, alongside certain Catholic emphases on mediation through priesthood, Mary, and the saints, risks the very “profaning” of Christ’s finished work that Hebrews warns against.
The Catholic-sympathetic respondent urges a fair hearing for shared Eucharistic faith and for prayer to the saints as parallel to asking fellow believers on earth for prayer, cautioning against dismissing Leo’s biblical appeal merely because his tradition differs—and recalling that the canon Protestants read took shape within the ancient Western church.
The final reply offers a systematic, warmly qualified comparison of official Roman Catholic Eucharistic doctrine with sacramental Protestant views (presence, sacrifice, ordained ministry, efficacy, adoration), explains why petitioning the saints is not simply like asking a friend to pray, and insists that every teacher—pope included—must be tested against Scripture. It closes where the thread began: arguments about who “insults Jesus” must finally be judged by what God’s Word says is insulting to him.
Opening Post
Interlocutor 1
A Christian leader worthy of the title.
A friend has suggested that this may not be a true quote, but even if it isn’t it seems to be tapping a vein which needs to be tapped.
🚨 BREAKING: Donald Trump Attacks Pope Leo XIV — and Receives a FIERY Moral Response the World Won’t Forget
Donald Trump thought he could score easy political points by calling Pope Leo XIV “an insult to Jesus” after the spiritual leader once again spoke out in defense of peace, compassion, and human dignity. Unfortunately for him, he challenged a voice grounded not in politics—but in moral authority. Standing before a solemn gathering at the Vatican, Pope Leo XIV did not react with anger — instead, he delivered a powerful, deeply moving message rooted in faith, responsibility, and truth.
“The President of the United States has said that I insult Jesus,” Pope Leo XIV began, his voice calm yet unwavering. “But let us reflect honestly — what truly insults the teachings of Christ?”
And then, with quiet intensity, he answered his own question.
“You want to know what truly insults Jesus?” he continued. “It is when we turn away from those who suffer, when we close our hearts to the poor, and when we choose power over compassion while others cry out for mercy.”
He did not stop there.
“You know what insults Jesus?” the Pope went on. “It is forgetting the dignity of every human being, ignoring the pain of families in crisis, and refusing to hear the voices of the most vulnerable among us.”
Then his message deepened — no longer just a response, but a moral call that reached far beyond the moment.
“You know what insults Jesus?” he said. “It is creating division where there should be unity, spreading fear where there should be hope, and turning away from justice when we have the responsibility to uphold it.”
This was not a political rebuttal. It was something far more profound. Pope Leo XIV — known for his humility and unwavering commitment to peace — transformed the confrontation into a reflection on conscience, not conflict. Instead of escalating tension, he elevated the conversation to something universal.
“I do not claim to be perfect,” he admitted. “But I strive, each day, to walk in the path of compassion — to serve, to listen, and to love as we are all called to do.”
And then came the line that echoed far beyond the Vatican walls:
“If we truly believe in a world shaped by peace and mercy… then why do we not work harder to bring that reality into our lives — here and now, for one another?”
That is how he responded. Not with anger. Not with division. But with conviction — and grace. Trump sought to challenge him. Instead, Pope Leo XIV delivered a message now resonating across millions, reminding the world that true strength is not found in power alone — but in conscience, humility, and love.
IF THIS PAGAN CRIMINAL TRULY KNEW JESUS HE WOULDN’T BE SAYING ANYTHING LIKE THIS TO ANYONE.
First Reply
Interlocutor 2
The New Testament clearly identifies actions and beliefs that dishonour Jesus Christ, most pointedly in Hebrews 10:29, which warns that those who “trample underfoot the Son of God,” “profane the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified,” and “outrage the Spirit of grace” face severe judgment. These are not minor disagreements but deliberate, ongoing rejection of Christ’s person and finished work after having known the truth. The passage contrasts the old covenant’s animal sacrifices with the new: Jesus offered himself “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10, 14), making any system that treats his blood as needing repetition or supplementation an insult to his sufficiency. The Bible affirms that scorning his unique lordship, diminishing his atoning death, or rejecting the Holy Spirit’s testimony to that death are profound ways to bring reproach upon the Saviour.
Many Protestants see certain Roman Catholic teachings and practices as falling squarely into this category of dishonour, particularly the doctrine of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. The Catechism and Council of Trent describe the Eucharist as a true, ongoing sacrifice that “re-presents” Christ’s offering on the cross, offered by priests for the living and the dead. Yet Hebrews insists there is “no longer any sacrifice for sins” once Christ’s work is complete (10:18). From this viewpoint, daily Masses, the idea that the priest “makes present” the same sacrifice, and the application of that sacrifice to purgatory treat Christ’s once-for-all blood as common or insufficient—precisely the “profaning” Hebrews condemns. It functionally returns believers to an old-covenant system Jesus fulfilled and replaced, trampling his exclusive role as the great High Priest who sits at God’s right hand.
Additional Catholic distinctives, such as papal infallibility, the veneration of Mary as co-redemptrix (thankfully, the current pope is pulling back on that one) or mediatrix, and the intercession of saints, are viewed by Protestants as further insults because they undermine Christ’s sole mediatorship (1 Timothy 2:5) and headship over the church (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18). Elevating any human figure or created being to share in Christ’s redemptive or intercessory work shifts glory and trust away from him alone. The Reformers argued that these practices, however sincere, echo the very temptation the original audience of Hebrews faced: supplementing or replacing the finished work of Christ with human mediators and rituals.
The Bible calls every believer to test all teachings against Scripture and honour Jesus by resting fully in his completed atonement. True faith clings to the Son of God without adding to or re-offering what he has already perfected forever. In a world quick to trade insults, the deeper question Scripture presses is whether our doctrines and practices truly exalt Christ as the all-sufficient Saviour or subtly diminish him.
Second Reply
Interlocutor 1
Catholics in the Mass remember Jesus in the same way Protestants do — they simply believe that the Eucharist is far more powerful than Protestants usually do. Re Mary etc, Catholics believe (I’m not saying if they’re right or wrong) that when we die we go to be with Jesus, and are alive in heaven, so they can pray for us in exactly the same way we ask our friends at church to pray for us. Are you saying that we should ignore Leo’s use of scripture simply because he doesn’t practice his faith in exactly the same way Protestants do. Remember, it was the Catholic church which gave us the Bible that Protestants now read — maybe God has a bigger perspective on all of this than we do?
Third Reply
Interlocutor 2
Before responding, I would like to issue a disclaimer: I don’t want to be unnecessarily contentious. I really enjoy these types of discussions. They force me into the Scriptures, which is always edifying. And, I pray that I might be drawing out of the Scriptures some truths that are beneficial to anyone reading this. I hope to strike the right balance between “When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent” (Proverbs 10:19) and “The lips of the righteous feed many…” (Proverbs 10:21).
A second disclaimer is that I haven’t been keeping up with current events, so please evaluate my thoughts in a more general context.
Thirdly, I apologise for the length. In my eagerness to ensure that my comments are appropriately nuanced and grounded in Scripture, I’ve ended up writing a bit of an essay!
Below, I attempt to respond to your points in the order you presented them.
How We Remember Christ in the Eucharist
I cannot comment on the thoughts and hearts of Roman Catholic believers in the Mass. I can only comment on the Roman Catholic Church’s public teachings, particularly those teachings that have been codified in the councils, papal documents and catechisms.
I disagree that how the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) teaches the remembrance of Jesus in a Roman Catholic Mass is the same as how most Protestants remember Christ in the Eucharist, even for Protestants such as myself, who hold a combined sacramental (true means-of-grace) and memorial view of the Eucharist. Indeed, there are many and significant similarities, but those similarities don’t diminish the importance of the very significant dissimilarities. Examples of the the most significant differences are:
-
Nature of Christ’s Presence
Roman Catholic: The bread and wine undergo transubstantiation—a change of substance (the inner reality or “what it is”) into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, while the accidents (outward appearances, taste, texture) remain unchanged. The elements cease to be bread and wine in their substance. This is objective and real, occurring through the words of consecration by a validly ordained priest.
Sacramental Protestant: No transubstantiation. Lutherans affirm a sacramental union (Christ’s body and blood are truly, substantially present “in, with, and under” the unchanged bread and wine). Reformed Protestants affirm a real spiritual (or pneumatic) presence, in which Christ is truly received by faith through the Holy Spirit, but not bodily in the elements themselves. In both cases, the bread and wine remain fully bread and wine. (I’m not Reformed, but I align more with their view of the Presence than the Lutheran view).
-
Sacrificial Character
Roman Catholic: The Eucharist is a true, propitiatory sacrifice—the unbloody re-presentation (making present) of Christ’s one sacrifice on the Cross. It is offered by the priest to the Father for the forgiveness of sins and the good of the Church and world.
Sacramental Protestant: It is not a sacrifice. Christ’s death on the Cross was once for all (Hebrews 9–10); the Eucharist is a memorial, thanksgiving (hence “Eucharist”), and participation in the benefits of that finished sacrifice. It is a sacrament/means of grace, but not a re-offering.
Hebrews 10:14, 18 ESV — For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified … Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
-
Who Can Administer/Consecrate It
Roman Catholic: Only a validly ordained priest (with apostolic succession and the power of holy orders) can consecrate the Eucharist. The priest acts in persona Christi (“in the person of Christ”).
Sacramental Protestant: An ordained pastor or minister presides, but there is no requirement for apostolic succession in the Catholic sense, and the efficacy does not depend on a specially ordained “priesthood” in the same ontological way. Some traditions allow lay administration in certain circumstances.
Personally, I take issue with the very use of the term “priest” in some Protestant traditions (e.g., Anglicanism, which is my background). The mere suggestion that any person might be an intermediary between believers and their Father is, at minimum, dangerous. There is an argument to be made that having a priesthood that performs an intermediary function usurps Christ from His role as high priest (Hebrews 4:14–16, etc) and mediator—“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).
Hebrews 10:19-22 ESV — Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
(Also see Hebrews 7:23–25).
A priestly office also diminishes the value of the priesthood of all believers:
1 Peter 2:5, 9 ESV — you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. … But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
Every believer is already a priest through Christ. This democratises ministry and eliminates any ontological “priesthood” that stands between ordinary Christians and God.
-
Efficacy, Adoration, and Duration of Presence
Roman Catholic: The sacrament confers grace ex opere operato (by the very act itself, when received worthily). The consecrated host may be reserved, adored (Eucharistic adoration, processions, etc.), and is Christ himself as long as the appearances remain.
Sacramental Protestant: Grace is received through faith (the sacrament is a means of grace, but faith is the receptive instrument). Presence is tied to the act of receiving (Lutherans generally do not reserve or adore the elements afterward; Reformed emphasise spiritual feeding by faith). Even in Protestant sacramental views, the Holy Spirit works through the Word and faith, not mechanically through the elements or the minister’s ordination. There is no adoration of the elements as Christ.
Despite these serious differences, I wholeheartedly affirm that all those who fully trust in Christ—those who rely not on their own righteousness (“all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment” – Isaiah 64:6) but on “that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Philippians 3:9)—are part of the holy, catholic and apostolic Church. All of us are “made … alive together with Christ” (Ephesians 2:5; c.f. Col 2:13; Rom 6:11).
Mutual Intercession
In light of this unity in Christ, yes, our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters can, and should, pray for their Protestant brethren, and we should pray for them. After all, “the prayer of a righteous person has great power” (James 5:16), and we have the righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21).
However, I would not appreciate prayers for me if those prayers were not directed to God. Asking saints in heaven to pray for us may seem analogous to asking a living fellow-believer to pray for us, but the analogy breaks down at a critical point. For a departed saint to receive your petition, they would need to be simultaneously aware of prayers from every believer, in every language, at every moment; yet Scripture nowhere attributes such a capacity to any created being, and ascribes omniscience to God alone (Psalm 139:1–4, 1 Kings 8:39, Jeremiah 17:10, etc.). Moreover, we already have an intercessor of infinite sufficiency: Christ himself, who “always lives to make intercession” for us (Hebrews 7:25) and who is, even now, at the right hand of the Father pleading our cause (Romans 8:34). The New Testament’s consistent call is to bring our needs directly to the Father, through the Son, with confidence:
Hebrews 4:16 ESV — Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
To seek additional human intercessors, however well-intentioned, implies a deficiency in Christ’s advocacy that Scripture nowhere supports, and bypasses an access to the Father that Christ purchased for us at great cost.
Learning from Those of Other Traditions
You asked whether I was saying that we should ignore Pope Leo’s use of Scripture simply because he doesn’t practice his faith in exactly the same way Protestants do. No, that was not what I was saying. I don’t think that we have to discard teaching that arises from sound exegesis, just because the teacher has other teachings that do not arise from sound exegesis. All teachings, regardless of who is doing the teaching, must be evaluated against The Sure and True Word, that good deposit that was laid by the Apostles.
2 Timothy 1:13-14 ESV — Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.
However, if a certain teacher has some teachings that sufficiently deviate from The Written Word of God, that should give us cause to scrutinise their other teachings all the more carefully.
I have not seen Pope Leo’s response to President Trump, so I cannot comment on specifics. However, if he was teaching about the “religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father” (James 1:27), then I expect he was on track. From what I have heard, he excels in that aspect of the Christian walk.
The Shared Canon
You stated that it was the RCC that gave us the bible that Protestants now read. This is true in a limited sense. Indeed, the Protestant canon was included within the Roman Catholic canon. But books that the RCC considers deuterocanonical, Protestant traditions consider apocryphal, so the bibles aren’t the same. Importantly, the shared canon was established well before the Roman Catholic distinctives developed (the shared 27-book New Testament canon was largely settled by the late 4th century).
The Big Picture
God certainly does have a bigger perspective on all of this. However, God’s perspective is not utterly inapprehensible.
1 Corinthians 2:9-16 ESV — But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”— these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
We need to consult the Scriptures, with the guidance of the Spirit, to align our perspective with His.
Psalm 119:130 ESV — The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.
The Key Point
So, bringing this back around to the original discussion, what I’m really trying to say—and what I didn’t make clear enough in my first response—is that any discussion about what (or who) might be “an insult to Jesus” ought to be framed against a background of what the Scriptures say is insulting to God.