@@_ready__ Until about 1054 ad, there was only really one Christian church, globally. Then, in 1054, tragically, the great split occurred between the church in the west and the church in the east, so we now had what we now call the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox church. Then, a further disastrous split occurred about 500 years later in the protestant reformation, leading to a great many new Christian denominations. We are now separated, tragically, but nonetheless "brethren" hence "separated brethren"
@@TheMOV13 The great schism was largely the fault of the Roman Church. It would be nice to see Rome more open to making concessions in trying to put things right since her "developments of doctrine" largely led to the estrangement and differing theologies. The Orthodox, by and large, maintain the faith of the Apostles with very little alteration. Conversely, Roman Catholicism today is entirely alien to Roman Catholicism 100 years ago and both are completely alien to Roman Catholicism 1000 years ago. This is a very serious problem that has yet to be addressed. I say this as a Ruthenian Greek Catholic who remains in the Catholic communion of Churches.
Bread starts from many little grains of wheat. Wine starts from many little grapes. Both are a metaphor of how individuals become united to form the mystical body of Christ via the Holy Eucharist.
It is only the most divisive doctrine since the late middles ages. For the majority of Church History this has been universally taught and accepted. In fact, it is what distinguished Christians from non-Christians for 1,500 years since the time of Christ's Glorious Ascension into Heaven
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of blessed memory, used a handy little catchphrase: "ALL are priests, SOME are priests, and ONE is priest" i.e. ALL baptised Christians fulfil a priestly function in the world, e.g standing before God in intercessory prayer for family, friends, church, community and world etc.... SOME Christians are called out from among the ALL to serve in the church, administering the Sacred Mysteries, and ONE is priest, i.e. Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest, from whom all other forms of priesthood receive their efficacy and validity.
We as catholics believe that God created us in order for Him to comunicate His Love and to be loved and glorified outside of Himself. This may be a fancy way to say that He created us for Himself. In His divine will to comunicate His love, what could be definitive way of doing so? Well, it would be by giving Himself to us, knowing that He is Charity Itself. This reality begins here on this life, by the very Sacrament he instituted: the Holy Eucharist. By material signs of a consecrated bread and wine, of eating and drinking it, we take part in a reality that will last for all eternity in Heaven: to be void of ourselves all else and to be filled with the Most High. To expect the eternal life to be like an eternal picnic in the woods among snakes and lions is to miss the point completely.
Well if you go by RC teachings, if you're particularly good the pope will beautify you to sainthood and usually spend the time between then and the red of the world passing the prayers of those on earth to God. You will be kept very busy, day and night.
@@richardounjian9270 The books of the Bible did not originally have chapter and verse notations. Remove all chapter and verse numbers, and that is essentially what the original books of the Bible looked like. They were merely paragraph after paragraph. It wasn’t until around the thirteenth century that chapter divisions were universally added by scribes and not until the sixteenth century that the individual verses were numbered. “Given that chapter and verses in the Bible are a relatively modern and entirely human development, I would not recommend reading anything symbolic or meaningful into chapter and verse numbers.” - Fr. Charles Grondin
@NuLeif The very fact that it wasn't planned for 666 to appear makes it all the more significant in my mind. The Godhead knew how it would be once chapter and verse was applied. Satan is thrilled when someone rejects Christ in the Eucharist.
The RC church says others have deviated from the original doctrine, but I understand that transubstantiation was only affirmed as a doctrine in the council of trent, in 1215. So I don't know how they can say that.
I think what you mean to say is that at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, for the first time the Church dogmatically used the term "transubstantiation" as the correct term to describe the conversion of the bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ. But there is a consistent and persistent witness in the Church Fathers right through the medieval age of a conviction that the bread/wine became the Body/Blood by the power of the Holy Spirit through the prayers of consecration. Think of it like this: At the Council of Nicea in 325, the Church for the first time dogmatically defined Jesus as "consubstantial" with the Father. But the Church did not invent that belief in 325 - the conviction is centuries older. But when the need arose to carefully and dogmatically define what we believe to be the true nature of Christ, the Church used that term. That is the same thing that happens in nearly every ecumenical council, including Lateran IV in 1215. I hope that helps.
Transubstantiation is a term to explain as men can the concept of the Eucharist. The Holy Trinity wasn't officially defined until the 4th century. Does that mean that it is not dogma?!
My highly subjective view is that Protestants and Evangelicals get even more worked up by Blessed Mary, her intercession, her Queenship and her being the Mother of the Divine Word God who incarnated into flesh.
emotionally, maybe. But there was never a time in Christian history when there were 200 Protestant views of the BVM, as there were 200 Protestant views of the words "This is My Body" after one generation of reformers.
Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word “priest” is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God. Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.
The "reform" was far from the first assault on the Holy Eucharist. 500 years earlier, the divisive spirit which incited Berengarius of Tours to deny the Eucharist and demand bible alone was simply recycled in Luther. Berengarius reluctantly repented just before death. Luther's ego would not allow him to repent. Luther diluted the Eucharist, while Zwingli dissolved it completely and Calvin decided to split the difference. 1 John 4:3. Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.
The "reform" was just a looting operation of church property. There was no theological basis for the schism. (These are not my words. They are from dr. EMJ)
These are overlaboured issues which would forever be subjects to various interpretations. Since nobody adjudicates it , it should be left alone. What matters is the spirit of the follower of Christ and not the ceremonies and rituals.
The problem with that argument is that since 'no one can adjudicate,' it should be left alone. We are then left in the dark? Your very Bible is a product of the Catholic Church in UNION with the Holy Spirit. How do you resolve that fact.
@TheMenghi1 Yes Catholic Church but not Roman Catholic. The word is often misused to imply that it is synonymous with the Roman Church. All Churches that subscribed to Nice Creed at the Council of Nicea is Catholic of which Roman Church is one of the five.
@@draconian8994 Here are just three Apostolic Fathers: St Polycarp, disciple of St John the Divine; St Ignatius, also a disciple of St John the Divine; and lastly, St Iraneaus of Lyons. They are all known to be bishops of the Catholic Church. So, whether you wish to call it the Roman Catholic Church or just Catholic Church, they taught and lived the Catholic life.
@@TheMenghi1 Roman Catholic is a denomination of the Catholic or Universal Church. ' Catholic' is Greek used in the Nicene Creek to define 'Universal' Church. It is included in the Creed as recited by all Churches and not Roman Church alone. Therefore all Churches belong to Catholic Church but not Roman Catholic.
In the early church, there were four views of the Eucharist. 1. Literal presence of Jesus 2. Mystical Jesus is present but can't be seen. 1 and 2 were combined and became Catholic view and later forced . 3. Holy Spirit was the presence. Based on John 6 25-70. 4. Rememberance based on Last Supper. There was no division due to different views in the early church. People generally believed all views. The Literal presence of Jesus is not Biblical since Jesus never spoke to crowds without it being parable. So it is parable in all places we see the body and blood. The John 6 25-70 account is of Jesus trying to save unsaved Jews and give them Eternal Life for the first time. So, it doesn't apply to saved Christians. The Vine and branches parable tells us we are connected directly to Jesus in everything we do, so yes he is with us when we take the Eucharist. And it is to remember him. The Holy Spirit version can still be used to save large groups of unsaved people.
This need not be. Protestants see this as a little play called the last supper. I know many who have seen the truth, they are ready to change. They just won't take that next step. Why?
At last someone is listening to what I have been saying for a long time. We come from the one loaf, Christ, on the grounds of His dying on the cross for us. When we break the loaf and share, we are proclaiming Christ's death as the means of us being part of the Body of Christ. He is the Head of the Body in Heaven, and we are members of that Body here on earth. The feast is a remembrance of the one who died, the Lord Jesus Christ, and a testimony or proclamation that we love Him and belong to Him. There are many assemblies of believers who remember Christ on the Lord's day, but only one Church, no matter where you are. The Roman Catholic church is NOT that church, and no individual 'church' is.
We will be delighted when you finally listen to something the Church has been saying for 2,000 years. And the silence it will produce, which denotes LEARNING.
@@HAL9000-su1mz I see your mind is still in darkness. You haven't got a clue about what I am talking about. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the gospel. The true 'church' which Christ is building is a spiritual, invisible Body here on earth, composed of 'living stones' who join together to form a habitation of God by the Spirit. The Breaking of the Bread and drinking of the wine is a feast of remembrance and love by those who are joined to Him by the Spirit. It is not to bring a person to Him, but an outward showing that we already are the children of God and the 'Body' of Christ, and it is only until He comes to take us to Heaven. The Lord's death is our victory proclamation and our bond.
All of you are obsessed with Transubstantiation. When all the Gospel according to John is just saying to Believe in Jesus Christ for salvation! In many metaphorical and non-metaphorical ways. Over 90 times this Gospel says! We are saved by Grace Alone, Through Faith Alone, in the Finished work of Christ Alone, For the Glory of God Alone! God does not Require Our works to Save Us!❤️✝️
When Martin Luther translated the letter to the Romans into German in the sixteenth century, he ADDED the word ALONE -but alone is not in the original Greek text. Romans 3:28 [Justified faith alone] “It has resulted in a self-centered and subjective individualism, divorced from all ideas of the Church incorporating us as members of the mystical body of Christ. People have tended to regard the whole of religion as consisting in their own interior and personal state of religious feeling.” - Fr. L. Rumble
@NuLeif We are Justified by the works Of Jesus Christ to satisfy Father. Nothing was Added. The Father required the perfect works of Jesus Christ to Satisfy His Wrath. You don’t SatisfyI don’t Satisfy His Wrath with our incomplete works. God doesn’t need or want our works to save us! What are God’s Requirements of His Law for Humanity?
@@Ebreeze1976Do you accept the historical fact that Luther added the word “alone”? ALONE is not in the original Greek text. The phrase “faith alone” does occur in the New Testament: one time, in James 2:24. There the inspired apostle denies that justification is from faith alone. Let me quote it: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
@@Ebreeze1976 Do you believe the historical fact that Luther added the word ALONE? alone is not in the original Greek text. The phrase “faith alone” does occur in the New Testament: one time, in James 2:24. There the inspired apostle denies that justification is from faith alone. Let me quote it: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
@NuLeif James Chapter 2 Speaks about the Profitability a Believer’s Faith! “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” James 2:14-26 KJV This speaks of the Profitability of our Faith not the Justification of our Faith!
Only listened to the beginning. Another Catholic apologist turning things upside down. I was really hoping for a good discussion but your opening statement is really saying something like: "Because you don't agree with me, you are being divisive. Therefore you are bad." When Jesus said "this is my body", is it POSSIBLE that it was an allegory? Think about that for a moment. Don't just dismiss it in your mind. If you read the scriptures relevant to that verse, it is very reasonable to see it as an allegory. OK, you take it literally but I most certainly don't. There are a lot of types and shadows about bread and food and the word and so on surrounding that passage. They clearly show me that it is an allegory. If I was to bend to your belief system and see it as literal I would be going against my own conscience. So why do you make me bad for having a different understanding to you? I don't see you as bad. I think you are wrong and somewhat brainwashed by Catholic thought but I don't think you are bad. I'm not calling you "divisive". I respect your convictions and I have no reason to fight with you. How about doing the same for the Protestants? Some things in scripture are not entirely clear. And that's OK. Why not accept that instead of bashing the protestants? Bury the hatchet. There are some things that we will never understand in this lifetime. Disunity comes when we choose 1 side of the fence over something that is not clear and throw rocks at the guy on the other side. You can keep on shooting or you can say "OK, the issue is unclear". I can do that and we can shake hands and be brothers. That is what unity is all about.
If you feel justified in disagreeing with the first 1500 years of Christian teaching on the Eucharist, then have at it. But had you voiced this doctrine of yours in the early days of the Church, you would have been exposed as a schismatic at best, heretic at worst.
@robin...: It would appear that you view the words, "...this is my body...my blood..." as symbolic only. What evidence is there that Christians of the first or second centuries would agree with you? How about the fifth century? The tenth, twelfth? Is it POSSIBLE that every Christian accepted Our Lord's words at face value? Do you have any evidence that they did not? Would the Holy Ghost allow Christians to be misled (lied to) for fifteen hundred years before the Protestant 'reformers' finally saw the 'truth'? If this literal interpretation of the Sacred Scripture was not acceptable to all Christians, then there must be documentation somewhere to that effect. Somebody must have written, taught, preached this during those fifteen hundred years. But where ? I'll go along with Flannery O'Connor, who said, "If it's just symbolic then to hell with it!"
@alhilford2345 because the whole gospel of John talks about be believing in Jesus Christ for salvation over 90 times every other verse talks about believe in over and over and over Jesus Christ for salvation!
![Protestants Reject the Heart of Christianity [The Eucharistic Sacrifice]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/N5kw2Oy9h9I/mqdefault.jpg)
![Protestants Reject the Heart of Christianity [The Eucharistic Sacrifice]](/img/tr.png)
Let us pray for our separated brethren
EO Christian here. always grateful for prayers!
Who is the separated
@@_ready__ Until about 1054 ad, there was only really one Christian church, globally. Then, in 1054, tragically, the great split occurred between the church in the west and the church in the east, so we now had what we now call the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox church. Then, a further disastrous split occurred about 500 years later in the protestant reformation, leading to a great many new Christian denominations. We are now separated, tragically, but nonetheless "brethren" hence "separated brethren"
@@TheMOV13 The great schism was largely the fault of the Roman Church. It would be nice to see Rome more open to making concessions in trying to put things right since her "developments of doctrine" largely led to the estrangement and differing theologies. The Orthodox, by and large, maintain the faith of the Apostles with very little alteration. Conversely, Roman Catholicism today is entirely alien to Roman Catholicism 100 years ago and both are completely alien to Roman Catholicism 1000 years ago. This is a very serious problem that has yet to be addressed. I say this as a Ruthenian Greek Catholic who remains in the Catholic communion of Churches.
@ OK how do you attain salvation?
Excellent presentation.
Keep pumping out these videos, brother! This is great stuff
Excellent video 😊
Their was a universal priesthood of the Israelites in the Old Testament (In Exodus 19:6). I wonder if Luther had read that. Good work.
Is there still a priesthood
@@_ready__ Yes. Google it, you will find articles on it.
Man, that is some rich well-presented content!
God bless your work! We appreciate your knowledge and reminding us of the richness of the Catholic faith.
CCC1331: “By this sacrament,” the Catechism says, “we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his body and blood to form a single body”.
Catechism says
It's not a sacrifice though.
@@squizza28what is it if not a sacrifice?
Thank you for your work in bringing truth to a world of confusion.
Bread starts from many little grains of wheat. Wine starts from many little grapes. Both are a metaphor of how individuals become united to form the mystical body of Christ via the Holy Eucharist.
wonderful presentation with undeniable clarity ❤❤
God bless you
Thanks much for this video.
It is only the most divisive doctrine since the late middles ages. For the majority of Church History this has been universally taught and accepted. In fact, it is what distinguished Christians from non-Christians for 1,500 years since the time of Christ's Glorious Ascension into Heaven
Amen Brother ! Protestants today were called Pharisees in Christ time. They also say . . . . Who can forgive sins but God alone ?
Amen 🙏🙏🙏
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of blessed memory, used a handy little catchphrase: "ALL are priests, SOME are priests, and ONE is priest" i.e. ALL baptised Christians fulfil a priestly function in the world, e.g standing before God in intercessory prayer for family, friends, church, community and world etc.... SOME Christians are called out from among the ALL to serve in the church, administering the Sacred Mysteries, and ONE is priest, i.e. Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest, from whom all other forms of priesthood receive their efficacy and validity.
Wow ,
thank you for that, l never hear the priesthood phrased like that before.
We as catholics believe that God created us in order for Him to comunicate His Love and to be loved and glorified outside of Himself. This may be a fancy way to say that He created us for Himself.
In His divine will to comunicate His love, what could be definitive way of doing so? Well, it would be by giving Himself to us, knowing that He is Charity Itself.
This reality begins here on this life, by the very Sacrament he instituted: the Holy Eucharist. By material signs of a consecrated bread and wine, of eating and drinking it, we take part in a reality that will last for all eternity in Heaven: to be void of ourselves all else and to be filled with the Most High. To expect the eternal life to be like an eternal picnic in the woods among snakes and lions is to miss the point completely.
Well if you go by RC teachings, if you're particularly good the pope will beautify you to sainthood and usually spend the time between then and the red of the world passing the prayers of those on earth to God. You will be kept very busy, day and night.
By not having communion you forsake eternal life.
John 6:66 tells the reaction of those who have insufficient faith.
All the early Christian’s believed in the ‘body of Christ’.
That’s one of the main verses that tipped the scales in making my decision to convert.
Notice the presence of "666"!
@@richardounjian9270 The books of the Bible did not originally have chapter and verse notations. Remove all chapter and verse numbers, and that is essentially what the original books of the Bible looked like. They were merely paragraph after paragraph.
It wasn’t until around the thirteenth century that chapter divisions were universally added by scribes and not until the sixteenth century that the individual verses were numbered.
“Given that chapter and verses in the Bible are a relatively modern and entirely human development, I would not recommend reading anything symbolic or meaningful into chapter and verse numbers.”
- Fr. Charles Grondin
@NuLeif The very fact that it wasn't planned for 666 to appear makes it all the more significant in my mind. The Godhead knew how it would be once chapter and verse was applied. Satan is thrilled when someone rejects Christ in the Eucharist.
@ I believe the Eucharist is the Source & Summit of my Faith. I don’t need to add on numerical speculation/sensationalism.
Yup
Luke 13:30
The RC church says others have deviated from the original doctrine, but I understand that transubstantiation was only affirmed as a doctrine in the council of trent, in 1215. So I don't know how they can say that.
Because the Church is reactionary. Look at the Councils. Most are reactionary to herecies that became evident.
It was designated as transubstantiation the ritual of consecration has always been performed. The Orthodox call communion a mystery.
@richardounjian9270 the Nicean Creed, for example, is basically a reputation of various heresies.
I think what you mean to say is that at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, for the first time the Church dogmatically used the term "transubstantiation" as the correct term to describe the conversion of the bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ. But there is a consistent and persistent witness in the Church Fathers right through the medieval age of a conviction that the bread/wine became the Body/Blood by the power of the Holy Spirit through the prayers of consecration. Think of it like this: At the Council of Nicea in 325, the Church for the first time dogmatically defined Jesus as "consubstantial" with the Father. But the Church did not invent that belief in 325 - the conviction is centuries older. But when the need arose to carefully and dogmatically define what we believe to be the true nature of Christ, the Church used that term. That is the same thing that happens in nearly every ecumenical council, including Lateran IV in 1215. I hope that helps.
Transubstantiation is a term to explain as men can the concept of the Eucharist. The Holy Trinity wasn't officially defined until the 4th century. Does that mean that it is not dogma?!
My highly subjective view is that Protestants and Evangelicals get even more worked up by Blessed Mary, her intercession, her Queenship and her being the Mother of the Divine Word God who incarnated into flesh.
emotionally, maybe. But there was never a time in Christian history when there were 200 Protestant views of the BVM, as there were 200 Protestant views of the words "This is My Body" after one generation of reformers.
Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word “priest” is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.
Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.
The "reform" was far from the first assault on the Holy Eucharist. 500 years earlier, the divisive spirit which incited Berengarius of Tours to deny the Eucharist and demand bible alone was simply recycled in Luther. Berengarius reluctantly repented just before death. Luther's ego would not allow him to repent. Luther diluted the Eucharist, while Zwingli dissolved it completely and Calvin decided to split the difference.
1 John 4:3. Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.
Protestantism is definitely a forerunner of Antichrist.
The "reform" was just a looting operation of church property. There was no theological basis for the schism.
(These are not my words. They are from dr. EMJ)
These are overlaboured issues which would forever be subjects to various interpretations. Since nobody adjudicates it , it should be left alone. What matters is the spirit of the follower of Christ and not the ceremonies and rituals.
Tell that to Jesus and Paul?
The problem with that argument is that since 'no one can adjudicate,' it should be left alone. We are then left in the dark? Your very Bible is a product of the Catholic Church in UNION with the Holy Spirit. How do you resolve that fact.
@TheMenghi1 Yes Catholic Church but not Roman Catholic. The word is often misused to imply that it is synonymous with the Roman Church. All Churches that subscribed to Nice Creed at the Council of Nicea is Catholic of which Roman Church is one of the five.
@@draconian8994 Here are just three Apostolic Fathers: St Polycarp, disciple of St John the Divine; St Ignatius, also a disciple of St John the Divine; and lastly, St Iraneaus of Lyons. They are all known to be bishops of the Catholic Church. So, whether you wish to call it the Roman Catholic Church or just Catholic Church, they taught and lived the Catholic life.
@@TheMenghi1 Roman Catholic is a denomination of the Catholic or Universal Church. ' Catholic' is Greek used in the Nicene Creek to define 'Universal' Church. It is included in the Creed as recited by all Churches and not Roman Church alone. Therefore all Churches belong to Catholic Church but not Roman Catholic.
In the early church, there were four views of the Eucharist.
1. Literal presence of Jesus
2. Mystical Jesus is present but can't be seen.
1 and 2 were combined and became Catholic view and later forced .
3. Holy Spirit was the presence. Based on John 6 25-70.
4. Rememberance based on Last Supper.
There was no division due to different views in the early church. People generally believed all views.
The Literal presence of Jesus is not Biblical since Jesus never spoke to crowds without it being parable. So it is parable in all places we see the body and blood. The John 6 25-70 account is of Jesus trying to save unsaved Jews and give them Eternal Life for the first time. So, it doesn't apply to saved Christians.
The Vine and branches parable tells us we are connected directly to Jesus in everything we do, so yes he is with us when we take the Eucharist. And it is to remember him.
The Holy Spirit version can still be used to save large groups of unsaved people.
This need not be. Protestants see this as a little play called the last supper. I know many who have seen the truth, they are ready to change. They just won't take that next step. Why?
The loss of friends and family relationships is too great a price to pay.
Pride. Ego. A comfortable life, like atheists have.
At last someone is listening to what I have been saying for a long time. We come from the one loaf, Christ, on the grounds of His dying on the cross for us. When we break the loaf and share, we are proclaiming Christ's death as the means of us being part of the Body of Christ. He is the Head of the Body in Heaven, and we are members of that Body here on earth. The feast is a remembrance of the one who died, the Lord Jesus Christ, and a testimony or proclamation that we love Him and belong to Him. There are many assemblies of believers who remember Christ on the Lord's day, but only one Church, no matter where you are. The Roman Catholic church is NOT that church, and no individual 'church' is.
⭐⭐⭐Ladies and gentlemen, if this is not the "other gospel" Paul warned us of, I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS.
@@HAL9000-su1mz Paul could have said "Some follow Luther, some Calvin"
We will be delighted when you finally listen to something the Church has been saying for 2,000 years. And the silence it will produce, which denotes LEARNING.
@@HAL9000-su1mz I see your mind is still in darkness. You haven't got a clue about what I am talking about. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the gospel. The true 'church' which Christ is building is a spiritual, invisible Body here on earth, composed of 'living stones' who join together to form a habitation of God by the Spirit. The Breaking of the Bread and drinking of the wine is a feast of remembrance and love by those who are joined to Him by the Spirit. It is not to bring a person to Him, but an outward showing that we already are the children of God and the 'Body' of Christ, and it is only until He comes to take us to Heaven. The Lord's death is our victory proclamation and our bond.
@@BensWorkshop No he could not, they were not born then.
All of you are obsessed with Transubstantiation. When all the Gospel according to John is just saying to Believe in Jesus Christ for salvation! In many metaphorical and non-metaphorical ways. Over 90 times this Gospel says! We are saved by Grace Alone, Through Faith Alone, in the Finished work of Christ Alone, For the Glory of God Alone! God does not Require Our works to Save Us!❤️✝️
When Martin Luther translated the letter to the Romans into German in the sixteenth century, he ADDED the word ALONE -but alone is not in the original Greek text. Romans 3:28
[Justified faith alone] “It has resulted in a self-centered and subjective individualism, divorced from all ideas of the Church incorporating us as members of the mystical body of Christ. People have tended to regard the whole of religion as consisting in their own interior and personal state of religious feeling.” - Fr. L. Rumble
@NuLeif We are Justified by the works Of Jesus Christ to satisfy Father. Nothing was Added. The Father required the perfect works of Jesus Christ to Satisfy His Wrath. You don’t SatisfyI don’t Satisfy His Wrath with our incomplete works. God doesn’t need or want our works to save us! What are God’s Requirements of His Law for Humanity?
@@Ebreeze1976Do you accept the historical fact that Luther added the word “alone”?
ALONE is not in the original Greek text. The phrase “faith alone” does occur in the New Testament: one time, in James 2:24. There the inspired apostle denies that justification is from faith alone. Let me quote it: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
@@Ebreeze1976 Do you believe the historical fact that Luther added the word ALONE?
alone is not in the original Greek text. The phrase “faith alone” does occur in the New Testament: one time, in James 2:24. There the inspired apostle denies that justification is from faith alone. Let me quote it: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
@NuLeif James Chapter 2
Speaks about the Profitability a Believer’s Faith!
“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
James 2:14-26 KJV
This speaks of the Profitability of our Faith not the Justification of our Faith!
Only listened to the beginning.
Another Catholic apologist turning things upside down. I was really hoping for a good discussion but your opening statement is really saying something like:
"Because you don't agree with me, you are being divisive. Therefore you are bad."
When Jesus said "this is my body", is it POSSIBLE that it was an allegory?
Think about that for a moment. Don't just dismiss it in your mind.
If you read the scriptures relevant to that verse, it is very reasonable to see it as an allegory. OK, you take it literally but I most certainly don't. There are a lot of types and shadows about bread and food and the word and so on surrounding that passage. They clearly show me that it is an allegory. If I was to bend to your belief system and see it as literal I would be going against my own conscience.
So why do you make me bad for having a different understanding to you? I don't see you as bad. I think you are wrong and somewhat brainwashed by Catholic thought but I don't think you are bad. I'm not calling you "divisive". I respect your convictions and I have no reason to fight with you.
How about doing the same for the Protestants? Some things in scripture are not entirely clear. And that's OK. Why not accept that instead of bashing the protestants?
Bury the hatchet. There are some things that we will never understand in this lifetime. Disunity comes when we choose 1 side of the fence over something that is not clear and throw rocks at the guy on the other side.
You can keep on shooting or you can say "OK, the issue is unclear". I can do that and we can shake hands and be brothers.
That is what unity is all about.
@@robinconnelly6079 Amen Robin! You’re so Right!
If you feel justified in disagreeing with the first 1500 years of Christian teaching on the Eucharist, then have at it. But had you voiced this doctrine of yours in the early days of the Church, you would have been exposed as a schismatic at best, heretic at worst.
@robin...:
It would appear that you view the words, "...this is my body...my blood..." as symbolic only.
What evidence is there that Christians of the first or second centuries would agree with you?
How about the fifth century? The tenth, twelfth?
Is it POSSIBLE that every Christian accepted Our Lord's words at face value?
Do you have any evidence that they did not?
Would the Holy Ghost allow Christians to be misled (lied to) for fifteen hundred years before the Protestant 'reformers' finally saw the 'truth'?
If this literal interpretation of the Sacred Scripture was not acceptable to all Christians, then there must be documentation somewhere to that effect. Somebody must have written, taught, preached this during those fifteen hundred years.
But where ?
I'll go along with Flannery O'Connor, who said, "If it's just symbolic then to hell with it!"
@alhilford2345 because the whole gospel of John talks about be believing in Jesus Christ for salvation over 90 times every other verse talks about believe in over and over and over Jesus Christ for salvation!
@midairfortess-revert opinions Very!