I have a non believer friend who was offered communion in a Protestant church, she has no idea what's going on. She came asking me why she has to partake since she is not a Christian. Hence, i fully agreed with Catholic restrictions. One must understand the meaning of Holy Eucharist.
@@dylanarmour6727 and how did you go forward to take it knowing in your heart that you are not a Catholic and don’t believe in the Catholic? You can’t see you brought condemnation on yourself?
@@dylanarmour6727 and how did you go forward to take it knowing in your heart that you are not a Catholic and don’t believe in the Catholic? You can’t see you brought condemnation on yourself?
@@johnosumba1980 I did not know anything about Christianity or Catholicism at the time and that it was a sin. Also, I did not go up. It was brought to me and presented by Older man
For my part I am formally a protestant but I visit hte Catholic Church sometimes and take part in the mass, but off course I don´t take the communion as I am not a catholic. I think the catholic vicar of our town is a good preacher so I gladly go to that church, but I think I´ll remain proteatant. thera are some questions where I don´t believe in a catholic way, for example transubsrtantioon, the pope as "stand in" for Christ on earth, catholic saint theology, papal infallibility when he speaks ex chatedra and a few other dogmas in RCC:
@@svenerikjohansson8130 your concerns are valid. You say you are formally a Protestant, but not Catholic. Everyone should be involved in the life and ministry of a local church. Consider joining a confessional (NOT ELCA) Lutheran congregation. Visit one.
@@ralf547 You misunderstood me.. I am allready very active in Church of Sweden, and I for example broadcast radio for them. But I somretimes visit other denominations, for example the catholic church,.
Fantastic! Don’t forget to ask all the hard questions you might have in your RCIA. I hope your instructors will be challenged and grow in their own faith too
@@johnpro2847 it’s always sad to hear someone throw away the most amazing gift through their own ignorance. I’d suggest you study up on the Eucharist- especially from what the early church fathers taught
@@jeffhook7669 and what exactly did the early Christians believe? Tell me - is Jesus not the word of God? Did Jesus not then create everything out of nothing? When Jesus said to the storm “calm down”, did it not obey? Now… did Jesus not say 5 times that the bread is His body, the wine, His blood? And that they HAVE to eat of it or perish? That they will NOT have life within them? If what Jesus says.. is… then who are you to claim Jesus is wrong? I’d suggest you research this properly, friend. Not for anyone else’s sake, but your own. A good starting point is to listen to videos by Dr Scott Hann.
@@jeffhook7669 then how do you explain all the Eucharistic Miracles? You keep saying that man doesn’t have that ability to “pull Jesus down” or make bread the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. And you’re absolutely right. Catholic priests do not claim that at all. But the claim is that it’s the Holy Spirit that does the transformation. When Jesus broke bread at the Last Supper, he told those gathered, in no uncertain terms, that the bread was His body. This is key to understanding the dogma. That's because Jesus cannot lie. While God is all-powerful, He cannot contradict Himself, lie, or deceive. These are not things that God does. Therefore, when Jesus declares bread to be His Body, then, it is so. How does it become His Body? Clearly, the bread did not transform in a visual sense, but in a spiritual sense. None of the Apostles mention that the bread turned into a mass of flesh, yet they all agree that it was the Body of Christ. The Apostles understood that this was a spiritual transformation, or what we call "transubstantiation." (CCC 1376)
@@donreinke5863 Did you even bother to read Exodus 12? Exodus 12: 48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. 49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you."
@@John_Six At the crucifixion, the curtain of the temple was torn, symbolizing the end of the old covenant. Did you bother to read that? Apparently not...HOWEVER, Jesus did say "not a jot or a tittle will pass from the law" So which is it? Still, my point stands.....who would ever know?
@@donreinke5863 You're going off topic. Give me the book, chapter and verse where it says the temple veil means "the end of the old covenant." This is the end of the old covenant. Romans 7 1 Or do you not know, brothers for I am speaking to those who know the law that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. 4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. Hebrews 9 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. Jesus dying and resurrecting is the end of the old covenant.
In the Didache, which existed before the Bible in the times of the first disciples with firsthand witness of Christ using it for preaching to the Gentiles, there is a line regarding the Pure Sacrifice on the Lord's Day, "If anyone has a quarrel with his neighbor, that person should not join you until he has been reconciled." I think this applies as there is a theological quarrel between protestants and Catholics. Any Protestant is welcome to partake in the Eucharist once being reconciled with the Catholic Church.
Absolutely, and excellent reference with the Didache. They must enter as candidates, prepare, confess, and profess their faith in the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church that Christ founded. I myself am a convert and came home with much fanfare! Thank you so much for sharing, God bless you!
In my Orthodox Church we have the communion of rememberance given at the Last Supper. And the John 6 version with the real presence also. We can do both. The real presence in John 6 is given for Eternal Life( Holy Spirit and Light).
Not all Protestants allow non-members to receive the eucharist; this applies especially to Calvinist churches some of which even require special tickets (historically metal tokens) given to worthy members in advance to be presented .
My latest answer further down in the thread wont post so I try to answer here in the main thread instead. Thank You for Your kind reply. I have not considdered attending RCIA. As I understand it it is a program for people wanting to join RCC, and even if I appreciate going to catholic services when the priest is a good preacher (which I think is the case sometimes) I believe I will remain protestant. I think there are too many issues where I simply do not believe in a catholic way to honestly joining RCC. For example transubstantiation, infallibilty of the pope, the pope as "stand in" for Christ in this world, saints-theology etc etc So even if I am a "catholic-friendly" protestant I am certainly a protestant and I have given the theological issues that differ a good deal of serious thought.
Hey Brian. I have a question. One of the missionary churches I attend near by there was a man who was receiving the Eucharist while he was in RCIA. He had a valid baptism but was not received in to the church until that following Easter. My question is will that be an eternal issue for him or given he believes in the real presence it may not be “bad?” Also what about someone who received the Eucharist before baptism and confirmation. Does the baptism wipe away their sin of taking it in an unworthy manner? Thank you for the amazing videos.
Another answer to Ralf 547 as my posts wont post in the right place of the thread. (Have other people the same little troubble?) I´d say that SOME PRIESTS are NOT. I choose them I allways choose theologicallly conservative congregations . My denomination is not uniform. What is preached, believed and practiced differ, and it can be totally different things within the same denomination at a distance of only 2 neighbouring tram stops. That is the case not only in Church of Sweden ( which is our equivalent to Church of England) but also in other denominations. Even catholic priests differ in fact a lot in what they preach and believe-not formally but in reality. So I think it is very important to choose the right individual preacher.s I go to congregations where I believe Holy Spirit to be with us.
The Eucharist is a Catholic sacrament for its members only. Protestants also take communion to commemorate Jesus last supper with His apostles. Jesus said to eat bread and drink wine "In remembrance of Me". Protestants just follow what Jesus said.
Catholic follow EXACTLY what the Bible teaches Jesus Christ taught it is His REAL flesh and blood. Protestants changed it to be a symbol. The Bible teaches you must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life in you I converted to Catholicism from Protestantism because I studied my Bible
Thanks Brian for the explanation....I thought all Christian churches believed the same with the eucharist as we Catholics do. I thought the Catholic church was mean withholding the eucharist and everyone deserves to receive it.
I can't remember where it was from if it was the early church father's or in the didache but the source explained that the Eucharist was solely for those who processed the faith of the church and accepted the teachings of the church. So even if a Protestant acknowledges that the eucharist is Christ in Body, Blood Soul and divinity they still reject many aspects of the church especially the sacrament of confession and even Paul states that to receive communion unworthily is to bring condemnation upon oneself. So the church restricting communion is actually an act of mercy as well as justice to not profane the body of Christ (justice) and to not bring condemnation on the ignorant (mercy).
Good that you are talking about this 👏🏻👏🏻 Let me tell you what happened in Miami in a Catholic Church. A Protestant woman when to Mass, she asked the Priest what she was need it to do to receive the Eucharist. The priest told her “you need a preparation, So the mass started and she wanted to received it anyway, the priest told her, “No I already told you need a preparation of what we Catholics believe” So the woman push the priest, put her hand in the container to grab it her self, the priest hold her hand, she push him again and the priest ended bitting her hand. This happened because the priest was defending the body of Christ. She was insisting and saying “I want the cookie “ my question to them is ¿If they do not believe the Eucharist is the body of our God, why they do this! They have their doctrine and that is definitely NOT the same like ours. And also if they read de bible in Matthew 26;26 Mark 14;22 Luke 22;19 John 6;48. 1raCor 11;26 What part of those chapters do not understand? Plus He is giving us an order. I love you my Protestant brothers and sisters 🙏🏻
She was Protestant? I thought she was demonic for just destroying the Eucharist like that but this explanation makes good sense why non Catholics can’t receive the Eucharist. Plus it has to be said that the Protestants are the children of the Pharisees since they believe that the Scriptures have eternal life which Jesus condemned them for when he said that eating his flesh and drinking his blood grants us eternal life.
Hi Brian, I am an evangelical Christian on my journey back to the Catholic Church. I have been attending mass weekly since late 2022. I fully believe the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, and I have been receiving the Eucharist in almost every mass... what is your advice? The very last hurdle for my journey to the Catholic Church now is that I see on the internet many Catholics are very much into all kinds of Marian apparitions and the prophecies associated with them, what is your advice to me? Thanks
Have you been accepted into the Catholic Church through baptism and/or confirmation? Are you going to confession? If no to either of those questions, please do not take communion. You need to receive catechesis through RCIA/OCIA or from the priest. I assume you’ve been baptized since you’re a Christian, but it will need to be determined if it’s a valid baptism. You’ll need to go to confession after you’re taught & be anointed for confirmation. All of the steps need to be done before you can take communion. I’m a convert myself & now work in the RCIA program in my parish as a sponsor. The Eucharist converted me, but I understood I couldn’t partake until I went through the steps. It’s very important! As Paul said if we take “the body & blood in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body & blood of the Lord.” 1 Cor 11:27. In other words the crime of crucifying the Lord will be held against us! Praise God that you see the truth.🙏❤️ Please think on what I’ve said. God bless you.🙏❤️
@@TrixRNwell said! We Catholics have a process for a reason- not to be difficult but to protect others from receiving the Eucharist in ignorance. There is more than just a belief requirement.
My two cents.. the Church is there to guide us and be the definitive truth giver -in plain language- just as Christ would. Remember- the Holy Spirit has revealed certain truths to the church over time. Not all at once, mind you, but over time. It doesn’t mean we can’t have questions or arguments over things.. but when the Church has a dogma or edict or something like that- like she (the church) did for Mary, we have to accept it. If we don’t, we’re going against the church- essentially against the Holy Spirits truth. That’s why dogmas aren’t made every other week.. it’s a very serious matter. But- unless the church has approved a Marian apparition, as a catholic, you’re allowed to believe it or not. Pray for guidance in those matters.
Or those Catholics who don’t really practice their faith, commit all sorts of sins, don’t bother going to confession yet they still get in communion line and dare to receive the Most Holy of Holy.
We are NOT WORTHY! EVEN AFTER CONFESSION (IMHO) WE SHOULD HAVE BLOODY STUMPS FOR KNEES ENTERING THE CHURCH EVERYTIME. SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT HUH? 💜🙏💜 GOD BLESS YOU ALL AND PEACE BE WITH YOU!
@@CocoWynn perhaps they do correctly recognize Christ in the Sacrament and have repented of their sin and are receiving properly in accord with 1 Cor 10& 11?
The three issues are 1.) The Eucharist is the body and blood, sould and divinity of Christ. 2.) The Eucharist is the crown of unity, and if you do not profess the faith that Catholics do, you cannot partake of Eucharist. 3.) It is meant to protect the recipient from receiving unworthily, and thereby eating judgement upon their heads.
Im a baptized catholic as a baby, made my holy communion age 7 or 8, then my parents left the church and so I never actually made my confirmation. Can I recieve the Eucharist? Thanks in advance.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial ok thank you. I’ve been feeling pulled back to the church recently, and I wasn’t sure whether or not I could recieve it. Thanks again👍🏻
We are all Christians. We receive the same body of Christ. Unity of the Spirit. We all (Christians including catholics) believe Jesus is God, our saviour who died and was ressurected on third day, since we believe we have forgiveness of sins.
@CatholicTruthOfficial i love you as brother in Christ. Whether separated or not, Jesus still sees as one whole church because we believe in for the atonement of all sins and have forgiveness of sins.
It saddens me when we divide ourselves , saying this person is protestant or catholic or this. It reminds me of Paul talking about the Corinthians saying "i am of Apollo , i am of Paul" Naa we are all of Christ. Martin Luther arose only to address the concern of buying indulgences to remit sin or temporal punishment from God. Christ paid it all, and there is no wrath of God for the believer (Romans 4 and 5). The Catholic church now doesn't believe in buying indulgences, they believe in Jesus Christ as the only sacrifice for all our sins and Jesus is God. That makes Catholics Christians
@@FrancisAAfful I too mourn disunity in Christ's Church. Luther, and the Reformation, was about much more than indulgences. While Rome no longer sells indulgences, indulgences remain a part of Catholic practice as affirmed in Indulgentiarum Doctrina. Rome also doesn't believe that Christ's sacrifice atones for the temporal punishment of sin, thus the need for purgation. They believe that grace is primarily mediated via a sacramental system; that His sacrifice wasn't once for all, but must be continually re-presented sacerdotally in order to be effective. While I don't disagree that Catholics are (or can be) Christian, I would say that they're Christian in spite of Rome's teaching, not because of it.
Numerous Catholics ascend toward sainthood, miracles, prophesies and visions, those stories are real. God has never left His Apostles, Mathew 28:20. The Mystical Body of Christ is amongst us guiding history and mankind toward the second coming of Christ.
If anyone wants to criticize the Catholic Church for restricting who is allowed to receive the Eucharist, then to be fair they should criticize a number of Protestant churches for doing the same thing. For example, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod does not allow members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to receive Holy Communion in their churches because the LCMS does not consider the ELCA to be true Lutherans.
I went to mass today and the priest said "if you miss first and second gospel you cant receive communion and if you just had food or dont clean our mouth" its not just symbols it is real.
I'm pleased you are being faithful to the Catholic teaching on the subject. Only those in a state of grace should receive the Sacrament of the Altar, not pro-abort politicians!!! I wish you were better educated on the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist. I am one, and our teaching is that the bread IS truly Jesus' body and that the wine IS truly Jesus' blood. We also practice closed Communion and neither Catholics nor Protestants nor any unbeliever is not permitted to partake at our celebration of the Sacrament. We share your belief in the real presence in the Sacrament, but our problem with transubstantiation is that it's adding a teaching onto the Scripture. The Holy Spirit inspired accurate recording of the events of the Last Supper, and He tells us that Jesus took bread and gave it, and He took the cup (of wine) and gave it to the disciples pronouncing when eating and drinking we receive His very body and blood. In 1 Cor 10 & 11 Paul confirms that when the bread is eaten and the wine is drunk, Christ's body and blood are received. It's a miracle/mystery as to how that happens, and Lutherans don't try to explain it, we just believe it because He said it. But if it only appears to be bread and wine after the consecration as per transubstantiation, then it could be said that Paul was wrong to say "when we eat the bread", when instead he should have said "when we eat the body." Also, we are very serious about obedience of Christ. We do just as He said and in the same way the early Church did communion, by receiving both the bread/body and the wine/blood. Why doesn't the Catholic Church obey Christ in this? I know you will say the bread contains the blood in that it's Jesus' entire essence in the bread. But Jesus didn't without the wine, why does the Catholic church? Jesus obviously wasn't worried about spilling. Even if He were, He obviously knew the blessing of receiving His blood in the Sacrament infinitely outweighed any problem with occasional spills. May God richly bless you!
There are many things I could say when trying to answer your comment. I guess the most important would be that your pastor has not received the required laying on hand's, past down from Jesus, to His apostles, and their successors. So he does not have the ability to call down the Holy Spirit to consecrate the Eucharist. If you truly want to be obediant to Jesus, you would honor His Word when He said to St. Peter "on this Rock I will build My Church" Matt.16:18. And so the Catholic Church was birthed when they received the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost, as promised by Jesus, with St. Peter as his representative here on earth. As for the Lutherans, they were birthed by a man "Martin Luther" in the 16th century. Who did not possess the spiritual gifts given by Jesus. So he doesnt have the ability to consecrate the bread and wine. The only place that you can receive the fullness of Christianity is in the Catholic Church, that was instituted by Jesus Christ Himself! All other churches are imposters. Most are true believers of Jesus. Though they are not all following His Word as He intended! This my friend is why I would encourage you to become Catholic. You do sound like a true believer who wants to be 100% obediant to Jesus! Anything less than is unexceptable! God bless you! 🙏
Who taught you that exegesis of John 6? Mine was taught by the Catholic Church whose teaching hasn't changed since the apostles. It's only developed more clearly. Luther didn't even disagree! How dare anyone, any pastor, preacher or anyone not under the authority of St. Peter given by Christ Himself deign to change it. The height of hubris is to change doctrine.
I hurt when our diocese closed the churches about a week or two before the Easter vigil when I was supposed to be confirmed. This was 2020 and covid hit many churches. I struggled with not receiving. Finally, the week prior to Pentecost, I was able to be confirmed and receive. Now I receive it almost every day.
It is a powerful hunger, a primal drive almost, that of us Christians for Our Savior as He is in The Eucharist. It brings many graces, mends our souls, and He dwells within us, and we in Him.
Answer to Ralf547: As my posts wont post at the right place I post in the main thread. You misunderstood me. I am allready very active in Church of Sweden (in chosen congregations with theologically conservative priests. It is very important to choose the right individual priests who preach classic christianity and nothibg else, as I believe),. I also broadcast radio for my congregation. But I sometimes visit other denominations, for example the catholic church.
My protestant friend just told me, we don't have a free will. Our will is influenced Is his argument? And this is a very levelheaded guy . I think some of these pastors are spreading some nonsense with this zealous approach to the word, I told him True Faith does not rely on black-and-white true faith is less seeing more believing. Sola scriptura is so close minded. I can't even say anything without him saying scripture scripture where is the scripture? Is there something I'm not seeing or understanding? As a born again, Christian I know what God wants of me; and I'm also a proud Catholic, even though I do need to get back to those roots and become more devout, because all the protestant side does is push me closer to Catholicism.
Sounds like your protestant friend is a Calvinist. Bryan has done a video on this and also Trent Horn has done a video on why Calvinists can't say that Jesus died for them (and it's all related to free will).
Mk. 14:25) Jesus' saying that he will not drink again of the fruit of vine until he drinks it new in the coming kingdom (Notice -Fruit of the vine, not eucharististic blood)
It's called phenomenology. It is the process of describing something in accordance with how it appears to the naked eye, and not in accordance with what it really is. The fact that the wine had really and truly become His blood didn't change the fact that it still had the external appearance of wine (i.e it still looked like wine to the naked eye), and so Jesus phenomenologically referred to it as "fruit of the Vine" or "wine" and not "Blood" Another example of phenomenology is when the Bible said that Stephen "fell asleep" (Acts 7:60) after being stoned by the Jews. But we all know that Stephen DIED. So why did the Bible say that he fell ASLEEP? Was the Bible denying the fact that Stephen actually died ? Ofcourse not. A person who is dying looks like he is falling asleep (death and sleep both have a similar external appearance to the naked eye). And so the description of "death" as "sleep" is an example of a phenomenological description
Yes, the 3rd Cup was the Cup of Blessing which Jesus transformed into the Blood of the New Covenant. The 4th Cup was never consecrated, and signaled the completion of the Passover celebration on the cross followed by, "It is finished".
Catholic Church” in the Bible Many people argue that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ beginning with Peter and the Apostles. One argument often made is that the phrase “Catholic Church” does not appear within the pages of Scripture. Aside from the fact that this argument is weak since the words “trinity” and “Bible” are not contained in Holy Writ either, is it really true that the Catholic Church is not named in the Bible? Well, take a look at the following verse from the Acts of the Apostles, and decide for yourself: Acts 9:31 (Greek) ἡ μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ᾽ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο. Act 9:31 (Transliteration) aye men oon ekklaysiaye kath olays tays ioodayeas kaye galilayeas kaye samarayas aycon ayraynayn oikodomoomenaye kaye poryoomenaye tow fobow too kurioo kaye tay paraklaysay too agioo pnyoomatos eplaythunonto Acts 9:31 So the Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied. From this text, we can see the Greek word “kath olays” which is rendered “Catholic” in modern English and the word “ekklaysiaye” which becomes “ecclesia” in English and is commonly translated as “church”. εκκλησια καθ᾽ὁλης = ekklaysiaye kath olays = “the church throughout all” = Catholic Church😂😂
Try reading the New Testament. All of the Christians are Catholics. The apostles are the first Catholic Bishops and Peter was the first pope. We can't seem to find Protestants though, thousands of contradictory denominations based on a book.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Where, in the Bible ,does it say Peter was the first Pope. He definitely was a central figure in the spread of the Gospel, but, he never claimed supremacy over the other apostles. He even called himself an elder. OK, lets say he was the first Pope and started an unbroken succession to this day. Now ,the problem is , many Popes during the dark and middle ages were among the worst human beings to ever walk the planet. They were NOT Christian.
@@philkasouf256 Power corrupts and total power corrupts totally. It doesn't take away from the office. The awful Popes may have been horrible human beings and Christians in name only but they still held and passed on the keys Peter received and did not change the Church's teachings. Human beings are fallen creatures, some way more fallen than others.
@@Vigula So ,you're saying , as long as church teachings weren't changed then nothing else mattered. Some of these Popes were murderers, thieves, adulterers etc. They would not have been corrupted , if they were born again.
My friend remained Protestant cuz the priest didn't give her communion. She thought it was an outrage. "Are you kidding me!?! I take communion all the time & he won't give it to me?!?" My people perish for a lack of knowledge.
I sometimes go to the catholic church, even if I´m formally protestant(Lutheran) because the catholic vicar in our town is a very good preacher as I see it, and I am for christian unity on basis of theologically classical christianity,/ theologically conservative christianity, (and I allways choose such priests and pastors) and OF COURSE I DON`T ake communiojn in the catholic church. I respect that this is the rule, and I go forward to the priest and put my right hand on my left shoulder and get the blessing. That´s "all I need there".(Even if of course I as a christian is much much closer to catholicism than a jew/a muslim/ a new ager/ a hindu/ a buddhist or other non christain spiritual direction and so forth)
Thank you so much for sharing, and for watching as well! I was a Lutheran prior to my conversion, have you considered attending RCIA and learning more about the Catholic Church as a whole? I think you would find it very fruitful!
@@catholictruthreplies Thank You for Your answer. As I understand it RCIA is a program for people wanting to join RCC, and I have not considdered it. I believe I will remain protestant.There are after all a number of faith issues where I simply do not believe as catholic teaching-for example transubstantiation, papal infallibility, the pope as "stand in" for Christ on earth, catholic saint-theology and other things. But I want to go to the catholic church sometimes and take part of the preaching, praise and prayer. but I don´t take communion there.
@@svenerikjohansson8130 RCIA is indeed the right of initiation, however there is a period of inquiry at the beginning of the process that allows you to attend, ask questions, and simply learn more about Catholic Theology as it stands. I highly recommend it! It cleared up a lot of misconceptions I personally had about Catholic Theology, as a matter of fact about the same issues you mention here! Just a suggestion, I think you would enjoy it! God bless you, my Lutheran brother!
She wasn't given Holy Communion, because she was not in a state of grace in which to receive, you can't drive a hgv lorry if you don't have the required training, and final driving licence, 🤗
Hi Brian, my answer before I scroll down the comments is that the Protestants do not believe in the presence of Jesus in the blessed Sacrament. That is the first and foremost reason with many others. And any priest, bishop, deacon, or minister of the eucharist who knowingly give to any protestants holy communion is committing sin and contributing to allowing the protestants to eat unworthily the Body and Blood of Jesus. Receiving the body only is the living body, which contains the blood as well. Thanks, Brian, for the unrelenting defense of the truth in the Catholic Church. The Bible is clear by saying, "Woe to me if I don't preach the gospel" Any bishop, priest, deacon or baptized Catholic who do not preach this truth about the Eucharist but choose his friendship with a protestant and give him or her the Eucharist will end up in a severe judgement by our Lord for going against the truth. Because the Church, including all the baptized, had been given the authority to preach via Baptism, so no Catholic is excused from doing so.
1415 Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance. Didn’t see necessity to be Roman Catholic in there. That sounds like presupposition And, fyi, Abraham believed Yahweh and it was counted to him as righteousness and this was before he was circumcised.
Read the chapter of Abraham. Him believing gad nothing to do with salvation. Protestants are so used to repeating soundbyte theology thar they don't even study these passages. Also, Nowhere does the Bible condemn good works. Many people think Paul does in Romans 3 and 4 and Eph 2. However, Romans 3, for example, says that we are saved by faith apart from works _of the law. _ Works of the law are not good works. Big difference. Works of the law were under the mosaic law, all of the Old Testament rituals, laws, dietary restrictions, and other things like circumcision. These are the works Paul is talking about even in Romans 4, and we know this because he mentions _circumcision 9 times_ just in this one chapter alone. This is different than following God's commandments and doing good works, which Jesus said we must do (Mt. 19:16-22, Mt. 25:31-46), Paul says also (Rom. 2:6-7, Eph. 2:10); James mentions (James 2:24), and pretty much everyone in the New Testament, including John (Rev. 20:12). You will notice that in James, this is the only time the word's _faith alone_ are mentioned in the entire Bible, and it says we are _not_ justified by faith alone. You will also notice that Paul makes a distinction between "works" in Ephesians 2:8-9 and then "good works" in verse 10. Clearly his works and good works are two different things. Works are almost always works of the law from the Jews. Nowhere does it say in scripture that we don't need to walk in good works. Rather, there are many passages that state clearly that if we don't live out our faith, obey the commandments, bear good fruit, and stay faithful, we won't be saved. (Jn. 14:15, 21-24; Jn. 15:5-6, 7, 10, 14; Heb. 12:26-27; James 2:24; Rom. 11:21-22, 17-22; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:17-22; Jn. 3:5; Rev. 2:4-7, 10, 19-26, Mt. 25:31-46).
Hey Bryan. I pray that you and your family are doing well. In John 6 Jesus teaches us that "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you". Given that the Catholic Church teaches that you must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to take communion, would you agree that those members of the Catholic Church, prior to taking their first communion, have no life in them? Also, Jesus teaches, in the next verse "whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life". Do you agree that when you take communion that you can therefore believe that you have eternal life? Thanks as always!
@@mikepennn You are correct, of course. Not to mention that in verse 35 Jesus explicitly defines what he means by eating and drinking; "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." So we see that eating and drinking are coming and believing. Not to mention the fact that the events in John 6 take place well before Jesus institutes the sacrament of communion.
Steve, I was thinking of you recently. Good to see you again. We receive new life when we are born again through baptism. That life is cultivated through the Lord's Supper in a special way. Jesus says it's how we remain him him and his love. It's always dangerous to take one verse out of context. We receive eternal life first when we come to Christ and are born again. However, we grow and remain in Christ through the Eucharist along with following the commandments, as Jesus himself states. So it's not just one verse here or there, it's the née Testament taken as a whole. Faith and baptism (Mark 16:16) Repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38), following the commandments (Jn. 14:15) and abiding in Christ through faithfulness and the Eucharist. Hope that helps.
@@stueveThe whole John 6 discourse takes place during Passover. Jesus does say that the bread He WILL give is His flesh. At the next Passover Jesus lifts up bread and says, "this is my body". In John 6, Jesus begs you to believe Him. Believe what He teaches and Prots don't believe.
Canon Law 844 §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
If you study all the verses in the other gospels, besides John, you’ll discover he wasn’t talking about the last supper he was referring to the cross! He said that his blood will be poured out for many, did he pour the cup out at the last supper? He said his words were spirit and life! In fact, he said that twice, emphasizing he’s not talking about the material realm what we can see touch and eat! Eating slush and drinking blood was 100% pagan, and totally for bidden in the old covenant! To this day, the Jews have to totally bleed out an animal in order to eat its flesh, you shall not eat, or drink the blood! They didn’t drink the blood of the lamb in the old testament, either. Why not? Another problem is the altar? Jesus wasn’t sacrificed on an altar, he was sacrificed on a cross! Another prohibition by God alters were never for people only for animals! The pope, nor the priests have the power ability or are sanctioned by God to take Jesus off his throne and kill him on an altar tens of thousands times a day times a day! Doesn’t anybody think this is sick at the least? I was raised Catholic my wife and myself taught CCD! I said the rosary 3 to 6 times per day for a year straight! Went into an empty church, and did the stations of the cross, my priest thought I was going to be a priest! I made most Catholics look like nominal at best! I’m not someone from the outside, looking in! And I’ll guarantee after the priest does his thing, there’s not a drop of blood in that cup, which, by the way, most of the time the average permit parishioner never gets so you’re not partaking in his blood anyway? I think it’ll be a pretty safe bet to believe that very few Catholics out of the 1.4 billion on the earth would not drink literal blood. If it was literal blood, do you? I think some people have to start asking questions, a lot of questions!
He was talking about both, the cross and the Eucharist, which is why all of the earliest Christians believed in thebtrue presence and no one believed it to be a symbol not even Luther or Calvin. Only Zwingly did and he was the first. The other reformers condemned him to hell for changing Christian teaching. Also we don't kill Jesus in times of thousands of masses or even one. He already died once and for all 2,000 years ago, so this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. He can't be killed again. He's risen and exalted as Lord above all forever. Drinking blood in the old Covenant was forbidden because it was the life blood, or the life of the animal or person. It was seen as taking life. But Jesus gave up his life for us and feeds us with his body and blood and his life leading to everlasting life as it says in the gospels. Finally, the command is from Christ. You don't like that command though and have a hard time with it, and lacking faith, JUST like the Jews in John 6 who questioned Jesus because they didn't have enough faith. This is the only time in all of scripture where people walked away from Jesus over a doctrinal teaching. Protestants are still walking away from it today because they don't understand and don't have faith. They depart from the teachings of early Christianity. Lastly, when we receive jesus, it's in a glorified way. Just like when Jesus passed through walls in John chapter 20 to visit his disciples even though the doors were locked, so likewise Jesus passes through Us in the same way and we receive him in a sacramental glorified way, but he is still fully present there. And it's the most beautiful and wonderful gift.
And how did you come to that conclusion? How did you make your exegesis? You may have a much a better mind than mine, but when I study Scripture, I must be helped by those who know it & whose life work is Christian theology. I am in no position to interprete Scripture by myself. So many Holy Spirit filled people disagree exegetically with each other so I go with what has been taught for 2k years since the apostles.
@Mr10glorious The reason blood was forbidden is it contained the life of the animal. It isn't simply a nonsensical restriction. Next, you'll be claiming sacrificing animals to God is pagan. Your hypocrisy is showing. Do you believe Jesus is sacrificed billions of times for each of our sins? Or is the one time sacrifice enough? As for your claims to be a knowledgeable Catholic, you have some grave misconceptions. I have to wonder if you even know how to pray the Rosary, much less did so.
Bryan, I went to my other yr account and found out my posts did not appear. Only you and I can see my posts, so I will repost them and will find a way to make others see my posts.
are very wrong for saying the Catholic Church's Eucharist is just a cookie and not the true Body of Christ or the Eucharist is only symbolic because catholics have been healed and liberated from sins and vices and even mental and physical illnesses when they receive the Sacraments of Confession and Eucharist in proper disposition. If the Catholic Church's Confession and Eucharist were just made and invented by a mere man or men, these Sacraments would have no power to heal and liberate people from sins, vices and other men's illnesses.
So many catholics have testified that they have been healed from their sins and other illnesses such as mental, emotional and even physical through Confession to the priest, partaking the Eucharist and praying the Rosary. If the Catholic Church's Confession, Eucharist and the prayer of the Rosary were just made and invented by mere men, they would have no power to heal and liberate people from sins and other illnesses.
No wonder because their church and doctrines are false or just man-made NOT the Church founded by Christ. The Catholic Church is the TRUE Church founded by Christ and no other.
1054 is one date that can be ascribed to the Great Schism, although I think a more exact date would be after the Council of Florence in 1439, when the Orthodox Patriarch except for Mark of Ephesus agreed to reunification, and then immediately reneged on the agreement, and as a result Constantinople fell to Ottoman control in 1453.
If you're version of the Eucharist is true then why did it take you until the 12th century to practice it. The Roman Catholic position on the Eucharist was first given dogmatic expression at the 4th Latern Council in 1215 A.D. when the Church formally set forth the teaching of transubstantiation as the official teaching of the Church. This was further affirmed by the Council of Trent which also dogmatically asserted the nature of the Lord’s Supper as being that of a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. So there are two primary elements of the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist that are of supreme importance-transubstantiation, which guarantees the real presence of Christ and the mass, in which Christ, thus present bodily, is re-offered to God as a propitiatory sacrifice. And the eucharist as taught and practiced by Rome is, according to Rome, necessary for salvation. The following are the authoritative statements from the Council of Trent:
Great questions and comments! Please email Bryan or call in to Catholic Answers M-F to ask Jimmy Akin, Trent Horn, Joe Hecshmeyer or any of the other apologists. Your comments are really good and they could definitely engage in a productive dialogue with you. 😁🙏
Think about the development of doctrine These developments occur out of necessity promoted by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We're spoiled. We can Monday morning quarterback it all day. In the end it's all in God's time.
Ignatius of Antioch “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).👍 “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]). Justin Martyr “For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). Irenaeus “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189]). “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life-flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2). Tertullian “[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]). Hippolytus “‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]). Origen “Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]). Cyprian of Carthage “He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned-[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15-16 [A.D. 251]). Aphraahat the Persian Sage “After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]). Cyril of Jerusalem “The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]). “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9). Ambrose of Milan “Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]). Theodore of Mopsuestia “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]). Augustine “Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]). “I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]). “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ” (ibid., 272). Council of Ephesus “We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it . . . but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself.” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200 - 258 A.D.)😍 And we ask that this Bread be given us daily, so that we who are in Christ and daily receive THE EUCHARIST AS THE FOOD OF SALVATION, may not, by falling into some more grievous sin and then in abstaining from communicating, be withheld from the heavenly Bread, and be separated from Christ's Body… He Himself warns us, saying, "UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU." Therefore do we ask that our Bread, WHICH IS CHRIST, be given to us daily, so that we who abide and live in Christ may not withdraw from His sanctification and from His Body. (The Lord's Prayer 18) Also in the priest Melchisedech we see THE SACRAMENT OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE LORD prefigured…The order certainly is that which comes from his [Mel's] sacrifice and which comes down from it: because Mel was a priest of the Most High God; because he offered bread; and because he blessed Abraham. And who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who, WHEN HE OFFERED SACRIFICE TO GOD THE FATHER, OFFERED THE VERY SAME WHICH MELCHISEDECH HAD OFFERED, NAMELY BREAD AND WINE, WHICH IS IN FACT HIS BODY AND BLOOD! (Letters 63:4) If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is Himself the High Priest of God the Father; AND IF HE OFFERED HIMSELF AS A SACRIFICE TO THE FATHER; AND IF HE COMMANDED THAT THIS BE DONE IN COMMEMORATION OF HIMSELF -- then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, TRULY FUNCTIONS IN PLACE OF CHRIST. (Letters 63:14) Council of Nicaea (c. 325 A.D.) It has come to the attention of the holy and great council that in some localities and cities deacons give the Eucharist to presbyters, although neither the canon nor the custom permits those who do NOT offer sacrifice to give the Body of Christ to those who do offer the sacrifice… (Canon 18) Aphraates the Persian Sage (c. 280 - 345 A.D.) After having spoken thus ["This is My body…This is My blood"], the Lord rose up from the place where He had made the Passover and had given His Body as food and His Blood as drink, and He went with His disciples to the place where He was to be arrested. But He ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood, while He was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented His own Body to be eaten, and before He was crucified He gave His blood as drink… (Treatises 12:6)
There is the Christian ( Acts 11:26, 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16) , but, what kind of Christian? There are Catholic ( Latin( Roman ) and Eastern ( Oriental) Rites) , Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians , and ,even Messianic Jews , so, which type of Christians are You?
I think we have to be careful here. Many Protestant traditions believe in the Real Presence. I first experienced the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in an Episcopal Church...at a time when I was strictly opposed to that belief. The Episcopal Church also has the apostolic succession because her priesthood comes directly from the Catholic Church (in spite of the schism). I was an Evangelical Protestant steeped in anti-Catholic teachings, especially about Eucharist. I fully believed it to be idolatry, though I did believe in remembering Jesus in the Communion. I was convinced that Catholics aren't even real Christians! I happened to be visiting an Episcopal church with a friend in about 1982, while still in college. All baptized Christians were invited to Communion, so I decided to partake...in remembrance of Jesus only, as a symbol of His Body and Blood. The Priest consecrated the elements with a liturgy that is virtually identical to that used in the Catholic Church, and then distributed it to the congregation. I knelt down at the rail, and as I took Communion I tasted metallic, salty blood. (We've all tasted blood if we've cut our finger and instinctively put in our mouths.) I was astonished! So, when I knelt down I didn't believe in the Real Presence. When I stood up, I believed. The Lord Himself evangelized me, and it changed my life! Most importantly, at that moment, while I didn't intend to become a Catholic at that time, I ceased being anti-Catholic. In that moment, I accepted that Catholics are truly Christians and deserving of my love and care. I was later confirmed in the Episcopal/Anglican tradition, and stayed for 35 years until I entered the Catholic Church last year. Also note that the CC accepted my baptism (which I received by immersion in the Baptist Church when I was 11) because I had been baptized in the name of the Trinity. In RCIA I was taught that Protestants baptized in the name of the Trinity are already bonded to all Catholics, even if they don't have the fullness of what it means to be a Christian. We are called to unity.
They may believe in the real presence, but sadly the presence they believe is not the same as Christ intended and is not there for their "communion". Their priests and pastors do not have the authority to partake in the once and for all sacrifice, so it is sadly bereft of any presence of Christ. I am glad that you have come home! Thank you for watching, and for sharing your testimony, God bless you!
Jesus said "eateth my flesh" and "he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me." It's pretty obviously true! There's no miscommunication here. Jesus also said as He held the bread up to the disciples "This is my body" and same with the chalice "This is my blood".... "drinketh my blood". If we eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood.. we will be resurrected and have eternal life. If you don't.. you won't have life as Jesus says you won't.
Protestants like Catholics have to confess their sins to a priest and be in a state of grace in order to receive the Bod, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. Lastly, it's NOT the last supper, a meal, or a table, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Passion of Our Lord, on the altar.
@@catholictruthreplies why should priest hear our sin? God can hear us anytime anywhere - directly and He has also forgiven our sin by Jesus blood so automatically our sin been forgiven. Not make any sense ☕😊
I have received communion at a Roman Catholic Church several times when I was American Baptist and my brother in law was dying, so that I could help him in the Church. My nephews are Catholic and Methodist. The presence in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church doesn't do anything to a true Believer. I had to take a class before I did communion. No issue
It does everything for a true believer. But you are not part of the church and so it doesn't do anything for you. You committed sacrilege unknowingly. In fact in the Bible itself says if you don't receive it in an unworthy manner you can eat and drink damnation upon your soul and profane the blood of Christ.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial There were four views of the Eucharist in the early church. In his magnum opus, History of the Christian Church, historian Philip Schaff (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], pp. 241-245; Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], pp. 494-500) documents the four views the early church held in regards to the way in which Christ was associated with the bread and wine. You had the (1) mystical view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Cyril of Jerusalem which said the body and blood of Jesus are mystically in union with the elements leading to a sort of repetition of the incarnation, though no change in substance actually takes place as in later Romanism; (2) the symbolic view of Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, Macarius the Elder, Theodoret, Augustine and Gelasius which said the Eucharist symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus and is a commemoration, not Rome’s literalistic transubstantiation; (3) the allegorical or spiritual view of Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Athanasius which said the believer receives the spiritual but not physical blood and life of Jesus at Mass; and (4) the literalistic view of Hilary, Ambrose and Gaudentius which affirmed the bread and wine as being the literal transformed body and blood of Jesus which is basically in line with the modern Roman Catholic system. The Roman view is in the minority, while the symbolic and mystical views seem to be the most primitive and popular.”
@@CatholicTruthOfficial there are only two that are supported by the Bible. the remembrance and the Holy Spirit. John 6 supports the Holy Spirit. verse 63 Jesus explains that it is his Spirit and the flesh is worthless. in verse 68 Peter says it is for Eternal Life. (Holy Spirit). The last supper was for the apostles, who were all saved. l
@@CatholicTruthOfficial It is true that if you are an unbeliever and the communion has the presence of the Holy Spirit in it you drink damnation on your soul. Remember two communions in the Bible one for Saved and one to save with the Holy Spirit in it.
100%. You won't receive it because you've been duped. 1500 years of all Christians believing this. Then Zwingly (who the other Protestant Reformers condemned to hell for changing it) was the first to change Christian teaching. That's what you accept. Man-made tradition.
The Old Covenant was made with the House of Israel. The New Covenant was also made with the House of Israel. We are still the House of Israel, which God expanded to include all the nations. A person who does not believe they are members of the House of Israel, the Ecclesia, should not be partaking of the Covenant made with the House of Israel.
Sorry dude. The catholic church is NOT the church that was founded in Jerusalem. Be careful what you say. Our church has open communion. If you have received Jesus as personal Saviour and have followed Him in baptism, then we say welcome and celebrate the sacrifice of our Lord and rejoice that He is coming back.
It is the church founded in Jerusalem on pentecost. Just saying it's not doesn't mean it isn't, you have to prove it. Nowhere in the Bible is Christianity an open religion. You have to follow Christ and the laws of the church.
Cathlics can take anything and make a ritual out of it, including a ham sandwich: jesus used parables, allagories, and metaphors, to illustrate spiritual points; the bible can send people to hell in as much, as one can use it, to quote from it, without desernment from the Holy Spirit: 2corinthians 3:6 - the Word of God is not for the natural mind, but for the Spiritual mind, so one must be born again, to see, or enter into the kingdom of God! One must receive the true baptizm in order, to see in the spirit.. the cc, or any religion, or denomination can not give what only Jesus can give, that is, Salvation by sanctification.. youll find out what that means in his Word.. there is no other way..
How do you know what you know? Did someone reach you about your faith or did you read it yourself? Do you go to school? I so, why would you? You can read! Why do you need someone to ever teach you anything? For us Catholics, we rely on Apostolic teachings and knowledge that God Himself imparted to them. What about you?
@louisvega-oe2sc Before there was a Bible there were Christians. There are historical records of what these Christians practiced and believed. Funny how it is alright for you to take the teachings of a man 1,800 years later as God breathed but we are not allowed to take the teachings of the Apostles as God breathed.
@@dave_ecclectic understanding with understanding (in the Spirit) is what it's all about,: understanding with the mind, is dead works: psalm 115:17 - why you have, the Spiritual and need, to be e born again.. only Jesus can give you that.. Hebrews 9:27 acts4:12. Approximately 100 verses about praying to the dead, most important, obeying the 2nd commandment: (the original) moses was given that by God in the Hebrew, since he spoke Hebrew, not in the catholic, since there are, no, catholics in the bible.. John 5:28-29. 1corinthians 15-26.. the true beleiver awaits to be free from the last enemy, the flesh: Paul spoke about this, Jesus spoke about this, John 11:17-47.. many prophets, and apostles spoke about this.. you need, to understand what the scripture, genesis2:7, says, and its relation to John 3:3 and Peter 1:23.. the church nor you nor I, nor religion, nor the priest, bishop, pope, nor anyone, other than Christ.. praying that your eyes will be opened, mine were a long long time ago..
LOL. Complain about that with Jesus Himself: _«Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.»_ [John 6, 53]. So, yes, only Christians worthy of the name would participate in this rite as God commanded Himself.
If you can't understand that the body , blood , soul and divinity of the bodyand blood of Christ is sacred youll not understand that the life of an unborn child is sacred , as is your neighbors , that marriage is sacred . That this isnt a Protestant hallelujah Evangelical Good Time feel good , its dead serious. Its the body , blood , soul and divinity of the risen Christ , if you want to believe it or not. Demonic possession also is real , if you want to believe it or not , but it might take you comeing face to face with satan himself before you understand what i saying. No imbeciles satan and Lucifer are not two different demons , they are one in the same.
@CatholicTruthOfficial Yes, you got that right. "WE ARE THE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT CHRIST ESTABLISHED BECAUSE WE SAY SO." No need to go into forged documents, evil popes in our unbroken 'apostolic successions, never mind that those people should have been excommunicated, just accept the purgatory and other wild constructions like Mary ascending to heaven or prayers to saints. Not in the Bible? Jesus sacrificin himself and we drinking blood and eating human flesh every Sunday? Not a problem! Why? Because we say so. No amount of arm waving will get the heresy right.
So you kill Christ every Sunday afresh you call a mere woman the queen of heaven and coredemer but stumber over the word take also your call unmarried celibate guys father and think Mary ascended in to heaven even without one verse of scripture to back it up
I believe that the bread and wine is truly Jesus, I wish I was able to convert but it is very hard for me to do right now. My belief is more Catholic than Methodist, I already know that my family would really not except that. No matter how much I explain to them the truth of Catholicism, they just will not(do not) want to listen to what I explain to them.
I will pray for you! I know how it feels like to go through stuff like this! My mom (who’s evangelical Protestant) was totally against me converting to the Catholic Church and it took a while until after my initiation and confirmation into the Church for her to accept my decision! You and your family are in my prayers! God bless!
I have a non believer friend who was offered communion in a Protestant church, she has no idea what's going on.
She came asking me why she has to partake since she is not a Christian.
Hence, i fully agreed with Catholic restrictions. One must understand the meaning of Holy Eucharist.
Before I became a Christian I visited a Catholic mass and was given a host in the hand by a EM it was weird
@@dylanarmour6727 and how did you go forward to take it knowing in your heart that you are not a Catholic and don’t believe in the Catholic? You can’t see you brought condemnation on yourself?
@@dylanarmour6727 and how did you go forward to take it knowing in your heart that you are not a Catholic and don’t believe in the Catholic? You can’t see you brought condemnation on yourself?
@@johnosumba1980 I did not know anything about Christianity or Catholicism at the time and that it was a sin. Also, I did not go up. It was brought to me and presented by Older man
@@dylanarmour6727 We go forward to receive Holy Communion except for those disabled
Hi Brian, I am an evangelical Christian on my journey back to the Catholic Church; I have been attending mass weekly since late 2022. I
Awesome!
For my part I am formally a protestant but I visit hte Catholic Church sometimes and take part in the mass, but off course I don´t take the communion as I am not a catholic. I think the catholic vicar of our town is a good preacher so I gladly go to that church, but I think I´ll remain proteatant. thera are some questions where I don´t believe in a catholic way, for example transubsrtantioon, the pope as "stand in" for Christ on earth, catholic saint theology, papal infallibility when he speaks ex chatedra and a few other dogmas in RCC:
@@svenerikjohansson8130 your concerns are valid. You say you are formally a Protestant, but not Catholic. Everyone should be involved in the life and ministry of a local church. Consider joining a confessional (NOT ELCA) Lutheran congregation. Visit one.
@@ralf547 You misunderstood me.. I am allready very active in Church of Sweden, and I for example broadcast radio for them. But I somretimes visit other denominations, for example the catholic church,.
@@svenerikjohansson8130 is your church pro LGBTQIA+?
I have been attending a Catholic Church since January 2024, can't wait to start RCIA so I will be one step closer to receiving the Holy Eucharist.
Fantastic! Don’t forget to ask all the hard questions you might have in your RCIA. I hope your instructors will be challenged and grow in their own faith too
you will start committing all manner of sins that will doom you forever..best keep away (i personally believe it is all made up anyway)
@@johnpro2847 it’s always sad to hear someone throw away the most amazing gift through their own ignorance.
I’d suggest you study up on the Eucharist- especially from what the early church fathers taught
@@jeffhook7669 and what exactly did the early Christians believe?
Tell me - is Jesus not the word of God? Did Jesus not then create everything out of nothing? When Jesus said to the storm “calm down”, did it not obey?
Now… did Jesus not say 5 times that the bread is His body, the wine, His blood? And that they HAVE to eat of it or perish? That they will NOT have life within them?
If what Jesus says.. is… then who are you to claim Jesus is wrong?
I’d suggest you research this properly, friend. Not for anyone else’s sake, but your own. A good starting point is to listen to videos by Dr Scott Hann.
@@jeffhook7669 then how do you explain all the Eucharistic Miracles?
You keep saying that man doesn’t have that ability to “pull Jesus down” or make bread the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. And you’re absolutely right. Catholic priests do not claim that at all. But the claim is that it’s the Holy Spirit that does the transformation.
When Jesus broke bread at the Last Supper, he told those gathered, in no uncertain terms, that the bread was His body. This is key to understanding the dogma. That's because Jesus cannot lie. While God is all-powerful, He cannot contradict Himself, lie, or deceive. These are not things that God does. Therefore, when Jesus declares bread to be His Body, then, it is so.
How does it become His Body? Clearly, the bread did not transform in a visual sense, but in a spiritual sense. None of the Apostles mention that the bread turned into a mass of flesh, yet they all agree that it was the Body of Christ. The Apostles understood that this was a spiritual transformation, or what we call "transubstantiation." (CCC 1376)
The simple answer is because Paul said Jesus is our Paschal Lamb in 1 Corinthians 5: 7-8 and Exodus 12 says no foreigner may eat it.
Technically, foreigners would be non Jews in the time of Christ.
@@donreinke5863 Did you even bother to read Exodus 12?
Exodus 12:
48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. 49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you."
@@John_Six At the crucifixion, the curtain of the temple was torn, symbolizing the end of the old covenant. Did you bother to read that? Apparently not...HOWEVER, Jesus did say "not a jot or a tittle will pass from the law"
So which is it?
Still, my point stands.....who would ever know?
@@donreinke5863 You're going off topic. Give me the book, chapter and verse where it says the temple veil means "the end of the old covenant."
This is the end of the old covenant.
Romans 7
1 Or do you not know, brothers for I am speaking to those who know the law that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.
Hebrews 9
16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
Jesus dying and resurrecting is the end of the old covenant.
@@donreinke5863 So again, go read Exodus 12: 48-49 since you clearly did not the first or second time.
In the Didache, which existed before the Bible in the times of the first disciples with firsthand witness of Christ using it for preaching to the Gentiles, there is a line regarding the Pure Sacrifice on the Lord's Day, "If anyone has a quarrel with his neighbor, that person should not join you until he has been reconciled." I think this applies as there is a theological quarrel between protestants and Catholics. Any Protestant is welcome to partake in the Eucharist once being reconciled with the Catholic Church.
Absolutely, and excellent reference with the Didache. They must enter as candidates, prepare, confess, and profess their faith in the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church that Christ founded. I myself am a convert and came home with much fanfare! Thank you so much for sharing, God bless you!
In my Orthodox Church we have the communion of rememberance given at the Last Supper. And the John 6 version with the real presence also. We can do both. The real presence in John 6 is given for Eternal Life( Holy Spirit and Light).
You can do both but only the Eucharist is sacramental. Everything else is an abomination and false religion.
I found Consuming the Word by Dr. Scott Hahn a great explanation into the nature of the New Covenant and what it means.
For sure.
God bless you
Proud roman catholic
proud ex catholic here..amen
@@johnpro2847 Imagine being proud of being ignorant.
Pride comes before the fall
@@mikepennn Exactly. The pride of thinking one knows better than the Church Jesus Himself established.
@GranMaese Where do you find that Jesus established the Catholic Church, please give me the argument I am really interested
Bryan, I love your comment section. You get such interesting posters here.😄🙏❤️
😁
Not all Protestants allow non-members to receive the eucharist; this applies especially to Calvinist churches some of which even require special tickets (historically metal tokens) given to worthy members in advance to be presented .
Also several of the Lutheran Church Synods practice closed communion. They are in the minority, however.
Jesus in the most blessed Sacrament Have Mercy on us amen
Amen, indeed He is really and truly present for us in The Eucharist, body and blood, soul and divinity!
My latest answer further down in the thread wont post so I try to answer here in the main thread instead. Thank You for Your kind reply.
I have not considdered attending RCIA. As I understand it it is a program for people wanting to join RCC, and even if I appreciate going to catholic services when the priest is a good preacher (which I think is the case sometimes) I believe I will remain protestant. I think there are too many issues where I simply do not believe in a catholic way to honestly joining RCC. For example transubstantiation, infallibilty of the pope, the pope as "stand in" for Christ in this world, saints-theology etc etc So even if I am a "catholic-friendly" protestant I am certainly a protestant and I have given the theological issues that differ a good deal of serious thought.
Hey Brian. I have a question. One of the missionary churches I attend near by there was a man who was receiving the Eucharist while he was in RCIA. He had a valid baptism but was not received in to the church until that following Easter. My question is will that be an eternal issue for him or given he believes in the real presence it may not be “bad?” Also what about someone who received the Eucharist before baptism and confirmation. Does the baptism wipe away their sin of taking it in an unworthy manner?
Thank you for the amazing videos.
Another answer to Ralf 547 as my posts wont post in the right place of the thread. (Have other people the same little troubble?) I´d say that SOME PRIESTS are NOT. I choose them I allways choose theologicallly conservative congregations . My denomination is not uniform. What is preached, believed and practiced differ, and it can be totally different things within the same denomination at a distance of only 2 neighbouring tram stops. That is the case not only in Church of Sweden ( which is our equivalent to Church of England) but also in other denominations. Even catholic priests differ in fact a lot in what they preach and believe-not formally but in reality. So I think it is very important to choose the right individual preacher.s I go to congregations where I believe Holy Spirit to be with us.
The Eucharist is a Catholic sacrament for its members only.
Protestants also take communion to commemorate Jesus last supper with His apostles.
Jesus said to eat bread and drink wine "In remembrance of Me". Protestants just follow what Jesus said.
Catholic follow EXACTLY what the Bible teaches
Jesus Christ taught it is His REAL flesh and blood. Protestants changed it to be a symbol. The Bible teaches you must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life in you
I converted to Catholicism from Protestantism because I studied my Bible
In remembrance doesn't mean symbolic. This is a Protestant flaw and misunderstanding.
Thanks Brian for the explanation....I thought all Christian churches believed the same with the eucharist as we Catholics do. I thought the Catholic church was mean withholding the eucharist and everyone deserves to receive it.
I can't remember where it was from if it was the early church father's or in the didache but the source explained that the Eucharist was solely for those who processed the faith of the church and accepted the teachings of the church. So even if a Protestant acknowledges that the eucharist is Christ in Body, Blood Soul and divinity they still reject many aspects of the church especially the sacrament of confession and even Paul states that to receive communion unworthily is to bring condemnation upon oneself. So the church restricting communion is actually an act of mercy as well as justice to not profane the body of Christ (justice) and to not bring condemnation on the ignorant (mercy).
Good that you are talking about this 👏🏻👏🏻 Let me tell you what happened in Miami in a Catholic Church. A Protestant woman when to Mass, she asked the Priest what she was need it to do to receive the Eucharist. The priest told her “you need a preparation, So the mass started and she wanted to received it anyway, the priest told her, “No I already told you need a preparation of what we Catholics believe” So the woman push the priest, put her hand in the container to grab it her self, the priest hold her hand, she push him again and the priest ended bitting her hand. This happened because the priest was defending the body of Christ. She was insisting and saying “I want the cookie “ my question to them is ¿If they do not believe the Eucharist is the body of our God, why they do this! They have their doctrine and that is definitely NOT the same like ours. And also if they read de bible in Matthew 26;26 Mark 14;22 Luke 22;19
John 6;48. 1raCor 11;26 What part of those chapters do not understand? Plus He is giving us an order.
I love you my Protestant brothers and sisters 🙏🏻
Wow, cookie?? I can't even come up with the correct words to express what I think.
If she just wants cookie, why not just buy oreo?
Jesus saiid He was the door.
She was Protestant? I thought she was demonic for just destroying the Eucharist like that but this explanation makes good sense why non Catholics can’t receive the Eucharist. Plus it has to be said that the Protestants are the children of the Pharisees since they believe that the Scriptures have eternal life which Jesus condemned them for when he said that eating his flesh and drinking his blood grants us eternal life.
I suspect that woman was satanist
Hi Brian, I am an evangelical Christian on my journey back to the Catholic Church. I have been attending mass weekly since late 2022. I fully believe the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, and I have been receiving the Eucharist in almost every mass... what is your advice? The very last hurdle for my journey to the Catholic Church now is that I see on the internet many Catholics are very much into all kinds of Marian apparitions and the prophecies associated with them, what is your advice to me? Thanks
Take RCA classes. Pray the rosary it will unravel the rest
Have you been accepted into the Catholic Church through baptism and/or confirmation? Are you going to confession? If no to either of those questions, please do not take communion. You need to receive catechesis through RCIA/OCIA or from the priest. I assume you’ve been baptized since you’re a Christian, but it will need to be determined if it’s a valid baptism. You’ll need to go to confession after you’re taught & be anointed for confirmation. All of the steps need to be done before you can take communion.
I’m a convert myself & now work in the RCIA program in my parish as a sponsor. The Eucharist converted me, but I understood I couldn’t partake until I went through the steps. It’s very important! As Paul said if we take “the body & blood in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body & blood of the Lord.” 1 Cor 11:27. In other words the crime of crucifying the Lord will be held against us! Praise God that you see the truth.🙏❤️ Please think on what I’ve said. God bless you.🙏❤️
@@TrixRNwell said! We Catholics have a process for a reason- not to be difficult but to protect others from receiving the Eucharist in ignorance. There is more than just a belief requirement.
My two cents.. the Church is there to guide us and be the definitive truth giver -in plain language- just as Christ would. Remember- the Holy Spirit has revealed certain truths to the church over time. Not all at once, mind you, but over time. It doesn’t mean we can’t have questions or arguments over things.. but when the Church has a dogma or edict or something like that- like she (the church) did for Mary, we have to accept it. If we don’t, we’re going against the church- essentially against the Holy Spirits truth.
That’s why dogmas aren’t made every other week.. it’s a very serious matter.
But- unless the church has approved a Marian apparition, as a catholic, you’re allowed to believe it or not. Pray for guidance in those matters.
stop desicrating the eucharist😉
It's a Sacrilege to take a Eucharist those who are Not Catholics.
Or those Catholics who don’t really practice their faith, commit all sorts of sins, don’t bother going to confession yet they still get in communion line and dare to receive the Most Holy of Holy.
We are NOT WORTHY! EVEN AFTER CONFESSION (IMHO)
WE SHOULD HAVE BLOODY STUMPS FOR KNEES ENTERING THE CHURCH EVERYTIME. SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT HUH?
💜🙏💜
GOD BLESS YOU ALL AND PEACE BE WITH YOU!
@@sheilad83 yes, but God doesn't expect that of us.
@@Kitiwake I know, it's just realistic to think that, right?
I heard an elderly woman say that one time and it stuck! Food for thought
@@CocoWynn perhaps they do correctly recognize Christ in the Sacrament and have repented of their sin and are receiving properly in accord with 1 Cor 10& 11?
So what is the third reason? I could only think of two, the two you mentioned.
The three issues are 1.) The Eucharist is the body and blood, sould and divinity of Christ. 2.) The Eucharist is the crown of unity, and if you do not profess the faith that Catholics do, you cannot partake of Eucharist. 3.) It is meant to protect the recipient from receiving unworthily, and thereby eating judgement upon their heads.
Catholics "receive".
Others "take".
Isn't that strange?
Really good point!!! We are receptive, as was Mary our Queen. We cannot take, but only receive. Then life will result. Amen.
My bishop always says to give and receive that’s what life and Christian life is about
Over generalizing. Protestants are too varied and chaotic to be accused of all "taking" rather than receiving.
@@dylanarmour6727 ask him then if it's ok for non Catholics to receive Communion at Catholic mass...
We know the answer already.
Im a baptized catholic as a baby, made my holy communion age 7 or 8, then my parents left the church and so I never actually made my confirmation. Can I recieve the Eucharist? Thanks in advance.
Thanks for the question. Yes, you may. Holy Communion is received before confirmation.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial ok thank you. I’ve been feeling pulled back to the church recently, and I wasn’t sure whether or not I could recieve it. Thanks again👍🏻
@@Sojourner-ambulareinspiritu Go to confession before you receive the Eucharist.
We are all Christians. We receive the same body of Christ. Unity of the Spirit. We all (Christians including catholics) believe Jesus is God, our saviour who died and was ressurected on third day, since we believe we have forgiveness of sins.
True, but Protestants sadly are separated Christians. They left the true Church of Jesus Christ after 1500 years.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Pope Boniface VIII would not describe Protestants as "separated Christians".
@CatholicTruthOfficial i love you as brother in Christ. Whether separated or not, Jesus still sees as one whole church because we believe in for the atonement of all sins and have forgiveness of sins.
It saddens me when we divide ourselves , saying this person is protestant or catholic or this. It reminds me of Paul talking about the Corinthians saying "i am of Apollo , i am of Paul"
Naa we are all of Christ.
Martin Luther arose only to address the concern of buying indulgences to remit sin or temporal punishment from God.
Christ paid it all, and there is no wrath of God for the believer (Romans 4 and 5).
The Catholic church now doesn't believe in buying indulgences, they believe in Jesus Christ as the only sacrifice for all our sins and Jesus is God. That makes Catholics Christians
@@FrancisAAfful I too mourn disunity in Christ's Church.
Luther, and the Reformation, was about much more than indulgences.
While Rome no longer sells indulgences, indulgences remain a part of Catholic practice as affirmed in Indulgentiarum Doctrina.
Rome also doesn't believe that Christ's sacrifice atones for the temporal punishment of sin, thus the need for purgation. They believe that grace is primarily mediated via a sacramental system; that His sacrifice wasn't once for all, but must be continually re-presented sacerdotally in order to be effective.
While I don't disagree that Catholics are (or can be) Christian, I would say that they're Christian in spite of Rome's teaching, not because of it.
Numerous Catholics ascend toward sainthood, miracles, prophesies and visions, those stories are real. God has never left His Apostles, Mathew 28:20. The Mystical Body of Christ is amongst us guiding history and mankind toward the second coming of Christ.
Amen! Thank you so much for sharing, God bless you!
If anyone wants to criticize the Catholic Church for restricting who is allowed to receive the Eucharist, then to be fair they should criticize a number of Protestant churches for doing the same thing. For example, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod does not allow members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to receive Holy Communion in their churches because the LCMS does not consider the ELCA to be true Lutherans.
This is very true, Orthodox also practice closed communion as well.
I went to mass today and the priest said "if you miss first and second gospel you cant receive communion and if you just had food or dont clean our mouth" its not just symbols it is real.
Yes, if you miss the gospel, and you show up after the gospel, you have to go to another Mass because that one doesn't count.
What does it count for ?
What does what count for?
@@CatholicTruthOfficial can someone who sell nude online receive communion?
@@CatholicTruthOfficial can someone who sell nude online to survive receive communion?
I'm pleased you are being faithful to the Catholic teaching on the subject. Only those in a state of grace should receive the Sacrament of the Altar, not pro-abort politicians!!!
I wish you were better educated on the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist. I am one, and our teaching is that the bread IS truly Jesus' body and that the wine IS truly Jesus' blood. We also practice closed Communion and neither Catholics nor Protestants nor any unbeliever is not permitted to partake at our celebration of the Sacrament.
We share your belief in the real presence in the Sacrament, but our problem with transubstantiation is that it's adding a teaching onto the Scripture. The Holy Spirit inspired accurate recording of the events of the Last Supper, and He tells us that Jesus took bread and gave it, and He took the cup (of wine) and gave it to the disciples pronouncing when eating and drinking we receive His very body and blood. In 1 Cor 10 & 11 Paul confirms that when the bread is eaten and the wine is drunk, Christ's body and blood are received. It's a miracle/mystery as to how that happens, and Lutherans don't try to explain it, we just believe it because He said it. But if it only appears to be bread and wine after the consecration as per transubstantiation, then it could be said that Paul was wrong to say "when we eat the bread", when instead he should have said "when we eat the body."
Also, we are very serious about obedience of Christ. We do just as He said and in the same way the early Church did communion, by receiving both the bread/body and the wine/blood. Why doesn't the Catholic Church obey Christ in this? I know you will say the bread contains the blood in that it's Jesus' entire essence in the bread. But Jesus didn't without the wine, why does the Catholic church? Jesus obviously wasn't worried about spilling. Even if He were, He obviously knew the blessing of receiving His blood in the Sacrament infinitely outweighed any problem with occasional spills.
May God richly bless you!
There are many things I could say when trying to answer your comment. I guess the most important would be that your pastor has not received the required laying on hand's, past down from Jesus, to His apostles, and their successors. So he does not have the ability to call down the Holy Spirit to consecrate the Eucharist.
If you truly want to be obediant to Jesus, you would honor His Word when He said to St. Peter "on this Rock I will build My Church" Matt.16:18.
And so the Catholic Church was birthed when they received the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost, as promised by Jesus, with St. Peter as his representative here on earth.
As for the Lutherans, they were birthed by a man "Martin Luther" in the 16th century. Who did not possess the spiritual gifts given by Jesus. So he doesnt have the ability to consecrate the bread and wine.
The only place that you can receive the fullness of Christianity is in the Catholic Church, that was instituted by Jesus Christ Himself!
All other churches are imposters. Most are true believers of Jesus. Though they are not all following His Word as He intended!
This my friend is why I would encourage you to become Catholic. You do sound like a true believer who wants to be 100% obediant to Jesus! Anything less than is unexceptable!
God bless you! 🙏
I was once Missouri Synod and you can't take communion in a Wisconsin Synod church.
I'm confused, or maybe you are. Lol!
Are you saying the Catholic Church only presents the bread/body of Christ and not the wine/ blood? 💜🙏💜
Who taught you that exegesis of John 6? Mine was taught by the Catholic Church whose teaching hasn't changed since the apostles. It's only developed more clearly. Luther didn't even disagree! How dare anyone, any pastor, preacher or anyone not under the authority of St. Peter given by Christ Himself deign to change it. The height of hubris is to change doctrine.
@@sheilad83the Eucharist is the fullness of the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ. One part contains the whole.
I hurt when our diocese closed the churches about a week or two before the Easter vigil when I was supposed to be confirmed. This was 2020 and covid hit many churches. I struggled with not receiving. Finally, the week prior to Pentecost, I was able to be confirmed and receive. Now I receive it almost every day.
It is a powerful hunger, a primal drive almost, that of us Christians for Our Savior as He is in The Eucharist. It brings many graces, mends our souls, and He dwells within us, and we in Him.
Answer to Ralf547: As my posts wont post at the right place I post in the main thread. You misunderstood me. I am allready very active in Church of Sweden (in chosen congregations with theologically conservative priests. It is very important to choose the right individual priests who preach classic christianity and nothibg else, as I believe),. I also broadcast radio for my congregation. But I sometimes visit other denominations, for example the catholic church.
My protestant friend just told me, we don't have a free will. Our will is influenced
Is his argument?
And this is a very levelheaded guy .
I think some of these pastors are spreading some nonsense with this zealous approach to the word, I told him True Faith does not rely on black-and-white true faith is less seeing more believing. Sola scriptura is so close minded. I can't even say anything without him saying scripture scripture where is the scripture? Is there something I'm not seeing or understanding? As a born again, Christian I know what God wants of me; and I'm also a proud Catholic, even though I do need to get back to those roots and become more devout, because all the protestant side does is push me closer to Catholicism.
What's your view of free will? Would you say that Catholics, Christians, and even non-believers all have free will?
@catmom781 I believe. Thank you! This is helpful. God bless!
@catmom781 Would you say that the will of man is not in bondage to sin in any way?
Also, what, other than scripture, contains the word of God?
Sounds like your protestant friend is a Calvinist. Bryan has done a video on this and also Trent Horn has done a video on why Calvinists can't say that Jesus died for them (and it's all related to free will).
@@stueveThe Catholic Church, which Jesus founded, contains the Word of God.
Trust me, we have no desire whatsoever to take communion at a Catholic Church !!!
That's good, because you couldn't anyway. Only when you convert and join the True Church of Jesus Christ, can you then.
Mk. 14:25) Jesus' saying that he will not drink again of the fruit of vine until he drinks it new in the coming kingdom
(Notice -Fruit of the vine, not eucharististic blood)
It's called phenomenology. It is the process of describing something in accordance with how it appears to the naked eye, and not in accordance with what it really is.
The fact that the wine had really and truly become His blood didn't change the fact that it still had the external appearance of wine (i.e it still looked like wine to the naked eye), and so Jesus phenomenologically referred to it as "fruit of the Vine" or "wine" and not "Blood"
Another example of phenomenology is when the Bible said that Stephen "fell asleep" (Acts 7:60) after being stoned by the Jews. But we all know that Stephen DIED. So why did the Bible say that he fell ASLEEP? Was the Bible denying the fact that Stephen actually died ? Ofcourse not. A person who is dying looks like he is falling asleep (death and sleep both have a similar external appearance to the naked eye). And so the description of "death" as "sleep" is an example of a phenomenological description
Also he was finishing up the passover fourth cup?
Yes, the 3rd Cup was the Cup of Blessing which Jesus transformed into the Blood of the New Covenant. The 4th Cup was never consecrated, and signaled the completion of the Passover celebration on the cross followed by, "It is finished".
@@KevinStrezo 4th cup? No such cup exists..
@@jerome2642 It was wine poured out. There's no blood at the passover meal. There's no sacrifice at the table. There's no altar.
I'm still trying to find Catholics in the New Testament.
Catholic Church” in the Bible
Many people argue that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ beginning with Peter and the Apostles. One argument often made is that the phrase “Catholic Church” does not appear within the pages of Scripture.
Aside from the fact that this argument is weak since the words “trinity” and “Bible” are not contained in Holy Writ either, is it really true that the Catholic Church is not named in the Bible? Well, take a look at the following verse from the Acts of the Apostles, and decide for yourself:
Acts 9:31 (Greek)
ἡ μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ᾽ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο.
Act 9:31 (Transliteration)
aye men oon ekklaysiaye kath olays tays ioodayeas kaye galilayeas kaye samarayas aycon ayraynayn oikodomoomenaye kaye poryoomenaye tow fobow too kurioo kaye tay paraklaysay too agioo pnyoomatos eplaythunonto
Acts 9:31
So the Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.
From this text, we can see the Greek word “kath olays” which is rendered “Catholic” in modern English and the word “ekklaysiaye” which becomes “ecclesia” in English and is commonly translated as “church”.
εκκλησια καθ᾽ὁλης = ekklaysiaye kath olays = “the church throughout all” = Catholic Church😂😂
Try reading the New Testament. All of the Christians are Catholics. The apostles are the first Catholic Bishops and Peter was the first pope.
We can't seem to find Protestants though, thousands of contradictory denominations based on a book.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Where, in the Bible ,does it say Peter was the first Pope. He definitely was a central figure in the spread of the Gospel, but, he never claimed supremacy over the other apostles. He even called himself an elder.
OK, lets say he was the first Pope and started an unbroken succession to this day. Now ,the problem is , many Popes during the dark and middle ages were among the worst human beings to ever walk the planet. They were NOT Christian.
@@philkasouf256 Power corrupts and total power corrupts totally. It doesn't take away from the office. The awful Popes may have been horrible human beings and Christians in name only but they still held and passed on the keys Peter received and did not change the Church's teachings. Human beings are fallen creatures, some way more fallen than others.
@@Vigula So ,you're saying , as long as church teachings weren't changed then nothing else mattered. Some of these Popes were murderers, thieves, adulterers etc. They would not have been corrupted , if they were born again.
If you see someone receiving communion who isnt Catholic, what is our responsibility?
To tell them they can't, or tell the priest.
My friend remained Protestant cuz the priest didn't give her communion. She thought it was an outrage. "Are you kidding me!?! I take communion all the time & he won't give it to me?!?" My people perish for a lack of knowledge.
100% we all think we're entitled. Sadly
I sometimes go to the catholic church, even if I´m formally protestant(Lutheran) because the catholic vicar in our town is a very good preacher as I see it, and I am for christian unity on basis of theologically classical christianity,/ theologically conservative christianity, (and I allways choose such priests and pastors) and OF COURSE I DON`T ake communiojn in the catholic church. I respect that this is the rule, and I go forward to the priest and put my right hand on my left shoulder and get the blessing. That´s "all I need there".(Even if of course I as a christian is much much closer to catholicism than a jew/a muslim/ a new ager/ a hindu/ a buddhist or other non christain spiritual direction and so forth)
Thank you so much for sharing, and for watching as well! I was a Lutheran prior to my conversion, have you considered attending RCIA and learning more about the Catholic Church as a whole? I think you would find it very fruitful!
@@catholictruthreplies Thank You for Your answer. As I understand it RCIA is a program for people wanting to join RCC, and I have not considdered it. I believe I will remain protestant.There are after all a number of faith issues where I simply do not believe as catholic teaching-for example transubstantiation, papal infallibility, the pope as "stand in" for Christ on earth, catholic saint-theology and other things. But I want to go to the catholic church sometimes and take part of the preaching, praise and prayer. but I don´t take communion there.
@@svenerikjohansson8130 RCIA is indeed the right of initiation, however there is a period of inquiry at the beginning of the process that allows you to attend, ask questions, and simply learn more about Catholic Theology as it stands. I highly recommend it! It cleared up a lot of misconceptions I personally had about Catholic Theology, as a matter of fact about the same issues you mention here! Just a suggestion, I think you would enjoy it! God bless you, my Lutheran brother!
@@catholictruthreplies God bless You too my catholic brother.
She wasn't given Holy Communion, because she was not in a state of grace in which to receive, you can't drive a hgv lorry if you don't have the required training, and final driving licence, 🤗
True!
Really now? Who would ever know?
Know what?
God would know!
If you're talking about receiving the eucharistic without going to confession? Wow, what kind of mindset is that?
You and God 🙏 May you be in communion with Him worthily.
@@sheilad83 The question is...would He really care? Only the catholic church says he would.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial That a non catholic took communion.
Hi Brian, my answer before I scroll down the comments is that the Protestants do not believe in the presence of Jesus in the blessed Sacrament. That is the first and foremost reason with many others. And any priest, bishop, deacon, or minister of the eucharist who knowingly give to any protestants holy communion is committing sin and contributing to allowing the protestants to eat unworthily the Body and Blood of Jesus. Receiving the body only is the living body, which contains the blood as well. Thanks, Brian, for the unrelenting defense of the truth in the Catholic Church. The Bible is clear by saying, "Woe to me if I don't preach the gospel" Any bishop, priest, deacon or baptized Catholic who do not preach this truth about the Eucharist but choose his friendship with a protestant and give him or her the Eucharist will end up in a severe judgement by our Lord for going against the truth. Because the Church, including all the baptized, had been given the authority to preach via Baptism, so no Catholic is excused from doing so.
1415 Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.
Didn’t see necessity to be Roman Catholic in there. That sounds like presupposition
And, fyi, Abraham believed Yahweh and it was counted to him as righteousness and this was before he was circumcised.
"Anyone," meaning Catholic. He was speaking to Catholics. Communion isn't for everyone or anyone outside the church.
Read the chapter of Abraham. Him believing gad nothing to do with salvation. Protestants are so used to repeating soundbyte theology thar they don't even study these passages.
Also, Nowhere does the Bible condemn good works. Many people think Paul does in Romans 3 and 4 and Eph 2. However, Romans 3, for example, says that we are saved by faith apart from works _of the law. _ Works of the law are not good works. Big difference.
Works of the law were under the mosaic law, all of the Old Testament rituals, laws, dietary restrictions, and other things like circumcision. These are the works Paul is talking about even in Romans 4, and we know this because he mentions _circumcision 9 times_ just in this one chapter alone.
This is different than following God's commandments and doing good works, which Jesus said we must do (Mt. 19:16-22, Mt. 25:31-46), Paul says also (Rom. 2:6-7, Eph. 2:10); James mentions (James 2:24), and pretty much everyone in the New Testament, including John (Rev. 20:12).
You will notice that in James, this is the only time the word's _faith alone_ are mentioned in the entire Bible, and it says we are _not_ justified by faith alone. You will also notice that Paul makes a distinction between "works" in Ephesians 2:8-9 and then "good works" in verse 10. Clearly his works and good works are two different things. Works are almost always works of the law from the Jews. Nowhere does it say in scripture that we don't need to walk in good works. Rather, there are many passages that state clearly that if we don't live out our faith, obey the commandments, bear good fruit, and stay faithful, we won't be saved. (Jn. 14:15, 21-24; Jn. 15:5-6, 7, 10, 14; Heb. 12:26-27; James 2:24; Rom. 11:21-22, 17-22; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:17-22; Jn. 3:5; Rev. 2:4-7, 10, 19-26, Mt. 25:31-46).
@@CatholicTruthOfficial I agree it’s for those who hold faith in Jesus Christ alone. Under Grace. It’s not a club jacka#% lol
@@CatholicTruthOfficial a lot of nonsense and falsehoods that we’ve already debated to death that you refuse to see
How in the world is a non-Catholic supposed to receive absolution in the sacrament of penance? It’s clear this is referring to Catholics.
Hey Bryan. I pray that you and your family are doing well.
In John 6 Jesus teaches us that "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you". Given that the Catholic Church teaches that you must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to take communion, would you agree that those members of the Catholic Church, prior to taking their first communion, have no life in them?
Also, Jesus teaches, in the next verse "whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life". Do you agree that when you take communion that you can therefore believe that you have eternal life? Thanks as always!
Keep reading till Jesus tells his apostles that the words he spoke are spiritual. The Catholic church always leaves that part out
@@mikepennn You are correct, of course. Not to mention that in verse 35 Jesus explicitly defines what he means by eating and drinking; "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." So we see that eating and drinking are coming and believing.
Not to mention the fact that the events in John 6 take place well before Jesus institutes the sacrament of communion.
@@mikepennnCatholic Communion IS Spiritual. Spiritual doesn't mean symbolic.
Steve, I was thinking of you recently. Good to see you again. We receive new life when we are born again through baptism. That life is cultivated through the Lord's Supper in a special way. Jesus says it's how we remain him him and his love.
It's always dangerous to take one verse out of context. We receive eternal life first when we come to Christ and are born again. However, we grow and remain in Christ through the Eucharist along with following the commandments, as Jesus himself states. So it's not just one verse here or there, it's the née Testament taken as a whole. Faith and baptism (Mark 16:16) Repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38), following the commandments (Jn. 14:15) and abiding in Christ through faithfulness and the Eucharist. Hope that helps.
@@stueveThe whole John 6 discourse takes place during Passover. Jesus does say that the bread He WILL give is His flesh. At the next Passover Jesus lifts up bread and says, "this is my body". In John 6, Jesus begs you to believe Him. Believe what He teaches and Prots don't believe.
But can non catholics like oriental and eastern orthodox take catholic communion too as their in partial communion with us?
Canon Law 844 §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
They can receive, however they are not likely to do so.
If you study all the verses in the other gospels, besides John, you’ll discover he wasn’t talking about the last supper he was referring to the cross! He said that his blood will be poured out for many, did he pour the cup out at the last supper? He said his words were spirit and life! In fact, he said that twice, emphasizing he’s not talking about the material realm what we can see touch and eat! Eating slush and drinking blood was 100% pagan, and totally for bidden in the old covenant! To this day, the Jews have to totally bleed out an animal in order to eat its flesh, you shall not eat, or drink the blood! They didn’t drink the blood of the lamb in the old testament, either. Why not? Another problem is the altar? Jesus wasn’t sacrificed on an altar, he was sacrificed on a cross! Another prohibition by God alters were never for people only for animals! The pope, nor the priests have the power ability or are sanctioned by God to take Jesus off his throne and kill him on an altar tens of thousands times a day times a day! Doesn’t anybody think this is sick at the least? I was raised Catholic my wife and myself taught CCD! I said the rosary 3 to 6 times per day for a year straight! Went into an empty church, and did the stations of the cross, my priest thought I was going to be a priest! I made most Catholics look like nominal at best! I’m not someone from the outside, looking in! And I’ll guarantee after the priest does his thing, there’s not a drop of blood in that cup, which, by the way, most of the time the average permit parishioner never gets so you’re not partaking in his blood anyway? I think it’ll be a pretty safe bet to believe that very few Catholics out of the 1.4 billion on the earth would not drink literal blood. If it was literal blood, do you? I think some people have to start asking questions, a lot of questions!
He was talking about both, the cross and the Eucharist, which is why all of the earliest Christians believed in thebtrue presence and no one believed it to be a symbol not even Luther or Calvin. Only Zwingly did and he was the first. The other reformers condemned him to hell for changing Christian teaching.
Also we don't kill Jesus in times of thousands of masses or even one. He already died once and for all 2,000 years ago, so this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. He can't be killed again. He's risen and exalted as Lord above all forever.
Drinking blood in the old Covenant was forbidden because it was the life blood, or the life of the animal or person. It was seen as taking life. But Jesus gave up his life for us and feeds us with his body and blood and his life leading to everlasting life as it says in the gospels.
Finally, the command is from Christ. You don't like that command though and have a hard time with it, and lacking faith, JUST like the Jews in John 6 who questioned Jesus because they didn't have enough faith. This is the only time in all of scripture where people walked away from Jesus over a doctrinal teaching. Protestants are still walking away from it today because they don't understand and don't have faith. They depart from the teachings of early Christianity.
Lastly, when we receive jesus, it's in a glorified way. Just like when Jesus passed through walls in John chapter 20 to visit his disciples even though the doors were locked, so likewise Jesus passes through Us in the same way and we receive him in a sacramental glorified way, but he is still fully present there. And it's the most beautiful and wonderful gift.
And how did you come to that conclusion? How did you make your exegesis? You may have a much a better mind than mine, but when I study Scripture, I must be helped by those who know it & whose life work is Christian theology. I am in no position to interprete Scripture by myself. So many Holy Spirit filled people disagree exegetically with each other so I go with what has been taught for 2k years since the apostles.
@Mr10glorious
The reason blood was forbidden is it contained the life of the animal.
It isn't simply a nonsensical restriction.
Next, you'll be claiming sacrificing animals to God is pagan.
Your hypocrisy is showing. Do you believe Jesus is sacrificed billions of times for each of our sins? Or is the one time sacrifice enough?
As for your claims to be a knowledgeable Catholic, you have some grave misconceptions.
I have to wonder if you even know how to pray the Rosary, much less did so.
Bryan, I went to my other yr account and found out my posts did not appear. Only you and I can see my posts, so I will repost them and will find a way to make others see my posts.
Protestants
are very wrong for saying the Catholic Church's Eucharist is just a cookie and not the true Body of Christ or the Eucharist is only symbolic because catholics have been healed and liberated from sins and vices and even mental and physical illnesses when they receive the Sacraments of Confession and Eucharist in proper disposition. If the Catholic Church's Confession and Eucharist were just made and invented by a mere man or men, these Sacraments would have no power to heal and liberate people from sins, vices and other men's illnesses.
So many catholics have testified that they have been healed from their sins and other illnesses such as mental, emotional and even physical through Confession to the priest, partaking the Eucharist and praying the Rosary. If the Catholic Church's Confession, Eucharist and the prayer of the Rosary were just made and invented by mere men, they would have no power to heal and liberate people from sins and other illnesses.
It means protestants are wrong in their perspective on the Catholic Church's Confession, Eucharist and Rosary.
No wonder because their church and doctrines are false or just man-made NOT the Church founded by Christ. The Catholic Church is the TRUE Church founded by Christ and no other.
You forgot the great schism around 1054
1054 is one date that can be ascribed to the Great Schism, although I think a more exact date would be after the Council of Florence in 1439, when the Orthodox Patriarch except for Mark of Ephesus agreed to reunification, and then immediately reneged on the agreement, and as a result Constantinople fell to Ottoman control in 1453.
orthodox can reveice eucharist. but their own church prohibited it
If you're version of the Eucharist is true then why did it take you until the 12th century to practice it. The Roman Catholic position on the Eucharist was first given dogmatic expression at the 4th Latern Council in 1215 A.D. when the Church formally set forth the teaching of transubstantiation as the official teaching of the Church. This was further affirmed by the Council of Trent which also dogmatically asserted the nature of the Lord’s Supper as being that of a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. So there are two primary elements of the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist that are of supreme importance-transubstantiation, which guarantees the real presence of Christ and the mass, in which Christ, thus present bodily, is re-offered to God as a propitiatory sacrifice. And the eucharist as taught and practiced by Rome is, according to Rome, necessary for salvation. The following are the authoritative statements from the Council of Trent:
Great questions and comments! Please email Bryan or call in to Catholic Answers M-F to ask Jimmy Akin, Trent Horn, Joe Hecshmeyer or any of the other apologists. Your comments are really good and they could definitely engage in a productive dialogue with you. 😁🙏
Think about the development of doctrine
These developments occur out of necessity promoted by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
We're spoiled. We can Monday morning quarterback it all day.
In the end it's all in God's time.
Because it was practiced in the 1st century as historical documents show, such as the Didache.
Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).👍
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189]).
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life-flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
Tertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus
“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
“Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned-[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15-16 [A.D. 251]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Ambrose of Milan
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ” (ibid., 272).
Council of Ephesus
“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it . . . but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself.” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200 - 258 A.D.)😍
And we ask that this Bread be given us daily, so that we who are in Christ and daily receive THE EUCHARIST AS THE FOOD OF SALVATION, may not, by falling into some more grievous sin and then in abstaining from communicating, be withheld from the heavenly Bread, and be separated from Christ's Body…
He Himself warns us, saying, "UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU." Therefore do we ask that our Bread, WHICH IS CHRIST, be given to us daily, so that we who abide and live in Christ may not withdraw from His sanctification and from His Body. (The Lord's Prayer 18)
Also in the priest Melchisedech we see THE SACRAMENT OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE LORD prefigured…The order certainly is that which comes from his [Mel's] sacrifice and which comes down from it: because Mel was a priest of the Most High God; because he offered bread; and because he blessed Abraham. And who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who, WHEN HE OFFERED SACRIFICE TO GOD THE FATHER, OFFERED THE VERY SAME WHICH MELCHISEDECH HAD OFFERED, NAMELY BREAD AND WINE, WHICH IS IN FACT HIS BODY AND BLOOD! (Letters 63:4)
If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is Himself the High Priest of God the Father; AND IF HE OFFERED HIMSELF AS A SACRIFICE TO THE FATHER; AND IF HE COMMANDED THAT THIS BE DONE IN COMMEMORATION OF HIMSELF -- then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, TRULY FUNCTIONS IN PLACE OF CHRIST. (Letters 63:14)
Council of Nicaea (c. 325 A.D.)
It has come to the attention of the holy and great council that in some localities and cities deacons give the Eucharist to presbyters, although neither the canon nor the custom permits those who do NOT offer sacrifice to give the Body of Christ to those who do offer the sacrifice… (Canon 18)
Aphraates the Persian Sage (c. 280 - 345 A.D.)
After having spoken thus ["This is My body…This is My blood"], the Lord rose up from the place where He had made the Passover and had given His Body as food and His Blood as drink, and He went with His disciples to the place where He was to be arrested. But He ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood, while He was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented His own Body to be eaten, and before He was crucified He gave His blood as drink… (Treatises 12:6)
There is the Christian ( Acts 11:26, 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16) , but, what kind of Christian? There are Catholic ( Latin( Roman ) and Eastern ( Oriental) Rites) , Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians , and ,even Messianic Jews , so, which type of Christians are You?
Hello John, thank you so much for watching! We are Catholic Christians.
I think we have to be careful here. Many Protestant traditions believe in the Real Presence. I first experienced the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in an Episcopal Church...at a time when I was strictly opposed to that belief. The Episcopal Church also has the apostolic succession because her priesthood comes directly from the Catholic Church (in spite of the schism). I was an Evangelical Protestant steeped in anti-Catholic teachings, especially about Eucharist. I fully believed it to be idolatry, though I did believe in remembering Jesus in the Communion. I was convinced that Catholics aren't even real Christians! I happened to be visiting an Episcopal church with a friend in about 1982, while still in college. All baptized Christians were invited to Communion, so I decided to partake...in remembrance of Jesus only, as a symbol of His Body and Blood. The Priest consecrated the elements with a liturgy that is virtually identical to that used in the Catholic Church, and then distributed it to the congregation. I knelt down at the rail, and as I took Communion I tasted metallic, salty blood. (We've all tasted blood if we've cut our finger and instinctively put in our mouths.) I was astonished! So, when I knelt down I didn't believe in the Real Presence. When I stood up, I believed. The Lord Himself evangelized me, and it changed my life! Most importantly, at that moment, while I didn't intend to become a Catholic at that time, I ceased being anti-Catholic. In that moment, I accepted that Catholics are truly Christians and deserving of my love and care. I was later confirmed in the Episcopal/Anglican tradition, and stayed for 35 years until I entered the Catholic Church last year. Also note that the CC accepted my baptism (which I received by immersion in the Baptist Church when I was 11) because I had been baptized in the name of the Trinity. In RCIA I was taught that Protestants baptized in the name of the Trinity are already bonded to all Catholics, even if they don't have the fullness of what it means to be a Christian. We are called to unity.
Actually Episcopalians no longer have apostolic succession since they ordain women.
Unfortunately Apostolic Succession is not there, so they have no ability to actually consecrate the sacraments regardless of what one believes.
They may believe in the real presence, but sadly the presence they believe is not the same as Christ intended and is not there for their "communion". Their priests and pastors do not have the authority to partake in the once and for all sacrifice, so it is sadly bereft of any presence of Christ. I am glad that you have come home! Thank you for watching, and for sharing your testimony, God bless you!
Jesus said "eateth my flesh" and "he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me." It's pretty obviously true! There's no miscommunication here. Jesus also said as He held the bread up to the disciples "This is my body" and same with the chalice "This is my blood".... "drinketh my blood". If we eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood.. we will be resurrected and have eternal life. If you don't.. you won't have life as Jesus says you won't.
Actually, it's the last Passover Meal...get it right guys
John6:63
Protestants like Catholics have to confess their sins to a priest and be in a state of grace in order to receive the Bod, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. Lastly, it's NOT the last supper, a meal, or a table, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Passion of Our Lord, on the altar.
you said, Jesus die for your sin.why you still need to confess your sin to the priest in the box? 🤭
@@julywestt5277 where is the first church established by Jesus dear? ☕😊
@@julywestt5277 so since Jesus die for your sin, should we have to confess our sin to the priest in the box now ?
☕😊
The priest hears our confession, but it is Christ acting through the priest who forgives our sin.
@@catholictruthreplies why should priest hear our sin? God can hear us anytime anywhere - directly and He has also forgiven our sin by Jesus blood so automatically our sin been forgiven. Not make any sense ☕😊
Why would a non catholic go to a catholic church service ?
To check it out and see what it's like. Happens all the time. Or maybe a funeral or wedding.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial guess it never happened to me . Thanks for your time .
I have received communion at a Roman Catholic Church several times when I was American Baptist and my brother in law was dying, so that I could help him in the Church. My nephews are Catholic and Methodist. The presence in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church doesn't do anything to a true Believer. I had to take a class before I did communion. No issue
It does everything for a true believer. But you are not part of the church and so it doesn't do anything for you. You committed sacrilege unknowingly. In fact in the Bible itself says if you don't receive it in an unworthy manner you can eat and drink damnation upon your soul and profane the blood of Christ.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial There were four views of the Eucharist in the early church. In his magnum opus, History of the Christian Church, historian Philip Schaff (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], pp. 241-245; Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], pp. 494-500) documents the four views the early church held in regards to the way in which Christ was associated with the bread and wine. You had the
(1) mystical view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Cyril of Jerusalem which said the body and blood of Jesus are mystically in union with the elements leading to a sort of repetition of the incarnation, though no change in substance actually takes place as in later Romanism;
(2) the symbolic view of Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, Macarius the Elder, Theodoret, Augustine and Gelasius which said the Eucharist symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus and is a commemoration, not Rome’s literalistic transubstantiation;
(3) the allegorical or spiritual view of Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Athanasius which said the believer receives the spiritual but not physical blood and life of Jesus at Mass; and
(4) the literalistic view of Hilary, Ambrose and Gaudentius which affirmed the bread and wine as being the literal transformed body and blood of Jesus which is basically in line with the modern Roman Catholic system. The Roman view is in the minority, while the symbolic and mystical views seem to be the most primitive and popular.”
@@CatholicTruthOfficial
@@CatholicTruthOfficial there are only two that are supported by the Bible. the remembrance and the Holy Spirit. John 6 supports the Holy Spirit. verse 63 Jesus explains that it is his Spirit and the flesh is worthless. in verse 68 Peter says it is for Eternal Life. (Holy Spirit). The last supper was for the apostles, who were all saved.
l
@@CatholicTruthOfficial It is true that if you are an unbeliever and the communion has the presence of the Holy Spirit in it you drink damnation on your soul. Remember two communions in the Bible one for Saved and one to save with the Holy Spirit in it.
How about Orthodox Christians.
They are allowed to receive in certain circumstances, but their Church won't let them.
We don't want and won't receive something that is not biblical and a hoax.
100%. You won't receive it because you've been duped. 1500 years of all Christians believing this. Then Zwingly (who the other Protestant Reformers condemned to hell for changing it) was the first to change Christian teaching. That's what you accept. Man-made tradition.
as luthrean we do not beleive in consubstantiation we beleive it is fully body and blood of christ
Yes, but not in the same way that Catholics do.
A professional apologist? That sounds wicked!
Thanks for your opinion.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial The professional gets paid for his opinion that’s not even worth a cent!
The Old Covenant was made with the House of Israel. The New Covenant was also made with the House of Israel. We are still the House of Israel, which God expanded to include all the nations. A person who does not believe they are members of the House of Israel, the Ecclesia, should not be partaking of the Covenant made with the House of Israel.
Sorry dude. The catholic church is NOT the church that was founded in Jerusalem. Be careful what you say. Our church has open communion. If you have received Jesus as personal Saviour and have followed Him in baptism, then we say welcome and celebrate the sacrifice of our Lord and rejoice that He is coming back.
And your views are why you are not catholic.
It is the church founded in Jerusalem on pentecost. Just saying it's not doesn't mean it isn't, you have to prove it.
Nowhere in the Bible is Christianity an open religion. You have to follow Christ and the laws of the church.
Cathlics can take anything and make a ritual out of it, including a ham sandwich: jesus used parables, allagories, and metaphors, to illustrate spiritual points; the bible can send people to hell in as much, as one can use it, to quote from it, without desernment from the Holy Spirit: 2corinthians 3:6 - the Word of God is not for the natural mind, but for the Spiritual mind, so one must be born again, to see, or enter into the kingdom of God! One must receive the true baptizm in order, to see in the spirit.. the cc, or any religion, or denomination can not give what only Jesus can give, that is, Salvation by sanctification.. youll find out what that means in his Word.. there is no other way..
If it weren’t for the Catholic Church you’d have no Bible to read
How do you know what you know? Did someone reach you about your faith or did you read it yourself? Do you go to school? I so, why would you? You can read! Why do you need someone to ever teach you anything?
For us Catholics, we rely on Apostolic teachings and knowledge that God Himself imparted to them. What about you?
@louisvega-oe2sc
Before there was a Bible there were Christians. There are historical records of what these Christians practiced and believed.
Funny how it is alright for you to take the teachings of a man 1,800 years later as God breathed but we are not allowed to take the teachings of the Apostles as God breathed.
@@dave_ecclectic understanding with understanding (in the Spirit) is what it's all about,: understanding with the mind, is dead works: psalm 115:17 - why you have, the Spiritual and need, to be e born again.. only Jesus can give you that.. Hebrews 9:27 acts4:12. Approximately 100 verses about praying to the dead, most important, obeying the 2nd commandment: (the original) moses was given that by God in the Hebrew, since he spoke Hebrew, not in the catholic, since there are, no, catholics in the bible.. John 5:28-29. 1corinthians 15-26.. the true beleiver awaits to be free from the last enemy, the flesh: Paul spoke about this, Jesus spoke about this, John 11:17-47.. many prophets, and apostles spoke about this.. you need, to understand what the scripture, genesis2:7, says, and its relation to John 3:3 and Peter 1:23.. the church nor you nor I, nor religion, nor the priest, bishop, pope, nor anyone, other than Christ.. praying that your eyes will be opened, mine were a long long time ago..
@@louisvega-oe2sc
What denomination are you?
Where in the Bible does it mention this denomination?
No Christian worthy of the name would participate in this Roman idolatry.
Your loss
No such thing as Roman idolatry. Silly strawman argument
Catholics are the true Christians started by Jesus.
LOL. Complain about that with Jesus Himself:
_«Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.»_ [John 6, 53].
So, yes, only Christians worthy of the name would participate in this rite as God commanded Himself.
Thank you for your opinion! We invite you to study history to verify your claims :)
If you can't understand that the body , blood , soul and divinity of the bodyand blood of Christ is sacred youll not understand that the life of an unborn child is sacred , as is your neighbors , that marriage is sacred .
That this isnt a Protestant hallelujah
Evangelical Good Time feel good , its dead serious.
Its the body , blood , soul and divinity of the risen Christ , if you want to believe it or not.
Demonic possession also is real , if you want to believe it or not , but it might take you comeing face to face with satan himself before you understand what i saying.
No imbeciles satan and Lucifer are not two different demons , they are one in the same.
Thank you so much for sharing, and for tuning in as well! We must continue to receive Christ in The Eucharist as often as we are able!
If you are here for a New Testament Church move on. Nothing to see here.
Source? Myself.
@CatholicTruthOfficial Yes, you got that right. "WE ARE THE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT CHRIST ESTABLISHED BECAUSE WE SAY SO."
No need to go into forged documents, evil popes in our unbroken 'apostolic successions, never mind that those people should have been excommunicated, just accept the purgatory and other wild constructions like Mary ascending to heaven or prayers to saints. Not in the Bible? Jesus sacrificin himself and we drinking blood and eating human flesh every Sunday? Not a problem! Why? Because we say so.
No amount of arm waving will get the heresy right.
'take'? No. Not even a catholic can 'take' Holy Communion. They could receive it though
😇👍
So you kill Christ every Sunday afresh you call a mere woman the queen of heaven and coredemer but stumber over the word take also your call unmarried celibate guys father and think Mary ascended in to heaven even without one verse of scripture to back it up
Brian. The line of Malkezadec?
What about it?
I believe that the bread and wine is truly Jesus, I wish I was able to convert but it is very hard for me to do right now. My belief is more Catholic than Methodist, I already know that my family would really not except that. No matter how much I explain to them the truth of Catholicism, they just will not(do not) want to listen to what I explain to them.
I will pray for you! I know how it feels like to go through stuff like this! My mom (who’s evangelical Protestant) was totally against me converting to the Catholic Church and it took a while until after my initiation and confirmation into the Church for her to accept my decision! You and your family are in my prayers! God bless!
@@stevenlee5673 Thank you for your prayers ^_^
As a Protestant (not a Methodist) I too pray that you will be led to the Truth. God bless.
@@stueve Thank you as well.
@@stueveWe pray that YOU are led to the REAL Truth.