Honestly it’s good it doesn’t work vice versa. Receiving communion in a n orthodox church would be saying you align with their teachings. Which we do not.
Which one would be easier. 1.5 billion Catholics converting to one of the hundreds or so Protestant denominations. Or all of the Protestant denominations which amount to about 1 billion people converting to Catholicism. How would we decide which denomination to choose? We can be united without agreeing on everything. I pray that you do start to believe in the one true church and convert to becoming a catholic. I love you . Jesus loves you more.
John 17:21 NLT [21] I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one-as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.
Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t Lutherans believe in “consubstantiation?” I hold that we shouldn’t quarrel about specific words but I think in the consubstancial and transibstantial case they have enough difference in meaning to make the distinction very necessary and important as in no we don’t believe the same thing as the Lutherans on this.
@@in_defense_of_the_church that’s a good point, I’ve talked to some Lutheran’s and Anglicans that don’t get so caught up in cons. vs. trans. in the Eucharist metaphysics debate and just prefer to say they believe in simply the Real Presence similar to the Orthodox. I think the main reason why Catholics still don’t recognize Lutheran or Anglican Eucharist is because of the holy orders and the element of the Eucharist being a sacrifice and the priest or minister having a apostolic sacerdotal role has gone away in their beliefs; while the Orthodox still being those along with their Real Presence view
@@Life-er6mq I still lean more on the point that the doctrine itself is still not the same to be considered cohesive or one. The metaphysical debate can get glossed over as you mention, “don’t get caught up in…” but that to me is worth looking into bc it’s not something to just pretend like nuances don’t matter, in my opinion. If I say the host, being bread first, during the Holy Mass is then in substance no longer bread but rather flesh. The soul, the body, the divinity of our Lord all while the accident, the part I can see continues to look like bread ….. Then it’s not the same as if I say, The bread first, is then flesh and blood and bread after being consecrated. I’d argue that at the Last Supper, our Lord took bread and said, “this is my body.” and none of us believe that bread then physically became flesh. But He also didn’t say, “this is also my body.” By His words He changes the object, being bread, to being flesh. Not a combination of the two, body and bread. And it’s not so much as the holy orders bc even the orthodox have holy orders and the Church accepts that they do consecrate the host jut illicitly because they aren’t in communion. I’d say the reason is more because the Church has always believed in transubstantiation even though the term itself hasn’t always been used. “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).”
Armenia oriental orthodox allows catholics to receive the eucharist . But one day we will ALL be one again . Oriental orthodox , eastern orthodox and the Assyrian church of the east with the Catholic church
@@LiteralyRealRyanGosling not really no Lutherans would also refuse communion at the Roman church since they hold closed communion it goes a little bit further than just the view of the Eucharist
Also, Catholics must be properly disposed to receive (in a state of Grace, have fasted before hand, etc) For example, those who are divorced and remarried without an annulment can't receive either. When I just sucked down a fancy coffee drink right before I go into Church, I shouldn't receive.
@@matthewrice9323No such thing as divorce in the sacrament of matrimony. If a couple married in the catholic church is not living a married life anymore, and begin seeing other people. They are committing the sin of adultery, as well as their new partners. Adultery is a mortal sin, which means you are not in a state of grace. And you must be in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist. Matrimony is a sacred unity of a man and a woman under God, and the promise is until death.
@@Chris-no8yb thank you for the great response! What if the husband started abusing the wife and she ran away? Is she not allowed to find love again? I’m asking, not arguing.(I’m specifying because when I ask questions like this I usually don’t get a kind response)
@@matthewrice9323I’m not sure in situations of abuse. Possibly an annulment could be up for investigation? It would be up to the church to determine if it is merited. But I think ultimately she would have to continue living chastely. Do note though, that she may find the greatest love there could possibly be. In Christ. By this suffering and cross she bears, the Lord will fill her with joy. And by the will of God she may forgive her abuser.
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing that is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined" from Justin Martyr's First Apology 66 (c. A.D. 151)
Gotcha gotcha. So to the Catholic Church you can only be saved when you believe in the Catholic Church. That's crazy, this whole time I was believing in Christ, the Son of God Almighty, whom the scriptures tell me I must believe in to be saved. Now I see the disconnection between Catholics and Protestants. Guess I'll continue being a Protestant
@@JayRedding12_12 I wasn't actually believeing in Christ cause the Catholic Church said I wasn't? Are you actually hearing yourself? Let me ask you something, if you didn't have the Catholic Church could YOU actually have a belief in Christ. Like you specifically. Do you truly think that the Roman Catholic Church is required to have a belief and relationship with Christ, and if you do, where does Jesus Christ say that?
@@HamSamich99 Sorry to interject, but I would like to share some verses where Jesus tells us to follow the church he founded. Such as: Simon becoming Peter (First Pope) - Matthew 16:18-19 Peter given the responsibility to shepherd Jesus’s flock - John 21:15-17 The Sacrament of Reconciliation - John 20:21-23 Apostolic Tradition and Succession is necessary and the foundation of the church - Ephesians 2:19-20 and Acts 2:42 These are but a few of the many verses that affirm the Catholic Church being the Church Jesus founded.
@@HamSamich99 Now, on the topic of salvation outside of the Catholic Church, it’s not so black and white. But ultimately what we believe is if you are truly convicted that it is the church Christ left us, but still reject to follow its teachings and be in communion with the Magisterium. You will possibly be in some trouble on your day of judgement. We can’t know. Only God can know who is saved, and I pray he has mercy on us all. Praying for you, and I humbly ask you pray for me.
I, as a Christian, born into a Lutheran faith, have always believed that the sacrament of communion is the body and blood of Jesus christ. And i believe that there is only one spirit and that the one baptism in the spirit connects all Christians. Religion is going to destroy the body of christ while faith brings us closer. There is not a church on this planet that got the "correct" true faith. The devil and the world corrupt all. We are one in God alone through grace.
Eucharistic Rosary: There are five mysteries to meditate on Eucharistic devotion. 1. the wedding feast at Cana (Jesus changes water 💦 into wine 🍷(John2:1-12) 2. multiplication of loaves and fishes (John 6:1-15). 3. the teaching on the bread of life (John 6:22-71). 4. the last supper (John 14:1-1726). 5. the road to Emmaus (John 24:13-35). Rev. Robert Stein wrote A Scriptural Rosary for Eucharistic Devotion.
You guys don’t believe in the sacraments. You have to be in the state of grace in order to receive the Holy Sacrament. There other sacraments you have to profess into believing before you can get to this blessing.
That doesn’t matter. If you want the Eucharist you can get on from a Protestant church and if you want one from a Catholic Church then follow the rules to getting it. Your thinking I’d def very Protestant but also know that orthodox and Catholic Churches are more specific.
Former protestant now a recent convert to Orthodox Christianity, I refuse to commune at all roman catholics Parishes no exceptions. The reason we Orthodox have closed Communion is actually out of concern for the non Orthodox. The Holy Eucharist which is Christ's literal Body and Blood is for the Body of Christ (His Church) "for the healing of soul and body" -St John Chrystosom. When we commune we're actively participating in Christ's salvation and Transformation in our life which includes confessing our sins and receiving Absolution. For non Orthodox who are outside the Body of Christ, to receive the Mystical Supper in an unworthy manner would cause them spiritual and at times physical harm. Think of it like taking medicine you don't need and how it can greatly hurt your health. The Divine and Life-giving Mysteries are the Spiritual Medicine for our sick souls and bodies as the Church Fathers regularly refer to them. As Saint Paul famously wrote in his Epistles about those who don't discern the Body and Blood of Christ many got sick and some died. So whether protestant, Roman catholic, Miaphastye, Nestorian who are outside The Body of Blood whether the believe in the real presence since Communion isn't merely partaking Christ Himself but as apart of salvation and Theosis are denied Communion. Even for us Orthodox Catholics if we don't prepare ourselves by prayer and fasting, or haven't made a recent confession or havent made peace with someone we wronged we wouldn't commune of the Mystical Supper. "I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. I believe also that this is truly Thine own pure Body, and that this is truly Thine own precious Blood. Therefore I pray Thee: have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, of knowledge and of ignorance. And make me worthy to partake without condemnation of Thy most pure Mysteries, for the remission of my sins, and unto life everlasting. Amen. Of Thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant; for I will not speak of Thy Mystery to Thine enemies, neither like Judas will I give Thee a kiss; but like the thief will I confess Thee: Remember me, O Lord in Thy Kingdom. May the communion of Thy Holy Mysteries be neither to my judgment, nor to my condemnation, O Lord, but to the healing of soul and body. Amen." -Saint John Chrystosom
From the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr, c. 155 AD “ No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ. We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.
I don’t claim any denomination myself, but I whole heartedly believe in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Would I be able to partake in the Eucharist in a Catholic Church? Or would I have to get confirmed first?
I think this passage suggests that St. Paul considered Christians to be only those who believed that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and partook of it: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." (1Cor 10:16-17)
Bro why in your videos you keep generalizing and saying "protestants" when you refer to baptist non denom and methodist. Lutherans and Anglicans belive in real presence
So im Protestant, but I am curious the exact reason Catholics think this. Like what’s the passages you would use? Not in a mean way though. Genuinely want to understand more about Catholicism.
The biggest one I’ve seen is 1 Corinthians 11:27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
A well disposed member of the Orthodox Church may receive communion in the Catholic Church according to CIC - I think that effectively could narrow this expectation to Orthodox believers intending to convert to Catholicism, or else they could be (hypothetically) guilty of public grave sin - schism.
@@SerqussThe way to salvation is to accept Jesus Christ as our Savior who took our punishment for our sins on the cross and rose again. If someone believes that, repents of their sins, and commits their life to following Jesus, they will be saved.
@@krd3804 If you're saved, then you're part of the one and only kingdom of God. On earth, Jesus founded one and only everlasting Church, which means that the Church is God-made institution, which happens to employ humans. However, because it's God-made, it cannot be destroyed. The Church's mission is to save souls. The Church, which is the Body of Christ, is the one and only doorway into the Kingdom of God. Faith in Jesus means believing that when you unite yourself to the Body of Christ, you will be like Christ, be saved, and be resurrected in the last day.
I think this passage suggests that St. Paul considered Christians to be only those who believed that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and partook of it: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1Cor 10:16-17).
@@Serqusswe are the Church and the body of Christ because we are the Temple the Holy Spirit dwells in not a denomination or place or ritualistic routine. His work is finished on the cross by his blood alone are we saved. The Ultimate Price But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed - Isaiah 53:5 In Genesis 3, when the serpent beguiled Eve and man disobeyed God’s instruction, the inevitable consequence was death: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die“ (Genesis 2:17). The death spoken of here isn’t only referring to the cessation of the natural human life but also to spiritual death. Spiritual death is worse than physical death, because it’s total severance or separation from God. This became man’s state after the fall of Adam. Death, the ultimate penalty for sin got the upper hand and reigned in the lives of men: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12). But God’s love for man made Him move swiftly to man’s rescue. He immediately initiated the sacrifice of bulls and goats as atonement for sin. This was the order with the children of Israel, for without the shedding of blood there couldn’t be remission for sin (Hebrews 9:22).the Bible lets us know that the sacrifice of bulls and goats was not enough for man’s total redemption; it only offered a temporary solution: “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). So what? God initiated a grand plan for man’s total salvation. That plan was consummated when He ushered in His Son, Jesus Christ-the Lamb of God-to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29). By His death on the cross of Calvary, He bore our sins and washed them away with His blood, once and for all! He paid the ultimate price for sin, which man had incurred without a means of settlement. Hebrews 9:12 says, “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Christ has paid the ultimate price for your eternal salvation, thereby making you free from the shackles of sin, death and destruction. No wonder the Bible says “For God SO LOVED the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life“ (John 3:16).
As Jesus told Thomas: Blessed are those who do not see, yet believe. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:29: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” Question, why would there be judgement on anyone IF IT’s ONLY A SYMBOL⁉️
Most Lutheran's believe that it is both the body and blood of Jesus and bread and wine. I am fairly certain that there arnt many other protestant denominations that believe this though. One thing I think is interesting is how the Catholic Church has steadily become more liberal and similar to the Lutheran Church. One major example of this was during covid the Pope saying that you could pray directly to God and dod not have to go through a said or something.
Lutherans do believe it's the blood of christ however they don't believe in how it become the blood of christ transubstantiation. The Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. Also a perfect act of contrition is very different from what certain Protestant churches believe about forgiveness of sin
@@burtonspringer8327Lutheran's do not believe in consubstantiation. This is a title often thrown at Lutheran's as a way to differentiate their view. The way they describe the Eucharist also would not fall under the definition of transubstantiation nor have any confessions taught it as such (consubstantiation and transubstantiation) and it has been rejected. Lutheran's do not themselves use this term, but I imagine it's possible a lay Evangelical Catholic has used it without understanding the nuances to the position.
@@caseycardenas1668 But they do there is infact a difference between how Apostolic Churches and Lutherans understand the Eucharist. The Lutherans see the Eucharist as both Bread and Body and Blood and Wine at the same time. Whilst the Roman Catholics see it as transforming from blood and bread into wine and body, and that it only looks like wine and bread still.
The anglicans believe it is the literal body of Christ. So do I, I’m Presbyterian and go to a Protestant church, but we fully believe it is not a symbol, it has been transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. As I’ve interacted with more Christian groups I’ve come to find some groups actually believe it is only a symbol which is very sad (please pray for these people I am not judging them at all). But not every Protestant falls for the lies that it is just a symbol. God bless everyone
@@Andy26231in John 6 when people abandon Him for telling them to eat His flesh He doesn’t tell them that it’s just a metaphor like how He did with Niccodeemus and baptism. He doubles down on the literal interpretation.
as an orthodox i partook the communion in a Catholic church once, but it was only because i was outta town and there no orthodox church around. i was so hungry for the Body and Blood, i couldn't live without it. so i took it in a Catholic church. felt different because they handed me the bread. and the liturgy felt different. but it's the body and the blood of my King nonetheless, my life.
Yes, you are not Orthodox. The many Orthodox churches all believe that the Roman Catholic church is heretical and devoid of valid Eucharist and sacraments. St. Mark of Ephesus, St. Gregory palamas St. Photios Are all pillars of orthodoxy who say that Roman Catholicism is heresy
I’ve been planning on visiting a Catholic Church and taking communion, I didn’t know it wasn’t allowed. I’m willing to accept for that brief moment that the Eucharist is what you guys say it is and see what happens, I believe in abandoning everything I know in order to seek the truth. That’s what happened in the first place when He woke me up. So can I go take communion or not?
I have received communion in the Catholic Church numerous times as a Protestant. They don’t have any way of knowing if you are Catholic or not. If you know the ritual you can receive communion. It’s really not a big deal….
It wasnt Christ's literal body even at the Last Supper ..Jesus wasn't calling Himself literal bread when He said l am the Bread of Life referring to the Word of God the Written Word or Spoken one which represents Him who iis the Living Word who is still SPEAKING TO THIS DAY THUS MAN SHALL KOT LIVE BY BREAD ( ie the Written Word ) alone but every Word that proceeds from the mouth of GOD the Living Word who still SPEAKING today though never contradicting HIS Written Word
@@badnewsbruner and I thought 14 year old white anglo saxon protestant girls didn't know what the word "literally" means. Why would those who left have found it a "hard saying" which was difficult to understand? Because they didn't understand the foundation Jesus was laying or what He would soon go through or because they couldn't figure out exactly how much flour Christ was chemically composed of?
@badnewsbruner is it possible that Christ said this specifically to weed out the faithless and doubting, and then later clarified the meaning of the metaphor with the remnant of disciples at the last supper?
@@justinclinton1185 It has been made clear repeatedly that Christ meant this literally. Read the Church Fathers, and look at the first 7 ecumenical councils. Every answer you could ever have has already been answered by the holiest men to walk the earth. May the Lord bless you.
@@badnewsbrunerI think the disciples thought Jesus was saying to literally eat Jesus, not the bread on the table (weather or not the bread was Christ’s flesh or not) John 6:52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
If you do decide to go up you can receive a blessing just make sure you give the symbol that you aren't ready or don't want to. You cross your arms kinda like 🙅🏽♂️
It’s Catholic dogma that all who receive the body and blood of Christ while outside of the Catholic Church profanes, that includes the Eastern Schismatics.
@@JamesMathison98 Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.” Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “… whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery… ‘Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house is unholy.’” Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”
The main differences between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism. the main things which keep our religions separate are: Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, The Filioque, Absolute Divine Simplicity, Created Grace Doctrine, natural theology, scholasticism, Original sin, sacred heart doctrine, Immaculate conception, Purgatory, Merits/Indulgences, evolution of Dogma,imaginative prayer, "beatific vision" etc Then the Forced Celibacy of Priests, The use of Unleavened Bread in the Eucharist, The Adoption and change of the Christian calendar, The use of Renaissance statues, Pews, Child Communion, improper non immersion baptism, Cardinals, and differences in liturgical practices (Alter tables, Iconostasis, priest positioning etc) all of those things, we say the Western Church adopted and innovated and became heretical when they adopted these things. And we say that in the early church NONE of these things existed, there is no evidence of these things. No examples of Papal Infallibility, No examples of merits/indulgences, and no examples of unleavened wafer bread, and such. In fact in the west, In Rome. It looked a lot similar to how we Orthodox exist today. Our priests can get married, we use Icons and not statues, we use the old calendar etc Orthodoxy Vs Roman Catholicism: Energy Essence Distinction vs Absolute Divine Simplicity Ancestral Sin vs Original Sin Non Filioque Trinity vs Filioque Trinity Patriarchy vs Papacy Revealed Theology vs Natural Theology Hesychasm Vs Scholasticism Theosis vs Sanctification Married Priest vs Celibate Priests Infant Communion Vs Non Infant Communion Iconography vs Statues Full Immersion Baptism vs Sprikle Baptism One Baptism vs Confirmation Baptism Leavened Communion Bread vs Unleavened Communion bread Julian Calendar vs Pope Gregory's Calendar We are not the same Religion, we do not have the same faith, and anyone who looks into either religions genuinely will see how different we are.
As an Orthodox, I agree with many of the points you make but not the calendar. The determination of the Paschal moon is a doctrinal matter. The equinox cannot be because it is dependent on the astronomical knowledge at the time. Like it or not, the Gregorian calendar is more accurate than the Julian. Eventually, the time will come that, unless a decision is made by the Church, (as it was dine before) we will end up celebrating Easter in the summer (because of the drift between Julian and Gregorian calendars). Now, of course divine time is not bound by human measures of time, but Jesus is human too. His birth, ministry death and Resurrection are parts of human History; celebrating Easter in the Spring, after Jewish Passover is a testament of the reality of His existence. And this is where the problem lies. As the dates between Julian and Gregorian calendars diverge the date of the equinox (which is an astronomical event, not a doctrinal statement( will too. Eventually, we will end up celebrating Easter in the summer. And this is not a trivial fact. Obviously you can go around and say that June is actually April, but the fact of the matter is that whatever the conventions of month/date naming are, this month will be a summer month and not a spring one. Seasons are not conventions; they are real manifestations of the actual relative positions of the Earth and the Sun. And we run the risk that Orthodox Easter will lose its connection to the reality of the event , which is not what the Church Fathers intended. As a final point, I hope you realize how ridiculous it is to reject a calendar because it was invented by a schismatic/heretic Christian bishop while at the same time you argue for a calendar invented by a pagan murderous general/dictator. Let’s not confuse local traditions bound by a mentality of “we keep things as they were in the past” with Holy Tradition which is what God has revealed as Truth, and like God, His Truths are unchanged and eternal.
Liturgical differences are not a reason for the split. The west had a venerable liturgy up until the 1970s when they instituted the Novus Ordo mass. The tridente mass (which was a standardization of what was already the practice) is a venerable liturgy that has roots before the schism, it’s the liturgy of St. Gregory the Great. We orthodox also celebrate this liturgy in the Antiochian western-rite.
@@ShawnComposer it’s not just liturgical differences. Unfortunately, after the Schism, there are many unilateral decisions and theological statements made by the Western Church that in the view of the Orthodox Church are heretical, or at least, problematic. Take, for example, the concept of Original Sin, as it was formulated by St. Augustine. This was not what early Church Fathers taught, and it was not the understanding of contemporary to Augustine Church Fathers of the East. Unfortunately, Augustine did not know Greek; he relied on translations of Greek texts to Latin and this led to his misunderstanding of what exactly was the “inheritance” of Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden. That inheritance was not the guilt of a crime. Guilt only concerned Adam and Eve; the inheritance of their sin was death and this is what concerns all of us. Unfortunately, Augustinian thought shaped the Western Church’s theology and that resulted to other “innovations”, like “Satisfaction Theology” (Anselm of Canterbury), ultimately leading to the necessity of the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception (The RC trapped itself; if sin is a crime against God and if the Holy Mother is guilty of that sin then she needs to be cleansed). All these innovations and , dare I say, heresies, go back to a misunderstanding of what sin is and what divine justice is; ( in the view of the Orthodox, sin a state of separation from God that resulted to death, that is what we inherited from Adam and Eve, not their responsibility (guilt) of their crime against God, but the consequences of their separation from God, which is death. This is just one instance that something originally trivial ( perhaps a wrong choice of words, a slight misunderstanding in meaning) resulted to theological and doctrinal differences that are so much harder to reconcile compared to a correction in a translation. I do hope that one day we will be able to celebrate the Eucharist with our RC brothers and sisters as “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, but there is lot of work to be done, and of a lot of egos (from both sides) to be silenced.
@@maxloebnau2559 as a Lutheran pastor, we don't believe consubstantiation. We call it "Real Presence". It's 100 % body and 100% bread. 100% blood and 100% wine. Consubstantiation means a mixing of the body and bread, like a 50% and 50% proposition. We believe sort of like the Catholics, but we disagree that transubstantiation is the only way to define the mode of Christ's presence. Transubstantiation uses philosophical terms like essence and accidence to define the transformation. We don't like the philosophical language. Rather, we leave that up to mystery.
Reception of communion means that you are in "communion". Lutherans are not in communion with the Catholic Church. If they were then they would be Catholic but, they are not.
So Catholics allow the Orthodox to receive, but the Orthodox don't allow Catholics to receive?? Now that's uninclusive. I think the major branches of Christianity are so wound up in who's right that only they have the true Christian path that they alienate each other. What would Jesus say? I was raised Roman Catholic, but I am more spiritually aligned with Anglican (Espiscopal). I see beauty in Orthodoxie, in Protestantism, Catholicism & Anglicanism. Each branch has its errors and each has its truth.
I’m not officially Catholic but I do believe in the real presence therefore I will take it because God knows what I believe and that’s what he cares about.
Friend I'll let you know now that you're in error and you shouldn't do that. Unless you've had your first confession and are absolved then you can't take communion. This is what the Easter vigil and first communion is about.
If anyone says to you, “look, here is the Christ”…do not believe him. Matthew24:23 Just listen for it next time you’re in Mass and the priest exclaims “behold, the lamb of God”.
I'm not Catholic but I still do communion you don't have to have it done by a priest just a person that's a godly man I've been in my Bible a lot lately and I've started to do communion myself so idk why people say non Catholics can not do communion
THE LAMB 🐑 OF GOD: John the Baptist called Jesus the “lamb of God” (John 1:29 & 1:36). Jesus is the pascal lamb 🐑 to be sacrificed. The Passover tradition started when Moses and the Israelites sacrificed an unblemished lamb 🐑 . In order to have the angel of death 💀 to Passover them, THEY HAD TO EAT THE SACRIFICIAL LAMB 🐑 (Exodus 12:8).
Anybody who’s been baptised catholic or Christian should be allowed the lords supper. The lord supper is to be done every Sunday just like the Bible says.
Who determines "should". If someone doesn't believe what the Catholic Church says about transubstantiation, why be in union with what they don't believe in? Of course, there is nothing stopping them from becoming Catholic....
@@LoneCrusader Jesus Christ and the gospels. Not the Pope who was never mentioned in the Bible in Gods commandments or Jesus teachings. The man made interpretation that when Jesus said to Peter that he was the rock was not meant to put any human above another but to show that common Christians like Peter will spread Gods word. Catholics worship the Pope Christian worship Jesus Christ. Catholics ask priest to forgive them which is not in the Bible. Christians pray and ask Jesus Christ to ask God to forgive them. I pray that you all go read the 4 gospels and re-examine the Catholic Church of today in relation to what Jesus ask of his people.
@@Juan-Hernandez-22 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together ato break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. Acts 20:7
I believe that Orthodox canon law allows Orthodox Priests to give communion to a Catholic in an emergency when there are no Catholic options. Emergency being death bed or in battle etc.
Orthodox do let Catholics partake their Eucharist, but it has to be special circumstances and you gotta contact the Orthodox priest/bishop of that parish.
@@zuarbrincar769I think it’s a good explanation. Yes, obviously it is a great sacrilege but from the protestant POV (i assume) it helps clear up and define “communion”
@@alwaysrootingfortheantihero123 you just answered your own question. Sacrilegous is an action that causes deep offense to a believer. What do we believe in? That the eucharist is Christ himself and you can proceed to the video's explanation since it's a clear explanation already.
SUPERNATURAL BREAD 🥖: Do you think 🤔 that when Jesus Christ taught us to pray 🙏🏽 and inserted “give us this day our daily bread 🥖”, He was referring to normal food❓ No! He was referring to the Eucharist‼️ The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains: The usual Greek word for “daily,” hemera, is, after all, used elsewhere in the New Testament, but not in this instance. Why did St. Matthew and St. Luke feel compelled to create a new Greek word to accurately reflect the words of Jesus? They most likely had to use a new word to faithfully translate a novel idea or a unique Aramaic word that Jesus used in His prayer. What was Jesus’ new idea? Although there are multiple levels of meanings to epiousios, Jesus is making a clear allusion to the Eucharist. “Our daily bread” is one translation of a word that goes far above our basic needs for sustenance, and invokes our supernatural needs. St. Jerome translated the Bible in the 4th century from the original Latin, Hebrew and Greek texts to form the Latin Vulgate Bible. When it came to the mysterious word epiousios, St. Jerome hedged his bets. In Luke 11:3, St. Jerome translated epiousios as “daily.” Yet, in Matthew 6:11, he translated epiousios as “supersubstantial.” The root words are: epi, meaning “above” or “super;” and ousia, meaning “being,” “essence,” or “substance.” When they are read together, we come to the possible translations of “super-substantial,” “above-essence,” or, in effect, “supernatural” bread. This translation as supersubstantial is still found today in the Douay-Rheims Bible. Taken literally, our supersubstantial bread is the Eucharist. (CCC 2837). Let’s not forget that the name “Bethlehem” means house of bread 🥖.
actually it is the opposite of what he says. i am baptized in the armenian orthodox church and i go to a catholic school. i have spoken to many clergy and all of them have said that my church allows catholics to receive our communion but they can never tale it because their church doesn’t allow them to and doesn’t allow us to take their communion. and for the record we also believe that that is the actual body of christ
For anyone thinking us Lutherans are consubstantiasts, we're not. Yes, we agree with the Catholics that you recieve the literal body and blood of Christ, not a mingling of the two substances (aka consubstantiation). The difference is that Lutherans don't take the extra step of trying to rationalize how it is by saying it tranforms, looses all sense of its original elements, etc. We just say, "Jesus says what He says, and we don't know how it is. We just believe." For us, it's not a matter of how, but rather the power it confers on the believer - that is, the forgiveness of sins. That's the focus.
Denomations are dumb we gotta have large meeting to make sure everyone agrees on one thing and have rules to the argument, don't lean into your own understanding, context, keep it as whole and understand what its being said
@@No_I_dont_want_to_ well if I have heard right, you have to attend classes for some weeks. Does that mean my sins aren't forgiven, and that I will go to hell if I die then, *that's* absurd
Because there's certain other things you need to believe as well, like the Marian Dogma etc, to be able to received the Eucharist, u need to be fully 100% believe in everything else that the Catholic Church teaches, just go enroll in the RCIA/OCIA classes so that you can fully understand the teaching and the reasoning of the Catholic Church
In Gospel Jesus says not to give our Hollynes to dogs, and our gems to pigs.. little rude to call someone dirty animal but meaning of metaphor is that they don't see the worth of what's in front of them and they will stamp on it, bite it, or piss on it..
Don't be quick to judge, there is a split in the protestant churches some do believe it is the lateral flash and blood. I'm my experience most do believe it is!
In the first communion none of that happened Jesus says to the apostle when they see a man casting out demons in his name let him worship his own way he doesn’t have to worship the same way.
I am Protestant and our church does communion from time to time. We all believe it is the body of Christ. Also the only thing we don’t believe is confession to a priest because we believe Jesus is the high priest. “where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” Hebrews 6:20 NIV “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9 NIV
Those things aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Jesus is the high priest AND yes, I have to confess my sins to another person "confess your sins to one another" in the Bible
You seem to have misunderstood the Lutheran view of the Eucharist. We believe in the true bodily and bloodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but we haven’t dogmatist the transsubstation, because it isn’t clear from scripture how precisely the elements change, only that they do. So we don’t disagree, we only try to stay humble towards the holy sacrament. But we’re still excluded sadly.
@@JamesMathison98 Becouse Jesus said love your enemy. In 1800 amiricans had slaves and trey use the Bible to support that. Did The crusades is a good thing?
@@Livuu.Emanuel most of the American south was and is Protestant. The Catholic Church always slavery in the way America ran it. I can’t speak for random Protestants, but the church has always forbade it as a grave sin. The crusades were a defensive series of wars to defend Catholic land and civilization from Muslim Invaders. So yes, the crusades were just, Catholics have the right to defend themselves against evil
Love how judgemental catholics are, while they have enough problems that they don't see. Reminder: You see the little peace of Woodstock in your brothers eye, but don't see the log in your own.
I am a conservative Episcopalian and I believe that the bread and wine become (somehow) the Body and Blood of Jesus - although I don't accept Transubstantiation because I don't accept Aristotle's metaphysics that everything is composed of accidents and substances. But I still will not receive in a Roman Catholic church because it is against the canons (church law) and I will not ask a priest to violate his vows to uphold canon law.
Whe you are born again, there is no need to take communion, with the wafer or the grape juice anymore, since now, you and the Spirit are joined in one accord, and you become one with Christ.. John 14:2-3.
That is a modern theology. None of the apostolic churches teach this. Catholic, With the Eastern rites, Orthodox, Assyrian/ Ancient Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox all being founded by Jesus then by one or more apostles. Born again is referring to Baptism and baptism only. Not made up theology. We all have this common sacrament even though the church is separated through schisms. The phrase born again came about popularly in the 1960s. The thought 18th century.
@@luigimrlgaming9484 if I remember, he told that to his apostles, until they received his Spirit, then when he was glorified they all became one in Spirit with the lord.
?? He says the churches policy is actually the opposite of Un inclusive. Well, the opposite of Un inclusive is inclusive. The policy may be a lot of things but it is not inclusive.
Lutherans profess it as true. We believe it is literally the body and blood of Christ with in and under the elements of bread and wine. We believe that is it truly the body and blood of Christ. My denomination also has 2 valid lines of apostolic succession (through the Episcopal church USA-Scottish Episcopal Church-Anglican Church and the Swedish Lutheran Church)….so not all Protestants.
I'm protestant and kinda iffy on the Eucharist. The thing I'm not so sure on is if people can say it "physically" turns into the flesh of Christ. I'm fine with saying He's in it spiritually, but if the waffer remains bread, how can it physically change?
I forget the specifics of the Aristotle dichotomy, but i can help out in a contextual manner. There is form and essence. The form is what something looks like, the essence is what something is. A tree is a tree because its in the form of a tree and the essence of the tree is to be a tree, because thats what it is. The form is bread and wine, but the essence is the body and blood of Our Lord. Transubstansiton is the change of essence in to flesh and blood, while maintain the form of bread and wine. It LOOKS like bread, but it IS the Body of Jesus. It LOOKS like wine, but it IS the blood of Jesus. St. Thomas Aquinas explains this in good detail, if you want to learn more. Hope that helps, God Bless!
@@iagoofdraiggwyn98 Thanks! Though, I still feel you can't say it "physically" changes. Yeah, it can change in spirit through (can't spell it. Sorry😅) but if it still looks like bread, how can we claim it physically changes. I can accept that Jesus is in communion, but I can't get behind the wording of it. But thanks for giving me a clearer understanding!
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” - John 3:3 - Don’t follow religion or a church, follow the teachings of Christ which is in the bible.
Why does it matter tho whether you believe it’s literal or not? Aren’t both orthodox/catholics/protestants all taking communion in remembrance of what Christ did because we all believe He is our Lord and Savior and that he died on the cross and rose 3 days later?
We don't do It just out of remembrance, we actually believe that the eucarist is the real body of Christ, not just symbolic. So no, we have to believe in order to take it
What am I not understanding here? He states the Catholic Churches policy is the exact opposite of Un inclusive. Well, the exact opposite of Un inclusive is inclusive. He then goes on to explain why that being Un inclusive is really for or Protestants benefit. Ok, so you got your reasons but that doesn’t make them inclusive. They’re Un inclusive, just own them.
Two issues with this video: 1. A belief in transsubstantiation is not necessary since it requires an Aristotelian philosophy which the church cannot mandate, what is necessary is a belief in the real presence. 2. There are Protestants that believe the real presence like Lutherans and some Anglicans. 2.
Not all Protestants don’t believe the body of Christ is present in communion Lutherans physically think it is and Calvinists as well as Methodists think it spiritually is
In orthodoxy the people receive the blood and flesh of Jesus something that Catholics don't do and only give the flesh that's why it is not vice versa but if someone didn't didn't fast they'd would take a slice of sourdough bread and it represents the flesh of Jesus
I go to a Pentecostal Church and I love that Church and many miraculous things have happened for me in that church but I find the way we do holy communion so underwhelming. I would like to visit a Catholic Church when they do communion and do it their way. Catholics is this possible? Would your church allow it?
What Keeps anybody from receiving the communion?? A devil worshipper can go up a receive the Eucharist. The priest doesn’t ask or know if that person is a Roman Catholic. So can the devil worshippers eat the body and blood of Jesus Christ?
Because you also have to be in union with the Church/God. So, a Catholic who had committed serious son (broken their relationship with God) is also barred from communion.
Bros cry in the end was a little too real 😢
It’s okay to not be okay 😔
Honestly it’s good it doesn’t work vice versa. Receiving communion in a n orthodox church would be saying you align with their teachings. Which we do not.
@@Chris-no8yb makes sense
@@Chris-no8yb That's nitpicking. We are so close
@@Michael-pw2tdIt’s not nitpicking. They are in schism.
We shouldn't be dividing ourselves as Christians, but rather uniting.
True! So come back to communion with the Pope.
Right, these people that dividing christians seems like they have never read the book of Acts lmao
Which one would be easier. 1.5 billion Catholics converting to one of the hundreds or so Protestant denominations. Or all of the Protestant denominations which amount to about 1 billion people converting to Catholicism. How would we decide which denomination to choose? We can be united without agreeing on everything. I pray that you do start to believe in the one true church and convert to becoming a catholic. I love you . Jesus loves you more.
@TCZ17090you mean the guys who crucified Jesus?
Catholic means Universal in greek
Protestant here, i have been taught and believe that it IS a literal body and blood of Christ
@hamster604 I am in a Calvinist church however, my belief is a mixture between Catholic and Protestant doctrines
@hamster604 mostly not
@hamster604 yes we do but unfortunately they aren't giving out body of Christ
@hamster604 I am sorry I forgot it was called "Eucharist"
Only Catholics and Orthodox have the body of Christ!@@benbenevant
John 17:21 NLT
[21] I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one-as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.
Well as a Lutheran we believe it is, but that doesn't matter, because I don't believe Luther anymore, I believe Orthodox Church
Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t Lutherans believe in “consubstantiation?”
I hold that we shouldn’t quarrel about specific words but I think in the consubstancial and transibstantial case they have enough difference in meaning to make the distinction very necessary and important as in no we don’t believe the same thing as the Lutherans on this.
@@in_defense_of_the_church that’s a good point, I’ve talked to some Lutheran’s and Anglicans that don’t get so caught up in cons. vs. trans. in the Eucharist metaphysics debate and just prefer to say they believe in simply the Real Presence similar to the Orthodox. I think the main reason why Catholics still don’t recognize Lutheran or Anglican Eucharist is because of the holy orders and the element of the Eucharist being a sacrifice and the priest or minister having a apostolic sacerdotal role has gone away in their beliefs; while the Orthodox still being those along with their Real Presence view
@@Life-er6mq I still lean more on the point that the doctrine itself is still not the same to be considered cohesive or one. The metaphysical debate can get glossed over as you mention, “don’t get caught up in…” but that to me is worth looking into bc it’s not something to just pretend like nuances don’t matter, in my opinion.
If I say the host, being bread first, during the Holy Mass is then in substance no longer bread but rather flesh. The soul, the body, the divinity of our Lord all while the accident, the part I can see continues to look like bread …..
Then it’s not the same as if I say,
The bread first, is then flesh and blood and bread after being consecrated.
I’d argue that at the Last Supper, our Lord took bread and said, “this is my body.” and none of us believe that bread then physically became flesh. But He also didn’t say, “this is also my body.” By His words He changes the object, being bread, to being flesh. Not a combination of the two, body and bread.
And it’s not so much as the holy orders bc even the orthodox have holy orders and the Church accepts that they do consecrate the host jut illicitly because they aren’t in communion. I’d say the reason is more because the Church has always believed in transubstantiation even though the term itself hasn’t always been used.
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).”
@@in_defense_of_the_church great points! I agree with you
I believe What Jesus says.
Sr. Anna Ali of The Most Holy Eucharist, pray for us ❤❤🌹🌹🙏🏽🙏🏽
As a protestant, I can respect this a lot.
Same
Armenia oriental orthodox allows catholics to receive the eucharist . But one day we will ALL be one again . Oriental orthodox , eastern orthodox and the Assyrian church of the east with the Catholic church
Brb going to Armenia
Amen to that
AMEN!
Amen
I have a question: do all Orthodox Christian churches allow open communion (of those baptized in any Christian church)?
Yes i will agree too i typically am hesitant to take the Eucharist at any church that does not affirm a spiritual presence
except it’s not just a spiritual presence in the apostolic churches. It is truly the full body, blood, soul, and divinity of our savior.
Why don’t they let Lutherans take communion when they have the same beliefs about communion.
@@Chris-no8yb sure im not denying that i used to be romantic cath i just disagree with you on this particular position
@@LiteralyRealRyanGosling not really no Lutherans would also refuse communion at the Roman church since they hold closed communion it goes a little bit further than just the view of the Eucharist
@@REXSPYMCWhat exactly do you disagree on? What church do you attend now?
Yep, as an Orthodox I ve never witnessed my Catholic friend join us in the holy communion as she is not allowed during this tenet
I’m a protestant and I do believe that’s the true flush and blood of my Lord and Xavier Jesus Christ. Please do not exclude me from my Lord.
I’m curious what protestant tradition you belong to that believes that. Do you mind sharing?
Also, Catholics must be properly disposed to receive (in a state of Grace, have fasted before hand, etc) For example, those who are divorced and remarried without an annulment can't receive either. When I just sucked down a fancy coffee drink right before I go into Church, I shouldn't receive.
Could you explain the reason for people who are divorced cannot have it?
@@matthewrice9323No such thing as divorce in the sacrament of matrimony. If a couple married in the catholic church is not living a married life anymore, and begin seeing other people. They are committing the sin of adultery, as well as their new partners.
Adultery is a mortal sin, which means you are not in a state of grace. And you must be in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist.
Matrimony is a sacred unity of a man and a woman under God, and the promise is until death.
@@Chris-no8yb thank you for the great response! What if the husband started abusing the wife and she ran away? Is she not allowed to find love again? I’m asking, not arguing.(I’m specifying because when I ask questions like this I usually don’t get a kind response)
@@matthewrice9323I’m not sure in situations of abuse. Possibly an annulment could be up for investigation? It would be up to the church to determine if it is merited. But I think ultimately she would have to continue living chastely.
Do note though, that she may find the greatest love there could possibly be. In Christ.
By this suffering and cross she bears, the Lord will fill her with joy. And by the will of God she may forgive her abuser.
Why don’t they let Lutherans take communion when they have the same beliefs about communion.
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing that is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined" from Justin Martyr's First Apology 66 (c. A.D. 151)
Gotcha gotcha. So to the Catholic Church you can only be saved when you believe in the Catholic Church. That's crazy, this whole time I was believing in Christ, the Son of God Almighty, whom the scriptures tell me I must believe in to be saved. Now I see the disconnection between Catholics and Protestants. Guess I'll continue being a Protestant
@@HamSamich99, clearly you don't because that's not what The Church teaches.
@@JayRedding12_12 I wasn't actually believeing in Christ cause the Catholic Church said I wasn't? Are you actually hearing yourself? Let me ask you something, if you didn't have the Catholic Church could YOU actually have a belief in Christ. Like you specifically. Do you truly think that the Roman Catholic Church is required to have a belief and relationship with Christ, and if you do, where does Jesus Christ say that?
@@HamSamich99 Sorry to interject, but I would like to share some verses where Jesus tells us to follow the church he founded.
Such as:
Simon becoming Peter (First Pope) - Matthew 16:18-19
Peter given the responsibility to shepherd Jesus’s flock - John 21:15-17
The Sacrament of Reconciliation - John 20:21-23
Apostolic Tradition and Succession is necessary and the foundation of the church - Ephesians 2:19-20 and Acts 2:42
These are but a few of the many verses that affirm the Catholic Church being the Church Jesus founded.
@@HamSamich99 Now, on the topic of salvation outside of the Catholic Church, it’s not so black and white. But ultimately what we believe is if you are truly convicted that it is the church Christ left us, but still reject to follow its teachings and be in communion with the Magisterium. You will possibly be in some trouble on your day of judgement. We can’t know. Only God can know who is saved, and I pray he has mercy on us all.
Praying for you, and I humbly ask you pray for me.
I, as a Christian, born into a Lutheran faith, have always believed that the sacrament of communion is the body and blood of Jesus christ. And i believe that there is only one spirit and that the one baptism in the spirit connects all Christians. Religion is going to destroy the body of christ while faith brings us closer. There is not a church on this planet that got the "correct" true faith. The devil and the world corrupt all. We are one in God alone through grace.
Preach
Eucharistic Rosary:
There are five mysteries to meditate on Eucharistic devotion. 1. the wedding feast at Cana (Jesus changes water 💦 into wine 🍷(John2:1-12) 2. multiplication of loaves and fishes (John 6:1-15). 3. the teaching on the bread of life (John 6:22-71). 4. the last supper (John 14:1-1726). 5. the road to Emmaus (John 24:13-35). Rev. Robert Stein wrote A Scriptural Rosary for Eucharistic Devotion.
That's because the Orthodox church has deemed the Catholic heretic. God bless 🙏🏼
As a protestant you CAN believe it. It's not up to the catholics to determine it. Scriptures do.
You guys don’t believe in the sacraments.
You have to be in the state of grace in order to receive the Holy Sacrament. There other sacraments you have to profess into believing before you can get to this blessing.
@@Catholic_Rockthat depends on which Protestant church you speak to…We may not refer to them as the sacraments but we surely do believe in them
That doesn’t matter. If you want the Eucharist you can get on from a Protestant church and if you want one from a Catholic Church then follow the rules to getting it. Your thinking I’d def very Protestant but also know that orthodox and Catholic Churches are more specific.
honestly I ate the body of Christ in an orthodox church as a catholic
Catholics and East Catholic Churches will be one ☝️
Former protestant now a recent convert to Orthodox Christianity,
I refuse to commune at all roman catholics Parishes no exceptions. The reason we Orthodox have closed Communion is actually out of concern for the non Orthodox. The Holy Eucharist which is Christ's literal Body and Blood is for the Body of Christ (His Church) "for the healing of soul and body" -St John Chrystosom. When we commune we're actively participating in Christ's salvation and Transformation in our life which includes confessing our sins and receiving Absolution. For non Orthodox who are outside the Body of Christ, to receive the Mystical Supper in an unworthy manner would cause them spiritual and at times physical harm. Think of it like taking medicine you don't need and how it can greatly hurt your health. The Divine and Life-giving Mysteries are the Spiritual Medicine for our sick souls and bodies as the Church Fathers regularly refer to them. As Saint Paul famously wrote in his Epistles about those who don't discern the Body and Blood of Christ many got sick and some died. So whether protestant, Roman catholic, Miaphastye, Nestorian who are outside The Body of Blood whether the believe in the real presence since Communion isn't merely partaking Christ Himself but as apart of salvation and Theosis are denied Communion. Even for us Orthodox Catholics if we don't prepare ourselves by prayer and fasting, or haven't made a recent confession or havent made peace with someone we wronged we wouldn't commune of the Mystical Supper.
"I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. I believe also that this is truly Thine own pure Body, and that this is truly Thine own precious Blood. Therefore I pray Thee: have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, of knowledge and of ignorance. And make me worthy to partake without condemnation of Thy most pure Mysteries, for the remission of my sins, and unto life everlasting. Amen.
Of Thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant; for I will not speak of Thy Mystery to Thine enemies, neither like Judas will I give Thee a kiss; but like the thief will I confess Thee: Remember me, O Lord in Thy Kingdom.
May the communion of Thy Holy Mysteries be neither to my judgment, nor to my condemnation, O Lord, but to the healing of soul and body. Amen." -Saint John Chrystosom
Why don’t the Orthodox Church want us😭💔
Orthodox are full of themselves, just like the self righteous scribe
From the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr, c. 155 AD
“ No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.
We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.
I don’t claim any denomination myself, but I whole heartedly believe in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Would I be able to partake in the Eucharist in a Catholic Church? Or would I have to get confirmed first?
I belive you would ❤
Brother I think you should join a conservative Anglican Church, they'll probably give it.
Good thing I’m a Christian taking communion at a Christian church
The end caught me off gaurd 😂
I think this passage suggests that St. Paul considered Christians to be only those who believed that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and partook of it:
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." (1Cor 10:16-17)
Bro why in your videos you keep generalizing and saying "protestants" when you refer to baptist non denom and methodist. Lutherans and Anglicans belive in real presence
Non demons do too, depending on if the church goes by scripture or not
So im Protestant, but I am curious the exact reason Catholics think this. Like what’s the passages you would use? Not in a mean way though. Genuinely want to understand more about Catholicism.
The biggest one I’ve seen is
1 Corinthians 11:27
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
As an Orthodox im laughing.
Y'all are self righteous scribe, who Jhon call vipers
@@Triniforchrist 😭😭😭 Who is Jhon and why am I a snake now???? 😭😭😭😭
I still love my orthodox brothers
A well disposed member of the Orthodox Church may receive communion in the Catholic Church according to CIC - I think that effectively could narrow this expectation to Orthodox believers intending to convert to Catholicism, or else they could be (hypothetically) guilty of public grave sin - schism.
We are all one in Christ as long as we accept his divine sacrifice!
There’s no salvation outside of Jesus’ one and only Church.
@@SerqussThe way to salvation is to accept Jesus Christ as our Savior who took our punishment for our sins on the cross and rose again. If someone believes that, repents of their sins, and commits their life to following Jesus, they will be saved.
@@krd3804 If you're saved, then you're part of the one and only kingdom of God. On earth, Jesus founded one and only everlasting Church, which means that the Church is God-made institution, which happens to employ humans. However, because it's God-made, it cannot be destroyed. The Church's mission is to save souls. The Church, which is the Body of Christ, is the one and only doorway into the Kingdom of God. Faith in Jesus means believing that when you unite yourself to the Body of Christ, you will be like Christ, be saved, and be resurrected in the last day.
I think this passage suggests that St. Paul considered Christians to be only those who believed that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and partook of it:
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1Cor 10:16-17).
@@Serqusswe are the Church and the body of Christ because we are the Temple the Holy Spirit dwells in not a denomination or place or ritualistic routine. His work is finished on the cross by his blood alone are we saved.
The Ultimate Price But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed - Isaiah 53:5 In Genesis 3, when the serpent beguiled Eve and man disobeyed God’s instruction, the inevitable consequence was death: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die“ (Genesis 2:17). The death spoken of here isn’t only referring to the cessation of the natural human life but also to spiritual death. Spiritual death is worse than physical death, because it’s total severance or separation from God. This became man’s state after the fall of Adam. Death, the ultimate penalty for sin got the upper hand and reigned in the lives of men: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12). But God’s love for man made Him move swiftly to man’s rescue. He immediately initiated the sacrifice of bulls and goats as atonement for sin. This was the order with the children of Israel, for without the shedding of blood there couldn’t be remission for sin (Hebrews 9:22).the Bible lets us know that the sacrifice of bulls and goats was not enough for man’s total redemption; it only offered a temporary solution: “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). So what? God initiated a grand plan for man’s total salvation. That plan was consummated when He ushered in His Son, Jesus Christ-the Lamb of God-to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29). By His death on the cross of Calvary, He bore our sins and washed them away with His blood, once and for all! He paid the ultimate price for sin, which man had incurred without a means of settlement. Hebrews 9:12 says, “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Christ has paid the ultimate price for your eternal salvation, thereby making you free from the shackles of sin, death and destruction. No wonder the Bible says “For God SO LOVED the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life“ (John 3:16).
As Jesus told Thomas: Blessed are those who do not see, yet believe. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:29: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” Question, why would there be judgement on anyone IF IT’s ONLY A SYMBOL⁉️
Most Lutheran's believe that it is both the body and blood of Jesus and bread and wine. I am fairly certain that there arnt many other protestant denominations that believe this though.
One thing I think is interesting is how the Catholic Church has steadily become more liberal and similar to the Lutheran Church. One major example of this was during covid the Pope saying that you could pray directly to God and dod not have to go through a said or something.
Lutherans do believe it's the blood of christ however they don't believe in how it become the blood of christ transubstantiation. The Lutherans believe in consubstantiation.
Also a perfect act of contrition is very different from what certain Protestant churches believe about forgiveness of sin
@@burtonspringer8327Lutheran's do not believe in consubstantiation. This is a title often thrown at Lutheran's as a way to differentiate their view. The way they describe the Eucharist also would not fall under the definition of transubstantiation nor have any confessions taught it as such (consubstantiation and transubstantiation) and it has been rejected.
Lutheran's do not themselves use this term, but I imagine it's possible a lay Evangelical Catholic has used it without understanding the nuances to the position.
@@caseycardenas1668 But they do there is infact a difference between how Apostolic Churches and Lutherans understand the Eucharist. The Lutherans see the Eucharist as both Bread and Body and Blood and Wine at the same time. Whilst the Roman Catholics see it as transforming from blood and bread into wine and body, and that it only looks like wine and bread still.
u never HAD to go to a saint
We’ve always been able to directly pray to God
The anglicans believe it is the literal body of Christ. So do I, I’m Presbyterian and go to a Protestant church, but we fully believe it is not a symbol, it has been transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. As I’ve interacted with more Christian groups I’ve come to find some groups actually believe it is only a symbol which is very sad (please pray for these people I am not judging them at all). But not every Protestant falls for the lies that it is just a symbol. God bless everyone
Not allowing is taking choice away
... he says the bread is his body & cup is his blood . How much clear can u get its Jesus body & blood. No matter which Determination!
He also says "I am the door" that doesn't mean he's literally a door
@@Andy26231hes litteraly the door in the same Sense that he IS the way the truth the life
You just proved his point. @@martinhosilvadesouza9193
@@Andy26231in John 6 when people abandon Him for telling them to eat His flesh He doesn’t tell them that it’s just a metaphor like how He did with Niccodeemus and baptism. He doubles down on the literal interpretation.
@@Andy26231 are u sure because only way to the father is throw the son wich we followers of Jesus believe in . Sounds like a door to me.
as an orthodox i partook the communion in a Catholic church once, but it was only because i was outta town and there no orthodox church around. i was so hungry for the Body and Blood, i couldn't live without it. so i took it in a Catholic church. felt different because they handed me the bread. and the liturgy felt different. but it's the body and the blood of my King nonetheless, my life.
Brother, you just committed apostasy. You cannot take Catholic sacraments if you're Orthodox. You have to repent for that.
@@SlakTikyou just proved his point in the video.
@@SlakTik no, i consulted with my priest first. and no... one does not become apostate for it.
@@SlakTikIf this was Islam He would, be we aren't muslim
Yes, you are not Orthodox.
The many Orthodox churches all believe that the Roman Catholic church is heretical and devoid of valid Eucharist and sacraments.
St. Mark of Ephesus,
St. Gregory palamas
St. Photios
Are all pillars of orthodoxy who say that Roman Catholicism is heresy
I’ve been planning on visiting a Catholic Church and taking communion, I didn’t know it wasn’t allowed. I’m willing to accept for that brief moment that the Eucharist is what you guys say it is and see what happens, I believe in abandoning everything I know in order to seek the truth. That’s what happened in the first place when He woke me up. So can I go take communion or not?
It's bcz of St.Paul’s Eucharistic teaching in 1 Cor. 11:23-29..
I have received communion in the Catholic Church numerous times as a Protestant. They don’t have any way of knowing if you are Catholic or not. If you know the ritual you can receive communion. It’s really not a big deal….
Oh Sacrament Most Holy, Oh Sacrament Divine, All Praise and All Thanksgiving be every moment Thine❤❤🌹🌹🙏🏽🙏🏽💯💯
It wasnt Christ's literal body even at the Last Supper ..Jesus wasn't calling Himself literal bread when He said l am the Bread of Life referring to the Word of God the Written Word or Spoken one which represents Him who iis the Living Word who is still SPEAKING TO THIS DAY THUS MAN SHALL KOT LIVE BY BREAD ( ie the Written Word ) alone but every Word that proceeds from the mouth of GOD the Living Word who still SPEAKING today though never contradicting HIS Written Word
John 6:55-60
Christ meant it literally. So literally that many disciples left and did not partake.
You have my earnest prayers, friend.
@@badnewsbruner and I thought 14 year old white anglo saxon protestant girls didn't know what the word "literally" means. Why would those who left have found it a "hard saying" which was difficult to understand? Because they didn't understand the foundation Jesus was laying or what He would soon go through or because they couldn't figure out exactly how much flour Christ was chemically composed of?
@badnewsbruner is it possible that Christ said this specifically to weed out the faithless and doubting, and then later clarified the meaning of the metaphor with the remnant of disciples at the last supper?
@@justinclinton1185 It has been made clear repeatedly that Christ meant this literally.
Read the Church Fathers, and look at the first 7 ecumenical councils.
Every answer you could ever have has already been answered by the holiest men to walk the earth.
May the Lord bless you.
@@badnewsbrunerI think the disciples thought Jesus was saying to literally eat Jesus, not the bread on the table (weather or not the bread was Christ’s flesh or not)
John 6:52
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
If you do decide to go up you can receive a blessing just make sure you give the symbol that you aren't ready or don't want to. You cross your arms kinda like 🙅🏽♂️
I believe it is the literal body of Christ and I’m a Protestant
I’m sorry to inform you that Protestants do not have the body of Christ, just bread
It’s Catholic dogma that all who receive the body and blood of Christ while outside of the Catholic Church profanes, that includes the Eastern Schismatics.
Could you reference this?
@@JamesMathison98
Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “… whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery… ‘Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house is unholy.’”
Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”
@@NorwegianSedevacantist thanks for your comment, I’ll look into it
The main differences between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism. the main things which keep our religions separate are:
Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, The Filioque, Absolute Divine Simplicity, Created Grace Doctrine, natural theology, scholasticism, Original sin, sacred heart doctrine, Immaculate conception, Purgatory, Merits/Indulgences, evolution of Dogma,imaginative prayer, "beatific vision" etc
Then the Forced Celibacy of Priests, The use of Unleavened Bread in the Eucharist, The Adoption and change of the Christian calendar, The use of Renaissance statues, Pews, Child Communion, improper non immersion baptism, Cardinals, and differences in liturgical practices (Alter tables, Iconostasis, priest positioning etc)
all of those things, we say the Western Church adopted and innovated and became heretical when they adopted these things.
And we say that in the early church NONE of these things existed, there is no evidence of these things.
No examples of Papal Infallibility, No examples of merits/indulgences, and no examples of unleavened wafer bread, and such.
In fact in the west, In Rome. It looked a lot similar to how we Orthodox exist today. Our priests can get married, we use Icons and not statues, we use the old calendar etc
Orthodoxy Vs Roman Catholicism:
Energy Essence Distinction vs Absolute Divine Simplicity
Ancestral Sin vs Original Sin
Non Filioque Trinity vs Filioque Trinity
Patriarchy vs Papacy
Revealed Theology vs Natural Theology
Hesychasm Vs Scholasticism
Theosis vs Sanctification
Married Priest vs Celibate Priests
Infant Communion Vs Non Infant Communion
Iconography vs Statues
Full Immersion Baptism vs Sprikle Baptism
One Baptism vs Confirmation Baptism
Leavened Communion Bread vs Unleavened Communion bread
Julian Calendar vs Pope Gregory's Calendar
We are not the same Religion, we do not have the same faith, and anyone who looks into either religions genuinely will see how different we are.
As an Orthodox, I agree with many of the points you make but not the calendar. The determination of the Paschal moon is a doctrinal matter. The equinox cannot be because it is dependent on the astronomical knowledge at the time. Like it or not, the Gregorian calendar is more accurate than the Julian. Eventually, the time will come that, unless a decision is made by the Church, (as it was dine before) we will end up celebrating Easter in the summer (because of the drift between Julian and Gregorian calendars). Now, of course divine time is not bound by human measures of time, but Jesus is human too. His birth, ministry death and Resurrection are parts of human History; celebrating Easter in the Spring, after Jewish Passover is a testament of the reality of His existence. And this is where the problem lies. As the dates between Julian and Gregorian calendars diverge the date of the equinox (which is an astronomical event, not a doctrinal statement( will too. Eventually, we will end up celebrating Easter in the summer. And this is not a trivial fact. Obviously you can go around and say that June is actually April, but the fact of the matter is that whatever the conventions of month/date naming are, this month will be a summer month and not a spring one. Seasons are not conventions; they are real manifestations of the actual relative positions of the Earth and the Sun. And we run the risk that Orthodox Easter will lose its connection to the reality of the event , which is not what the Church Fathers intended. As a final point, I hope you realize how ridiculous it is to reject a calendar because it was invented by a schismatic/heretic Christian bishop while at the same time you argue for a calendar invented by a pagan murderous general/dictator. Let’s not confuse local traditions bound by a mentality of “we keep things as they were in the past” with Holy Tradition which is what God has revealed as Truth, and like God, His Truths are unchanged and eternal.
@@grpowerAlso, every about 50000 years Easter will fall on the same season, supposed the rules stay the same
Also, this (what I typed) doesn't account for climate change
Liturgical differences are not a reason for the split. The west had a venerable liturgy up until the 1970s when they instituted the Novus Ordo mass. The tridente mass (which was a standardization of what was already the practice) is a venerable liturgy that has roots before the schism, it’s the liturgy of St. Gregory the Great. We orthodox also celebrate this liturgy in the Antiochian western-rite.
@@ShawnComposer it’s not just liturgical differences. Unfortunately, after the Schism, there are many unilateral decisions and theological statements made by the Western Church that in the view of the Orthodox Church are heretical, or at least, problematic. Take, for example, the concept of Original Sin, as it was formulated by St. Augustine. This was not what early Church Fathers taught, and it was not the understanding of contemporary to Augustine Church Fathers of the East. Unfortunately, Augustine did not know Greek; he relied on translations of Greek texts to Latin and this led to his misunderstanding of what exactly was the “inheritance” of Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden. That inheritance was not the guilt of a crime. Guilt only concerned Adam and Eve; the inheritance of their sin was death and this is what concerns all of us. Unfortunately, Augustinian thought shaped the Western Church’s theology and that resulted to other “innovations”, like “Satisfaction Theology” (Anselm of Canterbury), ultimately leading to the necessity of the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception (The RC trapped itself; if sin is a crime against God and if the Holy Mother is guilty of that sin then she needs to be cleansed). All these innovations and , dare I say, heresies, go back to a misunderstanding of what sin is and what divine justice is; ( in the view of the Orthodox, sin a state of separation from God that resulted to death, that is what we inherited from Adam and Eve, not their responsibility (guilt) of their crime against God, but the consequences of their separation from God, which is death. This is just one instance that something originally trivial ( perhaps a wrong choice of words, a slight misunderstanding in meaning) resulted to theological and doctrinal differences that are so much harder to reconcile compared to a correction in a translation.
I do hope that one day we will be able to celebrate the Eucharist with our RC brothers and sisters as “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, but there is lot of work to be done, and of a lot of egos (from both sides) to be silenced.
Why don’t they let Lutherans take communion when they have the same beliefs about communion.
They believe in consubstantiation which is slightly different in some sense I believe
@@maxloebnau2559that is correct! You got it!
@@maxloebnau2559 as a Lutheran pastor, we don't believe consubstantiation. We call it "Real Presence". It's 100 % body and 100% bread. 100% blood and 100% wine. Consubstantiation means a mixing of the body and bread, like a 50% and 50% proposition. We believe sort of like the Catholics, but we disagree that transubstantiation is the only way to define the mode of Christ's presence. Transubstantiation uses philosophical terms like essence and accidence to define the transformation. We don't like the philosophical language. Rather, we leave that up to mystery.
Reception of communion means that you are in "communion". Lutherans are not in communion with the Catholic Church. If they were then they would be Catholic but, they are not.
So Catholics allow the Orthodox to receive, but the Orthodox don't allow Catholics to receive??
Now that's uninclusive. I think the major branches of Christianity are so wound up in who's right that only they have the true Christian path that they alienate each other. What would Jesus say? I was raised Roman Catholic, but I am more spiritually aligned with Anglican (Espiscopal). I see beauty in Orthodoxie, in Protestantism, Catholicism & Anglicanism. Each branch has its errors and each has its truth.
I’m not officially Catholic but I do believe in the real presence therefore I will take it because God knows what I believe and that’s what he cares about.
Friend I'll let you know now that you're in error and you shouldn't do that. Unless you've had your first confession and are absolved then you can't take communion. This is what the Easter vigil and first communion is about.
If anyone says to you, “look, here is the Christ”…do not believe him. Matthew24:23
Just listen for it next time you’re in Mass and the priest exclaims “behold, the lamb of God”.
I'm not Catholic but I still do communion you don't have to have it done by a priest just a person that's a godly man I've been in my Bible a lot lately and I've started to do communion myself so idk why people say non Catholics can not do communion
THE LAMB 🐑 OF GOD:
John the Baptist called Jesus the “lamb of God” (John 1:29 & 1:36). Jesus is the pascal lamb 🐑 to be sacrificed. The Passover tradition started when Moses and the Israelites sacrificed an unblemished lamb 🐑 . In order to have the angel of death 💀 to Passover them, THEY HAD TO EAT THE SACRIFICIAL LAMB 🐑 (Exodus 12:8).
Anybody who’s been baptised catholic or Christian should be allowed the lords supper. The lord supper is to be done every Sunday just like the Bible says.
“This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor. 11:25)
Who determines "should".
If someone doesn't believe what the Catholic Church says about transubstantiation, why be in union with what they don't believe in?
Of course, there is nothing stopping them from becoming Catholic....
You speak with what authority to this notion?
@@LoneCrusader Jesus Christ and the gospels. Not the Pope who was never mentioned in the Bible in Gods commandments or Jesus teachings. The man made interpretation that when Jesus said to Peter that he was the rock was not meant to put any human above another but to show that common Christians like Peter will spread Gods word. Catholics worship the Pope Christian worship Jesus Christ. Catholics ask priest to forgive them which is not in the Bible. Christians pray and ask Jesus Christ to ask God to forgive them. I pray that you all go read the 4 gospels and re-examine the Catholic Church of today in relation to what Jesus ask of his people.
@@Juan-Hernandez-22 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together ato break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. Acts 20:7
Im protestant and do recieve communion.
Orthodoxy doesn't need the pope to allow it have communion
I believe that Orthodox canon law allows Orthodox Priests to give communion to a Catholic in an emergency when there are no Catholic options. Emergency being death bed or in battle etc.
I don't think so.
Sacraments are not for heretics except if the repent.
Orthodox do let Catholics partake their Eucharist, but it has to be special circumstances and you gotta contact the Orthodox priest/bishop of that parish.
Are you sure thats why? Its not because its a sacrilege?
I also found the explanation strange
@@zuarbrincar769I think it’s a good explanation. Yes, obviously it is a great sacrilege but from the protestant POV (i assume) it helps clear up and define “communion”
well because they don’t believe it’s the body and blood of jesus literally, them taking it is sacrilegious.
@@alwaysrootingfortheantihero123 you just answered your own question. Sacrilegous is an action that causes deep offense to a believer. What do we believe in? That the eucharist is Christ himself and you can proceed to the video's explanation since it's a clear explanation already.
Even still many catholics see it just as a symbol. #sad
SUPERNATURAL BREAD 🥖:
Do you think 🤔 that when Jesus Christ taught us to pray 🙏🏽 and inserted “give us this day our daily bread 🥖”, He was referring to normal food❓ No! He was referring to the Eucharist‼️ The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains: The usual Greek word for “daily,” hemera, is, after all, used elsewhere in the New Testament, but not in this instance. Why did St. Matthew and St. Luke feel compelled to create a new Greek word to accurately reflect the words of Jesus? They most likely had to use a new word to faithfully translate a novel idea or a unique Aramaic word that Jesus used in His prayer. What was Jesus’ new idea? Although there are multiple levels of meanings to epiousios, Jesus is making a clear allusion to the Eucharist. “Our daily bread” is one translation of a word that goes far above our basic needs for sustenance, and invokes our supernatural needs.
St. Jerome translated the Bible in the 4th century from the original Latin, Hebrew and Greek texts to form the Latin Vulgate Bible. When it came to the mysterious word epiousios, St. Jerome hedged his bets. In Luke 11:3, St. Jerome translated epiousios as “daily.” Yet, in Matthew 6:11, he translated epiousios as “supersubstantial.” The root words are: epi, meaning “above” or “super;” and ousia, meaning “being,” “essence,” or “substance.” When they are read together, we come to the possible translations of “super-substantial,” “above-essence,” or, in effect, “supernatural” bread. This translation as supersubstantial is still found today in the Douay-Rheims Bible. Taken literally, our supersubstantial bread is the Eucharist. (CCC 2837). Let’s not forget that the name “Bethlehem” means house of bread 🥖.
"Whosoever eat the flesh and drink fhe blood in an unworthy manner" says the Bible
actually it is the opposite of what he says. i am baptized in the armenian orthodox church and i go to a catholic school. i have spoken to many clergy and all of them have said that my church allows catholics to receive our communion but they can never tale it because their church doesn’t allow them to and doesn’t allow us to take their communion. and for the record we also believe that that is the actual body of christ
For anyone thinking us Lutherans are consubstantiasts, we're not. Yes, we agree with the Catholics that you recieve the literal body and blood of Christ, not a mingling of the two substances (aka consubstantiation). The difference is that Lutherans don't take the extra step of trying to rationalize how it is by saying it tranforms, looses all sense of its original elements, etc. We just say, "Jesus says what He says, and we don't know how it is. We just believe." For us, it's not a matter of how, but rather the power it confers on the believer - that is, the forgiveness of sins. That's the focus.
Denomations are dumb we gotta have large meeting to make sure everyone agrees on one thing and have rules to the argument, don't lean into your own understanding, context, keep it as whole and understand what its being said
Wishful thinking.. It's never gonna happen if protestantism exists. And it's very unlikely that Orthodox and Catholic unite, but not impossible.
I am not a Catholic and I take communion. the bread represents the flesh and the wine is the blood.
I’m a Protestant and believe but they won’t let me receive 😢
Convert
@@No_I_dont_want_to_ well if I have heard right, you have to attend classes for some weeks. Does that mean my sins aren't forgiven, and that I will go to hell if I die then, *that's* absurd
@@Mr.Doggo83 what specifically is absurd
@@No_I_dont_want_to_To Catholicism? I have already converted to Christ, I believe the sacraments are Holy, why would I not be allowed to take them?
Because there's certain other things you need to believe as well, like the Marian Dogma etc, to be able to received the Eucharist, u need to be fully 100% believe in everything else that the Catholic Church teaches, just go enroll in the RCIA/OCIA classes so that you can fully understand the teaching and the reasoning of the Catholic Church
In Gospel Jesus says not to give our Hollynes to dogs, and our gems to pigs.. little rude to call someone dirty animal but meaning of metaphor is that they don't see the worth of what's in front of them and they will stamp on it, bite it, or piss on it..
As a disciple of Jesus ill take communion anytime anywhere.
Within the laws of the church I hope
Apart from worshipping a man as a god, transubstantiation is even more weird.
Jesus Christ is God
Don't be quick to judge, there is a split in the protestant churches some do believe it is the lateral flash and blood. I'm my experience most do believe it is!
In the first communion none of that happened Jesus says to the apostle when they see a man casting out demons in his name let him worship his own way he doesn’t have to worship the same way.
Not all protestants view it as a symbol.
I am Protestant and our church does communion from time to time. We all believe it is the body of Christ. Also the only thing we don’t believe is confession to a priest because we believe Jesus is the high priest.
“where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”
Hebrews 6:20 NIV
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”
1 John 1:9 NIV
Those things aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Jesus is the high priest AND yes, I have to confess my sins to another person "confess your sins to one another" in the Bible
@@andreaabate4193don't mean u are forgiven by man though ... we are forgiven by Christ alone not man
@@YeshuaAnzarethCatholics agree we are forgiven by Christ alone.
The priest does not grant us absolution of our sins , God does.
So can a catholic take communion at a non catholic church?
Eastern Orthodox is valid, other than that, no
You seem to have misunderstood the Lutheran view of the Eucharist.
We believe in the true bodily and bloodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but we haven’t dogmatist the transsubstation, because it isn’t clear from scripture how precisely the elements change, only that they do.
So we don’t disagree, we only try to stay humble towards the holy sacrament.
But we’re still excluded sadly.
What if I am a protestant, but still believe the Eucharist is the body of Christ
How I can be in a denomination if they did bad things in the past like incusion or crusades or slavery?
Which denomination are you
@@aboi9865 I am not.
When did the church teach slavery was ok, and why were the crusades wrong?
@@JamesMathison98 Becouse Jesus said love your enemy. In 1800 amiricans had slaves and trey use the Bible to support that.
Did The crusades is a good thing?
@@Livuu.Emanuel most of the American south was and is Protestant. The Catholic Church always slavery in the way America ran it. I can’t speak for random Protestants, but the church has always forbade it as a grave sin.
The crusades were a defensive series of wars to defend Catholic land and civilization from Muslim Invaders. So yes, the crusades were just, Catholics have the right to defend themselves against evil
Love how judgemental catholics are, while they have enough problems that they don't see.
Reminder: You see the little peace of Woodstock in your brothers eye, but don't see the log in your own.
Do you know how many moral issues you Protestants have? Let alone your false gospels being taught in all of your denominations.
I am a conservative Episcopalian and I believe that the bread and wine become (somehow) the Body and Blood of Jesus - although I don't accept Transubstantiation because I don't accept Aristotle's metaphysics that everything is composed of accidents and substances. But I still will not receive in a Roman Catholic church because it is against the canons (church law) and I will not ask a priest to violate his vows to uphold canon law.
Whe you are born again, there is no need to take communion, with the wafer or the grape juice anymore, since now, you and the Spirit are joined in one accord, and you become one with Christ.. John 14:2-3.
Unnecessary but it keeps the Soul clean and Jesus commanded us to do so anyways.
That is a modern theology. None of the apostolic churches teach this. Catholic, With the Eastern rites, Orthodox, Assyrian/ Ancient Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox all being founded by Jesus then by one or more apostles. Born again is referring to Baptism and baptism only. Not made up theology. We all have this common sacrament even though the church is separated through schisms. The phrase born again came about popularly in the 1960s. The thought 18th century.
@@MARINE76911 there is more about church talk than God talk, I guess it's because of the lack of Spirit!
@@luigimrlgaming9484 if I remember, he told that to his apostles, until they received his Spirit, then when he was glorified they all became one in Spirit with the lord.
Basically we are in communion with the Othodox but they’re not in communion with us.
?? He says the churches policy is actually the opposite of Un inclusive. Well, the opposite of Un inclusive is inclusive. The policy may be a lot of things but it is not inclusive.
Whether you are catholic protestants orthodox in the end we are the children of god
Many Anglicans though not all, such as myself. Do affirm transubstantiation.
Why?
@@JamesMathison98 cause miracles
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 oh sorry I misread your comment. Do you think Anglicans have the true presence in the Eucharist?
@@JamesMathison98 hence the miracles. Yes
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 could you name some for me to look up?
Lutherans profess it as true. We believe it is literally the body and blood of Christ with in and under the elements of bread and wine. We believe that is it truly the body and blood of Christ. My denomination also has 2 valid lines of apostolic succession (through the Episcopal church USA-Scottish Episcopal Church-Anglican Church and the Swedish Lutheran Church)….so not all Protestants.
I'm protestant and kinda iffy on the Eucharist. The thing I'm not so sure on is if people can say it "physically" turns into the flesh of Christ. I'm fine with saying He's in it spiritually, but if the waffer remains bread, how can it physically change?
I forget the specifics of the Aristotle dichotomy, but i can help out in a contextual manner.
There is form and essence. The form is what something looks like, the essence is what something is. A tree is a tree because its in the form of a tree and the essence of the tree is to be a tree, because thats what it is.
The form is bread and wine, but the essence is the body and blood of Our Lord. Transubstansiton is the change of essence in to flesh and blood, while maintain the form of bread and wine. It LOOKS like bread, but it IS the Body of Jesus. It LOOKS like wine, but it IS the blood of Jesus.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains this in good detail, if you want to learn more. Hope that helps, God Bless!
Jesus in His will literally walk on the solid ground though it remain in appearance of water. God's power is limitless.
@@iagoofdraiggwyn98 Thanks! Though, I still feel you can't say it "physically" changes. Yeah, it can change in spirit through (can't spell it. Sorry😅) but if it still looks like bread, how can we claim it physically changes. I can accept that Jesus is in communion, but I can't get behind the wording of it. But thanks for giving me a clearer understanding!
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” - John 3:3 - Don’t follow religion or a church, follow the teachings of Christ which is in the bible.
Ha ha. Like the priest even asks.
Why does it matter tho whether you believe it’s literal or not? Aren’t both orthodox/catholics/protestants all taking communion in remembrance of what Christ did because we all believe He is our Lord and Savior and that he died on the cross and rose 3 days later?
We don't do It just out of remembrance, we actually believe that the eucarist is the real body of Christ, not just symbolic. So no, we have to believe in order to take it
What am I not understanding here? He states the Catholic Churches policy is the exact opposite of Un inclusive. Well, the exact opposite of Un inclusive is inclusive. He then goes on to explain why that being Un inclusive is really for or Protestants benefit. Ok, so you got your reasons but that doesn’t make them inclusive. They’re Un inclusive, just own them.
Two issues with this video:
1. A belief in transsubstantiation is not necessary since it requires an Aristotelian philosophy which the church cannot mandate, what is necessary is a belief in the real presence.
2. There are Protestants that believe the real presence like Lutherans and some Anglicans.
2.
Not all Protestants don’t believe the body of Christ is present in communion Lutherans physically think it is and Calvinists as well as Methodists think it spiritually is
I mean I don’t really know but I’d be willing to receive the Eucharist because the Bible does say to drink Christ’s blood and eat his flesh
In orthodoxy the people receive the blood and flesh of Jesus something that Catholics don't do and only give the flesh that's why it is not vice versa but if someone didn't didn't fast they'd would take a slice of sourdough bread and it represents the flesh of Jesus
I go to a Pentecostal Church and I love that Church and many miraculous things have happened for me in that church but I find the way we do holy communion so underwhelming. I would like to visit a Catholic Church when they do communion and do it their way. Catholics is this possible? Would your church allow it?
But one day it will ☦️🤝🏻🇻🇦
What Keeps anybody from receiving the communion?? A devil worshipper can go up a receive the Eucharist. The priest doesn’t ask or know if that person is a Roman Catholic. So can the devil worshippers eat the body and blood of Jesus Christ?
Yes but if you go with unconfessed and unabsolved sins then you're eating your own condemnation.
phew i was shivering there. Orthodox can get it even in Catholic churches.
Which they shouldn't
This one has always confused me, why can’t a Lutheran who believes that it is truly the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus receive communion
Because this is sacrilege
@@zuarbrincar769”because we are still salty about the reformation” fixed your sentence
Because you also have to be in union with the Church/God. So, a Catholic who had committed serious son (broken their relationship with God) is also barred from communion.
@@andreaabate4193 and I’m not in Union with God because I? Don’t bow to the pope? Don’t pray to men?
@@Summercamp1slandYou got it spot on brother ;)
You are not in communion with the seat of St. Peter. The Vicar of Christ. Bishop of Rome.
Careful, it's not the LITERAL flesh because that would be transformation and not transubstantiation