The Eucharist: Sacrifice or Symbol?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- Dr. Bergsma discusses the Eucharist and whether it is a sacrifice or a symbol. He uses the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls to explore this topic.
Purchase the entire set here:
catholicproduc...
Image Attribution:
commons.wikime...
Juan de Juanes, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
I don't know about anyone else, but it took me awhile to get accustomed to Dr. Bergsma's understated delivery. Now, I really enjoy his approach; not only does he explain scripture clearly, but he provides examples that are biblically solid.
Yeah I find that his main point kind of sneaks up on you. I like that he’s very clear and assessable by common laymen. usually he explains multiple
Points and historical context very clearly, and then all of a sudden he says something so amazingly profound that ties everything together, it just bowls me over every time! Dr Hahn-I usually have to listen to his stuff multiple times. I’m tired most of the time with 4 kids 👶 and don’t always have the bandwidth for Hahn. 😂 maybe someday! But Bergsma? Anywhere anytime. Sign me up!
I just watched this thinking it was going to be Brant Pitre... then I saw it was Dr. Bergsma and it started, then I thought he used to be someone I'd not really wanted to listen to just because of his speaking style and rather "drab" method of speaking, but how over time he's become actually really neat to listen to and I appreciate the drab-ness of it... then I scroll down and BAM your's was the first comment shown. Dang, youtube knows exactly what I'm thinking now. It put yours first. I thought I was alone. [OK... back to the video now to learn.]
You should watch his speech "confession as the new exodus" or the "Jesus as the bridegroom as in the song of songs" (the second isn't titled exactly that but that phrase should pop it up) for some of his livelier deliveries. The second is rly funny. He can be quite animated sometimes
Been following Bergsma, along with Pitre, Hahn , Barber etc for years! So lucky to learn from them. Thank God
Same! They’re all so knowledgeable.
Barber ?
Same here❤🙏
Very clear explanation. Thank you Dr. Bergsma.
I sometimes wonder how can the protestants think that the apostles celebrated eucharist as only symbolic and say that the catholic church made it up about the real presence in middle ages. So they mean that for more than 1300 years till the protestant reformation in 16th century the Christians around the world did it wrongly. So they mean, Jesus' work on what he actually wanted us to belief (symbolic rather than transubstanciation) was a failure for 1300 years, as the Christian throughout the world did not understand him till one man understood it more clearly in 16th century so he reformed the church by dividing the church. So the protestants believe that the Holy spirit did not work for nearly 1300 years as none of the Christian was given wisdom to understand what Jesus actually wanted us to do. How can men consider that the sufferings of Jesus be a failure to establish the real meaning of it for so many years. These protestant are like those followers in John 6 who did not understand Jesus when he said that the bread he gives is his flesh to eat.
Amen, very well put. Love from Ireland 🇮🇪
That’s right!!! Absolutely right!!!
Anggaling ng pagkaka-explain!
@C Mendonca it is not even as simple as that ... as Luther (and Lutherans to this day) still believed in a real presence (described as "on and around" the Eucharist). So the belief in a "symbolic Eucharist" was "invented" by later reformers who broke away from the original reformers into their own Protestant churches ... driven by their own interpretation of the bible, which was/is their sole authority.
In a similar way, a "symbolic baptism" also came about by some churches after the Reformation.
@@pboyle3723 actually I can believe what you are saying may be correct. Cos many of the protestant denominations still believe the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist such as the Angelicans. But what they don't understand is for transubstanciation to happen you need the priest who is in the line of Melchizedek which is only through apostolic succession of laying on of hands. I also believe that actually Martin Luther's intention to reform was not wrong as there was lots of wrong going in the church. But christian reforms must be based on sacrifice, by staying in the church and voicing out even if you have to lose your life. But he divided the church by started another group. His behaviour gave the rest of the people who started other denominations the courage to do that for they did not feel the guilt of starting more churches and dividing the church further. Jesus wants us to be one as he is one with the Father.
@@pboyle3723 , that's right!!!
You are absolutely on point!
Love these videos; like fresh air everytime they come out.
You are absolutely correct: the new testament= the new covenant= the eucharist
Bergsma really helps explain the Biblical languages and the Jewish service in relation to the Eucharist.
Dr. Bergsma is the real deal. A true educator of Chris. God Bless You John and Thank You..
I don’t think I’ve ever heard that explained so well
AWESOME! Congratulations on the quality of the explanation.
I lament how many years I received communion without really believing... I feel like He has to make it known on a personal level. He did that for me at the Adoration Chapel
Well, I can understand your feelings. But don't lament it. You probably wouldn't be where you are today without that "season" in your life. God, through your life experiences, is drawing you to Him. Just be glad about that! I, for one, am happy for you! Pax Christi.
Compelling! Thank you for your guidance 👍😊
Funny. I lived in Groton CT for years and went to Pleasant Valley Baptist Church for years. Left CT, in 82 because the Navy brought our family to Wa.Small world. Thanks for a great video.
"And this food is called among us Eucharistia, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 153 AD)
The middle ages?
“In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilty conscience. Such is the Way of Life…On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your SACRIFICE may be pure.”
- Didache, 4:14,14:1 (c. A.D. 90)
I also found confession in the bible. Although not explicitly mentioned but atleast, Paul urges everyone to confess to them.
2 Corinthians 5:18-20 speak about the MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION and succeeding verse, Paul points out that in order to reconciled to God you need TO OPEN UP YOUR HEARTS TO THEM. These succeeding chapters are calling for repentance and forgiveness and would you that? You need to confess you sins to them. Paul said
2 Cor 6:11-13
"We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. 12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. 13 As a fair exchange-I speak as to my children-OPEN WIDE YOUR HEARTS ."
2 Cor 7:2
"MAKE ROOM FOR US IN YOUR HEARTS. We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have exploited no one"
to some up, since they are ambassador of Christ through the ministry of reconciliation, be reconciled to God through them by opening your hearts to them... That sounds very catholic confession...
Paul was a member of the church of Christ where A Cappella singing is authorized by Christ!
Don't be a menu reader only, order the dish. Well said.
Thank you so much.😇🙏❤️
🙏 Thank you!!!
I learned in a scripture study some years back the BEST WAY I understand the Eucharist...words mean...
“DO THIS TO MAKE ME PRESENT!”
You mean Jesus won't be present in your life unless you take the Eucharist?
Why does Jesus go to all the trouble of saying "But I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I am leaving; for if I do not leave, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you." John 16:7
Don’t cherry pick. Scripts as such does not convey any meaning.
@@JJ-nn8kr What?
@christocentric "Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” Pleasantly savored the Lord’s flesh in his mouth. The Lord, however, expounded to them, and said, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth.” After He had said, “Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him,” *lest they should understand it carnally,* He said, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing: the words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life."
(Augustine, Lectures on the Gospel of John, Tractate 11, Paragraph 5)
@christocentric Carnal = Physical
He is opposing the idea of physical eating.
if he believed in the "Real Presence" it is *not* because of John 6
Hello I just hit 👍#265 ,from Fresno California love this channel
Thank you ❤
Outstanding!
I have a question. Since the wine is no longer offered in communion (the eucarist) is that breaking the covenant for all who accept the wafer without the wine (the body without the blood)? I was raised a Lutheran, and we always had individual glasses, which seemed more hygienic, and I just wonder why the Vatican chose to abandon the eucharist, rather than offering individual glasses. It's really bothering me, the more I think about it. If I go back to the Lutheran Church, I will be able to obey Jesus Christ, taking full communion as He commanded. The priests take the full eucharist, both wafer and wine. Obedience to Jesus Christ is what's important to me, not obedience to the Vatican.
Great question. The Catholic belief is that the consecrated bread is Him - all of Him. Body, blood, soul, and divinity. Similarly, the consecrated wine is Him - all of Him. Body, blood, soul, and divinity. As such, if you just receive His body - you've got all of Him. If you just receive His blood - you've got all of Him. So we do not break the covenant by receiving under just one species. Now, when we celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass, the priest must consecrate both the bread and the wine separately - just as Christ did. But we need not receive both in order to fulfill the covenant. Pax Christi.
Amazing!
He sounds stopped up ,like he has a cold.
Prayers going his way!🙏
Yeah I was thinking the same. it looks like he has a stuffy nose
God said let it be... and there it is!
Actually, John Lennon said that.
It is a sign of Jesus life(spirit) which he gave for our salvation ,it is a sign of God's love, it is a sign of God's presence (bread or meal of God's presence), a sign of God's mercy and lastly a sign of new covenant, but we offer the same sacred bread and wine as a sacrifice of thanks giving to God for redeeming us by Jesus sacrifice, and what Jesus meant by saying do this in remembrance of me is we also should offer our lives for the sake of others salvation which is an act of greater love
I watched this video one year on. Its a powerful exegesis that ends with a powerful unapologetic punch line. It occurred to me also that Jesus actually made the ritual sacrifice even more perfect by combining the cereal offering with the blood offering (rather like reconciling Cain and Abel's sacrifices making them both totally acceptable to the Father- though I am not sure this is a good theological interpretation). On the other hand making interpretations of the Gospels and ritual while being historically and culturally separated from the origin (and therefore in ignorance of the source custom) seems rather querulous. It works if your aim is to destroy the priesthood I suppose which is not the role Christ established by his own actions and bequeathment.
I thank you for this video, but there is one question for me to ask: Why did Jesus asked for us to eat and drink he's flesh and blood when in old testament it is forbidden? You know Moses rules that animal blood must be poured down and not drinked because there is soul in blood right?
Maybe that's the point. We want to become like Jesus, no one or nothing else. We worship the creator not the created.
Good stuff
yes
Please correct me if I’m wrong. Do you guys believe Jesus Christ is a literal lamb who was led to the slaughter or is the lamb symbolic of the sacrifices made throughout the Old Testament for the forgiveness of sin. Also, when we partake in the Eucharist are you saying we are literally eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood which was absolutely forbidden which is why many disciples stopped following Jesus when He told them they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Can I say Jesus is present with the church when we partake in the Eucharist but is it necessary to say We are literally eating Him and drinking Hid blood. I await your response and thank you for your time. God bless 🙏❤️
"And this food is called among us Eucharistia, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 153 AD)
Peace be with you.
“Your Lord is seated at the Father’s right hand in heaven. How then is the bread His body? And the chalice, or rather its content, how is it His Blood? These elements are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is perceived by the sense and another thing by the mind. What is seen has a bodily appearance; what the mind perceives produces spiritual fruit. You hear the words, ‘The Body of Christ’, and you answer ‘Amen.’”
Anyone who doesn’t believe in the real presence of the Eucharist, has not been drawn into the mystery of the cross fully yet.
13:30 😁
How would or could and even why should any thing that Jesus said or did be taken as or understood to be or be unto us in its most minimum sense or its least magnificent dimension rather that as a glorious revelation.
😲🤯🤔
So. Is it a sacrifice or a symbol? Transubstantiation or not? 🤔
Sacrifice: Yes, Symbol: Yes, Transubstantiation: Yes... Jesus is Awesome!
roman catholic apologists keep hedging on whether the eucharist is symbolic or sacrifice. they can't make up their minds either...
Two things can be true at the same time. The point is that is Jesus present sacramentally.
Wikipedia:
"The Catholic Church states that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine. It maintains that by the consecration, the substances of the bread and wine actually become the substances of the body and blood of Jesus Christ (transubstantiation) while the appearances or "species" of the bread and wine remain unaltered (e.g. colour, taste, feel, and smell).
The bread and wine remain bread and wine in the real world but in the Catholic world of make believe it changes into the body and blood of a Jewish preacher who believed he was the son of a Jewish god.
I say this, if the eucharist is just the symbol, what's the point of it at all? Does it not just become some ritual then where people are just going through the motions because someone told them do? Does it not just become people eating some crackers and drinking grape juice cuz Jesus said to? lol. There's no real spiritual benefit from the protestant eucharist the way I understand it, it's just a routine cuz the bible says to do it. I know some protestants believe in the real presence, but most don't and just believe it's a symbol and have the symbolic communion where they believe they are just eating bread and drinking wine for no benefit other than to do what Jesus said
Yep in Protestant churches, it’s very, very earnest. they want it to be significant and meaningful sooo badly. And it’s so empty. And it makes no sense.
🇻🇦👍✌❤🙋🏻♂️
EUCHARIST MEANS “THANKSGIVING.”
THAT’S ALL IT MEANS!
My flesh is real food.
Jn 6
"And this food is called among us Eucharistia, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 153 AD)
Peace be with you.
@@andrewferg8737 ,
Correct!
The early church has gotten the definition wrong ever since the second century!
@@andrewferg8737 ,
This “Last Supper” which Jesus shared with His disciples is the model for the Lord’s Supper, which Jesus’ followers kept after His death and resurrection. This meal was the Christian Passover, in which the new covenant sealed by Jesus’ death and resurrection was remembered and renewed. Because the Greek word for “give thanks” is Eucharistein, many Christians since the second century have called the Lord’s Supper the “Eucharist.”
There is no excuse for that kind of blunder!
Priests so often love the attention and respect and honour which they receive in offering the Eucharist but although it is indeed a solemn ritual, it is merely a remembrance ceremony of what Christ has done.
It is a reflection, a looking back of what Christ accomplished on the cross. Whereas the Passover meal looked forward to the final Lamb of God who would one day in the future become the atonement sacrifice, the Eucharist or Holy Communion can only now reflect or look back what Christ accomplished.
What more can you do or add to what Christ had already accomplished by his atonement death on the cross.
We are constantly and incessantly filled with gratetude and love for GOD through our Lord Jesus Christ who gave his life a ransom for our sins.
We need to be careful to make the actual Eucharist in itself the centre of attention and admiration as if it is some magical ritual whereas our sole focus and attention filled with awe and gratetude and admiration should only be focused on Christ and his atonement death on the cross.
The Mass is not merely a remembrance ceremony. It is the passover of Christ. During passover the Jews believe they are mystically reunited to the Exodus, it becomes present to them, that's why during the seder meal the son says he believes it's because of what happened in Exodus that he/his family are present today.
Every Mass we are transported mystically back in time to the Upper Room and Calvary, we are present in the Upper Room and at the foot of the Cross. The Eucharist is our Manna from Heaven as per Christs words in John 6:56 “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
King Josiah instituted the first protestant reformation in 640BC-609BC, he protested against the liturgy in Solomons Temple. He removed the altar, the anointing oil, the incense, the Menorah and the Bread of the Presence (showbread). He was protesting what God had instituted in His covenant with Solomon. The Essene and Qumran sects saw the above acts as insulting God and desecrating the Temple, they viewed the Second Temple as corrupt.. Christ the high priest-king instituted a new Temple with new Priests and a new Sacrifice and reinstated the Melchizedek priesthood hence all Catholic priests belong to the Order of Melchizedek which is pre-mosaic.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker
Good point however my contention and respectful submission remains that in the same manner in which we no longer observe the Sabbath, as the Seventh Day Adventists insist we do, as Christ fullfilled the Sabbath as the Sabbath was merely a sign of the Mosaic Covenant to point us to Christ, so the Passover meal was fullfilled in Christ as He indeed is the Living Bread and the Lamb of GOD.
Although as Christians we meet on Sundays, we don't need to do so either, we can meet any time in the week.
Christ fullfilled all the symbolism in the Passover meal, which we can now merely reflect upon in remembrance.
We need to causion against becoming legalistic and placing unnecessary burdens upon people. It is finished, Christ fullfilled all the requirements of the Law and was the final atonement sacrifice for GOD's elect.
@@mosesmanaka8109 Catholics have Mass 7 days a week. I know many people, myself included who go to 7am/8am Mass before work Monday to Friday. Sunday Mass is an obligation which means we have to attend. Hebrew Catholics in Israel and elsewhere usually attend Saturday Mass.
SDAs are a heretical cult. I place no value in what they have to say as they have no authority from Christ. They have no documented history linking them directly back to Christ and Peter and the Church that Christ started in Matthew 16 and appointed Peter and his successors to be stewards over and watch in his absence as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker
I acknowledge your point, thank you.
Take care, God Bless you.
👌👍👊
So the Holy Eucharist is the New Testament: All the Gospels and epistles are existentialism of the Holy Eucharist. Again Protestantism is defeated in the New Testament by the very New Testament texts,
?Contra Lev 17:10_14,i.e. Jesus himself could not pronounce such words! (as some scholars point out about it).More, in John 6 one has "sarx"/flesh and St.paula nd Synoptics-"soma"/ body. Consequently, this and old Tradition's interpretation is a theological BS.
We must believe and must have strong faith what is written in the Bible
@@saleempatras5935 Only a whip on your dumb head will be effective to teach you bascis@e.g., Catechism nr.109