@@jzak5723 But was it his literal body and blood? I ask this in all sincerity, when did the disciples ever partake of the literal body and blood of Christ?
@@mcmsmt06 In all seriousness, how do YOU know that they didn't partake of it. The Bible really doesn't tell us one way or the other EXPLICITLY. And what I mean by this is, there is no verse which says something like, "the bread and wine turn into/become the body and blood of Christ." But there is plenty of reason to believe that something like this happens, since Jesus Himself said "this is by body, this is my blood", and "you must eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood", and Paul said in 1 Cor. that "if you partake of the bread and cup unworthily, you profane the body and blood of the Lord." The early church, in many writings by church fathers, considered the Eucharist to be "holy" and "sacred". All of this points to the early Christians believing that this, in some mysterious way, WAS the body and blood of the Lord. Why can't we just accept it for what Jesus Himself called it? What harm would there be for us to treat it as if it was His real body and blood? I would like to hear your response to this comment if you have the time? God Bless You!
@@jzak5723 Scripture never alludes indirectly to it being literal flesh/blood or states explicity that the disciples (nor anyone else alive while Christ was alive on earth or thereafter in Scripture) ate his flesh or drank his blood...in a literal sense. There is also the issue with the thief on the cross - how was he saved? You bring up a great point when Jesus said "This is my body, and this is my blood". I'm assuming you are referring to the last supper? He was not talking literally about his flesh and blood. Had he been talking literally, I'm sure he would have made it known to the men sitting there as it would have been critical for them and any other believer in Him to know for the rest of time. In Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians about partaking of the bread and cup in an unworthy manner, how are we to assume that he is talking about eating the flesh and drinking the blood? He never gets close to stating that nor is there any instance where Scripture states or alludes to Paul transforming the bread and wine into the literal body and blood. With regard to John 6, if every one of those verses is taken literally - the ones all around the time Jesus stated the need to eat his flesh and drink his blood - then no human would ever get hungry or thirsty (vs. 35) and would never die in a physical sense (vs 51). John I'm honestly not trying to win a debate/argument or score points or anything of that sort. My only hope was that you might consider the idea that maybe Christ was not talking in a literal sense in those verses in John 6...because so many of the verses surrounding those verses make it clear he was not talking literally. Not to mention, if it was so vitally important that folks eat the actual flesh/drink the actual blood, then I would have hoped that Jesus or one of the other NT authors would have made this clear...and there would have been some instance at some point where this would have happened. The much more important question that we all should focus on though is what must someone do to be saved?
@@mcmsmt06 quote; There is also the issue with the thief on the cross - how was he saved? What does this have to do with the Eucharist, which is what we are talking about here???
You are decieved brethren. He is not in the eucharist and God is not 3 different people. Come out of this delusion and be saved. Believe on the gospel and you will be saved and not go to hell.
@@bible1stYou dont even know what the trinity is based on what you just said. God is made of 3 seperate beings who are completely different and distinct from each other and are all God in of themselves and also God when all together. The first person of the holy trinity is God the Father, The Second is Logos which is the word which became Christ through the incarnation, and the third is the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost that is the spirit of God. The trinity is a in itself a relationship of love. God is literally love. To deny the trinity is to deny the Incarnation of the son of man which means you are not a true christian. Your logic was literally defeated during the Sabellian Heresy in the early church go back to your new age bible study.
@@JeffGordon-ph4vz Yea all that you just said is just a bunch of parroting, About 80% of everything you just said is not actually in the bible anywhere. All you are doing is expounded upon what a bunch of fallible men got together and came up 300 years after Christ and said. The doctrine itself of the trinity is WRONG., and is it even possible that it is wrong? Yes of course, as i already pointed out, This is man's interpretation. Men that were outside of the bible , outside of the scriptures. You fail to observe Psalms 118:8, that is your first a foremost mistake. You should know Psalms 118:8 and live by it especially since its found right at the heart of the Bible. In order to hold to your false interpretation you have to ignore tons of evidence directly from the scriptures which point to that Jesus is the Father and is the spirit.
@@ibelieveitcauseiseentit9630 No actually that is NOT the truth and I should know because I have read the entire Bible 4 times and studied the scriptures for over 2 decades. You need to unlearn what you have been told and read the book for yourself. Read the entire Bible Kjv. Since there is not a single versein the entire Bible that says God is 3 different people I don't know why you people going around saying it.
And Jesus said in response to their confusion over having to eat him "it is the spirit that gives life the flesh profits nothing." Spirit is non-physical so if it's the non-physical that gives you life how can it be his actual flesh and blood that give you life? And the very next words out of his mouth were "the flesh profits nothing" So if Jesus himself said that the flesh profits nothing as a response to their confusion over what he said about eating him how is it that you believe that eating his actual flesh can profit you something? Add in chapter 16 of the same gospel Jesus says "till now I have spoken to you in figurative language" which should clue you into the fact that he was speaking figuratively. And I've yet to meet a Catholic priest who understands or even knows the Bible except for the bits and pieces he pulls out of context to prove Catholicism. So I'm sure a nun knows even less than the priest. And when it comes to the Bible that nuns opinion is less accurate than my next door neighbor's cats opinion.
@@ibelieveitcauseiseentit9630 ... Jesus in John 6 said, "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink," so HE CAN'T be contradicting Himself!! Earlier in the chapter He would speak of "eating the flesh of The Son of Man," or He would use the words "MY flesh," and then later He told them "THE" flesh profiteth nothing; He wasn't talking at that point about "HIS" flesh; He was talking about people looking at His Words from a fleshly or carnal perspective, or with carnal minds (THAT is "THE FLESH" He was taking about there that "profiteth nothing"). Like I said ... He didn't contradict Himself!! There's a big difference between "HIS" Flesh, and "THE" flesh.
How about don't quote a priest who doesn't know what he's talking about and actually engage with our official Catholic documents, like the Catechism. 🙄
Let's remember that actual translation is (meat)from Douay Rheims Bible, from Latin Vulgate,Hebrew,Greek which St.Jerome translated.Also let's not forget that the Bible came from the Authority of the catholic church. It is obvious that non-Catholic Christians always never read the Gospel of John and gloss over the real verses. The Bible is catholic, Jesus promised the Church not the Bible. Only in Denominations can always say that the Catholic church has it wrong. Where Protestants can't agree on anything about doctrine or translations. There's only one true church traceable to Christ,along with the Bishops traceable to Christ.
Dalton, I don't believe this is a real quote because they use a common Irish name without identifying this "priest" further, like what parish in what city he comes from...also no attribution for claiming it got an imprimatur. These are anti-Catholic bigots who no one should listen to.
This Mike guy is a hoot. He is a fallible man with no authority at all who follows his own, private fallible interpretations of holy scripture. He has absolutely no credibility whatsoever and has devised a religion all his own. There is nothing charitable about this man. He is a pawn of Satan. And he will answer to God in the final analysis for his false witness against the One True Church Jesus established 2000 years ago.
This quote by this alleged priest is bogus. This quote has no imprimatur. This video is both the sins of slander and bearing false witness. Christians must read and adhere to John 6- Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
Vatican II says: “For it is the liturgy through which, especially in THE DIVINE **SACRIFICE** OF THE EUCHARIST, the WORK of our redemption is accomplished.” The Council of Trent (which Vatican II reaffirmed as infallible official doctrine of the Catholic Church) says: Canon iii. If any one shall say, that THE **SACRIFICE** OF THE MASS is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the cross, but not A PROPITIATORY **SACRIFICE** ; or, that it avails him only who receiveth; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: “The body, blood...soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ...is truly, really and substantially contained in the Eucharist" (CCC, 1374-78). Catholics emphatically believe that they have the physical body of Jesus sacrificed again on their altars. (CCC Paragraph 1367 “the same Christ”) Jesus said His sacrifice was finished, and the Bible says 7 times that His sacrifice was “once” and for all (one sacrifice, once done), and the Bible says it’s sufficient (read Hebrews chapters 9 and 10). “who has no daily need, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because He did this **ONCE** FOR ALL TIME when He offered up Himself.” Hebrews 7:27 “and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place **ONCE** FOR ALL TIME, having obtained eternal redemption.” Hebrews 9:12 “NOR WAS IT THAT HE WOULD OFFER HIMSELF OFTEN, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year by year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now **ONCE** at the consummation of the ages He has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered **ONCE** to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.” Hebrews 9:25-28 “By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ **ONCE** FOR ALL TIME. … He, having offered **ONE** sacrifice for sins FOR ALL TIME, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies are made a footstool for His feet. For by **ONE** offering He has perfected FOR ALL TIME those who are sanctified. … Now where there is forgiveness of these things, AN OFFERING FOR SIN IS NO LONGER REQUIRED.” Hebrews 10:10, 12-14, 18 “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;” 1 Peter 3:18 NASB But Catholic doctrine directly contradicts that and says more sacrifices are necessary and the sacrifice is continuing (CCC paragraph 1367), so the Catholic mass (which is a sacrifice) is offered thousands of times a day around the world and they are still insufficient and even more are needed. During the Mass both the priest and the congregants pray that the sacrifice will be acceptable to God. Then the priest asks God to accept the body and blood on the altar that the priest has magically brought down: “When the priest announces the words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of many. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels. The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.“ Priest John O’Brien This (quote above) is the ‘miracle’ of transubstantiation. “Priests have received from God a power that he has given neither to angels nor to archangels . . . . God above confirms what priests do here below.” CCC paragraph 983 Council of Trent: Canons On The Sacraments In General Canon 8 If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato [FROM THE WORK WORKED], but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema [ETERNALLY CURSED] -------------------- It says in the code of cannon law (1364) that if anyone doesn’t believe any of the official doctrines of the Catholic Church then they have been automatically formally ipso facto excommunicated.
“He did not speak to them without a parable; but He was explaining everything privately to His own disciples.” Mark 4:34 Saying people need to eat and drink his flesh and blood was a parable. And when he privately clarified it with his main disciples afterwards he said: “It is the Spirit who gives life; THE FLESH PROVIDES NO BENEFIT; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life.” John 6:63 *JESUS* *GAVE* *THE* *KEY* *TO* *DECIPHER* *THE* *PARABLE* *RIGHT* *AT* *THE* *BEGINNING* *OF* *THE* *PARABLE* : “Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; the one who COMES TO ME will not be hungry, and the one who BELIEVES IN ME will never be thirsty.” John 6:35 Read that carefully. Come to Jesus = eat Believe in Jesus = drink Jesus didn’t literally mean eat his flesh and drink his blood. Jesus himself said: “the flesh provides no benefit” John 6:63 Read Isaiah 55 ““You there! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; And you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk Without money and without cost. “Why do you spend money for what is not bread, And your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, And delight yourself in abundance. “Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you, According to the faithful mercies shown to David. … For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth And making it produce and sprout, And providing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; So will My word be which goes out of My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the purpose for which I sent it.” Isaiah 55:1-3, 10-11
I'm glad I eat bread and grap juice and not literally blood. Vampire's drink blood and get high off of it. It a drug. Vampire's have blood buddy's they go to for blood .. if I had to eat flesh and drink blood I'd leave the faith. I'm glad it's not literal.
@@SpielbergMichael you quote chapter 10 from hebrews without the preceding verses which provide context. Christian literalist fundamentalism is not Christian and it is not catholic
@@richyburnettYou’re lying. I quoted Hebrews chapters 7, 9 and 10 and 1 Peter 3. You didn’t quote anything. Please quote to me any verses which contradict what these verses undeniably and irrefutably say: Jesus said His sacrifice was finished, and the Bible says 7 times that His sacrifice was “once” and for all (one sacrifice, once done), and the Bible says it’s sufficient (read Hebrews chapters 9 and 10). “who has no daily need, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because He did this **ONCE** FOR ALL TIME when He offered up Himself.” Hebrews 7:27 “and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place **ONCE** FOR ALL TIME, having obtained eternal redemption.” Hebrews 9:12 “NOR WAS IT THAT HE WOULD OFFER HIMSELF OFTEN, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year by year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now **ONCE** at the consummation of the ages He has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered **ONCE** to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.” Hebrews 9:25-28 “By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ **ONCE** FOR ALL TIME. … He, having offered **ONE** sacrifice for sins FOR ALL TIME, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies are made a footstool for His feet. For by **ONE** offering He has perfected FOR ALL TIME those who are sanctified. … Now where there is forgiveness of these things, AN OFFERING FOR SIN IS NO LONGER REQUIRED.” Hebrews 10:10, 12-14, 18 “For Christ also suffered for sins **ONCE** FOR ALL TIME, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;” 1 Peter 3:18 NASB
All the early church fathers believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. It's pretty clear that nobody believed otherwise. For 1500 years every Christian believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist until Calvin, Zwingli and Luther came along. RENAEUS “He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10-11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles” (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]). “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189]). IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]). “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]). JUSTIN MARTYR “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA “’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]). CYRIL OF JERUSALEM “The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]). “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9). AUGUSTINE “Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]). “I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]). … “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272). Churchfathers.org
*I notice you're quoting the early church fathers. BUT YOU FAIL TO QUOTE GOD'S WORD.* 🎯👁 *Regarding the Mass and Transubstantiation:* *FIRST:* If Jesus was speaking literally concerning the bread and wine literally being His body and blood, does that also mean that Jesus believed His body was shaped like a literal wooden door when He said, "I am the door" (John 10:7) Did Jesus have a door knob and hinges on His human body also? *NO!* Because He was speaking figuratively, just like when He said this bread and wine were His body and blood. *ALSO, when Jesus said that about the elements of communion, Jesus was in His unharmed human body when He said it. If Jesus was speaking literally, then Jesus would have had to shed His blood BEFORE He was scourged and crucified on the cross. And then shed His blood again during the actual scourging and crucifixion. BUT Jesus body was not yet "broken for you" nor was Jesus' blood yet "shed for the remission of sin" because He had yet to be scourged and crucified.* *SECOND:* Did Jesus also speak literally when He said that He was The Vine and we are the branches (John 15:1-5)? *Does that mean Jesus is a literal plant that bears branches and fruit??? According to you, the answer would be Yes!* *THIRD:* Where exactly in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism? And drinking human blood? In fact, drinking blood is expressly forbidden by God. *_And, Oh yeah, Jesus is God_* (Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:29) *FOURTH: When John the Baptist saw Jesus and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." Was John saying Jesus was covered in wool and walked on four legs??* According to your method of interpretation, the answer is YES. But according to the Bible, the answer is clearly NO. John was speaking figuratively, just as Jesus was at the Last Supper. *FIFTH: According to Catholic doctrine, the so-called Eucharist, is a sacrifice.* Each time it is performed, it is literally sacrificing Jesus afresh on the cross. BUT the Bible says Jesus' death on the cross was a once-and-for-all sacrifice in Hebrews 10. *"But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb.10:12) "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (Heb.10:14) DID YOU HEAR WHAT GOD SAID, "ONE SACRIFICE FOR SIN FOREVER...BY ONE OFFERING"??*
@Chris G 1.2 billion Catholics don't agree on your interpretation of the bible. Many Protestants don't agree with you either. We disagree on your faulty interpretation. Your heretical views are a minority. Catholics follow the bible and traditions that were handed down for 2000 years. I gave you other examples where you can find the truth, because your truth is not the truth.
@@joker18524 Jesus clearly stated He was speaking figuratively in John 6 since Jesus vowed to teach publicly only in parables, that is, figurative language. Jesus made this vow BEFORE John 6 occurred because Matt.13:10-15; 13:34-35 precedes Matt.14:15-21 (the parallel passage to John 6:32-44) Therefore, Jesus clearly stated He policy of teaching figuratively in public. *Chronology of events:* *Matthew 12:24 The Unpardonable Sin committed by the Jewish religious leaders* *Matthew 13 Jesus teaches in parables from that point onward (Matt.13:10-15)* *Matthew 13:34-35 Jesus vows to only speak publicly in parables going forward* *Matthew 14:1-14 John the Baptist beheaded* *Matthew 14:15-21 (i.e. John 6) Feeding of the Five Thousand* *Conclusion: Jesus was speaking figuratively (parabolically) in John 6 (i.e., Matthew 14:15-21) because The Unpardonable Sin of Matthew 12:24 had already occurred. As a result, Jesus spoke only in parables publicly (Matthew 13:34-35). Therefore, Jesus was not speaking literally in the Bread of Life discourse.* *Furthermore, Jesus did not clarify their confusion because:* *(1) The prophecy of Isaiah 9:6 was being fulfilled* *(2) Parabolic teaching was intended to obscure the truth from the unbelieving public (Matt.13:10-15) who had already rejected the overwhelming truth about Jesus' Messiahship, yet still asserted He performed miracles by the power of Satan (committing The Unpardonable Sin-Matt.**12:24**)* *(3) Jesus did not always correct the public's misinterpreting His speech when He spoke figuratively.* When Jesus cleansed the Temple the first time, the religious leaders ("the Jews") asked Jesus for a sign to prove He had the authority to do so. Jesus gave them the sign stating, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body." (John 2:19-21) *Jesus did not clarify their confusion. Jesus refused to correct the Jews' misunderstanding. Jesus never said, "No, guys. I was speaking figuratively. I meant the temple of My body." Just as Jesus would refuse to do later in the Bread of Life discourse in John 6.* *1. Parable defined: a parable is figurative illustration intended to teach a moral or spiritual truth. From Matthew 13 onward, Jesus only spoke in parables publicly. John 6 (Bread of Life discourse) occurred AFTER Matthew 13:10-15. Therefore, in Matthew 14:13-21, the parallel passage to John 6, Jesus was speaking publicly in parabolic speech in John 6, that is, figurative speech.* *2. Before John 6 the Jewish religious leaders had already committed the Unpardonable Sin; that is, the rejection of Jesus as Messiah, justifying their unbelief on their assertion that Jesus performed miracles by the power of Satan (Matt.12:24)* Ultimately, that generation would suffer the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD as a direct result of the Unpardonable Sin. Another result was that Jesus, for then on, spoke to the public in parables. "And the disciples came and said to Him,'Why do You speak to them in parables?' He answered and said to them, 'Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand'" (Matt.13:10-15) Then Jesus gives the Parables of the Kingdom (Matt.13:18-50) *Jesus in John 6, according to His new policy (Matt.13:10-15), is teaching parabolically.* And like the prophecy of Isaiah, which Jesus quotes to describe the religious leaders' spiritual blindness and deafness, the public was likewise, just as blind and deaf. _Jesus did not clarify their confusion because the prophecy of Isaiah 6:9 was being fulfilled._ Jesus states the reason Isa.9:6 is being fulled is "Because the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’ (Matt.13:15)* *3. The Apostle John's express purpose for writing the Gospel of John was that people would believe and be saved (John 20:30-31)* But of the four Gospels, the Gospel of John is the only Gospel that omits the Last Supper communion account. If communion was essential for salvation, of all the Gospel writers, John would never omit the Last Supper account, since his express purpose in writing his Gospel is for salvation of the lost. *But the Holy Spirit chose to omit it, breaking the association Catholics attempt to make between John 6 and the Last Supper.* *Matt.**13:10**-17 Three Reasons for Parabolic Teaching* In Matt.13:10 the disciples ask Jesus why He is teaching in parables after Jesus recites the first parable, the Parable of the Sower (or Four Soils). This indicates a change in Jesus’ prior habit of teaching plainly; therefore it sparked the question among the disciples. Jesus proceeds to give them three reasons for the change: *(1) In Matt.**13:11**, the purpose was to illustrate the truth for Jesus disciples.* *(2) But in Matt.**13:11**-13, the second reason is to hide the truth from the obstinate unbelieving masses.* The masses were guilty of the Unpardonable Sin. From the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry to this point, Jesus had already given more than ample proof that His Messianic claims were true. [See below, The four-fold witness to Jesus’ Messianic claims (John 5:33-47)] *The multitudes responded by rejecting Jesus, therefore no further light would be given.* *(3) In Matt.**13:14**-17, the third reason is the fulfill Old Testament Prophecy, like Isa.6:9-10.* This prophecy speaks of a time when a Divine Judgment will come when unbelieving Jews are spoken to in parables so that they can no longer comprehend. Later on in Matt.13:34-35 it says that from this point on, Jesus always spoke to the masses (multitudes) in parables only, stating it was the fulfillment of Ps.78:2. *In Mk.**4:33**-34, it agrees with what Matthew’s account says, but adds a detail in verse 34, “But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.” This will be Jesus pattern from now on. When teaching publicly, it’s always parabolic so that the unbelieving masses would not understand, but when He is alone with His Apostles, He will always explain the meaning of the parables, because for the Apostles, the parables’ purpose is to illustrate the truth.* The Fourfold Witness that Jesus is the Messiah: 1. (Jn.5:33-35) John the Baptist 2. (Jn.5:36) Jesus’ Works (3 miracles below, rabbis said only the Messiah would do) 1. Exorcizing a Dumb Demon (a demon that renders the victim mute) 2. Healing a post-Law Jew of leprosy (Naaman a post-Law Gentile; Moses' sister was pre-Law) 3. Healing a Jew born blind 3. (Jn.5:37) God the Father 4. (Jn.5:38-47) The Scriptures 5. NOTE: (Jn.5:46-47) “For if you had believed Moses, you would believe Me” 1. They believed Moses as it was filtered through Mishnaic-Rabbinic Judaism 2. Had the Pharisees believed Moses, as written, they would have not missed Jesus
@@joker18524 Jesus Himself said He would be teaching figuratively when teaching publicly, as of Matthew 13:34-35: *"All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:* *“I will open My mouth in parables;* *I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”* This change occurred BEFORE John 6. Therefore, Jesus in John 6 in the Bread of Life discourse, is speaking figuratively. Jesus reiterates His speaking figuratively in John 6:63: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. *The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."* In addition, in John 6:35, Jesus said, “I am the bread of life. He who *comes to Me* shall *never hunger,* and he who *believes in Me* shall *never thirst."* Clearly, every believer in Jesus Christ as Savior has come to Jesus and believed in Him, but has experienced literal hunger and thirst after believing. Therefore, Jesus is consistently speaking figuratively. The lack of hunger and lack of thirst Jesus promises to those who come to Him and believe in Him is a spiritual satisfaction, *not a literal lack of hunger or thirst.* *Jesus makes the point repeatedly in John 6 that belief in Him* is what grants one eternal life.* "...and he who believes in Me..." (John.6:35) "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and *believes in Him may have everlasting life;* and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John.6:40) "Most assuredly, I say to you, *he who believes in Me has everlasting life."* (John 6:47) *Earlier in John 3, Jesus is talking to inexpert in the Mosaic and Pharisaic Law, named Nicodemus. Throughout this conversation, Jesus says that BELIEF IN HIM is what grants anyone eternal life.* The person who believes is born spiritually. Before their belief, they were physically alive BUT spiritual dead. Therefore, every person needs to be "born again" in order to "see the kingdom of heaven." (John 3:3; 3:7) "...whoever *believes* in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:15) "...whoever *believes* in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “He who *believes* in Him is not condemned..." (John 3:18) *NO MENTION OF EATING OF DRINKING ANYTHING.* *In John 6:40 and **6:47**, Jesus already made it clear that belief in Him is what grants one eternal life. Receiving eternal life by faith was previously emphasized to the Pharisee Nicodemus several times (John 3:3, 7. 15, 16, 18).* Then Jesus says in John 6:54, "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." So several times in John 3, and at least twice in John 6, Jesus says that eternal life is granted to those who believe. Therefore, Jesus equates belief with the figurative expression of eating and drinking. That Jesus was speaking figuratively is clarified by Jesus to His Apostles (privately, since Jesus spoke figuratively when teaching publically) when Jesus said, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. *The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." But there are some of you who do not believe.”* For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. (John 6:63-64). Even in this last phrase by Jesus, He mentions BELIEF as the central point of His discourse. *John 3:3-21* 3 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” 9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” (John 3:3-21)
The Eucharist stayed the same for 1500 years until those who broke away from St. Luther and started using "human reason" and "logic" to replace True Faith.
Transubstantiation wasn't officially affirmed until 1215 at the fourth council of Lateran. Truth of the matter is that no matter how many centuries a false teaching is taught will never make it true.
@@vrscuteri No, the belief that the Eucharist was truly Jesus was held since the beginning, only until it was disputed did a council occur to dogmatically define it because inaccurate and sometimes heretical ideas were emerging about the Eucharist, and thus, “transubstantiation” was a technical word they used to describe the essence of what happens at consecration, that’s not when it was invented. The Church doesn’t have councils for things that aren’t disputed. On another note, the fact that you accept the belief that Christ’s Church eventually got corrupted is disgusting and contrary to history. I thought Jesus said he would “guide [us] into all truth”, and that the church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”, yet you claim that Christianity fell into heresy. It seems-from your perspective-that Jesus didn’t really keep his promise. The Catholic Church was the only church from the beginning until the reformation, how could Jesus allow such supposed heresy like the Catholic Eucharist to “creep” in to his church?? Think a bit, bud.
Yeah let's not try using any of that logic. But just for the heck of it let's see if you can use some logic. When Jesus was responding to their confusion over having to eat him and John chapter 6 he said "It is the spirit that gives life the flesh profits nothing." #1 According to Jesus the flesh prophets nothing so how can eating his actual flesh and blood profit you anything when Jesus himself said the flesh profits nothing? #2 Immediately before that he says it is the spirit that gives life, spirit is not physical, so if something Bond physical is what gives you life then how can his actual physical flesh and blood give you life?
@@TrickeryMan no it wasn't held from the beginning, the Apostles in the writings of the New testament are the beginning. And the Bible teaches that Jesus is seated at the right hand of the father UNTIL his enemies be made into his footstool. In the Bible teaches that he has physically risen from the dead not that he is physically placed on your cracker to be eaten.
@@TrickeryManJesus said he would guide the apostles into all truth so that they could write it down which they did. He did not say he would guide the Roman Catholic Church into all truth. And obviously he hasn't guided you into all truth because you don't get it.
I think that priest was wrong. I have been told (by another priest) that the official doctrine of the Eucharist is that the event of the mass consecration of the bread/wine "IS" the last supper given to the apostles. We are literally partaking in that same meal they received, and that we are eating the same bread and wine they were given when Jesus said "this is my body ... my blood ... take and eat/drink". They aren't sacrificing Christ again, Catholic doctrine is clear that Christ once suffered for sin, died once, rose once ... the Eucharist is us partaking in the bread/wine that he said was his own during the last supper. Now believe that or not ... cool, but i think this quote from that priest is just wrong.
Not true. Read. The Council of Trent, 13th Session, chpt, 1, Canon 1, 2, 3, 4, CCC paragraph 1376. And if you deny it, you are anathemized. Everything he said is true, I have books he quotes from, pages and quotes. All checked out.
@@MultiSky7I just looked up paragraph 1376, it doesn’t say anything about re-sacrificing Jesus, it merely talks about transubstantiation. Check out paragraph 1366-1367, just ten and eleven paragraphs prior, and you’ll see that the church teaches that Christ was only sacrificed once.
Lucky are those who believe that the eucharist is the real flesh and blood of Jesus Christ even they hadn't known the many eucharistic miracles that happened in the catholic church.
Ok so here’s the issue. If you are catholic who are you to say one priest is wrong over another? Wouldn’t that put you in the same box Catholics try to put Protestants in that we are attacked for “interpreting the Bible ourselves”
@@timstinies9519 No, because that priest was not in accord with the _official_ and dogmatic teachings of the church (and bible). He was _straying_ from the truth, not from my own personal interpretation.
I have no idea where they get that quote. But it is inaccurate. The catholic church remembers the sacrifice of christbut does not recruify him . Christ's sacrifice is eternal and eternally accepted by the Father. Their argument is mute because they are quoting a false statement. My question for them is what did the Church believe for 15 centuries..including Luther and Calvin? Who is the blaspheme r know?
To be deep in history is to be a follower of Jesus, The Way, and derogatorily called a "Christian", long before a bunch of control freaks got together and called themselves the Catholic church. Go back to your first love.
The early Church was in such uniformity and agreement that there were no Ecumenical Councils called to discuss this doctrine. Even after the early Church fractured into what became the Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, none of those Churches abandoned that belief. Amazing how this man seems to know better than all of early Christianity.
Indeed, these people in their ignorance spit on all the true faith, Christians of all the apostolic Church throughout the last 2000 years have shared: Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Coptic, Chaldean, Roman Catholic, etc. They focus their distain of the Roman Catholic Church, treating it as their mortal enemy at the expense of all Christendom. They act as if these are beliefs that only the RCC have, ignoring the fact that the same faith is shared with all Christians of true apostolic traditions from antiquity through to modern day.
@@HOSPlTALLERchurch father in fact were not uniform in a belief in transubstantiation. A real presence is affirmed, but not a magical transformation of elements.
@@noahcutshaw9856 understanding and revalation happen over the course of time. The basics are there in scripture - only to be revealed in understanding as the church matured.
@@HOSPlTALLER That is not the claim when it is dogmatically defined. It says that this was believed by the universal church for all time and there is simply no evidence of that claim. The fact that millions are worshipping bread is a device of Satan. He has created a sacramental system by which man can trust in for his salvation instead of trusting in Christ.
@@noahcutshaw9856 that's a jump. Millions are not worshipping mere 🍞 they are worshipping Jesus. He clearly states what the bread is in all the Gospels: Luke 22, Matt 26, Mark 14, John 6. The only thing that has developed in understanding is the 'how', I.e. how the mechanism works of what we know from scripture and tradition to be true.
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]). Ignatius of Antioch on the Eucharist who is the student of the apostle John and likely knew other apostles.
If you actually read the letter, he is talking about the docetists, you know, the guys who denied that Jesus had a physical body. So, as they did not believe that Jesus had a real flesh and blood, they denied that the Eucharist was that, and proposed a "hidden knowledge" theory of the eucharist. That is why they are gnostics. Ignatius is not talking about transubstation, or aristotelian meta-physics (thomas aquinas explanation of it).
It’s clear that the Ignatius is defending the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. “They do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” I do not know how it can be more clear. The churches overseen by the apostles and successors of the apostles in the first and second century were accused of being cannibals due to the teachings on the Eucharist being Christ’s actual body and blood. We see this foreshadowed in Exodus 12 when the Israelites on the day of unleavened bread are commanded to eat the flesh of the Passover lamb after it is sacrificed. All three synoptic gospels show the day of unleavened bread Christ commanding his disciples to go and prepare the Passover feast. He then offers himself up (in memory of him) which has strong sacrificial overtones in the original Greek. This could be translated as “do this as my memorial sacrifice”. This along with John 6 our Lord commands us to eat his flesh and drink his blood otherwise we have no life in us. This is a gift given to us by our lord to receive sanctification and to be infused with his grace that we may be constantly made new in Him. CR Isaiah 6 when in a vision Isaiah has one of the seraphim bring him a burning coal taken from off the altar (where our sacrifices are made) laid upon his lips and his iniquities are taken away and his sin is purged from consuming it. Our Lord is a consuming fire (CR Hebrews 12) refining us and purging us from our sin. This is so clearly much more than just a symbol. For early Christian’s this was in many ways the very center of Christian life. What’s more is it’s likely the apostle John wrote his gospel in response to similar heresies surrounding Gnosticism and the denial of the real presence which is why John 6 is so explicit it its description of the Eucharist and its spiritual implications. This is spiritual food that nourishes and sustains us. Not until Zwingli ~500 years ago do we see heretical teachings on the Eucharist become mainstream. Luther himself had a split with both Calvin and Zwingli over the Eucharist being the actual body and blood of our Lord.
@@tannerblacklidge4281 read the letter in context, luther did not believe in transubstatiation, and i believe that Christ is spiritually present, as did the didache, when it confessed that it is "spiritusl food and drink". Ignatius is attacking the heretics, but it has nothing to do with real presence. If it was about real presence, then why the reference to prayer?
@@jozzen77 if we can’t agree on Ignatius, I am curious to get your thoughts on this snippet from Justin Martyr followed by some commentary from the folks at Word on Fire institute. Please see below. “And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” -First Apology, 66 So Justin is clear “that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word [. . .] is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” The “prayer of His word” refers to the words of institution, which come from Jesus’ lips at the Last Supper. So after the words of institution, the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of “that Jesus.” The phrase “from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished” is sometimes rendered, “in order to nourish and transform our flesh and blood,” and the Greek here (kata metabolen) means something very similar to “metabolize.” So just as with physical food, it becomes part of our bodies, through the spiritual food of the Eucharist, we become part of Christ’s. We eat him, but rather than us metabolizing him, he “metabolizes” us.
@@tannerblacklidge4281 i have never read from Justin Martyr, but any Reformed christian (even some that lean more memorialist) would tell you that the bread and wine of the eucharist are just normal, but that they have a bigger and more sacred relevance, and that eating it improperly brings you condemnation, as you are not discerning the body of the Lord, still, we acknowledge, as did Martyr, that it is still ontologically bread and wine. Justin would represent much more my view (Spiritual Real Presence) than the Roman view.
1:50 This is how you know... First let me say that in the 16th century, every major protestant thinker taught that the nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist was an issue that was determinative for salvation. If you got that wrong, you went to hell. Luther thought that, Calvin thought that, Zwingli thought that, they all thought it. And yet, they all disagreed on what the nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist was! Now, my point here is not that they disagreed about the Eucharist. It was this: All of them said you had to get the Eucharist right or you’re going to hell. Today almost no evangelical protestant would say that. So, it’s not just a question about Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist; it’s a question about how do you know what counts as a dogma? How do you know what pertains to salvation? How do you know what’s central? How do you know what’s essential in the Christian faith? The Bible itself CANOT, DOES NOT, WILL NOT answer that question for you. You’ve got to have the authority of the Catholic Church to answer that question. You mention Hebrew 9:28 as the "once and for all" Protestant argument. First, consider that both Peter and the author of Hebrews emphasize that Christ suffered for sins once. Their purpose for this was to contrast Jesus’ sacrifice for sins with the sacrifices that the Jewish priests had to offer on a daily basis. They both are making the point that Jesus doesn’t have to offer regular animal sacrifices because his one sacrifice was sufficient to forgive the sins of all people throughout all time. Then you need to start reading from Hebrews 7:1, and you'll see it gives us the context of Jesus' identity as Melchizedek the High Priest (7:24) who goes into the heavenly sanctuary to offer himself in the temple, not made with hands, in eternity once and for all times. Luther could not see how the Mass is a sacrifice because he focused on Calvary and forgot about the Ascension. The Pascal mystery includes the Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, which takes the earthly sacrifice of Calvary into eternity. Now, the Catholic doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice would contradict this biblical teaching if it entailed a re-crucifixion of Jesus. But that’s not the case. The eucharistic sacrifice is not another sacrifice of Christ, as if Christ were repeatedly shedding his blood and dying. His bloody offering on the cross was a one-time event in the past and is never to be repeated. The offering in the eucharistic celebration re-presents-without blood, without making Jesus suffer and die anew-that one historical sacrifice. The Catechism explains: The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different” (1367, citing the Council of Trent). Inasmuch as the Church’s doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice affirms that Christ died once on the cross and that he does not and cannot die again, it in no way violates the single nature of Christ’s sacrifice as taught by both Peter and the author of Hebrews.
John 6. The onlookers couldn't handle the discourse of eat my flesh, my body is real food, my blood is real drink, because of Jewish strict cultures of cannibalism. They left, and Jesus said to the apostles, "are you going to?" Did Jesus call them back and say it was just a symbol? 1st Cor 11: 27-29 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. How can you be guilty of a symbol? In the Greek, Phaegine and Trogain. One is to dine and the other is to rip gnaw and chew. Your ancestors ate, 'phaegine' to dine the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats, "trogain", rip gnaw and chews, this bread will live forever. These terms are toggled back and forth as a hyperbole to really drive home the point. You find the writings of the real presence of the Eucharist in Ignatius of Antioch, he knew the apostles 100 AD. Luke 24:29-35 So he went in to stay with them. And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. Then they said to each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he spoke to us on the way and opened the Scriptures to us?" So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them who were saying, "The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!" Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of bread. Cyprian of Carthage said people who are apostate and returned to the church should not receive communion until they are on their Deathbed Justin Martyr Born in 100 AD and martyred in 160 ad. When we cease from our prayer, bread is presented and wine and water. The president in the same manner sends a prayers and thanksgiving, according to his ability and the People Sing Out there are some, saying the amen. A distribution and participation of the elements for which thanks have been given is made to each person and to those who are not present they are sent by the Deacons St. Justin Martyr "We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except on who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). St. Irenaeus of Lyon "If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189]). "He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life-flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2). Clement of Alexandria "’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]). St. Cyprian of Carthage "He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned-[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15-16 [A.D. 251]). Aphraahat the Persian Sage "After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]). St. Cyril of Jerusalem "The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]). "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ…[Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so,…partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9). St. Ambrose of Milan "Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use!…Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]). Augustine of Hippo "I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table….That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]). "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272). Council of Ephesus "We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
🎯👁 *The religious leaders you quote have no authority greater than the Bible.* *Regarding the Mass and Transubstantiation:* *FIRST:* If Jesus was speaking literally concerning the bread and wine literally being His body and blood, does that also mean that Jesus believed His body was shaped like a literal wooden door when He said, "I am the door" (John 10:7) Did Jesus have a door knob and hinges on His human body also? *NO!* Because He was speaking figuratively, just like when He said this bread and wine were His body and blood. *ALSO, when Jesus said that about the elements of communion, Jesus was in His unharmed human body when He said it. If Jesus was speaking literally, then Jesus would have had to shed His blood BEFORE He was scourged and crucified on the cross. And then shed His blood again during the actual scourging and crucifixion. BUT Jesus body was not yet "broken for you" nor was Jesus' blood yet "shed for the remission of sin" because He had yet to be scourged and crucified.* *SECOND:* Did Jesus also speak literally when He said that He was The Vine and we are the branches (John 15:1-5)? *Does that mean Jesus is a literal plant that bears branches and fruit??? According to you, the answer would be Yes!* *THIRD:* Where exactly in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism? And drinking human blood? In fact, drinking blood is expressly forbidden by God. *_And, Oh yeah, Jesus is God_* (Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:29) *FOURTH: When John the Baptist saw Jesus and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." Was John saying Jesus was covered in wool and walked on four legs??* According to your method of interpretation, the answer is YES. But according to the Bible, the answer is clearly NO. John was speaking figuratively, just as Jesus was at the Last Supper. *FIFTH: According to Catholic doctrine, the so-called Eucharist, is a sacrifice.* Each time it is performed, it is literally sacrificing Jesus afresh on the cross. BUT the Bible says Jesus' death on the cross was a once-and-for-all sacrifice in Hebrews 10. *"But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb.10:12) "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (Heb.10:14) DID YOU HEAR WHAT GOD SAID, "ONE SACRIFICE FOR SIN FOREVER...BY ONE OFFERING"??*
@@chrisg9196 Hi there! Those religious figures (the early Church fathers) knew the apostles and were taught by them. They were all in one accord. Scripture can’t give its own authority without an interpretation. Doesn’t it stand to reason the Church that put together the canon of the NT should be authority of what it means? It wasn’t left to personal interpretation. Hence why we have so many Protestant denominations. The real presence was a common belief by the early Churches (Greek, Oriental, and the Roman Rite) for the first 1530 years. You brought up the analogies of door and sheep. Jesus used many metaphors. Sure, some were figurative, but the John 6 discourse is a literal interpretation compared to the others. The element of communion is not a bloody sacrifice, it is the risen Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. Cannibalism applies when one human eats another. When we partake at the Lord’s supper, it’s done sacramentally. Along with the writings from the early church fathers, I provided scriptures in context. How can you be guilty of Christ’s death if it’s a symbol. The apostles said to Jesus, your words are harsh, how can anyone listen to it. The onlookers walked away. Jesus didn’t recant his words. Jesus brings it up again at the last supper. Sure, he was instituting the new covenant, as well. Jesus’ death on the cross was a one-time event, but we get to experience his grace through communion every Sunday. Thank you for your input. Peace, brother.
@@aggienodari453 *Chronology of events:* *Matthew 12:24 The Unpardonable Sin committed by the Jewish religious leaders* *Matthew 13 Jesus teaches in parables from that point onward (Matt.13:10-15)* *Matthew 13:34-35 Jesus vows to only speak publicly in parables going forward* *Matthew 14:1-14 John the Baptist beheaded* *Matthew 14:15-21 (i.e. John 6) Feeding of the Five Thousand* *Conclusion: Jesus was speaking figuratively (parabolically) in John 6 (i.e., Matthew 14:15-21) because The Unpardonable Sin of Matthew 12:24 had already occurred. As a result, Jesus spoke only in parables publicly (Matthew 13:34-35). Therefore, Jesus was not speaking literally in the Bread of Life discourse.* *Furthermore, Jesus did not clarify their confusion because:* *(1) The prophecy of Isaiah 9:6 was being fulfilled* *(2) Parabolic teaching was intended to obscure the truth from the unbelieving public (Matt.13:10-15) who had already rejected the overwhelming truth about Jesus' Messiahship, yet still asserted He performed miracles by the power of Satan (committing The Unpardonable Sin-Matt.**12:24**)* *(3) Jesus did not always correct the public's misinterpreting His speech when He spoke figuratively.* When Jesus cleansed the Temple the first time, the religious leaders ("the Jews") asked Jesus for a sign to prove He had the authority to do so. Jesus gave them the sign stating, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body." (John 2:19-21) *Jesus did not clarify their confusion. Jesus refused to correct the Jews' misunderstanding. Jesus never said, "No, guys. I was speaking figuratively. I meant the temple of My body." Just as Jesus would refuse to do later in the Bread of Life discourse in John 6.* *1. Parable defined: a parable is figurative illustration intended to teach a moral or spiritual truth. From Matthew 13 onward, Jesus only spoke in parables publicly. John 6 (Bread of Life discourse) occurred AFTER Matthew 13:10-15. Therefore, in Matthew 14:13-21, the parallel passage to John 6, Jesus was speaking publicly in parabolic speech in John 6, that is, figurative speech.* *2. Before John 6 the Jewish religious leaders had already committed the Unpardonable Sin; that is, the rejection of Jesus as Messiah, justifying their unbelief on their assertion that Jesus performed miracles by the power of Satan (Matt.12:24)* Ultimately, that generation would suffer the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD as a direct result of the Unpardonable Sin. Another result was that Jesus, for then on, spoke to the public in parables. "And the disciples came and said to Him,'Why do You speak to them in parables?' He answered and said to them, 'Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand'" (Matt.13:10-15) Then Jesus gives the Parables of the Kingdom (Matt.13:18-50) *Jesus in John 6, according to His new policy (Matt.13:10-15), is teaching parabolically.* And like the prophecy of Isaiah, which Jesus quotes to describe the religious leaders' spiritual blindness and deafness, the public was likewise, just as blind and deaf. _Jesus did not clarify their confusion because the prophecy of Isaiah 6:9 was being fulfilled._ Jesus states the reason Isa.9:6 is being fulled is "Because the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’ (Matt.13:15)* *3. The Apostle John's express purpose for writing the Gospel of John was that people would believe and be saved (John 20:30-31)* But of the four Gospels, the Gospel of John is the only Gospel that omits the Last Supper communion account. If communion was essential for salvation, of all the Gospel writers, John would never omit the Last Supper account, since his express purpose in writing his Gospel is for salvation of the lost. *But the Holy Spirit chose to omit it, breaking the association Catholics attempt to make between John 6 and the Last Supper.* *Matt.**13:10**-17 Three Reasons for Parabolic Teaching* In Matt.13:10 the disciples ask Jesus why He is teaching in parables after Jesus recites the first parable, the Parable of the Sower (or Four Soils). This indicates a change in Jesus’ prior habit of teaching plainly; therefore it sparked the question among the disciples. Jesus proceeds to give them three reasons for the change: *(1) In Matt.**13:11**, the purpose was to illustrate the truth for Jesus disciples.* *(2) But in Matt.**13:11**-13, the second reason is to hide the truth from the obstinate unbelieving masses.* The masses were guilty of the Unpardonable Sin. From the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry to this point, Jesus had already given more than ample proof that His Messianic claims were true. [See below, The four-fold witness to Jesus’ Messianic claims (John 5:33-47)] *The multitudes responded by rejecting Jesus, therefore no further light would be given.* *(3) In Matt.**13:14**-17, the third reason is the fulfill Old Testament Prophecy, like Isa.6:9-10.* This prophecy speaks of a time when a Divine Judgment will come when unbelieving Jews are spoken to in parables so that they can no longer comprehend. Later on in Matt.13:34-35 it says that from this point on, Jesus always spoke to the masses (multitudes) in parables only, stating it was the fulfillment of Ps.78:2. *In Mk.**4:33**-34, it agrees with what Matthew’s account says, but adds a detail in verse 34, “But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.” This will be Jesus pattern from now on. When teaching publicly, it’s always parabolic so that the unbelieving masses would not understand, but when He is alone with His Apostles, He will always explain the meaning of the parables, because for the Apostles, the parables’ purpose is to illustrate the truth.* The Fourfold Witness that Jesus is the Messiah: 1. (Jn.5:33-35) John the Baptist 2. (Jn.5:36) Jesus’ Works (3 miracles below, rabbis said only the Messiah would do) 1. Exorcizing a Dumb Demon (a demon that renders the victim mute) 2. Healing a post-Law Jew of leprosy (Naaman a post-Law Gentile; Moses' sister was pre-Law) 3. Healing a Jew born blind 3. (Jn.5:37) God the Father 4. (Jn.5:38-47) The Scriptures 5. NOTE: (Jn.5:46-47) “For if you had believed Moses, you would believe Me” 1. They believed Moses as it was filtered through Mishnaic-Rabbinic Judaism 2. Had the Pharisees believed Moses, as written, they would have not missed Jesus
@chrisg9196 I couldn't get past your first point! LOL! You think that Jesus is a door knob. Jesus meant nothing else other than to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Nothing. If it was a metaphor, then what was he talking about? Why did he say that "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood then you will have no life in you"? The sole reason why you think Jesus sounds like a cannibal is because the Protestant theology doesn't work. You have to leap frog all over Scripture to get it to say what you want. All of your talking points come from somebody else. But, us Catholics with our theology can make perfect sense of the entire Bible by reading it straight through.
@@rangers94ism *You're supremely dense. The point you mock, went over your head because your too dense to understand hyperbole, which points out the inconsistency of the Catholic position. If the Catholic method of interpreting John 6 is consistently held, then it leads to ridiculous conclusions.* *Jesus Himself said He would be teaching figuratively when teaching publicly, as of Matthew 13:34-35:* *"All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:* *“I will open My mouth in parables;* *I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”* *This change occurred BEFORE John 6. Therefore, Jesus in John 6 in the Bread of Life discourse, is speaking figuratively.* *Jesus reiterates His speaking figuratively in John 6:63:* "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. *The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."* In addition, in John 6:35, Jesus said, “I am the bread of life. He who *comes to Me* shall *never hunger,* and he who *believes in Me* shall *never thirst."* Clearly, every believer in Jesus Christ as Savior has come to Jesus and believed in Him, but has experienced literal hunger and thirst after believing. Therefore, Jesus is consistently speaking figuratively. The lack of hunger and lack of thirst Jesus promises to those who come to Him and believe in Him is a spiritual satisfaction, *not a literal lack of hunger or thirst.* *Jesus makes the point repeatedly in John 6 that belief in Him* is what grants one eternal life.* "...and he who believes in Me..." (John.6:35) "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and *believes in Him may have everlasting life;* and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John.6:40) "Most assuredly, I say to you, *he who believes in Me has everlasting life."* (John 6:47) *Earlier in John 3, Jesus is talking to inexpert in the Mosaic and Pharisaic Law, named Nicodemus. Throughout this conversation, Jesus says that BELIEF IN HIM is what grants anyone eternal life.* The person who believes is born spiritually. Before their belief, they were physically alive BUT spiritual dead. Therefore, every person needs to be "born again" in order to "see the kingdom of heaven." (John 3:3; 3:7) "...whoever *believes* in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:15) "...whoever *believes* in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “He who *believes* in Him is not condemned..." (John 3:18) *NO MENTION OF EATING OF DRINKING ANYTHING.* *In John 6:40 and **6:47**, Jesus already made it clear that belief in Him is what grants one eternal life. Receiving eternal life by faith was previously emphasized to the Pharisee Nicodemus several times (John 3:3, 7. 15, 16, 18).* Then Jesus says in John 6:54, "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." So several times in John 3, and at least twice in John 6, Jesu says that eternal life is granted to those who believe. Therefore, Jesus equates belief with the figurative expression of eating and drinking. That Jesus was speaking figuratively is clarified by Jesus to His Apostles (privately, since Jesus spoke figuratively when teaching publically) when Jesus said, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. *The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." But there are some of you who do not believe.”* For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him." (John 6:63-64). Even in this last phrase by Jesus, He mentions BELIEF as the central point of His discourse.
Man, that question was just horrific. And the answer was just bluntly lie! Eucharist is THE SAME SACRIFICE!!! Not a new one each time!!! Jesus said “DO IT IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME”!!! Don’t know this liar but it’s ridiculous!
That part in the book of Fr O Brien is problematic. I also can't understand the meaning he was trying to imply. It is just unbelievable! I search the internet about The Holy Eucharist, and I have not read anything similar that Fr O Brien has written. So, it is better to refer to the official teaching of Our Church and not to an unofficial source which has the tendency to confuse us and may mislead us into accepting such writing.
@@Maranatha99 Can you cite the teaching? Because I know from _actually_ reading the Catechism it states in paragraph 1367: “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are ONE SINGLE SACRIFICE.” And in the paragraph before it, it says: “The Eucharist is… a sacrifice because it RE-PRESENTS (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross. …” (CCC 1366). So no, Jesus’ sacrifice does not occur “again and again” in the mass as you assert. Jesus’ crucified and resurrected Body _becomes_ present in the Eucharist, therefore transforming the _substance_ of the bread into His own Body (transubstantiation), while maintaining the mere _appearance_ of bread and wine (otherwise we wouldn’t actually be able to consume Him if it felt, tasted, and looked like flesh and blood). So, before you try to make a point, I recommend you actually educate yourself about what the Catholic Church teaches and does if you want to oppose it, that way (and this applies to me as well), we can have an honest and constructive discussion without cultivating feelings of frustration and confusion. Although I don’t necessarily blame you if that’s what you’ve heard from outside sources where anti-Catholics frequently ill inform people on the Catholic faith. I find, from my own experience debating Protestants and watching their videos, that their objections so often stem from a complete misunderstanding of what the CC actually teaches and does. Hence, they end up just arguing thin air.
@TrickeryMan u r right! I didn't express myself well. What i meant to say is that whatever the catholic priest does, re-,present or whatever it is, is completely unnecessary. Why? Because the ONE SACRIFICE of Jesus is enough. Pls, read Hebrews 10, 11-14. "Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by ONE sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." Jesus is in no altar: He is resurrected & glorified. I'm sorry I dint explain well.
@@Maranatha99 Sorry for the lengthy response. I understand. Maybe I didn’t make _myself_ clear enough. I completely agree with you that Jesus’ one sacrifice is enough. No Catholic doctrine objects to that. He was only sacrificed _once_ in all of history. This is a point of harmony between Protestants and Catholics. In the mass, Christ is not being sacrificed again; His sacrifice on the cross is being _made present._ It’s important to understand this. That very point in time, when Jesus was on the cross, is made real to us. Why? Well, I do not have room and time to get into the details of _why_ haha (and there _is_ an abundant of biblical evidence, just read “Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist” by Brant Pitre and you’ll for sure be stunned. I just finished it, there’s also a video version that gives a pretty amazing overview), but first, I want to respond to Hebrew 10:11-14 you quoted. I’m not sure if you thought that these “religious duties” and continual sacrifices the author of Hebrew’s is talking about are in reference to the Eucharistic mass, because it’s not. He’s not talking about that at all. If you examine this passage in _context_ and go back to verse 4, you’ll see that the author is talking about the old sacrifice of _animals,_ not Jesus in the Eucharist: “3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the _blood of bulls and goats_ to take away sins.” (Hebrews 10:3-4). So this isn’t a refutation of the Catholic mass, because again, for 1: It’s not talking about the Catholic mass, and 2: it couldn’t be since there isn’t a different sacrifice at every mass, nor does Jesus get sacrificed again. He died and rose once. We can put aside whether or not this is biblical, I’m just saying that this is the teaching of the Catholic Church (which is in accordance with the Scriptures). We have to get it right so that we can effectively move forward. When you say “He is in no altar”, I’m not sure if this is just a grammatical error or if you think we believe that Jesus is literally _in_ the altar lol… cause He’s not. He’s _on_ the altar temporarily, yes, but not “in” it haha (Also, I must clarify: the reason Jesus would be on an “altar” is because Jesus _became a sacrifice_ for us; the “Passover lamb” as St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 5:7. Hence, it is the proper place the consecration should transpire, since sacrifices always occur on an altar-which is another reason to believe the Eucharist is Jesus, because since Christ instituted a new Passover at the last supper-replacing the lamb with Himself-and every Passover has a sacrifice, the bread and wine can’t be symbolic, otherwise it wouldn’t be a Passover celebration without a true sacrifice. Maybe more on this later, if you wish). And yes, I agree, Jesus is Resurrected and glorified, in fact, that’s the only way He can be truly present in the Eucharist: if He is resurrected. So not only is the Eucharist Jesus on the cross, but the _risen_ Christ as well (I’m not implying two separate persons), just like when He appeared to the apostles in the upper room and still had the holes from the nails in His hands, feet, and side, even though He was risen. Jesus’ resurrected Body is not limited to time and space, hence, He can appear and navigate however He wishes (like at the tomb to Mary Magdalene (John 20:14), and walking through the walls in the upper room with His physical Body (John 20:19)). And, just to catch you before you say it-in case you do-don’t ask “how” Jesus could do it, because if we’re talking about the Divine, the Infinite, the Omnipotent and Omniscient Being called ‘God’, it’ll never be a question of “how” Jesus could be “undercover” in the Eucharist; the question is “if” He is. I mean, if Jesus can calm massive storms with a few words, heal thousands of sick and impaired people, rise from the dead, and _hide His identity_ on the road to Emmaus until the “breaking of the bread” (Luke 24:13-35), I’m pretty sure He has the ability to appear in the form of bread and wine if He says so.
@TrickeryMan " i am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever" (John 6, 51) So u say that John 6 is about Eucharist. Jesus says whoever eats this bread will live forever Catholics partake in the Eucharist,. BUT... Catholics are NOT sure of their salvation ??????????? Pls, read John 6 again & see all the references to the need to COME to Jesus for eternal life. Eucharist is not a requirement for salvation, but you are making it to be.
66 "As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him." That's John 6 verse 66 the rest of John 6 is a teaching on the Eucharist but see that some of the disciples in Jesus time could not accept the teaching from him on the Eucharist do they stop following him. Go and read it all for yourselves. Also see Eucharist Miracles.
John 3:18 explains why they left as they failed to believe He was the son of God. John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned. But he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" Christ told them a dozen times in John 6 they needed to believe He was the Son of God and they refused. Ten times He told them in plain Aramaic they needed to believe and a couple of times in a metaphor that they needed to eat Him. Jews for thousands of years equated bread as a metaphor with the "word of God" just as milk is a metaphor to one new in the faith. Study all of John 6 not just a couple of verses. By the way, Peter responded in verse 68 when Christ asked if they would leave to with the answer to the metaphor when he told Christ that "He had the words of eternal life". Friends we are to believe in Him not eat Him.
@sammygomes7381 1. I see you completely choose omit anything about Eucharist Miracles. 2. I've studied the bible many times and my answer stays the same. Your away back to John 3 for an answer, we're talking about John 6. You guys may or may not have the Holy Spirit in your church. We Catholics are blessed with the Holy Spirit, Jesus as the Eucharist and our beloved Heavenly and Spiritual mother, Mary as Jesus most lovingly gave to us in John 19. 26 and 27. I guess that you've not had an experience of this because after you do then you will see that when you experience Jesus, Mary and the Holy Spirit then nothing else will do.
@@MaranathatoJesusthroughMary my friend, I have as much faith in eucharist miracles as I do in Mary remaining a virgin and making house calls around the world. John 3 is very clear and has everything to do with John 6. John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned. But he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Those disciples in John 6 were doomed for a couple of reasons. 1. They failed to believe Christ was the son of God despite a dozen warnings, including a couple in which Christ used a thousand-year-old metaphor that they needed to eat Him. The Jews have held that bread is the metaphor for the "word of God". We can see the response of these disciples in John 6:42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’? They failed to believe as many do today think we have to eat Christ for eternal life. Do you not know that if one believes in Christ that He is in him? Let us not forget the words of Peter in Jn.6:68-69 where he says that they would not leave because Christ had the "words" of eternal life as He was the Son of God. 2. John 6 is also very clear about how we come to Christ. John 6:44-45 No one can come to Me unless the Father who has sent Me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘They shall all be taught by God.’[d] Therefore everyone who has heard and has learned of the Father comes to Me. As for the Holy Spirit in the church I find it hard to believe the Holy Spirit would put up with the worshipping of a goddess and idol. What I do know is the word of God tells me 1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 1 Corinthians 6:19 What? Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God, and that you are not your own? 2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, seeing whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not know that Jesus Christ is in you?-unless indeed you are disqualified. Andy, you stated you have studied the bible many times and I was wondering where Jesus gave Mary to us in the book of John. As i read it, it appears Christ gave Mary to only John, who by the way, was most likely Mary's nephew and Christ's cousin. Now I am curious about one thing, when are you blessed by the Holy Spirit? Actually, I am curious about a few other things, when are you blessed by Jesus and most of all Mary?
@sammygomes7381 my friend you are looking for a debate and while I could refute all your points and enter into a debate I'm simply not going to do that because it's not God's will for me. I see you like tying scripture together so why don't you see if you can tie genesis 3.15 in with the wedding at Cana, if you are able to then perhaps we can chat. God bless you
@@MaranathatoJesusthroughMary Sir I am not looking for a debate as God's word is final. As for Genesis 3:15 and the wedding at Cana there is nothing to tie together. You might as well just throw in Revelation 12. "Woman" is mentioned in the bible almost 400 times and only a hand full refer to Mary and in a different context when Christ used it in reference to His mother. When Christ referred to Mary as "woman" it is sort of like being equivalent to calling her "ma'am". In Genesis 3, I believe "woman" is used 7 or 8 times and every one of them refers to Eve not Mary and the context is different. Likewise in Revelation 12 "woman" is not even referring to a person, but the nation of Israel. Many blessings Andy.
The early Church had a very clear understanding of the Eucharist: "They [the Docetists, early Christological heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110])." "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110])." ~ 2 direct quotes from St. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of John the Apostle.
THE PROTESTANT DOCTRINES OF SCRIPTURE ALONE AND FAITH ALONE ARE NOT BIBLICAL:.. ➔ The entire foundation of Protestantism is false:... ➔The Bible ITSELF Contradicts Luther's doctrine of "scripture alone" (solascriptura) The Bible tells us that the authority is THE CHURCH: ... ● 1 TIMOTHY 3:15 The pillar & foundation of TRUTH is the CHURCH. ● 2 TIMOTHY 2 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast HEARD from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. ● EPHESIANS 3:10 10 His intent was that now, THROUGH THE CHURCH, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, ● JOHN 21:25 Jesus said & did Many other things that are too numerous to be recorded in writing. ● 2 THESS 2:15 We are to hold fast to the TRADITIONS we have been given, either by WORD OF MOUTH or by the letter. ● 1 COR 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything, and maintain the TRADITIONS even as I have delivered them to you. ● HEB 13:17 Obey the eldars in the CHURCH. ● COR 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. ● HEBREWS 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. 2 COR 5:20 says that God appointed men in the Church to represent Him. And, in HEB 13:17, God appointed men in the Church to have the rule over His Flock. ● JOHN 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. ● MATT 18:15-17 15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto THE CHURCH: but IF HE NEGLECTS TO HEARTHE CHURCH let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. The True Church is a TEACHING Church: (to Teach means to impart knowledge that is not presently know....not in writing) ● JOHN 14:26-31 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall TEACH you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have SAID unto you. (Spoken words...not in writing) (To TEACH is to impart knowledge that is not presently known....not in writing) ● ACTS 8:31: And he said, HOW CAN I, (understand scripture) EXCEPT SOMEONE SHOULD GUIDE ME? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. (The scriptures are not for individual interpretation. They need the guidance of the CHURCH. It is PROTESTANTS who are following the doctrines of a man.) nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn ➨WORKS: The following scriptures all demand good works from us in order to emnter the kingdom of God and all of them were copied directly from the protestant version of the bible by Cynthia x:... 👉👉 EPHESIANS 2:10 (KJV) Protestants "prove" their false doctrine of "faith alone" By quoting EPH 2:8-9
👉👉 and they STOP before they get to number 10: 8 For by GRACE are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. (most protestants stop here instead of continuing on to 10):
👉👉 10 FOR WE ARE GOD'S WORKMANSHIP, CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS UNTO GOOD WORKS, WHICH GOD HAS BEFORE ORDAINED, THAT WE SHOULD WALK IN THEM. MOREE scriptures that demand good works from us: ● REV 20:12...The dead are judged BY THEIR WORKS. ● REV 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man ACCORDING TO HIS WORK shall be. ● REV 19:8 And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. ● JAMES 2:18 Faith without works is dead ● MATTEW 19:17 Jesus tells us if we want to enter into Life, we must keep the commandments. ● MATTHEW 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your GOOD DEEDSand glorify your Father in heaven. ● JAMES 2:24 A man is justified by works, and not by faith only. ● ROMANS 2:6 He will judge everyone ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. ● ROMANS 2:13 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. ● MATTHEW 7:21 Not everyone who says to me: "Lord Lord will enter into the kingdom of heaven but only those WHO DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER. ● PHILIPPIANS 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. ● MATT 25:35-40 JESUS tells us to feed the hungry & clothe the naked (good works). He further warns us that those who do NOT will be sent away into the eternal fire., but those who do these WORKS will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. ● LUKE 16:19-30 The story of Lazarus and the rich man shows us that the rich man went to hell for refusing to help Lazarus who was poor and hungry. (He refused to do good works) ● TITUS 3:14 KJV And let our's also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful. ● EPHESIANS 2:8-11 (KJV) Protestants "prove" their false doctrine of "faith alone" By quoting EPH 2:8-9 and they STOP before they get to number 10: 8 For by GRACE are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. (most protestants stop here instead of continuing on to 10): ➨ 10 FOR WE ARE GOD'S WORKMANSHIP, CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS UNTO GOOD WORKS, WHICH GOD HAS BEFORE ORDAINED, THAT WE SHOULD WALK IN THEM. ● 1 COR 9:27 (KJV) (Paul speaking) But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast away. ● MATT 12:36-37 36 But I say unto you, That every idle WORD THAT MEN SHALL SOEAK, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For BY THY WORDS THOU SHALL BE JUSTIFIED, and BY THY WORDS THOU SHALL BE CONDEMNED. (not by yout faith alone) James 2:21 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? ➨PENENCE: Protestants reject the idea that they must do "penence" (attempt to make up for the sins they have committed) ● Luke 19:8. Zacchaeus told Jesus if he has cheated anyone, he will repay them 4 times over. ● Mark 2:20 Jesus said (regarding his disciples): The days are coming when the Bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast. ● Matthew 6:16 When you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrits do ● ACTS 26:20 RSV but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance. ● ACTS 2:38-40: (This one is in the Catholic Bible) Do Penance and be baptized everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and you shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit. For this promise is to you AND YOUR CHILDREN, and to all who are far off who the Lord our God shall call. ● COLOSSIANS 1:24-2:7 kjv 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: Protestants claim that "Jesus did it all" and that nothing is required of them except for faith, but JESUS tells us we must feed the hungry & clothe the naked (Good works) if we want to enter the Kingdom of God, and if we do NOT, we will be sent away into the eternal fire. ● Colossians 1:24 Tells us we share in the suffering of Chrst 24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the c● hurch, ● Acts 14:22 22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.”
The quote from John O'Brian, makes even more sense if you quote the rest of it: i.e. "he offers up again the SAME sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary." It's NOT a new sacrifice, it is the representation of the SAME sacrifice. You can also research the types of sacrifice the Israelite's offer to God and understand that Jesus fulfils all of these. When you we're baptised, you we're joined to the death of Jesus on the cross, you're sins in this present day are nailed to the cross through Christ Jesus 2000 years ago. Christ is not nailed to the cross again and again for your sins, the sacrifice is complete, but you today are joined to him *then* How is this possible? GOD exists outside time, get your head around this and the Eucharist makes more sense. BTW: the word "victim" is defined as: "a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action."
John 6, the bread of life discourse , is conveniently omitted in this clip. The Eucharist divided the disciples back then as it divides Christians now. We Catholics believe it’s Jesus’ flesh and blood because JESUS SAID SO… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” -Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]). Repent
You conveniently omitted the verse in John 6 which reads : "63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." It has nothing to do with the physical, but rather the spiritual....which is Eternal Life by faith in Jesus Christ. The entire chapter is about Faith...not eating Jesus. Examples: 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” 35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life 47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes [j]in Me has everlasting life. 68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the [q]Christ, the Son of the living God.” In John chapter 6 Jesus makes a comparison between physical food for the body, and spiritual food (which is faith in Him) for the soul. Even with adequate physical food, even physical food such as manna from Heaven, the body will still die. But faith in Christ gives us eternal life....for Jesus is the bread of Life. For the most part, the crowd following Jesus was more interested in getting free meals, than the spiritual gift that Christ offered. He pushed the crowd by talking about eating flesh and drinking blood which was totally against Scripture and Jewish customs. The crowd walked away. The chapter is all about faith in Jesus for eternal life....not about communion, not about eating Jesus...none of that. Just read the entire chapter and grasp the real meaning of what Jesus was saying. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+6&version=NKJV
@@spacecoastz4026 the flesh of Jesus Christ is different from other flesh because Jesus is God. Who would be more correct, some heretic who hates the early church fathers or Saint Ignacio of Antioch
🎯👁 *Regarding the Mass and Transubstantiation:* *FIRST:* If Jesus was speaking literally concerning the bread and wine literally being His body and blood, does that also mean that Jesus believed His body was shaped like a literal wooden door when He said, "I am the door" (John 10:7) Did Jesus have a door knob and hinges on His human body also? *NO!* Because He was speaking figuratively, just like when He said this bread and wine were His body and blood. *ALSO, when Jesus said that about the elements of communion, Jesus was in His unharmed human body when He said it. If Jesus was speaking literally, then Jesus would have had to shed His blood BEFORE He was scourged and crucified on the cross. And then shed His blood again during the actual scourging and crucifixion. BUT Jesus body was not yet "broken for you" nor was Jesus' blood yet "shed for the remission of sin" because He had yet to be scourged and crucified.* *SECOND:* Did Jesus also speak literally when He said that He was The Vine and we are the branches (John 15:1-5)? *Does that mean Jesus is a literal plant that bears branches and fruit??? According to you, the answer would be Yes!* *THIRD:* Where exactly in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism? And drinking human blood? In fact, drinking blood is expressly forbidden by God. *_And, Oh yeah, Jesus is God_* (Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:29) *FOURTH: When John the Baptist saw Jesus and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." Was John saying Jesus was covered in wool and walked on four legs??* According to your method of interpretation, the answer is YES. But according to the Bible, the answer is clearly NO. John was speaking figuratively, just as Jesus was at the Last Supper. *FIFTH: According to Catholic doctrine, the so-called Eucharist, is a sacrifice.* Each time it is performed, it is literally sacrificing Jesus afresh on the cross. BUT the Bible says Jesus' death on the cross was a once-and-for-all sacrifice in Hebrews 10. *"But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb.10:12) "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (Heb.10:14) DID YOU HEAR WHAT GOD SAID, "ONE SACRIFICE FOR SIN FOREVER...BY ONE OFFERING"??*
@@chrisg9196 Transubstantiation: FIRST: If Jesus was speaking literally concerning the bread and wine literally being His body and blood, does that also mean that Jesus believed His body was shaped like a literal wooden door when He said, "I am the door" (John 10:7) Did Jesus have a door knob and hinges on His human body also? NO! Because He was speaking figuratively, just like when He said this bread and wine were His body and blood. ALSO, when Jesus said that about the elements of communion, Jesus was in His unharmed human body when He said it. If Jesus was speaking literally, then Jesus would have had to shed His blood BEFORE He was scourged and crucified on the cross. And then shed His blood again during the actual scourging and crucifixion. BUT Jesus body was not yet "broken for you" nor was Jesus' blood yet "shed for the remission of sin" because He had yet to be scourged and crucified. I am disappointed in you because you do not understand context, it all depends on the situation, when to take things literally and when to take symbolically. Here quote from the New Testament: 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” 61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” 66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” This would have been a good time for God saying this was meant to be symbolically but no, God double down and tells his 12 disciples and asks them if “Does this offend you?” The Jewish people were offended but this “horrible teaching” that he meant this literally. Are you a Jehovah Witness or an atheist because Protestantism leads to atheism. SECOND: Did Jesus also speak literally when He said that He was The Vine and we are the branches (John 15:1-5)? Does that mean Jesus is a literal plant that bears branches and fruit??? According to you, the answer would be Yes! THIRD: Where exactly in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism? And drinking human blood? In fact, drinking blood is expressly forbidden by God. And, Oh yeah, Jesus is God (Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:29) If you are going to say this, then you just reject the New Testament because many times God overrides the Old Testament within reason when for example God said he Lord over the Sabbath. 27Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Likewise, God can say eating his blood and body is okay. Cannibalism is outlawed for fellow our man, but Jesus Christ is different because he is the Godman. This is similar in mathematics when trying to apply finite concepts onto infinite as laws don’t always follow exactly. FOURTH: When John the Baptist saw Jesus and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." Was John saying Jesus was covered in wool and walked on four legs?? According to your method of interpretation, the answer is YES. But according to the Bible, the answer is clearly NO. John was speaking figuratively, just as Jesus was at the Last Supper. As I mentioned, context, you are trying to use a hammer for solving all problem, likewise, it all depends as we know from context this was symbolic of Jesus Christ being the sacrifice for the sins of humanity as a lamb was before the crucifixion. FIFTH: According to Catholic doctrine, the so-called Eucharist, is a sacrifice. Each time it is performed, it is literally sacrificing Jesus afresh on the cross. BUT the Bible says Jesus' death on the cross was a once-and-for-all sacrifice in Hebrews 10. "But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb.10:12) "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (Heb.10:14) DID YOU HEAR WHAT GOD SAID, "ONE SACRIFICE FOR SIN FOREVER...BY ONE OFFERING"?? By default, without you thinking, you just indirectly disproved Jesus Christ the Godman when he said that gates of hell will not prevail over the church because the Apostolic Churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East) have always that Eucharist is the literal body of Jesus Christ, and the red wine is the literal blood of God. Second, the reason Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East believe one sacrifice but because outside of spacetime there is no concept of time as time is something that happens in finite discrete space, thus even of his crucifixion is always happening.
Read The Catechism of the Catholic Church from cover to cover and I guarantee your life will never be the same. Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and enkindle in them the fire of your Divine Love. 🕊️🔥
WOW! This video is very helpful! I'm amazed at how little the Pastors of protestant and evangelical churches understand of what the RCC really teaches.
@@markster136Why sadly? The teaching of the Real Presence goes back to St Paul, the early church fathers, to Augustine and later Aquinas. This is beautiful. I’m sorry but there is a real lack of the knowledge of history and it seems to me, no knowledge of the what the Early Church believed. Mike Gendron has a very shallow interpretation of doctrine. Really want to know what the Church teaches? Read the Early Church Fathers!
Read or just google “Early Church Fathers and the Real Presence”. Do you know of all of the intellectual and spiritual giants who believed in the Real Presence? ALL of the early church fathers, Augustine and Aquinas. These are giants … intellectual, holy men. There is real ignorance of what the first Christians believed and how they worshipped, which was liturgical worship.
The “Catholic” is Eucharist.. lol . Protestants don’t have a Eucharist. Protestantism is heresy. It literally undermines everything Christ said. Christ’s instruction to baptize ? Nahh we don’t have to do that. Christ giving the apostles the power to forgive and retain sins? Nah. We don’t have to believe that. Christ telling us to eat his body and drink his blood? Nope.. we don’t need that either. I could go on and on. Protestantism asserts itself not just above the true church, but above Christ himself. Within Protestantism every believer is the sole arbiter of their own belief system. Every believer crafts a version of god in their own minds; hence, you end up with thousands of different denominations.
Idk what you’re talking about. Protestants do communions where they partake in eating the bread and drinking (wine), it is only done in remembrance. Baptism is also crucial part of a Protestant Christian life. So you’re wrong here too. Etc… you really don’t know about what we do or don’t, do you?
john 6:54 "amen, amen i say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son on man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life within you." the bible even says that they complained it was a hard saying and he lost many followers after that. it's not a symbol. they heard his words, and understood him literally. if he didn't mean it literally, then he would have corrected them. he didn't. your response?
@@budmattison regurgitating the 400 year old prot lie. never said we're saved by our actions. do you believe we can be damned by our actions? starting to sound like a limp wristed faith you have.
@@budmattison at least catholics have beliefs that are consistent with you bible you prots claim to love so much. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. you guys eat a symbol. i leave the symbols to the simple.
@bryansmith7758 I wonder how long our Lord and Savior will have to bleed until the Roman Catholic thirst for his blood is satisfied?? Don't walk away from the RCC run!!! Sorry need for Priests, Nuns, Pope's, confessions, bread and crackers, ect. Traditions of men. No Biblical basis what so ever...READ YOUR BIBLE PLEASE!!!! Jesus died and is now at the right hand of God (ALIVE). We talk to him directly, with no need of a middle "man or woman" SAVED BY HIS GRACE THAT IS ALL!!! CAN NOT WORK YOUR WAY TO THE MANSION.....
I love how.he asked an anti Catholic who does not understand anything about the Eucharist what his false opinion is. By zero authority he declares that the RCC is blasphemous. The RCC draws on that single sacrifice in order to participate in the salvation of the cross. Because if you read John 6 Jesus Christ wants us to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life. Protestants reject the Holy Eucharist so they have no life in them. I don't even count them as Christian. That's why Jesus said that not everyone who calls him Lord will go to Heaven.
It sounds like you are one of those disciples that took him literally and walked away. As communion is the continuation of the Passover, the elements, like the Passover meal, is symbolic. It is interesting that Roman Catholics don’t take Jesus literally when he says he’s a door, but they do when he says he is bread.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that COMETH to me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH ON ME shall never thirst. If you shall never hunger and never thirst by coming to and believing on Christ, have you not received food and drink? He literally says after the parable that hes not being literal John 6:63 It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth; the FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the WORDS that I SPEAK unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE. SPIRIT, and LIFE. COME TO ME, BELIEVE ON ME. Get it?
The Cross of Jesus symbolizes God’s victory. We are all children of God, and there’s only ONE God." - Pope Pope Francis believes that although Jesus’ death on the cross may appear as a failure from a human perspective, it was a victory from God’s viewpoint. (1 Corinthians 1:18, 1 Corinthians 15:54-57) The Pope did not state that all religions with different beliefs and various gods will enter the same kingdom in Heaven as Christians believe. He emphasizes that there’s only ONE God, meaning we can only reach God the Father through Jesus, the ONE true Son of God. (John 14:6, 1 John 3:1, Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-16) St. Paul stated: Acts 4:12: “There is no one else who has the power to save us, for there is only ONE name to whom God has given authority by which we must experience SALVATION: the name of JESUS.” “All religions are paths to God,” (Pope Francis' analogy). “They are like different languages that express the divine.” Speaking to young people during an interreligious dialogue, he warned against arguing which religion is “better.” All religions claim they have the true god and take different paths to reach the god they know. He emphasized, “God is for all, and if God is God for all, then we are all sons and daughters of God. But my God is more important than your God as there’s only ONE God.” ONE Jesus' Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church. I pray for those who may stray from the truth. Love, peace, and unity for all nations in the name of Jesus. Amen.
@@adalmarcial3096 That is literal. Jesus said it in a literal way 5 times in a row. Back to back to back to back to back...literally. If you choose to read Jesus' literal message metaphorically, then pay attention to what many of the people who listened to him did immediately after hearing His words: they left. They stopped following Jesus (John 6:66...you read that correctly "666") because he was speaking literally, NOT metaphorically. And Jesus let them go. He did not clarify his words as being only metaphorical. Then he turned to the apostles and asked what they thought. Peter, speaking for the 12, responded by saying "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life..." (John 6:68) Sadly, all Christians who claim that Christ was speaking metaphorically have the same response as those who stopped following Jesus because of His words: "This is a hard saying, who can accept it?" (John 6:60) Pray on it. The Eucharist is a gift that Jesus gave us and it can and will change your life.
@@adalmarcial3096 Ask yourself this question, if indeed that was a metaphor why did so many followers leave Him after He said that? Why did His disciples say "This is a hard teaching, who can accept it?" Why did they murmur among themselves (like protestants do) over what He said if it was nothing more than a metaphor? And more importantly why didn't Jesus clarify to them that He was speaking symbolically like He usually did? Protestants proclaim Sola Scriptura but then reject the literal words of Christ Himself. They believe IN Jesus but they don't believe Him. The very first Protestant Christians were the followers that left Jesus after He preached the Eucharist. And 2,000 years later here they are, still rejecting Him.
@@FaithnTradition Jesus spoke in parables and metaphors to hide the truth from people who were never going to believe in him, I already have God with me, The Holy Ghost, I’d be glad to listen if you could explain the purpose and benefits of the Eucharist, but I genuinely believe that when Jesus said this, he was referring to us accepting him and believing him wholeheartedly. whatever the case may be, we are all men of God and our difference in interpretations are minuscule.
@@FaithnTradition In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus’ real point. In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51) and the entire Mosaic system of Law. The passage from Sirach states that those who eat of the Law will "hunger still" and "thirst for more"; this language is mirrored by Jesus when He says, "He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself ("The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent," John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.
It's sad you don't understand this and are inadvertently being so profane, ungrateful, and rude to the Lord. You're missing the most wonderful thing on Earth. It's such a blessing to know the Lord in the material.
A few chapters back, Jesus instructs the Jewish leaders “Tear down this temple and in three days I will rebuild it”. He wasn’t speaking literal then either. This is why context matters. Think about it: what is the theme of this passage in John 6? It boils down to “Who’s with me? And who’s against me?” We even see the first mention of Judas as the betrayer here as well. So we see a division between those who had their faith in Christ and those that didn’t. Those who could listen to words they didn’t yet understand but later would and those who turned their ears away instantly. Interpreting this literally misses the meaning and beauty behind this passage all because you want to force a doctrine that doesn’t exist in scripture. I have this habit of not allowing one passage of scripture to form my doctrine.
As a Catholic, I believe in, love and revere the miracle of Transubstantiation (the host and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ at the blessing of/consecration by the priest). I feel the Eucharist (Greek: Thanksgiving) brings me closer to Christ, and makes me want harder not to sin so as to be a worthy vessel of receiving Holy Communion (as indeed we pray before Communion). As Matthew 26 tells us - in many bibles but I reference the RSV2CE, this is founded in Jesus' own words. Usually Catholics are the bible-figurative ones, so I am perplexed by my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ who don't... And, since *anything* is possible for Jesus and He is everywhere and in everything, why not? It could even be that God's being is what becomes like the host and wine through the Power of the Holy Spirit. Transubstantiation seems no harder or easier to understand than the Trinity, but no mainstream Christian denies the Trinity. Nor is the Eucharist the re-crucifixion of Christ; by what power could we even attempt to do that? No Catholic believes it's anything other than a kind of remembrance, so stop regurgitating False Witness. Whatever you believe as fellow Christians, I'd suggest at least remaining quiet on the issue and certainly avoiding mocking it. If not, you could be bearing False Witness and *literally* mocking the body and blood of our Blessed Saviour, Lord Jesus Christ.
Respectfully didn’t our Lord and Savior die and suffer once so that for all time we can be saved through Him 🙏 Why would He need to be crucified over and over? Or am I misunderstanding what Catholics believe ?
@@shayalynn We definitely do *not* believe the Eucharist is the re-crucifixion of Christ. This is the first time I'm coming across this particular and frankly ridiculous False Witness - not yours, you're asking the question which is fair enough. From its nature, I can only imagine that it arose from an extremely poor understanding of the Catholic Church, or more likely with a broader malicious intent against the RC Church that is so common it must surely be the work of satan. Sadly, it seems that a Catholic saying 'no, the Church doesn't teach that / no, we don't believe that' that hasn't sufficed for a rather long time, as though we have an outward set of 'marketing' beliefs that mask our true evil plan to try live good lives. I will rely on scripture to reinforce our belief and practice at a high level: 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. Romans 6:9-10 For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. Hebrews 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. Matthew 26:26-28 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. RCC doctrine and Catholics are reading the Bible literally here, and taking Jesus at His word. Nowhere in the Mass is there any hint we're torturing and crucifying Christ again. How could we, as it was *only* by HIS Will that Jesus was murdered the first time.
@@shayalynnHe's not being crucified again and again, his sacrifice is being (represented) he's not being resacrifed he said (do this in memory of me), words of The last supper. take and eat this is my body take & drink this is my blood,( sacrificial language) hear !! Read John chapter 6 the whole chapter he says my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink!! You can't get more literal That!!
@@Scott-ze5fb Those instructions were given at the last supper so, how often was Jesus implying that the "remembrance" be done. Once a year? During the same date as the last supper? Or all the time? I can't seem to find anything that says to do it more than once a year as a memorial.
I'm not Catholic, but this is just wrong. Imprimatur by the Catholic church means the publisher had rights to publish materials. This does not imply this is official doctrine. This is horrible cherry picking and making a straw man of an argument. To say the Catholic churches interpretation of the the Eucharist is not biblical is not something we can say with any certainty. It's just as probable, if not more so, that most protestants are wrong about the Eucharist when they deny the real bodily presence of Jesus.
Sounds like he’s using some massive hyperbole that I, as a Catholic, find problematic. I think he’s implying that Jesus is humbling himself to engage in the Eucharist not because he has to but because he wants to. But the language makes my skin crawl as well. That doesn’t change Church teaching nor 2,000 years of Church history.
ROME started the ROMAN catholic church in 313 at the Edit of Milan. Make sense? Christians were slaughtered up until that point and then the GOVERNMENT took over. John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that COMETH to me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH ON ME shall never thirst. If you shall never hunger and never thirst by coming to and believing on Christ, have you not received food and drink? He literally says after the parable that hes not being literal John 6:63 It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth; the FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the WORDS that I SPEAK unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE. SPIRIT, and LIFE. COME TO ME, BELIEVE ON ME. Get it?
If the Catholic Church is wrong about the Eucharistic we are violating the first commandment and worshiping false idol. Read the early writings of early Christians Ignatius of Antioch, St Justin Martyr. Research the miracles of the Eucharistic that’s historically happened even to this present day. John 6 53-56 . It’s not an accident Christ said 3x
"Do not put your trust in nobles, in whom no salvation belongs" the psalmist said, so why trust what the "church fathers" were teaching? Should not your trust be in the inspired scriptures which have been preserved, rather than uninspired interpretations of later men? There were arleady heresies and false teachers mentioned at the time the New Testament were recorded by the apostles! Bear in mind the John 6 passage is around 1 year before the night Jesus actually instructed the apostles to partake . Were the apostles actually eating and drinking Christ blood that night as he was next to them? Did they believe that? Even in John 6 we can see Jesus is not literal "bread from heaven", it is a parrallel with the manna that fed the Israelites back in the wildnerness. Bread which sustained their life, wheras this bread, the body of Christ would sustain them forever by reason of his being Messiah. So when we partake the bread and the wine these are reasonably intended to be symbols. IF they were literal, somehow the 11 apostles were eating his flesh and drinking his blood, even though he was right there with them, how are we to explain that?
and all three times in meant the same thing, a Jewish metaphor where bread was equated to the bible and eating it was to read and study the word of God.
@@sim448 so we would throw away the teachings of The Early Christian Church Fathers who knew the Old Testament, knew Jewish teaching, sat at the feet of the Apostles, had an unbroken line to the Apostles, were martyred for their faith and instead listen to Pastor Mike’s interpretations?
@@kath976 Please re read my comment. There were heresies before and during the time of the apostles. The jewish pharisees, which started around 200 bce; showed signs of hellenism (greek, pagan religion) These later "church fathers" were aso in their education and teachings evidently influenced by hellenism. I dont follow Pastor Mike i just listen and see if his thoughts align with the bible. The bible is the final authority for me since it is the inspired word of God, which he completed within the first century through the apostles.. Do you have answers to my other questions sorrounding communion ?
Mr. Gendron seems to ignore what the Early Church believed. For example, here's a part of what St. Ignatius of Antioch told the Smyrnaeans in the second century. "Chapter 6. Unbelievers in the blood of Christ shall be condemned Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils." www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm Say Mr. Gendron rode a Time Machine to St. Ignatius's second-century diocese. Then, people there would have avoided him because they thought he wasn't a Christian.
I think it would be wise to go back to the early church fathers, and actually get the actually teaching from the catholic catechism. The idea that it is just symbolic is a very new idea, and was associated with the gnostics in the early church.
Wait..why would gnostics say it was only physical? The gnostics abhorred the physical and thought everything spiritual was good and that physical is bad. This comment confuses me.
@@MrsCambers Mike Gendron is very ignorant on the early church fathers, and claims that the Catholics have a false gospel while misrepresenting what they actually believe. I would fact check everything he says,
@@mayermackenzie yeah but by saying that they’re saying it’s only physical which still goes against how they think regardless because to them the physical is bad. So the people obsessed with spirit only and against the physical turned it into being just a physical symbol? I can’t make sense of that logic.
@@MrsCambers “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
What he finished on the cross? This seems to be a misunderstanding. Even after Jesus said It is finished he came back again and told his followers more instructions. And even Paul says that without the resurrection our faith is in vain... once again after he said it is finished. We believe that the sacrifice was once and for all too. However, he seems to misunderstand a Passover lamb sacrifice. One lamb would be slain in the Jewish custom and it would be eaten for multiple days. Jesus fulfilled the Passover and his sacrifice is so perfect that it is eternal. John the baptist also prophesied him as the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wonder what Mike Grendron thinks about Eucharistic miracles.
They don’t understand that the order of Melchizedek is forever and the slain lamb in revelation is that because He forever makes access for us to the Father as both our high priest and sacrifice. These evangelicals think in worldly terms unfortunately.
@andrewdrew677 the order of Melchisedec is for ever because it refers ONLY to the High Priesthood of Christ, not to the catholic priesthood. "the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever." (Hebrews 7, 3-4). Catholic priests do have a beginning and an end.
After Jesus death, no more passover lambs were needed. No more sacrifices. And the fact that the temple in Jerusalem (where the sacrifices took place) was destroyed in 70 aD by Titus is a graphic reminder of that.
Yes Christ did say that but He also told those individuals ten times they needed to believe in Him and they refused to believe He was sent from God. In other words they did not have ears to hear. Read John 6 from verse 22 to the end, very slowly. You will also see that Christ told them no one can come to Him unless the Father brings them. Christ also said you need to believe in Him, not eat Him. Also don't over look the real reason they were there, a free meal, they wanted to feed the flesh. Christ was trying to point out that as bread is required to live in the flesh, His word was required for eternal life and His word is the bread of eternal life. One last thing. Compare the teaching here to that of the women at the well. Christ told her she needed to drink the living water for eternal life, not the well water. Christ didn't have special water, he was talking about the word of God, to believe in Jesus. Many blessings friend hope that helps.
@@sammygomes7381 with the woman at the well he told her to go and sin no more. He had not instituted the Eucharist yet. Did that at the last supper. When he said ‘unless you eat my body and drink my blood’ a lot of disciples fled thinking He was loony toons. He never called them back saying IM JUST KIDDING IM JUST KIDDING! Because He wasn’t kidding! I think the ones who bolted might have been your ancestors. THEY WOULDN’T LISTEN EITHER. hahahahahaha!!!!!
@@johnwilson8810 The Bible nowhere indicates that Mary can hear our prayers or that she can mediate for us with God. Jesus is our only advocate and mediator in heaven (1 Timothy 2:5). If offered worship, adoration, or prayers, Mary would say the same as the angels: “Worship God!” (see Revelation 19:10; 22:9.) Mary herself sets the example for us, directing her worship, adoration, and praise to God alone: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for He has been mindful of the humble state of His servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me - holy is His name” (Luke 1:46-49).
@@sammygomes7381 firstly where does it say the bible is the only source of truth? Show me where I said Mary was a mediator. Like most wayward Protestants you make things up. Show me where any catholic says Mary is a mediator? Cant!
The Eucharist was universally recognized as the real presence of Christ through the vast majority of Church history. The Protestant reformers also recognized this. You are completely wrong and blinded by modern American Evangelicalism
Mike, you state your apostolic church has been around for 2000 years. Would you mind posting a list of all your leaders over that 2000 years. You know, your equivalent of the popes. Your church didn’t just float through time with no structure or hierarchy did it? Oh yes, and I would love a list of all the saints canonized in your church. You know the Holy role models or your martyrs! Can’t wait. Do not tarry. Get them out there. Thanking you ahead!
A saint is one who is SAVED,SANCTIFIED BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS, it is not an appointed office endowed by old men in red dresses ! When your computer breaks down do you pray to saint isadore? 4 April - Saint Isidore Day. Did you know?! Programmers and developers do have a patron saint! His name is Saint Isidore of Seville, and his feast day is the 4th of April. Mac users just have to get a repairman ,sorry!
@@savedbygrace8337 so yo are a stand up comedian. Saints lived holy lives did good works and never blasphemed the mother of God. That is left to Satan, MacArthur and his followers. Many saints were martyred do their faith. Plse list one saint from the 40,000 Protestant churches. Oh I remember VINNIE COPPOLI, right?
@@johnwilson8810 now listen ! the term saint refers to one who is saved, Sanctified by the BLOOD OF JESUS Paul used it as a greeting for his Epistles.I.e.to the saints at ephesus ,to the saints at colossi!Ephesians 1:1 “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:”
The quote is a bit confusing. The offering that a priest offers at the altar is the one and same offering that the one priest, Jesus Christ, offered on the cross. He is re-presenting the one sacrifice offered once for all, as commanded by Jesus. He is not doing something on his own initative, Jesus is making the offering through him. Do you take offense at this? It was because of this teaching that Judas betrayed Jesus; it was because of this teaching that many disciples abandoned Jesus...and he let them go without correcting them, they understood and didn't accept it. They found this saying too hard, how can this man give us his flesh to eat? If he is just a man the flesh is of no avail, yet he is not just a man and the words He spoke are spirit and life...yet there are some that do not believe and depart from his teaching. No one can believe this unless it is granted him by the Father. Pray that you might believe, that you might discern the body and the blood, that you might partake in the new covenant, for as Jesus said “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." You cannot afford to reject Jesus's teaching. Luke 22:19-20 - "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." John 6:52-58 - "The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” "...Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” 1 Cor 11:23-39 - "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."
I hope that isn’t a consecrated host he is holding. I haven’t seen or heard that quote from Fr O’Brien, as far as I’m aware that simply isn’t the teaching of the church. If the Catholic view of the Eucharist, ie the real presence, is wrong, why did the earliest Christians also believe this? St Justin martyr, st Irenaeus, St. Paul all believed in the real presence. Why, then, would someone want to subscribe to a man made tradition that the Eucharist is simply symbolic? St. Paul says that you must discern before receiving the Eucharist, why then do many Protestant churches have open communion or no worry of people receiving unworthily? Luckily, they don’t have the real presence as they lack apostolic succession, but still, these are man made, unbiblical traditions that look nothing like the faith of the early church
“ So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.’” John 6:53. Jesus was adamant that the Eucharist was not a symbol. After he said this a large number of his disciples left him, because they knew he wasn’t speaking metaphorically. He didn’t soften the message to bring them back. He meant it literally. The early church also took it literally. It wasn’t until thousands of years later that dudes like this guy first started saying that the Eucharist doesn’t contain the real presence. It’s particularly dishonest for this guy to make his argument without even hinting at what the Catholic argument is or addressing the scripture that the Catholic position is based on.
"You know them by their fruits"... If it can and will change your life, why aren't the majority of catholics who practice these things weekly preaching the gospel, trying to live a life pleasing to God, why aren't they operating in the gifts of the Holy Spirit? I grew up catholic and left it behind and tried to live life on my own terms and recognized my need for Jesus and gave my life to Him and spend years diving into faith and truth, I had many encounters with Jesus and experienced Gods love and grace many times because I went directly through Jesus. I met a lot of men and women of faith and was a part of a lot different churches. I went to a catholic mass not too long ago and it feels like the Holy Spirit is quenched there. It's like sheep being told what to do but not why, And most of my friends who grew up in the catholic church/private school are mostly scarred and have a very distorted view of God. If the Eucharist is meant to be what Catholics believe then why aren't people ecstatic and filled with life and truly meeting and encountering Jesus in that moment if that is the God of the universe in the flesh? Just food for thought. Also. In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus’ real point. In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51) and the entire Mosaic system of Law. The passage from Sirach states that those who eat of the Law will "hunger still" and "thirst for more"; this language is mirrored by Jesus when He says, "He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself ("The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent," John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.
The arrogance of a man like this is bread taking. So he thinks that Thomas Aquinas Henry Newman Robert bellman. Then all the doctors of the church missed what hes talking about? That is amazing.
Catholics do not redo the sacrifice of the Calvary. Holy Mass makes present Last Supper when Jesus was instituting the Eucharist (giving thanks for the bread, breaking it) at the same time alluring to the Passions on the Cross to come next day. If taking the passages of Scripture, the passage talking about the Bread of Life in John 6 may be a good argument for the Real Presence…
The bread of Life discourse. John 6. I’d really urge you to look at the way church father in the 100’s. As they were closer to the time of Christ than you or I. St Ignatius of Antioch stated such a belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Please don’t dismiss this. “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
You Catholics always talk about the church Fathers, but didn't Jesus say "call no man your Father"??? It's because they don't have the authority of God.
@@theextreme7134 Matthew 3:9, "We have Abraham for our father". Also Acts 7:2. Jesus doesn't mean it in the sense that you think. For if he meant it in the way that I think you mean that means that we cant even call our human dads "Fathers?" which is not the case. He means it in the way that we owe ultimate allegiance to, since its God the father who is our only "father in heaven".
@@JimS91939 Jesus is specifically addressing the practice of referring to religious leaders and mentors as "father" in any formal or official sense. He is forbidding any attempt to give one of His followers a spiritual status above another.
@@theextreme7134 how is that different than when Abraham is called father or when St Paul refers to himself as a father? I'm sorry but this critique of the Catholic Church just doesn't add up.
@@JimS91939 Abraham is called Father in a genealogical sense and Paul's motivation for calling himself Father was the love that a Father has for his children, he did not use it as a name of authority or superiority like the Catholic church does.
1 CORINTHIANS 11: 26-29 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
I will worship the Eucharist, you can kill me if you can but if its a symbol, then to hell with it! Jesus died to forgive our sins, many other things, and to provide us spiritual nourishment. John 6 51-58. It is Jesus and Ill worship Him always
It seems like idolatry nothing you believe is right you are in danger. Christ gave his body and blood already. Once is all it took. The bread and wine at the supper was so that his disciples would understand what was about to happen to him.
@@bible1st but it is literally HIS BODY. Even scientific studies found that (and they didnt know what this was as they were not alrrted from the Qrchdiocese of Buenos Aires that it was the Eucharist) there was AB (universal donor) blood and white cardiac muscle tissue that was disguised as bread and wine. So if that doesnt prove to you that the Eucharist is God then I dont know what else. This happened in the 1990s in Buenos Aires if you want to go and look at the scientific paper showcasing how this miraculous thing happened.
@ghostrider0292 Matthew 26:29 Jesus said I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until I drink it new with you. So, is Jesus going to drink his own blood later, or did he call it for what it really is? It's either the fruit of the vine or his actual blood.
So you guys have never read in your Catholic Bible where Jesus is eating with his disciples and he says do this in remembrance of me as he gave bread and wine to them? Or unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you? It's in the Catholic Bible you read.
In 110 AD, St Ignatius of Antioch, disciple and co-worker of St John the Apostle wrote (and recall that St John was the inspired human author of Jesus' great "Bread of Life" talk in John 6): "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions.... see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again."
We know that some in not all of Ignatuis writings were forged. Even the apostle's never preached Christ was in the bread let alone having the power to command Him to come down to earth during a mass which neither Christ nor the apostles ever did.
@@sammygomes7381 If ignatius was wrong, can you show me some other historic writings from 1st century which says that the bread and cup were mere symbols?
@@into-christ In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus’ real point. You might try reading this article to shed some light on the subject. The Jerusalem Post, both in articles on the Torah and in articles on the Gospels, we have discussed again and again and again that “food is a metaphor for knowledge” and have seen in example after example that: “each type of food represents a different aspect of knowledge”. Hence: “bread” is a metaphor for: “the word of God”, “figs” are a metaphor for “knowledge about God”, “milk” is a metaphor for “easy to understand spiritual teachings” Remember that the apostles understood what Christ was talking about when in verse 68 Peter responded they didn't want to leave because Christ had the "words" of eternal life. Notice not once did the apostles ever claim they could turn bread into the body of Christ or that He was in the bread. www.jpost.com/Blogs/Torah-Commentaries/The-Gospels-Metaphors-and-The-Three-Wise-Men-413644
@@sammygomes7381 So you're attempting to claim that just this one of the several valid means of interpreting the Eucharist is true, despite the abundance of textual and historical evidence that it was understood as confected in a liturgical sacrifice and contained the Real Presence of Christ?
The word imprimatur means "let it be printed" and is basically the bishop's permission for something to be published. It has nothing to do with doctrine. Please don't lie. Jesus is the truth and starting a video with a misleading falsehood is not very Christian.
Not a single one of those scriptures mentions transubstantiation. The Bible is a book of full of symbolism especially in the gospels. You’re trying to force literal meaning on symbolic verses. Jesus never commanded us to worship bread and wine. He only commanded for it to be consumed in remembrance of him.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that COMETH to me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH ON ME shall never thirst. If you shall never hunger and never thirst by coming to and believing on Christ, have you not received food and drink? He literally says after the parable that hes not being literal John 6:63 It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth; the FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the WORDS that I SPEAK unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE. SPIRIT, and LIFE. COME TO ME, BELIEVE ON ME. Get it?
Re-read chapter 6 of the Gospel of John. Jesus is pretty clear in his words. Evangelicals love to say they take Scripture literally, but conveniently somehow arbitrarily determine that Jesus was only kidding when He said He is the bread of life.
I don't know why people still have the same issues as the people of 2000 years ago, Our Lord is very sound and clear:“ John 6:48-66 New International Version 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Many Disciples Desert Jesus 60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” 61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit[a] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” 66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
The problem that protestants have is the same as Mormonism based on the following 3 arguments. (1) Mormons (Latter-Day Saints, or LDS) believe that after the death of the last Apostle, there was a “Great Apostasy.” Priesthood authority ceased, doctrine began to degenerate, and the true Gospel was lost (necessitating its “restoration” by Joseph Smith in the 19th century). (2) The vast majority of protestants reject multiple doctrines that were believed unanimously by ancient Christians, beginning with the very first Church Fathers who were discipled by the Apostles themselves. Specifically, these protestants reject three key doctrines: a. Baptismal regeneration (how we become Christians); b. Apostolic succession (how the Church is governed); and c. The sacrifice of the Eucharist (how Christians worship). (3) Therefore, whether they realize it or not, most protestants believe in a “Great Apostasy” theory of history that is virtually identical with that of the LDS. If all Christians of which we have any record-including the disciples of the Apostles-were unanimously wrong about how we become Christians, how the Church is governed, and how we worship as Christians (the “Three Doctrines”), there is no more fitting description of this massive falling away than a “Great Apostasy.” This necessarily means that creatures (the protestant “reformers,” or the LDS’s “prophet” Joseph Smith) outperformed the Creator, since their “gospels” and “churches” have now in one form or another lasted for centuries, whereas when Jesus originally established them, they fell apart immediately. In the writings of the Church Fathers every time they spoke about heresy and heretics, they were describing Protestantism. Protestantism is all over the place on the different positions. You can’t speak about the Protestant position on something, except perhaps in the form of a negative, like they’re contrary to the Catholic Church, they’re contrary to the Roman Pontiff. But the methods, the means, by which Protestants arrive at their theological conclusions were common in virtually all the heresies and the heretics that the Fathers talk about.
Christians believe God and take Him at His Word. Catholics doubt God and deny what Jesus has already accomplished. They have their own way. They deny the Grace of God. To their own demise
@@casey8726 Can you point me to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (or any other official doctrinal document from the Holy See) where it states "Catholics doubt God and deny what Jesus has already accomplished. They have their own way. They deny the Grace of God. " ? Someone is feeding you misinformation. I suggest you do your homework before spreading lies.
@@casey8726 Also, keep in mind that the Bible is a Catholic book! The Bible is an inestimable gift from God. It's his word in written form - something each of us should cherish and study regularly. Some groups of Christians try to claim the Bible for themselves. They make it sound like the Catholic Church is opposed to Scripture. Some even claim that the Church "hates" the Bible. But, all Christians owe an enormous debt to the Catholic Church, for it was through the Church that the Bible was given to the world. Jesus himself founded the Catholic Church. He appointed its first leaders, and they were the ones who - under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - wrote the books of the New Testament, which completed and became the capstone of all the scriptures that had come before. The Holy Spirit then guided the Catholic Church to discern which books belonged in the Bible and which did not. This involved the crucial process of sorting the true scriptures from all of the false ones that existed. The Catholic Church laboriously copied the scriptures in the age before the printing press, when every book-including lengthy ones like the Bible-had to be written by hand. It thus preserved these books through the centuries, unlike so many ancient works that have now been lost. The Catholic Church is why we have the Bible today, and everyone should be grateful for the gift that, by the grace of God, it has given to the world. Finally, let me give you the timeline for the development of the Bible: 382 AD - Pope Damasus I holds the Council of Rome, which establishes the canon of Scripture. 393 AD - Council of Hippo reaffirms the canon. 397 AD - Council of Carthage reaffirms the canon. 405 AD - Pope Innocent I reaffirms the canon. 419 AD - Another Council of Carthage reaffirms the canon. 1142 AD - The Council of Florence reaffirms the canon. In the 16th century, Martin Luther disagreed with the Catholic Church when Church councils ruled against him on his heretical believes, and Luther then decided to become a heretic “pope” by incorrectly translating the Bible to german, and coming up with his own doctrines, including his own doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and others. He removed 7 books of the Old Testament thereby establishing his own canon. He also wanted to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation, but one of his friends told him it was not a good idea.
so the apostles doing this are wrong? the early church fathers who composed the bible that u protestants rely on are wrong? of course not. This whole idea of it being symbolic is a new idea 1500 years after Christ.
Oh yeah. The Last Supper, which is mentioned in all 4 books of the Gospel and by St. Paul, the only meal where Jesus gives special instructions, and foretells the sacrificial offering of himself, is just a meal, nothing of significance. If you believe that then you really dont understand the Bible. Why did and do the Jews celebrate Passover every year? It happened only once, why are they enacting it over and over again? Worship involves sacrifice. That's why the Temple (where the Last Supper was near) superseeded the synagogues where no sacrifices were made. Today's Protestant worship was like the synagogue during the time of Jesus. Just places where people congregated and talked about scripture. Catholic Churches are like the Temple where sacrifice is memorialized (Jesus was crucified only once never to be crucified again) through the body and blood of Christ. All the evidence of the early Church points to this. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." (1 Corinthians 11:26) “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor 11:27) Read Justin Martyr and the Fathers of the Church. The breath of ignoring scripture and history (as Jesus entered history) is absolutely astounding.
"You know them by their fruits"... If it can and will change your life, why aren't the majority of catholics who practice these things weekly preaching the gospel, trying to live a life pleasing to God, why aren't they operating in the gifts of the Holy Spirit? I grew up catholic and left it behind and tried to live life on my own terms and recognized my need for Jesus and gave my life to Him and spend years diving into faith and truth, I had many encounters with Jesus and experienced Gods love and grace many times because I went directly through Jesus. I met a lot of men and women of faith and was a part of a lot different churches. I went to a catholic mass not too long ago and it feels like the Holy Spirit is quenched there. It's like sheep being told what to do but not why, And most of my friends who grew up in the catholic church/private school are mostly scarred and have a very distorted view of God. If the Eucharist is meant to be what Catholics believe then why aren't people ecstatic and filled with life and truly meeting and encountering Jesus in that moment if that is the God of the universe in the flesh? Just food for thought. Also. In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus’ real point. In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51) and the entire Mosaic system of Law. The passage from Sirach states that those who eat of the Law will "hunger still" and "thirst for more"; this language is mirrored by Jesus when He says, "He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself ("The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent," John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.
@@justinlemieux5189 I can't speak for all Catholics, but I'm sure there are many who try to truly love their faith (you can see that in many different ways expressed in many different ways...not just some feeling). But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the Faith is true and has the fullness of Truth. Catholicism has the fullness of Truth. With regards to the Eucharist, Jesus was literally referring to his body and blood (it wasn't a parable). John 6:60 illustrates the difficulty that some of his followers had with it. Many left him. This was one of his "hard sayings" and the most prominent. People knew what he meant and John made sure to let the reader know that. You can choose to ignore or minimize it but it is really the crux of the matter. Dr. Scott Hahn (The Lambs Supper) and Dr. Brant Pitre (Jesus and the Last Supper) do a great job explaining it.
@@user-vf5mx8fh8j Jesus said it was spiritual. Eating and drinking are very straightforward commands, if that's true then why would that be so hard for people, especially those who loved Him and saw His miracles, understand and not be discouraged? In fact most of what Jesus taught was spiritual and many people didn't understand everything he was saying until after His resurrection, so you're telling me something so simple and straightforward was hard for them to believe and after all they knew and saw that was the moment the decided to walk away? Hmmm 🤔
@@user-vf5mx8fh8j "it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63-64). So, if "the flesh is of no avail," why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are "spirit." Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: "Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1). It's about coming into faith with Jesus.
I love this stuff. When Herman Melville wrote Moby Dick, a short time later a bunch of Protestants showed up to tell him what he meant in each paragraph. They read the book. 1:00
That specific text read at the beginning is not Catholic Doctrine. You should be reading from the Catechism or from other official Catholic documents instead of misinforming people.
So so disingenuous. Quoting a priest who is plainly wrong and holding it as a standard for the Catholic Church? If you’re honest you will concede this is wrong.
*JESUS SPEAKS TO THE DEPARTING DISCIPLES IN JOHN 6* _But only in Protestant translations of the Bible._ "Wait! Wait..come back! I was speaking metaphorically!"
Mike, since there are 35-40,000 Christian denominations, most of which showed up in the 20th century where does your church fit in, #1? If so, does that make MacArthur #2? Oh, still need to know why scripture is supreme.
The church is all true, born again people who are IN CHRIST throughout history. What church are you in????? Scripture is supreme because Jesus said "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4) That's why scripture is supreme, it is the word of God.
@@theextreme7134 The bible says Jesus taught many more things than could be written down (John, last paragraph). Are you saying all of those teachings by Jesus are unimportant and should be ignored? WHERE in the bible does it say the bible is all you need and is "supreme?" It DOESN'T. It's obvious you don't even understand the bible you pretend is "supreme." Yes, it is the inerrant word of God, because the RCC SAID IT WAS....but the bible does NOT make the claim for itself that you are making. IN FACT, it says the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation for truth, and that ORAL TEACHINGS (tradition) are important as well as written scripture. Believe your bible, not propagandists. See 1 Tim 3:15 and 2 Thess 2:15 and you will start to understand.
@@richardkramer4076 That is false. It says "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did." It says nothing about missing teachings. Jesus said the bible is supreme, in Matthew 4:4 He says "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." Jesus only had very negative things to say about the traditions of men. The true church is all born again, Holy Spirit filled people who are IN CHRIST, they are the pillar and foundation of truth because they are the only people on earth who have the Holy Spirit to teach them all things (John 14:26) and guide them into all truth (John 16:13).
@@theextreme7134 Your rejoinder is what is false. Teaching is what Jesus did. He became incarnate to die for our sins and to establish a visible church modeled after the Davidic kingdom, with a hierarchy well-described in the bible. He said nothing about writing a bible. Your Matthew quote still doesn't make the case for the bible alone, because he taught ORALLY ONLY as far as we know, and so did his apostles almost always, except for the handful of letters and epistles we have. Nobody relied on scripture alone for over a thousand years, because bibles were scarce and most people couldn't read anyway. Your ignorance is obvious. What Jesus said about traditions is standard "fundamentalist" Protestant propaganda that totally ignores context and in fact, is a lie. The traditions Jesus criticized were the corruption of the Pharisees, and NOT traditions talked about by his apostles, like the reference I gave you in 2 Thess 2:15. Maybe you should try reading it instead of ignoring it and telling more lies. . It uses the same Greek verb PARADOSEIS for "traditions" as the one used by Jesus for the Pharisees. Two other times "traditions" is used favorably (proving your lie) by Paul is in 1 Cor 11:2 and 2 Thess 3:6. ALL three refer implicitly or explicitly to maintaining the traditions they were taught. Do you want to be even more ignorant and claim the traditions, ORAL and written, that Paul taught the Thessalonians and the Corinthians was evil "traditions" of men? You totally lack common sense if you think that if Jesus was criticizing BAD traditions that He was against ALL traditions, even those taught by His apostles? Do you see how stupid that is? And you are way off base on the two John verses...again you totally ignore context which fundamentalists always seem to do...cherry-picking isolated verses that seem to support their flawed theology. "The Extreme" is a good name for you.Jesus is meeting with his APOSTLES and he promises THEM that the Holy Spirit will teach them all things and will guide THEM into all truth. Anyone with a lick of common sense can easily see that your fantasy of what the "true church" is CAN'T POSSIBLY be the pillar and foundation for all truth because thousands of bickering and differing Protestant churches all claiming to know what "bible truth" is sure aren't led by the Holy Spirit, who doesn't participate in that confusion. Anyone who is intellectually honest knows John was speaking about the visible church mentioned in Acts and elsewhere, and there was only one for a thousand years.....the RCC. In John 3, Jesus was talking about baptism to be saved, and NOT to "let him into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior." Those words are not in the bible, and in context, we see what Jesus and his disciples did after the talk with Nicodemus in verse 22...they went out and BAPTIZED...the motif of water and the spirit that Jesus said was necessary. Your "born again" false, man-made tradition of fundamentalists was never said by Jesus.
@@richardkramer4076 Jesus said the only way His church would be visible would be by the love they have for one another, John 13:35 "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." I see no love like that among Roman Catholics. Jesus taught orally, but his disciples took notes, Mark 13:14 Jesus says "let the READER understand..." All the early churches had copies of the scriptures and were read aloud. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 states "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word OR by our letter." Did you notice it says OR by letter, we have ALL THE LETTERS, it's called the New Testament. You can go right to the source for what the early traditions were. Water baptism is not necessary for salvation, Acts 10:44-48 describes gentiles who received the Holy Spirit before water baptism "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" You also must realize you can't judge by denomination, only by individuals. You have to look for who manifests the true fruit of the spirit. Jesus said the church (body of true believers) would be full of tares (false Christians) (Matthew 13:24-30). If water baptism saved you, there would be no tares, but Jesus clearly taught there will be. 1 Corinthians 11:19 says " for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." You also misread what I said about tradition. Jesus had nothing good to say about the TRADITIONS OF MEN. MAN-MADE TRADITIONS that depart from the teachings of God. Over 50% of Roman Catholic doctrines and traditions in practice today were completely unknown to the original apostles. Those are bad traditions.
I am still learning about paganism in the Catholic Church. Its amazing how Satan has blinded millions through this blasphemous religion. Thank you Holy Spirit for revealing to me the truth of your word.
That you Mike Gendron can sit there and talk outright nonsense on a topic you have vague knowledge of is astounding You pick verses and chapters out of the air but that does not prove you have a good understanding of them you don't You think you know better than the Apostles and the Early church fathers namely St Ignatius of Antioch who warned Christians to avoid those who denied the actual Presence of the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist celebrated by them then and till this day by the consecrated priests of the Holy Apostolic churches I understand you will not have an audience and an income without Catholic Bashing but put your soul first and REPENT
It is an unblody sacrifice- His words at the Last Supper was "This is my Body...This is my Blood what did he mean by that? Martin Luther said He is present, "in, with, and under" The Elements.
The last supper was a Passover meal which included the custom of breaking bread. Christ was showing His body would be broken as He broke the bread. The wine symbolized the blood He would spill for our sins. As for Martin Luther, just think of Him as one of many God used to stop His church from being prevailed by the gates of hell. Luther, like all of us, was a sinner and not perfect but God used Him for the purpose He needed too. If one is going to follow Christ they need to follow Him and not the teachings of Luther or even your local Pastor if they differ from the word of God.
It’s figurative not literal! If it was literal HE would have sliced a piece of his arm off and given it to them to eat bloody . Catholics believe the most absurd things that their Leaders tell them.
@@sammygomes7381 And pray tell, what is the "Word of God"? Also, the Last Supper was clearly liturgical. I don't know who would dispute that point of exegesis except out of preexisting beliefs.
@@hilairebelloc3368 MY friend the word of God is what tells us that what we call the last supper was a Passover meal complete with the Jewish custom of breaking bread which is part of the Passover. Jewish custom also tells us bread had been a metaphor for the "word of God" for thousands of years. The word of God. Matthew 26:2 “You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to be crucified.” Matthew 26:17 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will You have us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” Matthew 26:18 He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with My disciples.’ ” Matthew 26:19 The disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover. In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus’ real point. Articles in the Jerusalem Post, both in articles on the Torah and in articles on the Gospels, we have discussed again and again and again that “food is a metaphor for knowledge” and have seen in example after example that: “each type of food represents a different aspect of knowledge”. Hence: “bread” is a metaphor for: “the word of God”, “figs” are a metaphor for “knowledge about God”, “milk” is a metaphor for “easy to understand spiritual teachings” You ask, "who would dispute that point of exegesis except out of preexisting beliefs" Someone that follows the word of God and not a doctrine based on Peter as a pope.
How in the world do prots not make the correlation between them and the people who walked out on Christ at the dinner table, boy bye y’all are dumb. Catholics stayed prots strayed🙏🏼
@@sammygomes7381 So the Evil One has the power to falsify miracles, and not just make shows of miracles? Exactly how powerful do you think the devil is?
@@EricAlHarb Isaiah 2:8 “Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made:” Matthew 6:7 “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” John 10:30 “I and my Father are one.” Luke 1:46 +47 “And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in GOD MY SAVIOR! ONLY SINNERS NEED A SAVIOR!
@@savedbygrace8337 no one worships icons or statues We pray from the bible, just as the apostles And Mary does need a saviour. She’s sinless because of her saviour. Do you believe that Jesus commands you to call her blessed? That Jesus Himself in the flesh keeps the commandments to honour thy mother and Father and does indeed today honour her as the mother of God?
Mike, there are 400,000 priests in the Catholic Church and you are smarter than every one of them! I believe you are so smart and so superior, after all you were a Catholic once, that you can tell me why scriptures are the supreme authority over truth. I can’t find it in our bible. Please help. Please display you brilliance to all my Catholic friends. HURRY, HURRY,HURRY
Saved from catholic blasphemy by my LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST! HERE IT IS! Romans 10:13 “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
God gave the people in the old testament miraculous food from heaven so sacred and holy that it dwells within the ark.of the covenant the holy of holys. Do you really think Jesus would give us food to consume that merely a symbol and inferior to the food of the old testament?
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” - Ignatius of Antioch, (a disciple of the Apostle John) Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 107]). "...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (St. Augustine, Psalms 99:8)
🎯👁 *I NOTICE YOU QUOTE CHURCH FATHERS BUT NOT THE BIBLE* *Regarding the Mass and Transubstantiation:* *FIRST:* If Jesus was speaking literally concerning the bread and wine literally being His body and blood, does that also mean that Jesus believed His body was shaped like a literal wooden door when He said, "I am the door" (John 10:7) Did Jesus have a door knob and hinges on His human body also? *NO!* Because He was speaking figuratively, just like when He said this bread and wine were His body and blood. *ALSO, when Jesus said that about the elements of communion, Jesus was in His unharmed human body when He said it. If Jesus was speaking literally, then Jesus would have had to shed His blood BEFORE He was scourged and crucified on the cross. And then shed His blood again during the actual scourging and crucifixion. BUT Jesus body was not yet "broken for you" nor was Jesus' blood yet "shed for the remission of sin" because He had yet to be scourged and crucified.* *SECOND:* Did Jesus also speak literally when He said that He was The Vine and we are the branches (John 15:1-5)? *Does that mean Jesus is a literal plant that bears branches and fruit??? According to you, the answer would be Yes!* *THIRD:* Where exactly in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism? And drinking human blood? In fact, drinking blood is expressly forbidden by God. *_And, Oh yeah, Jesus is God_* (Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:29) *FOURTH: When John the Baptist saw Jesus and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." Was John saying Jesus was covered in wool and walked on four legs??* According to your method of interpretation, the answer is YES. But according to the Bible, the answer is clearly NO. John was speaking figuratively, just as Jesus was at the Last Supper. *FIFTH: According to Catholic doctrine, the so-called Eucharist, is a sacrifice.* Each time it is performed, it is literally sacrificing Jesus afresh on the cross. BUT the Bible says Jesus' death on the cross was a once-and-for-all sacrifice in Hebrews 10. *"But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb.10:12) "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (Heb.10:14) DID YOU HEAR WHAT GOD SAID, "ONE SACRIFICE FOR SIN FOREVER...BY ONE OFFERING"??*
@@chrisg9196 I can quote the scriptures but I'm sure that the first thing you would say is, "that's not what it means". First... you're comparing apples to oranges. This is why it is important to understand the context of the scriptures especially in understanding the NT in context with the OT as well as the apostolic teaching down through the ages. How many times when Jesus made those other analogies did His followers decided to stop following Jesus? The Jews stopped following Jesus because they knew that Jesus meant what He said and meant what Hes said. "This is a hard teaching!".... If this was simply an analogy, the Jews would have known this and would not have left Jesus, and Jesus simply let them leave. Second.... Don't tell me what what I would have said! Give your head a shake. Third... The Eucharist is not cannibalism. Do you even know what cannibalism is? Cannibalism is when you kill someone and eat their dead flesh. In the Eucharist, Jesus is not killed as He died once for all. In the Eucharist, we receive the risen Lord: Body, blood, soul and Divinity. In other words, His flesh is not dead! St John Martyr gave and excellent treatise on this very same topic in the second century. I suggest that you read it. Fourth.... Read my previous answer and don't tell me how I would respond. Fifth... You got the Catholic teaching wrong on this. Jesus is not re sacrificed as He died once for all; Jesus does not die again; He no longer suffers. The Mass is the same once for all sacrifice as Calvary, represented in an unbloody manner. Brother.... if you're going to tell me what I believe or would respond, at least get it right....
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that COMETH to me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH ON ME shall never thirst. If you shall never hunger and never thirst by coming to and believing on Christ, have you not received food and drink? He literally says after the parable that hes not being literal John 6:63 It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth; the FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the WORDS that I SPEAK unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE. SPIRIT, and LIFE. COME TO ME, BELIEVE ON ME. Hope this helps any heretical eucharistians.
You: He literally says after the parable that hes not being literal Me: His did not say that he was not being literal. He did not say that we could ignore what he forcefully repeated over and over again. You are a John 666 Christian, they refused to believe and left, never to return.
Something to help non-Catholics ..... * Read Malachi 1:11 ... this is an "OLD TESTAMENT" Prophecy of The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass. * Read (and reflect on) John 6 ... ALL OF IT. * Read Scriptures about The Last Supper. * Re-read (and reflect on) John 6 ... ALL OF IT. * Re-read (and reflect on) Scriptures about The Last Supper. * Re-read (and reflect on) Malachi 1:11. Yes, indeed, Jesus' Sacrifice at Calvary was/ is "The ONE AND ONLY" acceptable Sacrifice for sin. The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass is a "RE-PRESENTATION" (not "representation") of that "ONE HOLY SACRIFICE" that Jesus made at Calvary ~2,000 years ago. God through a Priest (at each Mass) changes ordinary bread and wine into the "ACTUAL" Body and Blood of Jesus. Jesus is The Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world, and He Died at Passover, as the Jews were slaying their Passover lambs. What did/ do Jews do with the lambs they sacrifice(d) at Passover? They "ATE" the sacrifice!! We too are called to "EAT" THE SACRIFICE. Why do Catholics "RE-PRESENT" Jesus' Sacrifice at Calvary ~275,000 times daily throughout the World? Because Jesus TOLD US TO DO IT at The Last Supper, and Malachi 1:11 confirms this. Jesus told His Apostles to "do THIS in memory of me." You have to ask yourself --> What="THIS?" He said, "Do THIS." What did Jesus DO at The Last Supper? He changed bread and wine into His ACTUAL Body and Blood. "THAT" is the "THIS" that Jesus told them/ us to DO. The Last Supper was The First Mass. Jesus Instituted The Holy Eucharist at The Last Supper. * Re-read (and reflect on) Malachi 1:11. *** * Re-read (and reflect on) John 6 ... ALL OF IT. * Re-read (and reflect on) Scriptures about The Last Supper. * Repeat, as necessary. ************************* From John 6..... "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." The people Jesus was talking to knew EXACTLY what He meant when He said what He did. They couldn't handle it, so they walked away; He didn't stop them and say, "No, wait, you're misunderstanding me;" no, He let them walk away because they DID understand EXACTLY what He was saying; Jesus turned to His Apostles and asked them if they too would walk away; Peter answered and said, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have The Words of Eternal Life." There have been MANY Eucharistic Miracles throughout Church History. The Early Church Fathers taught what we believe now!! The Holy Spirit helped these Early Church Fathers to get Jesus' Church going in the right direction ... from The Beginning ... not some 1500 (+) years later at the Protestant Reformation.
Well, it is Biblical!! John 6:35, 6:56!! Full explanation on the Biblical origins of the Catholic Eucharist Listen to someone that knows! Fr. Chris Alar has a series called explaining the faith. Here is his video on this topic ruclips.net/user/liveWTAYLLwEal4?si=lYAMrV6o1IGAgfUC
If what you say is true, how can we eat Jesus Body and drink his blood? “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53) Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” And then he said “who ever eats me will live because of me”. I DONT SEE THE WORD "SYMBOL" . Therefore MG is wrong. Here is another one. Jesus just didnt die on the cross and therefore His sacrifice is suffcient for you. Here is why This is Colossians 1:24. It says: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church … So Paul suffers, and in his suffering, he says that he fills up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions." HOW CAN THERE BE LACKING ANYTYHING IN CHRISTS AFFLICATIONS IF WHAT MG SAYS IS TRUE? BECAUSE WE ARE TO SUFFER WITH CHRIST. MG is wrong again. MG HAS NO AUTHORITY TO PREACH, WHAT HE SAYS IS HIS OPINION WHICH IS IN ERROR.
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]). “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]). End of discussion. The Cath0dox (and many Prot churches as well!) position stretches back to an Apostolic Father (a disciple of one of the Disciples) and continues to this day. You're position was an innovation that came 1500 years after this quote.
Rants in the comment sections of various videos on this RC playlist show how the father of lies has strongly influenced these Catholics. Keep up the good work, Brothers; thank you for your faithfulness in reaching out to the lost. I often PRAY FOR YOU both.
@@finjor8777 Do you not know that Satan can perform "miracles" in order to deceive and draw people away from God? Read Exodus 7:8-13, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10, and Revelation 13.
*Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life.* Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they d-ied. But *here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not d-ie. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.* " _Then the people began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?_ " *Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven.* Your ancestors ate manna and d-ied, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. _On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?_ " Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “ *Does this offend you?* Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet *there are some of you who do not believe.* ” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “ *This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.* ” _From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him._ John 6:47-66 (If you do not believe in the Eucharist, then you do not believe in Jesus.)
It is more catholic fantasy designed to keep the “faithful”mystified Just like purgatory,a mythical place where Catholics go to be cleansed of their sins So it looks like JESUS.could have saved himself a lot of pain by just directing people to purgatory ! OH YEAH ,I FORGOT IT DOESN’T EXIST!
Purgatory exists. I Cor 3:15 indicates it. Even Jesus believed in it because it was commonly believed by Jews from pre-christian times and Jesus never rejected this teaching which was prevalent during his time. Catholic Church teaches that it is part of sanctification process for those who die in venial sin ( i.e not in serious sin) because we can see God only if we are completely pure and holy. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" ( Mathew 5:8). "Strive for peace with everyone and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord" ( Hebrew 12:14). This final purification happens purely by the merits of the blood of Christ. It is a purification stage before entering into heaven. If we are completely in friendship with God, we will go directly to heaven without this purification process. So this doctrine is thoroughly biblical.
@@synestauromai very creative but false. 2 Corinthians 5:8 “We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” No mention of a place called purgatory!
Easton's Bible Dictionary - Lords Supper Lords Supper [N] ( 1 Corinthians 11:20 ), called also "the Lord's table" ( 10:21 ), "communion," "cup of blessing" ( 10:16 ), and "breaking of bread" ( Acts 2:42 ). In the early Church it was called also "eucharist," or giving of thanks (Compare Matthew 26:27 ), and generally by the Latin Church "mass," a name derived from the formula of dismission, Ite, missa est, i.e., "Go, it is discharged." The account of the institution of this ordinance is given in Matthew 26:26-29 , Mark 14:22-25 , Luke 22:19 Luke 22:20 , and 1 Corinthians 11:24-26 . It is not mentioned by John. It was designed, To commemorate the death of Christ: "This do in remembrance of me." To signify, seal, and apply to believers all the benefits of the new covenant. In this ordinance Christ ratifies his promises to his people, and they on their part solemnly consecrate themselves to him and to his entire service. To be a badge of the Christian profession. To indicate and to promote the communion of believers with Christ. To represent the mutual communion of believers with each other. The elements used to represent Christ's body and blood are bread and wine. The kind of bread, whether leavened or unleavened, is not specified. Christ used unleavened bread simply because it was at that moment on the paschal table. Wine, and no other liquid, is to be used ( Matthew 26:26-29 ). Believers "feed" on Christ's body and blood, (1) not with the mouth in any manner, but (2) by the soul alone, and (3) by faith, which is the mouth or hand of the soul. This they do (4) by the power of the Holy Ghost. This "feeding" on Christ, however, takes place not in the Lord's Supper alone, but whenever faith in him is exercised. This is a permanent ordinance in the Church of Christ, and is to be observed "till he come" again.
[Acts 2:42] it is the DOCTRINE of the Apostles. breaking bread every session. [Luke 22:19] Jesus literally said to REMEMBER the eucharist in remembrance of Him. this dude is lost.
The Scriptures say, "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” Jesus TOLD us to do this.
Lutherans believe that Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary was once and for all, but also believe that His true Body and Blood are given in the Eucharist for the forgiveness of sins and union with Him.
The selective use of Scripture to discredit what Jesus has established is a very dangerous practice. A Biblical tour of the Eucharist: Mt 5:17 Jesus said: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Gen 14:17-20 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with Abram, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, “Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.” And he gave him tithes of all. Ex 12:3-11 The LORD said to Moses, “Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire. And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD'S Passover. Jn 1:29 John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Jn 6:51, 53-58 Jesus said, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” Lk 22:19-20 Jesus took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of Me.” Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you.” 1 Cor 10:16-17 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 1 Cor 11:23-29 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread: And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, “Take, eat: this is My body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.” After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, “This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. What the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist is Paul tight the Corinthians (1 Cor 11:26). “When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present (CCC 1364). This is a misrepresentation of Scripture, the Catholic Church, and the Eucharist. The Word of God (Jesus), the Body of Christ (Eph 5:30), and His Body and Blood which He commands us to consume. Yes, indeed, this is a very dangerous practice.
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
Right, He called it His body and blood.
@@jzak5723 But was it his literal body and blood? I ask this in all sincerity, when did the disciples ever partake of the literal body and blood of Christ?
@@mcmsmt06
In all seriousness, how do YOU know that they didn't partake of it. The Bible really doesn't tell us one way or the other EXPLICITLY. And what I mean by this is, there is no verse which says something like, "the bread and wine turn into/become the body and blood of Christ." But there is plenty of reason to believe that something like this happens, since Jesus Himself said "this is by body, this is my blood", and "you must eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood", and Paul said in 1 Cor. that "if you partake of the bread and cup unworthily, you profane the body and blood of the Lord." The early church, in many writings by church fathers, considered the Eucharist to be "holy" and "sacred". All of this points to the early Christians believing that this, in some mysterious way, WAS the body and blood of the Lord. Why can't we just accept it for what Jesus Himself called it? What harm would there be for us to treat it as if it was His real body and blood? I would like to hear your response to this comment if you have the time? God Bless You!
@@jzak5723 Scripture never alludes indirectly to it being literal flesh/blood or states explicity that the disciples (nor anyone else alive while Christ was alive on earth or thereafter in Scripture) ate his flesh or drank his blood...in a literal sense. There is also the issue with the thief on the cross - how was he saved?
You bring up a great point when Jesus said "This is my body, and this is my blood". I'm assuming you are referring to the last supper? He was not talking literally about his flesh and blood. Had he been talking literally, I'm sure he would have made it known to the men sitting there as it would have been critical for them and any other believer in Him to know for the rest of time. In Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians about partaking of the bread and cup in an unworthy manner, how are we to assume that he is talking about eating the flesh and drinking the blood? He never gets close to stating that nor is there any instance where Scripture states or alludes to Paul transforming the bread and wine into the literal body and blood.
With regard to John 6, if every one of those verses is taken literally - the ones all around the time Jesus stated the need to eat his flesh and drink his blood - then no human would ever get hungry or thirsty (vs. 35) and would never die in a physical sense (vs 51).
John I'm honestly not trying to win a debate/argument or score points or anything of that sort. My only hope was that you might consider the idea that maybe Christ was not talking in a literal sense in those verses in John 6...because so many of the verses surrounding those verses make it clear he was not talking literally. Not to mention, if it was so vitally important that folks eat the actual flesh/drink the actual blood, then I would have hoped that Jesus or one of the other NT authors would have made this clear...and there would have been some instance at some point where this would have happened. The much more important question that we all should focus on though is what must someone do to be saved?
@@mcmsmt06
quote; There is also the issue with the thief on the cross - how was he saved?
What does this have to do with the Eucharist, which is what we are talking about here???
I was a Catholic before watching this video. I’m still a Catholic more sure of my faith thanks be to the Triune God.
You are decieved brethren. He is not in the eucharist and God is not 3 different people. Come out of this delusion and be saved. Believe on the gospel and you will be saved and not go to hell.
@@bible1stYou dont even know what the trinity is based on what you just said. God is made of 3 seperate beings who are completely different and distinct from each other and are all God in of themselves and also God when all together. The first person of the holy trinity is God the Father, The Second is Logos which is the word which became Christ through the incarnation, and the third is the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost that is the spirit of God. The trinity is a in itself a relationship of love. God is literally love. To deny the trinity is to deny the Incarnation of the son of man which means you are not a true christian. Your logic was literally defeated during the Sabellian Heresy in the early church go back to your new age bible study.
@@JeffGordon-ph4vz Yea all that you just said is just a bunch of parroting, About 80% of everything you just said is not actually in the bible anywhere. All you are doing is expounded upon what a bunch of fallible men got together and came up 300 years after Christ and said.
The doctrine itself of the trinity is WRONG., and is it even possible that it is wrong? Yes of course, as i already pointed out, This is man's interpretation. Men that were outside of the bible , outside of the scriptures.
You fail to observe Psalms 118:8, that is your first a foremost mistake. You should know Psalms 118:8 and live by it especially since its found right at the heart of the Bible. In order to hold to your false interpretation you have to ignore tons of evidence directly from the scriptures which point to that Jesus is the Father and is the spirit.
@@bible1stactually God is three different people but one God.
@@ibelieveitcauseiseentit9630 No actually that is NOT the truth and I should know because I have read the entire Bible 4 times and studied the scriptures for over 2 decades. You need to unlearn what you have been told and read the book for yourself. Read the entire Bible Kjv. Since there is not a single versein the entire Bible that says God is 3 different people I don't know why you people going around saying it.
When Satan manages to distract a soul from Holy Communion, he achieves his goal. (St. Teresa of Lisieux)
And Jesus of Nazareth said "I never knew you".
And Jesus said in response to their confusion over having to eat him "it is the spirit that gives life the flesh profits nothing."
Spirit is non-physical so if it's the non-physical that gives you life how can it be his actual flesh and blood that give you life?
And the very next words out of his mouth were "the flesh profits nothing"
So if Jesus himself said that the flesh profits nothing as a response to their confusion over what he said about eating him how is it that you believe that eating his actual flesh can profit you something?
Add in chapter 16 of the same gospel Jesus says "till now I have spoken to you in figurative language" which should clue you into the fact that he was speaking figuratively.
And I've yet to meet a Catholic priest who understands or even knows the Bible except for the bits and pieces he pulls out of context to prove Catholicism.
So I'm sure a nun knows even less than the priest.
And when it comes to the Bible that nuns opinion is less accurate than my next door neighbor's cats opinion.
Do you believe the statement of John O’Brien, Catholic Priest, to be true?
@@ibelieveitcauseiseentit9630 ... Jesus in John 6 said, "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink," so HE CAN'T be contradicting Himself!! Earlier in the chapter He would speak of "eating the flesh of The Son of Man," or He would use the words "MY flesh," and then later He told them "THE" flesh profiteth nothing; He wasn't talking at that point about "HIS" flesh; He was talking about people looking at His Words from a fleshly or carnal perspective, or with carnal minds (THAT is "THE FLESH" He was taking about there that "profiteth nothing"). Like I said ... He didn't contradict Himself!! There's a big difference between "HIS" Flesh, and "THE" flesh.
@@pkmr5284 damn you are just dumb.
How about don't quote a priest who doesn't know what he's talking about and actually engage with our official Catholic documents, like the Catechism. 🙄
Let's remember that actual translation is (meat)from Douay Rheims Bible, from Latin Vulgate,Hebrew,Greek which St.Jerome translated.Also let's not forget that the Bible came from the Authority of the catholic church. It is obvious that non-Catholic Christians always never read the Gospel of John and gloss over the real verses. The Bible is catholic, Jesus promised the Church not the Bible. Only in Denominations can always say that the Catholic church has it wrong. Where Protestants can't agree on anything about doctrine or translations. There's only one true church traceable to Christ,along with the Bishops traceable to Christ.
Dalton, I don't believe this is a real quote because they use a common Irish name without identifying this "priest" further, like what parish in what city he comes from...also no attribution for claiming it got an imprimatur. These are anti-Catholic bigots who no one should listen to.
This Mike guy is a hoot. He is a fallible man with no authority at all who follows his own, private fallible interpretations of holy scripture. He has absolutely no credibility whatsoever and has devised a religion all his own. There is nothing charitable about this man. He is a pawn of Satan. And he will answer to God in the final analysis for his false witness against the One True Church Jesus established 2000 years ago.
@@emiliohernandez3167 Wrong . Do your history. Roman Catholicism didn’t even come into existence until 362 AD.
Because the Catechism is a man made document .
This quote by this alleged priest is bogus. This quote has no imprimatur. This video is both the sins of slander and bearing false witness. Christians must read and adhere to John 6-
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
Vatican II says:
“For it is the liturgy through which, especially in THE DIVINE **SACRIFICE** OF THE EUCHARIST, the WORK of our redemption is accomplished.”
The Council of Trent (which Vatican II reaffirmed as infallible official doctrine of the Catholic Church) says:
Canon iii. If any one shall say, that THE **SACRIFICE** OF THE MASS is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the cross, but not A PROPITIATORY **SACRIFICE** ; or, that it avails him only who receiveth; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
“The body, blood...soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ...is truly, really and substantially contained in the Eucharist" (CCC, 1374-78).
Catholics emphatically believe that they have the physical body of Jesus sacrificed again on their altars. (CCC Paragraph 1367 “the same Christ”)
Jesus said His sacrifice was finished, and the Bible says 7 times that His sacrifice was “once” and for all (one sacrifice, once done), and the Bible says it’s sufficient (read Hebrews chapters 9 and 10).
“who has no daily need, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because He did this **ONCE** FOR ALL TIME when He offered up Himself.”
Hebrews 7:27
“and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place **ONCE** FOR ALL TIME, having obtained eternal redemption.”
Hebrews 9:12
“NOR WAS IT THAT HE WOULD OFFER HIMSELF OFTEN, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year by year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now **ONCE** at the consummation of the ages He has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered **ONCE** to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.”
Hebrews 9:25-28
“By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ **ONCE** FOR ALL TIME.
…
He, having offered **ONE** sacrifice for sins FOR ALL TIME, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies are made a footstool for His feet. For by **ONE** offering He has perfected FOR ALL TIME those who are sanctified.
…
Now where there is forgiveness of these things, AN OFFERING FOR SIN IS NO LONGER REQUIRED.”
Hebrews 10:10, 12-14, 18
“For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;”
1 Peter 3:18 NASB
But Catholic doctrine directly contradicts that and says more sacrifices are necessary and the sacrifice is continuing (CCC paragraph 1367), so the Catholic mass (which is a sacrifice) is offered thousands of times a day around the world and they are still insufficient and even more are needed.
During the Mass both the priest and the congregants pray that the sacrifice will be acceptable to God. Then the priest asks God to accept the body and blood on the altar that the priest has magically brought down:
“When the priest announces the words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of many. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels. The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.“
Priest John O’Brien
This (quote above) is the ‘miracle’ of transubstantiation.
“Priests have received from God a power that he has given neither to angels nor to archangels . . . . God above confirms what priests do here below.” CCC paragraph 983
Council of Trent:
Canons On The Sacraments In General
Canon 8 If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato [FROM THE WORK WORKED], but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema [ETERNALLY CURSED]
--------------------
It says in the code of cannon law (1364) that if anyone doesn’t believe any of the official doctrines of the Catholic Church then they have been automatically formally ipso facto excommunicated.
“He did not speak to them without a parable; but He was explaining everything privately to His own disciples.”
Mark 4:34
Saying people need to eat and drink his flesh and blood was a parable.
And when he privately clarified it with his main disciples afterwards he said:
“It is the Spirit who gives life; THE FLESH PROVIDES NO BENEFIT; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life.”
John 6:63
*JESUS* *GAVE* *THE* *KEY* *TO* *DECIPHER* *THE* *PARABLE* *RIGHT* *AT* *THE* *BEGINNING* *OF* *THE* *PARABLE* :
“Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life;
the one who COMES TO ME will not be hungry,
and the one who BELIEVES IN ME will never be thirsty.”
John 6:35
Read that carefully.
Come to Jesus = eat
Believe in Jesus = drink
Jesus didn’t literally mean eat his flesh and drink his blood.
Jesus himself said:
“the flesh provides no benefit”
John 6:63
Read Isaiah 55
““You there! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; And you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk Without money and without cost. “Why do you spend money for what is not bread, And your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, And delight yourself in abundance. “Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you, According to the faithful mercies shown to David.
…
For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth And making it produce and sprout, And providing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; So will My word be which goes out of My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the purpose for which I sent it.”
Isaiah 55:1-3, 10-11
I'm glad I eat bread and grap juice and not literally blood. Vampire's drink blood and get high off of it. It a drug. Vampire's have blood buddy's they go to for blood .. if I had to eat flesh and drink blood I'd leave the faith. I'm glad it's not literal.
@@SpielbergMichael you quote chapter 10 from hebrews without the preceding verses which provide context. Christian literalist fundamentalism is not Christian and it is not catholic
@@richyburnettYou’re lying. I quoted Hebrews chapters 7, 9 and 10 and 1 Peter 3.
You didn’t quote anything.
Please quote to me any verses which contradict what these verses undeniably and irrefutably say:
Jesus said His sacrifice was finished, and the Bible says 7 times that His sacrifice was “once” and for all (one sacrifice, once done), and the Bible says it’s sufficient (read Hebrews chapters 9 and 10).
“who has no daily need, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because He did this **ONCE** FOR ALL TIME when He offered up Himself.”
Hebrews 7:27
“and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place **ONCE** FOR ALL TIME, having obtained eternal redemption.”
Hebrews 9:12
“NOR WAS IT THAT HE WOULD OFFER HIMSELF OFTEN, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year by year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now **ONCE** at the consummation of the ages He has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered **ONCE** to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.”
Hebrews 9:25-28
“By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ **ONCE** FOR ALL TIME.
…
He, having offered **ONE** sacrifice for sins FOR ALL TIME, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies are made a footstool for His feet. For by **ONE** offering He has perfected FOR ALL TIME those who are sanctified.
…
Now where there is forgiveness of these things, AN OFFERING FOR SIN IS NO LONGER REQUIRED.”
Hebrews 10:10, 12-14, 18
“For Christ also suffered for sins **ONCE** FOR ALL TIME, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;”
1 Peter 3:18 NASB
All the early church fathers believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. It's pretty clear that nobody believed otherwise. For 1500 years every Christian believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist until Calvin, Zwingli and Luther came along.
RENAEUS
“He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10-11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles” (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189]).
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
JUSTIN MARTYR
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
AUGUSTINE
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
…
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
Churchfathers.org
*I notice you're quoting the early church fathers. BUT YOU FAIL TO QUOTE GOD'S WORD.*
🎯👁 *Regarding the Mass and Transubstantiation:*
*FIRST:* If Jesus was speaking literally concerning the bread and wine literally being His body and blood, does that also mean that Jesus believed His body was shaped like a literal wooden door when He said, "I am the door" (John 10:7) Did Jesus have a door knob and hinges on His human body also? *NO!* Because He was speaking figuratively, just like when He said this bread and wine were His body and blood. *ALSO, when Jesus said that about the elements of communion, Jesus was in His unharmed human body when He said it. If Jesus was speaking literally, then Jesus would have had to shed His blood BEFORE He was scourged and crucified on the cross. And then shed His blood again during the actual scourging and crucifixion. BUT Jesus body was not yet "broken for you" nor was Jesus' blood yet "shed for the remission of sin" because He had yet to be scourged and crucified.*
*SECOND:* Did Jesus also speak literally when He said that He was The Vine and we are the branches (John 15:1-5)? *Does that mean Jesus is a literal plant that bears branches and fruit??? According to you, the answer would be Yes!*
*THIRD:* Where exactly in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism? And drinking human blood? In fact, drinking blood is expressly forbidden by God. *_And, Oh yeah, Jesus is God_* (Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:29)
*FOURTH: When John the Baptist saw Jesus and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." Was John saying Jesus was covered in wool and walked on four legs??* According to your method of interpretation, the answer is YES. But according to the Bible, the answer is clearly NO. John was speaking figuratively, just as Jesus was at the Last Supper.
*FIFTH: According to Catholic doctrine, the so-called Eucharist, is a sacrifice.* Each time it is performed, it is literally sacrificing Jesus afresh on the cross. BUT the Bible says Jesus' death on the cross was a once-and-for-all sacrifice in Hebrews 10. *"But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb.10:12) "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (Heb.10:14) DID YOU HEAR WHAT GOD SAID, "ONE SACRIFICE FOR SIN FOREVER...BY ONE OFFERING"??*
@Chris G 1.2 billion Catholics don't agree on your interpretation of the bible. Many Protestants don't agree with you either. We disagree on your faulty interpretation. Your heretical views are a minority. Catholics follow the bible and traditions that were handed down for 2000 years. I gave you other examples where you can find the truth, because your truth is not the truth.
@@chrisg9196you should check out How to Be Christian’s videos on the Eucharist, every one of those silly arguments gets debunked
@@joker18524 Jesus clearly stated He was speaking figuratively in John 6 since Jesus vowed to teach publicly only in parables, that is, figurative language. Jesus made this vow BEFORE John 6 occurred because Matt.13:10-15; 13:34-35 precedes Matt.14:15-21 (the parallel passage to John 6:32-44) Therefore, Jesus clearly stated He policy of teaching figuratively in public.
*Chronology of events:*
*Matthew 12:24 The Unpardonable Sin committed by the Jewish religious leaders*
*Matthew 13 Jesus teaches in parables from that point onward (Matt.13:10-15)*
*Matthew 13:34-35 Jesus vows to only speak publicly in parables going forward*
*Matthew 14:1-14 John the Baptist beheaded*
*Matthew 14:15-21 (i.e. John 6) Feeding of the Five Thousand*
*Conclusion: Jesus was speaking figuratively (parabolically) in John 6 (i.e., Matthew 14:15-21) because The Unpardonable Sin of Matthew 12:24 had already occurred. As a result, Jesus spoke only in parables publicly (Matthew 13:34-35). Therefore, Jesus was not speaking literally in the Bread of Life discourse.*
*Furthermore, Jesus did not clarify their confusion because:*
*(1) The prophecy of Isaiah 9:6 was being fulfilled*
*(2) Parabolic teaching was intended to obscure the truth from the unbelieving public (Matt.13:10-15) who had already rejected the overwhelming truth about Jesus' Messiahship, yet still asserted He performed miracles by the power of Satan (committing The Unpardonable Sin-Matt.**12:24**)*
*(3) Jesus did not always correct the public's misinterpreting His speech when He spoke figuratively.* When Jesus cleansed the Temple the first time, the religious leaders ("the Jews") asked Jesus for a sign to prove He had the authority to do so. Jesus gave them the sign stating, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body." (John 2:19-21) *Jesus did not clarify their confusion. Jesus refused to correct the Jews' misunderstanding. Jesus never said, "No, guys. I was speaking figuratively. I meant the temple of My body." Just as Jesus would refuse to do later in the Bread of Life discourse in John 6.*
*1. Parable defined: a parable is figurative illustration intended to teach a moral or spiritual truth. From Matthew 13 onward, Jesus only spoke in parables publicly. John 6 (Bread of Life discourse) occurred AFTER Matthew 13:10-15. Therefore, in Matthew 14:13-21, the parallel passage to John 6, Jesus was speaking publicly in parabolic speech in John 6, that is, figurative speech.*
*2. Before John 6 the Jewish religious leaders had already committed the Unpardonable Sin; that is, the rejection of Jesus as Messiah, justifying their unbelief on their assertion that Jesus performed miracles by the power of Satan (Matt.12:24)* Ultimately, that generation would suffer the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD as a direct result of the Unpardonable Sin. Another result was that Jesus, for then on, spoke to the public in parables. "And the disciples came and said to Him,'Why do You speak to them in parables?' He answered and said to them, 'Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand'" (Matt.13:10-15) Then Jesus gives the Parables of the Kingdom (Matt.13:18-50)
*Jesus in John 6, according to His new policy (Matt.13:10-15), is teaching parabolically.* And like the prophecy of Isaiah, which Jesus quotes to describe the religious leaders' spiritual blindness and deafness, the public was likewise, just as blind and deaf. _Jesus did not clarify their confusion because the prophecy of Isaiah 6:9 was being fulfilled._ Jesus states the reason Isa.9:6 is being fulled is "Because the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’ (Matt.13:15)*
*3. The Apostle John's express purpose for writing the Gospel of John was that people would believe and be saved (John 20:30-31)* But of the four Gospels, the Gospel of John is the only Gospel that omits the Last Supper communion account. If communion was essential for salvation, of all the Gospel writers, John would never omit the Last Supper account, since his express purpose in writing his Gospel is for salvation of the lost. *But the Holy Spirit chose to omit it, breaking the association Catholics attempt to make between John 6 and the Last Supper.*
*Matt.**13:10**-17 Three Reasons for Parabolic Teaching*
In Matt.13:10 the disciples ask Jesus why He is teaching in parables after Jesus recites the first parable, the Parable of the Sower (or Four Soils). This indicates a change in Jesus’ prior habit of teaching plainly; therefore it sparked the question among the disciples. Jesus proceeds to give them three reasons for the change:
*(1) In Matt.**13:11**, the purpose was to illustrate the truth for Jesus disciples.*
*(2) But in Matt.**13:11**-13, the second reason is to hide the truth from the obstinate unbelieving masses.* The masses were guilty of the Unpardonable Sin. From the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry to this point, Jesus had already given more than ample proof that His Messianic claims were true. [See below, The four-fold witness to Jesus’ Messianic claims (John 5:33-47)] *The multitudes responded by rejecting Jesus, therefore no further light would be given.*
*(3) In Matt.**13:14**-17, the third reason is the fulfill Old Testament Prophecy, like Isa.6:9-10.* This prophecy speaks of a time when a Divine Judgment will come when unbelieving Jews are spoken to in parables so that they can no longer comprehend. Later on in Matt.13:34-35 it says that from this point on, Jesus always spoke to the masses (multitudes) in parables only, stating it was the fulfillment of Ps.78:2. *In Mk.**4:33**-34, it agrees with what Matthew’s account says, but adds a detail in verse 34, “But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.” This will be Jesus pattern from now on. When teaching publicly, it’s always parabolic so that the unbelieving masses would not understand, but when He is alone with His Apostles, He will always explain the meaning of the parables, because for the Apostles, the parables’ purpose is to illustrate the truth.*
The Fourfold Witness that Jesus is the Messiah:
1. (Jn.5:33-35) John the Baptist
2. (Jn.5:36) Jesus’ Works (3 miracles below, rabbis said only the Messiah would do)
1. Exorcizing a Dumb Demon (a demon that renders the victim mute)
2. Healing a post-Law Jew of leprosy (Naaman a post-Law Gentile; Moses' sister was pre-Law)
3. Healing a Jew born blind
3. (Jn.5:37) God the Father
4. (Jn.5:38-47) The Scriptures
5. NOTE: (Jn.5:46-47) “For if you had believed Moses, you would believe Me”
1. They believed Moses as it was filtered through Mishnaic-Rabbinic Judaism
2. Had the Pharisees believed Moses, as written, they would have not missed Jesus
@@joker18524 Jesus Himself said He would be teaching figuratively when teaching publicly, as of Matthew 13:34-35:
*"All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:*
*“I will open My mouth in parables;*
*I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”*
This change occurred BEFORE John 6. Therefore, Jesus in John 6 in the Bread of Life discourse, is speaking figuratively.
Jesus reiterates His speaking figuratively in John 6:63:
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. *The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."*
In addition, in John 6:35, Jesus said, “I am the bread of life. He who *comes to Me* shall *never hunger,* and he who *believes in Me* shall *never thirst."* Clearly, every believer in Jesus Christ as Savior has come to Jesus and believed in Him, but has experienced literal hunger and thirst after believing. Therefore, Jesus is consistently speaking figuratively. The lack of hunger and lack of thirst Jesus promises to those who come to Him and believe in Him is a spiritual satisfaction, *not a literal lack of hunger or thirst.*
*Jesus makes the point repeatedly in John 6 that belief in Him* is what grants one eternal life.*
"...and he who believes in Me..." (John.6:35)
"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and *believes in Him may have everlasting life;* and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John.6:40)
"Most assuredly, I say to you, *he who believes in Me has everlasting life."* (John 6:47)
*Earlier in John 3, Jesus is talking to inexpert in the Mosaic and Pharisaic Law, named Nicodemus. Throughout this conversation, Jesus says that BELIEF IN HIM is what grants anyone eternal life.* The person who believes is born spiritually. Before their belief, they were physically alive BUT spiritual dead. Therefore, every person needs to be "born again" in order to "see the kingdom of heaven." (John 3:3; 3:7)
"...whoever *believes* in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:15)
"...whoever *believes* in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)
“He who *believes* in Him is not condemned..." (John 3:18)
*NO MENTION OF EATING OF DRINKING ANYTHING.*
*In John 6:40 and **6:47**, Jesus already made it clear that belief in Him is what grants one eternal life. Receiving eternal life by faith was previously emphasized to the Pharisee Nicodemus several times (John 3:3, 7. 15, 16, 18).* Then Jesus says in John 6:54, "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." So several times in John 3, and at least twice in John 6, Jesus says that eternal life is granted to those who believe. Therefore, Jesus equates belief with the figurative expression of eating and drinking. That Jesus was speaking figuratively is clarified by Jesus to His Apostles (privately, since Jesus spoke figuratively when teaching publically) when Jesus said, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. *The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." But there are some of you who do not believe.”* For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. (John 6:63-64). Even in this last phrase by Jesus, He mentions BELIEF as the central point of His discourse.
*John 3:3-21*
3 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”
10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” (John 3:3-21)
The Eucharist stayed the same for 1500 years until those who broke away from St. Luther and started using "human reason" and "logic" to replace True Faith.
Transubstantiation wasn't officially affirmed until 1215 at the fourth council of Lateran. Truth of the matter is that no matter how many centuries a false teaching is taught will never make it true.
@@vrscuteri No, the belief that the Eucharist was truly Jesus was held since the beginning, only until it was disputed did a council occur to dogmatically define it because inaccurate and sometimes heretical ideas were emerging about the Eucharist, and thus, “transubstantiation” was a technical word they used to describe the essence of what happens at consecration, that’s not when it was invented. The Church doesn’t have councils for things that aren’t disputed.
On another note, the fact that you accept the belief that Christ’s Church eventually got corrupted is disgusting and contrary to history. I thought Jesus said he would “guide [us] into all truth”, and that the church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”, yet you claim that Christianity fell into heresy. It seems-from your perspective-that Jesus didn’t really keep his promise. The Catholic Church was the only church from the beginning until the reformation, how could Jesus allow such supposed heresy like the Catholic Eucharist to “creep” in to his church?? Think a bit, bud.
Yeah let's not try using any of that logic.
But just for the heck of it let's see if you can use some logic.
When Jesus was responding to their confusion over having to eat him and John chapter 6 he said
"It is the spirit that gives life the flesh profits nothing."
#1
According to Jesus the flesh prophets nothing so how can eating his actual flesh and blood profit you anything when Jesus himself said the flesh profits nothing?
#2
Immediately before that he says it is the spirit that gives life, spirit is not physical, so if something Bond physical is what gives you life then how can his actual physical flesh and blood give you life?
@@TrickeryMan no it wasn't held from the beginning, the Apostles in the writings of the New testament are the beginning.
And the Bible teaches that Jesus is seated at the right hand of the father UNTIL his enemies be made into his footstool. In the Bible teaches that he has physically risen from the dead not that he is physically placed on your cracker to be eaten.
@@TrickeryManJesus said he would guide the apostles into all truth so that they could write it down which they did.
He did not say he would guide the Roman Catholic Church into all truth.
And obviously he hasn't guided you into all truth because you don't get it.
I think that priest was wrong. I have been told (by another priest) that the official doctrine of the Eucharist is that the event of the mass consecration of the bread/wine "IS" the last supper given to the apostles. We are literally partaking in that same meal they received, and that we are eating the same bread and wine they were given when Jesus said "this is my body ... my blood ... take and eat/drink". They aren't sacrificing Christ again, Catholic doctrine is clear that Christ once suffered for sin, died once, rose once ... the Eucharist is us partaking in the bread/wine that he said was his own during the last supper. Now believe that or not ... cool, but i think this quote from that priest is just wrong.
Not true. Read. The Council of Trent, 13th Session, chpt, 1, Canon 1, 2, 3, 4, CCC paragraph 1376.
And if you deny it, you are anathemized.
Everything he said is true, I have books he quotes from, pages and quotes. All checked out.
@@MultiSky7I just looked up paragraph 1376, it doesn’t say anything about re-sacrificing Jesus, it merely talks about transubstantiation. Check out paragraph 1366-1367, just ten and eleven paragraphs prior, and you’ll see that the church teaches that Christ was only sacrificed once.
Lucky are those who believe that the eucharist is the real flesh and blood of Jesus Christ even they hadn't known the many eucharistic miracles that happened in the catholic church.
Ok so here’s the issue. If you are catholic who are you to say one priest is wrong over another? Wouldn’t that put you in the same box Catholics try to put Protestants in that we are attacked for “interpreting the Bible ourselves”
@@timstinies9519 No, because that priest was not in accord with the _official_ and dogmatic teachings of the church (and bible). He was _straying_ from the truth, not from my own personal interpretation.
I have no idea where they get that quote. But it is inaccurate. The catholic church remembers the sacrifice of christbut does not recruify him . Christ's sacrifice is eternal and eternally accepted by the Father. Their argument is mute because they are quoting a false statement. My question for them is what did the Church believe for 15 centuries..including Luther and Calvin? Who is the blaspheme r know?
“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” Cardinal John Newman
"to be deep in Scripture is to cease to be unbiblical (when illumed by the Holy Spirit)" - a Christian you would label a protestant.
@@bjornegan6421 Cardinal Newman was pretty deep in Scripture😂
To be deep in history is to be a follower of Jesus, The Way, and derogatorily called a "Christian", long before a bunch of control freaks got together and called themselves the Catholic church.
Go back to your first love.
The early Church was in such uniformity and agreement that there were no Ecumenical Councils called to discuss this doctrine. Even after the early Church fractured into what became the Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, none of those Churches abandoned that belief. Amazing how this man seems to know better than all of early Christianity.
Indeed, these people in their ignorance spit on all the true faith, Christians of all the apostolic Church throughout the last 2000 years have shared: Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Coptic, Chaldean, Roman Catholic, etc.
They focus their distain of the Roman Catholic Church, treating it as their mortal enemy at the expense of all Christendom. They act as if these are beliefs that only the RCC have, ignoring the fact that the same faith is shared with all Christians of true apostolic traditions from antiquity through to modern day.
@@HOSPlTALLERchurch father in fact were not uniform in a belief in transubstantiation. A real presence is affirmed, but not a magical transformation of elements.
@@noahcutshaw9856 understanding and revalation happen over the course of time. The basics are there in scripture - only to be revealed in understanding as the church matured.
@@HOSPlTALLER That is not the claim when it is dogmatically defined. It says that this was believed by the universal church for all time and there is simply no evidence of that claim.
The fact that millions are worshipping bread is a device of Satan. He has created a sacramental system by which man can trust in for his salvation instead of trusting in Christ.
@@noahcutshaw9856 that's a jump. Millions are not worshipping mere 🍞 they are worshipping Jesus. He clearly states what the bread is in all the Gospels: Luke 22, Matt 26, Mark 14, John 6.
The only thing that has developed in understanding is the 'how', I.e. how the mechanism works of what we know from scripture and tradition to be true.
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Ignatius of Antioch on the Eucharist who is the student of the apostle John and likely knew other apostles.
If you actually read the letter, he is talking about the docetists, you know, the guys who denied that Jesus had a physical body. So, as they did not believe that Jesus had a real flesh and blood, they denied that the Eucharist was that, and proposed a "hidden knowledge" theory of the eucharist. That is why they are gnostics. Ignatius is not talking about transubstation, or aristotelian meta-physics (thomas aquinas explanation of it).
It’s clear that the Ignatius is defending the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. “They do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” I do not know how it can be more clear. The churches overseen by the apostles and successors of the apostles in the first and second century were accused of being cannibals due to the teachings on the Eucharist being Christ’s actual body and blood. We see this foreshadowed in Exodus 12 when the Israelites on the day of unleavened bread are commanded to eat the flesh of the Passover lamb after it is sacrificed. All three synoptic gospels show the day of unleavened bread Christ commanding his disciples to go and prepare the Passover feast. He then offers himself up (in memory of him) which has strong sacrificial overtones in the original Greek. This could be translated as “do this as my memorial sacrifice”. This along with John 6 our Lord commands us to eat his flesh and drink his blood otherwise we have no life in us. This is a gift given to us by our lord to receive sanctification and to be infused with his grace that we may be constantly made new in Him. CR Isaiah 6 when in a vision Isaiah has one of the seraphim bring him a burning coal taken from off the altar (where our sacrifices are made) laid upon his lips and his iniquities are taken away and his sin is purged from consuming it. Our Lord is a consuming fire (CR Hebrews 12) refining us and purging us from our sin. This is so clearly much more than just a symbol. For early Christian’s this was in many ways the very center of Christian life.
What’s more is it’s likely the apostle John wrote his gospel in response to similar heresies surrounding Gnosticism and the denial of the real presence which is why John 6 is so explicit it its description of the Eucharist and its spiritual implications. This is spiritual food that nourishes and sustains us. Not until Zwingli ~500 years ago do we see heretical teachings on the Eucharist become mainstream. Luther himself had a split with both Calvin and Zwingli over the Eucharist being the actual body and blood of our Lord.
@@tannerblacklidge4281 read the letter in context, luther did not believe in transubstatiation, and i believe that Christ is spiritually present, as did the didache, when it confessed that it is "spiritusl food and drink". Ignatius is attacking the heretics, but it has nothing to do with real presence. If it was about real presence, then why the reference to prayer?
@@jozzen77 if we can’t agree on Ignatius, I am curious to get your thoughts on this snippet from Justin Martyr followed by some commentary from the folks at Word on Fire institute. Please see below.
“And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
-First Apology, 66
So Justin is clear “that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word [. . .] is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” The “prayer of His word” refers to the words of institution, which come from Jesus’ lips at the Last Supper. So after the words of institution, the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of “that Jesus.”
The phrase “from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished” is sometimes rendered, “in order to nourish and transform our flesh and blood,” and the Greek here (kata metabolen) means something very similar to “metabolize.” So just as with physical food, it becomes part of our bodies, through the spiritual food of the Eucharist, we become part of Christ’s. We eat him, but rather than us metabolizing him, he “metabolizes” us.
@@tannerblacklidge4281 i have never read from Justin Martyr, but any Reformed christian (even some that lean more memorialist) would tell you that the bread and wine of the eucharist are just normal, but that they have a bigger and more sacred relevance, and that eating it improperly brings you condemnation, as you are not discerning the body of the Lord, still, we acknowledge, as did Martyr, that it is still ontologically bread and wine. Justin would represent much more my view (Spiritual Real Presence) than the Roman view.
1:50 This is how you know... First let me say that in the 16th century, every major protestant thinker taught that the nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist was an issue that was determinative for salvation. If you got that wrong, you went to hell. Luther thought that, Calvin thought that, Zwingli thought that, they all thought it. And yet, they all disagreed on what the nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist was! Now, my point here is not that they disagreed about the Eucharist. It was this: All of them said you had to get the Eucharist right or you’re going to hell. Today almost no evangelical protestant would say that. So, it’s not just a question about Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist; it’s a question about how do you know what counts as a dogma? How do you know what pertains to salvation? How do you know what’s central? How do you know what’s essential in the Christian faith? The Bible itself CANOT, DOES NOT, WILL NOT answer that question for you. You’ve got to have the authority of the Catholic Church to answer that question.
You mention Hebrew 9:28 as the "once and for all" Protestant argument. First, consider that both Peter and the author of Hebrews emphasize that Christ suffered for sins once. Their purpose for this was to contrast Jesus’ sacrifice for sins with the sacrifices that the Jewish priests had to offer on a daily basis. They both are making the point that Jesus doesn’t have to offer regular animal sacrifices because his one sacrifice was sufficient to forgive the sins of all people throughout all time. Then you need to start reading from Hebrews 7:1, and you'll see it gives us the context of Jesus' identity as Melchizedek the High Priest (7:24) who goes into the heavenly sanctuary to offer himself in the temple, not made with hands, in eternity once and for all times. Luther could not see how the Mass is a sacrifice because he focused on Calvary and forgot about the Ascension. The Pascal mystery includes the Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, which takes the earthly sacrifice of Calvary into eternity.
Now, the Catholic doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice would contradict this biblical teaching if it entailed a re-crucifixion of Jesus. But that’s not the case. The eucharistic sacrifice is not another sacrifice of Christ, as if Christ were repeatedly shedding his blood and dying. His bloody offering on the cross was a one-time event in the past and is never to be repeated. The offering in the eucharistic celebration re-presents-without blood, without making Jesus suffer and die anew-that one historical sacrifice. The Catechism explains: The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different” (1367, citing the Council of Trent). Inasmuch as the Church’s doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice affirms that Christ died once on the cross and that he does not and cannot die again, it in no way violates the single nature of Christ’s sacrifice as taught by both Peter and the author of Hebrews.
John 6.
The onlookers couldn't handle the discourse of eat my flesh, my body is real food, my blood is real drink, because of Jewish strict cultures of cannibalism. They left, and Jesus said to the apostles, "are you going to?" Did Jesus call them back and say it was just a symbol?
1st Cor 11: 27-29
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. How can you be guilty of a symbol?
In the Greek, Phaegine and Trogain. One is to dine and the other is to rip gnaw and chew. Your ancestors ate, 'phaegine' to dine the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats, "trogain", rip gnaw and chews, this bread will live forever. These terms are toggled back and forth as a hyperbole to really drive home the point.
You find the writings of the real presence of the Eucharist in Ignatius of Antioch, he knew the apostles 100 AD.
Luke 24:29-35
So he went in to stay with them. And it happened that, while he was with them at table,
he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him,
but he vanished from their sight.
Then they said to each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he spoke to us on the way and opened the Scriptures to us?"
So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them who were saying,
"The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!"
Then the two recounted
what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of bread.
Cyprian of Carthage said people who are apostate and returned to the church should not receive communion until they are on their Deathbed
Justin Martyr Born in 100 AD and martyred in 160 ad.
When we cease from our prayer, bread is presented and wine and water. The president in the same manner sends a prayers and thanksgiving, according to his ability and the People Sing Out there are some, saying the amen. A distribution and participation of the elements for which thanks have been given is made to each person and to those who are not present they are sent by the Deacons
St. Justin Martyr "We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except on who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
St. Irenaeus of Lyon "If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189]). "He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life-flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria "’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
St. Cyprian of Carthage "He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned-[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15-16 [A.D. 251]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage "After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
St. Cyril of Jerusalem "The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]). "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ…[Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so,…partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).
St. Ambrose of Milan "Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use!…Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Augustine of Hippo "I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table….That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]). "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
Council of Ephesus "We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
🎯👁 *The religious leaders you quote have no authority greater than the Bible.*
*Regarding the Mass and Transubstantiation:*
*FIRST:* If Jesus was speaking literally concerning the bread and wine literally being His body and blood, does that also mean that Jesus believed His body was shaped like a literal wooden door when He said, "I am the door" (John 10:7) Did Jesus have a door knob and hinges on His human body also? *NO!* Because He was speaking figuratively, just like when He said this bread and wine were His body and blood. *ALSO, when Jesus said that about the elements of communion, Jesus was in His unharmed human body when He said it. If Jesus was speaking literally, then Jesus would have had to shed His blood BEFORE He was scourged and crucified on the cross. And then shed His blood again during the actual scourging and crucifixion. BUT Jesus body was not yet "broken for you" nor was Jesus' blood yet "shed for the remission of sin" because He had yet to be scourged and crucified.*
*SECOND:* Did Jesus also speak literally when He said that He was The Vine and we are the branches (John 15:1-5)? *Does that mean Jesus is a literal plant that bears branches and fruit??? According to you, the answer would be Yes!*
*THIRD:* Where exactly in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism? And drinking human blood? In fact, drinking blood is expressly forbidden by God. *_And, Oh yeah, Jesus is God_* (Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:29)
*FOURTH: When John the Baptist saw Jesus and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." Was John saying Jesus was covered in wool and walked on four legs??* According to your method of interpretation, the answer is YES. But according to the Bible, the answer is clearly NO. John was speaking figuratively, just as Jesus was at the Last Supper.
*FIFTH: According to Catholic doctrine, the so-called Eucharist, is a sacrifice.* Each time it is performed, it is literally sacrificing Jesus afresh on the cross. BUT the Bible says Jesus' death on the cross was a once-and-for-all sacrifice in Hebrews 10. *"But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb.10:12) "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (Heb.10:14) DID YOU HEAR WHAT GOD SAID, "ONE SACRIFICE FOR SIN FOREVER...BY ONE OFFERING"??*
@@chrisg9196 Hi there!
Those religious figures (the early Church fathers) knew the apostles and were taught by them. They were all in one accord. Scripture can’t give its own authority without an interpretation. Doesn’t it stand to reason the Church that put together the canon of the NT should be authority of what it means? It wasn’t left to personal interpretation. Hence why we have so many Protestant denominations. The real presence was a common belief by the early Churches (Greek, Oriental, and the Roman Rite) for the first 1530 years. You brought up the analogies of door and sheep. Jesus used many metaphors. Sure, some were figurative, but the John 6 discourse is a literal interpretation compared to the others. The element of communion is not a bloody sacrifice, it is the risen Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. Cannibalism applies when one human eats another. When we partake at the Lord’s supper, it’s done sacramentally.
Along with the writings from the early church fathers, I provided scriptures in context. How can you be guilty of Christ’s death if it’s a symbol. The apostles said to Jesus, your words are harsh, how can anyone listen to it. The onlookers walked away. Jesus didn’t recant his words. Jesus brings it up again at the last supper. Sure, he was instituting the new covenant, as well. Jesus’ death on the cross was a one-time event, but we get to experience his grace through communion every Sunday. Thank you for your input.
Peace, brother.
@@aggienodari453 *Chronology of events:*
*Matthew 12:24 The Unpardonable Sin committed by the Jewish religious leaders*
*Matthew 13 Jesus teaches in parables from that point onward (Matt.13:10-15)*
*Matthew 13:34-35 Jesus vows to only speak publicly in parables going forward*
*Matthew 14:1-14 John the Baptist beheaded*
*Matthew 14:15-21 (i.e. John 6) Feeding of the Five Thousand*
*Conclusion: Jesus was speaking figuratively (parabolically) in John 6 (i.e., Matthew 14:15-21) because The Unpardonable Sin of Matthew 12:24 had already occurred. As a result, Jesus spoke only in parables publicly (Matthew 13:34-35). Therefore, Jesus was not speaking literally in the Bread of Life discourse.*
*Furthermore, Jesus did not clarify their confusion because:*
*(1) The prophecy of Isaiah 9:6 was being fulfilled*
*(2) Parabolic teaching was intended to obscure the truth from the unbelieving public (Matt.13:10-15) who had already rejected the overwhelming truth about Jesus' Messiahship, yet still asserted He performed miracles by the power of Satan (committing The Unpardonable Sin-Matt.**12:24**)*
*(3) Jesus did not always correct the public's misinterpreting His speech when He spoke figuratively.* When Jesus cleansed the Temple the first time, the religious leaders ("the Jews") asked Jesus for a sign to prove He had the authority to do so. Jesus gave them the sign stating, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body." (John 2:19-21) *Jesus did not clarify their confusion. Jesus refused to correct the Jews' misunderstanding. Jesus never said, "No, guys. I was speaking figuratively. I meant the temple of My body." Just as Jesus would refuse to do later in the Bread of Life discourse in John 6.*
*1. Parable defined: a parable is figurative illustration intended to teach a moral or spiritual truth. From Matthew 13 onward, Jesus only spoke in parables publicly. John 6 (Bread of Life discourse) occurred AFTER Matthew 13:10-15. Therefore, in Matthew 14:13-21, the parallel passage to John 6, Jesus was speaking publicly in parabolic speech in John 6, that is, figurative speech.*
*2. Before John 6 the Jewish religious leaders had already committed the Unpardonable Sin; that is, the rejection of Jesus as Messiah, justifying their unbelief on their assertion that Jesus performed miracles by the power of Satan (Matt.12:24)* Ultimately, that generation would suffer the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD as a direct result of the Unpardonable Sin. Another result was that Jesus, for then on, spoke to the public in parables. "And the disciples came and said to Him,'Why do You speak to them in parables?' He answered and said to them, 'Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand'" (Matt.13:10-15) Then Jesus gives the Parables of the Kingdom (Matt.13:18-50)
*Jesus in John 6, according to His new policy (Matt.13:10-15), is teaching parabolically.* And like the prophecy of Isaiah, which Jesus quotes to describe the religious leaders' spiritual blindness and deafness, the public was likewise, just as blind and deaf. _Jesus did not clarify their confusion because the prophecy of Isaiah 6:9 was being fulfilled._ Jesus states the reason Isa.9:6 is being fulled is "Because the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’ (Matt.13:15)*
*3. The Apostle John's express purpose for writing the Gospel of John was that people would believe and be saved (John 20:30-31)* But of the four Gospels, the Gospel of John is the only Gospel that omits the Last Supper communion account. If communion was essential for salvation, of all the Gospel writers, John would never omit the Last Supper account, since his express purpose in writing his Gospel is for salvation of the lost. *But the Holy Spirit chose to omit it, breaking the association Catholics attempt to make between John 6 and the Last Supper.*
*Matt.**13:10**-17 Three Reasons for Parabolic Teaching*
In Matt.13:10 the disciples ask Jesus why He is teaching in parables after Jesus recites the first parable, the Parable of the Sower (or Four Soils). This indicates a change in Jesus’ prior habit of teaching plainly; therefore it sparked the question among the disciples. Jesus proceeds to give them three reasons for the change:
*(1) In Matt.**13:11**, the purpose was to illustrate the truth for Jesus disciples.*
*(2) But in Matt.**13:11**-13, the second reason is to hide the truth from the obstinate unbelieving masses.* The masses were guilty of the Unpardonable Sin. From the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry to this point, Jesus had already given more than ample proof that His Messianic claims were true. [See below, The four-fold witness to Jesus’ Messianic claims (John 5:33-47)] *The multitudes responded by rejecting Jesus, therefore no further light would be given.*
*(3) In Matt.**13:14**-17, the third reason is the fulfill Old Testament Prophecy, like Isa.6:9-10.* This prophecy speaks of a time when a Divine Judgment will come when unbelieving Jews are spoken to in parables so that they can no longer comprehend. Later on in Matt.13:34-35 it says that from this point on, Jesus always spoke to the masses (multitudes) in parables only, stating it was the fulfillment of Ps.78:2. *In Mk.**4:33**-34, it agrees with what Matthew’s account says, but adds a detail in verse 34, “But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.” This will be Jesus pattern from now on. When teaching publicly, it’s always parabolic so that the unbelieving masses would not understand, but when He is alone with His Apostles, He will always explain the meaning of the parables, because for the Apostles, the parables’ purpose is to illustrate the truth.*
The Fourfold Witness that Jesus is the Messiah:
1. (Jn.5:33-35) John the Baptist
2. (Jn.5:36) Jesus’ Works (3 miracles below, rabbis said only the Messiah would do)
1. Exorcizing a Dumb Demon (a demon that renders the victim mute)
2. Healing a post-Law Jew of leprosy (Naaman a post-Law Gentile; Moses' sister was pre-Law)
3. Healing a Jew born blind
3. (Jn.5:37) God the Father
4. (Jn.5:38-47) The Scriptures
5. NOTE: (Jn.5:46-47) “For if you had believed Moses, you would believe Me”
1. They believed Moses as it was filtered through Mishnaic-Rabbinic Judaism
2. Had the Pharisees believed Moses, as written, they would have not missed Jesus
@chrisg9196 I couldn't get past your first point! LOL! You think that Jesus is a door knob. Jesus meant nothing else other than to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Nothing. If it was a metaphor, then what was he talking about? Why did he say that "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood then you will have no life in you"? The sole reason why you think Jesus sounds like a cannibal is because the Protestant theology doesn't work. You have to leap frog all over Scripture to get it to say what you want. All of your talking points come from somebody else. But, us Catholics with our theology can make perfect sense of the entire Bible by reading it straight through.
@@rangers94ism
*You're supremely dense. The point you mock, went over your head because your too dense to understand hyperbole, which points out the inconsistency of the Catholic position. If the Catholic method of interpreting John 6 is consistently held, then it leads to ridiculous conclusions.*
*Jesus Himself said He would be teaching figuratively when teaching publicly, as of Matthew 13:34-35:*
*"All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:*
*“I will open My mouth in parables;*
*I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”*
*This change occurred BEFORE John 6. Therefore, Jesus in John 6 in the Bread of Life discourse, is speaking figuratively.*
*Jesus reiterates His speaking figuratively in John 6:63:*
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. *The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."*
In addition, in John 6:35, Jesus said, “I am the bread of life. He who *comes to Me* shall *never hunger,* and he who *believes in Me* shall *never thirst."* Clearly, every believer in Jesus Christ as Savior has come to Jesus and believed in Him, but has experienced literal hunger and thirst after believing. Therefore, Jesus is consistently speaking figuratively. The lack of hunger and lack of thirst Jesus promises to those who come to Him and believe in Him is a spiritual satisfaction, *not a literal lack of hunger or thirst.*
*Jesus makes the point repeatedly in John 6 that belief in Him* is what grants one eternal life.*
"...and he who believes in Me..." (John.6:35)
"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and *believes in Him may have everlasting life;* and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John.6:40)
"Most assuredly, I say to you, *he who believes in Me has everlasting life."* (John 6:47)
*Earlier in John 3, Jesus is talking to inexpert in the Mosaic and Pharisaic Law, named Nicodemus. Throughout this conversation, Jesus says that BELIEF IN HIM is what grants anyone eternal life.* The person who believes is born spiritually. Before their belief, they were physically alive BUT spiritual dead. Therefore, every person needs to be "born again" in order to "see the kingdom of heaven." (John 3:3; 3:7)
"...whoever *believes* in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:15)
"...whoever *believes* in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)
“He who *believes* in Him is not condemned..." (John 3:18)
*NO MENTION OF EATING OF DRINKING ANYTHING.*
*In John 6:40 and **6:47**, Jesus already made it clear that belief in Him is what grants one eternal life. Receiving eternal life by faith was previously emphasized to the Pharisee Nicodemus several times (John 3:3, 7. 15, 16, 18).* Then Jesus says in John 6:54, "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." So several times in John 3, and at least twice in John 6, Jesu says that eternal life is granted to those who believe. Therefore, Jesus equates belief with the figurative expression of eating and drinking. That Jesus was speaking figuratively is clarified by Jesus to His Apostles (privately, since Jesus spoke figuratively when teaching publically) when Jesus said, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. *The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." But there are some of you who do not believe.”* For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him." (John 6:63-64).
Even in this last phrase by Jesus, He mentions BELIEF as the central point of His discourse.
Man, that question was just horrific. And the answer was just bluntly lie!
Eucharist is THE SAME SACRIFICE!!! Not a new one each time!!!
Jesus said “DO IT IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME”!!! Don’t know this liar but it’s ridiculous!
Depend on your false thinkings...
But Catholic never dies 🔥🙏💪
That part in the book of Fr O Brien is problematic. I also can't understand the meaning he was trying to imply. It is just unbelievable!
I search the internet about The Holy Eucharist, and I have not read anything similar that Fr O Brien has written. So, it is better to refer to the official teaching of Our Church and not to an unofficial source which has the tendency to confuse us and may mislead us into accepting such writing.
The official teaching of the RCC also states that the priest is offering Jesus over & over again for our sins. That's a slap in the face of Jesus.
@@Maranatha99 Can you cite the teaching? Because I know from _actually_ reading the Catechism it states in paragraph 1367: “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are ONE SINGLE SACRIFICE.” And in the paragraph before it, it says: “The Eucharist is… a sacrifice because it RE-PRESENTS (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross. …” (CCC 1366). So no, Jesus’ sacrifice does not occur “again and again” in the mass as you assert. Jesus’ crucified and resurrected Body _becomes_ present in the Eucharist, therefore transforming the _substance_ of the bread into His own Body (transubstantiation), while maintaining the mere _appearance_ of bread and wine (otherwise we wouldn’t actually be able to consume Him if it felt, tasted, and looked like flesh and blood).
So, before you try to make a point, I recommend you actually educate yourself about what the Catholic Church teaches and does if you want to oppose it, that way (and this applies to me as well), we can have an honest and constructive discussion without cultivating feelings of frustration and confusion. Although I don’t necessarily blame you if that’s what you’ve heard from outside sources where anti-Catholics frequently ill inform people on the Catholic faith. I find, from my own experience debating Protestants and watching their videos, that their objections so often stem from a complete misunderstanding of what the CC actually teaches and does. Hence, they end up just arguing thin air.
@TrickeryMan u r right! I didn't express myself well. What i meant to say is that whatever the catholic priest does, re-,present or whatever it is, is completely unnecessary. Why? Because the ONE SACRIFICE of Jesus is enough.
Pls, read Hebrews 10, 11-14.
"Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by ONE sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."
Jesus is in no altar: He is resurrected & glorified.
I'm sorry I dint explain well.
@@Maranatha99 Sorry for the lengthy response. I understand. Maybe I didn’t make _myself_ clear enough. I completely agree with you that Jesus’ one sacrifice is enough. No Catholic doctrine objects to that. He was only sacrificed _once_ in all of history. This is a point of harmony between Protestants and Catholics.
In the mass, Christ is not being sacrificed again; His sacrifice on the cross is being _made present._ It’s important to understand this. That very point in time, when Jesus was on the cross, is made real to us. Why? Well, I do not have room and time to get into the details of _why_ haha (and there _is_ an abundant of biblical evidence, just read “Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist” by Brant Pitre and you’ll for sure be stunned. I just finished it, there’s also a video version that gives a pretty amazing overview), but first, I want to respond to Hebrew 10:11-14 you quoted.
I’m not sure if you thought that these “religious duties” and continual sacrifices the author of Hebrew’s is talking about are in reference to the Eucharistic mass, because it’s not. He’s not talking about that at all. If you examine this passage in _context_ and go back to verse 4, you’ll see that the author is talking about the old sacrifice of _animals,_ not Jesus in the Eucharist:
“3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the _blood of bulls and goats_ to take away sins.” (Hebrews 10:3-4).
So this isn’t a refutation of the Catholic mass, because again, for 1: It’s not talking about the Catholic mass, and 2: it couldn’t be since there isn’t a different sacrifice at every mass, nor does Jesus get sacrificed again. He died and rose once.
We can put aside whether or not this is biblical, I’m just saying that this is the teaching of the Catholic Church (which is in accordance with the Scriptures). We have to get it right so that we can effectively move forward.
When you say “He is in no altar”, I’m not sure if this is just a grammatical error or if you think we believe that Jesus is literally _in_ the altar lol… cause He’s not. He’s _on_ the altar temporarily, yes, but not “in” it haha (Also, I must clarify: the reason Jesus would be on an “altar” is because Jesus _became a sacrifice_ for us; the “Passover lamb” as St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 5:7. Hence, it is the proper place the consecration should transpire, since sacrifices always occur on an altar-which is another reason to believe the Eucharist is Jesus, because since Christ instituted a new Passover at the last supper-replacing the lamb with Himself-and every Passover has a sacrifice, the bread and wine can’t be symbolic, otherwise it wouldn’t be a Passover celebration without a true sacrifice. Maybe more on this later, if you wish).
And yes, I agree, Jesus is Resurrected and glorified, in fact, that’s the only way He can be truly present in the Eucharist: if He is resurrected. So not only is the Eucharist Jesus on the cross, but the _risen_ Christ as well (I’m not implying two separate persons), just like when He appeared to the apostles in the upper room and still had the holes from the nails in His hands, feet, and side, even though He was risen. Jesus’ resurrected Body is not limited to time and space, hence, He can appear and navigate however He wishes (like at the tomb to Mary Magdalene (John 20:14), and walking through the walls in the upper room with His physical Body (John 20:19)).
And, just to catch you before you say it-in case you do-don’t ask “how” Jesus could do it, because if we’re talking about the Divine, the Infinite, the Omnipotent and Omniscient Being called ‘God’, it’ll never be a question of “how” Jesus could be “undercover” in the Eucharist; the question is “if” He is. I mean, if Jesus can calm massive storms with a few words, heal thousands of sick and impaired people, rise from the dead, and _hide His identity_ on the road to Emmaus until the “breaking of the bread” (Luke 24:13-35), I’m pretty sure He has the ability to appear in the form of bread and wine if He says so.
@TrickeryMan " i am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever" (John 6, 51)
So u say that John 6 is about Eucharist.
Jesus says whoever eats this bread will live forever
Catholics partake in the Eucharist,.
BUT...
Catholics are NOT sure of their salvation
???????????
Pls, read John 6 again & see all the references to the need to COME to Jesus for eternal life.
Eucharist is not a requirement for salvation, but you are making it to be.
66
"As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him."
That's John 6 verse 66 the rest of John 6 is a teaching on the Eucharist but see that some of the disciples in Jesus time could not accept the teaching from him on the Eucharist do they stop following him. Go and read it all for yourselves.
Also see Eucharist Miracles.
John 3:18 explains why they left as they failed to believe He was the son of God. John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned. But he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God"
Christ told them a dozen times in John 6 they needed to believe He was the Son of God and they refused. Ten times He told them in plain Aramaic they needed to believe and a couple of times in a metaphor that they needed to eat Him. Jews for thousands of years equated bread as a metaphor with the "word of God" just as milk is a metaphor to one new in the faith. Study all of John 6 not just a couple of verses. By the way, Peter responded in verse 68 when Christ asked if they would leave to with the answer to the metaphor when he told Christ that "He had the words of eternal life". Friends we are to believe in Him not eat Him.
@sammygomes7381 1. I see you completely choose omit anything about Eucharist Miracles.
2. I've studied the bible many times and my answer stays the same. Your away back to John 3 for an answer, we're talking about John 6. You guys may or may not have the Holy Spirit in your church. We Catholics are blessed with the Holy Spirit, Jesus as the Eucharist and our beloved Heavenly and Spiritual mother, Mary as Jesus most lovingly gave to us in John 19. 26 and 27.
I guess that you've not had an experience of this because after you do then you will see that when you experience Jesus, Mary and the Holy Spirit then nothing else will do.
@@MaranathatoJesusthroughMary my friend, I have as much faith in eucharist miracles as I do in Mary remaining a virgin and making house calls around the world. John 3 is very clear and has everything to do with John 6. John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned. But he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Those disciples in John 6 were doomed for a couple of reasons. 1. They failed to believe Christ was the son of God despite a dozen warnings, including a couple in which Christ used a thousand-year-old metaphor that they needed to eat Him. The Jews have held that bread is the metaphor for the "word of God". We can see the response of these disciples in John 6:42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’? They failed to believe as many do today think we have to eat Christ for eternal life. Do you not know that if one believes in Christ that He is in him? Let us not forget the words of Peter in Jn.6:68-69 where he says that they would not leave because Christ had the "words" of eternal life as He was the Son of God.
2. John 6 is also very clear about how we come to Christ. John 6:44-45 No one can come to Me unless the Father who has sent Me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘They shall all be taught by God.’[d] Therefore everyone who has heard and has learned of the Father comes to Me.
As for the Holy Spirit in the church I find it hard to believe the Holy Spirit would put up with the worshipping of a goddess and idol. What I do know is the word of God tells me
1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
1 Corinthians 6:19 What? Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God, and that you are not your own?
2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, seeing whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not know that Jesus Christ is in you?-unless indeed you are disqualified.
Andy, you stated you have studied the bible many times and I was wondering where Jesus gave Mary to us in the book of John. As i read it, it appears Christ gave Mary to only John, who by the way, was most likely Mary's nephew and Christ's cousin.
Now I am curious about one thing, when are you blessed by the Holy Spirit? Actually, I am curious about a few other things, when are you blessed by Jesus and most of all Mary?
@sammygomes7381 my friend you are looking for a debate and while I could refute all your points and enter into a debate I'm simply not going to do that because it's not God's will for me. I see you like tying scripture together so why don't you see if you can tie genesis 3.15 in with the wedding at Cana, if you are able to then perhaps we can chat. God bless you
@@MaranathatoJesusthroughMary Sir I am not looking for a debate as God's word is final. As for Genesis 3:15 and the wedding at Cana there is nothing to tie together. You might as well just throw in Revelation 12. "Woman" is mentioned in the bible almost 400 times and only a hand full refer to Mary and in a different context when Christ used it in reference to His mother. When Christ referred to Mary as "woman" it is sort of like being equivalent to calling her "ma'am". In Genesis 3, I believe "woman" is used 7 or 8 times and every one of them refers to Eve not Mary and the context is different. Likewise in Revelation 12 "woman" is not even referring to a person, but the nation of Israel.
Many blessings Andy.
The early Church had a very clear understanding of the Eucharist:
"They [the Docetists, early Christological heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110])."
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110])."
~ 2 direct quotes from St. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of John the Apostle.
THE PROTESTANT DOCTRINES OF SCRIPTURE ALONE AND FAITH ALONE ARE NOT BIBLICAL:..
➔ The entire foundation of Protestantism is false:...
➔The Bible ITSELF Contradicts Luther's doctrine of "scripture alone" (solascriptura) The Bible tells us that the authority is THE CHURCH: ...
● 1 TIMOTHY 3:15 The pillar & foundation of TRUTH is the CHURCH.
● 2 TIMOTHY 2 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast HEARD from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
● EPHESIANS 3:10 10 His intent was that now, THROUGH THE CHURCH, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,
● JOHN 21:25 Jesus said & did Many other things that are too numerous to be recorded in writing.
● 2 THESS 2:15 We are to hold fast to the TRADITIONS we have been given, either by WORD OF MOUTH or by the letter.
● 1 COR 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything, and maintain the TRADITIONS even as I have delivered them to you.
● HEB 13:17 Obey the eldars in the CHURCH.
● COR 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
● HEBREWS 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
2 COR 5:20 says that God appointed men in the Church to represent Him. And, in HEB 13:17, God appointed men in the Church to have the rule over His Flock.
● JOHN 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
● MATT 18:15-17
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto THE CHURCH: but IF HE NEGLECTS TO HEARTHE CHURCH let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
The True Church is a TEACHING Church: (to Teach means to impart knowledge that is not presently know....not in writing)
● JOHN 14:26-31
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall TEACH you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have SAID unto you. (Spoken words...not in writing)
(To TEACH is to impart knowledge that is not presently known....not in writing)
● ACTS 8:31: And he said, HOW CAN I, (understand scripture) EXCEPT SOMEONE SHOULD GUIDE ME? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
(The scriptures are not for individual interpretation. They need the guidance of the CHURCH. It is PROTESTANTS who are following the doctrines of a man.)
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
➨WORKS:
The following scriptures all demand good works from us in order to emnter the kingdom of God and all of them were copied directly from the protestant version of the bible by Cynthia x:...
👉👉 EPHESIANS 2:10 (KJV)
Protestants "prove" their false doctrine of "faith alone" By quoting EPH 2:8-9
👉👉 and they STOP before they get to number 10:
8 For by GRACE are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. (most protestants stop here instead of continuing on to 10):
👉👉 10 FOR WE ARE GOD'S WORKMANSHIP, CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS UNTO GOOD WORKS, WHICH GOD HAS BEFORE ORDAINED, THAT WE SHOULD WALK IN THEM.
MOREE scriptures that demand good works from us:
● REV 20:12...The dead are judged BY THEIR WORKS.
● REV 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man ACCORDING TO HIS WORK shall be.
● REV 19:8
And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.
● JAMES 2:18 Faith without works is dead
● MATTEW 19:17 Jesus tells us if we want to enter into Life, we must keep the commandments.
● MATTHEW 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your GOOD DEEDSand glorify your Father in heaven.
● JAMES 2:24 A man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
● ROMANS 2:6 He will judge everyone ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.
● ROMANS 2:13
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
● MATTHEW 7:21 Not everyone who says to me: "Lord Lord will enter into the kingdom of heaven but only those WHO DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER.
● PHILIPPIANS 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
● MATT 25:35-40 JESUS tells us to feed the hungry & clothe the naked (good works). He further warns us that those who do NOT will be sent away into the eternal fire., but those who do these WORKS will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
● LUKE 16:19-30 The story of Lazarus and the rich man shows us that the rich man went to hell for refusing to help Lazarus who was poor and hungry. (He refused to do good works)
● TITUS 3:14 KJV And let our's also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.
● EPHESIANS 2:8-11 (KJV)
Protestants "prove" their false doctrine of "faith alone" By quoting EPH 2:8-9
and they STOP before they get to number 10:
8 For by GRACE are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. (most protestants stop here instead of continuing on to 10):
➨ 10 FOR WE ARE GOD'S WORKMANSHIP, CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS UNTO GOOD WORKS, WHICH GOD HAS BEFORE ORDAINED, THAT WE SHOULD WALK IN THEM.
● 1 COR 9:27 (KJV) (Paul speaking) But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast away.
● MATT 12:36-37
36 But I say unto you, That every idle WORD THAT MEN SHALL SOEAK, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For BY THY WORDS THOU SHALL BE JUSTIFIED, and BY THY WORDS THOU SHALL BE CONDEMNED.
(not by yout faith alone)
James 2:21
21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
➨PENENCE: Protestants reject the idea that they must do "penence" (attempt to make up for the sins they have committed) ● Luke 19:8. Zacchaeus told Jesus if he has cheated anyone, he will repay them 4 times over.
● Mark 2:20 Jesus said (regarding his disciples): The days are coming when the Bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast.
● Matthew 6:16 When you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrits do
● ACTS 26:20 RSV but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance.
● ACTS 2:38-40: (This one is in the Catholic Bible) Do Penance and be baptized everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and you shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit. For this promise is to you AND YOUR CHILDREN, and to all who are far off who the Lord our God shall call.
● COLOSSIANS 1:24-2:7 kjv
24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
Protestants claim that "Jesus did it all" and that nothing is required of them except for faith, but JESUS tells us we must feed the hungry & clothe the naked (Good works) if we want to enter the Kingdom of God, and if we do NOT, we will be sent away into the eternal fire.
● Colossians 1:24 Tells us we share in the suffering of Chrst
24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the c● hurch,
● Acts 14:22
22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.”
The quote from John O'Brian, makes even more sense if you quote the rest of it:
i.e.
"he offers up again the SAME sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary."
It's NOT a new sacrifice, it is the representation of the SAME sacrifice. You can also research the types of sacrifice the Israelite's offer to God and understand that Jesus fulfils all of these.
When you we're baptised, you we're joined to the death of Jesus on the cross, you're sins in this present day are nailed to the cross through Christ Jesus 2000 years ago. Christ is not nailed to the cross again and again for your sins, the sacrifice is complete, but you today are joined to him *then*
How is this possible? GOD exists outside time, get your head around this and the Eucharist makes more sense.
BTW: the word "victim" is defined as: "a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action."
So sorry for this person he is possessed by some of the stubborn pastors who are blind actually and leading blinds
What a shame
John 6, the bread of life discourse , is conveniently omitted in this clip. The Eucharist divided the disciples back then as it divides Christians now. We Catholics believe it’s Jesus’ flesh and blood because JESUS SAID SO…
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”
-Ignatius of Antioch
(Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Repent
You conveniently omitted the verse in John 6 which reads : "63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." It has nothing to do with the physical, but rather the spiritual....which is Eternal Life by faith in Jesus Christ. The entire chapter is about Faith...not eating Jesus.
Examples:
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.
40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life
47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes [j]in Me has everlasting life.
68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the [q]Christ, the Son of the living God.”
In John chapter 6 Jesus makes a comparison between physical food for the body, and spiritual food (which is faith in Him) for the soul. Even with adequate physical food, even physical food such as manna from Heaven, the body will still die. But faith in Christ gives us eternal life....for Jesus is the bread of Life. For the most part, the crowd following Jesus was more interested in getting free meals, than the spiritual gift that Christ offered. He pushed the crowd by talking about eating flesh and drinking blood which was totally against Scripture and Jewish customs. The crowd walked away.
The chapter is all about faith in Jesus for eternal life....not about communion, not about eating Jesus...none of that. Just read the entire chapter and grasp the real meaning of what Jesus was saying.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+6&version=NKJV
@@spacecoastz4026 the flesh of Jesus Christ is different from other flesh because Jesus is God. Who would be more correct, some heretic who hates the early church fathers or Saint Ignacio of Antioch
🎯👁 *Regarding the Mass and Transubstantiation:*
*FIRST:* If Jesus was speaking literally concerning the bread and wine literally being His body and blood, does that also mean that Jesus believed His body was shaped like a literal wooden door when He said, "I am the door" (John 10:7) Did Jesus have a door knob and hinges on His human body also? *NO!* Because He was speaking figuratively, just like when He said this bread and wine were His body and blood. *ALSO, when Jesus said that about the elements of communion, Jesus was in His unharmed human body when He said it. If Jesus was speaking literally, then Jesus would have had to shed His blood BEFORE He was scourged and crucified on the cross. And then shed His blood again during the actual scourging and crucifixion. BUT Jesus body was not yet "broken for you" nor was Jesus' blood yet "shed for the remission of sin" because He had yet to be scourged and crucified.*
*SECOND:* Did Jesus also speak literally when He said that He was The Vine and we are the branches (John 15:1-5)? *Does that mean Jesus is a literal plant that bears branches and fruit??? According to you, the answer would be Yes!*
*THIRD:* Where exactly in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism? And drinking human blood? In fact, drinking blood is expressly forbidden by God. *_And, Oh yeah, Jesus is God_* (Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:29)
*FOURTH: When John the Baptist saw Jesus and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." Was John saying Jesus was covered in wool and walked on four legs??* According to your method of interpretation, the answer is YES. But according to the Bible, the answer is clearly NO. John was speaking figuratively, just as Jesus was at the Last Supper.
*FIFTH: According to Catholic doctrine, the so-called Eucharist, is a sacrifice.* Each time it is performed, it is literally sacrificing Jesus afresh on the cross. BUT the Bible says Jesus' death on the cross was a once-and-for-all sacrifice in Hebrews 10. *"But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb.10:12) "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (Heb.10:14) DID YOU HEAR WHAT GOD SAID, "ONE SACRIFICE FOR SIN FOREVER...BY ONE OFFERING"??*
@@chrisg9196 Transubstantiation: FIRST: If Jesus was speaking literally concerning the bread and wine literally being His body and blood, does that also mean that Jesus believed His body was shaped like a literal wooden door when He said, "I am the door" (John 10:7) Did Jesus have a door knob and hinges on His human body also? NO! Because He was speaking figuratively, just like when He said this bread and wine were His body and blood. ALSO, when Jesus said that about the elements of communion, Jesus was in His unharmed human body when He said it. If Jesus was speaking literally, then Jesus would have had to shed His blood BEFORE He was scourged and crucified on the cross. And then shed His blood again during the actual scourging and crucifixion. BUT Jesus body was not yet "broken for you" nor was Jesus' blood yet "shed for the remission of sin" because He had yet to be scourged and crucified.
I am disappointed in you because you do not understand context, it all depends on the situation, when to take things literally and when to take symbolically. Here quote from the New Testament:
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
This would have been a good time for God saying this was meant to be symbolically but no, God double down and tells his 12 disciples and asks them if “Does this offend you?” The Jewish people were offended but this “horrible teaching” that he meant this literally.
Are you a Jehovah Witness or an atheist because Protestantism leads to atheism.
SECOND: Did Jesus also speak literally when He said that He was The Vine and we are the branches (John 15:1-5)? Does that mean Jesus is a literal plant that bears branches and fruit??? According to you, the answer would be Yes! THIRD: Where exactly in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism? And drinking human blood? In fact, drinking blood is expressly forbidden by God. And, Oh yeah, Jesus is God (Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:29)
If you are going to say this, then you just reject the New Testament because many times God overrides the Old Testament within reason when for example God said he Lord over the Sabbath.
27Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
Likewise, God can say eating his blood and body is okay. Cannibalism is outlawed for fellow our man, but Jesus Christ is different because he is the Godman. This is similar in mathematics when trying to apply finite concepts onto infinite as laws don’t always follow exactly.
FOURTH: When John the Baptist saw Jesus and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." Was John saying Jesus was covered in wool and walked on four legs?? According to your method of interpretation, the answer is YES. But according to the Bible, the answer is clearly NO. John was speaking figuratively, just as Jesus was at the Last Supper.
As I mentioned, context, you are trying to use a hammer for solving all problem, likewise, it all depends as we know from context this was symbolic of Jesus Christ being the sacrifice for the sins of humanity as a lamb was before the crucifixion.
FIFTH: According to Catholic doctrine, the so-called Eucharist, is a sacrifice. Each time it is performed, it is literally sacrificing Jesus afresh on the cross. BUT the Bible says Jesus' death on the cross was a once-and-for-all sacrifice in Hebrews 10. "But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb.10:12) "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (Heb.10:14) DID YOU HEAR WHAT GOD SAID, "ONE SACRIFICE FOR SIN FOREVER...BY ONE OFFERING"??
By default, without you thinking, you just indirectly disproved Jesus Christ the Godman when he said that gates of hell will not prevail over the church because the Apostolic Churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East) have always that Eucharist is the literal body of Jesus Christ, and the red wine is the literal blood of God. Second, the reason Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East believe one sacrifice but because outside of spacetime there is no concept of time as time is something that happens in finite discrete space, thus even of his crucifixion is always happening.
@@chrisg9196 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist
Read The Catechism of the Catholic Church from cover to cover and I guarantee your life will never be the same. Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and enkindle in them the fire of your Divine Love. 🕊️🔥
Both of you doesn't deal with what the Roman Catholic catechism actually says.
WOW! This video is very helpful! I'm amazed at how little the Pastors of protestant and evangelical churches understand of what the RCC really teaches.
Lutherans teach the same thing for the most part. Sadly.
@@markster136 protestants can't agree about anything
It’s been the teaching of the early Church as well. Since the first century.
@@markster136Why sadly? The teaching of the Real Presence goes back to St Paul, the early church fathers, to Augustine and later Aquinas. This is beautiful. I’m sorry but there is a real lack of the knowledge of history and it seems to me, no knowledge of the what the Early Church believed. Mike Gendron has a very shallow interpretation of doctrine. Really want to know what the Church teaches? Read the Early Church Fathers!
Read or just google “Early Church Fathers and the Real Presence”. Do you know of all of the intellectual and spiritual giants who believed in the Real Presence? ALL of the early church fathers, Augustine and Aquinas. These are giants … intellectual, holy men. There is real ignorance of what the first Christians believed and how they worshipped, which was liturgical worship.
The “Catholic” is Eucharist.. lol . Protestants don’t have a Eucharist. Protestantism is heresy. It literally undermines everything Christ said. Christ’s instruction to baptize ? Nahh we don’t have to do that. Christ giving the apostles the power to forgive and retain sins? Nah. We don’t have to believe that. Christ telling us to eat his body and drink his blood? Nope.. we don’t need that either. I could go on and on. Protestantism asserts itself not just above the true church, but above Christ himself. Within Protestantism every believer is the sole arbiter of their own belief system. Every believer crafts a version of god in their own minds; hence, you end up with thousands of different denominations.
Idk what you’re talking about. Protestants do communions where they partake in eating the bread and drinking (wine), it is only done in remembrance. Baptism is also crucial part of a Protestant Christian life. So you’re wrong here too. Etc… you really don’t know about what we do or don’t, do you?
john 6:54 "amen, amen i say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son on man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life within you." the bible even says that they complained it was a hard saying and he lost many followers after that. it's not a symbol. they heard his words, and understood him literally. if he didn't mean it literally, then he would have corrected them. he didn't. your response?
We are not saved by our actions we are only saved by the grace of Yahweh. That is it end of story.
@@budmattison regurgitating the 400 year old prot lie. never said we're saved by our actions. do you believe we can be damned by our actions? starting to sound like a limp wristed faith you have.
@bryansmith7758
So are you actually saying that by eating crackers and drinking grape juice you'll receive salvation? If not explain...
@@budmattison at least catholics have beliefs that are consistent with you bible you prots claim to love so much. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. you guys eat a symbol. i leave the symbols to the simple.
@bryansmith7758
I wonder how long our Lord and Savior will have to bleed until the Roman Catholic thirst for his blood is satisfied??
Don't walk away from the RCC run!!!
Sorry need for Priests, Nuns, Pope's, confessions, bread and crackers, ect.
Traditions of men. No Biblical basis what so ever...READ YOUR BIBLE PLEASE!!!!
Jesus died and is now at the right hand of God (ALIVE). We talk to him directly, with no need of a middle "man or woman"
SAVED BY HIS GRACE THAT IS ALL!!!
CAN NOT WORK YOUR WAY TO THE MANSION.....
I love how.he asked an anti Catholic who does not understand anything about the Eucharist what his false opinion is. By zero authority he declares that the RCC is blasphemous.
The RCC draws on that single sacrifice in order to participate in the salvation of the cross. Because if you read John 6 Jesus Christ wants us to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life. Protestants reject the Holy Eucharist so they have no life in them. I don't even count them as Christian. That's why Jesus said that not everyone who calls him Lord will go to Heaven.
It sounds like you are one of those disciples that took him literally and walked away.
As communion is the continuation of the Passover, the elements, like the Passover meal, is symbolic. It is interesting that Roman Catholics don’t take Jesus literally when he says he’s a door, but they do when he says he is bread.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that COMETH to me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH ON ME shall never thirst.
If you shall never hunger and never thirst by coming to and believing on Christ, have you not received food and drink?
He literally says after the parable that hes not being literal
John 6:63 It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth; the FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the WORDS that I SPEAK unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE.
SPIRIT, and LIFE. COME TO ME, BELIEVE ON ME. Get it?
The Pope quototed puplicly that the cross of Jesus was a failure and that they are many ways to Heaven.
The Cross of Jesus symbolizes God’s victory. We are all children of God, and there’s only ONE God." - Pope
Pope Francis believes that although Jesus’ death on the cross may appear as a failure from a human perspective, it was a victory from God’s viewpoint. (1 Corinthians 1:18, 1 Corinthians 15:54-57)
The Pope did not state that all religions with different beliefs and various gods will enter the same kingdom in Heaven as Christians believe.
He emphasizes that there’s only ONE God, meaning we can only reach God the Father through Jesus, the ONE true Son of God. (John 14:6, 1 John 3:1, Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-16)
St. Paul stated: Acts 4:12: “There is no one else who has the power to save us, for there is only ONE name to whom God has given authority by which we must experience SALVATION: the name of JESUS.”
“All religions are paths to God,” (Pope Francis' analogy). “They are like different languages that express the divine.” Speaking to young people during an interreligious dialogue, he warned against arguing which religion is “better.” All religions claim they have the true god and take different paths to reach the god they know. He emphasized, “God is for all, and if God is God for all, then we are all sons and daughters of God. But my God is more important than your God as there’s only ONE God.”
ONE Jesus' Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church.
I pray for those who may stray from the truth.
Love, peace, and unity for all nations in the name of Jesus. Amen.
“Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” John 6: 53
My brother in Christ that was a metaphor
@@adalmarcial3096 That is literal. Jesus said it in a literal way 5 times in a row. Back to back to back to back to back...literally. If you choose to read Jesus' literal message metaphorically, then pay attention to what many of the people who listened to him did immediately after hearing His words: they left. They stopped following Jesus (John 6:66...you read that correctly "666") because he was speaking literally, NOT metaphorically. And Jesus let them go. He did not clarify his words as being only metaphorical. Then he turned to the apostles and asked what they thought. Peter, speaking for the 12, responded by saying "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life..." (John 6:68)
Sadly, all Christians who claim that Christ was speaking metaphorically have the same response as those who stopped following Jesus because of His words: "This is a hard saying, who can accept it?" (John 6:60)
Pray on it. The Eucharist is a gift that Jesus gave us and it can and will change your life.
@@adalmarcial3096 Ask yourself this question, if indeed that was a metaphor why did so many followers leave Him after He said that? Why did His disciples say "This is a hard teaching, who can accept it?" Why did they murmur among themselves (like protestants do) over what He said if it was nothing more than a metaphor? And more importantly why didn't Jesus clarify to them that He was speaking symbolically like He usually did?
Protestants proclaim Sola Scriptura but then reject the literal words of Christ Himself. They believe IN Jesus but they don't believe Him.
The very first Protestant Christians were the followers that left Jesus after He preached the Eucharist. And 2,000 years later here they are, still rejecting Him.
@@FaithnTradition Jesus spoke in parables and metaphors to hide the truth from people who were never going to believe in him, I already have God with me, The Holy Ghost, I’d be glad to listen if you could explain the purpose and benefits of the Eucharist, but I genuinely believe that when Jesus said this, he was referring to us accepting him and believing him wholeheartedly. whatever the case may be, we are all men of God and our difference in interpretations are minuscule.
@@FaithnTradition In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus’ real point.
In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51) and the entire Mosaic system of Law. The passage from Sirach states that those who eat of the Law will "hunger still" and "thirst for more"; this language is mirrored by Jesus when He says, "He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself ("The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent," John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.
It's sad you don't understand this and are inadvertently being so profane, ungrateful, and rude to the Lord. You're missing the most wonderful thing on Earth. It's such a blessing to know the Lord in the material.
Sooo jesus says this is my body. Who the hell is this guy to say no it's not.
Jesus also said he is the door, does that mean we take him literally and think he is a literal wooden door? No, it's called metaphor
A few chapters back, Jesus instructs the Jewish leaders “Tear down this temple and in three days I will rebuild it”. He wasn’t speaking literal then either. This is why context matters.
Think about it: what is the theme of this passage in John 6? It boils down to “Who’s with me? And who’s against me?” We even see the first mention of Judas as the betrayer here as well. So we see a division between those who had their faith in Christ and those that didn’t. Those who could listen to words they didn’t yet understand but later would and those who turned their ears away instantly.
Interpreting this literally misses the meaning and beauty behind this passage all because you want to force a doctrine that doesn’t exist in scripture.
I have this habit of not allowing one passage of scripture to form my doctrine.
As a Catholic, I believe in, love and revere the miracle of Transubstantiation (the host and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ at the blessing of/consecration by the priest). I feel the Eucharist (Greek: Thanksgiving) brings me closer to Christ, and makes me want harder not to sin so as to be a worthy vessel of receiving Holy Communion (as indeed we pray before Communion). As Matthew 26 tells us - in many bibles but I reference the RSV2CE, this is founded in Jesus' own words. Usually Catholics are the bible-figurative ones, so I am perplexed by my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ who don't... And, since *anything* is possible for Jesus and He is everywhere and in everything, why not? It could even be that God's being is what becomes like the host and wine through the Power of the Holy Spirit. Transubstantiation seems no harder or easier to understand than the Trinity, but no mainstream Christian denies the Trinity. Nor is the Eucharist the re-crucifixion of Christ; by what power could we even attempt to do that? No Catholic believes it's anything other than a kind of remembrance, so stop regurgitating False Witness. Whatever you believe as fellow Christians, I'd suggest at least remaining quiet on the issue and certainly avoiding mocking it. If not, you could be bearing False Witness and *literally* mocking the body and blood of our Blessed Saviour, Lord Jesus Christ.
Respectfully didn’t our Lord and Savior die and suffer once so that for all time we can be saved through Him 🙏 Why would He need to be crucified over and over? Or am I misunderstanding what Catholics believe ?
@@shayalynn We definitely do *not* believe the Eucharist is the re-crucifixion of Christ.
This is the first time I'm coming across this particular and frankly ridiculous False Witness - not yours, you're asking the question which is fair enough. From its nature, I can only imagine that it arose from an extremely poor understanding of the Catholic Church, or more likely with a broader malicious intent against the RC Church that is so common it must surely be the work of satan.
Sadly, it seems that a Catholic saying 'no, the Church doesn't teach that / no, we don't believe that' that hasn't sufficed for a rather long time, as though we have an outward set of 'marketing' beliefs that mask our true evil plan to try live good lives. I will rely on scripture to reinforce our belief and practice at a high level:
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.
Romans 6:9-10 For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
Hebrews 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Matthew 26:26-28 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
RCC doctrine and Catholics are reading the Bible literally here, and taking Jesus at His word. Nowhere in the Mass is there any hint we're torturing and crucifying Christ again. How could we, as it was *only* by HIS Will that Jesus was murdered the first time.
@@shayalynnHe's not being crucified again and again, his sacrifice is being (represented) he's not being resacrifed he said (do this in memory of me), words of The last supper. take and eat this is my body take & drink this is my blood,( sacrificial language) hear !! Read John chapter 6 the whole chapter he says my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink!! You can't get more literal That!!
@@Scott-ze5fb Those instructions were given at the last supper so, how often was Jesus implying that the "remembrance" be done. Once a year? During the same date as the last supper? Or all the time? I can't seem to find anything that says to do it more than once a year as a memorial.
@@Scott-ze5fbthis is my body broken for you. Broken. You break it when you bite into it don't you?
I'm not Catholic, but this is just wrong. Imprimatur by the Catholic church means the publisher had rights to publish materials. This does not imply this is official doctrine. This is horrible cherry picking and making a straw man of an argument. To say the Catholic churches interpretation of the the Eucharist is not biblical is not something we can say with any certainty. It's just as probable, if not more so, that most protestants are wrong about the Eucharist when they deny the real bodily presence of Jesus.
Sounds like he’s using some massive hyperbole that I, as a Catholic, find problematic. I think he’s implying that Jesus is humbling himself to engage in the Eucharist not because he has to but because he wants to. But the language makes my skin crawl as well. That doesn’t change Church teaching nor 2,000 years of Church history.
ROME started the ROMAN catholic church in 313 at the Edit of Milan. Make sense? Christians were slaughtered up until that point and then the GOVERNMENT took over.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that COMETH to me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH ON ME shall never thirst.
If you shall never hunger and never thirst by coming to and believing on Christ, have you not received food and drink?
He literally says after the parable that hes not being literal
John 6:63 It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth; the FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the WORDS that I SPEAK unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE.
SPIRIT, and LIFE. COME TO ME, BELIEVE ON ME. Get it?
If the Catholic Church is wrong about the Eucharistic we are violating the first commandment and worshiping false idol. Read the early writings of early Christians Ignatius of Antioch, St Justin Martyr. Research the miracles of the Eucharistic that’s historically happened even to this present day. John 6 53-56 . It’s not an accident Christ said 3x
"Do not put your trust in nobles, in whom no salvation belongs" the psalmist said, so why trust what the "church fathers" were teaching? Should not your trust be in the inspired scriptures which have been preserved, rather than uninspired interpretations of later men?
There were arleady heresies and false teachers mentioned at the time the New Testament were recorded by the apostles!
Bear in mind the John 6 passage is around 1 year before the night Jesus actually instructed the apostles to partake . Were the apostles actually eating and drinking Christ blood that night as he was next to them? Did they believe that?
Even in John 6 we can see Jesus is not literal "bread from heaven", it is a parrallel with the manna that fed the Israelites back in the wildnerness. Bread which sustained their life, wheras this bread, the body of Christ would sustain them forever by reason of his being Messiah. So when we partake the bread and the wine these are reasonably intended to be symbols.
IF they were literal, somehow the 11 apostles were eating his flesh and drinking his blood, even though he was right there with them, how are we to explain that?
and all three times in meant the same thing, a Jewish metaphor where bread was equated to the bible and eating it was to read and study the word of God.
@@sim448 so we would throw away the teachings of The Early Christian Church Fathers who knew the Old Testament, knew Jewish teaching, sat at the feet of the Apostles, had an unbroken line to the Apostles, were martyred for their faith and instead listen to Pastor Mike’s interpretations?
@@kath976 Please re read my comment. There were heresies before and during the time of the apostles. The jewish pharisees, which started around 200 bce; showed signs of hellenism (greek, pagan religion) These later "church fathers" were aso in their education and teachings evidently influenced by hellenism.
I dont follow Pastor Mike i just listen and see if his thoughts align with the bible. The bible is the final authority for me since it is the inspired word of God, which he completed within the first century through the apostles.. Do you have answers to my other questions sorrounding communion ?
Mr. Gendron seems to ignore what the Early Church believed. For example, here's a part of what St. Ignatius of Antioch told the Smyrnaeans in the second century.
"Chapter 6. Unbelievers in the blood of Christ shall be condemned
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.
Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils."
www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
Say Mr. Gendron rode a Time Machine to St. Ignatius's second-century diocese. Then, people there would have avoided him because they thought he wasn't a Christian.
yeah, actually he said it himself... that he refuses to read the early church fathers. so basically he is missing So much 😅
I think it would be wise to go back to the early church fathers, and actually get the actually teaching from the catholic catechism. The idea that it is just symbolic is a very new idea, and was associated with the gnostics in the early church.
Wait..why would gnostics say it was only physical? The gnostics abhorred the physical and thought everything spiritual was good and that physical is bad. This comment confuses me.
@@MrsCambers the idea that the Eucharist is not the real presence of Christ is what the gnostics believed.
@@MrsCambers Mike Gendron is very ignorant on the early church fathers, and claims that the Catholics have a false gospel while misrepresenting what they actually believe. I would fact check everything he says,
@@mayermackenzie yeah but by saying that they’re saying it’s only physical which still goes against how they think regardless because to them the physical is bad. So the people obsessed with spirit only and against the physical turned it into being just a physical symbol? I can’t make sense of that logic.
@@MrsCambers
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
What he finished on the cross? This seems to be a misunderstanding. Even after Jesus said It is finished he came back again and told his followers more instructions. And even Paul says that without the resurrection our faith is in vain... once again after he said it is finished. We believe that the sacrifice was once and for all too. However, he seems to misunderstand a Passover lamb sacrifice. One lamb would be slain in the Jewish custom and it would be eaten for multiple days. Jesus fulfilled the Passover and his sacrifice is so perfect that it is eternal. John the baptist also prophesied him as the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wonder what Mike Grendron thinks about Eucharistic miracles.
They don’t understand that the order of Melchizedek is forever and the slain lamb in revelation is that because He forever makes access for us to the Father as both our high priest and sacrifice.
These evangelicals think in worldly terms unfortunately.
@andrewdrew677 the order of Melchisedec is for ever because it refers ONLY to the High Priesthood of Christ, not to the catholic priesthood.
"the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever." (Hebrews 7, 3-4).
Catholic priests do have a beginning and an end.
After Jesus death, no more passover lambs were needed. No more sacrifices.
And the fact that the temple in Jerusalem (where the sacrifices took place) was destroyed in 70 aD by Titus is a graphic reminder of that.
@carolinajackson7621 catholic understanding is also that no more passover lambs are needed.
@carolinajackson7621 we believe the catholic priests participate in the priesthood of Christ
As a Catholic, whatever that priest said is incorrect and blasphemous, even to the Catholic Church. False.
What did Jesus mean when He said unless you eat my body and drink my blood you do not have eternal life in you???
WAITING!!!
Yes Christ did say that but He also told those individuals ten times they needed to believe in Him and they refused to believe He was sent from God. In other words they did not have ears to hear. Read John 6 from verse 22 to the end, very slowly. You will also see that Christ told them no one can come to Him unless the Father brings them. Christ also said you need to believe in Him, not eat Him. Also don't over look the real reason they were there, a free meal, they wanted to feed the flesh. Christ was trying to point out that as bread is required to live in the flesh, His word was required for eternal life and His word is the bread of eternal life.
One last thing. Compare the teaching here to that of the women at the well. Christ told her she needed to drink the living water for eternal life, not the well water. Christ didn't have special water, he was talking about the word of God, to believe in Jesus.
Many blessings friend hope that helps.
@@sammygomes7381 with the woman at the well he told her to go and sin no more. He had not instituted the Eucharist yet. Did that at the last supper.
When he said ‘unless you eat my body and drink my blood’ a lot of disciples fled thinking He was loony toons. He never called them back saying
IM JUST KIDDING
IM JUST KIDDING!
Because He wasn’t kidding!
I think the ones who bolted might have been your ancestors. THEY WOULDN’T LISTEN EITHER.
hahahahahaha!!!!!
Mary says in the bible
ALL NATIONS SHALL CALL ME BLESSED
MY SOUL MAGNIFIES THE LORD.
God inspired!
What does she mean?
@@johnwilson8810 The Bible nowhere indicates that Mary can hear our prayers or that she can mediate for us with God. Jesus is our only advocate and mediator in heaven (1 Timothy 2:5). If offered worship, adoration, or prayers, Mary would say the same as the angels: “Worship God!” (see Revelation 19:10; 22:9.) Mary herself sets the example for us, directing her worship, adoration, and praise to God alone: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for He has been mindful of the humble state of His servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me - holy is His name” (Luke 1:46-49).
@@sammygomes7381 firstly where does it say the bible is the only source of truth?
Show me where I said Mary was a mediator. Like most wayward Protestants you make things up. Show me where any catholic says Mary is a mediator? Cant!
The Eucharist was universally recognized as the real presence of Christ through the vast majority of Church history. The Protestant reformers also recognized this. You are completely wrong and blinded by modern American Evangelicalism
Mike, you state your apostolic church has been around for 2000 years. Would you mind posting a list of all your leaders over that 2000 years. You know, your equivalent of the popes. Your church didn’t just float through time with no structure or hierarchy did it? Oh yes, and I would love a list of all the saints canonized in your church. You know the Holy role models or your martyrs!
Can’t wait. Do not tarry. Get them out there. Thanking you ahead!
A saint is one who is SAVED,SANCTIFIED BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS,
it is not an appointed office endowed by old men in red dresses !
When your computer breaks down do you pray to saint isadore?
4 April - Saint Isidore Day. Did you know?! Programmers and developers do have a patron saint! His name is Saint Isidore of Seville, and his feast day is the 4th of April.
Mac users just have to get a repairman ,sorry!
@@savedbygrace8337 so yo are a stand up comedian.
Saints lived holy lives did good works and never blasphemed the mother of God. That is left to Satan, MacArthur and his followers. Many saints were martyred do their faith. Plse list one saint from the 40,000 Protestant churches. Oh I remember VINNIE COPPOLI, right?
@@johnwilson8810 now listen ! the term saint refers to one who is saved,
Sanctified by the BLOOD OF JESUS Paul used it as a greeting for his
Epistles.I.e.to the saints at ephesus ,to the saints at colossi!Ephesians 1:1
“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:”
@@johnwilson8810 Again JESUS could have saved HIMSELF
a lot of pain and suffering if HE would have just said,”
“HANDS OFF MY MOM”
@@johnwilson8810 LUKE 1:46,”mary saidMY SOUL DOTH MAGNIFY THE LORD AND MY SPIRIT REJOICES IN GOD MY SAVIOR”
only sinners need a savior correct?
The quote is a bit confusing. The offering that a priest offers at the altar is the one and same offering that the one priest, Jesus Christ, offered on the cross. He is re-presenting the one sacrifice offered once for all, as commanded by Jesus. He is not doing something on his own initative, Jesus is making the offering through him.
Do you take offense at this? It was because of this teaching that Judas betrayed Jesus; it was because of this teaching that many disciples abandoned Jesus...and he let them go without correcting them, they understood and didn't accept it. They found this saying too hard, how can this man give us his flesh to eat? If he is just a man the flesh is of no avail, yet he is not just a man and the words He spoke are spirit and life...yet there are some that do not believe and depart from his teaching.
No one can believe this unless it is granted him by the Father. Pray that you might believe, that you might discern the body and the blood, that you might partake in the new covenant, for as Jesus said “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." You cannot afford to reject Jesus's teaching.
Luke 22:19-20 - "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
John 6:52-58 - "The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
"...Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
1 Cor 11:23-39 - "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."
Next time when doing an interview remove the music..it gets in the way of hearing it
I thought I was watching part of Prometheus for a while there, very similar score.
I hope that isn’t a consecrated host he is holding. I haven’t seen or heard that quote from Fr O’Brien, as far as I’m aware that simply isn’t the teaching of the church. If the Catholic view of the Eucharist, ie the real presence, is wrong, why did the earliest Christians also believe this? St Justin martyr, st Irenaeus, St. Paul all believed in the real presence. Why, then, would someone want to subscribe to a man made tradition that the Eucharist is simply symbolic? St. Paul says that you must discern before receiving the Eucharist, why then do many Protestant churches have open communion or no worry of people receiving unworthily? Luckily, they don’t have the real presence as they lack apostolic succession, but still, these are man made, unbiblical traditions that look nothing like the faith of the early church
Yeahhh let’s just ignore all the literal Scripture that talks about the Eucharist 😅
“ So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.’” John 6:53. Jesus was adamant that the Eucharist was not a symbol. After he said this a large number of his disciples left him, because they knew he wasn’t speaking metaphorically. He didn’t soften the message to bring them back. He meant it literally. The early church also took it literally. It wasn’t until thousands of years later that dudes like this guy first started saying that the Eucharist doesn’t contain the real presence. It’s particularly dishonest for this guy to make his argument without even hinting at what the Catholic argument is or addressing the scripture that the Catholic position is based on.
Martin Luther also repeatedly defended the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. How is this guy not even going to address that?
"You know them by their fruits"... If it can and will change your life, why aren't the majority of catholics who practice these things weekly preaching the gospel, trying to live a life pleasing to God, why aren't they operating in the gifts of the Holy Spirit? I grew up catholic and left it behind and tried to live life on my own terms and recognized my need for Jesus and gave my life to Him and spend years diving into faith and truth, I had many encounters with Jesus and experienced Gods love and grace many times because I went directly through Jesus. I met a lot of men and women of faith and was a part of a lot different churches. I went to a catholic mass not too long ago and it feels like the Holy Spirit is quenched there. It's like sheep being told what to do but not why, And most of my friends who grew up in the catholic church/private school are mostly scarred and have a very distorted view of God. If the Eucharist is meant to be what Catholics believe then why aren't people ecstatic and filled with life and truly meeting and encountering Jesus in that moment if that is the God of the universe in the flesh? Just food for thought.
Also. In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus’ real point.
In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51) and the entire Mosaic system of Law. The passage from Sirach states that those who eat of the Law will "hunger still" and "thirst for more"; this language is mirrored by Jesus when He says, "He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself ("The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent," John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.
The arrogance of a man like this is bread taking. So he thinks that Thomas Aquinas Henry Newman Robert bellman. Then all the doctors of the church missed what hes talking about? That is amazing.
he's simply ignorant... and he uses his ignorance to lead people on the wrong path
Everyone wants to be the pope these days it seems
Catholics do not redo the sacrifice of the Calvary. Holy Mass makes present Last Supper when Jesus was instituting the Eucharist (giving thanks for the bread, breaking it) at the same time alluring to the Passions on the Cross to come next day. If taking the passages of Scripture, the passage talking about the Bread of Life in John 6 may be a good argument for the Real Presence…
The bread of Life discourse. John 6. I’d really urge you to look at the way church father in the 100’s. As they were closer to the time of Christ than you or I. St Ignatius of Antioch stated such a belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Please don’t dismiss this.
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
You Catholics always talk about the church Fathers, but didn't Jesus say "call no man your Father"??? It's because they don't have the authority of God.
@@theextreme7134 Matthew 3:9, "We have Abraham for our father". Also Acts 7:2. Jesus doesn't mean it in the sense that you think. For if he meant it in the way that I think you mean that means that we cant even call our human dads "Fathers?" which is not the case. He means it in the way that we owe ultimate allegiance to, since its God the father who is our only "father in heaven".
@@JimS91939 Jesus is specifically addressing the practice of referring to religious leaders and mentors as "father" in any formal or official sense. He is forbidding any attempt to give one of His followers a spiritual status above another.
@@theextreme7134 how is that different than when Abraham is called father or when St Paul refers to himself as a father? I'm sorry but this critique of the Catholic Church just doesn't add up.
@@JimS91939 Abraham is called Father in a genealogical sense and Paul's motivation for calling himself Father was the love that a Father has for his children, he did not use it as a name of authority or superiority like the Catholic church does.
1 CORINTHIANS 11: 26-29
26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
I will worship the Eucharist, you can kill me if you can but if its a symbol, then to hell with it! Jesus died to forgive our sins, many other things, and to provide us spiritual nourishment. John 6 51-58. It is Jesus and Ill worship Him always
It seems like idolatry nothing you believe is right you are in danger. Christ gave his body and blood already. Once is all it took. The bread and wine at the supper was so that his disciples would understand what was about to happen to him.
@@bible1st but it is literally HIS BODY. Even scientific studies found that (and they didnt know what this was as they were not alrrted from the Qrchdiocese of Buenos Aires that it was the Eucharist) there was AB (universal donor) blood and white cardiac muscle tissue that was disguised as bread and wine. So if that doesnt prove to you that the Eucharist is God then I dont know what else. This happened in the 1990s in Buenos Aires if you want to go and look at the scientific paper showcasing how this miraculous thing happened.
Jesus said, "Do this in memory of me. Not do this to receive me." It's a memorial proclamation until He comes back. 1Cor 11:23-26
@ghostrider0292 Matthew 26:29 Jesus said I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until I drink it new with you. So, is Jesus going to drink his own blood later, or did he call it for what it really is? It's either the fruit of the vine or his actual blood.
So you guys have never read in your Catholic Bible where Jesus is eating with his disciples and he says do this in remembrance of me as he gave bread and wine to them? Or unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you? It's in the Catholic Bible you read.
well I think they censored that part or ignored it lols 😅😅😅
In 110 AD, St Ignatius of Antioch, disciple and co-worker of St John the Apostle wrote (and recall that St John was the inspired human author of Jesus' great "Bread of Life" talk in John 6): "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions.... see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again."
We know that some in not all of Ignatuis writings were forged. Even the apostle's never preached Christ was in the bread let alone having the power to command Him to come down to earth during a mass which neither Christ nor the apostles ever did.
@@sammygomes7381 If ignatius was wrong, can you show me some other historic writings from 1st century which says that the bread and cup were mere symbols?
@@into-christ In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus’ real point.
You might try reading this article to shed some light on the subject.
The Jerusalem Post, both in articles on the Torah and in articles on the Gospels, we have discussed again and again and again that “food is a metaphor for knowledge” and have seen in example after example that: “each type of food represents a different aspect of knowledge”. Hence: “bread” is a metaphor for: “the word of God”, “figs” are a metaphor for “knowledge about God”, “milk” is a metaphor for “easy to understand spiritual teachings”
Remember that the apostles understood what Christ was talking about when in verse 68 Peter responded they didn't want to leave because Christ had the "words" of eternal life.
Notice not once did the apostles ever claim they could turn bread into the body of Christ or that He was in the bread.
www.jpost.com/Blogs/Torah-Commentaries/The-Gospels-Metaphors-and-The-Three-Wise-Men-413644
@@sammygomes7381 The claims that the relevant writings of Ignatius were forged are bunk, period.
@@sammygomes7381 So you're attempting to claim that just this one of the several valid means of interpreting the Eucharist is true, despite the abundance of textual and historical evidence that it was understood as confected in a liturgical sacrifice and contained the Real Presence of Christ?
The word imprimatur means "let it be printed" and is basically the bishop's permission for something to be published. It has nothing to do with doctrine. Please don't lie. Jesus is the truth and starting a video with a misleading falsehood is not very Christian.
He's a Protestant. He must obey his master.
Again mike, The Transubstantiation is on (Matthew 26:26) (John 6:53) (John 6:56) (1 Corinthians 11:24-25)
Not a single one of those scriptures mentions transubstantiation.
The Bible is a book of full of symbolism especially in the gospels.
You’re trying to force literal meaning on symbolic verses.
Jesus never commanded us to worship bread and wine. He only commanded for it to be consumed in remembrance of him.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that COMETH to me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH ON ME shall never thirst.
If you shall never hunger and never thirst by coming to and believing on Christ, have you not received food and drink?
He literally says after the parable that hes not being literal
John 6:63 It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth; the FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the WORDS that I SPEAK unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE.
SPIRIT, and LIFE. COME TO ME, BELIEVE ON ME. Get it?
Re-read chapter 6 of the Gospel of John. Jesus is pretty clear in his words. Evangelicals love to say they take Scripture literally, but conveniently somehow arbitrarily determine that Jesus was only kidding when He said He is the bread of life.
I don't know why people still have the same issues as the people of 2000 years ago, Our Lord is very sound and clear:“ John 6:48-66
New International Version
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit[a] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
The Bible says: 1corr. 10:1-21 , read what it says. Thank you
The problem that protestants have is the same as Mormonism based on the following 3 arguments. (1) Mormons (Latter-Day Saints, or LDS) believe that after the death of the last Apostle, there was a “Great Apostasy.” Priesthood authority ceased, doctrine began to degenerate, and the true Gospel was lost (necessitating its “restoration” by Joseph Smith in the 19th century). (2) The vast majority of protestants reject multiple doctrines that were believed unanimously by ancient Christians, beginning with the very first Church Fathers who were discipled by the Apostles themselves. Specifically, these protestants reject three key doctrines: a. Baptismal regeneration (how we become Christians); b. Apostolic succession (how the Church is governed); and c. The sacrifice of the Eucharist (how Christians worship). (3) Therefore, whether they realize it or not, most protestants believe in a “Great Apostasy” theory of history that is virtually identical with that of the LDS. If all Christians of which we have any record-including the disciples of the Apostles-were unanimously wrong about how we become Christians, how the Church is governed, and how we worship as Christians (the “Three Doctrines”), there is no more fitting description of this massive falling away than a “Great Apostasy.” This necessarily means that creatures (the protestant “reformers,” or the LDS’s “prophet” Joseph Smith) outperformed the Creator, since their “gospels” and “churches” have now in one form or another lasted for centuries, whereas when Jesus originally established them, they fell apart immediately.
In the writings of the Church Fathers every time they spoke about heresy and heretics, they were describing Protestantism. Protestantism is all over the place on the different positions. You can’t speak about the Protestant position on something, except perhaps in the form of a negative, like they’re contrary to the Catholic Church, they’re contrary to the Roman Pontiff. But the methods, the means, by which Protestants arrive at their theological conclusions were common in virtually all the heresies and the heretics that the Fathers talk about.
Christians believe God and take Him at His Word. Catholics doubt God and deny what Jesus has already accomplished. They have their own way. They deny the Grace of God.
To their own demise
@@casey8726 Can you point me to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (or any other official doctrinal document from the Holy See) where it states "Catholics doubt God and deny what Jesus has already accomplished. They have their own way. They deny the Grace of God. " ? Someone is feeding you misinformation. I suggest you do your homework before spreading lies.
@@casey8726 Also, keep in mind that the Bible is a Catholic book! The Bible is an inestimable gift from God. It's his word in written form - something each of us should cherish and study regularly.
Some groups of Christians try to claim the Bible for themselves. They make it sound like the Catholic Church is opposed to Scripture. Some even claim that the Church "hates" the Bible.
But, all Christians owe an enormous debt to the Catholic Church, for it was through the Church that the Bible was given to the world. Jesus himself founded the Catholic Church. He appointed its first leaders, and they were the ones who - under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - wrote the books of the New Testament, which completed and became the capstone of all the scriptures that had come before.
The Holy Spirit then guided the Catholic Church to discern which books belonged in the Bible and which did not. This involved the crucial process of sorting the true scriptures from all of the false ones that existed.
The Catholic Church laboriously copied the scriptures in the age before the printing press, when every book-including lengthy ones like the Bible-had to be written by hand. It thus preserved these books through the centuries, unlike so many ancient works that have now been lost.
The Catholic Church is why we have the Bible today, and everyone should be grateful for the gift that, by the grace of God, it has given to the world.
Finally, let me give you the timeline for the development of the Bible:
382 AD - Pope Damasus I holds the Council of Rome, which establishes the canon of Scripture.
393 AD - Council of Hippo reaffirms the canon.
397 AD - Council of Carthage reaffirms the canon.
405 AD - Pope Innocent I reaffirms the canon.
419 AD - Another Council of Carthage reaffirms the canon.
1142 AD - The Council of Florence reaffirms the canon.
In the 16th century, Martin Luther disagreed with the Catholic Church when Church councils ruled against him on his heretical believes, and Luther then decided to become a heretic “pope” by incorrectly translating the Bible to german, and coming up with his own doctrines, including his own doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and others. He removed 7 books of the Old Testament thereby establishing his own canon. He also wanted to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation, but one of his friends told him it was not a good idea.
so the apostles doing this are wrong? the early church fathers who composed the bible that u protestants rely on are wrong? of course not. This whole idea of it being symbolic is a new idea 1500 years after Christ.
yo love seeing someone with Luffy as there profile pic defending the Eucharist 💪 God bless you bro !
@@sitswithmooselooks like someone has the power of God and anime on his side
Oh yeah. The Last Supper, which is mentioned in all 4 books of the Gospel and by St. Paul, the only meal where Jesus gives special instructions, and foretells the sacrificial offering of himself, is just a meal, nothing of significance. If you believe that then you really dont understand the Bible. Why did and do the Jews celebrate Passover every year? It happened only once, why are they enacting it over and over again? Worship involves sacrifice. That's why the Temple (where the Last Supper was near) superseeded the synagogues where no sacrifices were made. Today's Protestant worship was like the synagogue during the time of Jesus. Just places where people congregated and talked about scripture. Catholic Churches are like the Temple where sacrifice is memorialized (Jesus was crucified only once never to be crucified again) through the body and blood of Christ. All the evidence of the early Church points to this. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." (1 Corinthians 11:26)
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor 11:27)
Read Justin Martyr and the Fathers of the Church. The breath of ignoring scripture and history (as Jesus entered history) is absolutely astounding.
"You know them by their fruits"... If it can and will change your life, why aren't the majority of catholics who practice these things weekly preaching the gospel, trying to live a life pleasing to God, why aren't they operating in the gifts of the Holy Spirit? I grew up catholic and left it behind and tried to live life on my own terms and recognized my need for Jesus and gave my life to Him and spend years diving into faith and truth, I had many encounters with Jesus and experienced Gods love and grace many times because I went directly through Jesus. I met a lot of men and women of faith and was a part of a lot different churches. I went to a catholic mass not too long ago and it feels like the Holy Spirit is quenched there. It's like sheep being told what to do but not why, And most of my friends who grew up in the catholic church/private school are mostly scarred and have a very distorted view of God. If the Eucharist is meant to be what Catholics believe then why aren't people ecstatic and filled with life and truly meeting and encountering Jesus in that moment if that is the God of the universe in the flesh? Just food for thought.
Also. In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus’ real point.
In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51) and the entire Mosaic system of Law. The passage from Sirach states that those who eat of the Law will "hunger still" and "thirst for more"; this language is mirrored by Jesus when He says, "He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself ("The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent," John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.
@@justinlemieux5189 I can't speak for all Catholics, but I'm sure there are many who try to truly love their faith (you can see that in many different ways expressed in many different ways...not just some feeling). But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the Faith is true and has the fullness of Truth. Catholicism has the fullness of Truth. With regards to the Eucharist, Jesus was literally referring to his body and blood (it wasn't a parable). John 6:60 illustrates the difficulty that some of his followers had with it. Many left him. This was one of his "hard sayings" and the most prominent. People knew what he meant and John made sure to let the reader know that. You can choose to ignore or minimize it but it is really the crux of the matter. Dr. Scott Hahn (The Lambs Supper) and Dr. Brant Pitre (Jesus and the Last Supper) do a great job explaining it.
@@user-vf5mx8fh8j Jesus said it was spiritual. Eating and drinking are very straightforward commands, if that's true then why would that be so hard for people, especially those who loved Him and saw His miracles, understand and not be discouraged? In fact most of what Jesus taught was spiritual and many people didn't understand everything he was saying until after His resurrection, so you're telling me something so simple and straightforward was hard for them to believe and after all they knew and saw that was the moment the decided to walk away? Hmmm 🤔
@@justinlemieux5189 Where exactly in the Bible did Jesus say it was spiritual?
@@user-vf5mx8fh8j "it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63-64). So, if "the flesh is of no avail," why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are "spirit." Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: "Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1). It's about coming into faith with Jesus.
I love this stuff. When Herman Melville wrote Moby Dick, a short time later a bunch of Protestants showed up to tell him what he meant in each paragraph.
They read the book. 1:00
That specific text read at the beginning is not Catholic Doctrine. You should be reading from the Catechism or from other official Catholic documents instead of misinforming people.
So so disingenuous. Quoting a priest who is plainly wrong and holding it as a standard for the Catholic Church? If you’re honest you will concede this is wrong.
*JESUS SPEAKS TO THE DEPARTING DISCIPLES IN JOHN 6*
_But only in Protestant translations of the Bible._
"Wait! Wait..come back! I was speaking metaphorically!"
Mike, since there are 35-40,000 Christian denominations, most of which showed up in the 20th century where does your church fit in, #1? If so, does that make MacArthur #2? Oh, still need to know why scripture is supreme.
The church is all true, born again people who are IN CHRIST throughout history. What church are you in????? Scripture is supreme because Jesus said "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4) That's why scripture is supreme, it is the word of God.
@@theextreme7134 The bible says Jesus taught many more things than could be written down (John, last paragraph). Are you saying all of those teachings by Jesus are unimportant and should be ignored? WHERE in the bible does it say the bible is all you need and is "supreme?" It DOESN'T. It's obvious you don't even understand the bible you pretend is "supreme." Yes, it is the inerrant word of God, because the RCC SAID IT WAS....but the bible does NOT make the claim for itself that you are making. IN FACT, it says the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation for truth, and that ORAL TEACHINGS (tradition) are important as well as written scripture. Believe your bible, not propagandists. See 1 Tim 3:15 and 2 Thess 2:15 and you will start to understand.
@@richardkramer4076 That is false. It says "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did." It says nothing about missing teachings. Jesus said the bible is supreme, in Matthew 4:4 He says "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." Jesus only had very negative things to say about the traditions of men. The true church is all born again, Holy Spirit filled people who are IN CHRIST, they are the pillar and foundation of truth because they are the only people on earth who have the Holy Spirit to teach them all things (John 14:26) and guide them into all truth (John 16:13).
@@theextreme7134 Your rejoinder is what is false. Teaching is what Jesus did. He became incarnate to die for our sins and to establish a visible church modeled after the Davidic kingdom, with a hierarchy well-described in the bible. He said nothing about writing a bible. Your Matthew quote still doesn't make the case for the bible alone, because he taught ORALLY ONLY as far as we know, and so did his apostles almost always, except for the handful of letters and epistles we have. Nobody relied on scripture alone for over a thousand years, because bibles were scarce and most people couldn't read anyway. Your ignorance is obvious. What Jesus said about traditions is standard "fundamentalist" Protestant propaganda that totally ignores context and in fact, is a lie. The traditions Jesus criticized were the corruption of the Pharisees, and NOT traditions talked about by his apostles, like the reference I gave you in 2 Thess 2:15. Maybe you should try reading it instead of ignoring it and telling more lies. . It uses the same Greek verb PARADOSEIS for "traditions" as the one used by Jesus for the Pharisees. Two other times "traditions" is used favorably (proving your lie) by Paul is in 1 Cor 11:2 and 2 Thess 3:6. ALL three refer implicitly or explicitly to maintaining the traditions they were taught. Do you want to be even more ignorant and claim the traditions, ORAL and written, that Paul taught the Thessalonians and the Corinthians was evil "traditions" of men? You totally lack common sense if you think that if Jesus was criticizing BAD traditions that He was against ALL traditions, even those taught by His apostles? Do you see how stupid that is? And you are way off base on the two John verses...again you totally ignore context which fundamentalists always seem to do...cherry-picking isolated verses that seem to support their flawed theology. "The Extreme" is a good name for you.Jesus is meeting with his APOSTLES and he promises THEM that the Holy Spirit will teach them all things and will guide THEM into all truth. Anyone with a lick of common sense can easily see that your fantasy of what the "true church" is CAN'T POSSIBLY be the pillar and foundation for all truth because thousands of bickering and differing Protestant churches all claiming to know what "bible truth" is sure aren't led by the Holy Spirit, who doesn't participate in that confusion. Anyone who is intellectually honest knows John was speaking about the visible church mentioned in Acts and elsewhere, and there was only one for a thousand years.....the RCC. In John 3, Jesus was talking about baptism to be saved, and NOT to "let him into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior." Those words are not in the bible, and in context, we see what Jesus and his disciples did after the talk with Nicodemus in verse 22...they went out and BAPTIZED...the motif of water and the spirit that Jesus said was necessary. Your "born again" false, man-made tradition of fundamentalists was never said by Jesus.
@@richardkramer4076 Jesus said the only way His church would be visible would be by the love they have for one another, John 13:35 "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." I see no love like that among Roman Catholics. Jesus taught orally, but his disciples took notes, Mark 13:14 Jesus says "let the READER understand..." All the early churches had copies of the scriptures and were read aloud. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 states "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word OR by our letter." Did you notice it says OR by letter, we have ALL THE LETTERS, it's called the New Testament. You can go right to the source for what the early traditions were. Water baptism is not necessary for salvation, Acts 10:44-48 describes gentiles who received the Holy Spirit before water baptism "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" You also must realize you can't judge by denomination, only by individuals. You have to look for who manifests the true fruit of the spirit. Jesus said the church (body of true believers) would be full of tares (false Christians) (Matthew 13:24-30). If water baptism saved you, there would be no tares, but Jesus clearly taught there will be. 1 Corinthians 11:19 says " for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." You also misread what I said about tradition. Jesus had nothing good to say about the TRADITIONS OF MEN. MAN-MADE TRADITIONS that depart from the teachings of God. Over 50% of Roman Catholic doctrines and traditions in practice today were completely unknown to the original apostles. Those are bad traditions.
I am still learning about paganism in the Catholic Church. Its amazing how Satan has blinded millions through this blasphemous religion. Thank you Holy Spirit for revealing to me the truth of your word.
That you Mike Gendron can sit there and talk outright nonsense on a topic you have vague knowledge of is astounding You pick verses and chapters out of the air but that does not prove you have a good understanding of them you don't You think you know better than the Apostles and the Early church fathers namely St Ignatius of Antioch who warned Christians to avoid those who denied the actual Presence of the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist celebrated by them then and till this day by the consecrated priests of the Holy Apostolic churches I understand you will not have an audience and an income without Catholic Bashing but put your soul first and REPENT
It is an unblody sacrifice- His words at the Last Supper was "This is my Body...This is my Blood what did he mean by that? Martin Luther said He is present, "in, with, and under" The Elements.
The last supper was a Passover meal which included the custom of breaking bread. Christ was showing His body would be broken as He broke the bread. The wine symbolized the blood He would spill for our sins. As for Martin Luther, just think of Him as one of many God used to stop His church from being prevailed by the gates of hell. Luther, like all of us, was a sinner and not perfect but God used Him for the purpose He needed too. If one is going to follow Christ they need to follow Him and not the teachings of Luther or even your local Pastor if they differ from the word of God.
It’s figurative not literal!
If it was literal HE would have sliced a piece of his arm off and given it to them to eat bloody .
Catholics believe the most absurd things that their
Leaders tell them.
@@sammygomes7381 And pray tell, what is the "Word of God"?
Also, the Last Supper was clearly liturgical. I don't know who would dispute that point of exegesis except out of preexisting beliefs.
@@hilairebelloc3368 MY friend the word of God is what tells us that what we call the last supper was a Passover meal complete with the Jewish custom of breaking bread which is part of the Passover. Jewish custom also tells us bread had been a metaphor for the "word of God" for thousands of years.
The word of God.
Matthew 26:2
“You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to be crucified.”
Matthew 26:17
On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will You have us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?”
Matthew 26:18
He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with My disciples.’ ”
Matthew 26:19
The disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover.
In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus’ real point.
Articles in the Jerusalem Post, both in articles on the Torah and in articles on the Gospels, we have discussed again and again and again that “food is a metaphor for knowledge” and have seen in example after example that: “each type of food represents a different aspect of knowledge”. Hence: “bread” is a metaphor for: “the word of God”, “figs” are a metaphor for “knowledge about God”, “milk” is a metaphor for “easy to understand spiritual teachings”
You ask, "who would dispute that point of exegesis except out of preexisting beliefs" Someone that follows the word of God and not a doctrine based on Peter as a pope.
What’s annoying is some quote from a priest is considered the catholic teaching shameful liars of Satan
How in the world do prots not make the correlation between them and the people who walked out on Christ at the dinner table, boy bye y’all are dumb. Catholics stayed prots strayed🙏🏼
Did he actually bring a consecrated host? If yes, then. . . Oh my 😢
Vile man.
Should have brought some marmalade too. Coulda had a lil snack
@@anne.ominousas a Catholic, I laughed
What he is saying is that there is no such thing. And he's right.
I dare you to visit an Adoration chapel quietly for 10 visits and just pray.
You are so misguided. So sad.
There are numerous documentary in RUclips pertaining the miracles of consecrated host. Better watch that before going down into conclusions.
Satan is a master of deception.
@@sammygomes7381 So the Evil One has the power to falsify miracles, and not just make shows of miracles? Exactly how powerful do you think the devil is?
They pick a random priest who saying it wrong. There are many other Catholic apologists to choose a better explanation!
lol this is absurd.
Yes catholicism is absurd!
@@savedbygrace8337 no this is man is a heretic. Not one meaningful argument.
@@EricAlHarb Isaiah 2:8
“Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made:”
Matthew 6:7
“But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.”
John 10:30
“I and my Father are one.”
Luke 1:46 +47
“And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in GOD MY SAVIOR!
ONLY SINNERS NEED A SAVIOR!
@@savedbygrace8337 no one worships icons or statues
We pray from the bible, just as the apostles
And Mary does need a saviour. She’s sinless because of her saviour.
Do you believe that Jesus commands you to call her blessed?
That Jesus Himself in the flesh keeps the commandments to honour thy mother and Father and does indeed today honour her as the mother of God?
@@EricAlHarb Luke 1,46+47, “MY SOUL DOTH MAGNIFY THE LORD AND MY SPIRIT REJOICES IN GOD MY SAVIOR”
OKAY
Mike, there are 400,000 priests in the Catholic Church and you are smarter than every one of them! I believe you are so smart and so superior, after all you were a Catholic once, that you can tell me why scriptures are the supreme authority over truth. I can’t find it in our bible. Please help. Please display you brilliance to all my Catholic friends. HURRY, HURRY,HURRY
More catholic disinformation!
@@savedbygrace8337 you sound like a Democrat did you vote for the party of death?
@@johnwilson8810 if you mean the catholic church no ,I am a saved by the blood of my
LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST !
Saved from catholic blasphemy by my
LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST!
HERE IT IS!
Romans 10:13
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
All The scriptures are truth,especiallyRomans 10:13
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
PRAISE GOD!
God gave the people in the old testament miraculous food from heaven so sacred and holy that it dwells within the ark.of the covenant the holy of holys. Do you really think Jesus would give us food to consume that merely a symbol and inferior to the food of the old testament?
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”
- Ignatius of Antioch, (a disciple of the Apostle John) Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 107]).
"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (St. Augustine, Psalms 99:8)
good reason to follow Christ and not Augustine.
@@sammygomes7381 False dichotomy.
@@hilairebelloc3368 True statement.
🎯👁 *I NOTICE YOU QUOTE CHURCH FATHERS BUT NOT THE BIBLE*
*Regarding the Mass and Transubstantiation:*
*FIRST:* If Jesus was speaking literally concerning the bread and wine literally being His body and blood, does that also mean that Jesus believed His body was shaped like a literal wooden door when He said, "I am the door" (John 10:7) Did Jesus have a door knob and hinges on His human body also? *NO!* Because He was speaking figuratively, just like when He said this bread and wine were His body and blood. *ALSO, when Jesus said that about the elements of communion, Jesus was in His unharmed human body when He said it. If Jesus was speaking literally, then Jesus would have had to shed His blood BEFORE He was scourged and crucified on the cross. And then shed His blood again during the actual scourging and crucifixion. BUT Jesus body was not yet "broken for you" nor was Jesus' blood yet "shed for the remission of sin" because He had yet to be scourged and crucified.*
*SECOND:* Did Jesus also speak literally when He said that He was The Vine and we are the branches (John 15:1-5)? *Does that mean Jesus is a literal plant that bears branches and fruit??? According to you, the answer would be Yes!*
*THIRD:* Where exactly in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism? And drinking human blood? In fact, drinking blood is expressly forbidden by God. *_And, Oh yeah, Jesus is God_* (Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:29)
*FOURTH: When John the Baptist saw Jesus and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." Was John saying Jesus was covered in wool and walked on four legs??* According to your method of interpretation, the answer is YES. But according to the Bible, the answer is clearly NO. John was speaking figuratively, just as Jesus was at the Last Supper.
*FIFTH: According to Catholic doctrine, the so-called Eucharist, is a sacrifice.* Each time it is performed, it is literally sacrificing Jesus afresh on the cross. BUT the Bible says Jesus' death on the cross was a once-and-for-all sacrifice in Hebrews 10. *"But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb.10:12) "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (Heb.10:14) DID YOU HEAR WHAT GOD SAID, "ONE SACRIFICE FOR SIN FOREVER...BY ONE OFFERING"??*
@@chrisg9196 I can quote the scriptures but I'm sure that the first thing you would say is, "that's not what it means".
First... you're comparing apples to oranges. This is why it is important to understand the context of the scriptures especially in understanding the NT in context with the OT as well as the apostolic teaching down through the ages.
How many times when Jesus made those other analogies did His followers decided to stop following Jesus? The Jews stopped following Jesus because they knew that Jesus meant what He said and meant what Hes said. "This is a hard teaching!".... If this was simply an analogy, the Jews would have known this and would not have left Jesus, and Jesus simply let them leave.
Second.... Don't tell me what what I would have said! Give your head a shake.
Third... The Eucharist is not cannibalism. Do you even know what cannibalism is? Cannibalism is when you kill someone and eat their dead flesh. In the Eucharist, Jesus is not killed as He died once for all. In the Eucharist, we receive the risen Lord: Body, blood, soul and Divinity. In other words, His flesh is not dead!
St John Martyr gave and excellent treatise on this very same topic in the second century. I suggest that you read it.
Fourth.... Read my previous answer and don't tell me how I would respond.
Fifth... You got the Catholic teaching wrong on this. Jesus is not re sacrificed as He died once for all; Jesus does not die again; He no longer suffers. The Mass is the same once for all sacrifice as Calvary, represented in an unbloody manner.
Brother.... if you're going to tell me what I believe or would respond, at least get it right....
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that COMETH to me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH ON ME shall never thirst.
If you shall never hunger and never thirst by coming to and believing on Christ, have you not received food and drink?
He literally says after the parable that hes not being literal
John 6:63 It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth; the FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the WORDS that I SPEAK unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE.
SPIRIT, and LIFE. COME TO ME, BELIEVE ON ME. Hope this helps any heretical eucharistians.
You: He literally says after the parable that hes not being literal
Me: His did not say that he was not being literal. He did not say that we could ignore what he forcefully repeated over and over again. You are a John 666 Christian, they refused to believe and left, never to return.
The information you are putting out isn’t accurate. What’s “false” is your propaganda and that’s what’s “tragic.”
Something to help non-Catholics .....
* Read Malachi 1:11 ... this is an "OLD TESTAMENT" Prophecy of The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass.
* Read (and reflect on) John 6 ... ALL OF IT.
* Read Scriptures about The Last Supper.
* Re-read (and reflect on) John 6 ... ALL OF IT.
* Re-read (and reflect on) Scriptures about The Last Supper.
* Re-read (and reflect on) Malachi 1:11.
Yes, indeed, Jesus' Sacrifice at Calvary was/ is "The ONE AND ONLY" acceptable Sacrifice for sin. The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass is a "RE-PRESENTATION" (not "representation") of that "ONE HOLY SACRIFICE" that Jesus made at Calvary ~2,000 years ago. God through a Priest (at each Mass) changes ordinary bread and wine into the "ACTUAL" Body and Blood of Jesus. Jesus is The Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world, and He Died at Passover, as the Jews were slaying their Passover lambs. What did/ do Jews do with the lambs they sacrifice(d) at Passover? They "ATE" the sacrifice!! We too are called to "EAT" THE SACRIFICE.
Why do Catholics "RE-PRESENT" Jesus' Sacrifice at Calvary ~275,000 times daily throughout the World? Because Jesus TOLD US TO DO IT at The Last Supper, and Malachi 1:11 confirms this. Jesus told His Apostles to "do THIS in memory of me." You have to ask yourself --> What="THIS?" He said, "Do THIS." What did Jesus DO at The Last Supper? He changed bread and wine into His ACTUAL Body and Blood. "THAT" is the "THIS" that Jesus told them/ us to DO. The Last Supper was The First Mass. Jesus Instituted The Holy Eucharist at The Last Supper.
* Re-read (and reflect on) Malachi 1:11. ***
* Re-read (and reflect on) John 6 ... ALL OF IT.
* Re-read (and reflect on) Scriptures about The Last Supper.
* Repeat, as necessary.
*************************
From John 6.....
"For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."
The people Jesus was talking to knew EXACTLY what He meant when He said what He did. They couldn't handle it, so they walked away; He didn't stop them and say, "No, wait, you're misunderstanding me;" no, He let them walk away because they DID understand EXACTLY what He was saying; Jesus turned to His Apostles and asked them if they too would walk away; Peter answered and said, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have The Words of Eternal Life."
There have been MANY Eucharistic Miracles throughout Church History. The Early Church Fathers taught what we believe now!! The Holy Spirit helped these Early Church Fathers to get Jesus' Church going in the right direction ... from The Beginning ... not some 1500 (+) years later at the Protestant Reformation.
Thanks to Mike a lot. This 'man of God' is fighting faithfully against the false teachings.
He is the false teacher. You should read more primary sources instead of blindly trusting this guy.
Well, it is Biblical!! John 6:35, 6:56!!
Full explanation on the Biblical origins of the Catholic Eucharist
Listen to someone that knows! Fr. Chris Alar has a series called explaining the faith. Here is his video on this topic
ruclips.net/user/liveWTAYLLwEal4?si=lYAMrV6o1IGAgfUC
More catholic lies
This man is so ill
ruclips.net/video/VXP8rVo4O44/видео.html
They called Christ far worse when confronted with the truth.
@@sammygomes7381 This is hardly the truth. It's ignorance masquerading as truth.
@@sammygomes7381whose truth? I’m sure another “Bible-believing” church may disagree!
@@ryan.mccombs there is only one truth and that is God's truth so how could a bible believing church not agree.
If what you say is true, how can we eat Jesus Body and drink his blood? “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53) Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” And then he said “who ever eats me will live because of me”. I DONT SEE THE WORD "SYMBOL" . Therefore MG is wrong.
Here is another one. Jesus just didnt die on the cross and therefore His sacrifice is suffcient for you. Here is why This is Colossians 1:24. It says: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church … So Paul suffers, and in his suffering, he says that he fills up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions." HOW CAN THERE BE LACKING ANYTYHING IN CHRISTS AFFLICATIONS IF WHAT MG SAYS IS TRUE? BECAUSE WE ARE TO SUFFER WITH CHRIST. MG is wrong again. MG HAS NO AUTHORITY TO PREACH, WHAT HE SAYS IS HIS OPINION WHICH IS IN ERROR.
Wonderful information. Would be great though if the background music could be just that; background.
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
End of discussion. The Cath0dox (and many Prot churches as well!) position stretches back to an Apostolic Father (a disciple of one of the Disciples) and continues to this day. You're position was an innovation that came 1500 years after this quote.
Rants in the comment sections of various videos on this RC playlist show how the father of lies has strongly influenced these Catholics. Keep up the good work, Brothers; thank you for your faithfulness in reaching out to the lost. I often PRAY FOR YOU both.
ruclips.net/video/VXP8rVo4O44/видео.html
It's a pity that people still harbor such bigoted views about us Catholics in the twenty-first century.
How about many eucharist miracles, where bread has turned into human heart tissue? That doesn't confirm catholic view?
@@finjor8777 Do you not know that Satan can perform "miracles" in order to deceive and draw people away from God? Read Exodus 7:8-13, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10, and Revelation 13.
*Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life.* Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they d-ied. But *here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not d-ie. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.* "
_Then the people began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?_ "
*Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven.* Your ancestors ate manna and d-ied, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
_On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?_ "
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “ *Does this offend you?* Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet *there are some of you who do not believe.* ” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “ *This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.* ”
_From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him._
John 6:47-66
(If you do not believe in the Eucharist, then you do not believe in Jesus.)
It is more catholic fantasy designed to keep the “faithful”mystified
Just like purgatory,a mythical place where Catholics go to be cleansed of their sins
So it looks like JESUS.could have saved himself a lot of pain by just
directing people to purgatory !
OH YEAH ,I FORGOT IT DOESN’T EXIST!
ruclips.net/video/VXP8rVo4O44/видео.html
yup.............no do overs
Purgatory exists. I Cor 3:15 indicates it. Even Jesus believed in it because it was commonly believed by Jews from pre-christian times and Jesus never rejected this teaching which was prevalent during his time. Catholic Church teaches that it is part of sanctification process for those who die in venial sin ( i.e not in serious sin) because we can see God only if we are completely pure and holy. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" ( Mathew 5:8).
"Strive for peace with everyone and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord" ( Hebrew 12:14). This final purification happens purely by the merits of the blood of Christ. It is a purification stage before entering into heaven. If we are completely in friendship with God, we will go directly to heaven without this purification process. So this doctrine is thoroughly biblical.
@@synestauromai very creative but false.
2 Corinthians 5:8
“We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.”
No mention of a place called purgatory!
@@synestauromai the jews believed in a place called Abraham’s bosom
Which was a place of comfort until the
MESSIAH PAID THE DEBT FOR SIN.
Easton's Bible Dictionary - Lords Supper
Lords Supper [N]
( 1 Corinthians 11:20 ), called also "the Lord's table" ( 10:21 ), "communion," "cup of blessing" ( 10:16 ), and "breaking of bread" ( Acts 2:42 ).
In the early Church it was called also "eucharist," or giving of thanks (Compare Matthew 26:27 ), and generally by the Latin Church "mass," a name derived from the formula of dismission, Ite, missa est, i.e., "Go, it is discharged."
The account of the institution of this ordinance is given in Matthew 26:26-29 , Mark 14:22-25 , Luke 22:19 Luke 22:20 , and 1 Corinthians 11:24-26 . It is not mentioned by John.
It was designed,
To commemorate the death of Christ: "This do in remembrance of me."
To signify, seal, and apply to believers all the benefits of the new covenant. In this ordinance Christ ratifies his promises to his people, and they on their part solemnly consecrate themselves to him and to his entire service.
To be a badge of the Christian profession.
To indicate and to promote the communion of believers with Christ.
To represent the mutual communion of believers with each other.
The elements used to represent Christ's body and blood are bread and wine. The kind of bread, whether leavened or unleavened, is not specified. Christ used unleavened bread simply because it was at that moment on the paschal table. Wine, and no other liquid, is to be used ( Matthew 26:26-29 ). Believers "feed" on Christ's body and blood, (1) not with the mouth in any manner, but (2) by the soul alone, and (3) by faith, which is the mouth or hand of the soul. This they do (4) by the power of the Holy Ghost. This "feeding" on Christ, however, takes place not in the Lord's Supper alone, but whenever faith in him is exercised.
This is a permanent ordinance in the Church of Christ, and is to be observed "till he come" again.
[Acts 2:42]
it is the DOCTRINE of the Apostles. breaking bread every session.
[Luke 22:19]
Jesus literally said to REMEMBER the eucharist in remembrance of Him.
this dude is lost.
The Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ
Amen
The Scriptures say, "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” Jesus TOLD us to do this.
Lutherans believe that Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary was once and for all, but also believe that His true Body and Blood are given in the Eucharist for the forgiveness of sins and union with Him.
The selective use of Scripture to discredit what Jesus has established is a very dangerous practice.
A Biblical tour of the Eucharist:
Mt 5:17 Jesus said: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Gen 14:17-20 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with Abram, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, “Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.” And he gave him tithes of all.
Ex 12:3-11 The LORD said to Moses, “Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.
And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire. And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD'S Passover.
Jn 1:29 John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
Jn 6:51, 53-58 Jesus said, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”
Lk 22:19-20 Jesus took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of Me.” Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you.”
1 Cor 10:16-17 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
1 Cor 11:23-29 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread: And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, “Take, eat: this is My body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.” After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, “This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
What the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist is Paul tight the Corinthians (1 Cor 11:26). “When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present (CCC 1364).
This is a misrepresentation of Scripture, the Catholic Church, and the Eucharist. The Word of God (Jesus), the Body of Christ (Eph 5:30), and His Body and Blood which He commands us to consume. Yes, indeed, this is a very dangerous practice.
Im an Episcopalian.
I believe in the Eucharist!