Protestants Reject the Heart of Christianity [The Eucharistic Sacrifice]
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- "The heart of religion is worship, and the heart of worship is sacrifice." - Father Mike Schmitz
In this video, we dive into why Protestants reject the heart of Christianity. Exploring the foundational role of the Catholic priesthood, and how Protestant denominations overlook or misunderstand the Mass and the priesthood.
The Catholic priesthood is central to the faith, with the authority to offer the sacrifice of the Mass, rooted in apostolic succession. The "Reformers" such as Martin Luther believed that we are all priests in equal standing and authority. Unfortunately, Protestants who embrace "sola scriptura" may miss the rich significance of the priesthood, which is essential for preserving the faith and administering the sacraments.
This video will help you understand why the priesthood is not only a vital part of Catholicism but also a key aspect of authentic Christian worship. Whether you’re a Catholic defending the faith or a Protestant curious about Catholic beliefs, this discussion will deepen your knowledge of the Bible and the Catholic Church’s unique role in salvation history.
#catholicmass #worship #priest #catholictheology
![SAINTS and the Protestant ONE MEDIATOR Argument [1 Tim. 2:5]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vAbxWeYt3JI/mqdefault.jpg)
![SAINTS and the Protestant ONE MEDIATOR Argument [1 Tim. 2:5]](/img/tr.png)
Thank you brother!
I’m not a catholic, not yet, but this video has broaden my understanding quite a bit. Peace and grace!
I am a recent convert myself. What are some of the other Catholic beliefs that are an obstacle to you? Have you watched his reversion/conversion video?
Foreshadowing of the Eucharistic Sacrifice
Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word “priest” is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.
Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.
Psalm 110:4 - this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.
Malachi 1:11 - this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled by the Catholic Church, then Malachi is a false prophet.
Clear and concise communication. I appreciate your ministry. I am a convert with a similar story as yours. Now I help teach OCIA.
Welcome home! That’s great that you are getting involved with your parish.
Great explanation of what we believe in our Catholic faith!
Outstanding explanation of the New Testament priesthood! Many thanks.
Awesome presentation-it reminds me of todays rosary: The fifth and final Luminous Mystery of the Rosary is the Institution of the Eucharist.
I don't want to be a stick in the mud, but i want to remind in a friendly way that the Luminous mysteries are not a part of the Rosary, but a devotion created in 2000 by JP2 using the rosary beads and format.
The Rosary is our Lady's Psalter--when she gave the Psalter to St Dominic, it contained 150 hail marys for each of the 150 Psalms--which the Psalms are the Prayer of the church, Sacrifice of Praise, through the Divine Office recited by all Bishops and Priests/religious. (Well, i should say use to be prayed by them all, not so much any more.)
The 5 luminous mysteries are to be a side devotion and should not be included with the 3 mystery rotation because it disrupts the group of 150 hail marys that make up our Ladys Psalter.
I rejoice in your faith and belief in the Holy Eucharist! ♡
@ first I’m hearing about this. Thanks!
@@poorbanishedchildrenofEve actually it is my understanding that the rosary has evolved over the years. Apparently the original rosary given to St. Dominic did not contain the latter part of the current Hail Mary (the part that says "Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death". So, I guess if you are saying that part, you are not tecnically praying the original Lady's Psalter anyway.
@@valwhelan3533Yes, that part as added during the Black Plague
Thank you for the diligent efforts you expend to explain the faith. You wonderfully bring together sacred scripture, sacred tradition and history.🙏🏻
Great video brother! Keep up the good work!
Superb
Before the last supper Jesus washes the disciples’s feet. This is going back to exodus 40: 30-32 when moses brung aaron and his sons to the consecration of the priesthood. Leviticus 8:7 describes how Moses carried out these washings before he dresses aaron and his sons in priestly gartments. When peter refused to have his feet washed Jesus said if i do not wash you, you have no part in me. John 13:8 the greek word for part meros echoes portion that Old Testament priests were to have in god and god alone. Read numbers 18:20. Jesus is saying you have no part in me signals the apostles priestly status , having a unique share in jesus as Aaron and the levites had a unique share in god. This would also seem to point to Jesus’ s divinity as well.
When John and Luke’s last supper narratives are taken together, we have a total details that support the conclusion that jesus made the apostles his new covenant ministerial priests.
Jesus commands the apostles to do this in remembrance of me which suggest they are to offer the last supper as a sacrifice.
Correct - He brought that up in the video
Great video.
The protestant view that the Lord is present (spiritually) if one believes that He is is absurd. It reduces faith to pure subjectivism. How long does it take until such view lead the person into uncertainty, and then into complete apostasy?
Reformed theology articulates "pneumatic" presence. anglican theologies vary, mostly settling on real presence. methodists? (a mixed bag of views). lutheran's hold to sacramental union. many evangelicals outright reject historic protestant views, settling on strict memorialism (which is not the view of the Reformed scholastics). so some nuance is needed here in this discussion
@HenryLeslieGraham I wasn't clear enough. I was referring to the view in specific, not which denomination has it.
The lack of nuance in my comment is evidence, in a broader sense, of the problem I exposed: too much people having their own ideas about matters of faith. Am I being too harsh if I say that the lack of consensus in those matters is what caused so many denominations to be created? Maybe I am, but it is not my fault.
We walk by faith not by sight, remember?
Just say you believe in Jesus and you will go to heaven
@@Leonard-td5rn brother thats not quite how it works
Sacrifice of thanksgiving aka “Eucharistos” NOT the once for all sacrifice for atonement
To be a Christian, we are to be like the Melchesidec of old Melchesidec Abraham and his lineage. Each of us directly interacts with Jesus and follows him. To do this we must hear his voice. In visions, verbally in our head, through other people, through things that happen.
Being a Priest and a king, each of us is what being in Christ is based on.
Do you hear Jesus? Have you seen Jesus? Have you seen angels? Can you see demons?
Do you know what your Gifts from Jesus and the Holy Spirit are?
Mine are Healing, Wisdom, and Discernment. With Discernment of Spirit's.
I can slay in the Spirit, heal, see demons, cast them out, know things a human couldn't know. I have seen Jesus twice and he personally gave me a black daughter at the age of 12. I received her at age 25.
Do you walk with Jesus or are you dead inside?
Jesus Christ established a church whithin His church a new covenant with sacrament of baptism, confession and the Eucharist
Allow this Jesus ordained with His disciples, the new priests for God's new covenant.
No we are not priests, authority to baptize, forgive or retain sin, institution of Eucharist Jesus ordained only with His disciples.
The same way God established first covenant with 12 priests and 72 high priests.
New covenant 12 disciples and 72 high priests.
Bishops are high priests.
Wherever a bishop appears,let the people be Just as where Jesus christ is There is the catholic Apostolic Church St IGNATIUS of Antioch 107ad.
St IGNATIUS of Antioch was canonised by St jonh the Apostle.
@mariamartins5796 We all are allowed to bind Convict of sins or loose Every Christian can do this. I bound two men at the age of 14. They talked bad about my Church my father, and members of the Church. One man had taken a members wife. God picked them both up in the air and impaled them in pine trees! The one who took the members wife was stripped naked for his act.
The man who built my house loosed a man.
The man had hunted illegally on his land for dear for many years. One day his daughter was shot by the man and died in his arms. He went to court and told everyone that the man who did it should not suffer jail time. He looked him here and in heaven.
@mariamartins5796 The Eucharist is partaken as a Seder so any Senior household member can perform it. Male or female and they did. And there were female priests and Elders before the Catholic Church changed it.
@mariamartins5796
Yes, women were believed to have performed the Eucharist and served as priests in the early Christian church.
Evidence
Artworks
Artworks depict women at the altar in important churches, suggesting that women were regular participants in the Eucharist
Tertullian
The early Christian author Tertullian wrote about women presbyters who taught, healed, and baptized
Early Christian manuscripts
Manuscripts describe women serving as priests, and traveling with apostles
Paul's writings
Paul's writings suggest that women were prophets who prayed, prophesied, and may have performed the Eucharist
Women's roles in the early church
Women served as deacons, presbyters, patrons, and co-workers
Women taught, healed, and baptized
Women led prayer
Women preached
Women made public speeches in an ecstatic state
@mariamartins5796 No, John the Apostle did not canonize St. Ignatius. Pope Gregory XV canonized St. Ignatius of Loyola in 1622, and Pope Paul V beatified him in 1609.
Explanation
St. Ignatius of Loyola
The founder of the Jesuit order, also known as the Society of Jesus. He was canonized in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV. His feast day is July 31.
St. Ignatius of Antioch
An early church father and bishop of Antioch, Syria. He was martyred around 110 AD. He was likely a disciple of John the Apostle.
Samuel said, "To obey is better than sacrifice."
Paul's idea of sacrificial worship in the new covenant is different from the Greco-Roman idea. He calls Jesus our High Priest, the sole member of the order of Melchizedec. When he writes about appointing a presbyteros he eschews the proper term for priest: heireus.
Paul says, "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."
Living obedience, not empty ritual by corruptible priesthood.
False dichotomy. We are all called to obedience, and offering the new covenant Eucharistic sacrifice is a command we are to obey. You might want to check with Jesus about whether that is an “empty ritual.”
@H1Guard you’re clearly in the wrong. Read 1 Corinthians 10:20, 1 Corinthians 10: 16-21.
If communing with demons in pagan sacrifices implies that demons are really present, then communing with the body and blood of jesus in the eucharist implies that his body and blood are really present.
Protestants are really blind to scriptures the Eucharist sacrifice was foretold in the Old Testament in 1 Malachi:11 they’re really missing out on how Christ is to be worshipped.
i agree to a large extent. but do note: in the anglican eucharistic service, sacrifice is explicitly mentioned, and a sacrifice is offered. this sacrifice however is one of PRAISE and THANKSGIVING. I am not speaking for anglo-catholic theology here (though i am one), but the prayer book is explicit in its affirmation of "eucharistic sacrifice". the disagreement is over what is being sacrificed.
The only other issue with Anglo-Catholics is their sacramental priesthood is not recognized as being Apostolic; so in effect the 'priests' of the Anglo-Catholic are merely laypeople dressing up as priests. Without a real priesthood you can't have a real sacrifice, and thus not proper worship.
Fair point. When I use the word “Protestant” I typically mean the American evangelical Protestantism I’m most familiar with. But your point is well-taken and I appreciate you bringing it up.
@@midairfortress-revert i see your point. american evangelicalism is not even in touch with historic protestantism. its off in its own corner being weird.
LA EUCARISTIA SACRIFICIO
MALAQUIAS 1:11
HEBREOS 10:8-10
Jesus rose from supper and washed the disciples feet - Peters reaction was no. It should remind us of the Levitical priests (Moses). I have never made that connection (act of consecration: John 17:17-19)
Hebrews 10:1-3 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
- the difference in Catholicism and a Baptist, is that the Baptist practices the Lord supper or communion, looking at the finished work of Jesus Christ. Where the catholic priest continues to sacrifice, saying that the work of Christ is insufficient. How is it possible to crucify the Lord again?
Hebrews 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
- the faithfulness of Christ is our confidence, not in our own righteousness.
To read Hebrew 6:6 in context is to read also Hebrew 6:4-5.
*For it is impossible* in the case *of those who* have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then *have fallen away,* _to bring them to repentance again,_ *since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt* [Hebrew 6:4-6, NABRE].
Everytime you fall away (sin), you crucify the Son of God.
No one who *remains in him* sins; *no one who sins has seen him or known him.* [1John 3:6, NABRE].
God bless...
It’s fascinating how a Baptist can hear the truth presented so clearly and immediately repeat his heresy. The arrogance displayed is staggering.
I have always wondered why some biblical translations use priest (hiereus) in some cases and elder (presbuteros) in other cases. The elders were the new testament priest so is this why in James 5 it states "call for the elders (presbuteros) of the church" rather than hiereus in order not to confuse the old testament priesthood with the new testament priesthood of Christ?
That’s a plausible explanation that many scholars have put forward.
Great question. I was thinking the same thing.
All religions reject the heart of Christianity which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
You have the Word of God which you do not understand because you want God to do things your way and not his.
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Only Jesus can baptize you with the Holy Spirit, you baptize with water yet you won't repent!
So if I converted from Protestantism to Catholicism what would guarantee my entrance into heaven?
That, at the moment of your death, you did all you could do to repent from sins you've committed, received the necessay sacramemts and accepted all articles of faith taught by the Church.
No one in this life can have guarantee of salvation, because the final word always comes from God. We can have faith in being saved, have hope that God will help us and be merciful, and do what what He commanded us to do.
Accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior, partake of the Holy Sacraments that help you into holiness, love your neighbor as you love yourself, live a righteous life, humble yourself to the Lord and obey his commandments. The way to Salvation is a narrow path and it envolves suffering, for who can say I know the Lord and not know suffering? God bless
Your abiding in Christ because he is Lord... Which includes abiding in his church because his church is his body.
We just think abiding in Christ is a bit more involved than the assent of the mind (belief). It's a lived out faith in believing everything Christ said, that he does something to us in baptism and the Eucharist and confession, and that the church is the ark given to us by Jesus to carry us to salvation.
Just about everything Protestants think is absurd about Catholicism flows from that core.
No one on earth has a copy of the book of life. God alone knows your eternal destination.
@@TheLjdevlin86 @TheLjdevlin86 How come a person can’t know where they will Spend Eternity? Is that what the Bible says?
Christs spirit is already in the Fathers hands, no more sacrifices nor re-presenting Jesus to the Father.
Please explain why Hebrews 9:23 talks about Jesus sacrifices (plural) being offered??
@@henrybayard6574 23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
The plural was referring to verse 19, but Christ's sacrifice is singular, verse 26.
That’s a strange and probably heretical way of wording the fact that the God-man Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father. And it’s also irrelevant to the fact that His priesthood is perpetual in heaven.
@@midairfortress-revertDo you even know 1 John 5:1 means, and what transpired in Luke 23:46?
No. The heart of Christianity is Jesus and what he did for us on the cross.
Although transubstantiation was accepted very early on in Christianity, the original apostles teach that the bread and the wine is an ALLEGORY.
But, but, but... OK. Maybe you believe that it really becomes the body and blood of Jesus and you have proof texts for that. I don't have a problem with that. If you read the Bible that way and you are convinced by the tradition passed down then I don't think it would be helpful to argue the toss.
After all, many did understand it that way. But not everybody. The Didache does not even mention transubstantiation. You would expect a document of that nature to to teach "The heart of Christianity", wouldn't you? But no. Its very Jewish it's description of the eucharist.
The verses that talk about it are somewhat "poetic". They are a bit hazy as to whether the eucharist REPRESENTS the body and blood of of Jesus or actually BECOMES the body and blood of Jesus.
That's not a rejection, that's just a different understanding. Its not heresy, it's just a belief system that is completely valid. Protestants take communion very seriously. We examine ourselves and ensure we don't take it unworthily. We repent of sin and it is a very serious moment. That is all the scriptures require of us. You can't prove otherwise. That's going to end up in a big debate that will lead nowhere.
Here's my suggestion:
Bury the hatchet. You don't HAVE to believe in transubstantiation to have a valid Lords supper. What is the point in throwing rocks at another brother who sees things differently and with good reason? Its OK. let him be.
Many Protestant churches model their worship styles around David and the Psalms. That's ok. You don't HAVE to do a litturgy. I actually enjoy both. I am equally edified.
How about more thinking about unity? I think that is a better way
And here’s my suggestion: show me your exegetical work proving that the bread and wine are merely allegorical.
Where do you guys get all these nutty ideas? St.Ignatius of Antioch was tutored directly by St.John the Apostle (the one who wrote the bread of life discourse). St.Ignatius relays what he was taught by the Apostles; that the eucharist is indeed the flesh of Jesus; using the same words and terms as most closely found in Transubstantiation. That was in 110AD from someone schooled by an Apostle and not refuted by those in the communties he bishoped.
No, you are mistaken- the original apostles do NOT teach that the Eucharist is allegory. And the verses are NOT “poetic” nor “hazy”- you must never have read John 6:53-58 or 1 Corinthians 11:27-31. And the Didache actually does teach the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist- it refers to the Eucharist as a “pure sacrifice”- how can one have an allegorical “pure sacrifice”? And as 39knights points out- St. Ignatius (and numerous other early leaders) wrote very explicitly about the Eucharist. So, no- disbelief about the Eucharist is NOT a valid understanding- it is indeed a heresy. And no, most Protestants do not “take communion very seriously”- many only celebrate communion once per month (some even only once per quarter), and they casually pass around a plate of crackers and grape juice that everyone grabs from, not caring about spillage, and they even throw away the leftovers afterward. Please don’t misunderstand, I am not trying to be condescending- tone of voice is not conveyed in writing, I am simply exposing the truth. I humbly recommend that you do a little more research. As for unity, yes indeed- we want unity- and Jesus Christ Himself prayed that Christians be united (see John 17:20-23). Therefore, everyone should be a member of the Body of Christ- the one original Church that He Himself established- not a separated part from one of the thousands of communities that rejected His Body. We love you and would gladly welcome you into Christ’s Church in which you can experience the fullness of Christ’s love.
It is simply false to assert that "Protestants reject the heart of Christianity."
JESUS is the heart of Christianity.
You should stop lying about and attacking your brothers and sisters in Jesus. You are causing unnecessary division among the Body of Christ.
Do me a favor and interact with the actual substance of the argument and don’t just make silly platitudinal reactions to the title of the video.
The only parts of protestantism which remain christian are the parts they have retained unchanged from their Catholic heritage. Everything else is of the made-up-mumbo-jumbo religion.
All the covenants are for Israel, not the gentile. The only covenant that would be for the gentiles would be the Abrahamic covenant when God said those that bless Israel, he will bless. Those that curse Israel, God will curse. Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Even the new convenant is for Israel read Jeremiah 31:31-34.
If you had listened to Martin Luther, we wouldn't be here.
? If only Martin Luther had listened to the councils and the apostolic tradition…
@midairfortress-revert The Catholiic church would still be selling indulgences to this day without Luther.
So Martin Luther is your benchmark?
@NuLeif Martin Luther was an unheeded warning.
@ You mean Martin Luther who saw nothing in himself but wickedness and corruption and God as the minister of wrath and vengeance?
Who was devoid of humble charity and confidence in the pardoning mercy of God and Jesus Christ?
The person who “hated God and was angry at him”, blasphemed God, and deplored that he was ever born (Jurgens, op. cit., I, 577-585).
There is only one priesthood snd thats the Levitical priesthood.
“A priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” (Ps. 110, Heb. 5:6,10, 6:20, 7:17)
Reread the Bible sir. Sacrifices began in Gen 4, the Levitical priesthood didn’t exist until after the golden calf incident in Ex 32.
The Levical priesthood was not a new priesthood created in the desert but a punishment for the disobedience they did while Moses was on the mountain. Here God restricted the priesthood to Aaron and his family for remaining faithful.
I find it interesting that Catholics only use Johns account in John 20:23 when there are three other accounts of this same commission. Mark 16:15-18 is the most detailed account. It actually states what remits or retains the persons sin. Catholics don't like Mark 16:15--18 because it gives power to the gospel and not the Apostles (priests). It's a good test if your priests are the right ones. Have them perform the signs in Mark 16:17-18.
I mean no offense my friend but if I take your comment at face value, you are proving that you don't read or understand much Catholic doctrine. I'll make just two or three quick remarks. 1) The very passage in Mark you cite is a passage most Protestants reject as being canonical **precisely because it "sounds too Catholic." 2) Catholic doctrine references dozens of passages that demonstrate the sacrament of reconciliation; I have no idea where you come up with the idea that that the Church's defense rests on one passage; 3) your last comment is richly ironic given the one of the motives of credibility the Church has always put forward, in sharp contrast to the cessationism that marks much of Protestantism and has since 1517, is the continued miracles God performs through the Church.
Explain that the miraculous signs mentioned in Mark 16 (driving out demons, drinking poison) were not performed to prove a believer’s faith or that one has a “special anointing,” as taught by the Church of God with Signs Following sect, but instead they were meant to confirm the truth of Christ’s message.
Bernard Orchard’s A Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture explains the miracles of Mark 16:17-18 in this way:
When sending the Apostles on a temporary mission in Palestine, Christ gave them power to cast out demons in order to strengthen the appeal of their preaching. Now he promises to believers miraculous signs to guarantee the truth and divine origin of the doctrine which they had accepted (Heb. 2:4). The promise is made to the community of the faithful rather than to each individual believer. In the early days of the Church, possibly because of a skeptical and hostile world to which the Gospel and Church were still new, some of these manifestations more frequent than in later times. But Christ’s promise is not limited to a particular period. In every age miracles have given proof that Christ abides with the Church.
What denomination are you affiliated with?
@@midairfortress-revert I don't reject any of the scriptures. I'm not Protestant. I don't care if it sounds too Catholic. It says what it says and there is a reason why it does. If Catholics want to claim that it's for them, they have that right. But if you understand the gospels, we see that the only way for a gentile to be saved was to bless Israel. Salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22). If you are trying to prove the Catholic church in the gospels when the Lord is trying to prepare Israel for Daniel's 70th week, which is why they have to endure to the end in Matthew chapter 24. You are placing the church the body of Christ in the wrong place. When did Peter open the door to the kingdom to the gentiles???
Protestants reject the false doctrine that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. It is not. Communion is a remembrance, not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is laying one's life down.
Hebrews 10:11,12
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.
How is this description of Jewish temple worship any different than the Eucharist?
Every Christian before Luther disagreed with you.
According to Heb. 13:10 believers have altar from which priests of the Jerusalem Temple (or Tent during Exodus) have no right to eat. In the Old Testament they had the right to eat some sacrifice or offering from the altar of Jerusalem Temple (Lev. 6:26; 7:6; 24:9, Num. 18:10-11 etc.). Only sacrifice or offering can be served form altar. In 1 Cor 10:21 Paul wrote about partaking the Eucharist from the Table of the Lord. The Table of the Lord is synonymous with altar as it is stated in Mal. 1:6-8. In other words the Eucharist is sacrifice. The Eucharist is not new sacrifice/offering but the same sacrifice Christ made on the cross is made present in ovary Mass.
@@justfromcatholic A protestant church can have their own Eucharist, following the breaking of the bread and sharing of wine, and some protestant churches actually do. No need for it to be an RCC exclusive event.
True because if there is no blood involved, and not a symbolic one but real blood, then it's a pointless sacrifice. So the RCC would have to sacrifice an animal every mass. But because Jesus was the sacrifice ONCE and for all, that animal sacrifice is also useless.
@@techwizpc4484 Early Christians understood the Mass to be a continuation of Old Testament temple worship.
Transubstantiation (Instituted in AD 1215)
Definition:"The whole substance of the bread and wine is converted into the actual and real, entire body and blood of Christ." Radbertus first suggested this idea in the 9th century. Catholicism supports this by a literal view of Matthew 26:26-29. The bread and wine, however, were only symbols of Christ's body and blood-partaken of as an act of remembrance (Luke 22:19). There is no "conversion" of the bread into literal flesh, nor of the wine into blood. Note:
1) Jesus, after saying "this is My blood" in verse 28, added: "I will not drink at all of this fruit of the vine…" (verse 29)-showing that it was still wine and had not changed into blood.
2) Jesus often described Himself in symbols, yet no one takes these literally:
• John 10:7 "I am the door"-Did Jesus mean He was literally wooden? No.
• John 14:6 "I am the way"-Did Jesus mean He was literally a road? No.
• John 15:5 "I am the vine"-Did Jesus mean He was a literally a vine? No.
• John 8:12 "I am the light"-Did Jesus mean He was literally a light? No.
• John 6:48 "I am the bread of life"-Did Jesus mean He was literally a loaf of bread? No.
• John 6:63 indicates that Jesus was speaking figuratively, spiritually-not literally.
3) The bread and wine did not become Christ's body and blood because God forbids the drinking of blood (Deuteronomy 12:16; Acts 15:20, 29).
4) We take Christ as our Savior once. Passover is to be a recurring memorial and, therefore, has no saving merit of itself. Catholics are commanded to believe in transubstantiation because the teaching was decreed at the Council of Trent (1551) as essential for salvation. The Council pronounced a curse on anyone who would deny it. Paul, on the other hand, pronounced a double curse in Galatians 1:6-9 on anyone who preached a different Gospel-one that denied Christ's death and resurrection as being fully sufficient for salvation.
5) Before Jesus ascended into heaven, He promised to come to us via the Holy Spirit-not through some mysterious "sacrifice of the mass." "[God] shall give you another Comforter, that it may be with you throughout the age: even the Spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive because it perceives it not, nor knows it; but you know it because it dwells with you, and shall be within you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you" (John 14:16-18).
How then do we "eat Christ's flesh and drink Christ's blood"? By taking in the words of God when we call on Christ to save us: "The words that I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life" (John 6:63). Peter got the message: "You have the words of eternal life" (verse 68). The scribes, who heard Jesus' words, understood the Hebraic idea of receiving God's words into one's inner being: "Your words were found, and I ate them" (Jeremiah 15:16); "I will put My law in their inward parts" (Jeremiah 31:34).
If the transubstantiation doctrine was formulated in the 9th century and is necessary for salvation, what happened to all those living before that time, before transubstantiation was thought of? Did they all go to hell?
19. The Mass (Instituted in AD 394)
Definition: "At every mass, Christ is sacrificed again." Catholicism says: "In the mass, no less than on Calvary, Jesus really offers His life to His Father."
But must Jesus be continually sacrificed-or was His one-time death sufficient to pay for sin forever? Christ's one-time sacrifice is sufficient; here's why:
1) Jesus, as He died, said: "It is finished" (John 19:30)-the whole work of salvation, for which He came into the world, was accomplished on the cross. Nothing more can be added to it. The mass insults Christ's death on the cross as being not good enough to pay fully for all of our sins.
2) When Jesus died, the veil in the Jews' Temple as torn from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51), showing that the way into God's presence was open to all believers in Christ's work on the cross. No other sacrifice or priesthood was needed, just Jesus' High Priesthood.
3) The New Covenant states that: "Now where remission of these is, it is no longer necessary to offer sacrifices for sin" (Hebrews 10:18). The Catholic mass contradicts this clear statement.
4) In the book of Hebrews, Christ's sacrifice is said to be accomplished "once" for all-never to be repeated: Hebrews 7:27; Hebrews 9:25, 26, 28; and Hebrews 10: 10, 12, 14, 18. Peter adds that "Christ indeed once suffered for sins" (I Peter 3:18).
What you wrote is classic arguments against the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass.
1. The term Transubstantiation was introduced in 1215 AD but the belief did not start in that year. Just like the name Trinity was introduced in 4th century does not imply early Christians did not believe it.
2. You should compare the phase "This is my Body" with the phrase of the same word structure like "This is my beloved Son (Mat. 3:17, 17:5, Mar. 9:7, Luk. 9:35). The former came God the Son, and the latter came from God the Father. In the latter the word “this” refers to Jesus, while “my” refers to God the Father. Jesus is not figuratively Son of God, like the Israelites (Exo. 4:22) and neither He was one of angels (the beloved one) referred as sons of God in Job 1:6 and 2:1. Jesus is indeed the beloved Son of God, consubstantial with God the Father. In the phrase “This is my Body”, “this” refers to the bread Jesus held in His hands, while “my” refers to Himself. He did not say: “this is my Body with the bread”, as taught by Luther. Neither did He say: “this is symbol of my Body” as taught by Zwingli, nor: “this is my Body spiritually present with the bread” as taught by Calvin. Thus, the bread is indeed His Body. A person may tell a lie when he said: “this is my car” if that car did not belong to him - but, certainly, we do not believe Jesus would lie to us, do we? Being God the Son, Jesus, who is now reigning in heaven (1 Cor. 15:25), certainly can make Himself sacramentally present in the form of bread and wine in every Mass. The intention is to enable us, which is grace from Him, through consuming His Body (His Flesh and His Blood), to become partakers of His divine nature (2 Pe. 1:4).
3. What is forbidden is drinking blood from animals. You yourself do not obey what Scripture says not to blood of animals. If you do you must consume kosher meat (slaughtered by Jews) or halal meat (slaughtered by Muslims).
4. Passover meal of OT is indeed recurring and sacrificial meal where Jews consumed (roasted) passover sacrificed lamb. Christ is the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant (1 Cor. 5:7).
According to 1 Cor. 10:21 we partake the Eucharist from the Table of the Lord. Table of the Lord is ALTAR, based on Mal. 1:6-8 says. You do not serve ordinary meal from altar but sacrifice or offering. Heb. 13:10 says believers have altar were those who serve at the tent (levitical priests) have no right to eat. Priests of OT were entitled to eat some of sacrifice from altar in tent (during exodus) or later in Jerusalem Temple (Lev. 6:26; 7:6; 24:9, Num. 18:10-11 etc.)
5. Jesus did promise the Holy Spirit to guide His disciples in truth including THINGS TO COME (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit did not mute Himself or became inactive for fourteen centuries (until Reformation) after the death of the last apostle or after the last book of NT was written. Why would He?
When Jesus said "it is finished" he accomplished His mission why He became human (Mar.10:45), that is to atone the sins of all men and therefore led to justification and life for all men (Rom. 5:18), not only believers.
The torn curtain between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place in Jerusalem Temple (or Tent during Exodus) show that New Covenant priests and the High Priest (Jesus) offer the same offering. Most of OT offering were abolished. In the Mass the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross is made present (NOT repeated) through the ministry of priests.
Dear brother, you’ve done a fine job straw-manning Catholic Eucharistic theology. If you would only read the relevant portions of the catechism you would easily see that.