If the Eucharist really is the body of the Lord, Catholics cannot be accused of sectarianism any more than a woman who wants to preserve her body until marriage can. They are just being coherent with their belief, and concerned about your eternal salvation. If they really believe that the Spirit of Christ is in their Church, it makes perfect sense that accepting the Church and her teachings as a whole should be set as condition for receiving Christ's body, as much as a woman (or a man) until a public commitment to accept, not just the body, but the whole person, is made. And your eternal salvation hangs on their refusal to allow you to holy communion, if we are to believe Saint Paul's words: "those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves” (1 Cor. 11:29).
Also the Catholic Church has opposition in principle to non-Catholics receiving the Eucharist. The principled issue is in how the host is recognized. Lutherans(?), Anglicans, and Orthodox, are not forbidden in principle. So if it is sectarian, it is broadly (rather than narrowly) sectarian.
@@zapazap Lutherans and Anglicans are forbidden, actually. The USCCB instructions speak of the Orthodox and Polish National Catholic Church as being admitted to Holy Communion, as well as possibly another group or two if I recall.
@@hilairebelloc3368 I believe dispensation can be arranged. The semantics of 'in principal' might have a range that overlaps the issue here, but I will not quibble.
If it isn't the Lord's body and blood, than adoring it is certainly idolatry. On the other hand, if it is indeed as our Lord unequivocably says and as St. Paul also explicitly says, and as the church fathers unanimously agree, really the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, then one must take what St Paul says very seriously, that not discerning it as such is heaping judgment on oneself.
There's a certain irony to the proto-Eucharist in that the Apostles didn't get the benefits of transubstantiation because Christ was still utilizing his body and blood.
That’s incorrect, the apostles received Christ’s body and blood at the last supper. Even Luther affirmed this. Christ’s cross is not limited by time or location.
@PInk77W1 How much less did Jesus weigh after the last supper if they were in reality eating what was really his body. After what is really his body ("THIS IS MY BODY") enters your mouth, and next your digestive tract, at what point, if ever, does it cease to be HIS BODY? I've heard Scott Hahn talk about "Jesus in my tummy". If one believes the correct, dogmatic interpretation of this scripture is fully literal, and a physical reality, guess where Jesus will end up a few hours after entering one's mouth?
To have Communion with people you otherwise have no (ecclesiastical) communion with is wrong. "And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:42). How, then, can we have sacramental fellowship with people we dont't have doctrinal fellowship with?
@@mkshffr4936 that’s a good point, specially within the Protestant faith no one person has the exact same doctrines or interpretations of the doctrines, the question is what main beliefs are required to call someone a brother in Christ?
A Catholics and protestants do have some doctrinal communion. It isn't none. I am not endorsing their teaching, but there are some fundamentals in common.
Because you are communing with God. I have never found a single person with whom I totally agree on religious matters. I'm in my sixties. I have found it enough to call someone a brother or sister when they believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit. The death, resurrection and ascension of Christ resulting in the forgiveness of sin. They practice of communion. The believe in the importance of prayer and baptism. They believe in Christ's second coming, the Day of Judgement and salvation of the faithful. They rely on Scripture. If we can agree on these things, there's room for fellowship, and we'll talk over the rest. Don't be a divider.
You don't need to be in the same ecclesiastical communion with someone to celebrate communion with someone. There is only one table for believers and believers come in all traditions and denominations.
The Eucharist is one and the same today as it was at the last supper. Jesus is not limited to time and space. Jesus is God. The Eucharist is supernatural. There is no re sacrificing Once and for all. So we today are invited to the last supper, just as the apostles were invited to the last supper. Jesus loves us as much as he loves the apostles. Jesus said As often as YOU do this. So Catholics do it everyday of the year Except Good Friday
A true protestants view The earliest writings of the Eucharist after the scriptures. Didache 9.1 - (AD 100) Now, concerning the Eucharist, practice it as follows. " First, concerning the cup: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your son, which you made known to us through Jesus your son, glory to you forever a Next, concerning the broken bread: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your son, glory to you forever b4 Just as this broken bread was being scattered over the mountains and being brought together it became one; likewise bring together your church from the ends of the earth into your kingdom, so that yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever cs But none shall eat or shall drink from your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; for also concerning this the Lord has said, "Do give not what is holy to the dogs." The Didache (AD 100): “On the Lord’s day assemble and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. If any have a dispute with his fellow, let him not come to the assembly till they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not polluted. For this is the sacrifice spoken of by the Lord; ‘In every place and at every time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, said the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles; (Mal. i. 11, 14).” no transubstantiation, but very much serious and practiced every Lords day. Not quarterly, not once a month, not once a year, every single time the church congregated. Evangelicals wake up. This is the most serious tradition in the church.
The Early Church Fathers were not all in agreement that the Eucahrist was not symbolic. Henri Crouzel, a French Jesuit priest and patristics scholar in his book "Origen" (1989), Crouzel discusses Origen's understanding of the Eucharist, noting that Origen saw it as a spiritual, not physical, nourishment. Crouzel emphasizes Origen's allegorical approach to scripture and sacraments, suggesting that Origen would not have interpreted the Eucharist in a strictly literal sense. Similarly, John McGuckin, an Orthodox theologian and historian, in his work "The Westminster Handbook to Origen" (2004), examines Origen's views on the Eucharist and sacraments within the context of his broader theological framework. McGuckin highlights Origen's allegorical approach to scripture and sacraments, indicating that Origen may have seen the Eucharist as symbolically representing spiritual realities rather than being a literal transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Paul Bradshaw: Bradshaw, a prominent liturgical scholar, suggests that Tertullian's emphasis on the spiritual significance of the Eucharist and his use of symbolic language in some contexts may imply a less literal understanding of the sacrament. Bradshaw explores this perspective in his work "Eucharistic Origins" (2004), where he examines early Christian views on the Eucharist. David F. Wright: Wright, in his article "Tertullian's Eucharistic Theology" (1998), argues that Tertullian's language regarding the Eucharist sometimes reflects a symbolic understanding rather than a literal transformation of the elements. Wright highlights Tertullian's focus on the spiritual significance of the sacrament and his use of metaphorical language. St. Paul’s description of communion in 1 Corinthians suggests a symbolic interpretation. He recounts Jesus' words at the Last Supper, where Jesus refers to the bread as "my body" and the cup as "the new covenant in my blood." Paul does not explicitly state that the bread and wine turn into the actual body and blood of Christ but uses these elements as symbols to remember Jesus' sacrifice. The emphasis is on the commemorative and reflective aspect of the ritual, urging believers to discern the body and partake in a manner that is respectful and mindful of its significance. This has led to different interpretations among Christian denominations regarding the nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist-some see it as symbolic, while others believe in a more literal presence. St. Paul was the Apsotle for the gospel of grace while the12 were the apostle of the gospel of kingdom. He was called by the Ascended Lord to preach a sectet gospel, in Ephesians 3:3-6: How the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Colossians 1:26-27, Paul speaks of the mystery, saying: "The mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. To them, God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." In Timothy 1:15 he states: "This is a trustworthy saying and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost/chief/first." St. Paul emphasizes the the gospeln of grace was "my gospel" in Romans 2:16, Romans 16:25 , and 2 Timothy 2:8. It got to the point that Paul was called to Jersualem to explain the gospel he was preaching in Acts 15. Decision was made that the apostles would preach to the Jews and Paul would preach to the gentiles and the Gospel would be Paul's. The didache, most likely syrian or Palestinian, is the teachings of the Judaizers that Paul continually clashed with and eventually lamented in Timothy 1:15, "You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes."
In the verse that I call the "diabolical verse", John 6:66, it says: "And they walked with Him no longer." In the translation we had today, it says simply: "They broke away from Him and would not remain in His company any longer." The diabolical verse: They walked away from Jesus because of His teaching on the Eucharist. But that is not all. Today, we also see the reason Judas betrayed Jesus. Have you ever wondered why Judas betrayed Our Lord? Saint John tells us why, twice. We see it in verse 64 and if you go home and read verse 72, you are going to find the exact same thing. It is because of the Eucharist. It says right here: "Jesus knew from the start the ones who would refuse to believe and the one who would hand Him over." Right in the context of the teaching on the Eucharist, we hear about the reason Judas betrayed Jesus. Look a little further in Saint John’s Gospel and just ask yourself, "At what moment did Judas actually betray the Lord?" Jesus took the morsel, dipped it in the dish, and gave it to Judas. At the moment Judas received Holy Communion, he got up and left. Saint John says in a beautifully enigmatic way: "And it was dark." Satan entered his heart and it was dark at the moment he received Holy Communion because he refused to believe.
Very interesting idea! I think Judas wanted to force Jesus to reveal himself in the way Judas saw appropriate ( similar to Jesus rebuking Peter) -- but you may be right too!
Luke 22 Now the Festival of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2 and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present. The Last Supper 7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.” 9 “Where do you want us to prepare for it?” they asked. 10 He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 He will show you a large room upstairs, all furnished. Make preparations there.” 13 They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. 14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.” 17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 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.” Satan entered Judas BEFORE the Last Supper and he had already plotted BEFORE the Passover meal to betray Jesus.
1) A casual reading of John 6 shows that Jesus said several very 'edgy/hard' things that led to followers departing - last of all "you may not come to me unless granted by the Father". So no - this falling away does not obviously connect exclusively to the talk of eating flesh and drinking blood. 2) On the matter of whether he literally meant we eat his flesh and drink his blood... a. Old Israel was a very symbolic society - all manner of tradition and language was literally meant to be taken symbolically. If we were to take all of Jesus' statements literally, then He would be a sheepfold gate (usually made of wood/briar), a Shepherd - he never had this job, nor am I literally a sheep, a grapevine, and us literal branches, etc... b. The question is whose authority determines if Jesus was being literal or figurative. The Catholic Church has put its stake down on this being a literal statement, but the others being figurative, with itself backing itself up on this point. c. 1 Cor CHs 10 & 11 both discuss Communion. We are to partake "in remembrance" of Him. It would seem nonsensical to expect Israelites to travel down to Egypt & then return each year in remembrance of the original Passover - the Passover celebration was very much symbolic. Jesus took a meal steeped in symbolism (the dishes had meaning, the hymns they sang, the various calls & responses, etc...) and infused new meaning in it regarding the PAST (Jesus' death on the cross), for all PRESENT (eating at whatever moment in time we live), & looking forward to the consummation of all things in the FUTURE.
@@justinjimenez6960 Well said Justin. Unfortunately, I think you may be casting pearls to swine. Ironically, the swine may not understand the symbolism or the reference itself.
I just simply believe that in God’s omnipotence he can make his Body and Blood appear as bread and wine. But that’s just because I believe he has the power to do that, even though I may not completely understand.
Confessional Lutheran here. The Catholics are right to teach that Christ is corporal present (actual body and blood of Christ) in the Eucharist for the forgiveness of sins...
Mark, don't Jesus' words of "It is finished" apply only to His earthly suffering? This is clearly the case given Paul's words in 1 Cor 15:14, "And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." Jesus is not somehow "resacrificed" in the Mass. His sacrifice (which has eternal repercussions) is made present again. It's as if Jesus reaches in from eternity and shows Himself in the present. He does this by His own will when He tells His disciples, "do this in memory of me." Have you read any early Christian letters? They speak of Jesus' real presence in the Eucharist as well.
Mark OnTheBlueRidge perfect ignorance of the Catholic Faith. We are not resacrificing Calvary. That is once for all and accomplished and nothing more can be added to it. That is the Catholic Faith since the Apostles. What the Mass is an unbloody resacrifice. It is continuing the benefits what happened at Calvary not doing it over. So stop reading Jack Chick comics and do serious reading with books.
Is the living Christ not in Heaven, according to God's word? “So then the Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and down at the right hand of God.”
We would all agree, I think, that the human body of Christ, born of Mary, was/is a creature. Now, imagine Christ appeared before you bodily. Are you prohibited from worshiping him on the grounds that his body is a creature, and not the creator? If not, if you would say something to the effect of "I wouldn't be worshiping his body, I would be worshiping Him, which is not idolatrous", then what prevents the element adoring catholic from making the same distinction?
@@wesleysimelane3423 How does a _question_ prove any such thing? (I suppose to assess your claim, we might need to tighten it up. Does 'a person asking this question proves the questioner lacks grasp of scripture' work as a tightened paraphrase?)
Pastor Wilson is a very nice and smart person. I do think that he is getting somethings mistaken when he talks about the Catholic position. I noticed that he said "when the wine literally turns in to the blood, then..". This shows me that he doesn't really understand what Transubstantiation is, because it is not Transformation. So we do not believe that the Host or wine turn in to the literal flesh and blood of Jesus. If we did believe that we would call it Transformation. So for some clearification: We believe that the 'what it is " changes , the substance changes into the body and blood of Christ. But the species remain the same, that is how it feels, smells taste and looks remain bread and wine. There is a totally other reason that we not let everybody partake and it is not sectarian. Also Catholics should also not partake if you are in a sinful state. I think because we believe the body and blood are really present under the species of bread and wine, we have a deep respect for it. And we not adore a thing, we see that in that thing our Lord is present with us. Because of all of that we do not want that people in a incorrect matter partake. To protect the holy sacrament from abuse or misuse (because our Lord is present in it), and to protect people. And to not take lightly the words: For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself,
He would not be aloud to receive the Eucharist because hes not catholic and not confirmed in the church....the sacred host IS NOT BREAD!! as in protestant bread , the Eucharist can only be consecrated by a priest
Bowing down to the bread makes you an idolater, plain and simple. Worse still, people like you do not even CONSIDER the opposite point of view which, at the very least, has just as much "power" as yours; i.e., "The Lord is my rock" does NOT mean the Lord is a literal rock, and we say, neither is the bread his literal body. One of us is wrong and we are confident Catholics are 100% WRONG. You can begin your investigation to wake up out of your spiritual coma, here....matt1618.freeyellow.com/malakyeopening.html
I am confident that the Catholic Church is 100% correct. I am not in a "coma," nor were the Catholic faithful for the last 2000 years. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was believed clearly and exactly in the first centuries of the Church's history, as a neutral reading of history will show. But believe as you will, that is what Christ allowed to those in John 6 50 et alia to do. He didn't go running after those who refused to accept His literal teaching. He asked Peter, if memory serves, would he be going too? And Peter responded, "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." You need to wake up, and read the words of Christ in correct Greek. They are ANYTHING but symbolic. But you won't.
Every single one of your objections, when examined under the magnifying glass of Holy Writ, proves the Catholic position is in a shambles.....and that, beginning with the very first lie proclaimed by the Council of Trent in CCC 1376 from the link I gave you, and of course to which you had no reply. Your ridiculous apologetic that Peter responds Jesus holds the words to eternal life, does NOT mean Pete was endorsing the literal Catholic view of the Eucharist, nor would any Bible scholar living or dead agree with you. Yikes! The way you Catholics read into the Scriptures something that is not there, is shameful.
Thomas Hogan The problem is many do bow down for just bread . The RCC has just came to grips with the fact only one third believed that the bread and the wine are actually the real body and blood of Christ . So for most it is idolatry. By your standards. Also if you ask a priest ( not all but some ) about the communion you will be surprised by some answers. Especially if you go to Europe. Blessings
When every knee bends to our Lord Jesus Christ at the end of time we will all be bowing down to a "created thing" a "creature" who is at the same time God. If you can see how that is not idolatry you can also see how it is not idolatry to do the same with the gift of his presence in the Eucharist. We aren't adoring "bread" we are adoring the Lord.
@@FrMoody there's talk of the Eucharist as a sacrifice of praise, hence the name "eucharist" meaning "thanksgiving". But the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice is wrong. Jesus' death was a propiatory sacrifice. The Eucharist isn't a representation of that sacrifice. Keith Matthison goes into this a bit in his book "Given For You." There's a difference in the meal associated with commorating the sacrifice. The meal itself isn't a sacrifice. The Passover was a sacrifice in that sense. The Passover seder is not. Sacrifices of praise are different.
@@geoffrobinson Dear Confused Pilgrim ... You didn't read far enough in the Bible ... Jesus explained what was the bread in (John 6:58) He says there: "This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” THEN HE SAID in verse 63: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The WORDS I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life." WE ARE EAT JESUS' WORDS (i.e. figuerativeliy) not a wafer made from starch.
@@mosesking2923 so when Jesus calls himself the door, he is literally a physical door? Glad you read your bible. Clearly everything he said was literal...
I've never heard of this guy, and I won't waste any more time on his postings (I viewed this one to see what the other side thinks), but what struck me was that compared to other prots, he is at least not outwardly hostile and nasty toward the Catholic Faith in this video at least. Having said that, he does like the word "sectarian" a lot, and accuses the Catholic Church of being just that when She states that non Catholics cannot receive Holy Communion. However, the Catholic Church is actually being very biblical in that stance here, and is being charitable. In 1 Corinthians 11:27, it says that "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." The Church is trying to save those who would otherwise do this. In reference to what the "reformers" taught, and as another post here states, their beliefs are all novel, and directly contradict what the earliest Church Fathers (some of whom walked with the Apostles) taught and believed. Also, why is it that prots do not take our Blessed Lord at his word when He states "This is my body....this is my blood'? Oh yeah, that's right...Jesus was talking metaphorically, right? wrong. Why did Jesus allow all those who left him after saying that to just walk away without clarifying his claims (John 6:66)? Instead, he double-downed and used terms like "Gnawing" to describe what one needs to do to His flesh in order to have eternal life. For the reformers to have been correct in any of their assertions, then Jesus would've been lying when He stated that the "Gates of Hell will not prevail against" His church. The 44,000 (and counting) different denominations of protestantism are all wrong.
ChrisB176 , you just glory in your huge Vatican heresy ! At the Last Supper JESUS speaks prophetically, because not a drop of HIS Blood had been shed yet and HIS Body was yet inviolate !!
Hello Chris, You ask some very good questions, but please, don't assume the reformers were foolishly 'novel'. Many were some of the best scholars of their time. They did not reject the fathers but did reject some of the medieval teaching about what the fathers actually said. It was the authority of the the church to say things about what the fathers wrote, that are not explicitly there, that they rejected. Please, if you haven't yet, prayerfully read as much of the fathers as you can and notice that in many cases much has been read into their work in order to support ideas that arose much later.
ChrisB176 Overall evangelicals treat Catholics very respectfully, my home church was made up of 90% ex-Catholics. Catholicism just can't compare to the power and beauty of the Biblical Gospel. Which is why 10s of thousands of Catholics are leaving the Roman church every day for a genuine faith in Christ. Praise God. Furthermore, John 6 has nothing to do with transubstantiation. It is the spirit that quickeneth; *the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life*. John 6:63 KJV In his explanation to his Disciples, Jesus explains that the hard saying he is giving them while yes being meant to scandalize them (and thus test them) is actually spiritual in nature not of the flesh. Literally eating Jesus' body wouldn't help you at all, it's the spiritual union with Christ through faith and our identification with him in his death and resurrection that gives us new life. Do not be so fleshly-minded...
Anglicans believe in the real presence, just in a different way then Catholics do. A large amount of catholic doctrine is medieval and can not be attributed to their the apostolic age or the early church. No, there are not 44k and counting protestant denominations. Catholics are always talking about protestants spreading propaganda about them, but then turn around and spread propaganda about protestants. At most, there's about 10. That same study shows the Catholic church has over 200 denominations. So if we want to be that lose with how we define a denomination then you need to apply it to yourself as well.
@@xandro2445 Right. Anglicans don’t believe in the Real Presence. They can say they do all day long, but that doesn’t make it true. They don’t believe in transubstantiation-that is that the bread and wine actually change into the actual Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ at the consecration. *That’s* the Real Presence. Furthermore, they don’t have the power to confect the Eucharist. Only the Holy Catholic Church does, so even if the Anglicans did actually believe in the Real Presence (which they don’t), they couldn’t possibly bring it about anyway. Your assertion that “a large amount” of our doctrine is “medieval” and “can’t be attributed to their apostolic age or the early Church” is a non sequitur, apparently meant to somehow discredit the Holy Catholic Church, and is woefully vague. If you were to read the Early Church Fathers-some of whom learned from the Apostles themselves-you’ll see their teachings on most fundamental beliefs of The Church are the same as we hold today (The Eucharist, Baptismal Regeneration, The Papacy, etc). And, what you fail to realize is, since Christ Himself established the Holy Catholic Church, and gave Her-and Her alone-the power to Bind and Loose, it wouldn’t matter if your “medieval” claim were true (which it’s not). Christ’s Church has the power to make doctrine whenever the Holy Spirit wants Her to. And I do apologize about saying there are 44,000 different denominations of prots out there. I was wrong. I see it’s actually more like 47,000. While you are (again) woefully vague about what “study” it is you are citing (including the ridiculous claim that there’s “over 200 denominations” of Catholicism), I’ll cite a study done by your own prots- The Center For Global Christianity-that gives the 47,000 number, so thanks for pointing out my 44,000 number was wrong. I’m more than happy to correct the record. Since you’re the first one I’ve ever seen to make the ridiculous claim of the 200 different Catholic denominations (again-citing nothing), I’d love to read how you came up with that number. At best, it would include a horrible misunderstanding (or twisting) of the word “denomination.”
So glad i'm a Catholic. It would be nice if Protestants who criticize the Church at least have a proper understanding of the Church. I don't adore Bread when I adore the Eucharist, I adore Christ, because he is present. Not because I said it, but because he said it, the Bible Identifies the New Covenant (testament) by the Sacrament of which Christ spoke. When we partake of the Lord Supper we partake of the Paschal Sacrifice of the Lamb of God our Lord Jesus Christ, eating the Lamb, as the Jews had done before New Covenant (Eucharistic covenant) which Christ started at the Last supper. I would warn you not to learn about Catholicism from Material Heretics, they are motivated to remove you from Christ himself using words like "I Believe" Rather confirming that which was taught by the Church Christ started. Never listen to a person who explains his beliefs in terms of his own ego "I BELIEVE"
Marc, defining the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants is the first step toward actually discussing these issues profitably for the church at large. (An example of how *not* to do it is by bringing up heretics in the first paragraph, haha.) Surely you recognize that transubstantiation isn't the ONLY way to interpret the Bible passages, right?
Canon Press I did say “Material Heretic” not a formal one. Interpretation is Tradition. You can believe what ever you like, I can’t stop anyone from doing that, the vast number of beliefs out there validate the ministry of the Papacy. This gent is just one of thousands of subjective Christians.
The church Christ started was the church that you see in the new testament. Jesus gave Peter and the apostles exclusive authority to establish the teachings and doctrines of this church, of which Christ is the rock. There is no evidence that this special authority was passed down to any of their predecessors. Bishops and elders were appointed throughout many cities of the known world. Each city had authority over their own jurisdiction. No one church had authority over another. Their core foundations were the teachings that the Apostles established. It was not until the 4th century that the church in Rome decided that they would be the supreme authority over all the other churches. Almost all of the other churches rejected this decision and never recognized Rome as supreme. Roman Catholicism is a man made religion that left the original church established by Peter and all the apostles. And then they fabricate the theory of Peter being the first bishop of Rome. Do your homework. There is no scriptural or historical evidence of Peter being the first bishop of Rome. And before you criticize me for not having a proper understanding of the RCC, let me tell you that I was a Roman Catholic for the first 20 years of my life. Never once was I encouraged by the church or my parents to read the Bible. Fact is, they don't want you to read the Bible. Instead they want you to blindly follow whatever they tell you. No matter how many times you repeat the lie that Jesus established Roman Catholicism, it will never become true. Now to the topic of communion. Read the whole passage in John chapter 6. Verse 63 sums it up ( It is the spirit that quickeneth. the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.) Jesus is not talking literally here, but rather spiritually. Amazing how almost every Roman Catholic avoids quoting verse 63 when trying to justify their view. Who you choose to follow is your decision. I will trust in the Holy Bible. I truly hope that you have a personal relationship with Jesus and aren't depending on the religious rituals of your church to save you. God Bless
In one paragraph, you made statements that I can’t possibly address. It’s filled with error. I can’t address them all, you are all so well trained in your traditional responses. I’ll pick one. Maybe two. Verse 63 “It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” Yes, Christ is speaking of spiritual realities, not those realities that are physical. Most Catholics understand this to mean that the physical body and blood of Christ does not come to us with the characteristics of Human blood and flesh, what we see, touch smell and taste, only that through the Power of the Holy Spirit, those items which we receive by Faith are the actual Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ, Literally! Christ makes his intent very clear with the statement 10 verses earlier “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 (Greek word here is ‘Chew) my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Now brace yourself) For my flesh IS REAL FOOD INDEED, and my BLOOD IS REAL DRINK INDEED.” So much of your reply was full of poor theology. Having for example “A Personal Relationship with Jesus” Where is that in the Bible? Oh, another, Catholics cover more scripture at mass than any other denominations man-made service I have ever attended. Catholics go through the Bible every 3 years during our Mass 3 year cycle. We sing psalms, read Scripture and fallow the pattern established by the apostles. If you can attend daily Mass, you go through the Bible every 2 years. I read my bible every day, not with man-made interpretations like suggesting that things Spiritual are not Literal, as a believer in God I believe 100% that the Spirit is Life and therefore more Literal than the Physical. You have been pulled away from the truth, you have been persuaded by individuals to abandon the faith, you have been instructed to take the Bible and use it as you will and not as God intended. Your faith is based on Anti-Church, rather than the unity of the Church. Your history is poor. I can’t possibly address all the things you bring up, they are so distorted and wrong I wouldn’t know where to begin. Open your eyes to the truth. Spiritual is Literal. Sure, I have a personal relationship with Christ, but that relationship is a byproduct of being a Christian and secondary to my familial relationship. I am part of Gods family, a member of his Quhal, his community his Church and I will not stray from that family. More so, however, I want to be closer to Christ than to have a personal relationship with him, I have a personal relationship with my dentist, with the guy who brings his dogs over to play, It's simply not enough, I want more and my familial relationship gives me that closeness. Christ, however, has done something even greater than personal or familial relationships with us. Christ has established a Covenant with us which gives us an intimate relationship with him, where we hear, touch, smell and taste him. He knows that we are flesh and blood and that thing that we need is intimacy with God. Christ does this through the Sacraments of Church. I suggest, stripping yourself of your Pride and preconceived notions, stop thinking about how you feel in your flesh but realize rather what God intends for us. Remove the scales from your eyes and you will see the Truth, the scales are a manifestation of your ego.
The thing about the catholic denomination is they pray to Mary. Using her has the gateway to God. What does the bible say about this or really jesus? I am the way and the truth and the light. Nobody comes to the father except through me!.....
Ive agreed with Doug on nearly everything but this-communion is very strictly for those who are saved and Roman Catholics (nearly all if they follow their theology) are not saved.
@@markchristian787 www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/biblical-evidence-for-catholic-justification reference this for a fair treatment of Catholic (and historical) justification ... unlike the unfairly abridged versions heard on this page. Most Protestants think Catholics believe works amount to raking leaves for your elderly neighbor or “being a good person” ... let’s start with your own view: Do you have a responsibility as a Christian to avoid sin? what are the wages of sin? or does the concept of imputed justification allow you as Luther said to sin boldly?
Mark, there is some disagreement about whether communion is strictly for the saved (as defined by those who have made a profession of faith) which opens up a whole new discussion but since it is impossible for us to unambiguously determine who are the elect it could be problematic to deny the Lord's supper to someone based on their RC background even if one holds to professors only communion.
As I said they are not Trinitarian, Jesus Christ didn't say change the Trinity and deny the Divinity and eternal Word and the resurrection and so on, evil spirit must be cleansed , because their baptism hurts yes, there is only one holy church , people and baptism that can fix it and does the correct one ! Scripture mentions that one btw !
Jesus said "This is my body which is given for thee take and eat" He didn't say oh this is just bread and wine with little significance but done in a memorial. So yes after consecration it acts like the body and blood. A lot of early protestants were on board with it until zwingly and the Anabaptists showed up and changed everything by saying all tradition is Roman and papist therefore let's get rid of 1500 years going back to the apostles and toss it in the garbage and get rebaptised.
@ALPHA & OMEGA NETWORK Human beings are 80% water and Jesus was fully man and fully God and blood has water in it. In fact a priest mixes water with the wine for the symbolism. I rather follow Jesus and his disciples than a blasphemous antisemitic defrocked monk who forced a nun to marry him and whose followers regularly tried to martyr faithful Catholics and then make up stories about Catholicism being pagan and mentioning only the protestant martyrs.
@@reddhedds To add to that, The Last Supper took place UNDER THE LAW, and thus BEFORE His death and fulfillment of the Law. Would the consumption of human blood and flesh not have violated the Law? Jesus adhered to the Law. He did so out of obedience to His Father. He afterward said that He would not drink of the fruit of the vine again until He returns. He literally acknowledges that the wine is the "fruit of the vine." Not literal blood.
If cannibalism is bad, then it’s bad. If it’s bad at all, it’s bad when you believe it’s Christ. Just a faulty teaching come about my not knowing how to read scripture
@A & Ω Reformed YT read scripture … no exegetical evidence that Christ meant this metaphorically. His apostles left Him and Christ let them because the teachings were hard. The earliest church in 2nd century focused on the Eucharist. Truth is on the side of Catholicism, period.
Jesus Christ teaches "this IS MY BODY ", ( Matthew 26:26) . Fallible Protestant Pastors say, " No. It is not". Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@bethr8756 yes, for His Flesh is True food and Blood true drink, as Jesus Christ is the new passover Lamb to be consumed for our salvation! No one brings condemnation on oneself for consuming a mere symbol in an unworthy manner as Paul warns in Corinthians!
@@matthewbroderick6287 So you eat flesh...what does it do after it gets in your body? And your alive after drinking Blood? Does it have the chemical properties of flesh and blood?
@@bethr8756 Yes, as Jesus Christ commanded us to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. Have you never read Holy Scripture? ( Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:24, John 6:53-55). God's grace and peace to you!
An Evangelical cannot receive the Eucharist in a mass for a number of reasons. here are a few :not recognizing the Pope as a Christ's vicar on earth and his authority. not agreeing with the teaching authority of the RCC magisterium.. taking the Eucharist when not in a state of grace-un confessed mortal sins to a RCC priest. As a RC and if I dont agree or am in a state of mortal sin I cant take the Eucharist either.
For one thousand five hundred years if you were a Christian, Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic or Churches of the East you believed that the Eucharist was the real and true body, blood soul and divinity of Christ! It wasn’t until the errors of the protestant heretical reformation that some “ Christians” denied this truth believing that the bread and wine only represent Jesus, remind you of Jesus , but really isn’t Jesus. Thank you for not receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church because as a heretic and nonbeliever you are forbidden to do so. Nor would I ever partake of the “Lord’s Supper” in your heretical service in which there is nothing but bread and wine. If I want to eat bread and drink wine , I will go to a bakery buy a loaf bread and go to a liquor store and buy a bottle of wine! . If I want the body, blood , soul and divinity of Christ , I will go to a Catholic Mass!
My first disagreement with you, Doug. I believe the Christ of Roman catholicism and the Christ of the Bible are two very separate and distinct things. One has the power to forgive sins and save us from eternal damnation, while the other does not.
its not sectarian. even a Catholic cannot receive communion if they are not in a state of grace. meaning if they did not confess through a priest prior to receiving communion while also not doing a mortal sin in between those 2 events, they cannot receive it. also even if you meet that you need to also believe in their dogma of transubstantiation.
We dont literally pick up and carry crosses around, we don’t physically die when baptized, we weren’t literally, physically crucified with Christ. Missed that opportunity by a few thousand years. The first communion was bread and wine, Jesus hadn’t had his body broken yet or his blood poured out. There’s no biblical precedent, no logical reason to believe it’s literal and it doesn’t achieve anything that a symbolic communion doesn’t
I think there’s pretty strong precedent for eating the flesh of the Passover lamb - not to mention that every covenant included the sacrifice of an animal and a communion meal of that animal’s roasted flesh in order to celebrate the two people/parties/tribes/nations coming together. And the fact that the Israelites had to eat the flesh of the lamb? We can’t ignore the context of Jesus’ coming. He came to restore the Davidic Kingdom, to be the fulfillment of the Old Covenant prophecies and types, and to mediate a new covenant in His blood on our behalf. He does so by transforming the Old Covenant Passover and becoming Himself both the lamb to be slain and the offering priest. Jesus foretells the reality of His becoming the sign, sacrifice, and meal of the New Covenant Passover in John chapter 6, when He tells the crowds and His disciples and apostles that they must literally eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life.
@@annapetersen7718 he doesn’t say literally, why does the bread turn into flesh after you swallow? Because it’d be obviously false to say any time before that. What if you get sick after taking communion? Could you end up with a piece of Jesus? Clone him maybe? Jesus says he’s the bread of life, obviously figuratively, same as eating his body and drinking his blood
@@FourthFloorParkour nope, Jesus is literal. All fathers of the church affirm this. In John 6, Jesus even uses literal language changing the word “phagete” (consume) to “trogon” (chew or gnaw). This is so obvious that even Luther affirmed the real presence.
“Jesus hadn’t had his body broken yet.” Jesus is not limited to time and space. You are thinking as man thinks Not as God thinks. 1. Jesus said this is my body 2. Jesus said if u don’t eat my body and drink my blood u have no life in u. 3 Jesus said my flesh is real food
I thought the Catholics came before The Evangelicals? And the Evangelicals spawned from the Catholics? So if that's the case then explain this. King James Bible reads: A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Ugh!! This is so needlessly complicated! “Do this in memory of me.” That is all! Never once did Christ say that if you don’t partake of his flesh and blood at exactly the right intervals, in exactly the right contexts, along side exactly the right people, and under the strictest of circumstance, you’ll burn in hell. 🙄 At no point did He ever say to put all your focus on the minutia and details, the importance of which will eventually be different in peoples opinions all across the world. He simply said “do this in memory of me”.
Jesus also said "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.”
@@annapetersen7718 Exactly. Now tell me where he said to do that at every mass, and only if you’ve confessed to a priest first, or you’re guilty of a mortal sin.
@@flavadave3943 The statement that everyone must confess sins to a priest before receiving the Eucharist is slightly incorrect. One is only required to confess their sins before receiving the Eucharist if they’ve committed mortal sin. Scripture doesn’t record whether Jesus taught anything explicitly about confessing sins, but He did teach very clearly about the authority passed to his Apostles to forgive sins. There are written accounts of confessing sins, particularly before receiving communion, elsewhere in the Bible and in early Church writings. A couple examples to consider: • St Paul tells the Corinthians to discern before partaking in communion: “A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Corinthians 11:28-29). • The Didache, considered by many scholars to be the writings of the 12 Apostles between 70 and 100 AD: “Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure.” The traditions of receiving the Eucharist and confessing sins, and how these two practices come together in the Christian life, were well established among Christians by 70 AD. There’s a wealth of other writings - scriptural and non-scriptural - that would shed even more light on the Early Church. I pray you may consider that Jesus couldn’t have possibly taught us everything in His time on earth. This is part of the reason why we believe He didn’t just come to earth, die, resurrect, and ascend back to Heaven. In establishing a New Covenant in His blood, He founded a Church that could bring the Gospel message forward and teach the world about Him, including things that aren’t verbatim in Scripture, but certainly nothing that Scripture contradicts. For the early Christians, “Scripture” was only the Jewish scriptures, no New Testament yet. A classic example of a teaching not explicitly taught by Jesus, or found elsewhere in Scripture, is the Trinity. Jesus mentions the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19, but it wasn’t until the Council of Nicea that the theology of 1 God in 3 Persons was fully expressed and declared as a foundational truth of the Christian faith. Almost all Christians today believe in this fundamental doctrine. Appreciate the discussion, friend! Peace be with you!
The Eucharist is the greatest gift we will ever receive before Heaven. The Church, in her love and wisdom under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, wants us to receive this gift frequently as a crucial foundation of the Christian life, so we may be united to Christ, the Bridegroom. But, we’re talking about literally receiving the King of the universe into our bodies - not something that can be taken lightly: the gift must be received in reverence and with the proper preparation, predisposition, and knowledge of what we’re being offered and what we’re saying before God when we receive Him (“Amen” - “I stake my life in this”). Therefore, the Church, in keeping the Lord’s Day as the new Sabbath, provides stipulations and rules like the minimum frequency of attending mass, how old one has to be to begin receiving the Eucharist, how to receive the Eucharist worthily, when one shouldn’t receive, etc. Like a caring parent, the Church calls us home when it’s time to be fed (but not without reminding us to “wash up and make ourselves clean” beforehand!).
@@annapetersen7718 I appreciate the attempt to explain. But I get a little tired of Paul being the reference point for so many ritualistic customs that are just accepted as necessary by Catholics. And while they don’t all contradict scripture, I do not understand canonizing and placing such emphasis on something that can not be traced back to Jesus. And I’m sorry, but your explanation that sin can be forgiven by man is the same one I always get, and falls short addressing my point. The rock of the church is not Peter. Not is it any of the other apostles. The rock of the church is Peters answer to Jesus that he is the Christ, and the son of God. Therefore, I don’t care what points he didn’t address while he was here. I care what he did address. And I certainly don’t care what the Catholic Church has inferred from scripture in order to wedge itself in between Christ and the individual in order to establish itself as necessary. Furthermore, there is plenty of Catholic doctrine that does contradict scripture. But that is too big a conversation to have here. God bless.
The Eucharist is the reason why we gather on Sunday. We make a sacrifice to God and he gives back to us in the form of his body and blood. The early church was hierarchical, sacramental and liturgical. The modern church is nothing like that.
Christ made the penultimate sacrifice, to say that Christ's body is being re-presented every single day all over the world by thousands of sinful priests is to miss by a mile what the author of Hebrews meant when he said that Jesus suffered *once* for all.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 then just go golfing Sunday morning after you gorge yourself on a big breakfast instead of going to church. You’re going to heaven, right?
I would not take communion at a Roman Catholic Church for the reason I’ll feel like I am sinning against my conscious. But again I would never step foot inside a Roman Catholic Church service, I’ll treat them the same as I would a Jehovah witness or a LGBT affirming Trinitarian church.
First off, you're not allowed to unless you're a baptized Christian into the True Church of Jesus Christ. Doing so you would only by eating and drinking damnation onto yourself as St. Paul said. Secondly, Protestantism is the new Gnosticism... "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, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Cannibalism is frowned upon in most societies. When you take the communion or the bread and wine you are not eating the body of Christ it's merely a symbol that's done in remembrance of the death burial and Resurrection
An educated protestant would never want to take of the eucharist and it’s certainly not out of respect, it’s out of not wanting to commit idolatry. I was invited to a Catholic Church and did not participate by my choice. I was not an educated protestant at that time, I just was grossed out by everyone drinking out of the same cup and everyone’s fingers in the bread.
a proper Mass; traditional is where only the priest is ordained to touch the Communion and administer it to the parishioners. The Catholic Church is the Divine Origin
@@sandina2cents779 Otherwise it is wiped clean When u go to confession for absolution (ppl normally go to psychiatrists) and then receive Holy Communion, it is incredible. Unfortunately the modern mass has watered eveything down making it less Catholic. I attend the Latin Mass; more traditional and better to praise God
@@nickfraser422 wiped clean is not clean... there are diseases you can get from sharing the same cup like herpes one, or hepatitis. Wiping it between each person’s mouth is not doing anything to clean it. For health hazards it should be banned doing it that way. Protestants have their own tiny cup for communion, then it’s thrown away. It’s like Catholics are still living in the day where they don’t know what bacteria and viruses are.
@@nickfraser422 and I do confession with Jesus all the time. I don’t need another man to intercessors between me and Jesus, I’m a child of God I can talk to him directly.
I get my authority from common sense,the heretic who sits on a throne and pretends to be St.Peter's succesor today doesnt even believe you need to be a Christian to be saved.The whole papacy thing has collapsed wake up.
The RCC church is nothing like what the early church of Christ looked and operated like. God forbid that , a holy church of God to act as they have throughout history. The commandment ...thou shalt not kill was trampled by RCC when they burned, mutilated and murdered 280 sincere Christian martyrs in Smithfield England for not joining their evil idol worship , but even worse murders in the year1550 when they murdered torchered, burned 50,000 Christian Huganauts . Check that out in your history books if they haven't destroyed that terrible time yet. I learned of it in high school books. They never repented and even their popes were poor examples , having children by whores. The foundation of that body, is unholy and sinful, and dead works won't help it. This is the truth and needs to be heard and not defended. It is the whore of Babylon I have no doubt.
@@barbdallaire7758 The Huguenots were attacked by Catherine de Medici, not by the Catholic Church. Of course she was Catholic, but she could scarcely have been Queen of France if she hadn't been. Her motives were political not religious. It is a rare modern person who can understand how religion and politics intersected in 16th century Europe. As for the rest, why should I pay any attention to someone who can't spell Huguenot?
@@goyonman9655 I can't recall precisely what I was responding to. It is quite true that there were schismatics and heretics in the east and even a few in the west. Those in the west were suppressed. But what about my question. Where to you heretics get your AUTHORITY to interpret the Bible?
John Knox had a syllogism that says: "Anything invented in the brain of man in the worship of God is idolotry The mass was invented in the brain of man, Therefore the mass is idolotry"
@@3leon306 Inventions to anyone who doesn't read the Bible, otherwise, you couldn't be more wrong. You are probably one who listens to so called teachers who are full of hate for truth. Have you ever studied the Bible? I didn't think so. Have you ever read The Institutes of the Christian Religion? I didn't think so.
@@joeiiiful I’ll spare you a disquisition on my 40 years of study ... 25 of which were as a reformed Protestant. I’ll simply ask whether you’ve considered whether you ever read, say, Romans without a priori bias that leads to predictable proof texting? ... might you be reading Calvin, Luther, and even Sproul into scripture? ... what do you make of Romans that begins in chapter 1 and ends in chapter 16 with the notion of “the obedience of faith” or chapter 2 that commands works for a final judgment and justification ... or chapter 13 that asserts a new “law” (more works) in place of the 613 mosaic commands? Too few Catholics turn the “Bible reading” question back on protestants who read only predictable verses ...Protestants get away often with ridiculing Catholics and even questioning their salvation with the straw-man notion of “Bible vs. Tradition” or the suggestion of Pelagianism ... when actually what they mean is, “do you read these verses as I read them and agree with my interpretation?”
@@3leon306 I stand on my original comments and yes I have read a thousand times more than you. I use a Biblical hermeneutic and don't have time for people like you. You have no ability to be objective because your mind and heart are polluted with garbage. If you were interested and teachable, we wouldn't be having this waste of valuable time. I have nothing further to say to you because I would be casting my pearls before swein.
It funny how the talk about 1st Corinthians but not chapter 11 when Paul uses the same word for Testament as Jesus did in John at the last supper and it is only uses in that spelling in those two instances. Also if you Bible says covenant then it is hiding that the the new Testament is the Eucharist as instituted by Christ Himself. Hilarious.
Scott Weinmann: I take questions seriously. My answers are 'no', 'no', and 'yes'' -- though the third question seems superfluous if we are engaging in good well (and perhaps useless if we are not). Does this help, sir?
the trinitarians ARE the roman catholic church and in the book of acts baptizing was in the NAME OF JESUS . NO we are not going to hell if we do not believe that God is three differents persons this is ANOTHER GOSPEL we have only one God THE FATHER who came as the Savior and as the sacrificial Lamb in a bodily form (Isaiah 35)
@DiscoFalcon first am not a Pentecostal and I will never be, and second yes am a modalist but it was rejected by the Geek Platonist BECAUSE they want to introduce a three headed God(S) NEVER TEACH IN THE 66 BOOKS so am a heretic but God ALWAYS PROCLAIM TO BE ONE BUT NEVER THREE ... Did the Jews worship Yahweh in trinity or in Spirit and truth as the apostles??? Paul teaches a one God NAME THE FATHER and ONE LORD Jesus Christ but Lord mean ADONAI and it's a reference to Yahweh. The trinity is the most hypocrite and perverted of all the heresies because they change the nature of the true God who is SPIRIT to a pagan triune gods who are three different persons mmmm what a shame, this is the biggest sin against the first commandment who COMMAND to believe God IS ONE AND NEVER MANY. Here is the TRUE GOD OF THE BIBLE= 1Tim3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. GOD WAS MANIFEST IN FLESH AS A MAN AS THE MESSIAH AS THE SACRIFICIAL LAMB FOR TO RECONCILE IS PEOPLES WITH HIMSELF (not with themselves) YOU ARE A IDOLATER. REPENT BEFORE THE DOOR CLOSE.
@DiscoFalcon You have not as SINGLE VERSE in all the 66 books of the sacred scripture saying '' I AM GOD AND I AM THREE DIFFERENT PERSONS'' the Name I AM will never mean ''we are'' in fact, is Name is destroying the possibility of being many as in a trinity. The Name of God '' I AM '' is the same name Jesus identify Himself to be ! Biblical proofs= exodus3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. And Jesus said: 58“Truly, truly, I tell you, Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I AM” 59At this, the Jews picked up stones to throw at Him. Jesus was saying ''Before I was begotten I was I AM '' making Himself the Father IN FLESH as teach in 1tim.3:16 It's you who do not have any biblical proof that God is three persons if am a liar SHOW ME A VERSE OF GOD SAYING I AM THREE DIFFERENT PERSONS.... and I will show you A HUNDRED OF VERSES OF GOD SAYING I AM ONE AND ALONE. (am waiting for this verse show me the verse or REPENT ) ." Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer ( who is the REDEEMER HERE??) and he that formed thee from the womb, ""I AM"" the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens ""ALONE""; that spreadeth abroad the earth by ""MYSELF" (since when the word MYSELF MEAN MANY ???? let us make.... it's about Yahweh who created all things ALONE Let us make it's a command and God do not COMMAND TO HIMSELF and you have a proof NOW that Yahweh created all thing ALONE ( by MYSELF) The trinitarians ALWAYS PRESUME BUT NEVER PROOF .
The initial question about Christ's "physical presence in the bread" was a straw man and represented ignorance of the Roman Catholic (and historical Christian) tradition.
How so? Qualify your claim. “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.” 1 Peter 3:15
@@BasedBelieverBob Noun phrases without verbs are wonderful means of insinuating something while actually claiming nothing, no? Don't spoil the wonder! :) Cheers! ;)
Common sense reasonable answers. Why so many thumbs down?
why the red heart.................invite Milo to talk about the Catholic Teachings
If the Eucharist really is the body of the Lord, Catholics cannot be accused of sectarianism any more than a woman who wants to preserve her body until marriage can. They are just being coherent with their belief, and concerned about your eternal salvation. If they really believe that the Spirit of Christ is in their Church, it makes perfect sense that accepting the Church and her teachings as a whole should be set as condition for receiving Christ's body, as much as a woman (or a man) until a public commitment to accept, not just the body, but the whole person, is made.
And your eternal salvation hangs on their refusal to allow you to holy communion, if we are to believe Saint Paul's words: "those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves” (1 Cor. 11:29).
Also the Catholic Church has opposition in principle to non-Catholics receiving the Eucharist. The principled issue is in how the host is recognized. Lutherans(?), Anglicans, and Orthodox, are not forbidden in principle.
So if it is sectarian, it is broadly (rather than narrowly) sectarian.
@@zapazap Lutherans and Anglicans are forbidden, actually. The USCCB instructions speak of the Orthodox and Polish National Catholic Church as being admitted to Holy Communion, as well as possibly another group or two if I recall.
@@hilairebelloc3368 I believe dispensation can be arranged. The semantics of 'in principal' might have a range that overlaps the issue here, but I will not quibble.
If it isn't the Lord's body and blood, than adoring it is certainly idolatry. On the other hand, if it is indeed as our Lord unequivocably says and as St. Paul also explicitly says, and as the church fathers unanimously agree, really the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, then one must take what St Paul says very seriously, that not discerning it as such is heaping judgment on oneself.
“If the Eucharist is just a symbol, then to hell with it.” - Flannery O’Connor
I feel it is more than a symbol, but does this esteemed author feel this way about symbols in general?
What a silly comment by O’Connor. The idea that symbols do not matter is strikingly reductionist, and goes beyond even Zwingli
@@cnorfolk6 I think O'Connor knew precisely what she was saying, that she knew very well the power of symbol, and was making a point.
@@zapazap Highly doubt it, having read a bit of her text. Some dramatic effect there I think.
There's a certain irony to the proto-Eucharist in that the Apostles didn't get the benefits of transubstantiation because Christ was still utilizing his body and blood.
That’s incorrect, the apostles received Christ’s body and blood at the last supper. Even Luther affirmed this. Christ’s cross is not limited by time or location.
“At the last supper, Jesus held his body in his hands.”
St Augustine
@PInk77W1 How much less did Jesus weigh after the last supper if they were in reality eating what was really his body. After what is really his body ("THIS IS MY BODY") enters your mouth, and next your digestive tract, at what point, if ever, does it cease to be HIS BODY? I've heard Scott Hahn talk about "Jesus in my tummy". If one believes the correct, dogmatic interpretation of this scripture is fully literal, and a physical reality, guess where Jesus will end up a few hours after entering one's mouth?
Receiving communion from Luther to help 'push him along' is a surprisingly utilitarian reason for receiving it! :)
when has Christianity ever been a utilitarian religion?
@@crobeastness On matters of faith and morals, never.
Absolutely brilliant!!! The questions and the responses! Thank you!
To have Communion with people you otherwise have no (ecclesiastical) communion with is wrong. "And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:42). How, then, can we have sacramental fellowship with people we dont't have doctrinal fellowship with?
The question is where do you draw that line. I suspect that in a group of 20 people you would have 25 answers to that question.
@@mkshffr4936 that’s a good point, specially within the Protestant faith no one person has the exact same doctrines or interpretations of the doctrines, the question is what main beliefs are required to call someone a brother in Christ?
A Catholics and protestants do have some doctrinal communion. It isn't none. I am not endorsing their teaching, but there are some fundamentals in common.
Because you are communing with God.
I have never found a single person with whom I totally agree on religious matters. I'm in my sixties. I have found it enough to call someone a brother or sister when they believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit. The death, resurrection and ascension of Christ resulting in the forgiveness of sin. They practice of communion. The believe in the importance of prayer and baptism. They believe in Christ's second coming, the Day of Judgement and salvation of the faithful. They rely on Scripture. If we can agree on these things, there's room for fellowship, and we'll talk over the rest. Don't be a divider.
You don't need to be in the same ecclesiastical communion with someone to celebrate communion with someone. There is only one table for believers and believers come in all traditions and denominations.
I wouldn't go to a Catholic church, or kingdom hall, or Mormon temple. I surely won't share the eucharistic with them.
Christ died and was raise once and for all, he is not continually dying nor is he continually being sacrificed.
The Eucharist is one and the same today as it was at the last supper.
Jesus is not limited to time and space.
Jesus is God. The Eucharist is supernatural. There is no re sacrificing
Once and for all. So we today are invited to the last supper, just as the apostles were invited to the last supper.
Jesus loves us as much as he loves the apostles. Jesus said
As often as YOU do this.
So Catholics do it everyday of the year
Except Good Friday
A true protestants view
The earliest writings of the Eucharist after the scriptures.
Didache 9.1 - (AD 100) Now, concerning the Eucharist, practice it as follows. " First, concerning the cup: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your son, which you made known to us through Jesus your son, glory to you forever a Next, concerning the broken bread: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your son, glory to you forever b4 Just as this broken bread was being scattered over the mountains and being brought together it became one; likewise bring together your church from the ends of the earth into your kingdom, so that yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever cs But none shall eat or shall drink from your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; for also concerning this the Lord has said,
"Do give not what is holy to the dogs."
The Didache (AD 100): “On the Lord’s day assemble and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. If any have a dispute with his fellow, let him not come to the assembly till they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not polluted. For this is the sacrifice spoken of by the Lord; ‘In every place and at every time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, said the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles; (Mal. i. 11, 14).”
no transubstantiation, but very much serious and practiced every Lords day. Not quarterly, not once a month, not once a year, every single time the church congregated.
Evangelicals wake up. This is the most serious tradition in the church.
The Early Church Fathers were not all in agreement that the Eucahrist was not symbolic.
Henri Crouzel, a French Jesuit priest and patristics scholar in his book "Origen" (1989), Crouzel discusses Origen's understanding of the Eucharist, noting that Origen saw it as a spiritual, not physical, nourishment. Crouzel emphasizes Origen's allegorical approach to scripture and sacraments, suggesting that Origen would not have interpreted the Eucharist in a strictly literal sense.
Similarly, John McGuckin, an Orthodox theologian and historian, in his work "The Westminster Handbook to Origen" (2004), examines Origen's views on the Eucharist and sacraments within the context of his broader theological framework. McGuckin highlights Origen's allegorical approach to scripture and sacraments, indicating that Origen may have seen the Eucharist as symbolically representing spiritual realities rather than being a literal transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
Paul Bradshaw: Bradshaw, a prominent liturgical scholar, suggests that Tertullian's emphasis on the spiritual significance of the Eucharist and his use of symbolic language in some contexts may imply a less literal understanding of the sacrament. Bradshaw explores this perspective in his work "Eucharistic Origins" (2004), where he examines early Christian views on the Eucharist.
David F. Wright: Wright, in his article "Tertullian's Eucharistic Theology" (1998), argues that Tertullian's language regarding the Eucharist sometimes reflects a symbolic understanding rather than a literal transformation of the elements. Wright highlights Tertullian's focus on the spiritual significance of the sacrament and his use of metaphorical language.
St. Paul’s description of communion in 1 Corinthians suggests a symbolic interpretation. He recounts Jesus' words at the Last Supper, where Jesus refers to the bread as "my body" and the cup as "the new covenant in my blood." Paul does not explicitly state that the bread and wine turn into the actual body and blood of Christ but uses these elements as symbols to remember Jesus' sacrifice. The emphasis is on the commemorative and reflective aspect of the ritual, urging believers to discern the body and partake in a manner that is respectful and mindful of its significance. This has led to different interpretations among Christian denominations regarding the nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist-some see it as symbolic, while others believe in a more literal presence.
St. Paul was the Apsotle for the gospel of grace while the12 were the apostle of the gospel of kingdom. He was called by the Ascended Lord to preach a sectet gospel, in Ephesians 3:3-6:
How the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Colossians 1:26-27, Paul speaks of the mystery, saying:
"The mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. To them, God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."
In Timothy 1:15 he states: "This is a trustworthy saying and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost/chief/first."
St. Paul emphasizes the the gospeln of grace was "my gospel" in Romans 2:16, Romans 16:25 , and 2 Timothy 2:8.
It got to the point that Paul was called to Jersualem to explain the gospel he was preaching in Acts 15. Decision was made that the apostles would preach to the Jews and Paul would preach to the gentiles and the Gospel would be Paul's.
The didache, most likely syrian or Palestinian, is the teachings of the Judaizers that Paul continually clashed with and eventually lamented in Timothy 1:15, "You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes."
In the verse that I call the "diabolical verse", John 6:66, it says: "And they walked with Him no longer." In the translation we had today, it says simply: "They broke away from Him and would not remain in His company any longer." The diabolical verse: They walked away from Jesus because of His teaching on the Eucharist. But that is not all. Today, we also see the reason Judas betrayed Jesus. Have you ever wondered why Judas betrayed Our Lord? Saint John tells us why, twice. We see it in verse 64 and if you go home and read verse 72, you are going to find the exact same thing. It is because of the Eucharist. It says right here: "Jesus knew from the start the ones who would refuse to believe and the one who would hand Him over." Right in the context of the teaching on the Eucharist, we hear about the reason Judas betrayed Jesus. Look a little further in Saint John’s Gospel and just ask yourself, "At what moment did Judas actually betray the Lord?" Jesus took the morsel, dipped it in the dish, and gave it to Judas. At the moment Judas received Holy Communion, he got up and left. Saint John says in a beautifully enigmatic way: "And it was dark." Satan entered his heart and it was dark at the moment he received Holy Communion because he refused to believe.
Very interesting idea! I think Judas wanted to force Jesus to reveal himself in the way Judas saw appropriate ( similar to Jesus rebuking Peter) -- but you may be right too!
Wow. What a profound and interesting point of view. Thank you your comment!
Luke 22 Now the Festival of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2 and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.
The Last Supper
7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.”
9 “Where do you want us to prepare for it?” they asked.
10 He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 He will show you a large room upstairs, all furnished. Make preparations there.”
13 They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 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.”
Satan entered Judas BEFORE the Last Supper and he had already plotted BEFORE the Passover meal to betray Jesus.
1) A casual reading of John 6 shows that Jesus said several very 'edgy/hard' things that led to followers departing - last of all "you may not come to me unless granted by the Father". So no - this falling away does not obviously connect exclusively to the talk of eating flesh and drinking blood.
2) On the matter of whether he literally meant we eat his flesh and drink his blood...
a. Old Israel was a very symbolic society - all manner of tradition and language was literally meant to be taken symbolically. If we were to take all of Jesus' statements literally, then He would be a sheepfold gate (usually made of wood/briar), a Shepherd - he never had this job, nor am I literally a sheep, a grapevine, and us literal branches, etc...
b. The question is whose authority determines if Jesus was being literal or figurative. The Catholic Church has put its stake down on this being a literal statement, but the others being figurative, with itself backing itself up on this point.
c. 1 Cor CHs 10 & 11 both discuss Communion. We are to partake "in remembrance" of Him. It would seem nonsensical to expect Israelites to travel down to Egypt & then return each year in remembrance of the original Passover - the Passover celebration was very much symbolic. Jesus took a meal steeped in symbolism (the dishes had meaning, the hymns they sang, the various calls & responses, etc...) and infused new meaning in it regarding the PAST (Jesus' death on the cross), for all PRESENT (eating at whatever moment in time we live), & looking forward to the consummation of all things in the FUTURE.
@@justinjimenez6960 Well said Justin. Unfortunately, I think you may be casting pearls to swine. Ironically, the swine may not understand the symbolism or the reference itself.
I just simply believe that in God’s omnipotence he can make his Body and Blood appear as bread and wine. But that’s just because I believe he has the power to do that, even though I may not completely understand.
I don't remember him doing that though. Wouldn't it be written in the Bible?
@@erikrohr4396 You could go read John 6 and look at what the early church fathers believed.
@@rafal2959 I read John 6.
Confessional Lutheran here. The Catholics are right to teach that Christ is corporal present (actual body and blood of Christ) in the Eucharist for the forgiveness of sins...
we have the living Christ in this eucharistic church (Catholic Church).
Mark, don't Jesus' words of "It is finished" apply only to His earthly suffering? This is clearly the case given Paul's words in 1 Cor 15:14, "And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."
Jesus is not somehow "resacrificed" in the Mass. His sacrifice (which has eternal repercussions) is made present again. It's as if Jesus reaches in from eternity and shows Himself in the present. He does this by His own will when He tells His disciples, "do this in memory of me."
Have you read any early Christian letters? They speak of Jesus' real presence in the Eucharist as well.
Mark OnTheBlueRidge perfect ignorance of the Catholic Faith. We are not resacrificing Calvary. That is once for all and accomplished and nothing more can be added to it. That is the Catholic Faith since the Apostles.
What the Mass is an unbloody resacrifice. It is continuing the benefits what happened at Calvary not doing it over.
So stop reading Jack Chick comics and do serious reading with books.
Is the living Christ not in Heaven, according to God's word? “So then the Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and down at the right hand of God.”
The Episcopal church states "Come worship the Eucharist with us."
@christophersleight19. Some high-church Anglicans practice Eucharistic Adoration. But Article XXV of the 39 Articles argues against it.
We would all agree, I think, that the human body of Christ, born of Mary, was/is a creature. Now, imagine Christ appeared before you bodily. Are you prohibited from worshiping him on the grounds that his body is a creature, and not the creator? If not, if you would say something to the effect of "I wouldn't be worshiping his body, I would be worshiping Him, which is not idolatrous", then what prevents the element adoring catholic from making the same distinction?
Sounds like a good question to me!
This question only proves the lack of grasp of scripture
@@wesleysimelane3423 How does a _question_ prove any such thing?
(I suppose to assess your claim, we might need to tighten it up. Does 'a person asking this question proves the questioner lacks grasp of scripture' work as a tightened paraphrase?)
its for believers period
Is it wrong for an unbeliever to take a drink in memory of anyone?
“The Crucifix looks like Jesus but it’s not
The Eucharist doesn’t look like Jesus but it is.”
Little kid
Pastor Wilson is a very nice and smart person. I do think that he is getting somethings mistaken when he talks about the Catholic position. I noticed that he said "when the wine literally turns in to the blood, then..". This shows me that he doesn't really understand what Transubstantiation is, because it is not Transformation. So we do not believe that the Host or wine turn in to the literal flesh and blood of Jesus. If we did believe that we would call it Transformation. So for some clearification: We believe that the 'what it is " changes , the substance changes into the body and blood of Christ. But the species remain the same, that is how it feels, smells taste and looks remain bread and wine. There is a totally other reason that we not let everybody partake and it is not sectarian. Also Catholics should also not partake if you are in a sinful state. I think because we believe the body and blood are really present under the species of bread and wine, we have a deep respect for it. And we not adore a thing, we see that in that thing our Lord is present with us. Because of all of that we do not want that people in a incorrect matter partake. To protect the holy sacrament from abuse or misuse (because our Lord is present in it), and to protect people. And to not take lightly the words: For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself,
He would not be aloud to receive the Eucharist because hes not catholic and not confirmed in the church....the sacred host IS NOT BREAD!! as in protestant bread , the Eucharist can only be consecrated by a priest
I guess it is not bread in an Aristotelian substance-theory sense.
I have difficulties with this sense.
Keep watching the videos Catholics and come to know the full TRUTH!
No. I'm bowing down to Christ's Body. Which Our Lord clearly states this "bread" to be.
Bowing down to the bread makes you an idolater, plain and simple. Worse still, people like you do not even CONSIDER the opposite point of view which, at the very least, has just as much "power" as yours; i.e., "The Lord is my rock" does NOT mean the Lord is a literal rock, and we say, neither is the bread his literal body. One of us is wrong and we are confident Catholics are 100% WRONG. You can begin your investigation to wake up out of your spiritual coma, here....matt1618.freeyellow.com/malakyeopening.html
I am confident that the Catholic Church is 100% correct. I am not in a "coma," nor were the Catholic faithful for the last 2000 years. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was believed clearly and exactly in the first centuries of the Church's history, as a neutral reading of history will show. But believe as you will, that is what Christ allowed to those in John 6 50 et alia to do. He didn't go running after those who refused to accept His literal teaching. He asked Peter, if memory serves, would he be going too? And Peter responded, "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." You need to wake up, and read the words of Christ in correct Greek. They are ANYTHING but symbolic. But you won't.
Every single one of your objections, when examined under the magnifying glass of Holy Writ, proves the Catholic position is in a shambles.....and that, beginning with the very first lie proclaimed by the Council of Trent in CCC 1376 from the link I gave you, and of course to which you had no reply. Your ridiculous apologetic that Peter responds Jesus holds the words to eternal life, does NOT mean Pete was endorsing the literal Catholic view of the Eucharist, nor would any Bible scholar living or dead agree with you. Yikes! The way you Catholics read into the Scriptures something that is not there, is shameful.
Thomas Hogan
The problem is many do bow down for just bread . The RCC has just came to grips with the fact only one third believed that the bread and the wine are actually the real body and blood of Christ . So for most it is idolatry. By your standards. Also if you ask a priest ( not all but some ) about the communion you will be surprised by some answers. Especially if you go to Europe.
Blessings
When every knee bends to our Lord Jesus Christ at the end of time we will all be bowing down to a "created thing" a "creature" who is at the same time God. If you can see how that is not idolatry you can also see how it is not idolatry to do the same with the gift of his presence in the Eucharist. We aren't adoring "bread" we are adoring the Lord.
The main problem with the mass is the church's belief, contra Hebrews, that the mass is representation of the sacrifice of the Cross.
It's so clear you have to rely on Aristolean categories no one believes in to explain it.
@@FrMoody there's talk of the Eucharist as a sacrifice of praise, hence the name "eucharist" meaning "thanksgiving". But the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice is wrong. Jesus' death was a propiatory sacrifice. The Eucharist isn't a representation of that sacrifice.
Keith Matthison goes into this a bit in his book "Given For You." There's a difference in the meal associated with commorating the sacrifice. The meal itself isn't a sacrifice. The Passover was a sacrifice in that sense. The Passover seder is not. Sacrifices of praise are different.
@@geoffrobinson Dear Confused Pilgrim ... You didn't read far enough in the Bible ... Jesus explained what was the bread in (John 6:58) He says there: "This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” THEN HE SAID in verse 63: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The WORDS I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life." WE ARE EAT JESUS' WORDS (i.e. figuerativeliy) not a wafer made from starch.
@@mosesking2923 so when Jesus calls himself the door, he is literally a physical door? Glad you read your bible. Clearly everything he said was literal...
@@geoffrobinson Why do you say that no one believes Aristotelian categories?
I've never heard of this guy, and I won't waste any more time on his postings (I viewed this one to see what the other side thinks), but what struck me was that compared to other prots, he is at least not outwardly hostile and nasty toward the Catholic Faith in this video at least. Having said that, he does like the word "sectarian" a lot, and accuses the Catholic Church of being just that when She states that non Catholics cannot receive Holy Communion. However, the Catholic Church is actually being very biblical in that stance here, and is being charitable. In 1 Corinthians 11:27, it says that "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." The Church is trying to save those who would otherwise do this.
In reference to what the "reformers" taught, and as another post here states, their beliefs are all novel, and directly contradict what the earliest Church Fathers (some of whom walked with the Apostles) taught and believed. Also, why is it that prots do not take our Blessed Lord at his word when He states "This is my body....this is my blood'? Oh yeah, that's right...Jesus was talking metaphorically, right? wrong. Why did Jesus allow all those who left him after saying that to just walk away without clarifying his claims (John 6:66)? Instead, he double-downed and used terms like "Gnawing" to describe what one needs to do to His flesh in order to have eternal life.
For the reformers to have been correct in any of their assertions, then Jesus would've been lying when He stated that the "Gates of Hell will not prevail against" His church. The 44,000 (and counting) different denominations of protestantism are all wrong.
ChrisB176 ,
you just glory in your huge Vatican heresy !
At the Last Supper JESUS speaks prophetically, because not a drop of HIS Blood had been shed yet and HIS Body was yet inviolate !!
Hello Chris, You ask some very good questions, but please, don't assume the reformers were foolishly 'novel'. Many were some of the best scholars of their time. They did not reject the fathers but did reject some of the medieval teaching about what the fathers actually said. It was the authority of the the church to say things about what the fathers wrote, that are not explicitly there, that they rejected. Please, if you haven't yet, prayerfully read as much of the fathers as you can and notice that in many cases much has been read into their work in order to support ideas that arose much later.
ChrisB176
Overall evangelicals treat Catholics very respectfully, my home church was made up of 90% ex-Catholics. Catholicism just can't compare to the power and beauty of the Biblical Gospel. Which is why 10s of thousands of Catholics are leaving the Roman church every day for a genuine faith in Christ. Praise God.
Furthermore, John 6 has nothing to do with transubstantiation.
It is the spirit that quickeneth; *the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life*.
John 6:63 KJV
In his explanation to his Disciples, Jesus explains that the hard saying he is giving them while yes being meant to scandalize them (and thus test them) is actually spiritual in nature not of the flesh.
Literally eating Jesus' body wouldn't help you at all, it's the spiritual union with Christ through faith and our identification with him in his death and resurrection that gives us new life. Do not be so fleshly-minded...
Anglicans believe in the real presence, just in a different way then Catholics do.
A large amount of catholic doctrine is medieval and can not be attributed to their the apostolic age or the early church.
No, there are not 44k and counting protestant denominations. Catholics are always talking about protestants spreading propaganda about them, but then turn around and spread propaganda about protestants. At most, there's about 10. That same study shows the Catholic church has over 200 denominations. So if we want to be that lose with how we define a denomination then you need to apply it to yourself as well.
@@xandro2445 Right. Anglicans don’t believe in the Real Presence. They can say they do all day long, but that doesn’t make it true.
They don’t believe in transubstantiation-that is that the bread and wine actually change into the actual Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ at the consecration. *That’s* the Real Presence.
Furthermore, they don’t have the power to confect the Eucharist. Only the Holy Catholic Church does, so even if the Anglicans did actually believe in the Real Presence (which they don’t), they couldn’t possibly bring it about anyway.
Your assertion that “a large amount” of our doctrine is “medieval” and “can’t be attributed to their apostolic age or the early Church” is a non sequitur, apparently meant to somehow discredit the Holy Catholic Church, and is woefully vague.
If you were to read the Early Church Fathers-some of whom learned from the Apostles themselves-you’ll see their teachings on most fundamental beliefs of The Church are the same as we hold today (The Eucharist, Baptismal Regeneration, The Papacy, etc). And, what you fail to realize is, since Christ Himself established the Holy Catholic Church, and gave Her-and Her alone-the power to Bind and Loose, it wouldn’t matter if your “medieval” claim were true (which it’s not). Christ’s Church has the power to make doctrine whenever the Holy Spirit wants Her to.
And I do apologize about saying there are 44,000 different denominations of prots out there. I was wrong. I see it’s actually more like 47,000.
While you are (again) woefully vague about what “study” it is you are citing (including the ridiculous claim that there’s “over 200 denominations” of Catholicism), I’ll cite a study done by your own prots- The Center For Global Christianity-that gives the 47,000 number, so thanks for pointing out my 44,000 number was wrong. I’m more than happy to correct the record.
Since you’re the first one I’ve ever seen to make the ridiculous claim of the 200 different Catholic denominations (again-citing nothing), I’d love to read how you came up with that number. At best, it would include a horrible misunderstanding (or twisting) of the word “denomination.”
This vid. does not explain the number of good Protestants who converted to Catholicism.
Catholicism gave the world the Bible. Check neutral history, not some anti-Catholic tract.
@Veiled Heat The spirit did give us the Bible.
Through men.
Cheers! )
What does he mean by "sectarian"?
So glad i'm a Catholic. It would be nice if Protestants who criticize the Church at least have a proper understanding of the Church. I don't adore Bread when I adore the Eucharist, I adore Christ, because he is present. Not because I said it, but because he said it, the Bible Identifies the New Covenant (testament) by the Sacrament of which Christ spoke. When we partake of the Lord Supper we partake of the Paschal Sacrifice of the Lamb of God our Lord Jesus Christ, eating the Lamb, as the Jews had done before New Covenant (Eucharistic covenant) which Christ started at the Last supper. I would warn you not to learn about Catholicism from Material Heretics, they are motivated to remove you from Christ himself using words like "I Believe" Rather confirming that which was taught by the Church Christ started. Never listen to a person who explains his beliefs in terms of his own ego "I BELIEVE"
Marc, defining the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants is the first step toward actually discussing these issues profitably for the church at large. (An example of how *not* to do it is by bringing up heretics in the first paragraph, haha.) Surely you recognize that transubstantiation isn't the ONLY way to interpret the Bible passages, right?
Canon Press I did say “Material Heretic” not a formal one. Interpretation is Tradition. You can believe what ever you like, I can’t stop anyone from doing that, the vast number of beliefs out there validate the ministry of the Papacy. This gent is just one of thousands of subjective Christians.
The church Christ started was the church that you see in the new testament. Jesus gave Peter and the apostles exclusive authority to establish the teachings and doctrines of this church, of which Christ is the rock. There is no evidence that this special authority was passed down to any of their predecessors. Bishops and elders were appointed throughout many cities of the known world. Each city had authority over their own jurisdiction. No one church had authority over another. Their core foundations were the teachings that the Apostles established. It was not until the 4th century that the church in Rome decided that they would be the supreme authority over all the other churches. Almost all of the other churches rejected this decision and never recognized Rome as supreme. Roman Catholicism is a man made religion that left the original church established by Peter and all the apostles. And then they fabricate the theory of Peter being the first bishop of Rome. Do your homework. There is no scriptural or historical evidence of Peter being the first bishop of Rome. And before you criticize me for not having a proper understanding of the RCC, let me tell you that I was a Roman Catholic for the first 20 years of my life. Never once was I encouraged by the church or my parents to read the Bible. Fact is, they don't want you to read the Bible. Instead they want you to blindly follow whatever they tell you. No matter how many times you repeat the lie that Jesus established Roman Catholicism, it will never become true. Now to the topic of communion. Read the whole passage in John chapter 6. Verse 63 sums it up ( It is the spirit that quickeneth. the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.) Jesus is not talking literally here, but rather spiritually. Amazing how almost every Roman Catholic avoids quoting verse 63 when trying to justify their view. Who you choose to follow is your decision. I will trust in the Holy Bible. I truly hope that you have a personal relationship with Jesus and aren't depending on the religious rituals of your church to save you. God Bless
In one paragraph, you made statements that I can’t possibly address. It’s filled with error. I can’t address them all, you are all so well trained in your traditional responses. I’ll pick one. Maybe two.
Verse 63 “It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.”
Yes, Christ is speaking of spiritual realities, not those realities that are physical. Most Catholics understand this to mean that the physical body and blood of Christ does not come to us with the characteristics of Human blood and flesh, what we see, touch smell and taste, only that through the Power of the Holy Spirit, those items which we receive by Faith are the actual Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ, Literally! Christ makes his intent very clear with the statement 10 verses earlier “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 (Greek word here is ‘Chew) my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Now brace yourself) For my flesh IS REAL FOOD INDEED, and my BLOOD IS REAL DRINK INDEED.”
So much of your reply was full of poor theology. Having for example “A Personal Relationship with Jesus” Where is that in the Bible?
Oh, another, Catholics cover more scripture at mass than any other denominations man-made service I have ever attended. Catholics go through the Bible every 3 years during our Mass 3 year cycle. We sing psalms, read Scripture and fallow the pattern established by the apostles. If you can attend daily Mass, you go through the Bible every 2 years. I read my bible every day, not with man-made interpretations like suggesting that things Spiritual are not Literal, as a believer in God I believe 100% that the Spirit is Life and therefore more Literal than the Physical. You have been pulled away from the truth, you have been persuaded by individuals to abandon the faith, you have been instructed to take the Bible and use it as you will and not as God intended. Your faith is based on Anti-Church, rather than the unity of the Church. Your history is poor. I can’t possibly address all the things you bring up, they are so distorted and wrong I wouldn’t know where to begin. Open your eyes to the truth. Spiritual is Literal.
Sure, I have a personal relationship with Christ, but that relationship is a byproduct of being a Christian and secondary to my familial relationship. I am part of Gods family, a member of his Quhal, his community his Church and I will not stray from that family. More so, however, I want to be closer to Christ than to have a personal relationship with him, I have a personal relationship with my dentist, with the guy who brings his dogs over to play, It's simply not enough, I want more and my familial relationship gives me that closeness. Christ, however, has done something even greater than personal or familial relationships with us. Christ has established a Covenant with us which gives us an intimate relationship with him, where we hear, touch, smell and taste him. He knows that we are flesh and blood and that thing that we need is intimacy with God. Christ does this through the Sacraments of Church.
I suggest, stripping yourself of your Pride and preconceived notions, stop thinking about how you feel in your flesh but realize rather what God intends for us. Remove the scales from your eyes and you will see the Truth, the scales are a manifestation of your ego.
The thing about the catholic denomination is they pray to Mary. Using her has the gateway to God. What does the bible say about this or really jesus? I am the way and the truth and the light. Nobody comes to the father except through me!.....
Very interesting.
By "bloodless" we mean the Lord's Precious Blood is not spilt. With all due respect, Doug Wilson interprets that idea too literally.
The Eucharist is NOT JUST A SYMBOL in the Catholic Church. Read John, Chapter 6. Protestants are those who walked away from Jesus.
so is there too much sand in the sugar bowl at the catholic church?
Catholicism misspelled in the intro.
Just go look what ignatius believed and Polycarp believed
Your video could do with proof-reading.
Ive agreed with Doug on nearly everything but this-communion is very strictly for those who are saved and Roman Catholics (nearly all if they follow their theology) are not saved.
Imputed justification doesn’t square with scripture
@@3leon306 2 Cor. 5:16-21 talks about the doctrine of imputation.
@@markchristian787 www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/biblical-evidence-for-catholic-justification
reference this for a fair treatment of Catholic (and historical) justification ... unlike the unfairly abridged versions heard on this page. Most Protestants think Catholics believe works amount to raking leaves for your elderly neighbor or “being a good person” ... let’s start with your own view: Do you have a responsibility as a Christian to avoid sin? what are the wages of sin? or does the concept of imputed justification allow you as Luther said to sin boldly?
That is for the Father to decide.
Mark, there is some disagreement about whether communion is strictly for the saved (as defined by those who have made a profession of faith) which opens up a whole new discussion but since it is impossible for us to unambiguously determine who are the elect it could be problematic to deny the Lord's supper to someone based on their RC background even if one holds to professors only communion.
As I said they are not Trinitarian, Jesus Christ didn't say change the Trinity and deny the Divinity and eternal Word and the resurrection and so on, evil spirit must be cleansed , because their baptism hurts yes, there is only one holy church , people and baptism that can fix it and does the correct one ! Scripture mentions that one btw !
Jesus said "This is my body which is given for thee take and eat" He didn't say oh this is just bread and wine with little significance but done in a memorial. So yes after consecration it acts like the body and blood. A lot of early protestants were on board with it until zwingly and the Anabaptists showed up and changed everything by saying all tradition is Roman and papist therefore let's get rid of 1500 years going back to the apostles and toss it in the garbage and get rebaptised.
@ALPHA & OMEGA NETWORK Human beings are 80% water and Jesus was fully man and fully God and blood has water in it. In fact a priest mixes water with the wine for the symbolism. I rather follow Jesus and his disciples than a blasphemous antisemitic defrocked monk who forced a nun to marry him and whose followers regularly tried to martyr faithful Catholics and then make up stories about Catholicism being pagan and mentioning only the protestant martyrs.
How do you deal with Leviticus 17? If Jesus consumed blood, then He was made unclean. or God has commanded us to make ourselves unclean
@@reddhedds To add to that, The Last Supper took place UNDER THE LAW, and thus BEFORE His death and fulfillment of the Law. Would the consumption of human blood and flesh not have violated the Law? Jesus adhered to the Law. He did so out of obedience to His Father. He afterward said that He would not drink of the fruit of the vine again until He returns. He literally acknowledges that the wine is the "fruit of the vine." Not literal blood.
If cannibalism is bad, then it’s bad. If it’s bad at all, it’s bad when you believe it’s Christ. Just a faulty teaching come about my not knowing how to read scripture
@A & Ω Reformed YT read scripture … no exegetical evidence that Christ meant this metaphorically. His apostles left Him and Christ let them because the teachings were hard. The earliest church in 2nd century focused on the Eucharist. Truth is on the side of Catholicism, period.
Jesus Christ teaches "this IS MY BODY ", ( Matthew 26:26) . Fallible Protestant Pastors say, " No. It is not". Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
He also said he is living water, a door, Good Shepherd etc. Hello?? So u gonna drink blood??
@@bethr8756 yes, for His Flesh is True food and Blood true drink, as Jesus Christ is the new passover Lamb to be consumed for our salvation! No one brings condemnation on oneself for consuming a mere symbol in an unworthy manner as Paul warns in Corinthians!
@@matthewbroderick6287 So you eat flesh...what does it do after it gets in your body? And your alive after drinking Blood? Does it have the chemical properties of flesh and blood?
@@bethr8756 Yes, as Jesus Christ commanded us to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. Have you never read Holy Scripture? ( Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:24, John 6:53-55). God's grace and peace to you!
@@matthewbroderick6287 Have YOU read scriptures? It's symbolic. You don't eat people
An Evangelical cannot receive the Eucharist in a mass for a number of reasons. here are a few :not recognizing the Pope as a Christ's vicar on earth and his authority. not agreeing with the teaching authority of the RCC magisterium.. taking the Eucharist when not in a state of grace-un confessed mortal sins to a RCC priest. As a RC and if I dont agree or am in a state of mortal sin I cant take the Eucharist either.
Get Doug to debate NT Wright.
Hed get slaughtered.
The Protestant disbelief in the Real Presence simply (and sadly) makes nonsense of John 6 and the Last Supper.
For one thousand five hundred years if you were a Christian, Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic or Churches of the East you believed that the Eucharist was the real and true body, blood soul and divinity of Christ! It wasn’t until the errors of the protestant heretical reformation that some “ Christians” denied this truth believing that the bread and wine only represent Jesus, remind you of Jesus , but really isn’t Jesus. Thank you for not receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church because as a heretic and nonbeliever you are forbidden to do so. Nor would I ever partake of the “Lord’s Supper” in your heretical service in which there is nothing but bread and wine. If I want to eat bread and drink wine , I will go to a bakery buy a loaf bread and go to a liquor store and buy a bottle of wine! . If I want the body, blood , soul and divinity of Christ , I will go to a Catholic Mass!
Well Luther would disagree with the reformers who denied the Eucharist, and we affirm it as the true body and blood of our Lord.
My first disagreement with you, Doug. I believe the Christ of Roman catholicism and the Christ of the Bible are two very separate and distinct things. One has the power to forgive sins and save us from eternal damnation, while the other does not.
I'm a diehard Protestant. But that's a completely inaccurate representation of the RC Jesus. The Jesus of the Papists is the Jesus of the Bible.
its not sectarian. even a Catholic cannot receive communion if they are not in a state of grace. meaning if they did not confess through a priest prior to receiving communion while also not doing a mortal sin in between those 2 events, they cannot receive it. also even if you meet that you need to also believe in their dogma of transubstantiation.
Catholic church is Trinitarian, but they baptize babies...therefore baptism is still required.
"respect?"
We dont literally pick up and carry crosses around, we don’t physically die when baptized, we weren’t literally, physically crucified with Christ. Missed that opportunity by a few thousand years. The first communion was bread and wine, Jesus hadn’t had his body broken yet or his blood poured out. There’s no biblical precedent, no logical reason to believe it’s literal and it doesn’t achieve anything that a symbolic communion doesn’t
I think there’s pretty strong precedent for eating the flesh of the Passover lamb - not to mention that every covenant included the sacrifice of an animal and a communion meal of that animal’s roasted flesh in order to celebrate the two people/parties/tribes/nations coming together. And the fact that the Israelites had to eat the flesh of the lamb? We can’t ignore the context of Jesus’ coming. He came to restore the Davidic Kingdom, to be the fulfillment of the Old Covenant prophecies and types, and to mediate a new covenant in His blood on our behalf. He does so by transforming the Old Covenant Passover and becoming Himself both the lamb to be slain and the offering priest. Jesus foretells the reality of His becoming the sign, sacrifice, and meal of the New Covenant Passover in John chapter 6, when He tells the crowds and His disciples and apostles that they must literally eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life.
@@annapetersen7718 he doesn’t say literally, why does the bread turn into flesh after you swallow? Because it’d be obviously false to say any time before that. What if you get sick after taking communion? Could you end up with a piece of Jesus? Clone him maybe? Jesus says he’s the bread of life, obviously figuratively, same as eating his body and drinking his blood
@@FourthFloorParkour nope, Jesus is literal. All fathers of the church affirm this. In John 6, Jesus even uses literal language changing the word “phagete” (consume) to “trogon” (chew or gnaw). This is so obvious that even Luther affirmed the real presence.
“Jesus hadn’t had his body broken yet.”
Jesus is not limited to time and space.
You are thinking as man thinks
Not as God thinks.
1. Jesus said this is my body
2. Jesus said if u don’t eat my body and drink my blood u have no life in u.
3 Jesus said my flesh is real food
I thought the Catholics came before The Evangelicals? And the Evangelicals spawned from the Catholics? So if that's the case then explain this.
King James Bible
reads:
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
That's an anachronistic view of history unless you're zooming in on the 1500s alone.
Ugh!! This is so needlessly complicated! “Do this in memory of me.” That is all! Never once did Christ say that if you don’t partake of his flesh and blood at exactly the right intervals, in exactly the right contexts, along side exactly the right people, and under the strictest of circumstance, you’ll burn in hell. 🙄 At no point did He ever say to put all your focus on the minutia and details, the importance of which will eventually be different in peoples opinions all across the world. He simply said “do this in memory of me”.
Jesus also said "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.”
@@annapetersen7718 Exactly. Now tell me where he said to do that at every mass, and only if you’ve confessed to a priest first, or you’re guilty of a mortal sin.
@@flavadave3943 The statement that everyone must confess sins to a priest before receiving the Eucharist is slightly incorrect. One is only required to confess their sins before receiving the Eucharist if they’ve committed mortal sin. Scripture doesn’t record whether Jesus taught anything explicitly about confessing sins, but He did teach very clearly about the authority passed to his Apostles to forgive sins. There are written accounts of confessing sins, particularly before receiving communion, elsewhere in the Bible and in early Church writings. A couple examples to consider:
• St Paul tells the Corinthians to discern before partaking in communion: “A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Corinthians 11:28-29).
• The Didache, considered by many scholars to be the writings of the 12 Apostles between 70 and 100 AD: “Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure.”
The traditions of receiving the Eucharist and confessing sins, and how these two practices come together in the Christian life, were well established among Christians by 70 AD. There’s a wealth of other writings - scriptural and non-scriptural - that would shed even more light on the Early Church.
I pray you may consider that Jesus couldn’t have possibly taught us everything in His time on earth. This is part of the reason why we believe He didn’t just come to earth, die, resurrect, and ascend back to Heaven. In establishing a New Covenant in His blood, He founded a Church that could bring the Gospel message forward and teach the world about Him, including things that aren’t verbatim in Scripture, but certainly nothing that Scripture contradicts. For the early Christians, “Scripture” was only the Jewish scriptures, no New Testament yet.
A classic example of a teaching not explicitly taught by Jesus, or found elsewhere in Scripture, is the Trinity. Jesus mentions the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19, but it wasn’t until the Council of Nicea that the theology of 1 God in 3 Persons was fully expressed and declared as a foundational truth of the Christian faith. Almost all Christians today believe in this fundamental doctrine.
Appreciate the discussion, friend! Peace be with you!
The Eucharist is the greatest gift we will ever receive before Heaven. The Church, in her love and wisdom under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, wants us to receive this gift frequently as a crucial foundation of the Christian life, so we may be united to Christ, the Bridegroom. But, we’re talking about literally receiving the King of the universe into our bodies - not something that can be taken lightly: the gift must be received in reverence and with the proper preparation, predisposition, and knowledge of what we’re being offered and what we’re saying before God when we receive Him (“Amen” - “I stake my life in this”). Therefore, the Church, in keeping the Lord’s Day as the new Sabbath, provides stipulations and rules like the minimum frequency of attending mass, how old one has to be to begin receiving the Eucharist, how to receive the Eucharist worthily, when one shouldn’t receive, etc.
Like a caring parent, the Church calls us home when it’s time to be fed (but not without reminding us to “wash up and make ourselves clean” beforehand!).
@@annapetersen7718 I appreciate the attempt to explain. But I get a little tired of Paul being the reference point for so many ritualistic customs that are just accepted as necessary by Catholics. And while they don’t all contradict scripture, I do not understand canonizing and placing such emphasis on something that can not be traced back to Jesus. And I’m sorry, but your explanation that sin can be forgiven by man is the same one I always get, and falls short addressing my point. The rock of the church is not Peter. Not is it any of the other apostles. The rock of the church is Peters answer to Jesus that he is the Christ, and the son of God. Therefore, I don’t care what points he didn’t address while he was here. I care what he did address. And I certainly don’t care what the Catholic Church has inferred from scripture in order to wedge itself in between Christ and the individual in order to establish itself as necessary. Furthermore, there is plenty of Catholic doctrine that does contradict scripture. But that is too big a conversation to have here. God bless.
The Eucharist is the reason why we gather on Sunday. We make a sacrifice to God and he gives back to us in the form of his body and blood. The early church was hierarchical, sacramental and liturgical. The modern church is nothing like that.
Reformers like Doug Wilson legitimately do not care
Christ made the penultimate sacrifice, to say that Christ's body is being re-presented every single day all over the world by thousands of sinful priests is to miss by a mile what the author of Hebrews meant when he said that Jesus suffered *once* for all.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 then just go golfing Sunday morning after you gorge yourself on a big breakfast instead of going to church. You’re going to heaven, right?
I would not take communion at a Roman Catholic Church for the reason I’ll feel like I am sinning against my conscious. But again I would never step foot inside a Roman Catholic Church service, I’ll treat them the same as I would a Jehovah witness or a LGBT affirming Trinitarian church.
First off, you're not allowed to unless you're a baptized Christian into the True Church of Jesus Christ. Doing so you would only by eating and drinking damnation onto yourself as St. Paul said.
Secondly, Protestantism is the new Gnosticism...
"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, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
JWs skipped 1800yrs.
Catholics haven’t skipped a day
I don’t know what your LGBT comment means
Cannibalism is frowned upon in most societies. When you take the communion or the bread and wine you are not eating the body of Christ it's merely a symbol that's done in remembrance of the death burial and Resurrection
An educated protestant would never want to take of the eucharist and it’s certainly not out of respect, it’s out of not wanting to commit idolatry.
I was invited to a Catholic Church and did not participate by my choice. I was not an educated protestant at that time, I just was grossed out by everyone drinking out of the same cup and everyone’s fingers in the bread.
a proper Mass; traditional is where only the priest is ordained to touch the Communion and administer it to the parishioners.
The Catholic Church is the Divine Origin
@@nickfraser422 and everyone gets their own cup of wine to drink from?
@@sandina2cents779 Otherwise it is wiped clean When u go to confession for absolution (ppl normally go to psychiatrists) and then receive Holy Communion, it is incredible.
Unfortunately the modern mass has watered eveything down making it less Catholic. I attend the Latin Mass; more traditional and better to praise God
@@nickfraser422 wiped clean is not clean... there are diseases you can get from sharing the same cup like herpes one, or hepatitis. Wiping it between each person’s mouth is not doing anything to clean it. For health hazards it should be banned doing it that way. Protestants have their own tiny cup for communion, then it’s thrown away. It’s like Catholics are still living in the day where they don’t know what bacteria and viruses are.
@@nickfraser422 and I do confession with Jesus all the time. I don’t need another man to intercessors between me and Jesus, I’m a child of God I can talk to him directly.
Sort it out, then get back to me about believing the Bible.
Try Catholicism, not Catholocism.
This dog is a pretty wise fellow
Where did you guys get the AUTHORITY to interpret the scripture? Before 1519 there were no sects in the west. The sects started with Luther.
I get my authority from common sense,the heretic who sits on a throne and pretends to be St.Peter's succesor today doesnt even believe you need to be a Christian to be saved.The whole papacy thing has collapsed wake up.
The RCC church is nothing like what the early church of Christ looked and operated like. God forbid that , a holy church of God to act as they have
throughout history. The commandment ...thou shalt not kill was trampled by RCC when they burned, mutilated and murdered 280 sincere Christian martyrs
in Smithfield England for not joining their evil idol worship , but even worse murders in the year1550 when they murdered torchered, burned 50,000 Christian
Huganauts . Check that out in your history books if they haven't destroyed that terrible time yet. I learned of it in high school books. They never repented and
even their popes were poor examples , having children by whores. The foundation of that body, is unholy and sinful, and dead works won't help it. This is the
truth and needs to be heard and not defended. It is the whore of Babylon I have no doubt.
@@barbdallaire7758 The Huguenots were attacked by Catherine de Medici, not by the Catholic Church. Of course she was Catholic, but she could scarcely have been Queen of France if she hadn't been. Her motives were political not religious. It is a rare modern person who can understand how religion and politics intersected in 16th century Europe. As for the rest, why should I pay any attention to someone who can't spell Huguenot?
@@gussetma1945
There have always been sects
Since the apostles, in fact
@@goyonman9655 I can't recall precisely what I was responding to. It is quite true that there were schismatics and heretics in the east and even a few in the west. Those in the west were suppressed. But what about my question. Where to you heretics get your AUTHORITY to interpret the Bible?
This guy is such a sophist
John Knox had a syllogism that says:
"Anything invented in the brain of man in the worship of God is idolotry
The mass was invented in the brain of man,
Therefore the mass is idolotry"
You mean like Calvinism? And double predestination? Or the concept of total depravity? All inventions ...
@@3leon306 Inventions to anyone who doesn't read the Bible, otherwise, you couldn't be more wrong. You are probably one who listens to so called teachers who are full of hate for truth. Have you ever studied the Bible? I didn't think so. Have you ever read The Institutes of the Christian Religion? I didn't think so.
@@joeiiiful I’ll spare you a disquisition on my 40 years of study ... 25 of which were as a reformed Protestant. I’ll simply ask whether you’ve considered whether you ever read, say, Romans without a priori bias that leads to predictable proof texting? ... might you be reading Calvin, Luther, and even Sproul into scripture? ... what do you make of Romans that begins in chapter 1 and ends in chapter 16 with the notion of “the obedience of faith” or chapter 2 that commands works for a final judgment and justification ... or chapter 13 that asserts a new “law” (more works) in place of the 613 mosaic commands? Too few Catholics turn the “Bible reading” question back on protestants who read only predictable verses ...Protestants get away often with ridiculing Catholics and even questioning their salvation with the straw-man notion of “Bible vs. Tradition” or the suggestion of Pelagianism ... when actually what they mean is, “do you read these verses as I read them and agree with my interpretation?”
@@3leon306 I stand on my original comments and yes I have read a thousand times more than you. I use a Biblical hermeneutic and don't have time for people like you. You have no ability to be objective because your mind and heart are polluted with garbage. If you were interested and teachable, we wouldn't be having this waste of valuable time. I have nothing further to say to you because I would be casting my pearls before swein.
@@joeiiiful hiding behind ad hominem and your appetite for smugness when someone is willing to debate scripture ... sigh
If the Eucharist's only a blessed symbol, I'd prefer the blessed Twinkie and Mountain Dew to a blessed wafer and cranberry juice.
It funny how the talk about 1st Corinthians but not chapter 11 when Paul uses the same word for Testament as Jesus did in John at the last supper and it is only uses in that spelling in those two instances. Also if you Bible says covenant then it is hiding that the the new Testament is the Eucharist as instituted by Christ Himself. Hilarious.
Two pagan modern Gnostics ...
So the gospel is about special Christians making magic bread ?
Is that what the New Testament teaches ? Really ?
Way to characterize it
Scott Weinmann:
I take questions seriously.
My answers are 'no', 'no', and 'yes'' -- though the third question seems superfluous if we are engaging in good well (and perhaps useless if we are not).
Does this help, sir?
With an attitude like that you’ll never find the truth, no matter what it is.
the trinitarians ARE the roman catholic church and in the book of acts baptizing was in the NAME OF JESUS . NO we are not going to hell if we do not believe that God is three differents persons this is ANOTHER GOSPEL we have only one God THE FATHER who came as the Savior and as the sacrificial Lamb in a bodily form (Isaiah 35)
@DiscoFalcon first am not a Pentecostal and I will never be, and second yes am a modalist but it was rejected by the Geek Platonist BECAUSE they want to introduce a three headed God(S) NEVER TEACH IN THE 66 BOOKS so am a heretic but God ALWAYS PROCLAIM TO BE ONE BUT NEVER THREE ... Did the Jews worship Yahweh in trinity or in Spirit and truth as the apostles??? Paul teaches a one God NAME THE FATHER and ONE LORD Jesus Christ but Lord mean ADONAI and it's a reference to Yahweh. The trinity is the most hypocrite and perverted of all the heresies because they change the nature of the true God who is SPIRIT to a pagan triune gods who are three different persons mmmm what a shame, this is the biggest sin against the first commandment who COMMAND to believe God IS ONE AND NEVER MANY.
Here is the TRUE GOD OF THE BIBLE= 1Tim3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
GOD WAS MANIFEST IN FLESH AS A MAN AS THE MESSIAH AS THE SACRIFICIAL LAMB FOR TO RECONCILE IS PEOPLES WITH HIMSELF (not with themselves)
YOU ARE A IDOLATER. REPENT BEFORE THE DOOR CLOSE.
@DiscoFalcon You have not as SINGLE VERSE in all the 66 books of the sacred scripture saying '' I AM GOD AND I AM THREE DIFFERENT PERSONS'' the Name I AM will never mean ''we are'' in fact, is Name is destroying the possibility of being many as in a trinity. The Name of God '' I AM '' is the same name Jesus identify Himself to be ! Biblical proofs= exodus3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. And Jesus said: 58“Truly, truly, I tell you, Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I AM” 59At this, the Jews picked up stones to throw at Him.
Jesus was saying ''Before I was begotten I was I AM '' making Himself the Father IN FLESH as teach in 1tim.3:16
It's you who do not have any biblical proof that God is three persons if am a liar SHOW ME A VERSE OF GOD SAYING I AM THREE DIFFERENT PERSONS.... and I will show you A HUNDRED OF VERSES OF GOD SAYING I AM ONE AND ALONE. (am waiting for this verse show me the verse or REPENT )
." Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer ( who is the REDEEMER HERE??) and he that formed thee from the womb, ""I AM"" the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens ""ALONE""; that spreadeth abroad the earth by ""MYSELF" (since when the word MYSELF MEAN MANY ???? let us make.... it's about Yahweh who created all things ALONE Let us make it's a command and God do not COMMAND TO HIMSELF and you have a proof NOW that Yahweh created all thing ALONE ( by MYSELF)
The trinitarians ALWAYS PRESUME BUT NEVER PROOF .
The initial question about Christ's "physical presence in the bread" was a straw man and represented ignorance of the Roman Catholic (and historical Christian) tradition.
Liar
How so?
Qualify your claim.
“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.” 1 Peter 3:15
@@BasedBelieverBob Noun phrases without verbs are wonderful means of insinuating something while actually claiming nothing, no?
Don't spoil the wonder! :)
Cheers! ;)