This has easily become one of my favorite Catholic channels. Very well grounded in Catholic theology as well as the Protestant arguments against it. I can't wait for this channel to get more attention.
You're very kind. I feel like I know so little compared to what there is to know. But this is so encouraging to me and I greatly appreciate your thoughtful words. God bless.
Man, between you and Joshua Charles, I am so excited to have such great wisdom in my life as a revert. I would love to see you two have a conversation!!
you're too kind - Joshua had a huge impact on my reversion a year ago. His website is amazing and he's just a wealth of knowledge on so many things. thank you for watching and commenting. God bless!
@@midairfortress-revert i reverted 5 years ago and I’ve been a disaster ever since. I was poorly catechized, went non denominational, then atheist/satanist to going to back to the Church. I am a mess. It just a comfort to listen to you & Joshua so thank you
@@retrocalypseWow! What subject do you struggle with most? Maybe some of us can suggest some books, videos, podcasts. I will commit to pray for you tonight.
Good day thank you for another informative video. So glad your channel is gaining the blessed momentum it deserves. The knowledge and how you present the information is a blessing to many. Thank you again many blessings to you, your family, your channel and your viewers. God Bless
Western Province Dominican Fr. Antoninus Wall (R.I.P.) taught missions into his 90s. As to the Eucharist, he asked, "What did you have for breakfast? Toast? Well, what did your body do with that bread? It became living flesh. All of this without you being aware of it. Do you believe that your body can do this, but God cannot? Even when He SAID He did?"
A clever approach, but not consistent, of course, with the dogma of transubstantiation, since that teaches that the accidents do not change. I think that the Church teaches that the real presence continues only for as long as the host remains intact - about fifteen minutes.
@@HAL9000-su1mz Well, the Pope’s personal theology is a “practical approach, that every man can grasp”. He “likes to think of Hell as empty” That everyone will be saved and that everyone will end up, finally, in Heaven. Everyone can grasp that theology. The only practical problem is that his personal theology is not the theology of the Catholic Church. We cannot just present nice, easily understood, theologies of our own making just because people might find them easier to understand and, more to the point, easier to accept. Cardinal Fernandez has stated, publicly, that nothing which the Pope says is to be considered as being in the nature of dogma, or in accordance with the Theology of Tradition. He presents the Pope’s personal views to the Faithful for acceptance as being much nicer than all of that stuffy old Theology of Tradition, which should be consigned to the dustbin of history - the Pope will not even take the trouble to try to redefine the teaching of the Church. He says that the Faithful should be prepared to accept the personal theology of Pope Francis as their own personal theology, since it would be rather nice if everyone in the Church supported the Holy Father by joining in with him and supporting his own personal beliefs as their own. The Theology of Tradition must, of course, ultimately, be finally suppressed. All of that nasty stuff about sin, judgment, heaven, hell, salvation from sin, etc - so upsetting for the Faithful.
I find the argument Erik Yabara has recently represented to be the most compelling and most difficult to rebut since it openly refutes all mainstream Protestant views on the Eucharist. I think it would appeal pretty well to evangelicals’ reliance on Hebrews and their issues with it being a sacrifice.
Thank you. Absolutely excellent point. Things are not always as they seem. It takes FAITH. How come Protestants lack the faith to see Christ in the Eucharist? "Faith" is ALL they talk about: faith faith faith...perhaps it is not a saving faith since they not only doubt, but actively oppose. We see the proof that Protestantism is not apostolic, as it rejects the apostles. It is ego-centered, as witnessed by the insulting, harassing, even angry replies. Never mind the pathological trolls. Pathology is as pathology does.
The early Church Fathers identified not believing in the Eucharist being the real flesh blood, soul and divinity of Christ with not believing Jesus came in the real human flesh.
@@BensWorkshop If God can assume the substance of a human body, why can't He assume the substance of bread? Soon, they will reject Christ, as He is a Catholic teaching.
@@BensWorkshop the early church fathers were just some of the first to walk away from Paul’s teachings to the church , the body of Christ and follow the apostles doctrine for Israel.
Quite simply, Jesus said it was his body and blood. He never simply claimed to be God directly in a simple sentence as such, but he did make several different claims of Deity that one could not deny. While holding up the bread He made an absolute direct identification His body, same with the cup! Believe and receive!
Paul wrote that. Paul does not save and he tells us so. Christ saves and Christ gave us His Body and Blood, and said that it is real food and real drink, and that we must eat and drink it TO HAVE LIFE WITHIN US. For 2000 years, Catholic and Orthodox have done exactly this. Now many disbelieve. Why do they doubt? Tribal loyalty? Lack of faith? Both?
@@HAL9000-su1mz I fully agree. I was referring to not being able to see transubstantiation as mentioned in the video. We must believe through the eyes of faith and faith is a gift from God. There is a common thread through Protestant conversion stories, in that God opened their eyes to the Eucharist when they sought the truth. I apologize for not being clear in my comment.
@@jbloe555 No worries! Clear communication in English requires much thought, effort and words. It's a strange language, even if it is native to us. The evil one knows the Eucharist and he knows the grace it transmits. Thus he has incited various men - usually about every 500 years, to assault the Eucharist and thus dissolve Christ. All he needs to assist him is ego-centered, charismatic men, and there is no shortage of those.
Good discussion. I am a protestant, I believe in real presence. I believe it is more than just a ritual. I see nothing wrong with traditions and believe they do have value. What is difficult for me to get behind is that the eucharist must be blessed by a man for it to be valid. I also struggle with is the the idea that each statement must be interpreted literally due to so many of Jesus's teachings being relayed through parables. I am still learning am not closed minded to the value of these traditions as of now I still have doubt but am still in the process of learning more. Thank you for the video.
On the issue of it being blessed by a man, it is the act of consecration - our setting something apart to be used exclusively in the worship of God. When we set the bread and wine apart for the purpose of worshipping God, we do our part in making it holy, and then the Holy Spirit does the rest in the mystery of transubstantiation… which makes it more holy. As to the priest exclusively doing it, it’s part of their role in the body of Christ, acting in the persona of Christ. Each member has it’s role, this is theirs.
In the Eucharistic prayer, Jesus says, take and eat, for this is my body. It also says, this is a mystery. Why isn’t this sufficient? Why then, doesn’t the doctrine of transubstantiation still not have a mystery?
The Lords Supper was actually fulfilled in the first century with the house of Israel. Not saying don’t participate in it, just saying it was already fulfilled.
It looks like bread and wine, it tastes like bread and wine, it feels like bread and wine, it tests chemically as bread and wine, the molecular structure is that of bread and wine, it has the gluten effect and alcohol effect of bread and wine respectively... but those are just the accidents, so yeah, weak argument. We totally get it.
@@fantasia55 When the Roman Catholic Eucharist hosts begin healing people, raising people from the dead, and preaching the Gospel audibly, I will return to the church of Rome. Let the Communion elements prove themselves to be "the whole Christ."
It might be too late by then. He will return soon. Garabandal's prophesies are soon approaching. The Warning will soon be here. Then The Miracle where signs from heaven will soon appear at the Marian apparition sites. The Warning is a mini-judgment. The Anti-Christ will be here soon also. Rex, Jesus did not leave a menu of options to chose from. Jesus left One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Also listening to your response, brought up to my mind. In those 40 days in the desert, how did Jesus respond to the 2nd temptation. This applies to the tone and words you are using here to demand what it is you are demanding before "you return" to the Catholic Church.
I know why Protestants believe Jesus saying that he is bread is symbolic because of the meaning of the word symbol,symbolism or symbolic because the meaning of symbolism is the art or practice of using symbols especially by investing things with a symbolic meaning or by expressing the invisible or intangible by means of visible or sensuous representations: such as a : artistic imitation or invention that is a method of revealing or suggesting immaterial, ideal, or otherwise intangible truth or states b : the use of conventional or traditional signs in the representation of divine beings and spirits. But when the testimony comes from God is no longer symbolism but actual truth. Had the testimony came from Jesus himself about himself then it might be questionable to whether or not he is being symbolic with his words but even then one will still has to take him at his word since he is the living Word of God. Now you might ask:What about when he said that he is the vine the cornerstone or the gate? Yes. We believe that he is those as well. He is the gate of heaven. He is the Vine which we are grafted on to. He is the Cornerstone which holds up the Church. How about cutting your eye out and hand. Those are analogies.Jesus used analogies to better clarify and or explain something important. And we must also remember that by definition the word symbolism is also an intangible truth. That already contradicts Jesus and the God the Father as being the Spirit that leads to all truth. Intangible truth means doubt,not definite or clear to the mind. I don’t think Jesus couldn’t have been anymore clearer when reiterating that he is the living bread and we must consume him especially when it deals with eternal life and resurrection,very very important things. The meaning of salvation. And when he concludes in verse 63 that the words he spoke to us are spirit and life. And spirit is truth not intangible or symbolic.
In ALL of scripture, Jesus never used "represents" "stands in for" "symbolizes" or any other such language. AFTER the point at which he stopped parables and spoke clearly to the Apostles, he said "This is My Body" and "This is the Blood of the Covenant" (John 16:29)
@@HAL9000-su1mzexactly! So from there on out his words meant what he said. Another thing I would add is that Protestants believe and us Catholics whole heartedly that the Bible is the living Word of God yet we don’t hear a heart beat or breathing patterns but we just believe that scriptures are alive. Then how come they won’t believe Jesus when he said he is the living bread that came down from heaven in verse 51? What’s the difference between believing that the Bible is the living word of God and the actual living Word of God saying that he is the living bread?
@@HAL9000-su1mzthat is a great point and excellent observation. Which means that at the Last Supper his words meant what he said,no parables,no metaphors just plain and clear.
@@JWellsUp As if 1991 years of consistent practice, both Catholic and orthodox (since 33 AD) count for nothing. As if Eucharistic miracles count for nothing. They seem to believe that the bible fell from heaven in 1517 and humanity then set about figuring it all out, quickly dividing into warring tribes.
0:20 consider the often catholic scripture of Matthew chapter. 16: 17 -18 his flesh and blood appearance did not reveal his identity!!! His father revealed it. Therefore if thats the rock that his church is built, then its about divine revelation. So the bread and wine do not even give his identity. Compare proverbs chapter 4: 17 they eat the bread of wickedness and wine of violence!!? Peter in Gethsemane used ba sword of violence towards the high priest servant,judas betrayed him jesus with filthy lucre.
I know it’s long but please take your time to read it and decide for yourself.God Bless and I hope this helps with understanding why we receive Holy Communion. I’ve been reading St John 6:27-63 very closely and the other day it dawned on me that verse 63 says it all. 63. It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh* is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. The very last sentence is Jesus concluding that,” the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life”. Is the living Word of God symbolic? Did the Word symbolically speak life into existence? Is the spirit truth? Does the spirit who testifies and leads to all truth can also testify to doubt? Is God life or merely symbolic? Symbolism means intangible truth and intangible truth means doubt.
Protestants believe that St John 6:27-63 is not only symbolic but also a parable. If Jesus’ words are merely symbolic when speaking of something so profound and confusing to the unbeliever: why would he leave us guessing if his words are symbolic when he concluded that his words are truth and life? Especially when having to do with eating his flesh and drinking his blood in connection to having eternal life and being resurrected? Because it has to do with believing or faith!! Because that is what God is all about,having faith/trusting even as small as a mustard seed and believing in his testimony about his Son which that’s what St John was about,his testimony about his Son and not a parable. Remember that Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables and always explained what the parable meant afterwards to his disciples. So scratch -parable- out. And we are left with symbolism or faith?
1 St John 5:1-12 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten by God, and everyone who loves the father loves [also] the one begotten by him.a 2 In this way we know that we love the children of God when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome,b 4 for whoever is begotten by God conquers the world. And the victory that conquers the world is our faith.c 5 Who [indeed] is the victor over the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?d 6 This is the one who came through water and blood,* Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth.e 7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.f 9 If we accept human testimony, the testimony of God is surely greater. Now the testimony of God is this, that he has testified on behalf of his Son.g 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has this testimony within himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar by not believing the testimony God has given about his Son.h 11 And this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. i 12 Whoever possesses the Son has life; whoever does not possess the Son of God does not have life.
(Verse 1. Says that ,”everyone who believes Jesus is the Christ is begotten by God” This means that by believing in Jesus as the Christ we become sons and daughters of God just as Jesus is begotten by the Father and is his Son.) (Verse 2. Says that when we keep the commandments we not only love the sons and daughters of God or love thy neighbor but we also love God.) (Verse 4. Says that,” whoever is begotten by God conquers the world [Jesus Christ,us. The vine with the branches]And the victory that conquers the world is our faith.)
(Verse 6 says that Jesus is the one who came by water [Baptism thru St John the Baptist] & blood [by his passion and crucifixion] the Spirit is the one who testifies and the Spirit is truth[Romans 8:16,St John 4:24,St John 16:13] (Verse 7-8 says that there are 3 that testify,the Spirit,water and blood[God the Father,Baptism & Jesus’ passion and death on the cross.] and the 3 are in one accord or the same. (Verse 9 [is whether or not Jesus’ words in St John 6:27-63 are symbolic,a parable or true and alive enough to have faith in] That the testimony of God is this,that he has testified on behalf of his Son.) If God who is life all truth and Spirit testified on behalf of his Son that Jesus in St John 6:29,”Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you 🚩believe in the one he sent.” 30. So they said to him, “What🚩 sign can you do, that we may 🚩see and 🚩believe in you? What can you do?m 31. Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written:n ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32. So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the 🚩true bread from heaven.[not symbolic but true/Spirit] 33. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”[who comes down from heaven?The Spirit/God. and what is God?Life. 35. Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.[ Meaning in the Resurrection when we will forever be fed and given living water.] 36. But I told you that although you have seen [me], 🚩you do not believe.[they doubt] 37. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,[no one can come to Jesus unless they believe in his words and then the Father draws them to Jesus] 38. because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.s 39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it [on] the last day.t 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.[Gods testimony on behalf of his Son] 44. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.[ unless you believe in God’s testimony on behalf of Jesus the Father cannot draw you to him and thus not being raised on the last day.] 45. It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.[ this is God speaking in behalf of his Son so that whoever listens and believes may come to Jesus] 46. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.[The Holy One or the Son of God] 47. Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life.[in other words whoever believes in my words as truth coming from God has eternal life by believing that I am the bread of life.] (Verse 10 says that whoever BELIEVES in the Son of God has this testimony within himself.[who testifies? God/The Spirit. So the truth is dwelling in you if you believe in the testimony God has given about his Son. And if you don’t believe in Gods testimony about his Son then God has made you a liar by not believing. The reason Jesus throughout St John reiterated the word believe 6x and with Peter 7x. Because Jesus knew that people were going to doubt in his words which are spirit and life. And how do we worship,in Spirit and Truth at Mass especially during the Consecration and Adoration.] (Verse 11 says that,”And this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” [coinciding with St John 6:40,”For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.” (Verse 12 says,”Whoever possesses the Son has life; whoever does not possess the Son of God does not have life.” [Who possess the Son of God? Those who believe and eat his flesh and drink his blood. Not that we are physically eating his actual skin and drinking his blood in the physical sense where one sees flesh and blood but in the spiritual sense since it is the Spirit who testifies and he has spoken words of Spirit and Life. And what does the Holy Spirit contain? 12 fruits and 7 gifts. It is this that is Gods heart and what nourishes our soul by infusing us with sanctifying grace to have us work out the righteousness of God [2 Corinthians 5:21,”For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin,n so that we might become the righteousness of God in him. ]which is charity (or love), joy, peace, patience, benignity (or kindness), goodness, longanimity (or long-suffering), mildness (or gentleness), faith, modesty, continency (or self-control), and chastity. And to grow in the gifts of God wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord. Which will ultimately allow the faithful perfect their soul in virtues thus growing in holiness and perhaps becoming like the Father in heaven is perfect.St Matthew 5:48. That is why the faithful who attend daily Mass and are in a state of sanctifying grace are in more union with God in prayer life and virtues then the faithful who just goes on Sunday and doesn’t put in the time and effort to give more of them self to God. Sorry but the more time you spend with a person the closer you are with that person,right?
Seems like you did not watch the video at all and started commenting. Because the presenter cover that exact scenario... so it seems you are saying the INCARNATION also did not happen. He literaly covered that scenarion and further counter-arguments and on&on.
Jesus said it so I faithfully do as a Catholic Christian what the Christ told me to do which is to eat his flesh and drink his blood in the bread of life discourse in John 6. What convinces me is when he talks about those who do not believe like yourself and basically all protestants do not believe as in verses 64 and 65 quote: 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
@@Spiritof76Catholic Jesus reply to those unbelieving in the verses you quoted v64-65 is after Jesus reply to them. It is his reply which gives us the context for their unbelief. His answer has nothing to do with eating and drinking but everything to do with him coming down from heaven. Their unbelief was him coming down from heaven according to Jesus reply and this reply was the straw that broke the camels back because he said he would go back to heaven. Notice it was after his reply also in v66 that they left him. They did not leave him because of eating his flesh and drinking his blood which totally takes the wind of the sails for those who argue as you do. If their concern wasn't eating and drinking then the unbelieving disciples did not take it literally as the unbelieving Jews had. Their concern was how he could say he had come down from heaven and return this was their unblief not eating and drinking. Please consider why Jesus said what he said to in his reply to his disciples if it was eating and drinking rather than coming down from heaven.
Paul uses similar language in his letters when talking about what appears foolish to men. “Of the flesh” in that verse is human reason. “Of the spirit” is faith. When Paul talks of the resurrection of Christ he says this is of the spirit… that does not mean Jesus’s resurrection was only spiritual. Jesus’s resurrection is a physical resurrection.
@@vinciblegaming6817 I agree and the context will tell you the meaning.In Jn 6 the argument for real presence is that the disciples wouldn't leave him for a symbol . I agree but they didn't leave him over eating and drinking.Jesus reply to them in v62 explains what they were grumbling about and it has nothing to do with eating and drinking . Jesus said many times he was the bread that came down from heaven it was this they questioned given Jesus reply. If they were not concerned specifically about eating and drinking then they did not take it literally.This is my argument from Jesus reply and it was after his reply that they left him. They left him because he said he would return back to heaven not eating and drinking.
@@vinciblegaming6817 Behind the symbol or spiritual is a physical reality. What you are suggesting here is exactly what the symbolic view holds that it is not an empty symbol but points to a physical reality. The symbol brings the reality of Christs death into the present through the ritual of the Lord's Supper by what the symbol represents. Therefore it is not empty but full of meaning.
The incarnation of God in Christ and transubstantiation are two different things. The incarnation was Jesus not born of the corruptible seed of Adam; transubstantiation is one literal element changed into another. The elements of bread and drink originate from the ground, which is a fallen ground. God can impart holiness upon items derived from the fallen state, as He did with aprons, handkerchiefs, etc. The items mentioned do not literally become Jesus, but His Holy Spirit is with those items. When Jesus said, "This is My body and this is My blood," He was referring back to what He said in John 6:35. '...he that COMES to Me shall never hunger; he that BELIEVES in Me shall never thirst." Notice: no mention of bread and drink there, which He used later as metaphors to underscore what He meant in verse 35. Jesus was speaking to a crowd of people, not solely His disciples. It is the same with the elements of the Lord's table, and it is a memorial to always remember what Jesus had to endure to champion the believer's salvation. Anything else is going too far. 2 John 1:9.
a memorial sacrifice you cannot participate in the sacrifice of Calvary without the Eucharistic sacrifice. this is the means by which we consume the Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world. the passover Lamb prefigured Jesus Christ. the Jews physically ate this Lamb not sacramentally like we do now. we now eat Jesus the Lamb sacramentally, in the signs of bread and wine which have the hidden substance of His flesh and blood
@@duanebusch72 What will happen to all who believe in what you say, and the day comes when there are no elements to be found to do your 'memorial sacrifice'. They will not be able to get Jesus (the host and drink) inside of them. Huh? All who think like you will of necessity have to admit what Jesus said in John 6:35; for it is the core essence of ALL that we need: to COME (receive and partake of Him by FAITH) and to BELIEVE (partake and trust in Him by FAITH). To have faith without the externalities is the greater faith to God. Always was; always will be.
@@dannisivoccia2712 the Real Presence is the ultimate faith mystery bread becomes divine flesh, but is hidden from our senses proud and carnal men cannot accept it. yet, they willingly accept Christs incarnation yet cannot see His divinity.
@@duanebusch72 The word of God divides asunder the soul and the Spirit. The soul comprises the human mind, the human will, and the human emotions. When these three human components are fused into the things of God's Spirit/God's word, it is no longer God's Spirit confirmed by His word; no longer God's word confirmed by His Spirit. In this case, carnal logic and reasoning does not/cannot validate God's word. John 6;35 validates all that Jesus spoke of afterwards, which He introduced in the partaking of bread and drink, as a picture of that which Jesus stated in John 6:35. We must remember that Jesus was speaking to a crowd of mostly unbelieving Jews. If one overrules/ignores this verse, which is the very inception of the body and blood/bread and drink discourse, we remove the centrality of what Jesus was desiring to portray. Namely, that one who comes to Him and believes in Him (by faith) will NEVER HUNGER and NEVER THIRST. (regardless of the external elements). Do the external elements have their place? Yes, but only in a pointing back to John 6:35. If one does not understand this or ignores it, he or she will come to other conclusions.
@@dannisivoccia2712 in the context, coming to Him includes eating His flesh and drinking His blood in a sacramental way. just because the eucharist is external food (its appearance and physical property is bread) this does not reduce faith, which is necessary to even believe what you cannot see and also in what Life is present in this sacrament. the greater the faith and devotion to the Eucharist, the greater its effect.
unrepentant souls do not look holy or saved as protestants insist. What makes our flesh and blood such is not the physical makeup of them but our souls being the lifesource of their life, and the flesh and blood matter sharing in the life of our souls.
A good argument against transubstantiation is the entire material world is a shadow of the spiritual. Transubstantiation is too close to materialism acting like the physical world is more "real" than the spiritual when God Himself is Spirit. The Catholic church is putting too much weight on the physical. Jesus claim he is the true Bread that came out of heaven. Jesus claim he is the Bronze Serpent on a stick referring back to Moses. Now that doesn't mean just because the physical bread and wine represents that which is spiritual is less important. Our entire world has representations , money itself has no real value yet you can buy real things with paper money (for now). The same when my wife wants to show people our new granddaughter she pulls out a picture and says this is our granddaughter when we all know the picture is not literally a baby but an imagine of our granddaughter. It's not hard to understand that even language is symbolic yet words have power. If I put a hidden camera in your bathroom and record your family taking a shower and put it on the internet you wouldn't buy if I claimed "No one saw actually saw your family in the shower as all they saw were pixels on a screen." How is it Catholics are so clueless how the real world works and think an image is the actual thing? That doesn't mean it's not important as we wouldn't like it if we showed you a picture of our grandchild and you get a pair of scissors and cut the head off in the picture. Even scripture teaches man is in the image of God so how we treat out fellowman relates to our relationship with God.
God created both the physical and spiritual worlds and he became incarnate and entered our physical world. The most real thing in our lives are physical acts - Christ’s physical death and his physical resurrection. Just because the benefit accrued from them is spiritual (for now) does not make the physical part less. This concept you have given is warmed over Gnosticism. The physical matters because God made it and said “it is good.”
@@vinciblegaming6817 I never claim the physical is not important. I don't have accept either extreme? Just because I reject materialism doesn't mean I must deny the physical world. In fact I agree images are important but images are not equal to the real thing. A picture of my family represents my family but it's not my family. Language is symbolic yet God will hold our words accountable . Money is symbolic yet I can buy food and clothing with it. If I take someone else money I'm guilty of stealing. The idea a symbol becomes the real thing is nonsense. A symbol is always less than the real thing it represents. I think Catholics are the ones who denying reality. As Hezekiah melted the bronze serpent , it's just a piece of metal. The bronze serpent Moses held up represented Jesus Christ.
@@smidlee7747 Jesus is the physical binding of physical and spiritual worlds. The origin of Symbol comes from the Greek symbolon which was a broken wax seal. The two halves brought together make a whole. In Eden, the physical and spiritual worlds were United as one seal. The fall broke the seal, separating the physical half from the spiritual half. But God gave to his people through revelation physical means to interact with the spiritual world - these ordained physical “symbols” communicated REAL spiritual things. The Incarnation reunited the physical and spiritual worlds in Jesus Christ himself and he ordains his own physical things that incarnate spiritual realities. If Jesus ordains it, it isn’t an empty symbol - it does something real. Because that Is who Jesus is.
Other Christians do believe in the “real presence”. Article 28 of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England refutes the “non conformist” teaching that holy communion is only a “love feast” or a “remembrance of the Last Supper” (although it is both of those things) but goes on to teach that it is a real sharing in the body and blood of Christ. The doctrine of “transubstantiation” is rejected not because it is “wrong” but because nothing of it can be found in the Sacred Scriptures. It is based on arguments from Greek Scholastic Philosophy, not found, or supported, in the Sacred Scriptures. Even the Council of Trent is cautious. It does not say that transubstantiation is the way the real presence is described in Sacred Scripture. It says that it is an adequate explanation of the real presence. The distinction between “substance” and “accidents” is part of a man made human philosophy. A “hypothesis” - not irrefutable proof as to the nature of created matter. It is not, however, a hypothesis which is inconsistent with Sacred Scripture. It is not an offensive hypothesis. It is just that it is not to be found anywhere in Sacred Scripture and was only applied in an effort to explain the real presence by human wisdom very late in the history of the Church. The Catechism of the Council of Trent warns Pastors against becoming involved in arguments or discussions with the Faithful over the formulation of the dogma of transubstantiation. They are simply to teach that Our Lord is really and truly present in the Eucharist - in fact, they are to teach no more than what is stated in Article 28 of the Thirty-nine Articles!
For the sake of accuracy, your video is a defense of the Real Presence, not transubstantiation per se. Transubstantiation is one way of understanding Real Presence, and this video does not speak to that, but only to the Real Presence. For all your arguments here could equally apply for consubstantiation and even every doctrine of real spiritual/sacramental presence as well.
the argument is the source of these magical powers.An obscure bible quote written my greeks decades later who were not there at the time.This evidence could not be presented in a court of law.
The fallacy of the reasoning you present at the 2:20 mark is that Jesus is not an object or image formed by human hands, so He is not in the same category as, say, the golden calf. (Jesus was not "made," and your Bible version translation is incorrect; see the Athanasian Creed.) So the argument against the one does not apply to the other. But a bread wafer? Yup, that is totally something formed by human hands. Even if the substance of bread ceases at the consecration, the "accident" of _the image or appearance_ of bread (an image which was certainly formed by humans) persists. Exo 20:4,5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." Lev 26:1 "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God." Here is the more accurate 'appearance' argument: 1. One of the accidents of the consecrated bread is _the appearance or image_ of bread. 2. God forbids directing worship toward "graven" images (images produced by human handiwork, craftsmanship, or the like). 3. Therefore, God forbids directing worship toward any _image_ of bread. One more problem with your argument: Jesus was worshiped, and we see proof of this in the Bible, but we see no evidence in the Bible that the Apostles worshiped (or taught worship) toward the Communion elements. If the Apostles really believed that the bread and wine become Almighty God (literally "in the Flesh"), surely they would have written _something_ about proper worship of the elements because it would have been _so important._ Even if your contention that the Apostles testified to the Real Presence were conceded to, Real Presence =/= Transubstantiation. We can recognize the Body and Blood (the Real Presence) of Christ in the Eucharist without going to the extreme of Transubstantiation. As has been written on catholic dot com, "The doctrine of the Real Presence is necessarily contained in the doctrine of transubstantiation, but the doctrine of transubstantiation is not necessarily contained in the Real Presence. Christ could become really present without transubstantiation taking place..." Real Presence may be Spiritual and/or Sacramental without being corporal, and even if it is corporal the substance of bread need not be considered absent (except because the Magisterium "said so," which is no argument at all to a non-Catholic).
You are quoting from the Old Covenant. Try focusing on the New Covenant... this is covered on the video. - "The Last Supper" - John 6 - 1 Corinthians 10-11 Also many of the writings of the Early Fathers of the Catholic Church. This presenter went through a lot of trouble to present this in a logic, in-depth step by step arguments... making transubstantion logically the same as the incarnation. So you don't believe in one even though it is ecactly the same as the other. Let's just leave it as you were in the group that walked away in John 6.
@@richardcastro1276 Jesus' words in John 6 had nothing to do with Communion. That discussion took place a whole year before the Last Supper. Bet you didn't know that, eh? 😊 There is verbal commonality between John 6:35 and 6:54. This is most noticeable in the Greek. Let's read them again: Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Did you know that in the old Greek manuscripts both of these verses contain the _present active participle,_ which always indicates _present_ action and not future action? Therefore, in essence Jesus was saying: come to me now in faith and you'll never hunger again; believe in me now and you'll never spiritually thirst again. Unless you eat me right now and drink my blood right now, you have no life in you. Those people had no way to literally ingest Jesus physically on that day, did they? They could only “ingest” Him by faith, by believing in Him (much as Augustine advocated). Since Jesus was not literally inviting them to take a bite out of his arm or to slit open his vein for a drink, he must have been referring back to the thought he'd expressed in verse 35: for food and drink that satisfies, come to me in faith and believe in me. To sum up this point, Jesus could not have been teaching them about the Last Supper (which was still a year in the future), because the use of the 'present active participle' does not comport with an indication toward future action. The action Jesus exhorted them to take was to believe in him _right then,_ on that very day. Remember, turning His body into bread would be _the precise opposite_ of what you say Jesus did at the Last Supper, when He turned bread into His body. John 6 is not about Communion. The RC interpretation method is applied with inconsistency to John 6. One can hardly insist that Jesus' words in v. 53-57 were literal, yet not use the same literal interpretation of v. 35-51. If Jesus wanted people to literally ingest Him, then Jesus literally became a loaf of baked bread when He said, "I am bread." We know, however, that Jesus meant the latter _figuratively_ or _metaphorically; Jesus isn't really the white stuff that fell onto the ground for the Israelites to eat, and He isn't really baked barley bread. So one should interpret v.53-57 as similar figurative/metaphorical language, as Augustine did when He later wrote that believing in Christ is how we consume Him: “Believe in Christ, and thou hast eaten Christ. For, believing in Christ is the eating of the bread of life.” The primary message Jesus tried to get across to those doubters was that they needed believe in Him as their Messiah (Savior); He hammers on it repeatedly in v. 38-29, 35, 40, and 47. *These people had just seen a stupendous miracle* when Jesus fed 5,000 from a handful of loaves and fishes. What was their reaction? Were they ready to believe in Jesus as the Messiah (Savior)? No! Instead, they followed Jesus across the lake _to ask for more food!_ Joh 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Joh 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, _This is the work of God, that ye believe_ on him whom he hath sent. Joh 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? Joh 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. These people should have been falling on their faces before Jesus after seeing Him multiply the loaves and fishes. They should have been hailing Him as Messiah! Instead they want more free meals and they demand another miracle. They want Jesus to make bread-like manna fall from the sky, like God did in Moses' day! This is the unbelief Jesus is dealing with. Their hearts are hardened. Jesus tells them over and over the foundational truth that He wants to drive home: believe in Jesus. We already saw Him tell them in verse 29: "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." He keeps hammering on this: Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. Joh 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. Joh 6:40 *And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.* The fact remains: rendering adoration (that is, worship) toward an image of a bread wafer formed by humans is idolatry. Do not worship the host.
@@richardcastro1276 You wrote: "You are quoting from the Old Covenant. Try focusing on the New Covenant" The fact that God revealed His will that we not direct our worship toward human-formed images during the Old Covenant, not the New, has nothing to do with the issue. God didn't change His mind. He is still displeased when people commit this sin of idolatry, and He is displeased when Catholics commit idolatry with their man-made images of bread. This fact stands. Catholics can only "play ostrich" with this issue, because there is no getting around it. Whether or not 1 Cor. 10 and 11 are read as evidence for the Real Presence is immaterial to the issue of idolatry. The Israelites would have protested likewise that their calf of gold was "really" God, too. Rendering worship toward images is idolatrous, period. Catholics tend to have trouble separating the two issues in their minds because of how they are indoctrinated into their sacramental system. But the issues are separate. As I read not long ago on catholic dot com, "The doctrine of the Real Presence is necessarily contained in the doctrine of transubstantiation, but the doctrine of transubstantiation is not necessarily contained in the Real Presence. Christ could become really present without transubstantiation taking place..."
@@richardcastro1276 You mentioned 1 Cor. 10 in regard to Communion, and 1 Cor. 10 is indeed significant. Let's look at the passage together. Remember, I am contending that directing worship toward the image of a bread wafer is idolatrous, so take note that 1 Cor. 10 addresses the issue of idolatry in conjunction with Communion. 1Co 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 1Co 10:2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 1Co 10:3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 1Co 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 1Co 10:5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 1Co 10:6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 1Co 10:7 Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” Note: v. 7 is a direct reference to the incident when the Israelites made the golden calf, proclaimed it to be their god, and held a feast (eating and drinking) in honor of their idol-god. When Catholics conduct the paschal feast, they eat and drink to honor their wafer-god. 1Co 10:8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. 1Co 10:9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, 1Co 10:10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. 1Co 10:11 _Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come._ 1Co 10:12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. 1Co 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. 1Co 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. Verses 8-10 counsel against succumbing to sin like the Israelites did (which they did in more ways than just idolatry). V. 11 says that the many ways they sinned, including the idolatry sin, are important examples to us today. V. 12-13 encourage us to be on our guard, but to know that God helps us in avoiding sin. V. 14 reiterates: flee from idolatry. V. 15-17 roll into a direct application of the principle which has just been taught: the danger of idolatry in the Communion. 1Co 10:15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 1Co 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. V. 16-17 say that when we take Communion we are participating, by faith with thanksgiving ("Eucharist" means thanksgiving), in the benefits of Christ's propitiatory death on the cross. But it doesn't allow us to think that we are partaking of literal, physical flesh of Jesus, because it clarifies that "we all partake of the one _bread._ What we take in Communion is still bread, yet it is not ordinary "food for the belly" bread because we are identifying with Christ through faith in what He did for us (bearing our sins and dying to redeem us from them). However, nothing in this passage specifies that Communion is a "re-presentation" of Jesus' death on the cross, and nothing says that either Christ is called down to earth or that we are called up into heaven. Nor does anything in 1 Cor. 10 say that the elements change their substance or that they become "the whole Christ." These are all un-Biblical extrapolations and late additions. V. 18-21 go on to say that an idol is not really a god (it isn't really anything with power), but despite that fact we are still supposed to avoid idols because they glorify the devil, not our God. We are actually told in v. 28 that we should avoid eating anything that has been offered in sacrifice. This places the "sacrifice of the Mass" in a new light. In 1 Cor. 11, Paul chides certain people in Corinth for "pigging out" on the Communion bread & wine; they failed to recognize their Sacramental significance and treated the elements as mere food for the belly. They were told that they should judge themselves, for those who fail to recognize what the elements stand for are eating and drinking unworthily. V. 26-27 reiterate that a Communion recipient is eating "bread," which is far different from saying that he is eating physical flesh or is eating God.
How does one touch the sun? No. Rather, the rays of the sun touch us. If we remain in the shadows we'll never be exposed, therefore we must step into the light if we wish to have any hope. If someone wishes to catch a bus/flight/train/etc., they must be at a specific place at a specific time. Why would it be any different with Christ. We must make ourselves present to where He will be: the Mass.
The Catholic Church teaches the following: 1. Each of us has inherited original sin and its consequences, and through our actual sins or disobedience, we are separated from God. 2. We are powerless to do anything about our situation. We cannot save ourselves. 3. We can be saved by Jesus because He is the "one mediator between God and man". Through His death on the cross, Jesus Christ has paid the price for our sins. 4. Jesus offers His help to us as a free gift which we can receive by sorrow for our disobedience, trusting in Him and by being baptized. 5. We must turn away from our sins, express sorrow for them, and believe in Jesus Christ and the gospel. 6. Repentance signifies our willingness to turn from what separates us from God, and baptism renews us, filling us with the grace needed to have faith and live it out. 6. This belief goes beyond mere "head knowledge," which even demons possess (Jas 2:19). 7. It is more than just believing in salvation, as the Pharisees did (Jn 5:39). 8. True, saving faith is demonstrated through daily living and is characterized by "faith working through love" (Gal 5:6, cf. Jas 2:1-26).
The Catholic Church teaches the following: Each of us has inherited original sin and its consequences, and through our actual sins or disobedience, we are separated from God. We are powerless to do anything about our situation. We cannot save ourselves. We can be saved by Jesus because He is the "one mediator between God and man". Through His death on the cross, Jesus Christ has paid the price for our sins. Jesus offers His help to us as a free gift which we can receive by sorrow for our disobedience, trusting in Him and by being baptized. We must turn away from our sins, express sorrow for them, and believe in Jesus Christ and the gospel. Repentance signifies our willingness to turn from what separates us from God, and baptism renews us, filling us with the grace needed to have faith and live it out. This belief goes beyond mere "head knowledge," which even demons possess (Jas 2:19). It is more than just believing in salvation, as the Pharisees did (Jn 5:39). True, saving faith is demonstrated through daily living and is characterized by "faith working through love" (Gal 5:6, cf. Jas 2:1-26).
The Warning will be here soon as prophesied in Garabandal. Then you will have a different perspective. We cannot help you, if you have no faith in John 6. That faith must come from you.
![Refuting PROTESTANT Accusations [Regarding the QUEEN of Heaven]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P4OT5Q3NvT0/mqdefault.jpg)
This has easily become one of my favorite Catholic channels. Very well grounded in Catholic theology as well as the Protestant arguments against it. I can't wait for this channel to get more attention.
How do you attain salvation? The answer will typically wrap up your actual beliefs. Thanks
You're very kind. I feel like I know so little compared to what there is to know. But this is so encouraging to me and I greatly appreciate your thoughtful words. God bless.
@@midairfortress-revert Why should I believe in unbloody blood?
@@TimSpangler-rd6vs John 6:53-57
@@_ready__ STOP trolling JeDiv/Romans1:16/ EPH:1:12/Getrit3004! How many split personalities do you have?
Man, between you and Joshua Charles, I am so excited to have such great wisdom in my life as a revert. I would love to see you two have a conversation!!
you're too kind - Joshua had a huge impact on my reversion a year ago. His website is amazing and he's just a wealth of knowledge on so many things. thank you for watching and commenting. God bless!
@@midairfortress-revert i reverted 5 years ago and I’ve been a disaster ever since. I was poorly catechized, went non denominational, then atheist/satanist to going to back to the Church. I am a mess. It just a comfort to listen to you & Joshua so thank you
@@retrocalypse Consider going to adoration! Peace is found there.
@@retrocalypseWow! What subject do you struggle with most? Maybe some of us can suggest some books, videos, podcasts. I will commit to pray for you tonight.
Good day thank you for another informative video. So glad your channel is gaining the blessed momentum it deserves. The knowledge and how you present the information is a blessing to many. Thank you again many blessings to you, your family, your channel and your viewers. God Bless
Thank you. A lot of good information. Glad that I found this channel.
I am glad you are here. I appreciate you watching and commenting. God bless.
Excellent point. I will be using this argument for sure.
Western Province Dominican Fr. Antoninus Wall (R.I.P.) taught missions into his 90s. As to the Eucharist, he asked, "What did you have for breakfast? Toast? Well, what did your body do with that bread? It became living flesh. All of this without you being aware of it. Do you believe that your body can do this, but God cannot? Even when He SAID He did?"
A clever approach, but not consistent, of course, with the dogma of transubstantiation, since that teaches that the accidents do not change. I think that the Church teaches that the real presence continues only for as long as the host remains intact - about fifteen minutes.
@@Mark3ABE A practical approach, that everyman can grasp.
@@HAL9000-su1mz Well, the Pope’s personal theology is a “practical approach, that every man can grasp”. He “likes to think of Hell as empty” That everyone will be saved and that everyone will end up, finally, in Heaven. Everyone can grasp that theology. The only practical problem is that his personal theology is not the theology of the Catholic Church. We cannot just present nice, easily understood, theologies of our own making just because people might find them easier to understand and, more to the point, easier to accept. Cardinal Fernandez has stated, publicly, that nothing which the Pope says is to be considered as being in the nature of dogma, or in accordance with the Theology of Tradition. He presents the Pope’s personal views to the Faithful for acceptance as being much nicer than all of that stuffy old Theology of Tradition, which should be consigned to the dustbin of history - the Pope will not even take the trouble to try to redefine the teaching of the Church. He says that the Faithful should be prepared to accept the personal theology of Pope Francis as their own personal theology, since it would be rather nice if everyone in the Church supported the Holy Father by joining in with him and supporting his own personal beliefs as their own. The Theology of Tradition must, of course, ultimately, be finally suppressed. All of that nasty stuff about sin, judgment, heaven, hell, salvation from sin, etc - so upsetting for the Faithful.
@@Mark3ABEthe real presence of Christ continues after consuming, becoming tabernacled within our hearts.
@@vinciblegaming6817 A lovely thought - but not what the Church teaches.
I find the argument Erik Yabara has recently represented to be the most compelling and most difficult to rebut since it openly refutes all mainstream Protestant views on the Eucharist.
I think it would appeal pretty well to evangelicals’ reliance on Hebrews and their issues with it being a sacrifice.
Is that the Melchizedek argument? I read his book, but I meant to hear his talk on it
Thank you. Absolutely excellent point. Things are not always as they seem. It takes FAITH. How come Protestants lack the faith to see Christ in the Eucharist? "Faith" is ALL they talk about: faith faith faith...perhaps it is not a saving faith since they not only doubt, but actively oppose.
We see the proof that Protestantism is not apostolic, as it rejects the apostles. It is ego-centered, as witnessed by the insulting, harassing, even angry replies. Never mind the pathological trolls. Pathology is as pathology does.
@Hal..spot on!!🎯
The early Church Fathers identified not believing in the Eucharist being the real flesh blood, soul and divinity of Christ with not believing Jesus came in the real human flesh.
@@BensWorkshop If God can assume the substance of a human body, why can't He assume the substance of bread? Soon, they will reject Christ, as He is a Catholic teaching.
@@HAL9000-su1mz Yes absolutely.
@@BensWorkshop the early church fathers were just some of the first to walk away from Paul’s teachings to the church , the body of Christ and follow the apostles doctrine for Israel.
Excellent arguments. Many thanks.
Quite simply, Jesus said it was his body and blood. He never simply claimed to be God directly in a simple sentence as such, but he did make several different claims of Deity that one could not deny. While holding up the bread He made an absolute direct identification His body, same with the cup! Believe and receive!
“For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”
John 6:56
But somehow, someway, our Protestant friends interpret this as symbology…
Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen! Eat by Faith of the super substantial bread!
Walk by faith not by sight.
Paul wrote that. Paul does not save and he tells us so. Christ saves and Christ gave us His Body and Blood, and said that it is real food and real drink, and that we must eat and drink it TO HAVE LIFE WITHIN US. For 2000 years, Catholic and Orthodox have done exactly this. Now many disbelieve. Why do they doubt? Tribal loyalty? Lack of faith? Both?
@@HAL9000-su1mz I fully agree. I was referring to not being able to see transubstantiation as mentioned in the video. We must believe through the eyes of faith and faith is a gift from God. There is a common thread through Protestant conversion stories, in that God opened their eyes to the Eucharist when they sought the truth.
I apologize for not being clear in my comment.
@@jbloe555 No worries! Clear communication in English requires much thought, effort and words. It's a strange language, even if it is native to us.
The evil one knows the Eucharist and he knows the grace it transmits. Thus he has incited various men - usually about every 500 years, to assault the Eucharist and thus dissolve Christ.
All he needs to assist him is ego-centered, charismatic men, and there is no shortage of those.
Good discussion. I am a protestant, I believe in real presence. I believe it is more than just a ritual. I see nothing wrong with traditions and believe they do have value. What is difficult for me to get behind is that the eucharist must be blessed by a man for it to be valid. I also struggle with is the the idea that each statement must be interpreted literally due to so many of Jesus's teachings being relayed through parables. I am still learning am not closed minded to the value of these traditions as of now I still have doubt but am still in the process of learning more. Thank you for the video.
On the issue of it being blessed by a man, it is the act of consecration - our setting something apart to be used exclusively in the worship of God. When we set the bread and wine apart for the purpose of worshipping God, we do our part in making it holy, and then the Holy Spirit does the rest in the mystery of transubstantiation… which makes it more holy.
As to the priest exclusively doing it, it’s part of their role in the body of Christ, acting in the persona of Christ. Each member has it’s role, this is theirs.
In the Eucharistic prayer, Jesus says, take and eat, for this is my body. It also says, this is a mystery. Why isn’t this sufficient? Why then, doesn’t the doctrine of transubstantiation still not have a mystery?
it does
The Lords Supper was actually fulfilled in the first century with the house of Israel. Not saying don’t participate in it, just saying it was already fulfilled.
If they accepted Jesus divinity because he backed it up with miracles why can't they accept transubstantiation using those exact miracles.
It looks like bread and wine, it tastes like bread and wine, it feels like bread and wine, it tests chemically as bread and wine, the molecular structure is that of bread and wine, it has the gluten effect and alcohol effect of bread and wine respectively... but those are just the accidents, so yeah, weak argument. We totally get it.
Though he looked like any other man, Jesus was at the same time, God.
@@fantasia55 When the Roman Catholic Eucharist hosts begin healing people, raising people from the dead, and preaching the Gospel audibly, I will return to the church of Rome. Let the Communion elements prove themselves to be "the whole Christ."
Malignant troll reported.
@@rexlion4510But the Eucharist has already done such things and you still doubt.
It might be too late by then. He will return soon. Garabandal's prophesies are soon approaching.
The Warning will soon be here.
Then The Miracle where signs from heaven will soon appear at the Marian apparition sites.
The Warning is a mini-judgment.
The Anti-Christ will be here soon also.
Rex, Jesus did not leave a menu of options to chose from. Jesus left One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Also listening to your response, brought up to my mind. In those 40 days in the desert, how did Jesus respond to the 2nd temptation. This applies to the tone and words you are using here to demand what it is you are demanding before "you return" to the Catholic Church.
I know why Protestants believe Jesus saying that he is bread is symbolic because of the meaning of the word symbol,symbolism or symbolic because the meaning of symbolism is the art or practice of using symbols especially by investing things with a symbolic meaning or by expressing the invisible or intangible by means of visible or sensuous representations: such as
a
: artistic imitation or invention that is a method of revealing or suggesting immaterial, ideal, or otherwise intangible truth or states
b
: the use of conventional or traditional signs in the representation of divine beings and spirits.
But when the testimony comes from God is no longer symbolism but actual truth.
Had the testimony came from Jesus himself about himself then it might be questionable to whether or not he is being symbolic with his words but even then one will still has to take him at his word since he is the living Word of God.
Now you might ask:What about when he said that he is the vine the cornerstone or the gate? Yes. We believe that he is those as well. He is the gate of heaven.
He is the Vine which we are grafted on to.
He is the Cornerstone which holds up the Church.
How about cutting your eye out and hand. Those are analogies.Jesus used analogies to better clarify and or explain something important.
And we must also remember that by definition the word symbolism is also an intangible truth. That already contradicts Jesus and the God the Father as being the Spirit that leads to all truth.
Intangible truth means doubt,not definite or clear to the mind.
I don’t think Jesus couldn’t have been anymore clearer when reiterating that he is the living bread and we must consume him especially when it deals with eternal life and resurrection,very very important things. The meaning of salvation. And when he concludes in verse 63 that the words he spoke to us are spirit and life. And spirit is truth not intangible or symbolic.
In ALL of scripture, Jesus never used "represents" "stands in for" "symbolizes" or any other such language. AFTER the point at which he stopped parables and spoke clearly to the Apostles, he said "This is My Body" and "This is the Blood of the Covenant" (John 16:29)
@@HAL9000-su1mzexactly! So from there on out his words meant what he said.
Another thing I would add is that Protestants believe and us Catholics whole heartedly that the Bible is the living Word of God yet we don’t hear a heart beat or breathing patterns but we just believe that scriptures are alive.
Then how come they won’t believe Jesus when he said he is the living bread that came down from heaven in verse 51?
What’s the difference between believing that the Bible is the living word of God and the actual living Word of God saying that he is the living bread?
@@HAL9000-su1mzthat is a great point and excellent observation. Which means that at the Last Supper his words meant what he said,no parables,no metaphors just plain and clear.
@@JWellsUp I will ask Batman to riddle me that one...
@@JWellsUp As if 1991 years of consistent practice, both Catholic and orthodox (since 33 AD) count for nothing. As if Eucharistic miracles count for nothing. They seem to believe that the bible fell from heaven in 1517 and humanity then set about figuring it all out, quickly dividing into warring tribes.
0:20 consider the often catholic scripture of Matthew chapter. 16: 17 -18 his flesh and blood appearance did not reveal his identity!!! His father revealed it. Therefore if thats the rock that his church is built, then its about divine revelation. So the bread and wine do not even give his identity. Compare proverbs chapter 4: 17 they eat the bread of wickedness and wine of violence!!? Peter in Gethsemane used ba sword of violence towards the high priest servant,judas betrayed him jesus with filthy lucre.
I know it’s long but please take your time to read it and decide for yourself.God Bless and I hope this helps with understanding why we receive Holy Communion.
I’ve been reading St John 6:27-63 very closely and the other day it dawned on me that verse 63 says it all.
63. It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh* is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
The very last sentence is Jesus concluding that,” the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life”.
Is the living Word of God symbolic?
Did the Word symbolically speak life into existence?
Is the spirit truth? Does the spirit who testifies and leads to all truth can also testify to doubt?
Is God life or merely symbolic?
Symbolism means intangible truth and intangible truth means doubt.
Protestants believe that St John 6:27-63 is not only symbolic but also a parable.
If Jesus’ words are merely symbolic when speaking of something so profound and confusing to the unbeliever:
why would he leave us guessing if his words are symbolic when he concluded that his words are truth and life?
Especially when having to do with eating his flesh and drinking his blood in connection to having eternal life and being resurrected?
Because it has to do with believing or faith!!
Because that is what God is all about,having faith/trusting even as small as a mustard seed and believing in his testimony about his Son which that’s what St John was about,his testimony about his Son and not a parable. Remember that Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables and always explained what the parable meant afterwards to his disciples. So scratch -parable- out. And we are left with symbolism or faith?
1 St John 5:1-12
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten by God, and everyone who loves the father loves [also] the one begotten by him.a
2
In this way we know that we love the children of God when we love God and obey his commandments.
3
For the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome,b
4
for whoever is begotten by God conquers the world. And the victory that conquers the world is our faith.c
5
Who [indeed] is the victor over the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?d
6
This is the one who came through water and blood,* Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth.e
7
So there are three that testify,
8
the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.f
9
If we accept human testimony, the testimony of God is surely greater. Now the testimony of God is this, that he has testified on behalf of his Son.g
10
Whoever believes in the Son of God has this testimony within himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar by not believing the testimony God has given about his Son.h
11 And this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
i
12
Whoever possesses the Son has life; whoever does not possess the Son of God does not have life.
(Verse 1. Says that ,”everyone who believes Jesus is the Christ is begotten by God”
This means that by believing in Jesus as the Christ we become sons and daughters of God just as Jesus is begotten by the Father and is his Son.)
(Verse 2. Says that when we keep the commandments we not only love the sons and daughters of God or love thy neighbor but we also love God.)
(Verse 4. Says that,” whoever is begotten by God conquers the world [Jesus Christ,us. The vine with the branches]And the victory that conquers the world is our faith.)
(Verse 6 says that Jesus is the one who came by water [Baptism thru St John the Baptist] & blood [by his passion and crucifixion] the Spirit is the one who testifies and the Spirit is truth[Romans 8:16,St John 4:24,St John 16:13]
(Verse 7-8 says that there are 3 that testify,the Spirit,water and blood[God the Father,Baptism & Jesus’ passion and death on the cross.] and the 3 are in one accord or the same.
(Verse 9 [is whether or not Jesus’ words in St John 6:27-63 are symbolic,a parable or true and alive enough to have faith in]
That the testimony of God is this,that he has testified on behalf of his Son.)
If God who is life all truth and Spirit testified on behalf of his Son that Jesus in St John 6:29,”Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you 🚩believe in the one he sent.”
30. So they said to him, “What🚩 sign can you do, that we may 🚩see and 🚩believe in you? What can you do?m
31. Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written:n
‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
32. So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the 🚩true bread from heaven.[not symbolic but true/Spirit]
33. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”[who comes down from heaven?The Spirit/God.
and what is God?Life.
35. Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.[ Meaning in the Resurrection when we will forever be fed and given living water.]
36. But I told you that although you have seen [me], 🚩you do not believe.[they doubt]
37. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,[no one can come to Jesus unless they believe in his words and then the Father draws them to Jesus]
38. because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.s
39
And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it [on] the last day.t
40
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.[Gods testimony on behalf of his Son]
44. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.[ unless you believe in God’s testimony on behalf of Jesus the Father cannot draw you to him and thus not being raised on the last day.]
45. It is written in the prophets:
‘They shall all be taught by God.’
Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.[ this is God speaking in behalf of his Son so that whoever listens and believes may come to Jesus]
46. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.[The Holy One or the Son of God]
47. Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.[in other words whoever believes in my words as truth coming from God has eternal life by believing that I am the bread of life.]
(Verse 10 says that whoever BELIEVES in the Son of God has this testimony within himself.[who testifies? God/The Spirit. So the truth is dwelling in you if you believe in the testimony God has given about his Son. And if you don’t believe in Gods testimony about his Son then God has made you a liar by not believing. The reason Jesus throughout St John reiterated the word believe 6x and with Peter 7x. Because Jesus knew that people were going to doubt in his words which are spirit and life. And how do we worship,in Spirit and Truth at Mass especially during the Consecration and Adoration.]
(Verse 11 says that,”And this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” [coinciding with St John 6:40,”For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.”
(Verse 12 says,”Whoever possesses the Son has life; whoever does not possess the Son of God does not have life.”
[Who possess the Son of God?
Those who believe and eat his flesh and drink his blood. Not that we are physically eating his actual skin and drinking his blood in the physical sense where one sees flesh and blood but in the spiritual sense since it is the Spirit who testifies and he has spoken words of Spirit and Life.
And what does the Holy Spirit contain?
12 fruits and 7 gifts. It is this that is Gods heart and what nourishes our soul by infusing us with sanctifying grace to have us work out the righteousness of God [2 Corinthians 5:21,”For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin,n so that we might become the righteousness of God in him. ]which is charity (or love), joy, peace, patience, benignity (or kindness), goodness, longanimity (or long-suffering), mildness (or gentleness), faith, modesty, continency (or self-control), and chastity.
And to grow in the gifts of God wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord.
Which will ultimately allow the faithful perfect their soul in virtues thus growing in holiness and perhaps becoming like the Father in heaven is perfect.St Matthew 5:48.
That is why the faithful who attend daily Mass and are in a state of sanctifying grace are in more union with God in prayer life and virtues then the faithful who just goes on Sunday and doesn’t put in the time and effort to give more of them self to God. Sorry but the more time you spend with a person the closer you are with that person,right?
@@JWellsUp A question: when and in what way did Jesus give His flesh and blood for our salvation?
this empowers the priests of the church no other reason can be reasonably given in a scientific age..amen
John 6:53-57
We speak love and you troll with anger and hatred. How can you sleep at night?
Seems like you did not watch the video at all and started commenting. Because the presenter cover that exact scenario... so it seems you are saying the INCARNATION also did not happen. He literaly covered that scenarion and further counter-arguments and on&on.
@@richardcastro1276 John is "troubled" and not at peace. He hit and run trolls many Catholic videos.
Paul forgave sins IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST. Are you even aware of this? Praying for you!
I agree appearance is a bad argument. What convinces me against transubstantiation is Jn 6 with Jesus answer to his disciples in v62.
Jesus said it so I faithfully do as a Catholic Christian what the Christ told me to do which is to eat his flesh and drink his blood in the bread of life discourse in John 6. What convinces me is when he talks about those who do not believe like yourself and basically all protestants do not believe as in verses 64 and 65 quote: 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
@@Spiritof76Catholic Jesus reply to those unbelieving in the verses you quoted v64-65 is after Jesus reply to them. It is his reply which gives us the context for their unbelief. His answer has nothing to do with eating and drinking but everything to do with him coming down from heaven. Their unbelief was him coming down from heaven according to Jesus reply and this reply was the straw that broke the camels back because he said he would go back to heaven. Notice it was after his reply also in v66 that they left him. They did not leave him because of eating his flesh and drinking his blood which totally takes the wind of the sails for those who argue as you do. If their concern wasn't eating and drinking then the unbelieving disciples did not take it literally as the unbelieving Jews had. Their concern was how he could say he had come down from heaven and return this was their unblief not eating and drinking.
Please consider why Jesus said what he said to in his reply to his disciples if it was eating and drinking rather than coming down from heaven.
Paul uses similar language in his letters when talking about what appears foolish to men. “Of the flesh” in that verse is human reason. “Of the spirit” is faith. When Paul talks of the resurrection of Christ he says this is of the spirit… that does not mean Jesus’s resurrection was only spiritual. Jesus’s resurrection is a physical resurrection.
@@vinciblegaming6817 I agree and the context will tell you the meaning.In Jn 6 the argument for real presence is that the disciples wouldn't leave him for a symbol . I agree but they didn't leave him over eating and drinking.Jesus reply to them in v62 explains what they were grumbling about and it has nothing to do with eating and drinking . Jesus said many times he was the bread that came down from heaven it was this they questioned given Jesus reply. If they were not concerned specifically about eating and drinking then they did not take it literally.This is my argument from Jesus reply and it was after his reply that they left him. They left him because he said he would return back to heaven not eating and drinking.
@@vinciblegaming6817 Behind the symbol or spiritual is a physical reality. What you are suggesting here is exactly what the symbolic view holds that it is not an empty symbol but points to a physical reality. The symbol brings the reality of Christs death into the present through the ritual of the Lord's Supper by what the symbol represents. Therefore it is not empty but full of meaning.
0:10 what is this music please
Miserere Mei, Deus “have mercy on me God”
The incarnation of God in Christ and transubstantiation are two different things.
The incarnation was Jesus not born of the corruptible seed of Adam; transubstantiation is one literal element changed into another.
The elements of bread and drink originate from the ground, which is a fallen ground. God can impart holiness upon items derived from the fallen state, as He did with aprons, handkerchiefs, etc. The items mentioned do not literally become Jesus, but His Holy Spirit is with those items.
When Jesus said, "This is My body and this is My blood," He was referring back to what He said in John 6:35. '...he that COMES to Me shall never hunger; he that BELIEVES in Me shall never thirst." Notice: no mention of bread and drink there, which He used later as metaphors to underscore what He meant in verse 35. Jesus was speaking to a crowd of people, not solely His disciples.
It is the same with the elements of the Lord's table, and it is a memorial to always remember what Jesus had to endure to champion the believer's salvation. Anything else is going too far. 2 John 1:9.
a memorial sacrifice
you cannot participate in the sacrifice of Calvary without the Eucharistic sacrifice. this is the means by which we consume the Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world. the passover Lamb prefigured Jesus Christ. the Jews physically ate this Lamb
not sacramentally like we do now.
we now eat Jesus the Lamb sacramentally, in the signs of bread and wine which have the hidden substance of His flesh and blood
@@duanebusch72
What will happen to all who believe in what you say, and the day comes when there are no elements to be found to do your 'memorial sacrifice'. They will not be able to get Jesus (the host and drink) inside of them. Huh?
All who think like you will of necessity have to admit what Jesus said in John 6:35; for it is the core essence of ALL that we need: to COME (receive and partake of Him by FAITH) and to BELIEVE (partake and trust in Him by FAITH).
To have faith without the externalities is the greater faith to God. Always was; always will be.
@@dannisivoccia2712
the Real Presence is the ultimate faith mystery
bread becomes divine flesh, but is hidden from our senses
proud and carnal men cannot accept it. yet, they willingly accept Christs incarnation yet cannot see His divinity.
@@duanebusch72
The word of God divides asunder the soul and the Spirit. The soul comprises the human mind, the human will, and the human emotions. When these three human components are fused into the things of God's Spirit/God's word, it is no longer God's Spirit confirmed by His word; no longer God's word confirmed by His Spirit.
In this case, carnal logic and reasoning does not/cannot validate God's word.
John 6;35 validates all that Jesus spoke of afterwards, which He introduced in the partaking of bread and drink, as a picture of that which Jesus stated in John 6:35. We must remember that Jesus was speaking to a crowd of mostly unbelieving Jews. If one overrules/ignores this verse, which is the very inception of the body and blood/bread and drink discourse, we remove the centrality of what Jesus was desiring to portray. Namely, that one who comes to Him and believes in Him (by faith) will NEVER HUNGER and NEVER THIRST. (regardless of the external elements).
Do the external elements have their place? Yes, but only in a pointing back to John 6:35. If one does not understand this or ignores it, he or she will come to other conclusions.
@@dannisivoccia2712 in the context, coming to Him includes eating His flesh and drinking His blood in a sacramental way.
just because the eucharist is external food (its appearance and physical property is bread) this does not reduce faith, which is necessary to even believe what you cannot see and also in what Life is present in this sacrament. the greater the faith and devotion to the Eucharist, the greater its effect.
unrepentant souls do not look holy or saved as protestants insist.
What makes our flesh and blood such is not the physical makeup of them but our souls being the lifesource of their life, and the flesh and blood matter sharing in the life of our souls.
A good argument against transubstantiation is the entire material world is a shadow of the spiritual. Transubstantiation is too close to materialism acting like the physical world is more "real" than the spiritual when God Himself is Spirit. The Catholic church is putting too much weight on the physical. Jesus claim he is the true Bread that came out of heaven. Jesus claim he is the Bronze Serpent on a stick referring back to Moses.
Now that doesn't mean just because the physical bread and wine represents that which is spiritual is less important. Our entire world has representations , money itself has no real value yet you can buy real things with paper money (for now).
The same when my wife wants to show people our new granddaughter she pulls out a picture and says this is our granddaughter when we all know the picture is not literally a baby but an imagine of our granddaughter. It's not hard to understand that even language is symbolic yet words have power.
If I put a hidden camera in your bathroom and record your family taking a shower and put it on the internet you wouldn't buy if I claimed "No one saw actually saw your family in the shower as all they saw were pixels on a screen."
How is it Catholics are so clueless how the real world works and think an image is the actual thing? That doesn't mean it's not important as we wouldn't like it if we showed you a picture of our grandchild and you get a pair of scissors and cut the head off in the picture. Even scripture teaches man is in the image of God so how we treat out fellowman relates to our relationship with God.
God created both the physical and spiritual worlds and he became incarnate and entered our physical world. The most real thing in our lives are physical acts - Christ’s physical death and his physical resurrection. Just because the benefit accrued from them is spiritual (for now) does not make the physical part less.
This concept you have given is warmed over Gnosticism. The physical matters because God made it and said “it is good.”
@@vinciblegaming6817
I never claim the physical is not important. I don't have accept either extreme? Just because I reject materialism doesn't mean I must deny the physical world.
In fact I agree images are important but images are not equal to the real thing. A picture of my family represents my family but it's not my family. Language is symbolic yet God will hold our words accountable .
Money is symbolic yet I can buy food and clothing with it. If I take someone else money I'm guilty of stealing.
The idea a symbol becomes the real thing is nonsense. A symbol is always less than the real thing it represents.
I think Catholics are the ones who denying reality. As Hezekiah melted the bronze serpent , it's just a piece of metal. The bronze serpent Moses held up represented Jesus Christ.
@@smidlee7747 Jesus is the physical binding of physical and spiritual worlds.
The origin of Symbol comes from the Greek symbolon which was a broken wax seal. The two halves brought together make a whole. In Eden, the physical and spiritual worlds were United as one seal. The fall broke the seal, separating the physical half from the spiritual half. But God gave to his people through revelation physical means to interact with the spiritual world - these ordained physical “symbols” communicated REAL spiritual things.
The Incarnation reunited the physical and spiritual worlds in Jesus Christ himself and he ordains his own physical things that incarnate spiritual realities. If Jesus ordains it, it isn’t an empty symbol - it does something real. Because that Is who Jesus is.
Other Christians do believe in the “real presence”. Article 28 of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England refutes the “non conformist” teaching that holy communion is only a “love feast” or a “remembrance of the Last Supper” (although it is both of those things) but goes on to teach that it is a real sharing in the body and blood of Christ. The doctrine of “transubstantiation” is rejected not because it is “wrong” but because nothing of it can be found in the Sacred Scriptures. It is based on arguments from Greek Scholastic Philosophy, not found, or supported, in the Sacred Scriptures. Even the Council of Trent is cautious. It does not say that transubstantiation is the way the real presence is described in Sacred Scripture. It says that it is an adequate explanation of the real presence. The distinction between “substance” and “accidents” is part of a man made human philosophy. A “hypothesis” - not irrefutable proof as to the nature of created matter. It is not, however, a hypothesis which is inconsistent with Sacred Scripture. It is not an offensive hypothesis. It is just that it is not to be found anywhere in Sacred Scripture and was only applied in an effort to explain the real presence by human wisdom very late in the history of the Church. The Catechism of the Council of Trent warns Pastors against becoming involved in arguments or discussions with the Faithful over the formulation of the dogma of transubstantiation. They are simply to teach that Our Lord is really and truly present in the Eucharist - in fact, they are to teach no more than what is stated in Article 28 of the Thirty-nine Articles!
For the sake of accuracy, your video is a defense of the Real Presence, not transubstantiation per se. Transubstantiation is one way of understanding Real Presence, and this video does not speak to that, but only to the Real Presence. For all your arguments here could equally apply for consubstantiation and even every doctrine of real spiritual/sacramental presence as well.
the argument is the source of these magical powers.An obscure bible quote written my greeks decades later who were not there at the time.This evidence could not be presented in a court of law.
most catholics reject this teaching (pew report) ..only the baked on adherents who would not question anything the church tells them..amen
True believers believe what Jesus says. Matt 26:26-28
The fallacy of the reasoning you present at the 2:20 mark is that Jesus is not an object or image formed by human hands, so He is not in the same category as, say, the golden calf. (Jesus was not "made," and your Bible version translation is incorrect; see the Athanasian Creed.) So the argument against the one does not apply to the other. But a bread wafer? Yup, that is totally something formed by human hands. Even if the substance of bread ceases at the consecration, the "accident" of _the image or appearance_ of bread (an image which was certainly formed by humans) persists.
Exo 20:4,5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..."
Lev 26:1 "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God."
Here is the more accurate 'appearance' argument:
1. One of the accidents of the consecrated bread is _the appearance or image_ of bread.
2. God forbids directing worship toward "graven" images (images produced by human handiwork, craftsmanship, or the like).
3. Therefore, God forbids directing worship toward any _image_ of bread.
One more problem with your argument: Jesus was worshiped, and we see proof of this in the Bible, but we see no evidence in the Bible that the Apostles worshiped (or taught worship) toward the Communion elements. If the Apostles really believed that the bread and wine become Almighty God (literally "in the Flesh"), surely they would have written _something_ about proper worship of the elements because it would have been _so important._ Even if your contention that the Apostles testified to the Real Presence were conceded to, Real Presence =/= Transubstantiation. We can recognize the Body and Blood (the Real Presence) of Christ in the Eucharist without going to the extreme of Transubstantiation. As has been written on catholic dot com, "The doctrine of the Real Presence is necessarily contained in the doctrine of transubstantiation, but the doctrine of transubstantiation is not necessarily contained in the Real Presence. Christ could become really present without transubstantiation taking place..." Real Presence may be Spiritual and/or Sacramental without being corporal, and even if it is corporal the substance of bread need not be considered absent (except because the Magisterium "said so," which is no argument at all to a non-Catholic).
You are quoting from the Old Covenant.
Try focusing on the New Covenant... this is covered on the video.
- "The Last Supper"
- John 6
- 1 Corinthians 10-11
Also many of the writings of the Early Fathers of the Catholic Church.
This presenter went through a lot of trouble to present this in a logic, in-depth step by step arguments... making transubstantion logically the same as the incarnation. So you don't believe in one even though it is ecactly the same as the other.
Let's just leave it as you were in the group that walked away in John 6.
@@richardcastro1276 Jesus' words in John 6 had nothing to do with Communion. That discussion took place a whole year before the Last Supper. Bet you didn't know that, eh? 😊
There is verbal commonality between John 6:35 and 6:54. This is most noticeable in the Greek. Let's read them again:
Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Did you know that in the old Greek manuscripts both of these verses contain the _present active participle,_ which always indicates _present_ action and not future action?
Therefore, in essence Jesus was saying: come to me now in faith and you'll never hunger again; believe in me now and you'll never spiritually thirst again. Unless you eat me right now and drink my blood right now, you have no life in you.
Those people had no way to literally ingest Jesus physically on that day, did they? They could only “ingest” Him by faith, by believing in Him (much as Augustine advocated). Since Jesus was not literally inviting them to take a bite out of his arm or to slit open his vein for a drink, he must have been referring back to the thought he'd expressed in verse 35: for food and drink that satisfies, come to me in faith and believe in me.
To sum up this point, Jesus could not have been teaching them about the Last Supper (which was still a year in the future), because the use of the 'present active participle' does not comport with an indication toward future action. The action Jesus exhorted them to take was to believe in him _right then,_ on that very day.
Remember, turning His body into bread would be _the precise opposite_ of what you say Jesus did at the Last Supper, when He turned bread into His body. John 6 is not about Communion.
The RC interpretation method is applied with inconsistency to John 6. One can hardly insist that Jesus' words in v. 53-57 were literal, yet not use the same literal interpretation of v. 35-51. If Jesus wanted people to literally ingest Him, then Jesus literally became a loaf of baked bread when He said, "I am bread." We know, however, that Jesus meant the latter _figuratively_ or _metaphorically; Jesus isn't really the white stuff that fell onto the ground for the Israelites to eat, and He isn't really baked barley bread. So one should interpret v.53-57 as similar figurative/metaphorical language, as Augustine did when He later wrote that believing in Christ is how we consume Him: “Believe in Christ, and thou hast eaten Christ. For, believing in Christ is the eating of the bread of life.”
The primary message Jesus tried to get across to those doubters was that they needed believe in Him as their Messiah (Savior); He hammers on it repeatedly in v. 38-29, 35, 40, and 47. *These people had just seen a stupendous miracle* when Jesus fed 5,000 from a handful of loaves and fishes. What was their reaction? Were they ready to believe in Jesus as the Messiah (Savior)? No! Instead, they followed Jesus across the lake _to ask for more food!_
Joh 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
Joh 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, _This is the work of God, that ye believe_ on him whom he hath sent.
Joh 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Joh 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
These people should have been falling on their faces before Jesus after seeing Him multiply the loaves and fishes. They should have been hailing Him as Messiah! Instead they want more free meals and they demand another miracle. They want Jesus to make bread-like manna fall from the sky, like God did in Moses' day!
This is the unbelief Jesus is dealing with. Their hearts are hardened. Jesus tells them over and over the foundational truth that He wants to drive home: believe in Jesus. We already saw Him tell them in verse 29: "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." He keeps hammering on this:
Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Joh 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Joh 6:40 *And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.*
The fact remains: rendering adoration (that is, worship) toward an image of a bread wafer formed by humans is idolatry. Do not worship the host.
@@richardcastro1276 You wrote: "You are quoting from the Old Covenant. Try focusing on the New Covenant"
The fact that God revealed His will that we not direct our worship toward human-formed images during the Old Covenant, not the New, has nothing to do with the issue. God didn't change His mind. He is still displeased when people commit this sin of idolatry, and He is displeased when Catholics commit idolatry with their man-made images of bread. This fact stands. Catholics can only "play ostrich" with this issue, because there is no getting around it. Whether or not 1 Cor. 10 and 11 are read as evidence for the Real Presence is immaterial to the issue of idolatry. The Israelites would have protested likewise that their calf of gold was "really" God, too. Rendering worship toward images is idolatrous, period.
Catholics tend to have trouble separating the two issues in their minds because of how they are indoctrinated into their sacramental system. But the issues are separate. As I read not long ago on catholic dot com, "The doctrine of the Real Presence is necessarily contained in the doctrine of transubstantiation, but the doctrine of transubstantiation is not necessarily contained in the Real Presence. Christ could become really present without transubstantiation taking place..."
@@richardcastro1276 You mentioned 1 Cor. 10 in regard to Communion, and 1 Cor. 10 is indeed significant. Let's look at the passage together. Remember, I am contending that directing worship toward the image of a bread wafer is idolatrous, so take note that 1 Cor. 10 addresses the issue of idolatry in conjunction with Communion.
1Co 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
1Co 10:2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
1Co 10:3 and all ate the same spiritual food,
1Co 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
1Co 10:5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
1Co 10:6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.
1Co 10:7 Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.”
Note: v. 7 is a direct reference to the incident when the Israelites made the golden calf, proclaimed it to be their god, and held a feast (eating and drinking) in honor of their idol-god. When Catholics conduct the paschal feast, they eat and drink to honor their wafer-god.
1Co 10:8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day.
1Co 10:9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,
1Co 10:10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer.
1Co 10:11 _Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come._
1Co 10:12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
1Co 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
1Co 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.
Verses 8-10 counsel against succumbing to sin like the Israelites did (which they did in more ways than just idolatry). V. 11 says that the many ways they sinned, including the idolatry sin, are important examples to us today. V. 12-13 encourage us to be on our guard, but to know that God helps us in avoiding sin. V. 14 reiterates: flee from idolatry. V. 15-17 roll into a direct application of the principle which has just been taught: the danger of idolatry in the Communion.
1Co 10:15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.
1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
1Co 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
V. 16-17 say that when we take Communion we are participating, by faith with thanksgiving ("Eucharist" means thanksgiving), in the benefits of Christ's propitiatory death on the cross. But it doesn't allow us to think that we are partaking of literal, physical flesh of Jesus, because it clarifies that "we all partake of the one _bread._ What we take in Communion is still bread, yet it is not ordinary "food for the belly" bread because we are identifying with Christ through faith in what He did for us (bearing our sins and dying to redeem us from them). However, nothing in this passage specifies that Communion is a "re-presentation" of Jesus' death on the cross, and nothing says that either Christ is called down to earth or that we are called up into heaven. Nor does anything in 1 Cor. 10 say that the elements change their substance or that they become "the whole Christ." These are all un-Biblical extrapolations and late additions.
V. 18-21 go on to say that an idol is not really a god (it isn't really anything with power), but despite that fact we are still supposed to avoid idols because they glorify the devil, not our God. We are actually told in v. 28 that we should avoid eating anything that has been offered in sacrifice. This places the "sacrifice of the Mass" in a new light.
In 1 Cor. 11, Paul chides certain people in Corinth for "pigging out" on the Communion bread & wine; they failed to recognize their Sacramental significance and treated the elements as mere food for the belly. They were told that they should judge themselves, for those who fail to recognize what the elements stand for are eating and drinking unworthily. V. 26-27 reiterate that a Communion recipient is eating "bread," which is far different from saying that he is eating physical flesh or is eating God.
How do you attain salvation?
How does one touch the sun? No. Rather, the rays of the sun touch us. If we remain in the shadows we'll never be exposed, therefore we must step into the light if we wish to have any hope. If someone wishes to catch a bus/flight/train/etc., they must be at a specific place at a specific time. Why would it be any different with Christ. We must make ourselves present to where He will be: the Mass.
*Why would it be any different with Christ?
@@cesargarcia7074 you and the catechism don’t agree
The Catholic Church teaches the following:
1. Each of us has inherited original sin and its consequences, and through our actual sins or disobedience, we are separated from God.
2. We are powerless to do anything about our situation. We cannot save ourselves.
3. We can be saved by Jesus because He is the "one mediator between God and man". Through His death on the cross, Jesus Christ has paid the price for our sins.
4. Jesus offers His help to us as a free gift which we can receive by sorrow for our disobedience, trusting in Him and by being baptized.
5. We must turn away from our sins, express sorrow for them, and believe in Jesus Christ and the gospel.
6. Repentance signifies our willingness to turn from what separates us from God, and baptism renews us, filling us with the grace needed to have faith and live it out.
6. This belief goes beyond mere "head knowledge," which even demons possess (Jas 2:19).
7. It is more than just believing in salvation, as the Pharisees did (Jn 5:39).
8. True, saving faith is demonstrated through daily living and is characterized by "faith working through love" (Gal 5:6, cf. Jas 2:1-26).
The Catholic Church teaches the following:
Each of us has inherited original sin and its consequences, and through our actual sins or disobedience, we are separated from God.
We are powerless to do anything about our situation. We cannot save ourselves.
We can be saved by Jesus because He is the "one mediator between God and man". Through His death on the cross, Jesus Christ has paid the price for our sins.
Jesus offers His help to us as a free gift which we can receive by sorrow for our disobedience, trusting in Him and by being baptized.
We must turn away from our sins, express sorrow for them, and believe in Jesus Christ and the gospel.
Repentance signifies our willingness to turn from what separates us from God, and baptism renews us, filling us with the grace needed to have faith and live it out.
This belief goes beyond mere "head knowledge," which even demons possess (Jas 2:19).
It is more than just believing in salvation, as the Pharisees did (Jn 5:39).
True, saving faith is demonstrated through daily living and is characterized by "faith working through love" (Gal 5:6, cf. Jas 2:1-26).
jesus does not want to go into a vat of digestive acids and all sorts of other stuff down there then end up in the sewer system...yuk
I would be careful about what I say. You go against what Jesus taught and make a mockery of it.
What makes you think He does any of that when we take the Eucharist? At the moment of reception, His soul is united to your soul.
The Warning will be here soon as prophesied in Garabandal.
Then you will have a different perspective.
We cannot help you, if you have no faith in John 6. That faith must come from you.
forget protetests..it is the least believed teaching amongst catholics ...amen
Stop saying amen when you do not believe or agree with what Jesus says.