This Teaching From Jesus COMPLETELY Contradicts Catholicism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- This teaching from Jesus COMPLETELY contradicts Catholicism… In this video, Josh Buice discusses the problem with transubstantiation, and emphasizes the sufficiency of Jesus’ sacrifice for mankind.
Support G3 Ministries:
g3min.org/give/
G3 Ministries:
g3min.org
Facebook:
/ g3conference
X (formerly Twitter):
x.com/G3Confer...
Instagram:
/ g3conference
" For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified."-Heb. 10:14.
You’re interpreting this incorrectly, as in the very same chapter he teaches that these same people can fall away Hebrews 10:26+
@@catholictruth102 I interpret nothing. I merely quoted the God breathed, written word of the living Word of God. His word stands as written.
@@jamestrotter3162 Yeah, anyone can quote any scripture, it’s important to have the correct sense about what it means and what the author intended. Your sense (that one cannot fall away) is incorrect.
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Isaiah 64:6
@@catholictruth102 according to you.
Greetings from Westwood Baptist Church in Nashville, Tennessee!
"Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient. It cannot and will not be repeated." Amen.
Praise God for Jesus' perfect, effective, once-for-all sacrifice.
The men of my church are studying the book of Hebrews together this year. It has been wonderful to reflect on these truths.
Amen!
Who is claiming Jesus’ sacrifice is not sufficient and needs to be repeated? Definitely not the Catholic Church.
So the Westwood Baptist church likes to break the 10 commandments, maybe they forgot; you should not bear false witness.
@@thejerichoconnection3473, consider the contrast between the official teaching of Rome and the teaching of the Scriptures:
If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema. If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me, Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.
If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
(Council of Trent, Session Twenty-Two, Canons 1-3)
[Jesus] has no need, like those [Levitical] high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.
He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.
(Hebrews 7:27; 9:12, 28; 10:12)
In other words, you don't understand Catholicism. The sacrifice of the Mass is not a repeat of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. They're ONE AND THE SAME sacrifice.
The earliest church fathers, for example, Ignatius of Antioch, wrote in 106 AD, of the importance of the Eucharist as the flesh of Christ, and called those who refuse to call the Eucharist the flesh of Christ as heretics. Justin Martyr, in 150 AD, professed the same. Is it more likely that these earliest fathers (Ignatius writing only 10 years after the passing of John) were right, or the reformers 1500 years later are right? Even Martin Luther, the first reformist, believed in the real presence alongside the bread and wine, though not through transubstantiation.
If you want to know what the earliest Christians believed and practiced, read what they wrote.
Well said Brother...I have long called Martin Luther a reform er...but believers of the Roman System don't want to hear that. After 500 + years they're still angry and Hate'n on Martin.
It was so important to the early church that they would not even consider modern day protestants to be Christians.
Paul's writings show us how early false teachers were creeping into the church. Sounds like their work here.
JUSTIN MARTYR
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
I was thinking of St. Justin Martry's First Apology as well.
“The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the SYMBOL of the sacred blood” -Justin Martyr
RCC misses the mark completely on John 6, and obviously Christ would not teach Jews to violate the law. The prohibition against literally drinking blood is obvious all throughout the Bible (Genesis 9:4-5, Leviticus 3:17, Deuteronomy 12:16, Ezekiel 33:25, etc. And the early church gave the same command: “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the nations who are turning to God. Instead, we should write to them to abstain from food polluted by idols...from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. (Acts 15:19-20)
I pray that your eyes are opened to this heresy. The RCC is not the church of Christ, but clearly Rome. The same Rome that persecuted and killed believers for sharing the gospel became the Roman Catholic Church and continued to persecute and kill believers. Just think about that for a second, the “true church of Christ” burned, persecuted, and murdered thousands of believers. And what was their crime? Sharing the gospel, making the Word of God accessible to all as Christ commanded. The fact that you can even read a Bible, let alone John 6, in English is due to a “heretic” persecuted and murdered by the Catholic Church.
@@scase1023 Your quote is not from Justin but from Clement of Alexandria in The Instructor (Book II). Also, the subject of his discussion is about drinking alcohol in general. His topic is not the Eucharist at all.
In book I, chapter six of his Paedagogus (The Instructor of Children), St. Clement affirms that the Eucharist is both symbolic and the Real Presence, i.e., the body and blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. First, he discusses its symbolic value:
"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when he said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both - of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood."
Later in the same chapter, he affirms the Real Presence:
"Eat my flesh, he says, and drink my blood (John 6:53-5). Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and he offers his flesh and pours forth his blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O, amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving him if we can, to hide him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh."
If the Eucharist were purely a symbol, it wouldn’t be an “amazing mystery.” The Real Presence is further affirmed by St. Clement’s assertion that we hide Christ within us in receiving the Eucharist, “enshrining the Savior in our souls.” This can’t happen if the Eucharist were merely bread and wine and thus only a symbol of his body and blood.
With regard to the prohibitions against drinking blood, consider Jesus’s command to drink his blood in John chapter six, when he says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you.” The implication is that there is a positive command there, drink my blood. Whether you take that symbolically or literally, either position you take, you still see that Jesus is issuing a command to drink his blood. Even in a symbolic view, if drinking blood were absolutely immoral and contrary to the natural moral law, well then surely Jesus would not be commanding us to do something immoral even to symbolically enact such an immoral activity.
So the command against drinking blood must be part of the ceremonial law, not the natural law. Also, Jesus says in Mark 7:15, “There’s nothing outside of man which by going into him can defile him.” It’s not the blood going in that’s going to defile him, but the things which come out of a man will defile him. Okay? Now Mark tells us in verse 19, “When Jesus said this, he declared all foods clean.” That would include blood.
The passage of Leviticus 17, rather than being a challenge to the Catholic position actually provides a rationale as to why Jesus would command us to drink his blood. Because in, verse 18 of Leviticus 17 it does talk about the reason why they were abstaining from the blood of the animals offered in sacrifice and to just animals in general, because they believe the life of the animal was in the blood. Life is in the blood.
And so now we come to Jesus and Jesus tells us that if we want his life, if we want eternal life, we need to drink his blood. And that makes sense against this Jewish sort of background of how they viewed the life of the animal and the blood. You want the life of the thing whose blood you partaking of? You want the life of the thing? Then you partake of its blood. And here Jesus against that backdrop is commanding us, his disciples, to drink his blood. Why? So that we can have his life. Why? Because life is in the blood. So rather than Leviticus 17:10 and its context posing a threat to the Catholic belief in the Eucharist, it actually supports it. It provides a rationale as to why Jesus would give us his blood and that he commands us to give us his blood.
There seems to be a complete fundamental divide in gospel and salvation between Eastern Orthodox/catholics and Protestants
There seems to be no assurance of salvation from Eastern Orthodoxy / Catholicism if you don’t have assurance of the hope of salvation being solely relied upon what Christ did for us on the cross then what are we basing our assurance on? If you lost your salvation at every sin at every missed good work then there would be no hope for any one of us. If you don’t have the foundational faith of relying solely on the perfect atoning sacrifice for all sins past present and future by Christ then we don’t have any hope of salvation. By understanding that fundamental truth of Christ is what motivates and changes our hearts.
By trusting in his promise is what sanctifies us, we are called out and set apart for calling upon his name. There is no magical threshold of good works that suddenly atones for our sin. If I never take part in communion but live off the words of GOD and trust in the finished work of Christ then I will be risen on the day of the Lords return. The moment I believed in the Christ my name is written in the book of life and neither myself nor any power or principality can jeopardize the love GOD has for me, he is faithful when we are unfaithful and his mercy and grace covers all sins.
I ofc by no means am encouraging a sinful lifestyle however it is important to realize the power of truly believing in the sacrifice made by Christ. By clinging to his promise it changes us. Which is why James 2:17 is explains how for those who truly cling to Christ for the atonement of their sin will show fruit of such life changing belief. It’s not that works save you but it’s that they prove you believe because by believing it changes your motivations and behaviors.
If I believe in Christ Jesus and his atoning sacrifice for my sins but die before taking part in communion do I not see paradise?
It is solely relying on what Christ did for you on the cross that saves you by his work, by his mercy and his grace. His atoning sacrifice is sufficient.
So, without realizing it, you are saying the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church had it completely wrong for SIXTEEN CENTURIES but Protestants were smarter? WHICH Protestant Church among thousands, since THEY can't agree? You CAN'T EVEN describe what the Catholic Church teaches with ANY accuracy! Does it ever occur to you how ludicrous your comments sound? Totally devoid of common sense and reason? The Holy Spirit couldn't get it right until the Protestants came along? You have SO MUCH to learn on how to ascertain the truth. Accept the VERY REAL LIKELIHOOD that you are completely wrong. You are giving your flawed opinion...or are YOU claiming infallibility? Sorry...no. You are actually disagreeing with Jesus in the bible. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide HIS CHURCH into all truth, not thousands of Protestant churches 16 centuries later. For the first 1000 years, reputable historians will tell you there was ONLY ONE Christian Church...the Catholic Church that Jesus founded. Did Jesus lie and FAIL to have the Spirit guide His Church for SIXTEEN HUNDRED YEARS ??? Until Protestants came along 16 centuries later...and STILL SPLINTERING? That is ABSURD.
And yet, you do not even believe Christ. How can you be saved if you don't Truly believe and Trust Christ?
@@tabandken8562 except i do believe in Christ, but we are to agree that there is no contradictions with or in the word of GOD. A works based salvation is not biblical However faith alone is.
Romans 3:24 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Ephesians 2:8 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
@@JesusLife247 You believe your interpretation of Scripture is infallible and that the Church that wrote the NT is not. That means you don't Trust Jesus who said He'll leave the Holy Spirit to His Church to guide the Church to all Truth and you don't Trust the Holy Spirit to do just that.
The Catholic Church does not teach a works based Salvation. The Church teaches a Grace based Salvation. With that Grace you will have faith and you will do good works and love. If you don't have love, you won't be saved. Saving love has works.
@@tabandken8562 very round about way of saying you believe in a works based salvation but ok. I have my trust in the one who claimed to be GOD in flesh, i have my faith in his words and his promise. He layed down his life and bore my punishment for my inequities. JESUS CHRIST is the only reason i have any hope or assurance of salvation because that is precisely what the gospel is, it is GOD reconciling us to him through the sacrifice of his son. It is not a church institution or a group of men that decide what is infallible it is the living word of GOD because it is incorruptible timeless and prefect, his words and his promises never change.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I examine my interpretations through a biblical lens not through traditions of men, "the church" did not write the NT, the writers of the letters and gospels wrote the NT, ie (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, and Jude). the church didnt write the NT they simply recognized it
"All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made.". "He is in all and through all."
He is in all Christians.
Transubstantiation is false. “Faith Alone” is also false.
As a reminder of “God’s Plan of Salvation”, You must HEAR the gospel, you must BELIEVE, you must REPENT, you must CONFESS, you must be BAPTIZED for the remission of sins, you must be FAITHFUL unto death.
There are two things about salvation that go together that must be rejected as well. Salvation of faith alone (another false doctrine) and the Sinner’s Prayer. I’ve already just explained why at this point “faith alone” is not sufficient based on God’s Plan of Salvation. The “Sinner’s Prayer” is neither biblical nor scriptural and none of the passages used to support “sinner’s prayer” salvation work as advertised. The Reformers know that “Faith Only” just does not make any sense either Biblically or practically. Here is the problem: It is just too vague. When exactly is one saved? Don’t say, “at the point of faith alone without any works of obedience.” No one really believes that and that is NOT what the Bible teaches! There has to be some point of practical reference in which (at which) one goes from “being unsaved to being saved.” Where is that point in real time? Exactly when does the “new life in Christ” begin? With “Faith Only” there is just no real perceived point that is easily clarified in the minds of men. It is just too vague and nebulous. (“Faith Only” is a great sounding doctrine, but it is a lousy one when it comes to practice and practical implementation.)
So, enter the “Sinner’s Prayer”! Now we have an actual moment, a line of demarcation, a dividing point from the old life to the new life. A time that can be specifically identified (and remembered) when someone “gets saved.” The Sinner’s Prayer is only the result of the doctrines and commandments of men, not God. It is a sorry attempt to fix the defective doctrine of “Faith Only.” What is more, it does not do a very good job of it. Saying the sinner’s prayer is simply a way of declaring to God that you are relying on Jesus Christ as your Savior. There are no "magical" words that result in salvation.
It is NOT faith alone, but faith working in harmony with working obedience. You see when Paul talked about faith in Romans, his concept of faith was one that worked. He started the letter with, “Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ” (Romans 1:5-6). And he ended his letter on the same note. “Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith” (Romans 16:25-26). The Bible doesn’t teach that salvation is exclusively by faith. That was a doctrine that originated with men. The Bible has always taught that salvation occurs when faith is joined by obedient action to the commands of God.
It's weird how many Roman Catholics just randomly popped into this one comment section lol. Roman Catholics also believe that Jesus is a literal door since He said, "I am the door" in John 10. They must also believe He's a plant since He said in John 15, "I am the vine” ... Roman Catholicism and hermeneutics aren't really a thing unfortunately. We as Protestants don't care what your church teaches or what Roman Catholic history teaches, we care what the BIBLE teaches. Roman Catholicism contradicts the Bible over and over and over and over and over. The old testament points to Christ over and over and never does it point to Mary, yet the RCC has elevated her to a goddess. Of course they'll deny this but we see the fruit. I suggest the book series "2000 Years of Christ's Power" by Nick Needham. It's an unbiased tracking of church history from beginning to today and you can see CLEARLY where things started to get weird and unbiblical with the split of the church into the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Don't just study Roman Catholic history, study ALL church history.
Heresy: That special moment when you have greater spiritual insight than the Apostles, Disciples, Apostolic Fathers, the Church, and the Magisterium because you have a Bible that they wrote, compiled, and gave to you. 😑
I suggest you start reading Dr Scott Hahn, and listening to Joshua Charles, Trent Horn, Erik Ybarra et al as your authors post revisionism and confirmation bias are obvious
“We don’t care what Roman Catholics teach” continues to comment….lol
The reason we all pop up in here is because prods lie incessantly about what Christs Church teaches- you are being corrected, be grateful and humble for correction.
Well, you do care what the Catholic Church teaches, at least til about 70A.D because you accept the New Testament. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament. You don't even realize that you reject the Holy Spirit by believing that the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the Catholic Church in all Truth by 70 A.D at the Last stroke of the pen. You don't realize that by rejecting the Catholic Church, you reject Jesus and you don't Trust Jesus.
@@tabandken8562 The Catholic Church put the New Testament together. They did not write it. Just saying since accuracy is required.
Of the three major reformers, only Zwingli held that Christ was not really present in some way in the bread of the Lord's Supper. And Luther thought Zwingli's teaching, that the bread and wine are only symbolic, was a teaching from the Devil. It is not only the Catholic Church that understands John 6 to refer to Jesus's real presence in the elements of the Lord's Supper although there are differences in exactly how Jesus is present and the sacrificial nature of His presence.
The reason we have so many “Reformed” churches is the frivolous interpretation of scripture by rejecting tradition. But in this instance the teaching Jesus gave when he told his disciples to eat his flesh and without it they would not have life with in them, is probably the most down to earth statement he may ever have offered. It is not allegorical.
And as such non negotiable.
70% of US Catholics agree with this sophistry promoted here. This error isn’t longer only Protestantism. I guess many priests have been guided to believe in allegories of the Eucharist. It’s only a remnant of Christians that honour the Eucharist as given us from the earliest sources. And by the way Catholics wrote and used the scriptures. The “reformations” were misguided innovations and a power grab under the guise of piety. It’s all coming apart as we speak.
It’s always interesting to me how Protestants can’t afford to allow scripture to say and mean what it says. As soon as he reads,
“So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
John 6:53 ESV
He goes straight into personal interpretation mode because there’s no way Jesus could have meant what he said!
I’m thankful for the Christian church. We don’t have to messiahsplain for Jesus. He says, “take, eat, this is my body.” Christians say, amen. Protestants say, “erm, actually Jesus, that is just a SYMBOL of your body..”
You also miss the fact that Jesus broke all kinds of Jewish laws-he touched dead things, he called all foods clean (which nullifies your blood argument), he violated sabbath laws, etc.
escape the cult of Rome before you die and go to Hell
See my comment below. The symbolic view predates the Reformation and indeed goes back to numerous early church fathers. The idea that this somehow got invented at the Reformation just isn't supported historically. This doctrine is not one I particularly get hung up on when considering differences I have with Catholic doctrine. But it's fascinating to me that Catholics believe that only recently did people magically refuse to take Jesus at his word and that Protestants definitely misunderstand or deny "what Jesus clearly said." If it was that clear, so many early church fathers wouldn't have espoused the symbolic view, and so many respectable non-Catholic theologians wouldn't have other understandings.
So you literally eat God then? Cause, if you have some of Jesus's flesh, let me know where to get some 😂 Jesus spoke with a lot of figurative language and hyperbole and rhetoric, this ain't it.
He also restored the image of god. He fulfilled the law because he gave the law, he is not under the law given to Moses.
Jesus did not violate any of God's sabbath laws; it was the people of the time who actually didn't understand their meaning and took them to an extreme that God never intended. This is why people think Jesus violated the laws but in reality he corrected the people's misunderstanding of the laws. Had Jesus actually broke any of God's actual laws, his sacrifice would have meant nothing because he would not have been worthy.
I've read all of the Roman Catholic dogmas when I came to faith in Christ. These were the official teachings of the church as of 16 years ago. Everything this man said is true. Transubstantiation is not biblical along with many other false teachings of the church. One of the main false teachings is the papacy itself.
No one has ever been appointed vicar of Christ by Gods authority. There is one mediator between our Father in Heaven and we the body.
I believe you all know who this is!
God Bless all who trust in Jesus as our God and Savior😁
Jesus gave Peter the Keys. They Keys represent Jesus's Authority. Jesus is God. God gave Peter the Keys of His Authority.
John 6:63 is the verse where Jesus sums up the interpretation of His teaching:
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
Nope. That’s exactly where all Protestants stumble. Jesus is actually saying exactly the opposite of what you think he is saying.
Jesus had just finished saying that his flesh is true food indeed and his blood is true drink indeed and you think that after a few seconds he would contradict himself so badly? Do you think he suffered from some form of cognitive dissonance?
Obviously he never said *his* flesh avails nothing. He said that flesh (purely human flesh) avails nothing. That’s exactly why his flesh is true food, because it’s not simply human flesh, it’s divinized flesh, it’s flesh imbued with Holy Spirit.
Believing Christ’s flesh avails nothing equals believing he is purely a human being (not divine). Your interpretation ultimately denies the divinity of Christ. That’s why Jesus was so firm in rebuking those who did not accept this hard teaching.
Don’t be like those incredulous followers who abandoned Jesus on this crucial teaching of his.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 Exactly correct. In John 6:66 it says, " From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." This is the verse where men who were His disciples rejected Christ and His teaching about eating and drinking His flesh and blood exactly because they understood him literally, not figuratively. Our Lord did not call them back, exclaiming they misunderstood and that He was speaking only metaphorically. He let them go. Ominously, John 6:66 is the ONLY PLACE in the entire New Testament where the number "6-6-6" occurs - and whose mark is that?!?!
@patrickbump5955 we put the verse numbers down centuries and centuries later
@@thejerichoconnection3473 You NAILED it! Exactly. Protestants will grasp at ANY straw to deny the obvious, for no better reason that it is a teaching of the Catholic Church, and John 6 is some of the most plain, obvious language in scripture....supported by his disciples and early church fathers.
@@patrickbump5955 Correct. It (becoming the true body and blood of Christ) is so obvious except to all who REFUSE to see, like His followers who walked awy
Brother, I would encourage to dig a little deeper into church history on this one. What the Church teaches today is in perfect accord with what the Church universally and unanimously held until the Reformation, with the exception of some isolated heretics who also denied other essentials of the faith. Your view would have gotten you labeled as heterodox at best, a schismatic or heretic at worst by every last Church Father, the same ones who gave us our orthodoxy regarding the Trinity, Christology, and the NT Canon.
No, there are several early church fathers who clearly held the view that the Lord's Supper is symbolic. I don't claim the view was universal, but it can't be said that the symbolic view only started at the Reformation, and it points to the fact that this has always been an issue under dispute. Tertullian, when disputing the gnostic heretic Marcion, wrote "Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying 'This is My body,' that is, the symbol of my body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed 'in His blood' affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh." (--Tertullian, from "Against Marcion") Here Tertullian was arguing against the gnostic assertion that matter is evil and Jesus did not possess a real body. I can't write the full quotes here, but some others are: "...the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body...and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood." (--Justin Martyr, "Dialogue with Trypho") "The scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood." (Clement of Alexandria, "The Instructor") "We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist." (Origin, "Against Celsus") "I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ." (Cyprian, Epistle 63) "For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death....He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food...." (Eusibius of Caesarea, Proof of the Gospel) "What He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him." (Athanasius, "Festal Letter") "Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth...Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood." (Augustine, "Exposition of the Psalms) " 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." (Augustine, "On Christian Doctrine") Also in the Didache the unknown authors in Section 10 concerning the prayer after communion seem to refer to the Eucharist elaborated on in Section 9 as "spiritual food and drink." Ignatius and Irenaeus both reiterate the words of Jesus in "Letter to the Smyrnaeans" and "Against Heresies" respectively, and some conclude that means they held a non-symbolic view such as the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation or maybe the Lutheran view (I won't call it consubstantiation because they don't seem to like that), and I don't argue that too much, because it may be the case that was indeed their view. However, it is worth noting--and I find it persuasive--that in both cases they were arguing against gnostics who denied Jesus had a physical body, and their writings in those sections focus on trying to get across that Jesus did indeed have a physical body. It may well be that they were highlighting Jesus' words not to show their views on communion, but to emphasize the fact Jesus claimed to possess a real, physical body. Anyway, I don't get bogged down by this difference in Catholicism and myself. I don't think the guy in this video quite gets Catholic doctrine right, at least as it has been explained to me by Catholics. My understanding is that the Eucharist does not re-present a NEW or different sacrifice as the video suggests, but rather that each Eucharist at mass is a re-presentation of the ONE sacrifice, meaning that each Eucharist is tied to the same, one-time sacrifice of Christ, not a new, different sacrifice. It is therefore incorrect to suggest that Catholics don't think Christ's work is "complete" on the cross. His work is complete, but rather the difference Catholics and Protestants have is that Catholic belief teaches they are constantly being "infused" with the righteousness of Christ through the Eucharist--always tied to the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ--whereas Protestants believe Christ's righteousness is "imputed" to us via the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. This seems to be a common misunderstanding amongst Protestants regarding Catholic belief (that is, if I correctly understand the beliefs myself). The infusion/imputation debate is where Catholics and Protestants should focus their disagreement on, instead of the false notion that Catholics are "re-sacrificing" Christ in the Eucharist, or that they don't believe Christ's work was completed at Calvary. All that said, while I don't get bogged down in the area of doctrine of the Supper, I do wish to point out that the transubstantiation view was hardly universal prior to the Reformation and indeed the early church.
It doesn't matter what church "fathers" say or think. They are flawed men just like me. But HE who made EVERYTHING is the supreme authority! Supreme!!!
@@Landon_Rif it was only symbolic why would people freak out about "eating his body" and leave? Also, why would Jesus use a word meant to never be used in a figurative sense?
@@isaacramos8052 the only people who say the Fathers don’t matter are those whose theology is opposed to them.
@@midairfortress Listen, I'll say it again. I don't follow man's theology, and neither should you! Follow the Lord's theology. That is why the Catholic church holds their traditions in higher esteem than the Word of God! Catholics are led by men (fallible words), Christians are led by God (infallible word)
If the Sacraments hold no efficacy, why would church discipline bar people from the Table? What is church Discipline with out the Table?
What table ?
@@malcolmscrivener8750 the communion table, lords supper.
Their Main Argument
For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?
Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”-is that what he was saying? Hardly.
The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b-18).
In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15-16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.
Also in John 6:63, “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44-45, 65).
Paul Confirms This
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
What Did the First Christians Say?
Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.
Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).
Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or 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 nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1-20).
Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. “You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).
Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, “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” (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).
In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: “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 to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).
Unanimous Testimony
Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.
I’ve no reason to argue in the current sense of “argue”, but I just thought reading through a few of these answers. These are real, if a bit frivolous questions.If transubstantiation is real. If I were to take communion at my local RM church, and didn’t swallow either and spit them out, as an experiment, would they become foul? Like actual blood or meat?
It may be obvious that I know little about Catholic doctrine.
Both Luther and Calvin hold real presence in the supper. The main protestant issue is less about the ontological reality of the elements (Luther, Calvin , Zwingli disagreed about the what and how), and more about the notion that the person of Christ is re sacrificed, implying a continuation of an sacrificial system of atonement. Hebrews is clear that system is fulfilled with Christ.
A better question may ask, when was Christ sacrificed? Scripturally that is very interesting? on Golgotha 2000 years ago? yes...... before the foundation of the world, yes. still slain in the future Heaven.... yes. So The work of Christ is the center of history not a one time event in history. With that perception the question of the supper becomes more intriguing and hopefully less divisive. We are called to unite around the table.
ua-cam.com/video/JRlSUBkJkQw/v-deo.html
@@MrGruver1 the only thing foul is you🤦♀️
_They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?_
No, Jesus said that.
*“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail;*
Why are you dishonest and say people are saying that and not Jesus who said it. That's what those who's position is untenable do to delegitimize the source of the criticism, falsely claim what the authoritative source of the criticism against them is.
@@Christus-totalis _The main protestant issue is less about the ontological reality_
No, the main Catholic issue is that they try to delegitimize Christians by calling them "protestants". That way they can assume a sense of superiority and don't have to defend their religion's anti-Christian problems.
Literally every early Church Father disagrees with you. Holy Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. Eucharistic miracles would suggest transubstantiation is true. Jesus has appeared to many mystics throughout the past 2000 years and he has been extremely consistent in stressing the importance of communion. Jesus established this sacrament for us all to have an individual and intimate relationship with him. Your teaching (based solely on your own, mortal understanding) only serves satan.
Consider this: If you are correct, then Christianity did not start until about 1500 years AFTER Jesus. That makes no sense.
Almost all of the so-called "Church Fathers" was some sort of a heretic. Only scripture given by God the Holy Ghost should be read and followed.
There are a Great Many "contradictions" between the "Word" ie Jesus and the Word of Scripture and the Pagan Roman System...as in their Dogma, and all the shiny objects they use to distract people with.
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)
What did Jesus mean when he said, "Do this in memory of me?" Do what exactly?
Ladd
"to make me present for you"
Jesus warned us ' do not follow the wide road /free salvation of the church '
Like others have said, you are either straight up lying or don't know what the Church actually teaches when it comes to transubstantiation. The most blatant lie/display of your ignorance is when you state the Church teaches a new sacrifice is present at each Mass. This is the One, Same sacrifice that took place on the cross 2,000 years ago. It's wild that someone who leads such a large Protestant ministry is either straight up lying to all of his followers or just spouting nonsense. People like Josh, James White, Justin Peters, etc can never have a meaningful discussion about the Catholic Faith because they refuse to look at it as it actually is, rather than what they perceive it to be.
You are the liar. Most of the Roman Catholic parishioners don’t even know what the catechism of the RCC really is. Those of us who found out have left the RCC. You can’t have the same sacrifice continually offered as if Jesus was still on the cross. Just before Jesus breathed His last He said, it is finished. It’s not ongoing. You need to study the scriptures yourself. The Bible says if you have the Holy Spirit in you He will teach you
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Ignatius of Antioch.
Your interpretation of the scriptures is a theological novelty.
Amen
i did not even watch the whole video because typically anything that says "completely contradicts" is usually wrong. but do you know what an anachronism is? most of us have issues with the teachings/dogmas of the RCC because it is clear modern comprehensions are read back into things to be used for justification. i have no idea what's before or after those Ignatius quotes, but metaphorical language was almost always used by Jesus.
here is something specifically stated not in any parable which seems to lend credence to the likelihood of potentially symbolic language (although i personally lead to it being something more most likely given quotes like yours): "All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable." -- Matthew 13:34, "11 And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but for those who are outside, everything comes in parables," -- Mark 4:11, "29 His disciples *said, 'See, now You are speaking plainly and are not using any figure of speech....'" -- John 16:29
it was so common for Him not to state anything plainly or literally that it was difficult to always grasp the exact meaning of things. most every Christian knows this, but we minimize it, I think. and we don't get complete explanations of all that many statements directly.
@@caleb.lindsay This misses the point entirely. Why mention modern comprehensions being read back into things when the original comment is quoting from the early second century? Would you label 110 AD as modern?
@@caleb.lindsay pick up a book on Saint Ignatius of Antioch 3 rd bishop to Antioch. 7 confirmed letters. If I remember correctly the quote that was used comes from Letter to the Smyrnaeans written around 110).
Tradition has it he was the disciple to John. He speaks from what was taught by the apostles.
JUSTIN MARTYR
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
I would just urge you to consider that the crowd in John 6 pressed him for clarity and he doubled down.
Even after some of His DISCIPLES began leaving he never wavered. Considering how many times he explained a parable in John this is quite unusual to give no explanation. Unless the statement didn’t need an explanation because it wasn’t a parable…
Learn the correct interpretation of the Bible, josh.
The problem that protestants have is the same as Mormonism based on the following 3 arguments.
(1) Mormons (Latter-Day Saints, or LDS) believe that after the death of the last Apostle, there was a “Great Apostasy.” Priesthood authority ceased, doctrine began to degenerate, and the true Gospel was lost (necessitating its “restoration” by Joseph Smith in the 19th century).
(2) The vast majority of protestants reject multiple doctrines that were believed unanimously by ancient Christians, beginning with the very first Church Fathers who were discipled by the Apostles themselves. Specifically, these protestants reject three key doctrines:
a. Baptismal regeneration (how we become Christians);
b. Apostolic succession (how the Church is governed); and
c. The sacrifice of the Eucharist (how Christians worship).
(3) Therefore, whether they realize it or not, most protestants believe in a “Great Apostasy” theory of history that is virtually identical with that of the LDS.
If you would believe in Christ you would tike him by his word and eat his flesh and blood, like he said we should. Remember Jesus is the word and the law, he is not subject to the law. Through him the image is restored. Praise the Lord
If Jesus says this is his body, it's his body. I go with the plain and obvious reading of scripture. Lots of mental gymnastics here to get around a clear teaching of Jesus.
If you don't believe what Jesus said , just leave like those disciples who left Jesus (John 6:66). Jesus did not call them back, because He wanted to make it very clear only by eating His flesh and drinking His blood, we who live 2000 years after His sacrifice, can participate in The New Covenant. We must do everything Jesus taught, not cherry picking what we like only.
Amen!
Thank you explaining this so clearly!
While I agree, it is not the best argument for the differences between Catholics and Protestants on communion.
Getting a Roman Catholic to actually read the Bible is like trying to catch the wind.
Come on man, if you’re going to attempt to put forward what the church teaches, don’t cherrypick what information you take. The Church very explicitly teaches that the Mass is not a nee sacrifice, but a presentation of the once for all sacrifice. We are brought to the foot of the cross every Mass. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Catholicism is a doctrine of demons!
He's not misrepresenting, he's analyzing and coming to the logical conclusion that what you say about the sacrifice is logically incorrect, and it's a logical resacrifice.
So why let Jesus walk his apostles walk away? Was John stupid? Did John not know what people would think about this passage? Did John willingly write chapter six to condemn Catholics? Really… is the sacrifice of Jesus in the Holy Mass every time renewed? Really…is that the Catholic teaching? Who is lying here? May God forgive your willing ignorance 🙏
For 1500 years Christians believed in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and took Jesus literally that this is truly his blood and flesh.
And then Protestants came and tried to destroy this faith. They were neither qualified nor authorized to do this.
Quote from the Didache - very early teaching - late 1st early 2nd century - on the Eucharist ---- On the Lord’s day (Sunday, as opposed to the Jewish sabbath on Saturday), when you have been gathered together, break bread and celebrate the Eucharist. But first confess your sins so that your offering may be pure. If anyone has a quarrel with his neighbor, that person should not join you until he has been reconciled. Your sacrifice must not be defiled. In this regard, the Lord has said: In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice. I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is great among the nations.
Notice this is done weekly. It is liturgical. Also not it IS a sacrifice. Protestant reject the earliest known practice of the earliest generation of Christians. The Eucharist is there. It is called a sacrifice. It is a representation of the Last Supper which represented Jesus' sacrifice on Calvary. It is liturgical and is done weekly. It is done because Jesus said to do this in remembrance of Him. The early Christians did this weekly. How many Protestants follow the practice of the early Christian church and do this weekly?
So ironic that you cite John 6 as evidence for the necessity of faith for salvation, but you jump over the part about Jesus doubling down on eating His Flesh and Drinking His blood when He was questioned by the Jews. Both can be true you know. And to believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation takes God given faith as well. And He will give that if you are open to ask Him. I also find it interesting that you jump past all the writings and practices of the early church to go to the 16th century objections. The early church fathers of the first, second and third centuries believed in the REAL presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the belief continued to be doctrine in the Church - Luther and surprisingly, Calvin also believed in the realPresence of Christ although they used different words to explain their understanding. Finally, you might want to read up on the Catechism of the Catholic Church which looks at other Christians as “separated brethren” and not people damned to hell.
Cyrel of Jerusalem. Church father 350AD .
Amen, you validated by the Word of God in Jesus Christ Amen
Friend, please look into the claims Josh makes in this video. He is either lying outright or is extremely ignorant when it comes to what the Catholic Church teaches. Do your own research. One of the biggest reasons people convert to Catholicism is because they look into the Church's claims ON THEIR OWN, rather than believing what other people have told them about the Church.
In a sense, there is a breaking of the “ Mosaic” law. Or the fulfilment of it. Or the end of it. The act of faith has effort as it is walking … it is not by “faith alone” - check James. Nevertheless it is indeed by faith and not by dead works ( law) I think the gift is righteousness that means we bear the nature of Christ. So either we have it or don’t have it. Ie. fruit ( character). I am not a catholic and I substantially believe Catholics are in error. However those in Christ (Catholics included) will see Christ. May God have mercy on me.
It’s 2024 please don’t misunderstand what Catholic believes 😊
I cannot understand the rise in anti-catholic videos I am seeing here on UA-cam. I love my protestant brothers and sisters, and I would never try to lead them away from the faith they hold so dear. They are believers in Christ already, I don't need to discourage any of these dear ones. I have leaned many scholarly teachings from my dear protestant brothers and sisters. So why do some of you feel the need to attack our faith, why hate us so? Ours is the teachings given to the original twelve, ours was sufficient for 1500 years of unbroken succession until the reformation. Even Martin Luther was not trying to break with the church at first, only trying to fix some of the inconsistencies that were creeping into it. You have your faith, Go practice it in peace and let the rest of us do the same. I will continue to keep praying for my protestant brother and sister, God bless all of you my dear ones.
Because Rome preaches a false gospel
Draw a line in the sand: Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah Witness's, Democrats, Republicans, etc... are they true Christians?
Unbelievable. John 6 is the very reason Catholicism is true. You are putting yourself outside what the Church ever believed from day 1.
“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]).
This is what the very disciple of John the Apostle, the very apostle who wrote John 6, has to say.
Sorry, but I would rather go with the teachings that the very Apostles handed down to the Church than with your novel anti-Catholic interpretations.
I’ll pray for your conversion back home to the fullness of the faith handed down by the Apostles and preserved in the Catholic Church.
God bless.
Jesus was a law breaker!
Dont tell me that you are so ignorant and deceitful to proclaim that the Apostles themselves did not observe the Lord's supper (communion) ... there are even talks discussing if it was observed weekly or daily.
Notice that you HAD to say it right the first time? "THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH" ... Then, tried to correct yourself, stating thats what they call themselves .... some might say "a divine intervention" 🤷♂️ 😊
Note: "catholic" just means universal. It is an important word, found in the 3 Ecumenical Creeds (Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian.) What Protestants object to is _Roman_ Catholicism, aka Romanism. I suggest that it would be a step in the right direction to specify 'Roman' Catholicism in a title like this.
He says Roman Catholicism
in this video! Did you watch it?
Most folks understand that when they read/hear "Catholicism" (especially capitalized), that refers to the RCC. In the aforementioned creeds, that term is in all lowercase, thus making a distinction between the two.
Good to know! Especially because I thought what Protestants protested were Catholics. Interesting to hear they’re upset with the Roman Rite of Catholicism and not the Coptic, Oriental, Armenian or Eastern Catholic Churches.
@@triplea5853the capital "C" denotes an organization. I think the point he is making is we see "catholic" with a small "c" meaning universal church. I think he was pointing out in the Nicene creed catholic is spelled with small "c" and for some reason big "C" Catholics alter the spelling when mentioning the Nicene creed. Like why change the spelling?
@@Gondor149 I reread his comment, I don’t think that’s what he was saying at all.
On another note, no Catholic understands the Nicene creed to be using Catholic instead of catholic. Check the USCCB website for the Nicene creed they use- its lower case.
What about the idea of consubstantiation that Martin Luther emphasized?
"The Roman Catholic Church offers up a fresh and new sacrifice of Jesus in every mass" (at roughly 7:17 in the video). I'm sorry, but if you can't correctly represent Catholic teaching then you can't be trusted with a criticism of Catholicism here. Jesus is not being offered as a "new sacrifice" every time. It's the same (singly sufficient) sacrifice that is represented.
How come the Eucharist sacrifice doesn’t take away all temporal punishment? But baptism removes all temporal punishment. How could water take away more temporal punishment than the blood of Christ? That’s a blasphemous teaching by the Roman Catholic Church
How come the Eucharist sacrifice doesn’t take away all temporal punishment? But baptism removes all temporal punishment. How could water take away more temporal punishment than the blood of Christ? That’s a blasphemous teaching by the Roman Catholic Church
How come the Eucharist sacrifice doesn’t take away all temporal punishment? But baptism removes all temporal punishment. How could water take away more temporal punishment than the blood of Christ? That’s a blasphemous teaching by the Roman Catholic Church.
How come the Eucharist sacrifice doesn’t take away all temporal punishment? But baptism removes all temporal punishment. How could water take away more temporal punishment than the blood of Christ? That’s a teaching by the Roman Catholic Church.
How come the Eucharist sacrifice doesn’t take away all temporal punishment? But baptism removes all temporal punishment. How could water take away more temporal punishment than the blood of Christ? That’s a Blasphemous teaching by the Roman Catholic Church.
Adam and Eve chose the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" over the "tree of life" (which gives everlasting life IF YOU EAT IT), now some protestants are doing somewhat the same by chosing their own fleshly understanding and rejecting the "bread of life" (which gives everlasting life IF YOU EAT IT, Jesus made this clear) can't blame you guys; it's a hard teaching, who can take it?
0:00 “in the gospel of john”..prooftext that tgoj is scripture?
you nailed it at the 5min 55 second mark. Thank you.
You are correct, the Catholic Church has no authority, no priesthood. Which means any church breaking from the Catholic church can have no priesthood.
PS. You can drop the habit of calling Catholics “Roman Catholics”. Catholics are just Catholics. They’re not Roman or otherwise. If the Pope was based in New York, would we be New York Catholics? Catholic means Universal. It’s as silly to say Roman Catholics as it is to say Roman Universals. God Bless.
Cyril of Jerusalem “[The Church] is called catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned, and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body, and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in the spiritual gifts of every description” (Catechetical Lectures 18:23 [A.D. 350]).
“And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is-for the others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’-nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God”
Only way to heaven JEsUs the only way JOHN 14:6.
@@stevemarks9820 Yes, precisely. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. So, we do well to follow Him and obey His commands. It’s the ONLY WAY to Salvation. God Bless.
I wonder why the speaker listened to what MacArthur said "there are no more altar, no more sacrifice and no more priests", instead of reading to what Scripture (his final authority) says.
Are there no altar and no sacrifice in the New Testament?: Heb. 13:10 says: “We have an altar (θυσιαστήριον, Strong G2379) from which those who serve the tent (σκηνή, Strong G4633) have no right to eat”. The word “we” is first person plural that includes even the person who wrote Hebrews - in other words it refers to believers who have altar. If believers have altar then they have sacrifice. “Those who serve the tent” refers to Levitical priests of Judaism who served in the Jerusalem Temple or Tent of Meeting during Exodus. In the Old Testament priests have the right to eat some of offering or sacrifice (Lev. 6:26; 7:6; 24:9, Num. 18:10-11). “Having no right to eat” in Heb. 13:10 refers to having no right to eat sacrifice from the altar of believers of Christ. From altar we eat sacrifice, not eat meal or food.
In OT when when God established Levitical priesthood, He declared it to be everlasting or perpetual priesthood (Exodus 40:15). Numbers 18:19 applies “covenant of salt” to this priesthood, which means it will last forever as salt is used to preserve food. “Covenant of salt” appears twice in the Old Testament and the second one (2 Chr. 13:15) is applied to kingship of David and his descendants through Solomon, which is based on God’s promise to David (2 Sam. 7:12-13) - God will establish his throne through Solomon forever. The perpetuity of both Davidic kingship and Levitical priesthood offering sacrifice were later reaffirmed by prophet Jeremiah in his dual prophecy in Jer. 33:17-18. Without their Jerusalem temple, destroyed in 70 AD, levitical priests of Judaism can no longer offer any sacrifice. Therefore the prophecy of Jer. 33:18 is fulfilled in the establishment of New Covenant levitical priesthood who makes present the same sacrifice Christ made on the cross in every Mass. Another prophecy in Isaiah 66:21 says that God will take as priests and levites from all nations or they are no longer to be Jewish.
Christ is NOT re-sacrificed in every Mass but His single sacrifice is made present. To understand how such thing is possible we need to go to Rev. 13:8 that says Christ as the Lamb slain before/from the foundation of the world. The Greek verb "slain" is in Greek passive perfect tense. Unlike that of English Greek perfect tense indicates the action described by the verb (to be slain) was completed in the past (at foundation or creation of the world) with continuing result to the present . For comparison the phrase "it is written" (Mat. 2:5; 4:4, 6, 7, 10 etc.), referring to Scripture, is also in Greek passive perfect tense. Whenever we buy a new Bible in any language, Scripture is reprinted but it is not rewritten. Thus Christ’ single sacrifice on the cross can be made present in every Mass without Him being re-crucified or re-slain again. The relation between His being slain from the foundation of the world with crucifixion is stated in Heb. 9:26: “for then he [Christ] would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world [not since crucifixion]. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
When Jesus said "this is my Body/Blood", did He mean it literally or figuratively? We should compare the phrase “This is my Body/Blood” with the phrase with the same word structure: “This is my beloved Son” (Mat. 3:17, 17:5, Mar. 9:7, Luk. 9:35). The former came God the Son, and the latter came from God the Father. In the latter the word “this” refers to Jesus, while “my” refers to God the Father. Jesus is not figuratively Son of God, like the Israelites (Exo. 4:22) and neither He was one of angels (the beloved one) referred as sons of God in Job 1:6 and 2:1. Jesus is indeed the beloved Son of God, consubstantial with God the Father. In the phrase “This is my Body/Blood”, “this” refers to the bread/wine Jesus held in His hands, while “my” refers to Himself. He did not say: “this is my Body/Blood with the bread/wine”, as taught by Luther. Neither did He say: “this is symbol of my Body/Blood” as taught by Zwingli, nor: “this is my Body/Blood spiritually present with the bread/wine” as taught by Calvin.
So let me understand this. Are you saying that Jesus, by his words you must eat my flesh and drink my blood, is really just saying you must have faith in me? And then He allowed many of His disciples to leave because they misunderstood His teaching? At no point did he ever clarify that He was only speaking of "faith alone". He just let them go away. Is that what you really believe happened?
Study the early church fathers and what they believed if it wasnt for the Roman catholic church you wouldnt have a bible
Firstly, the "once and for all" sacrifice on Good Friday, is correct. It is done, BUT not everyone in the future unborn is saved yet. Each and every individual needs to be baptised and confirmed, profess and grow in faith. In exactly the same way, Communion - the bread of life in John 6 - is re-presented (not represented as symbol, but re as in again, presented). The best explanation is Steve Ray - a convert - every morning you see the sun rise, and it is a new day, but it is the same sun.
But never mind all the theoretical arguments. If you were even half sincere and honest, go research the Eucharistic Miracles. 152 and counting. Slam dunk, end of debates. The Eucharistic Miracles 1,000% confirm John 6. That is how Jesus gives us the Bread of Life that He promised - "UNLESS you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, you have NO LIFE in you". Now which part of UNLESS and NO LIFE do you not understand? Go read John 6 again, look at the Eucharistic Miracles. Leave Protestant bullshit, and join the Catholic Church, and beg for mercy for your arrogance and pride thinking you can interpret scripture all by yourself, better than 2,000 years of scholars and saints who shaped western civilization.
This video is riddled with misinformation, misinterpretations, and baseless attacks against the Catholic Church. The doctrine of transubstantiation is not, as claimed, a 'great controversy' born out of thin air, but a well-reasoned explanation of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, grounded in Scripture, Tradition, and the early Church Fathers.
The idea that Jesus' words in John 6:53-54 are metaphorical or symbolic, referring to faith alone, is a flawed interpretation that neglects the linguistic and cultural context of the passage. When Jesus says, 'unless you eat the Flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,' he is not advocating for cannibalism, but rather emphasizing the radical intimacy and communion he offers to those who receive him in the Eucharist.
The Council of Trent did not 'anathematize' Protestants for rejecting transubstantiation, but rather reaffirmed the Church's teaching on the Real Presence, which has been consistently professed since the earliest Christian centuries. The Church's doctrine on the sacraments, including the Eucharist, is not a ' death sentence' or a 'blasphemous thought,' but rather a vibrant expression of the fullness of Christian worship and devotion.
It's dishonest to suggest that the Catholic Church 'offers up a fresh and new sacrifice of Jesus in every Mass,' as if this were some sort of reinvention or repetition of Calvary. The Church has always professed that the Eucharist is a memorial, a re-presentation of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, not a new or additional sacrifice.
It's also false to claim that the priest's words of consecration, 'this is my body,' are a 'lie.' The Catholic Church has always taught that the priest, acting in persona Christi, effects a real change in the elements of bread and wine, which become the Body and Blood of Christ, while their appearances remain.
The Eucharist is not, as this video suggests, a human attempt to 'recreate or reperform' Christ's sacrifice, but rather a participation in the eternal sacrifice of Christ, offered to the Father for the salvation of the world.
John MacArthur's quote is taken out of context and twisted to support a flawed understanding of the Eucharist. The priesthood, altar, and sacrifice of the Mass are not abolished by Christ's sacrifice, but rather transformed and fulfilled in the Eucharist, which is the 'source and summit' of Christian life (CCC 1324).
It's unfortunate that this video chooses to propagate anti-Catholicism and misinformation, rather than engaging in honest and respectful dialogue with Catholic teaching and tradition.
The main difficulty lies in the incoherence of the view of transubstantiation. Either „Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood“ is completely literal or completely metaphorical/symbolical. Transubstantiation is built on both in cherrypicking fashion. Either his words were literal and Jesus disciples should have started chewing on him right on the spot, or they were symbolical and the disciples reacted correctly by believing in him.
@@dartheli7400 According to whose interpretation? Yours? Fine, but you and me are only regular dudes. I prefer to go with people of authority, because anyone can interpret the text of the Bible. The interpretation they make might have logic, it may make sense, to the person, but that doesn't make it right.
Amen!
@@rjltrevisan Well, if it all boils down to an appeal to authority, then your argument is fallacious from the get-go. That doesn‘t mean that I disregard teachers in the church, but the role of a teacher is to explain certain things in a logical and coherent fashion. Teachers cannot simply appeal to their role as a teacher and say „because I say so“. That‘s nothing more than circular reasoning and actually the opposite of good teaching.
@@dartheli7400 Sorry, but that's not what I said. I said that anyone that reads any text, even the Bible, inevitably interprets it. And, even though to them it might make perfect sense, that doesn't make it true. So how to know which is true, because they all can't be true, and make sense doesn't make it true. You would have to pick one with logic, but more than that, it must come from someone who is an eyewitness or know and eyewitness and has heard from them. That why the unbroken Apostolic succession we have, and you don't, is the essential key to know true doctrine from "it makes sense to me" doctrine. Catholic doctrine has logic, material, and Apostolic Authority. All the other can never be true as long as they don't have Apostolic Authority, no matter how it makes sense, or how many authors and theologians are cited. But Protestantism was born from exactly that, a man that simply couldn't accept that his theology was wrong, even though it made sense to him, even though he felt it was right. Then he formulated a whole theology to accommodate his thinking, a theology that made sure in every detail to tweak the doctrines enough to take authority out of the Church and into the minds and decisions of the individual. Convenient.
This is anti-Catholic nonsense. You're belittling the significance of communion
Nope
The Catholic Church DOES NOT TEACH that a "new and fresh" sacrifice is offered at every mass or that Jesus is re-sacrificed at the mass. Get you facts straight.
How could an unbloody sacrifice take away sin
The partaking of the Lord's Supper is a requirement, but should be seen as a gift available as often as the local church wants to give it, which should be often. I believe there are benefits in this sacrament that are unavailable by any other means such as Bible meditation, the prayer closet, etc. But these benefits do not come by physical chewing the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus. Yes, we are to eat and drink by faith, but what this means is that we are to, every time we eat and drink the Lord's Supper, partske the crucified Christ Who is sitting resurrected on the throne. Even the Catholics say that the body and blood of the Eucharist is the resurrected flesh and blood of Jesus. That is, we are to believe in, trust in, and give allegiance to, (A connotative meaning of the word faith in the New Testament, also equal to, as Luther said, the fear of the Lord) the One Who died for our sins who used/offered his body and blood necessarily. Those who see the Lord's Supper as symbolic only, are missing out, at least regarding what can really take place here. We really can connect with Jesus Christ, his body and blood, in a way not found elsewhere.
the finished work of Jesus
IT IS FINISHED... what is the it
To begin to figure this out, we should start at the Last Supper.
“While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take it; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many. Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.’ Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.” (Mk. 14:22)
Let’s follow up with a scripture when Jesus is in the garden of Gethsemane shortly after.
“My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will, but as you will.” (Mt. 26:39)
What is this “fruit of the vine” and “this cup” that Jesus is talking about? Well, if you look at the history and how the Passover is performed, you’ll find that they did not finish the Passover feast. After they sung the hymns they should have had another cup of wine. To the ancient Jews this would be crazy to leave off the Passover at this point. Simply put, the Passover was unfinished.
So let’s fast forward to when Jesus is carrying his cross and one of the soldiers offered him wine mixed with myrrh (which they did back then to help with the pain since myrrh is like a pain killer). Jesus refused to drink it, though. (Mk 15:23) I don’t know about Jesus, but if I was already in excruciating pain and heading to even more agonizing pain, I would take that myrrh. It may have been that He was giving His all to suffer for us, but I think it is a bit more than that.
Let’s fast forward again to Jesus’ last words, “…in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, ‘I thirst.’ There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, ‘It is finished.’” (Jn 19:28-30) So is Jesus saying that just because He received some wine, everything He has worked for is finished? I hope not. Was Jesus just simply thirsty? No. This was to fulfill scripture and finish what he started at the Passover. He had to drink that last cup of wine or “fruit of the vine”.
But wait!
They did one last thing during the Passover. They had to eat a sacrificed lamb. When looking into this, you begin to see many similarities between the Passover, and Jesus’ crucifixion. Notice above that John 19:29 specifically mentioned that the wine was put on a hyssop branch. During the first Passover they used hyssop branches to sprinkle the blood of the lamb on the doors. Next, you should recall, that in John 19:33 that the soldiers were going around breaking the victim’s legs, but when they got to Jesus they instead pierced his side. “For this happened so that the scripture passage might be fulfilled: ‘Not a bone of it will be broken.’” (Jn 19:36) When they killed the lambs during Passover, the lamb could not have any broken bones. Jesus is the Lamb of God. “For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast,…” (1 Cor 5:7) Jesus in Revelation is described as “a Lamb that seemed to have been slain.” (Rev 5:6) What happens to the lamb in order to finish the Passover?
When I tell my family that “It is finished,” the “it” is referring to the food and requires an action. If I told them the food was done and no one came to eat any of it, all my time and energy I spent preparing the meal would have been to no avail. Jesus died for our sins, but not before leaving us something very important - the Eucharist. Let us make use of what He has given us and not let the “it” be for nothing.
Your fruit of the vine comment reminded me of something I have been thinking about. Seed and vine is bread and wine. Gen 3:11
You can overlay the crucifixion overtop of the creation. On the third day, earth (Christ) is raised from the waters(death/baptism). The earth produces seed and vine AKA bread and wine. Adam is told to eat these and for sustenance. There is more going on here than first glance. Also Cain and Able..... Cain offers fruit of the soil, vs Abel's animal. Now our Lords supper appears as the offering of Cain to our fleshly senses, But we know Cain sacrifice is unacceptable before God. So the elements must be the true offering of Able under the appearance of Cain. Only the eyes of faith can perceive the real substance of the elements.
@@Christus-totalisI read that Cain offered fruit from the ground, meaning, he tried to give God garbage as a "sacrifice" instead of the best he had and that is why God rejected it. Not because it was fruit instead of animal.
@@tabandken8562 you are right Cains was unacceptable to God because without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Ables offering was the second sacrificial offering pointing to Christ, the first was by God himself to cover Adam and Eve with the Skin of another animal.
The church farthers have entered the chat…….
It's father, and there is only one Father and He is in Heaven. Praise Christ.
@@rhondae8222 it’s whatever I say it is and Christ is king do you even know who the church fathers are?
@@averagemanhempgars502 You sound hostile to the truth. 🤔 There is only one Father and He is in heaven. And don't address anyone here on earth as 'Father,' for only God in heaven is your Father (Matthew 23:9).
@@rhondae8222 ok that’s a no carry on btw I’m not catholic
@@averagemanhempgars502are you protestant?
Jesus never gave us His physical flesh to eat...not His physical blood to drink. Catholicism is wrong about this, as in almost everything Christianity!
Amen!
If it were to be taken literally, then Christ should have literally cut Himself and poured His blood into a cup. That His unbroken body was still present when referring to the broken bread should disabuse us of all catholic thinking.
John 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
@@aadschram5877 real flesh literally of figuratively? If we inagine simply munching on bread and avoiding a true participation in the work and nature of Christ ourselves, then we might be excused from that participation altogether.
@@aadschram5877- hear hear! Unambiguous….this is my flesh!
Amen! Thank you for sharing this biblical truth. Praise Christ. 🙂❤
There’s nothing to add because it’s already been addressed in the comments.
I’m genuinely curious how or why someone puts out a video like this laced with straw mans and misrepresentations. What’s the goal? Is it ignorance or malice?
Jesus also said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." but the Roman Catholic church cites Mary, and Purgatory as ways to the Father. So, who is lying?
That is simply not true, as against Catholicism as I am.
You do understand burning down strawmen aren’t actually arguments against Catholicism right?
@@FRodriguez_
Elaborate please. Do they not offer prayers to Mary whom as far as we know is simply dead awaiting the resurrection. Do they not still teach purgatory where you have to wait until the final cleaning before being allowed into heaven. It does sound like a lot of mumbo jumbo to me, and a hindrance to salvation.
As a general rule, I recommend informing yourself before speaking.
@@rocketscientisttoo Purgatory is a way to the Father? Where does Catholicism teach that?
Mary is a way to the Father? Where does Catholicism teach that?
🤣
Josh, please check the context. John 6:4, not the Lords Supper? All Passover’s are fulfilled by Jesus. And not a continual sacrifice? Rev 13:8 ‘the lamb slain from the foundation of the world’ Rev 5:6 the slain lamb at the center of the throne was seen by John in heaven (where eternal things go on forever) after the crucifixion. Read 1 Corinthians 10:16 ‘the communion of the blood of Christ.’ This is Jesus! This is not symbolic language. Josh, has Jesus come in the flesh? If he has then we must take him at his word in John 6 and quit trying to write it off. I am a Protestant but realizing that what you are saying is straying too far from scripture. It veers into Gnosticism. Faith is not mental assent. It is real, tangible in the sense that it contains action and response to what is believed. Faith without works is dead. Also read John 6 in Greek. The entire chapter is a progression of intensity, to the point Jesus offered the remaining disciples a way out.
And likewise all churches still celebrate communion almost like Catholics, communion is actually when Christ opens a persons eyes to all prophecy concerning himself ie the disciples on the road to Emmaus ! Remembering him and fellowship with him are two different issues. No wonder in the last church written to in Revelation he is outside and knocking!
Chapter and verse please. Revelation 3:20.
@@rhondae8222 Revelation 3:20
John 6:4,11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This was prophesied in the Old Testament (e.g., 2 Kings4:43), and foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.
Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.
Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.
John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.
John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.
John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.
John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.
John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).
John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.
John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.
John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.
John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.
John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."
John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.
Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.
John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.
John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.
John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas' betrayal. Those who don't believe in this miracle betray Him.
Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.
John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.
John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.
Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 - Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”
Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 - Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didn’t bother the brother’s conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says we must become like children, or we will not enter the kingdom of God. We must believe Jesus' words with child-like faith. Because Jesus says this bread is His flesh, we believe by faith, even though it surpasses our understanding.
Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the
1 Corinthians 11 :20-34
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
The Sacrifice of God is past, present and future! It is eternal because it is outside of space and time. The sacrifice by Christ dying and suffering was done in space and time 2000 years ago, when Christ (God) chose to became man (incarnate), this is when He went inside space and time. The holy sacrifice of the Mass is a "sacrifice" being presented to us again on a daily basis, and this sacrifice is outside space and time in a mystical and spiritual way because God is not limited in space and time, EVERYTHING TO HIM is an eternal event, and this is the only sacrifice pleasing to God The Father.
Why do you think St. Paul was instructing the Corinthians about The Eucharist if it is not an eternal sacrifice or just a mere "symbol".
(1 Corinthians 11:27), Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
- And this was after Christ's Ascension.
The early Christians and Church Fathers didn't doubt the Catholic Understanding of the Eucharist and Transubstantiation. For the first 1000 years after Jesus, the Church maintained that same Catholic teaching. After the Great Schism in 1054, the teaching of transubstantiation continued to be held by both sides, Orthodox and Catholic. It was not until almost 1500 years after Christ that the Protestant heretics changed the historical understanding of John 6 and Transubstantiation. Protestantism developed a variety of understandings on the Eucharist, some of which were similar to the Catholic, other based on the interpretation of various Protestants. However, Protestantism had to change their understanding of transubstantiation because their heresy fractured the apostolic succession that allowed the ordination of priests by the laying on of hands. Thus they cannot administer sacraments. My study of the Early Church was the reason I left Protestantism and converted to Catholicism 24 years ago.
Well, simply put, Christ is the Lamb of God, and during the Sacrifice, the people of Israel literally ate the lamb and so did the priest. Not figuratively. I think the elements of the Eucharist are indeed the actual body and blood of Christ. Otherwise, you're not partaking of the sacrifice properly. Not to say that everyone who took communion outside of the Catholic Church is destroyed. Just simply, the sacrifice is an imperative, that Communion is how we offer up a living sacrifice to God.
The number 1 they changed is the teaching of Jesus about his Father is the only true God. They changed it to trinity God the one God.
These anti-catholic talking points have already been responded to countless times. Either you're living in an evangelical echo-chamber or you're lazy at content creation.
I am sorry for you, sir. You need to learn John 6 well the Eucharist. You also should learn properly what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist. It will also do well if you know what the early Christians believed about the Eucharist. Your video has completely contradicted the teaching of Christ on the Eucharist. You seem to have very conveniently left out the passages where the Jews and some of the disciples objected to the teaching of Jesus regarding eating his body and drinking his blood. God bless you.
By 250 AD there were 1.7 million Christians. Those people believed that the Eucharist had no presence based on the last Supper or that is was the Holy Spirit as John 6:63 Jesus says. There was only a very few maybe 100 that believed that in was literal and Mystical. Mathew 13 :34 tells us that anything Jesus said to a crowd is in Parable always. So it can't be literal.
@@kennethprather9633 Thank you for your wisdom and scholarship. I don't need them to believe in the Eucharist and the Real Presence of Jesus.
@@albertd.6179 As long as the real presence is Jesus's Spirit you are correct. If you believe that you have the Holy Spirit and receive Jesus and the Father in him and Jesus's Divinity. Then you are saying that you are God! Blasphemy! There is only one God.
Didn't Jesus also explain all the parables to the apostles. But why didn't he explain this one.
@@moljinar He did. The Parable was 6:25-59. The talk with Apostles was 6:60-70
John 6:63 says, "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life". .
It is the Holy Spirit that Gives Eternal Life the flesh in what I just spoke is worthless. The whole parable I have spoken to you are of the Holy Spirit and Eternal Life
In 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. Or Eternal Life. Several times he references Eternal Life
Peter acknowledged that they understood.
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
Eternal Life is receiving the Holy Spirit and Light .
Jesus was talking to 3000 make Jews at the time that were not Saved yet. The Holy Spirit was not on earth yet because Jesus had not left. So, he would have put the Holy Spirit on the Bread and wine and in partaking of it they would have received the Holy Spirit and Light of the Father in Jesus. This is called Eternal Life
this person mistakes the doctrine of the real prescence and transubstantion
You know how I know the bread and wine is symbolic? Because when Jesus said, “This is my body…this is my blood”, He was standing there in His body, with His blood still in it.
your the bright bulb in the room all 1 watt of you
@@bibleman8010 I do what I can.
@@bibleman8010😂
And that is why Jesus said, "it's the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing"
You are thinking fleshy instead of spiritual.
@@tabandken8562 exactly!
I see no reason to follow modern mans theology
No cathacism or Pope is holier thab Jesus. .
You want to discuss Catholic theology, don't use Protestant theologians for your argument.... I am a history nerd, in the past I would listen to your argument. ..... no discussion of early Church Fathers or the Desert Mothers and Fathers. Not very interesting, for me. God Bless.
In John Chapter Six Jesus says it over and over in different manners of wording to try to get it through the ignorance of these followers. John 6:66 (666) many of Jesus' followers no longer followed Him. You used the phrase "Feed on His flesh" when the Greek word is "Trogon" which means to gnaw upon. You are widely misinterpreting scripture because over 100 Eucharistic miracles have proven the Eucharist to be actual flesh and/or blood. Some of these miracles are so specific that there is very little doubt it is Jesus' actual flesh and blood. Take for instance the recent Eucharistic miracle in Buenos Aires that happened while Pope Francis was the bishop there. The Eucharistic host was scientifically studied and found to be LIVING heart tissue of a male in his thirties who is under extreme torture. Catholics are not cannibals because the Eucharist is living not dead.
You also equated belief in Jesus as the same thing as faith. Hebrew's definition of faith is the assurance of things hoped for the conviction of things not see. Where is belief equated with faith? It doesn't exist. Faith is a gift given from God whereas belief is not.
You are misinformed that the sacrifice of the Catholic Mass is a new and different sacrifice, each sacrifice having a new origin. The sacrifice of the Mass is a new sacrifice each time yet it is the same flesh and blood sacrifice of Jesus on His Cross which under certain miraculous instances can be scientifically proven. If Jesus' Crucifixion did not transcend time then you and I are hopeless in our sins today because of something that happened in the past. It is you who are actually denying the full power of the Crucifixion of Jesus because you say it happened one moment in time long ago. St Paul says he rejoices in his sufferings for they are filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Jesus for the benefit of the Body of Christ which is His Church. Colosians 1:24. It is not that Jesus afflictions were not enough but that Jesus allows our sufferings to unite with His for the benefit of His Church which means in Catholicism the whole Church: Militant, Suffering and Triumphant. What do you account human suffering for, the result of sins as Job's friends accused?
Consider how important the Eucharist is to Christianity as there are so many places we find it in the New Testament: as you noted John Chapter Six, the other three Gospel accounts of the "Last Supper," the account on the road to Emmaus when the two disciples recognized Jesus in the breaking of the Bread, the early church went house to house daily breaking the Bread in one accord found in the Acts of the Apostles and St Paul's discourse in his epistle to the Corinthians. Consider the parable of the King's Supper as an invitation to the Catholic Mass, the celebration of the Eucharist, which itself means "Thanksgiving."
Why did the mockery of "The Last Supper" painting disturb all Christians to a level to even call it blasphemous? Even the iconoclastic Protestants were deeply offended. Could it be because for we Catholics the painting portrays the first supper, the Supper of the Lamb that Jesus instituted; the first Eucharist. It is because all Christians have a level of communion with the Catholic Church and many don't even realize it.
Dishonest videos like this only add to the eventual backlash. Protestantism’s best and brightest continue to convert to Catholicism - theologians, scholars, pastors and the intellectually honest. Our ignorant and bitter go to you but many of them end up coming back eventually when continuously fed with Protestant lies and misconceptions. Your pride blinds you from the truth.
And another comment that doesn’t refute ANYTHING the video said……🤦🏼♀️
@@mooreoftammie There are plenty others on here that get to the crux of the issue. Your interpretation against the 2,000 year old interpretation of the Catholic Church.
Sola sciptura has done untold damage by self interpreting and redefining theology. It has resulted in an ocean of erroneous belief and 45,000 Protestant denominations with conflicting doctrine and interpretations. It is the height of arrogance to suggest that your personal reading of sacred scripture is what the Holy Spirit revealed to you and everyone else is wrong and has been for 2,000 years.
When Jesus ascended into heaven, he left a church and no book or writings, led by a group of men with authority. This church, the Catholic Church, with authority given to it by Jesus, gave you the Bible 400 years later and this church has the sole divine authority to interpret it for Christian doctrine. You are welcome to read it but you do not have the authority from Jesus to create your own doctrine.
@@mooreoftammie There are other comments on here the highlight the crux of the issue - your personal interpretation vs that of the 2,000 year old Catholic Church.
Sola sciptura has done untold damage by self interpreting and redefining theology. It has resulted in an ocean of erroneous belief and 45,000 Protestant denominations with conflicting doctrine and interpretations. It is the height of arrogance to suggest that your personal reading of sacred scripture is what the Holy Spirit revealed to you and everyone else is wrong and has been for 2,000 years.
When Jesus ascended into heaven, he left a church and no book or writings, led by a group of men with authority. This church, the Catholic Church, with authority given to it by Jesus, gave you the Bible 400 years later and this church has the sole divine authority to interpret it for Christian doctrine. You are welcome to read it but you do not have the authority from Jesus to create your own doctrine. The irony is that you believe in Jesus but you don’t listen to what he actually said.
@@mooreoftammie There are other comments on here the highlight the crux of the issue - your personal interpretation vs that of the 2,000 year old Catholic Church.
Sola sciptura has done untold damage by self interpreting and redefining theology. It has resulted in an ocean of erroneous belief and 45,000 Protestant denominations with conflicting doctrine and interpretations. It is the height of arrogance to suggest that your personal reading of sacred scripture is what the Holy Spirit revealed to you and everyone else is wrong and has been for 2,000 years.
When Jesus ascended into heaven, he left a church and no book or writings, led by a group of men with authority. This church, the Catholic Church, with authority given to it by Jesus, gave you the Bible 400 years later and this church has the sole divine authority to interpret it for Christian doctrine. You are welcome to read it but you do not have the authority from Jesus to create your own doctrine. The irony is that you believe in Jesus but you don’t listen to what he actually said.
@@mooreoftammie There are other comments on here the highlight the crux of the issue - your personal interpretation vs that of the 2,000 year old Catholic Church.
Sola sciptura has done untold damage by self interpreting and redefining theology. It has resulted in an ocean of erroneous belief and 45,000 Protestant denominations with conflicting doctrine and interpretations. It is the height of arrgance to suggest that your personal reading of sacred scripture is what the Holy Spirit revealed to you and everyone else is wrong and has been for 2,000 years.
When Jesus ascended into heaven, he left a church and no book or writings, led by a group of men with authority. This church, the Catholic Church, with authority given to it by Jesus, gave you the Bible 400 years later and this church has the sole divine authority to interpret it for Christian doctrine. You are welcome to read it but you do not have the authority from Jesus to create your own doctrine. The irony is that you believe in Jesus but you don’t listen to what he actually said.
Dumbest and most illogical explanation of John 6 I ever heard.
Even the Protestant reformers said John 6 was about the Eucharist. This video is coal
What an embittered, unbiblical piece of hostility & rabble rousing rant this video is. It was hate not Christianity . Perhaps he should actually learn a bit about Catholicism - don't believe The BS "quotations". It would be diplomatic to say "misinformed" ,or, "disingenuous" but it's far, far worse than that. The word sulfurous springs to mind.
This is probably the weakest sermon from a protestant minister I have heard. The mild arrogance he displays in his talk illustrates that he is just regurgitating previous talking points from other ill informed ministers. Read Dr Brandt Pitre’s book - Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the eucharist to at least understand Catholic theology instead of misrepresenting the theology. The Catholic Church has a more biblical basis for the Eucharist than this weak sermon.
Great sermon
Do some more research don't twist things around
Thank God Luther got it right after Ingatius, Clement, Polycarp, and every other church father for 1,500 years got it wrong. Evidently, the apostle Paul got it wrong as well in his first letter to the Corinthians.
Heresy: That special moment when you have greater spiritual insight than the Apostles, Disciples, Apostolic Fathers, the Church, and the Magisterium because you have a Bible that they wrote, compiled, and gave to you. 🙃🥴
Calvinist false teacher. Never know when he'll twist scripture.
Either he’s lying or he truly does not understand Christianity or Catholic teaching.
I went from agnosticism to Protestantism, but eventually realized that I wasn't practising true Christianity.
I came to understand that Christianity is not the Bible - rather, Christianity is the
Catholic Church ... and has been from the very beginning.
If your church is not Catholic (or at least an Eastern Orthodox), you're not in the true Church.
Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Peter (Matt 16:19) - ie, to the Church - not to a book.
" See Hebrews 9:14, 27-28. 1376 ... "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body [Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22, John 6:55] that he was offering under the species [appearance] of bread ... there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood ...transubstantiation."
1 John 5:13 I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away?
Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" it offends protestants. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
There is no other passage in the New testament other than John 6: 35-56 where Jesus emphasizes his teaching repeatedly. In the Gospel of John, four times our Lord says that he is the bread and five times He says that its his flesh we have to eat. He instituted this sacrament by giving his flesh to eat in the upper room in Jerusalem on the eve of the Passover (Matthew 26:26-28) We understand that Eucharistic sacrament he instituted was again celebrated at Emmaus after his resurrection (Luke 24: 30-31).
Vs 54, "Whoever eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal life; and I will
raise him up on the last day." Did He say to eat the symbol of His flesh?
Vs 55, Jesus said, "For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed."
Vs 56, Jesus said, "He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood dwells in Me, and I in him."
Did He say, 'He that eats a symbol of My flesh...'. How can a mere symbol fulfill this promise?
Does only a symbol of Christ dwell in us? I thought GOD Himself dwelt within us, 1John 4:12-13.
Vs 59, This verse shows that Jesus taught this discourse to all the people.
Vs 60,They doubt a third time when many disciples said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it"?
The Jews were instilled by many Old Testament verses, admonishing them not to consume blood.
See Deut 12:23, Lev 17:11and 14. They must have thought this was something akin to cannibalism.
Is this what you think too?
At any point did Jesus back down? Explain to me, if this chapter is symbolic, why did He not explain the symbolism to them?
Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?"
He knew their thoughts and He certainly knew the Old Testament verses about the consumption of blood.
In the next verse, He separated spiritual things from earthly things.
Vs 63*, Jesus said, "It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life."
Did He say He was speaking figuratively or in parables? This is the second verse detractors use to try to "prove" that Jesus spoke figuratively for the whole chapter. Did Jesus say "My" flesh? No, He said "the" flesh. What Jesus had said was, that we cannot accept this mystery if we accept it in too human a way, by having an earthly view of things. Those who can only think of cannibalism, are they not having an earthly view?
See John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Verse 63 means that we should not have a carnal human understanding of His words, but a spiritual understanding.
In John, chapter 6, Jesus had not only called the 12 Apostles, there was also much larger group of other disciples. Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Simon Peter gives the same answer that I find myself saying to those who tell me I should leave the Catholic Church for this reason or that one, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” No matter what a certain priest does, no matter what scandals hit the church, despite whatever corruption or abuse of power might exist, and despite whatever mistakes the Church has made throughout history, “to whom shall we go?” for here is the body and blood of Christ given for a sinner as miserable as I.
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Toutoestin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.
Hats off to your for your clear defence of the Eucharist as taught in John 6. You notice that this video said nothing about the objections raised by the Jews and the disciples. That is why Protestants lack any credibility when they talk about the Eucharist. God bless you.
Kudos to you for taking on a genuinely difficult passage for Protestants--one which seems quite clearly to corroborate the Catholic view of the Eucharist. Unfortunately, the video is so riddled with misunderstanding and misinformation as to be practically useless. To take one example among many: Catholicism does not teach that Christ is somehow "resacrificed" in the Mass. Rather, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, the Mass is called a "sacrifice" because it "makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior" (par. 1330). I'm no Catholic apologist, but we owe it to our own intellectual integrity to articulate the views of our opponents accurately. This video is fundamentally misleading, dishonest, and uncharitable. By all means, watch it. But beware. You are not being educated.
Everyone thought the messiah would be a political leader and defeat the Roman’s…nobody expected a servant
I think these type of debates getting saucy is silly..God will wonder you with the true meaning that becomes clear in hindsight.
The Bible supports both stances and several inbetween
Ya, Transubstantiation is true. Your symbolic interpretation was believed by the gnostics, but not the early church fathers.
Transubstantiation is one of the erroneous teachings by the Roman Catholic church. You should know that Language is cryptic and symbolic and sound interpretation must base on context. The Roman Catholic church is the primary advocate of gnosticism. In the Bible, Paul does not approve of food sacrifice on the altar of idols nor on the grave where the dead person is lying. In contrast to Paul the RC teaches and applies gnosticism every November 1. But he (Paul) refutes and calls that practice or teaching as "demonic doctrine". You Roman Catholic is one of the gnostics😢, not us.
@@Camilodocan-ek1ls Hebrews13:10 We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat. An altar implies a sacrafice (Jesus) and a sacrafier (a priest).
@@Camilodocan-ek1ls actually, your symbolic communion is erroneous and is literally gnostic.
lol, the Catholic Church is literally the opposite of gnostic 🤣
It’s obvious you have no idea what Gnosticism taught or that the Catholic Church literally refuted them several times over the centuries
This is not helpful. Mary's immaculate conception and sinlessness were also believed by the gnostics and yet...
passing the honor due to the prototype through the image was also the practice and belief of the pagans and unanimously and demonstrably rejected in and before the 4th century and yet...
let's just strive for truth together wherever it leads
@@frekigeri4317 did you understand the content of this video as this theologian refute the RC's misunderstanding about the communion? When the Lord Jesus tells the disciples in Matthew 26:26-28 regarding the Lord's supper, he says "do this in remembrance of me". Remembering doesn't imply or tells us explicitly that the bread and wine turn into his physical blood and body. Rather, that word "remembering" says the opposite as what the RC teaches on this topic "communion".
Have a look at the explanation in “The Importance of the Eucharist - Sam Shamoun”. He’s a non-Catholic who actually gets it, and explains it in layman terms.
Hello brother in Christ, Catholic here, and I am going to correct the errors in this video. I'm going to go in order of the things you said, using the catechism of the Catholic Church, the Sacred Scriptures and other sources to show what we actually believe.
Heads up for all protestants reading this, this man did not show or represented Catholic doctrine correctly but rather bared false witness or didn't care enough to learn what the Church actually teaches on the most Holy Eucharist.
2:12 & 3:39 quick note, the Church does not call herself the "Roman Catholic Church", there is a thing called the Roman Catholic Church but it is not the whole Catholic Church but rather a rite of the Catholic Church which is the rite that has the most Catholics in it. There are about 6 different rites and within this rites, there are 24 particular churches which are autonomous or self-governing churches that are all in communion with the each other, having the Bishop of Rome/the Pope, be there visible point of unity. The difference between these 6 rites are not in doctrine or dogma but are different in the way they celebrate the Liturgy, other Church celebration, and disciples (like priest in the Roman/Latin rite have the discipline of being celibate while the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church allow the presbyters to be able to marry). So when you're trying to talk about the Catholic Church, like the WHOLE Catholic Church, you should stop calling the whole Church "Roman Catholic" becuase that is just a set in the Church and not the whole Church itself. I guess an easy way to write it down would be like this: there is a mansion that has many rooms, people live in these rooms and all of them do the do the same thing but goes about doing those things differently (like they all clean their rooms, but one may start with their bed while the others will start with their closet, they are still cleaning their room but doing it in a way they are familiar with) and the people in these rooms are under the supervision of their oldest brother and they call listen to what their brother says (may not be the best analogy, but is one that just came to my mind).
2:15 & 3:24 when you mentioned the doctrine of transubstantiation and saying that we teach that the bread becomes the *actual* Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, you are misrepresenting the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. Lets pull from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) paragraph 1376;
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was **truly** his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."
notice that we don't say "actual" but rather "truly", becuase if we were eating the *actual* Body and Blood of Christ we would then be be actually eating meat, flesh, and drinking actual blood, like if the bread and wine did became a peace of meat and blood, but instead we say "truly". In CCC 1374, it also calls the Eucharist the *real* Body and Blood of Christ;
The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is **truly, really**, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."
Jesus is truly and really present in the most Holy Eucharist, not actually becuase then we would be eating a piece of human flesh each Mass.
2:37 this is true, but also Martin Luther is indirectly responsible for the deaths of 70,000-100,000 peasants in the Peasants War, accusing them of misinterpreting his teachings and blaming them for instigating the violence. While the Spanish Inquisition which was accused of killing millions (Jews, Muslims and Protestants and other heretics), is now been estimated to have a much lower of death; about 3,000-5,000 people got killed from 1478-1834 (which is about 356 years; about 14 people died each year). While the Peasant War which last from 1524-1525 (about a year), this is also not taking into account of other Protestants leaders during the "reformation" murdering Catholics and other Protestants, accusing both of being heretics, and other wars and conflicts which toke place due to the Protestant "reformation", having millions of people be killed (both Catholic and Protestants). The history of Protestantism isn't clean as many believe.
3:08 those who have been anathema and excluded from communion with the Bishop of Rome/the Pope (which would mean that they would not be with the Catholic Church), the Church also anathema those during the Arian heresy. "The Church is a boat in which one sails to the other shore; outside it, one dies amid the waves."- St. Augustin of Hippo
4:28 - 5:10 Yes, Amen, how else can one believe that Jesus can be truly and really present in the Most Holy Eucharist whiteout having faith in the first place.
5:11 the Body and Blood that we eat and drink, are the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, we are saved by eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of the Son of Man. The verses you quoted from John 6 when talking about faith, is not talking talking about faith alone, but he says that you must have faith and those who have faith will be have ever lasting life, becuase those who believe in Christ's words will believe him when he says that His Flesh is true food and His Blood is true drink (Jn 6 : 56). The Bible never teaches faith alone, the only time faith alone is mentioned in the bible is in Jm 2 : 24 where he writes that a man is not saved/justified by faith alone.
5:17 "in the finished work of Christ alone", the sacrifice of cross was sufficient in our salvation, by his once and for all sacrifice, we able to be saved. We still have to work our affliction so that it can contribute to Christ's redemptive work and in the mission of the Church. (Col 1 : 24 "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church."), not saying that the work done on the Cross was insufficient but that we can participate in the sufferings of Jesus.
5:38 Jesus did not meant in what he said in John 6 to be metaphorical but literal. If it was super clear that what Jesus said was metaphorical, why did so many early Christians believed that Jesus meant it as literal. In 1 Cor 10 : 16-17, 21-22,
"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread... You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?"
Also when mentioning "table of the Lord" it is the same as saying the "Altar of the Lord", Altars are used for sacrifice, that is how it was understood in the 1st century. St. Paul is talking about the cup, which is in mentioning of the Last Supper, where Jesus says that the cup he was holding was his blood after he blessed it, same with the bread. St. Paul is clearly saying that the blessed cup is the Blood of Christ and that the blessed bread is the Body of Christ, it doesn't appear to be metaphorical but rather asking a rhetorical question to the Corinthians, expecting them to say, "yes, the bread that we break is the Body of the Lord". Also St. Ignatius of Antioch (died in 110 A.D.), the disciple of St. John the Apostle, the same John who wrote the Gospel, says in his letters to the Romans 7 : 3,
"I take no pleasure in food of corruption or the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who is from the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is imperishable love."
and in his letter to the Smyrnaeans 6 : 2- 7 : 1,
"But observe those who hold divisive opinions concerning the grace of Jesus Christ that came to us; how opposed they are to the mind of God... They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ who suffered for our sins, which the Father raised up by his goodness"
and more talk about the bread and wine/cup as if they were really the Body and Blood of Christ, all the way from the first century and to the 5th century.
5:48 this logic doesn't go well, if you use this in the other parts of Jesus lectures, like in his discussion of him being sacrificed, in your logic, Jesus is not talking about the crucifixion becuase it is not talking about in the context of the passage, it doesn't work. But also in the Lords Supper, he calls back to what he says in this chapter, in both Matt 26 : 26 - 28, Mk 14 : 22 - 24, Lk 22 : 17 - 20
"And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins." - Mt
"And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many."-Mk
"And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks and said: Take and divide it among you. For I say to you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you."-Lk
all of these verses go back to John 6, Jesus is talking about the bread that he will give that is his flesh, is found in the Last Supper, same with his blood, which is found in the chalice.
6:35 yes, Amen, the Eucharist is the same sacrifice that Jesus gave on the cross, just like how the Jews would see the manna that they ate in Passover as the same same manna that God gave to the Hebrews when they passover the Red Sea.
7:13 no, wrong, "the [...] Catholic Church offers a fresh and new sacrifice of Jesus in every Mass". This is not what we teach or believe, the sacrifice done in every Mass is the same Sacrifice that Jesus gave once and for all on the cross. in CCC 1334, 1364-1366
"In the Old Covenant bread and wine were offered in sacrifice among the first fruits of the earth as a sign of grateful acknowledgment to the Creator. But they also received a new significance in the context of the Exodus: the unleavened bread that Israel eats every year at Passover commemorates the haste of the departure that liberated them from Egypt; the remembrance of the manna in the desert will always recall to Israel that it lives by the bread of the Word of God; their daily bread is the fruit of the promised land, the pledge of God's faithfulness to his promises. The "cup of blessing" at the end of the Jewish Passover meal adds to the festive joy of wine an eschatological dimension: the messianic expectation of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he gave a new and definitive meaning to the blessing of the bread and the cup... In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out." Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: [Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit."
the sacrifice done at the Mass is a sacrifice becuase it makes present the sacrifice done on the cross which is a sacrifice.
7:39 yes, that is correct
8:16 when the priest makes the prayer over the bread and wine, God is the one the makes the miracle of turning the bread and wine into the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
8:47 good advice, if you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, don't listen to a anti-catholic that doesn't care if he is representing the Church correctly or not, rather learn from a Catholic and see what the Church actually teaches.
Actually I recommend you all to go read the Catechism of the Catholic Church to actually know what the Church teaches, more specifically for this video, go read Catechism of the Catholic Church part 2: the celebration of the Christian Mystery; section 2: the seven sacraments of the Church; chapter 1: the sacraments of Christian initiation; article 3. Go to that part of the Catechism becuase it tells you what the Church teaches about the Eucharist.
Hocus Pocus. The Pope smokes Dope
The more you dig into theology the more you realize that G3 is not for serious people of theology. They also are not reformed. But on the other hand, you do quote John Macarthur, and we know how he never strawmans his opponents🙄