Dr. Brant Pitre's book, "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist," is an excellent source for true proof of the Eucharist. Also, Dr. Scott Hahn's book, "The Fourth Cup," proves without any real shadow of a doubt what Jesus intended when He established the Eucharist. Last year in my small parish we had about 8-10 new members of the Catholic Church in our RCIA class. This year, we have nearly 25 new souls on fire for the Eucharist.
Read all the books you want. There are books on systematic theology that will contradict what Scott Hahn has written. No one with any sense can believe that consuming Christ and creating disks of Jesus every day would allow Priests to be pedophiles. That is absurd.
I consider myself fortunate. As a believer in God my whole life, but ignorant of scripture and skeptical of organized religion, in a moment of pure emotion, I promised my Catholic mother, as she lay dying, that I would be baptized. And then I double-downed and told her I would be baptized Catholic. At the time, I had no idea what I was saying and truly thought I would have to deny truth and logic to fulfil my promise to my mother. Honestly, I was truly dreading the thought of having to go through RCIA and play along with something I was certain I would not believe. An attorney by profession, I always feel it necessary to educate myself to some degree before entering into any situation where debate may be present. So, a few months prior to RCIA beginning, I determined myself to read the New testament, once and for all. Having never fully read it the first 55 years of my life. My knowledge of scripture was only the bits and pieces I had heard from others having grown up and been educated in the American South. I knew nothing of Catholicism other than what I had seen portrayed on TV and movies. Honestly, I believed that followers of any denomination, while admirable in their dedication, were simply minions under the power of the Church to which they belonged. I believed that whatever relationship I had with God was sufficient and surely God would not complicate his message with organized religion. I have to say, reading scripture for the first time, I was truly shocked to learn that Jesus started a church. To learn that the establishment of a Church was central to his presence on earth. But as a complete neophyte to scripture, reading it for the first time, it was very clear that Jesus did indeed start a church. As for the Eucharist, it was totally foreign to me. But Jesus' words were not ambiguous. There it was...comsume my flesh...drink my blood. These were complete and shocking revelations. After reading such, I felt it was necessary to learn what became of the church that Jesus started. I thought to myself this will surely be the end of me being a true Catholic and that the fulfillment of my promise was, unfortunately, going to be based on lies and self-deception. I thought it would be as easy as proving that Christians never consumed his flesh and blood as he asked. And if they did, they had long since ceased to do so. I had never heard of such a practice. Folks, it took all of one afternoon to learn the truth. Having read some of the writings of early Christians, and the Didache, Acts, and other materials, the truth was very evident to me. Immediately I learned that the Catholic Church was the one true church and that it has always existed. It was also abundantly clear that the Eucharist was central to the worship of God and Jesus Christ. My entire viewpoint on God and religion changed in an instant. I have since immersed myself in scripture, the history of Christianity, and the Catholic Church. Always skeptical, my concerns and doubts are always resolved through scripture and the history of the Church/Christianity. I now simply marvel at the mental gymnastics protestants go through to justify their faith. Their self-serving interpretation of scripture would be comical if it were not taking them further and further from God. I will be baptized this Easter and my journey to become Catholic will be complete. I am overwhelmed with joy to have found the Church and to have come to understand Jesus fully and completely. I feel fortunate that I began my journey with scripture and history as I feel it took me straight to God.
Thankyou for sharing your story. It was clear, precise & flowing. You might like a channel called 'The Catholic Brothers' - They have a wonderful series called, 'The First 500 years' 👍
For years I never saw the obvious. Jesus was very clear when He said that we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Once I realized what it was that early church believed about the Eucharist, the scriptures became even more alive and enlightening to me. I began to see what was right in front of us the whole time. The old and New Testament point to the Eucharist.
@@_ROMANS_116it’s not the bs you’re about to spew. People are waking up to your anti Catholic bigotry and propaganda. It doesn’t work anymore. If this pisses you off……good. Stay in your lane, ignorance is the only thing saving you right now. Along with your Faith. But if you keep doing the work for the other team, it ain’t gonna end well. You’re not a white knight slaying Catholics for protestant Jesus. Again you’re not doing Jesus any favors. Again you’re not doing Jesus any favors. That feeling of anger you have from reading this, comes from the one who’s sent you. BTW, remind him that his head will be crushed by her heel.
@@_ROMANS_116 you failed to understand the scriptures and the fullness of the gospel. That is because you, like I and Hugh once believed, what the gospel is according to men who had left the Catholic Church, or were born into the Protestant tradition. Their understanding of the gospel and the beliefs of the church were formed apart from the traditional understanding that had been passed on from one generation to the next and instead have developed new meanings that depart from the churches well guarded truths as passed down over the centuries. These beliefs and teachings can be traced back to the earliest days of church just as the Catholic Church can be traced back to the apostles and our Lord Himself.
@@_ROMANS_116 John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “I am telling you the truth: if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in yourselves.
Yes obviously he did not mean that. It so obvious because JESUS would have cut a portion of HIS flesh and just put a tiny drop of HIS blood to show that it is not a symbolism. JESUS just show us how this symbolism is not an ordinary way of partaking bread and wine. I hope you can understand how clear JESUS has emphasized this on the scripture. He can easily cut a portion of HIS body if it was so. Please understand.
Catholics didn't believe it either until 1556, when transubstantiation became dogma at the Council of Trent. Weird that something so plainly obvious took a millennia and a half to become official. Oh, and the Eastern Orthodox and the Easter Catholic churches aren't as dogmatic about it as you are.
The many, many Eucharistic miracles over the centuries PROVE that the Catholic Eucharist is indeed the TRUE BODY AND BLOOD of Christ !!!! Those miracles are still occurring today.
And in most cases, the evidence from recent miracles is actually sent for forensic analysis. Human cells are found, and the blood type matches that from the Shroud of Turin!
If these miracles actually happened, why does this prove true presence? the whole idea is that the bread/wine do NOT change their physical features in any way. Additionally, if no miracles like this had ever been recorded, Roman Catholics would still hold to true presence, correct? If that's the case, you should be able to demonstrate the idea without interpreting these miracles as evidence for true presence.
Im an Anglican (part of the Anglican church called Anglo-catholic) and i just reached out to my Catholic diocese today and they immediately put me in connection with my local priest with regards the to Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. Ive always believed that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Our Lord but i dont know of any Eucharist miracles in the Anglican church , the Anglican Church is full of faithful Christians who love Christ but the Priest does not have the power from God to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord. This has become clear to me. As Anglicans (especially us Anglo-Catholics) we have always been told by those fundamental protestants that we are "too catholic" lol well very shortly i will be an actual Catholic and thank the Lord for that.
Many Anglicans hold to transubstantiation (specifically Anglo-Catholics) , i certainly did when i was an Anglican and many at my church did (i just started my journey to Catholicism today through my local diocese)
Glad you stopped polluting Anglicanism with your improper beliefs, but sorry you fell for the lie that you can consume all of God via the digestive tract. You seem to forget that what goes in the mouth eventually comes out, into the toilet.
Anglicans who do not hold to this need to examine themselves. Is means IS. This IS my body. This IS my blood. IS. IS. IS. And we MUST eat his flesh and drink his blood. The Eucharist is how we do this. For real. Not a symbol. FOR REAL.
A constant misunderstanding among Christians today is that we look too much at Jesus's humanity and not at what he truly was. The Word of God. He said that man shall live by eating the word of God. This is the eating unto life. I do believe that communion is important, but daily feeding the body with the word is just as important.
You could do an entire series on the verses Evangelical do not believe. A short topical list includes all the verses on tradition, the Spirit guiding the church into all truth, the seven sacraments, laying on of hands, ecclesiology, purgatory, Mariology, and the communion of saints. The thoroughly emaciated beliefs of the Evenaglicals testifies to the inevitable progress of the secular age we are all now suffering through.
With reference to the linked video below, how contradicting that you believe the Holy Spirit guides your Catholic Church into all truth, and Protestants testify to the progress of secularism. So then, why has your supposedly-INFALLIBLE Pope, the Vicar of Christ made homosexual no longer a sin for Catholics by allowing your priests to bless same-sex couples. Is it because your ‘Holy Father’ Pope and you believe in Matthew 16:19, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” and you being an obedient, faithful Catholic are supposed to literally believe that too? Well then, all you Catholics who have been ‘hiding in the closet’ because you have been having secret desire for an intimate and passionate relationship with someone of your same sex, YOU CAN NOW BOLDLY AND FEARLESSLY COME OUT WITH YOUR SIGNIFICANT OTHERS AND GO TO YOUR PRIESTS TO GET THEIR BLESSINGS! By the way, according to Jesus, the title ‘Holy Father’ righteously belongs to HIS FATHER, THE TRUE GOD. Beware, this is from your Catholic Bible, 2 Thessalonians 2, “…But the coming of the wicked One will be marked by Satan being at work in all kinds of counterfeit miracles and signs and wonders, and every wicked deception aimed at those who are on the way to destruction because they would not accept the love of the truth and so be saved. And therefore God sends on them a power that deludes people so that they believe what is false,…” th-cam.com/video/EvjXuLXO24Q/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ixFNKoqpuAg8_DKH
With reference to the linked video below, how contradicting that you believe the Holy Spirit guides your Catholic Church into all truth, and Protestants testify to the progress of secularism. So then, why has your supposedly-INFALLIBLE Pope, the Vicar of Christ made homosexual no longer a sin by allowing your priests to bless same-sex couples. Is it because your ‘Holy Father’ Pope and you believe in Matthew 16:19, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” and you being an obedient, faithful Catholic are supposed to literally believe that too? Well then, all you Catholics who have been ‘hiding in the closet’ because you have been having secret desire for an intimate and passionate relationship with someone of your same sex, YOU CAN NOW BOLDLY AND FEARLESSLY COME OUT WITH YOUR SIGNIFICANT OTHERS AND GO TO YOUR PRIESTS TO GET THEIR BLESSINGS! By the way, according to Jesus, the title ‘Holy Father’ righteously belongs to HIS FATHER, THE TRUE GOD. Beware, this is from your Catholic Bible, 2 Thessalonians 2, “…But the coming of the wicked One will be marked by Satan being at work in all kinds of counterfeit miracles and signs and wonders, and every wicked deception aimed at those who are on the way to destruction because they would not accept the love of the truth and so be saved. And therefore God sends on them a power that deludes people so that they believe what is false,…” th-cam.com/video/EvjXuLXO24Q/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ixFNKoqpuAg8_DKH
@@TheAegis1000- There's a lot of evidence that that particular passage is meant in a realistic way. Also lots of people pride themselves on being "literal Bible believers".
God bless you, Hugh. Your aside about John 6:66 being the saddest verse in the New Testament really touched me. I can just imagine the heartbreak of our Lord in that moment, despite already knowing it would happen, to have come all this way to tell these people what they needed to know to spend eternity with Him and to be rejected. Of course He has a much fuller understanding of their hearts and why they would than I ever could, but it's a relatable thing for a Christian who's tried telling friends and family about Jesus only to be brushed off.
Thank you Hugh. Your clear exegesis of the Holy Scriptures always empowers me to share the One True Catholic Faith with all who listen. Being a 64 year old cradle Catholic, my faith has waxed and waned. But I am always drawn back to Christ when I listen to excellent teachers like you. May God continue blessing you.
@OzCrusader Thanks for your encouraging words, glad the videos have ministered to you, all the Glory to God. Please pray for me, and be assured you are in my prayers, God Bless.
@@zrayish5164 - Evangelicals are the vast majority of both US and worldwide Protestantism. Anglican and Lutherans are minorities. Further, Anglicanism deliberately broke their apostolic succession way back around King James.
@@razoredge6130 - I find that it's usually Protestants who have a hard time imagining that Catholics have a defense of the Church's interpretation of Scripture.
As predicted Protestants don't believe Jesus meant transubstantiation and meant something else? Well of course that goes without saying...that wasn't much of a prophetic prediction lol.
That seems to me both a preposterous and arrogant comment...the very thing in question or dispute (the point of difference) is the interpretation/meaning of the passage so duh of course people will say Jesus did not mean it that way. Why should that not be expected?
Excellent excellent profound video,you sir are very gifted for you definitely speak all truth and prove that in your presentation YEAH AMEN DEO GRATIS ALLELUIA 🐑🕊️✨🌈
To eat something is to absorb it. It's the "remembrance" of Him as we eat bread that changes it from just eating bread to 'absorbing' Him -- to have His presence. He is the "bread from heaven".
The EUCHARIST (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ) is the ONLY WAY for Christians all across the world to be ONE! It encompasses Faith, Love and Truth... It allowed the Catholic Church to remain for 2000 years and not collapse completely due to the corruption of human beings. It is through the EUCHARIST that full unity will happen. I don't know how long it will take before it finally occurs, but I know how it will: The EUCHARIST!!!!!
Spot on! It has occurred to me that Protestantism in 1517 was the first attack by Satan on the CC, followed by Freemasonry in 1717 & Communism in 1917. The confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects caused by personal interpretation is not of God when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21
You misunderstand my friend, the way we become one is by the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is who connects us, for that’s how Jesus can declare He and the Father are One, because the Spirit is the Holy Spirit. We are connected by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Him alone. Christ as He left the earth gave us the comforter (The Spirit). No idol holds us together.
@@OzCrusader Any physical object or point of object that is not God but is regarded to have God in it. I.E. an image, a picture, an item that is said to hold certain qualities like healing and such that is world centric. Sure physical healing is good, but that which is heavenly is better. God sent Himself to us so that He would dwell in us. We are now temples of God, what thing on earth is greater than this? For His Spirit is worth far more than any thing that is regarded as “holy” on the earth.
LOL! Great show. Jesus established one church, 1Tim3:16, “the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” This is not a metaphor. I always love and am constantly amazed how certain Christians are so dismissive of John 6:51-58, 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” They put their limitations on Jesus. Tell where and when did Jesus give us his flesh for the life of the world? Both here (future tense) on Calvary and in the Eucharist. God bless you.
Great point, they can’t even agree on the basics, in spite of what the Bible says. God, please help them overcome their blindness caused by sola Scriptura & personal interpretation
Does an infant drink grape juice or wine? No. Does an infant eat (literally chew and swallow) bread? No. Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Yet, even though they have not eaten or drunk anything except their mother’s milk, they are declared by the Roman church to be saved by the sacrament of baptism. Irrespective of the fact, that Christ himself said until they ate his flesh and drank his blood they have no life in them. So you have to choose whom to believe and whom you will follow: Christ or the Magisterium of the Catholic Church; because they are not in agreement. Most Catholics (not all, but most) will reject Christ and follow instead their pipes because they are not saved.
@@mephi654 maybe read your bible For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Therefore, 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. Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” Kids need to learn and understand what they are doing to be properly catechized. It’s not unreasonable for the church to make a process to learn and understand what it means. I mean look at your own understanding…you’re an adult commenting without a charitable understanding of Catholic teaching. Teachings that go back to the students of John the Apostle who stood at the foot of the Cross of Jesus Christ.
i think ur missing the point being that jesus and the apostles didnt exactly have the ability to refrigerate grape juice (no one did). freshly spawned "wine" juice isnt fermented, especially if it hasnt been in existence till more than a minute. Go ahead and tell me God would inebriate His followers with something that isn't beneficial for the human body. Wine was common, cheap. Everyone had it because no one could refrigerate it.
@@mephi654 Christ regarded teaching on the Eucharist as a watershed teaching. If folks would not believe this teaching, he let them walk away. He didn't run after them and tell them "Stop, stop, cool your jets, I was just speaking metaphorically." All four gospels and Paul in a Corinthian letter said that Christ held up the bread after it was consecrated and said "This is my body."
Perfectly explained 🙏 Protestants forget Jesus is God and what he says is, if you explain away what Jesus said then you deny Gods word and this is the sin against the Holy Spirit and it cannot be forgiven.
Jesus said to call no man on this earth father. Catholics trample those words into the ground. But you all try to explain it away. Dont worry, your statues will save you on the terrible day of the Lord.
@@peterzinya1 Clearly you have no father just a mother 🤣 the Catholic Church has never said statues will save you 🤣these are your private interpretations of the Catholic Church and Catholics and like all Protestants you believe in your own individual private interpretation of scripture and because each Protestant is his own church pope and counsel and only their views and opinions matter on scripture and that’s why there are over 40 thousand different Protestant denominations. Thanks for the laughs 🤣 God bless you and your family
@@martinmartin1363 Jesus didnt say not to use the word father. he said call no man father as a title. Jesus was looking at all the religious holymen who loved titles when he said that. Do cTHOLICS EVER CONSIDER THAT? No, they just call their holymen father while they getup from off their knees from some statue or another. While your on your knees you might ask the statue to save you.
@@peterzinya1 Matthew 23:8 Vos autem nolite vocari Rabbi. Unus est enim Magister vester, omnes autem vos fratres estis. 23:8 But you must not be called Master. For One is your Master, and you are all brothers. 23:9 Et patrem nolite vocare vobis super terram: unus est enim Pater vester, qui in cælis est. 23:9 And do not choose to call anyone on earth your father. For One is your Father, who is in heaven. 23:10 Nec vocemini magistri: quia Magister vester unus est, Christus. 23:10 Neither should you be called teachers. For One is your Teacher, the Christ. 23:11 Qui maior est vestrum, erit minister vester. 23:11 Whoever is greater among you shall be your minister. 23:12 Qui autem se exaltaverit, humiliabitur: et qui se humiliaverit, exaltabitur. 23:12 But whoever has exalted himself, shall be humbled. And whoever has humbled himself, shall be exalted. 23:13 Væ autem vobis Scribæ, et Pharisæi hypocritæ: quia clauditis regnum cælorum ante homines. Vos enim non intratis, nec introeuntes sinitis intrare. 23:13 So then: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! For you close the kingdom of heaven before men. For you yourselves do not enter, and those who are entering, you would not permit to enter. 23:14 Væ vobis Scribæ, et Pharisæi hypocritæ: quia comeditis domos viduarum, orationes longas orantes: propter hoc amplius accipietis iudicium. 23:14 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! For you consume the houses of widows, praying long prayers. Because of this, you shall receive the greater judgment. 23:15 Væ vobis Scribæ, et Pharisæi hypocritæ: quia circuitis mare, et aridam, ut faciatis unum proselytum: et cum fuerit factus, facitis eum filium Gehennæ duplo quam vos. 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! For you travel around by sea and by land, in order to make one convert. And when he has been converted, you make him twice the son of Hell that you are yourselves. 23:16 Væ vobis duces cæci, qui dicitis: Quicumque iuraverit per templum, nihil est: qui autem iuraverit in auro templi, debet. 23:16 Woe to you, blind guides, who say: ‘Whoever will have sworn by the temple, it is nothing. But whoever will have sworn by the gold of the temple is obligated.’ 23:17 Stulti et cæci: Quid enim maius est, aurum, an templum, quod sanctificat aurum? 23:17 You are foolish and blind! For which is greater: the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold? 23:18 Et quicumque iuraverit in altari, nihil est: quicumque autem iuraverit in dono, quod est super illud, debet. 23:18 And you say: ‘Whoever will have sworn by the altar, it is nothing. But whoever will have sworn by the gift that is on the altar is obligated.’ 23:19 Cæci: quid enim maius est, donum, an altare, quod sanctificat donum? 23:19 How blind you are! For which is greater: the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 23:20 Qui ergo iurat in altari, iurat in eo, et in omnibus quæ super illud sunt. 23:20 Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears by it, and by all that is on it. 23:21 Et quicumque iuraverit in templo, iurat in illo, et in eo, qui habitat in ipso: 23:21 And whoever will have sworn by the temple, swears by it, and by him who dwells in it. 23:22 et qui iurat in cælo, iurat in throno Dei, et in eo, qui sedet super eum. 23:22 And whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits upon it. 23:23 Væ vobis Scribæ, et Pharisæi hypocritæ: qui decimatis mentham, et anethum, et cyminum, et reliquistis quæ graviora sunt legis, iudicium, et misericordiam, et fidem. Hæc oportuit facere, et illa non omittere. 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! For you collect tithes on mint and dill and cumin, but you have abandoned the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, while not omitting the others. 23:24 Duces cæci, excolantes culicem, camelum autem glutientes. 23:24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat, while swallowing a camel! 23:25 Væ vobis Scribæ, et Pharisæi hypocritæ, quia mundatis quod deforis est calicis, et paropsidis: intus autem pleni estis rapina, et immunditia. 23:25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! For you clean what is outside the cup and the dish, but on the inside you are full of avarice and impurity. 23:26 Pharisæe cæce, munda prius quod intus est calicis, et paropsidis, ut fiat id, quod deforis est, mundum. 23:26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the dish, and then what is outside becomes clean. 23:27 Væ vobis Scribæ, et Pharisæi hypocritæ: quia similes estis sepulchris dealbatis, quæ aforis parent hominibus speciosa, intus vero pleni sunt ossibus mortuorum, et omni spurcitia. 23:27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed sepulchers, which outwardly appear brilliant to men, yet truly, inside, they are filled with the bones of the dead and with all filth. 23:28 Sic et vos aforis quidem paretis hominibus iusti: intus autem pleni estis hypocrisi, et iniquitate. 23:28 So also, you certainly appear to men outwardly to be just. But inwardly you are filled with hypocrisy and iniquity. 23:29 Væ vobis Scribæ, et Pharisæi hypocritæ, qui ædificatis sepulchra prophetarum, et ornatis monumenta iustorum, 23:29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites, who build the sepulchers of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the just. 23:30 et dicitis: Si fuissemus in diebus patrum nostrorum, non essemus socii eorum in sanguine prophetarum. 23:30 And then you say, ‘If we had been there in the days of our fathers, we would not have joined with them in the blood of the prophets.’
@@peterzinya1 Clearly the verse and chapter says call no man Father or teacher or master, if you believe they are titles then nobody can teach be regarded as a master of anything and father is not be honoured
Excellent video! I recently became born again and had been searching for a church to join. My mother invited me to the Methodist church and for the most part I found it to be good but always felt like something was missing, little did I know that as I delved deeper and deeper into scripture and history I found that something was pulling me back to the Catholic Church but I resisted it at first because I had believed all the lies that were told about the church through the years. Fast forward a few weeks and I’m finally going to commit to something I should have done a long time ago; going back home to Christ’s church; the holy Catholic Church.
As a retired Free Methodist pastor, whose degree is from a Baptist school, I come down much closer to the Catholic position. The real presence of Christ in Holy Communion cannot be denied without violating Scripture. It is also clear that while the presence is indeed real, it also is not literal, but spiritual. Do we not believe that spiritual things are real? Christ meets us in Holy Communion. As Wesleyans, we also encourage sincere seekers to partake. Indeed, I have seen a man come to faith during Holy Communion - and yes, I had the privilege of Baptizing him. It is indeed sad that more evangelicals do not comprehend these truths....
My understanding is that this is the Reformed/Presbyterian view. Jesus is truly present in the bread and wine, but spiritually present rather than bodily present. Is this also the official position of Methodists/Free Methodists/Wesleyans?
@@sarco64 Thanks for the question. Rather than "wing it" from memory, I thought it best to actually copy and paste our formal doctrinal statement. I would like to make a few personal points: 1) I ***believe*** our position would be closest to that of the Anglican church, rather than Reformed/Presbyterian 2) We consider Holy Communion to be a sacrament rather than an ordinance 3) We affirm a real presence, but that real presence is spiritual, rather than physical This sets us apart from both the typical Baptist view of mere symbolism and the Catholic view of transubstantiation. It would best be described as a form of consubstantiation, IMHO. While we differ, I see it as much closer to the Catholic position. Our doctrinal statement is below and it is likely that any other evangelical group in the Wesleyan tradition would have very similar beliefs. The Lord’s Supper The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death. To those who rightly, worthily and with faith receive it, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. The supper is also a sign of the love and unity that Christians have among themselves. Christ, according to His promise, is really present in the sacrament. But His body is given, taken and eaten only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. No change is effected in the element; the bread and wine are not literally the body and blood of Christ. Nor is the body and blood of Christ literally present with the elements. The elements are never to be considered objects of worship. The body of Christ is received and eaten in faith.
"This is my body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19). Why do you disobey Jesus? You do communion to get more grace, to get more of God, and to consume the Almighty via the digestive tract. Why don't you simply do it in remembrance of Him? And look how Jesus said, "This is my body which is given for you..." WHEN was Jesus' body given for us? Not that night! He gave His body and blood for us on the cross, on the following day! This proves that Jesus was not talking about literally eating His physical flesh at the Last Supper (or at Communion), for the bread _represented_ the physical body and blood He would voluntarily lay down on the following day!
@@rexlion4510 Because Jesus said so! And He established a living Church. No where does He say, I'll send you a book, just go by that. He established a Church, gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. ( Matthew 16:13-19)
As a Messianic Jew, I have other issues besides the conclusions of the Latin Rite regarding the Eucharist. However, to this particular point, I find it highly unfortunate that the sacrament of Communion has been so divorced from its setting within the observance of Passover.
Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is the most perfect model of obedience. As He was obedient in Nazareth to St. Joseph and Mary and on Calvary to His executioners, so likewise in the Eucharist He is perfectly and perpetually obedient, submitting to His priests until the end of the world. Christ obeys His priests absolutely and unconditionally in the Blessed Sacrament. He comes when they validly consecrate, and He stays present until the sacred species of the bread and wine are digested or corrupted.
This is a challenging argument. Im a protestant, meaning I do not partake in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Yet, I've been listening to Catholic Apologists and reading church history and come to the conclusion that: yeah, this makes sense, Catholics. Perhaps I need a further explanation with these things. Either way, thank you for this video. I like challenging myself to know more about God and His Word!❤
Jesus many times used metaphors and similes and the form is "I am" this or that. But in His institution of the Eucharist the form is "This is my.." which occurs nowhere else. If i say my true loves hair is golden flax i am using metaphor. But i would not say this flax is my true love's hair. When I was a Protestant I was challenged to defend the doctrine that communion is only a memorial. It was this argument that undid me. It was only a mattet of time before I swam the Tiber.
Did not CHRIST conclude in John 6:63 KJV "It is the SPIRIT that quickens (gives eternal life); the flesh profits nothing (flesh means physical works of any sort in a physical world): the WORDS that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE." (CHRIST says HIS WORDS have spiritual meanings NOT physical/flesh meanings and are spiritually discerned and give SPIRITUAL LIFE which is FOREVER.
@@jacktracy8356Catholic believe that v 63 means the “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. If you don’t agree with that interpretation, the Real Presence is supported by 1 Cor 10 16-17 & 1 Cor 11 23-27
@@geoffjs CHRIST's Words were spirit meaning spiritually discerned not to be understood physically along with CHRIST saying HE was the LIGHT, DOOR, and GOOD SHEPHERD which were not to be understood as being those things physically.
@@jacktracy8356some parts of scripture are to be read figuratively & some literally, such Jn 6 where Jesus very clearly & repeatedly instructed His Apostles to eat His Flesh & drink His blood, under the appearance of bread & wine, nothing figurative about His words. Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 which became known as the Catholic or Universal Church in 110. The Church is the pillar & foundation of the Truth 1 Tim 3:15. She codified the Bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2 The defining difference between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches & false man made Protestantism is the literal Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 & esp 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25 To preempt the usual knee jerk response, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary NOT a resacrificing as Protestantism incorrectly claims. Also Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice in all places at all times. The CC offers Mass daily in most parishes around the world. As Protestantism, generally, doesn’t believe in sacrificial worship Jn 6 51-58, they have no altars & no liturgical worship so no “church”, more like a synagogue with prayer & teaching. The words “daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, in their original language mean supernatural bread ie the Eucharist. Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain, same AB blood type and living heart tissue. Luther believed in the Real Presence O Ye of little Faith! For those with Faith, no explanation is necessary & for others, no explanation is possible! Try believing & understanding will follow, but not the reverse
So … I don’t understand you mocking Protestants. And don’t understand the difference you make. You say it doesn’t transform into flesh and blood. (Thank you for clarifying.) So we are not biologically eating flesh and blood. Then you say it is not sacrificing Christ again, but renewing the event of the sacrifice in your mind. Good. Jesus says do this to remember him. So Catholics and Protestants both agree it is not biologically the flesh and blood of God and taking it is to remember Jesus’s sacrifice. And that when they both take communion that Jesus is there with them as he is with all believers. I don’t understand where we differ.
lets for humorous sake, that his words were metaphoric for "teaching". This would create a schwackload of error. In the beginning of chapter 6, this was right before the Passover. The Passover makes it very clear in chapter 12 of Exodus the precise procedure in how they are to procure the lamb. In fact, it outlines the upmost importance in this celebration. If what Jesus said was a metaphor, then the whole exodus account and basically the whole bible becomes metaphoric, and the whole Christian faith becomes one gigantic fraud, period. Jesus even says at the end of John 6 "if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me" All of the sudden, metaphoric language goes out the window very quickly. Not including Leviticus 6 verse 11 "whoever touches the oblations becomes Holy" If just a metaphor, Jesus would have been nothing more than a great teacher, a Rabbi, but nothing more. In fact further reading in that chapter, Jesus say's "you search the scriptures because you think you have eternal life through them, ... but you do not come to me to have eternal life". Doesn't sound like Jesus's bread is simply reading scripture, not remotely close. (would explain why there's thousands of Protestant denomination out there) So how did the early church survive since the bible was not even compiled? In fact If one really meditates on this, there's too many holes in understanding Jesus words as metaphor, and there's nothing in the bible to support that position, but rather the opposite.
“I do not ask how Christ can be God and man, and how his natures could be united. For God is able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the body of Christ is not there when Christ himself says, ‘This is my body.’ I do not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments, as for example, that a large body could not fill a small space. God is above and beyond all mathematics, and his words are to be adored and observed with awe. God, however, commands: ‘Take, eat; this is my body’. I request, therefore, a valid proof from Holy Writ that these words do not mean what they say.” Luther The Marburg Colloquy
Manna ~ 1) Was a gift from God that sustained the Israelites through the wilderness. 2) The Israelites had to humbly receive it by bending over and picking it up daily. 3) It was given out of Grace and wasn't earned. 4) They couldn't hoard it and had to daily eat it. Of course, this is a metaphor. Jesus Christ is the WORD OF GOD. He was given out of GRACE and sustains us. We need HIM daily as we walk through the wilderness of this life. How offensive this must have been to the religious leaders. Them not getting the meaning is just like a Pharisee not getting, YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN.
@jthomas7904 And Gentle Jesus just let all those disciples walk away without explaining it was a metaphor. Hahaha 😂. Also readers, notice how this person doesn't even address the clear words of Christ, but distracts to an utterly unrelated reference from the Old Testament.
@catholicskeptic Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. ~ John 6 : 49. Unrelated? Are you sure ? I mean... Manna... Wilderness.... Your Fathers.... It's possible that I'm wrong but it's also possible.... IT'S RELATED. How does this conclude? 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven-not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.” Same line again.... Your fathers... manna... ?
@@jthomas7904 Oh it's related for sure, I phrased that badly . But Christ made His words very clear in John 6. It takes an enormous amount of jibber jabber to try to get around His clarity . Sadly so many of you Protestants do this with so many scriptures: Matthew 16:21-23, John 20:21-23, James 2:24, etc. , and I did to when I was a Prot Pastor, but I saw the Light, hope someday you will too. Praying for you.
@@catholicskeptic Yes, Christ usually made things clear from the Old Testament in the Synagogue. Understand Jesus Christ used Parables mostly when speaking outside but either way He spoke of Himself being the Messiah. This is exactly what He is doing in John 6. Pointing out WHO HE is from an incident that happened in the Old Testament. Remember the "Parable", which it is not, of the Prodigal Son? Certain Father, 2 Son's, one left, one stayed, one tended animals, RUNNING, KISS.... does this sound familiar from the Old Testament? Even today some do not correlate Jacob and Esau. It's not about Protestant or Catholic, those are just labels created by men. It's about rightly dividing and understanding the word.
@@catholicskeptic You just jump all over the place. First, it's not a Protestant vs Catholic debate. Those are man's terms found no where in the Bible. Secondly, Jesus Christ used OT scripture in teaching in the Synagogues. He does this to point out WHO HE IS. Thirdly, it's about interpreting the scripture correctly and SCRIPTURE is the best commentary on Scripture. Do you consider the Prodigal Son story a parable? Luke 15 : 11 - 32.
Excellent Hugh, Protestants have a blind spot when reading John 6, esp with v 63, and to justify their scriptural view, are obliged to take a contrary stand, as their beliefs fall or stand on their personal interpretation of John 6. Otherwise, if they believed in the literal Real Presence, they would have to join the CC as they do not have a validly ordained priesthood. The reality which Protestantism can’t seem to grasp is that without liturgical sacrificial worship as Jesus commanded in v 51-58, they do not have “church”, instead, more like a synagogue with prayer & teaching
Protestant pastors don't have teaching authority, governing authority and sanctifying authority. They don't have authorised priests and so they can't offer the sacrifice on the altar. And hence, they have to say the eucharist is symbolic.
Protestant checking in. I actually agree with these criticisms, but they are targeted at modern Evangelicalism, not historical Protestantism. As a Lutheran, I believe in the real, true, bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist given for the forgiven of sins. Also believe in baptismal regeneration, confession absolutions, the importance of valid ordination, the importance of liturgical worship (we distinguish Eucharistic sacrifice, which is admittedly very different than the Catholic sacrifice of the mass).
@@zrayish5164 - You have all of those things because Martin Luther was originally a Catholic monk who didn't stray as far from the faith as Jean Calvin.
@@zrayish5164I appreciate your comments. It would have been great if Protestantism hadn’t splintered into 000’s sects caused by heresies of sola Scriptura & personal interpretation which has caused confusion, division & scandal, when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21.
The Eucharist was universally accepted by all Christians for 1500 years. It was no coincidence rebelling and creating new doctrines gave men positions and power.
Why does Acts 15:29 say to stay away from blood? Leviticus 17:10-17 also says not to eat blood and that God will cut them off from their people. It seems to me that if Jesus' words are taken literally, God is contradicting himself. And the Bible doesn't make an exception when it comes to the blood of the Lord. I feel like most Christians and a majority of catholics are keeping themselves from being in a relationship with God and are too invested in their man made religion. Jesus wasn't Catholic, neither orthodox or Coptic or protest and or evangelical. Don't follow tradition, follow the Lord Jesus.
Jesus established an organized Church with 12 Apostles. It's clearly documented in the NT. The way to have a personal relationship with Jesus, is the way He intended, through His Church.
@@atrifle8364 RC doctrine sets up the RCC as a necessary mediator between God and man. But what does scripture say? 1Tim 2:5 "For there is one God, and _one mediator_ between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" Not 2 mediators, Christ and the RCC. Just one mediator, Christ. We go directly to Him in faith. Stop dividing your faith between Christ and your church, because your church didn't die for you and your church cannot save you.
@@rexlion4510Christ is the head of the One True Church that He founded Mt 16 18-19 which is the pillar & foundation of the Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & it gave you your codified bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2 Jesus instituted 7 sacraments which are biblical as His way of giving us grace, like electricity without which nothing functions. Specifically, He said that 2 of those sacraments are necessary for salvation Baptism Jn 3:5 & Eucharist Jn 6 51-58
@@LouisSlibithe 7 apocryphal books that were in the Septuagint. Seven Sacraments that Jesus instituted which are biblical, Baptism Jn 3:5 Confirmation Acts 8 14-17 Confession Jn 20:23, Eucharist Jn 6 Priesthood @ the Last Supper, Jn 6 do this in remembrance of me, Healing of the sick, throughout scripture & Marriage (pre-existing) Jn 2 1:12
Prophecy foretold the children of God are scattered, and in the end the Lord God will gather them. What it means is His people will be in every denomination. But Lord Jesus will gather them to worship Him in Spirit and in truth. What is Spirit and truth? Spiritual life is living by the laws and commandments of God; This is the truth that every child of God will have to learn to live by in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Matthew 19:17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” One of the commandments of God is you shall not carve an image of anything. No one has seen God. In the physical days of the Lord Jesus Christ, Israel was governed by the Law of Moses. Anyone who was caught carving or painting anyone's face will be stoned to death. That means no man dared to paint the face of Christ. Leonardo da Vinci was the first painter who painted The Last Supper. He did not know what the face of Christ nor had seen Him. He had to look for someone's face to be a model of what he thought Lord Jesus Christ should look. Catholic religion spread that false image of Christ. Movie industries looked for an actor who would play the role of Lord Jesus Christ, the one who has similarities of what Leonardo da Vinci painted. The world that does not the truth worships it. John 14:17 The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. You are sitting with many books behind you and many idols such as pictures and skulls. They are abominations in the eyes of God. Paul said he does not desire to know anything except Christ being crucified. You left the Christian religion and that is good, but the bad thing is you came to another false religion that teaches you to worship carve image, a sin towards God's Law. There are only two churches that came out from the mouth of God where you should go and get saved: House of Israel and Mount Zion, Heavenly Jerusalem, as well as there are only two names for the children of God: Children of Israel and children of Zion. You must live by the truth. Lord Jesus will rebuild His city Mount Zion, in the far east, Negros Philippines, where the daughter of Zion was born. This is a place where His people will learn holy, righteous, and obedient life. Obadiah 1:17 But on Mount Zion there shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; The house of Jacob shall possess their possessions. You would wonder why Mount Zion is in the Philippines. Mount Zion is the Kingdom of God. He took it from the children of Israel after they crucified Him and gave it to us, the children of Zion. There is a difference between Zionists and children of Zion. Zionists are a part of the religious group while the children of Zion came from the tribe of Judah. Matthew 21:43-45 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder. Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them. The Spirit and the bride Gabriel, an angel of the Lord Daughter of Zion Mount Zion, Heavenly Jerusalem
Protestantism, which is supposedly Biblical, fails to recognise that Jesus said that Baptism is necessary for salvation Jn 3:5 &1 Peter 3:21. Jesus said in Jn 6 51-58 that His flesh is Real Flesh & His blood is Real Blood, not symbolic as their interpretation suggests Some Protestants use grape others, wine, go figure!
Baptism is necessary, that being Baptism of The Holy Spirit. Just as John the Baptist states that one will come after him who is greater than him who will baptize them in the Spirit. When you believe in Jesus, by that you receive Him, and by receiving Him, you receive His Spirit, the Holy Spirit, which is not seen. There is nothing that you could ever do to make God love you, other than accepting His death as your salvation, that God Himself provided a perfect Lamb, sacrificed it on our behalf, and rendered our lives new. No work is good enough to present before a perfect, Holy, and Just God, for as it is written, our good works are as filthy rags before God. Only God can save us, as it is also written “there is no other savior besides me”. Go and read the Old Testament, you’ll see the truth, Jesus is the only way. No idols, no angels, nothing but God alone can save.
@@blakers430 It is Baptism of water and the Spirit. Baptism is called the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit, for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one can enter the Kingdom of God.
@@aussierob7177 By water meaning of the womb, you must be born first, and of Spirit meaning, of the Holy Spirit. How then does a man who was sentenced with the same sentence of death who hung beside Jesus get told He too would enter Paradise? Or did he have to get off the cross and get submerged first? No the Holy Spirit is what baptized Him, by His belief he was made clean. Or do you deny the inherency of the Scriptures?
Kinda. He was quite specific in John 6 though. And it’s no coincidence that those who rejected what he clearly said, repeatedly, turned away in John 666 (6:66)
@@mikekukovec4386I think he’s referring to verses often ignored or set aside by most Evangelicals, like every verse in which Jesus warns that believers can end up in Hell, where Bible says works of love are required to be saved, the whole bread of life discourse, etc.
John 8:12 KJV "Then spoke JESUS again unto them, saying, I am the LIGHT of the World John 10:9 KJV "I am the DOOR: by ME if any man enter in, he shall be saved..... John 10:11 KJV "I am the GOOD SHEPHERD: the Good Shepherd gives his life for the sheep." Was CHRIST a physical Light, Door, and Good Shepherd like you make the bread and the wine to become??? No, HE was spiritually those things as CHRIST concluded in John 6:63 KJV "It is the SPIRIT that quickens (gives eternal life); the flesh profits nothing (flesh means physical works of any sort in a physical world): the WORDS that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE." (CHRIST says HIS WORDS have spiritual meanings NOT physical meanings and are spiritually discerned and give SPIRITUAL LIFE which is FOREVER.
You nailed it. The Roman Catholics will consider context when interpreting those verses, but when it comes to verses 53-58 they have blinders on. They only believe what the RCC spoon-feeds them, like spiritual babies.
The One True Church that Jesus founded Mt 16 18-19 is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 which codified your Bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25 The defining difference between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches & false man made Protestantism is the literal Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 & esp 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. To preempt the usual knee jerk response, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary NOT a resacrificing as Protestantism incorrectly claims. Also Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice in all places at all times. The CC offers Mass daily in most parishes around the world. As Protestantism, generally, doesn’t believe in sacrificial worship Jn 6 51-58, they have no altars & no liturgical worship so no “church”, more like a synagogue with prayer & teaching. The words “daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, in their original language mean supernatural bread ie the Eucharist. Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain, same AB blood type and living heart tissue. O Ye of little Faith! For those with Faith, no explanation is necessary & for others, no explanation is possible! Try believing & understanding will follow, but not the reverse
1 Corinthians 10:1 KJV "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was CHRIST." Note: They spiritually ate and drank CHRIST long before CHRIST was made physical flesh. Symbolically eating and drinking CHRIST is a spiritual truth and only a remembrance of HIM giving HIS real blood and real Body on the cross for the forgiveness of all sins once for all which applies to the LORD's Supper where a true believer eats and drinks CHRIST spiritually NOT physically. Catholics have no spiritual faith which is eternal. They live in the flesh/physical world which is temporary. They must see, hear, feel, eat, taste, handle, and so forth or there's nothing for them. Here is a description of the real church: 1 Peter 2:3 KJV "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious (forgiven of all sins). 4 To Whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen (elect) of GOD, and precious, 5 You also, as lively (living) stones (Petras), are built up a spiritual house (the true Church), a Holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices (fruit of the spirit, obedience, thanksgiving), acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." Description of true believers: 9 "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that you should show forth the praises of Him Who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" Also see below: Revelation 1:6 KJV "And has made us kings and priests unto God and His Father; to Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." Revelation 5:10 KJV "And has made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." The true Church is spiritual NOT a palace in Rome.
If u believe in trans substantiation or not I don’t care. Living a life of humble obedience to Christ is what makes u a Christian. Theres plenty on both sides that deny Him on both sides of the divide. Perhaps we should try to come together over that instead of mocking each other.
Agreed however there are major differences! Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 which became known as the Catholic or Universal Church in 110. The Church is the pillar & foundation of the Truth 1 Tim 3:15. She codified the Bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2 The defining difference between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches & false man made Protestantism is the literal Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 & esp 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25 To preempt the usual knee jerk response, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary NOT a resacrificing as Protestantism incorrectly claims. Also Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice in all places at all times. The CC offers Mass daily in most parishes around the world. As Protestantism, generally, doesn’t believe in sacrificial worship Jn 6 51-58, they have no altars & no liturgical worship so no “church”, more like a synagogue with prayer & teaching. The words “daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, in their original language mean supernatural bread ie the Eucharist. Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain, same AB blood type and living heart tissue. Luther believed in the Real Presence O Ye of little Faith! For those with Faith, no explanation is necessary & for others, no explanation is possible! Try believing & understanding will follow, but not the reverse
@@peterzinya1 Hahaha, it's fascinating how you can "accuse", umm , who is the accuser of the brethren? 🧐. But of course are utterly incapable of refuting my point, which is the Word of God, thus ironically, like those in actual cults, you change the subject. Thanks for the laughs, but really it is so sad. Everyone please pray for this soul. 🙏
To eat His flesh and drink His blood is a striking way of expressing how completely we must bring the Savior into our life-into our very being-that we may be one. How does this happen? But figuratively eating His flesh and drinking His blood has a further meaning, and that is to internalize the qualities and character of Christ, putting off the natural man and becoming Saints “through the atonement of Christ the Lord.”
Sadly, some that follow their traditions get up every morning with a goal to conquer Catholics. Why? Where does it say in the Bible to put a bullseye on Catholics? I'm too busy trying to prefect myself, to attain grace and atone for my sins to make my Baptist neighbor the sole focus of my faith. I read scripture to prove people wrong; I read scripture to get close to Christ.
You wrote: "Evangelicals HATE Mary" That's total BS. Evangelicals simply understand that Mary, wonderful as she was, is not invested with Godlike qualities; she cannot hear millions of prayers every day, all around the world, many of which are unspoken prayers. Mary is a created human being. Mary is not omniscient, and although she was Jesus' mother on earth she is only one of the redeemed in heaven. Spend the time praying to God instead of to Mary, because we are certain that He hears and responds.
@@rexlion4510Sadly, that’s not always true. I hear them actually disparage her. They’re so invested in being NOT Catholic that they attack the mother of our Savior. Lord have mercy!
@@TrueChristianityWithSandra Disparagement does not equal hate. If you, a Christian, disparage your neighbor for routinely doing things you find unpleasant (like if they play the drums until 3 a.m. or they reduce your property's value by letting their place look ratty), does that mean you _hate_ your neighbor? Not necessarily... and since you are a Christian I'd venture to say that you'd still love your neighbor even while you disparaged them for their actions.
@@rexlion4510classical irrational response. Loving, Our Lady who always brings us closer to her son, can’t be compared with loving a noisy neighbour.. She is our spiritual mother, who is alive as Queen in Heaven, is the New Eve, The Ark of the New Covenant & the woman of Rev 12. If you don’t believe that she is Heaven, where are her relics?
Great point! Protestantism doesn’t understand the Deposit of Faith concept that has been developed over 2000 yrs from the time of Christ starting with oral Sacred Tradition which complemented Sacred Scripture when the CC codified the bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2 Sacred Tradition & Sacred Scripture are subject to the unifying authoritative interpretative authority of the Magisterium flowing from the authority given to St Peter to bind & loose Mt 16 18-19. The result is a balanced 3 legged stool providing stability compared to the one legged stool of Protestantism’s flawed cornerstone of man made sola Scriptura
Jesus did not make these statements in the context of the Lord's Supper. He made it in context of people being in need of bread after he performed a miracle of feeding thousands. The meat and blood of Christ are his teachings, which are found in scripture. He even says in John chapter 6 it is spiritual not literal.
So I think there needs to be a little clarification here. It’s not that Protestants don’t believe John 6:53-58 and RC’s do. They both believe it. They just disagree on what it means. Obviously a Protestant would point out that Jesus’ words in the Gospel of John are frequently misunderstood. He uses common words and phrases, but infuses them with spiritual meaning. For instance, John 3:3 Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born again. Nicodemus misunderstands and thinks he has to climb back into his mother’s womb. In John 4:10-14 Jesus tells the Samaritan Woman about living water, and that if she drinks of it she will never thirst again. She misunderstands Him and thinks she will not have to come back to draw water from the well. Jesus never corrects her misunderstanding. In John 4:31-32, the disciples misunderstand Jesus’ reference to “meat” as food. He corrects them and explains that His “meat” is to do the will of the Father. So it’s not outside the bounds to assume that Jesus is referring to some deeper spiritual meaning in John 6:53-58. Incidentally, my mind hearkens back to the movie Lady Jane and her question to her confessor, “Is Jesus a door?” (Or something like that). So obviously, this has been an issue for quite some time. But let’s assume it isn’t some deeper spiritual truth (quite an assumption), but a requirement to eat his actual flesh and drink his actual blood. How exactly are we to do that? He isn’t here for me to go slice off a piece of his flesh or to open up one of his veins. So this fellow here suggests that this is a reference to the Last Supper where Jesus declared the fruit of the vine to be His blood and the bread to be his body. I just want to point out that nowhere in John 6 does it say anything about Passover or the Lord’s Supper. That’s just his interpretation. In fact, Jesus refers to manna in the wilderness, but not the Passover meal. Also, I think it’s interesting John is the only Gospel without a recounting of the Last Supper and does not repeat the formula that you see in the Synoptics or in 1 Corinthians. Let’s just hope that whomever is reading this Gospel had one of the Synoptics or 1 Corinthians, or they never could figure out what John 6 meant. But once again, let’s assume that John 6 is a reference to the Last Supper (that John doesn’t even bother to recount). As far as I know, most Protestants obey Jesus and celebrate the Last Supper in the ordinance of communion or the Lord’s Supper. They think the bread is symbolic of the body, and the fruit of the vine is symbolic of his blood. They see the elements as symbols of the reality, or symbols of the true body and blood of Jesus. And, according to this fellow, the RCC believes that the host becomes the “true” body of Jesus (but not the actual body of Jesus), while the cup becomes the “true” blood of Jesus (but not the actual blood of Jesus). So what makes these elements “true” (but not actual)? Evidently, the mass. That’s where things get sticky. There’s nothing in the NT about priests and masses and all the hoopla attendant to this ritual. It’s all just made up. This fellow tries to justify the RCC understanding of communion by anchoring it in John 6 and the various Lord’s Supper accounts, but their understanding of communion is tied to the mass, which is something completely unbiblical. One last question, I attend a Lord’s Supper meeting every week at my Protestant church. We recite the formula from 1 Corinthians 11 at each one. Am I eating the “true” body of the Lord Jesus Christ? Am I drinking the “true” blood of the Lord Jesus Christ? The RCC would say “no.” Why? Because I am missing the priest, the mass, the altar, etc. But none of those things are found in John 6, the Synoptics’ accounts of the Lord’s Supper, or in 1 Corinthians 11. So it’s not a matter of Protestants not believing John 6. They understand it differently. But we just need to make it clear that the RCC uses John 6 to justify all sorts of institutions and practices that are non-biblical. That should be made clear by this fellow.
John 6:64 - “it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing…” this is said by Our Lord in response to his disciples unbelief in v61 “…this is a hard saying, who can hear it?” Clearly rebuking them for trying to “understand” his words with the FLESH of their human reason. Only the spirit will be able to help them understand. Jesus is most certainly NOT contradicting what he said earlier. As you said Hugh, he doubled down and now he TRIPLES down.
All you're doing is twisting Christ's words so they mean something completely different from what he originally meant. You already have this preconceived notion of what is true, and you're twisting his words so it fits your preconceived view. He was saying yes, we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood -- very simple. That's like me saying: "I'm going to get a glass of milk" and you twist it to mean "He said he's going to buy a refrigerator." You're not being intellectually honest.
@@cocoalovethax I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Yes, of course he meant we have to eat his flesh. That is not what I'm arguing about.
Subscribed. That was impressive. I don’t watch many Catholic videos, but this was good. I hope this video will do a great deal of good, and will be used to explain the truth of what the Church teaches about the Eucharist Presence of Christ.
First time on this channel.... And.... SUBSCRIBED! I may be wrong, very wrong, but do I sense a conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism here? That well-used copy of the Holy Bible is a big tell! [Edit: I wrote this just a couple of minutes into the video. Later on, I came across the part (@ 12:30) where @Hugh Quinn mentions his receiving cracker and grape juice for Sunday service. So, I was right in my presumption! Thanks to all our converts because they bring their tremendous Biblical scholarship into the Church.] HC-JAIPUR (St. Joseph's Feast, 2024) .
I’m a Protestant who believes in transubstantiation, and it really upsets me that I’m not allowed to receive the bread and wine in a Catholic Church without going through a rigmarole. It’s like an exclusive club. It surely should be an open table, not exclusively for official members of the church.
To call the historic rite of entering the Catholic church a "rigmarole" is very disrespectful. If you are serious about Catholicism become a Catholic but if you believe that you can get everything you need in a protestant church why would it bother you? You do understand the Catholic position is that the protestant church is heretical and they condemned it at the council of Trent? why would they hand out the body and blood of Jesus to heretics before they repent and come home to Rome? you can disagree with this but surely you know they believe this? And you said it should be an open table and it is , anyone is free to join the Church , come and join you are most welcome.
"Splaining' away" verses is what many Protestants spend the most time on. St. Peter being made the very 1st Pope is one I find incredulous that one could reject the plain meaning of Mt:16:18.
The fruit of unbiblical & unworkable sola Scriptura together with confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of God
A quote I found from Joseph Ratzinger when he was Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, which I think means he was the chief theologian of the Catholic Church when he said this. "Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord's Supper." There is no Catholic Magisterial correction of this statement by the later to become Pope. This is the stance of my Lutheran Church towards the Catholic expression of the Eucharist.
@ralf547 The Official, infallible declaration of the Church would say otherwise. The Church makes no effort to nitpick and spy out every opinion of the theologians , chief or other wise. The current guy in that position has written a couple of awful, disgusting books, but they still reflect his opinion, nothing more.
@@catholicskeptic another commenter has remarked that the comment was incorrectly attributed. Looked legit to me, but it's the internet and I accept his correction. This reply of your is also true and helpful.
AS a Protestant, I BELIEVE EVERY WORD OF THE BIBLE ..... okay I may have a different opinion/interpretation of some verses .... but that doesn't mean I dont believe those verses to be true.
@@atrifle8364 Who says I don't act on their truth? In the context of the topic (i.e. Eucharist/Holy Communion), I do act on the truth; I partake of Communion along with other saints of God with whom I fellowship.
The communion you speak of is not the flesh Christ speaks of. You’ve chosen not to believe what Christ is saying because “this teaching is hard”. Good luck to you.
@@perryellison5255 Eating His flesh and drinking His blood mean far, far more than merely participating in Eucharist/Holy Communion. Paul, the apostle, speaks of "the fellowship of sharing in His sufferings"; by which he meant living a life of suffering for the sake of the Gospel of Christ. Many bishops, popes, and cardinals participate in Communion, yet, have lived lives of sexual debauchery, drunkenness and political power; and participate in Eucharist - Do you honestly think that they will be saved on the day of judgement? Yes, I know that many Protestants have also lived lives that leave a lot to be desired - and the same question could be asked of them.
Typical Protestant contradictory logic! You believe every word of the bible, subject to your fallible interpretation. The great heretical formula that has caused confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21
Transubstantiation came into the Church over 1000 years after Christ. If you're familiar with the Passover meal, then understanding his statement makes sense. He is not talking Cannibalism.
The use of the word "transubstantiation" may have. However, belief in the True Presence in the Bread is found in 1 Cor 11 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My Body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This Cup is the New Covenant in My Blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27Therefore, 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. 28Each one must examine himself before he eats of the Bread and drinks of the Cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31Now if we judged ourselves properly, we would not come under judgment. 32But when we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
@atrifle8364 Sacred Apostolic Tradition: 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My Body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This Cup is the New Covenant in My Blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27Therefore, 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. 28Each one must examine himself before he eats of the Bread and drinks of the Cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31Now if we judged ourselves properly, we would not come under judgment. 32But when we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. (1 Cor 11)
The Jews did eat all the meats they sacrificed to God unless it was to be charred, (I don’t profess all the Jewish ways) but, those who knew the Torah and the TaNaKh, certainly knew their scripture was all about he Messiah and that He would come when God willed it.
Romans 3:28 "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" "Faith Alone" does NOT mean that's all you need. If I have faith that Jesus is God, but then I don't think that information is important enough to change my ways, that faith is not going to save me. As James 2 talks about, a saving faith will result in you changing your life to be more Christ-like. But the point of the statement is that it's the FAITH that justifies me in front of God, not the good things I did because of that faith.
Sure it does! Roman’s 10:17 Faith comes from hearing the word of God. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1 Corinthians 8:6 “But to us there is but one God. Which equates to God alone is one. 1Tim.2:5 There is your answer.
I think you misidentify protestants,and what the verse you are quoting is saying is that you must be a partaker of jesus.1 corin 10:16,17,21,also 2 timothy 2:6,7.you must be a partaker,not a cannibal.psalm 78:17 -22 is asking the same question in a different way.trusting in the Lord's salvation is trusting in jesus,and his sacrifice,wich was accepted by god.he was the perfect sacrifice,altar,temple,and priest.all other priests have to be cleansed and purified and hope they dont contaminate themselves.they used to wear bells to make noise in case they died when they entered holy of holies,but jesus didnt have to worry.he was spotless without blemish and accepted without doubt.we must believe in him and know he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him
@@martinmartin1363 verse 17 specifically say so.wich means you must be a believer of what Jesus did.all Scripture was given to us for reproof,correction,doctrine and instruction in righteousness,I Timothy 3:16 is telling us we don't know how to do things on our own.god says your ways are not my ways,your thoughts are not my thoughts.he wanted us to know his thoughts and ways,and that's why we are in dwelt by holy Spirit and given the word which is the scriptures.we still need faith that comes from hearing what the scriptures say
@@martinmartin1363 it's all for the glory of god.hes the one we magnify.someone once asked what is the meaning of love.solomon answers it with Ecclesiastes 12:13.fear God,because he's the only one who can not just kill us but cast our soul into hell,and keep his commandments,which is always a good thing,not to steal ,covet ,commit adultery,and all the things in the commandments.the main one which is mostly unread is 1john 3:23
You’re too kind to Protestantism. Catholicism is by far more intellectual, whist at the same being simple & easy to understand. You are correct that Catholicism is based on actual experiences specifically, her sacraments are expressed using material items like water, wine & bread.
Not trying to argue, just want to hear thoughts and responses: John 6:63a "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all" This is part of what Christ said to his disciples after teaching on his flesh and body. I aa a clarification that Jesus was talking symbolically when talking about his body and his flesh in the same why he clarified with Lazarus. It also fits in nicely with the required rebirth in the spirit in John 3. Looking at John as whole the symbolic interpretation seems to be pretty reasonable. But I would love to hear push back on this.
How do you explain disciples walking away in John 6, if it's a figurative passage? What can the words of the Last Supper mean, if John 6 is merely figurative? In fairness if someone is accustomed to a Protestant framework it will seem obvious that John 6 is somehow symbolic. Unfortunately however, it has to be symbolic for the vast majority of Protestantism because they don't have the Eurcharist. The conclusion is built in to the framework.
The key to understanding John chapter 6 is by starting at verse 27. Jesus says he is going to give us food that won't perish and lasts for eternity. He then tells you what that food is in verse 51.
@@henrybayard6574 And my question is how can that container be Christs literal flesh when the flesh is no help at all for giving life as seen in vs 63? This is not an attempt at a gotcha comment. I genuinely do not understand and would embrace a well thought out teaching on the matter.
@@nullassumptionsna3239 Christ said THE flesh profits nothing. But if you go back and read the previous verses he said to eat HIS flesh which gives life. The bible often refers to the works of the flesh or people born of the flesh to convey the sinful nature of human beings. Christ's flesh however was pure, holy and glorified. There's a big difference. Hope that helps.
@@henrybayard6574 I think that opens up a whole other can of worms ranging from the nature of Christ to purity rituals in the Old Testament. But thank you for your input. I genuinely appreciate it
The fruits of sola Scriptura & personal interpretation, confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21. When people questioned His teaching & left Him Jn 6 66, Jesus didn’t call them back to correct them. He had repeatedly said, eat my Body, drink my Blood so wasn’t speaking metaphorically. Read 1 Cor 10 16-17 & 1 Cor 11 23-27 Try combining Sacred Tradition, which existed before the NT, from the time of Jesus with Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective
Protestants believe everything that Jesus said in John 6, what we don't believe is that Jesus was teaching Transubstantiation in John 6. I hope this has cleared up your confusion. Peace.
No, it it is the Protestant who are confused. Jesus is very clear about His literal Real Presence in the Eucharist after Consecration & in fact, repeats Himself many times. v 66, He doesn’t call back those who disbelieve & leave Him. Supported by 1 Cor 10 16-17 & 1 Cor 11 23-27 Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain where the blood type is AB with living heart tissue
John 6:63 KJV [63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. What are the words he is saying? Spirit!
Good question. In v 63, Jesus is saying “the” not “my” flesh meaning, the “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25 The words “daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, in their original language mean supernatural bread ie the Eucharist. Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain, same AB blood type and living heart tissue. Luther believed in the Real Presence
We chatted recently on another one of your videos. And my much, much longer comment is below. I am a Protestant (in a rather broad sense since I really have no intellectual or religious ties to the actual reformers, many of whom were sort of crazy in some ways) that takes what I call the Lord’s Supper weekly at my local assembly. For the sake of argument, let’s just say I agree that John 6 is referring to the Lord’s Supper (or Communion, as you call it). Would you agree that I am eating the Lord’s flesh and drinking His blood when I partake of the Lord’s Supper?
Only the CC & Orthodox Church has a validly ordained priesthood in the unbroken line of apostolic succession so only their priests can properly confect the Eucharist. So no, as a Protestant, you are participating in the symbolic Eucharist which is not what Jesus commanded in Jn 6. If you don’t believe in His True Real Presence in the Eucharist, I suggest that you research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain where the blood is AB+ & the flesh is living heart tissue. Likewise, why do satanist steal consecrated hosts from Catholic Churches for use in black masses?
@@geoffjs But one question, where in the NT do you find these priests of which you speak? I see no evidence of them at all. I see church elders, but no priests. I find passages that say that all those that believe are a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:7-9). But nothing about a special, set-apart office of priest. So where would I find a description of this office of priest in the NT?
@@geoffjs One last thing, nowhere in John 6 does it say anything about Passover or the Last Supper or the Lord’s Supper or communion. It talks about the bread from heaven that Moses gave the Israelites, which is not a picture of the Passover. And I just want to point out that the Gospel of John doesn’t even recount the Last Supper, which would be odd if John wanted us to make the connection between John 6 and the Last Supper. But I’m not necessarily opposed to the notion that the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Jesus. But I am opposed to the notion that a human priest has anything whatsoever to do with such transformation. It says nothing whatsoever about priests and masses in John 6, the synoptic Gospels recounting of the Last Supper, or in 1 Corinthians 11. Not one word about priests or masses. We Protestants use the same formula found in 1 Corinthians 11 when we take our Communion. If the bread and wine transforms for you, it transforms for us too. Our subjective understanding of what’s going on does not affect the objective reality of what happens when we take Communion. Personally, I don’t think John 6 has anything to do with the Lord’s Supper. That’s because it doesn’t say that in the text. If it said it, I’d believe it. But that doesn’t mean that the bread and wine absolutely does not transform, but you certainly can’t prove it by John 6.
@@toddstevens9667The apostles that Jesus selected were the first bishops who in turn delegated their authority to what we today refer to as priests (presbyters) & deacons. He appointed the apostles as bishops at the last supper when He washed their feet & commanded them to offer His body & blood as an unbloody representation of His sacrifice that He offered on the cross. In addition, Jesus instituted confession Jn 20 21-23 I understand you disagreeing on Catholic doctrine, but any comments on unexplained Eucharistic miracles that He has sent us as signs? One of the reasons that only men can become priests is that they act in persona Christi when offering the Holy Mass. When a priest says “this is My body, this is My blood” he is referring to the body & blood of Christ, not his own. Both John 6 & the Last Supper provide evidence of Jesus appointing His apostles & giving them authority. No non Catholic or non Orthodox has an unbroken line of apostolic succession where the laying on hands can be tracked by each bishop back to his successors back to the time of Christ, another sign of His One True Church. If I haven’t been able to provide a satisfactory response, I suggest that you research the early fathers on what they had to say about these topics.
If it's indeed literal that Jesus promised that consuming the food he provides would result in never hungering or thirsting again, then why is it that after partaking of the Eucharist, I still experience physical hunger and thirst?
Because he partook he will receive eternal life at the ressurection. Those who didn’t wont. But it has direct effects aswell, spiritual satisfaction, decreasing of fleshly desires and so on.
@@Catholic-Christian See, now YOU are the denier of Scripture. YOU don't believe literally what Jesus said. You *interpret* Scripture according to the surrounding context, like a Protestant interprets John 6! 😂🤣
You nailed it. They don't take Jesus' words literally, when it doesn't suit them to do so. They interpret that verse properly by looking at the surrounding context, but they won't do the same with John 6!
@@rexlion4510 Nobody denies that. It’s when Jesus reiterates again and again that he means it literally that you deny the plain truth and follow your desires.
@@Catholic-Christian If you look at the whole of Scripture, the plain truth (reiterated again and again) is that _we receive God's saving grace_ (unto justification & eternal life) _through faith in Jesus Christ's atonement for our sins._ But the emphasis of the RCC is that you receive grace via the digestive tract. Your entire Mass points to the physical ingestion of your wafer god as *the main thing* about your religion. The RCC pays lip service to the concept of having faith in Christ's atonement, but by its actions it teaches a different concept of having faith in the weekly (or even daily) eating and drinking.
John 6:55-56 For my flesh is meat indeed. John 4:32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Notice the similarities. Jesus always explains what he means in both comments. 4:34 my meat is to do the will of the Father. 1st answer. John: 35 Jesus said I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 2nd answer.
johnp. 6043 It is amusing to watch Protestants try oh so hard to avoid scripture that doesn't line up with their beliefs. Jesus did always explain His metaphors, as STATED in the video. Jesus makes it very clear in John 6 His flesh is food indeed and His blood is drink indeed. Then there are all the other scriptures I gave. And then there is the testimony of the early Church fathers , and all of Church history. But hey, Protestant rebels, making up their own understanding 1500 years later, yeah just go with that! As one of my old teachers use to say, "the mind is the gland that excretes justification." 😆🤣🤣😂
@@catholicskeptic Well, Ok. Let’s look at more scripture. ( A) Jesus said I am the door. (B) Jesus said I am the vine. ( C) Jesus said I am the Rock. (D) Jesus said I am the temple. ( E) Jesus said I am the bread. Which on of these can you eat? Jesus breaks the bread, to represents his broken body for you, and said eat for this is my body and do this in remembrance of me. For I speak to you spiritually. (John 6:63)
@@catholicskeptic One hundred fourteen times the word “Justification”comes up in scientific. Paul writes that Jesus justifies us by his blood from the cross to wash our sins by faith. His justification is inputed to us by his righteousness for the remission of sins. James writes “ we”are justified by faith and works. ( Notice we are justified this is not referring to Jesus inputed justification.) Example if you were accused of murder, so you went to court to be judged, but you had all the evidence that you were innocent. This is your “Justification” you justified yourself. This is what James is saying we are his workmanship called unto good works) Ephesians 2:10) , but not for salvation for that is a gift from God.
@@catholicskeptic Correction One hundred fourteen times the word “ Justification “comes in scripture, not scientific. This computer does and auto word change.
Regarding the Sacrament of the Supper, those who deny it's efficacy go through a lot of contortions helping Jesus explain what He said. They can't accept what Jesus said. Seems a lot like those who couldn't accept what He said in the scriptures you are discussing.
Furthermore, how about the one where Jesus told Peter that he wishes that his Church is united and as one. Not sure which verse in the Bible says that Jesus told Peter that he would like his Church to be splintered into 40K pieces.
Do you believe this HOLY SCRIPTURE??? Hebrews 10:12 KJV "But this MAN (JESUS CHRIST), after "HE had offered ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOREVER" sat down on the right hand of GOD" 14 For by ONE OFFERING (CHRIST shedding HIS real blood and giving HIS real body on a real cross) HE has PERFECTED FOREVER (saved) them that are sanctified" (forgiven of all sins) 18 Now where remission of these (sins) is, "there is NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN" Catholicism denies CHRIST by teaching that you still have sin to be forgiven through a process of sacramental works and later purgatory.
The One True Church that Jesus founded Mt 16 18-19 is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 and it codified your bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2 Jesus instituted 7 sacraments which are biblical, through which He provides us with grace, like electricity, starting with baptism Jn 3:5 Acts 2 38-39. I find it amazing that many Protestants regard baptism as optional or superficial, when Jesus Himself said, baptism is necessary for salvation. It is therefore understandable that Protestants reject Jesus’ teaching of His literal Real Presence as they wouldn’t be true to themselves if they didn’t Protest!
@@geoffjs CHRIST instituted the sign/ordinance of the LORD's Supper symbolically shown in the signs of the bread and the cup as a remembrance only. The true Church are individual believers whose bodies are the habitation of GOD/temple built up a Church which is spiritual not a palace in Rome. Baptism is a physical sign representing the Baptism of the Holy Spirit where GOD indwells a person with His Holy Spirit making them His habitation/temple and should be done as a witness of this glorious truth BUT is not necessary to salvation. For example, the thief on the cross was not baptized. 1 Peter 2:3 KJV "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious (forgiven of all sins). 4 To Whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of GOD, and precious, 5 You also, as lively stones (living stones), are built up a spiritual house (the true church), a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices (fruit of the spirit, obedience, thanksgiving), acceptable to GOD by JESUS CHRIST." Description of true believers: 9 "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that you should show forth the praises of Him Who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" Also see below: Revelation 1:6 KJV "And has made us kings and priests unto GOD and His FATHER; to Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." Revelation 5:10 KJV "And has made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth."
@@TrueChristianityWithSandra How so??? Also consider this: John 3:15 That whosoever believes in HIM (CHRIST) should not perish, but have ETERNAL LIFE. 16 For GOD so loved the world, that HE gave HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that whosoever believes in HIM should not perish, but have EVERLASTING LIFE. 17 For GOD sent not HIS SON into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through HIM might be saved. 18 He that believes on HIM is NOT CONDEMNED: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the NAME of the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD." Note: If you do not know where you will immediately go when you die then YOU DENY that your sins are forgiven by GOD's grace through faith in CHRIST and HIM crucified and deny that you have ETERNAL and EVERLASTING LIFE and you deny that you are NOT CONDEMNED as CHRIST said, therefore you deny CHRIST.
@@jacktracy8356OSAS is heresy, because according to St Paul, we work out our salvation with fear & trembling Phil 2:12. It is the sin of presumption to say that one is saved because it is possible to loose one’s salvation. In a previous comment, you fallaciously claim that baptism doesn’t save, contradicting Jesus Jn 3:5 & 1 Peter 3:21. The thief on the cross was repentant & unknowingly desired baptism ie the baptism of desire
@@geoffjs no reason for hostility..... just asking an easy question. Since Jesus was clearly teaching cannibalism to the point, many of his followers left, and the bread and wine were NOT a symbol or metaphor as this video vehemently claims, where is the verse where Jesus passed around his foot and everybody took a toe? Seems pretty simple to prove if it's there........
@@ThePopOptic100no hostility intended, however, the words of Jesus are clear & He repeatedly says, eat My flesh, eat My Body. The use of the word cannibalism is construed as blasphemy by believers in the literal True Presence & is disrespectful. If Jesus had given us His physical flesh & blood to consume, then I can see the applicability of the word. However, Jesus used the practical realities of bread & wine to change into His flesh & blood, while retaining their appearances. I understand people having difficulty with the concept of transubstantiation, however, over time & with meditation, understanding has flown from belief, but the opposite is not necessarily true. The defining difference between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches & false man made Protestantism is the literal Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 & esp 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25 To preempt the usual knee jerk response, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary NOT a resacrificing as Protestantism incorrectly claims. Also Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice in all places at all times. The CC offers Mass daily in most parishes around the world. As Protestantism, generally, doesn’t believe in sacrificial worship Jn 6 51-58, they have no altars & no liturgical worship so no “church”, more like a synagogue with prayer & teaching. The words “daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, in their original language mean supernatural bread ie the Eucharist. Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain, same AB blood type and living heart tissue. Luther believed in the Real Presence O Ye of little Faith! For those with Faith, no explanation is necessary & for others, no explanation is possible! Try believing & understanding will follow,
A lot of “they believe this” and “they believe that” without actually being aware of what the variety of denominations believe. Some of us definitely believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. And that baptism with water is expected of us.
@emton55 I am well aware of those who "do believe ", but I spent 30 Years in the area of the Protestant world that, a) did not believe, b) hated and mocked this particular belief, and the members of those groups are the most active Protestant groups that keep watching and commenting on my videos. So the "being aware", comment is non sequitur. Plus I opened the video making the distinction of those Protestants who do "believe " in the Real Presence.
If the Lord meant that the bread and wine of His Last Supper are transubstantiated then it happens universally wherever his people celebrate it, not just in Roman Catholic churches.
@Jere616 The Lord established a living Church; He gave Simon Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. That Church has been here 2000 years. No where does Jesus ever say On this paper I'll write My book, and the gates of hell not prevail against it. He did say "on the rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall bot prevail against it. ( Matthew 16:13-19) " His people" are His Church. The foundation of Truth is the Church ( 1 Timothy 3:15). The Lord said what He meant and meant what He said.( see John 6). Only the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have taught this truth down through the ages. Protestant rebels who started 500 years ago decided to change it all, based on their private views of a Book the Church gave us, yet they reject the Church itself. Protestantism is an absurdity.
@@catholicskeptic The keys were evidently shared among the other apostles as Matt 18:18 shows, but what gets me about the RC assertion that it's upon Peter *alone* whom Jesus builds His Church is why there's an utter lack of Peter's endorsement by Paul to that effect. Not only that but Paul wasn't converted even indirectly through Peter yet he goes on to be used by the Lord to build much of the Church through his campaigns and writings.
Lutherans don’t believe it’s a metaphor. We believe it’s Christ’s true Body and True Blood. We might define the Real Presence differently, and Roman Catholics don’t believe that the Eucharist is valid within the Lutheran tradition, but to say that all Protestants don’t believe in Real Presence is not accurate. Lutheran Eucharist theology clearly teaches that it’s is physically Jesus given to us for the forgiveness of sins.
LOL! While there are numerous scriptures Catholics don't believe, that directly contradict what Catholicism teaches. Such as there is one mediator beween God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). And, there is none righteous, no, not one (Romans 3:10), but still believe Mary didn't have sin. Scripture that Jesus had half brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3), nope, they don't believe that either. Or forbidding to marry is a doctrine of demons (1 Timothy 4:1-3). Nope, they still forbid priests to marry. There are just three off the top of my head.
Quick question… did anyone ever give you this pitch when you were Protestant? How long did it take to realize you were wrong and humble yourself after the first time someone tried to show you your error?
5:45 Jesus clarified what he meant that time because he was talking to the disciples, not a large crowd. We should not expect him to explain a parable/metaphor to a large crowd because he explains things to the disciples. Jesus even explains exactly why he doesn't do this for crowds in Matthew 13:10-14. that being said, not all Protestants reject true presence. It's actually the historic view of a lot of the traditions, and it makes me a little sad to see that some may have abandoned it completely on the basis of sounding "too Catholic-y". We just reject that only the Roman Catholic church can administer communion.
It would be nice if y'all could give us our real name, ie the Catholic Church. Most modern Protestants reject the Real Presence. The Catholic Church does not claim that she only administers communion. She is the only one administering it lawfully under Peter. Those groups with apostolic succession will have consecrated Hosts. That said, the group most likely to call itself Catholic - the Anglicans - broke their apostolic succession deliberately hundreds of years ago.
@@atrifle8364 I didn't intend to use an improper name, is "Roman Catholic Church" not appropriate? "too Catholic-y" was a self-diss on certain Protestants, not Roman Catholics. As for communion, I've been trying to figure out Christianity for the last year and a half now, and I understand communion to be one of the most important things a Christian can do- "do this in remembrance of me". I've been to a lot of churches, and the Roman Catholic parish I visited was the only one who made it absolutely clear I was not welcome to receive it with them despite being a baptized believer. I've also been informed by Roman Catholics that not only have I never actually had a valid communion, but additionally for them to remember Christ's sacrifice with me in my church would be such a grave sin that it would ENDANGER THEIR SALVATION.
@@mikekukovec4386The reason that you can’t receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church is that you are not Catholic & at face value don’t believe in the literal Real Presence. It is wrong & sinful for Catholics to symbolically receive communion at a Protestant service
Taking Jesus' words in John 6:53-58, without regard for the context of the surrounding discussion (in the entire 6th Chapter) is no better than saying that there are no true believers in the world since no one has water gushing out of his navel. What? Don't you believe Jesus when He said, " He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" (John 7:38)? See, you can't just take everything Jesus said at face value, totally literally. *Obviously* we must consider the context surrounding that statement in order to properly interpret it and understand what Jesus meant. Interpreting John 6 is no different; The RCC pulls bits and pieces of what Jesus said (in John 6) out of context. What earthly use would it be for us to actually eat human flesh and to actually drink human blood? Or do you suppose that you can get more of God inside you by ingesting the Almighty physically? It really is sad with people like Hugh Quinn come along with his attitude of smug superiority and misleads people into believing that Christianity is all about consuming God via the digestive tract. Try consuming Christ by faith instead!
The One True Church that Jesus founded Mt 16 18-19 is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 which codified your Bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25 The defining difference between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches & false man made Protestantism is the literal Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 & esp 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. To preempt the usual knee jerk response, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary NOT a resacrificing as Protestantism incorrectly claims. Also Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice in all places at all times. The CC offers Mass daily in most parishes around the world. As Protestantism, generally, doesn’t believe in sacrificial worship Jn 6 51-58, they have no altars & no liturgical worship so no “church”, more like a synagogue with prayer & teaching. The words “daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, in their original language mean supernatural bread ie the Eucharist. Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain, same AB blood type and living heart tissue. O Ye of little Faith! For those with Faith, no explanation is necessary & for others, no explanation is possible! Try believing & understanding will follow, but not the reverse.
It is good to recognize the bread and wine as the true flesh and blood of Christ, but I am rather skeptical over the idea that grace flows through the sacrament. Indeed, the grace is given to us through faith as it is written : "For by grace are ye saved through faith", and "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." And it makes more sense that way as it is also written : "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." Once we have received an heart of flesh, what should we do more ? Make this heart more of "flesh" ? This is why, once you have received the gospel by faith, you do not need such "sacraments" to receive more grace, as all grace has already been given to you through faith. And the grace of God is to recognize his Son and this is what John 6 is all about. This is why in this chapter, Jesus says stuff like : "I came down from heaven", "I do not do my own will, but the will of my Father", "I will raise him up on the last day", "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father", "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life", ... In fact the people present on that day were already believing in Him, but not for what he was, knowing his divinity. They were alredy saying : "This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world." But now Jesus wants to reveal his divinity. This is why he ends up saying : "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Because as the people around him were Jews, they were forbidden to drink blood as it is written : "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." But if that blood, is Life itself, as God is the source of all life, then it makes sense to commune with it. Thereby, the one who believes in the divinity of Christ, and thus has life in him because of his faith, eats his flesh and drinks his blood as Jesus has commanded us at his last meal.
Then He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, He blessed and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the multitude truly truly i tell you. you do not seek me because of signs and miracles, you seek me because i fed the loaves and you were filled “Why do you reason because you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart still hardened? Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments did you take up?” They said to Him, “Twelve.” “Also, when I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of fragments did you take up?” And they said, “Seven.” So He said to them, “How is it you do not understand
Do you have any of Jesus flesh? Why didn’t the apostles eat his flesh after Romans crucified Him? Where does it say that the bread turns into the body of Christ after eating the bread?
Yes it's in the tabernacle at church. They did. Literally every church father and ecumenical council affirm it. The true presence in the consecrated bread and wine was believed by every Christian until the 1500s. Maybe you should ask yourself why you're the odd man out.
@@atrifle8364 He takes the bread and says this is my body; if this is what is meant literally, then the bread should have transformed into a hunk of Christ's flesh right in front of the apostles and a section of His body should be missing a hunk of flesh. But the scriptures never say that. It is suspiciously convenient to have the flesh remain in bread form when it can be seen, and then have it change appearances when it is in the belly and out of sight.
@artemusbowdler7508 luckily there is an entire deposit of faith that has survived since the very beginning that can attest to the fact that it is his body and blood. It's the church that Jesus himself established, the catholic church.
Christ said in John 6:53 that “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” No baptized infant believes in Christ (Protestant interpretation of his words), and no infant eats bread nor drinks wine (Catholic interpretation of his words). So, according to Christ himself the ‘sacrament of baptism’ performed on an infant accomplishes nothing. They still “have no life” in them. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church directly contradicts Christ himself. Choose carefully whom you will follow.
Classical irrational Protestant response. Yes, baptism is necessary for salvation, unless you don’t believe in Original or the sin of Adam. If baptism replaces circumcision, wouldn’t it follow that infants should be baptised & the Bible doesn’t forbid it. In fact, households were baptised se Acts 2 38, 1 Peter 3:21. What is the downside to baptising infants, an ancient practice of the CC? The Sacrament of Confirmation confirms young baptised adults in their faith Acts 8 14-17 Infants are too young to receive the Eucharist so typically, children from the age of reason circa 7 yrs receive the Real Presence
I grew up Protestant...attended many churches. We all took the Eucharist seriously. I'm not sure what Protestants don't believe in the Eucharist...it's just we disagree with Catholics on how the Real Presence exists in reality when consuming the Eucharist. I was always taught to take the Eucharist seriously. Grew up Baptist when I was young. 😂
The problem with Protestants are the varying beliefs, most of which are symbolic. In any, event, without an ordained priesthood in the unbroken line of succession from the Apostles, no literal Real Presence in the Eucharist can be confected. Believers should seriously consider the Catholic or Orthodox Churches
@Bevofan Matthew 16:13-19. Rest assured I and the others who have come home to the One True Church will be praying for you. Thanks for commenting and thereby helping grow the channel and spread the Catholic Faith.
Jesus Himself gives us the interpretation key in John 6:63: It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life. That is why it is a metaphor. Eating Jesus flash is believing His Words!
Jn 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25 Also 1 Cor 10 16-17 1 Cor 11 23-27
@@geoffjs John 6 is not even about the Pascal meal where Jesus took to bread and the wine. So it is clearly interpreted with the key in John 6:63 to believe the words of Jesus. 1 Cor texts are referring to the meals that the community had, but full meals not just a taste. But as the Jesus said at the last Passover about the bread: this is my body, this was a image, as the bread is broken to give life also Jesus body would be broken to give life. So it is a metaphor. Like John used the words: The Lamb of God about Jesus. Jesus was not a lamb in the literal sense, but in the metaforic sense having characteristics of the lamb: quiet and humble while going to the death. By remembering Jesus we are partaking of His body, meaning the bread that we brake to remember His sacrifice. And also His body in 1 Cor are we all the believers because we eat from the one bread.
If everything can be a metaphor and Jesus "obviously didn't mean that" then why do protestants believe the miracles in the bible and in the Resurrection itself? Raising the dead and walking on water is honestly, from an objective point of view, a lot harder to believe than bread being the Body of Christ
I first recognized the Catholic view of this scripture years ago. I agreed with the view... But never felt the need to be Catholic. My commitment is to the truth, not an organization.
@@nathanshearer30 Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal by Ignatius in 107, codified your bible in 382. His Church is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed, in spite of sinful men, for 2000 yrs, proof of its divine origin. Jesus as the head of His Church appointed Peter was His earthly representative with an unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter to Francis The fruits of sola Scriptura & personal interpretation, confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21. Try combining Sacred Tradition, which existed before the NT, from the time of Jesus with Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Have you ever considered the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
Every believer in the Eucharist reads John 6 right up till verse 63 then the illiteracy kicks in instantly 🤦🏻♂️ John 6:63 NASB1995 [63] It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
Jesus in v 63 it is THE flesh, not MY flesh The “flesh” He notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25. Luther believed in the Real Presence Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain, same AB blood type & living heart tissue
There’s a Scripture that Catholics never explain, can someone explain this “While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Matthew 12:46-50 If Mary is so highly esteemed, why would Jesus not honor her a little more than this? The answer is because though Mary was blessed by God to carry the Messiah, she was not to be exalted as if she was deified.
Keep in mind that Jesus was sinless (obviously) and therefore obeyed the 10 Commandments perfectly. Yet you’re implying that your interpretation of Scripture shows Jesus disrespecting his mother, which is a sin. So your interpretation of this passage is demonstrably incorrect. Add to that that Mary was the very first Christian on earth. Since we know Jesus cannot have sinned, there must be more to this passage: Jesus was telling us that those who obey God and follow Jesus are part of God‘s family now. We become adopted children of God.
Classic Protestant deflection from the topic under discussion. Since you ask, Mary was a very special woman, Immaculately Conceived, led a sinless life & was Assumed into Heaven, where as Queen (Esther), she is the woman of Rev 12. If you disagree where are her relics? If Enoch & Elijah were assumed into Heaven, why would Jesus not do the same for His mother?
@@geoffjs Mary was a sinner like you and I. Nowhere in scripture does it say Mary was sinless. It doesn’t say Mary was assumed into Heaven either…..it’s not in the text. You are confusing Catholic doctrine with actual Scripture. At some point you’re going to have to decide who’s right, the Scripture itself or Catholic doctrine.
@@elitedrumlessons6174Protestantism, with its flawed sola Scriptura teachings has a very narrow view as the bible was codified in 382 & only became mass printed in the 16th century & even then, most people were illiterate so, sola Scriptura was unworkable for at least 1500 yrs. People relied on Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Christ & complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the Magisterium, a reliable, stable 3 Legged stool. Remember also that the bible says that it doesn’t contain everything Jn 21:25 such as the words bible & Trinity. All Catholic teaching is biblical, either implicitly or explicitly To be the mother of Jesus, Mary had to be Immaculately Conceived Lk 1:28, she is “full of grace” ie no sin., all generations will call me blessed, Lk 1 42-44 Her Magnificat Lk 1 46-56 With God, all things are possible eg saving the thief on the cross, we believe that Mary’s saviour saved her when she was conceived & she was Assumed into Heaven as Queen (Esther) where she is the woman of Rev 12. If Enoch & Elijah were assumed into Heaven, Jesus could do the same for His mother. If you don’t believe this, where are her relics?
Why is it okay to accept science's understanding of the origins of life and view the 6 days of creation as symbolic/metaphorical/allegorical, but you will not view the bread being Jesus' body as symbolic/metaphorical/allegorical while also refusing to let scientist weigh in on this? If the bread is the actual human flesh of Jesus Christ, then let scientist do exploratory surgery to verify that you have human flesh in your belly after consuming the Eucharist.
You’re putting God to the test by challenging His words. The One True Church that Jesus founded Mt 16 18-19 is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 which codified your Bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25 The defining difference between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches & false man made Protestantism is the literal Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 & esp 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. To preempt the usual knee jerk response, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary NOT a resacrificing as Protestantism incorrectly claims. Also Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice in all places at all times. The CC offers Mass daily in most parishes around the world. As Protestantism, generally, doesn’t believe in sacrificial worship Jn 6 51-58, they have no altars & no liturgical worship so no “church”, more like a synagogue with prayer & teaching. The words “daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, in their original language mean supernatural bread ie the Eucharist. Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain, same AB blood type and living heart tissue. O Ye of little Faith! For those with Faith, no explanation is necessary & for others, no explanation is possible! Try believing & understanding will follow, but not the reverse.
@@artemusbowdler7508The Church embraces science in the search for Truth, so why don’t you research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain. Protestantism is unsurprisingly not interested because these miracles may destroy your assumptions. Also, why do Satanists steal consecrated hosts from Catholic Churches for Black Masses if they didn’t believe that they contain His True Real Presence?
@@geoffjs Miracles do not need to be defended. I believe that Genesis is historically accurate. If you cannot take God at His word in Genesis, then how can you take God at His word in the Gospels?
![Who ACTUALLY Appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush? [SPOILER: It’s NOT the Father] | @shamounian](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5CNknZoR09k/mqdefault.jpg)
Dr. Brant Pitre's book, "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist," is an excellent source for true proof of the Eucharist.
Also, Dr. Scott Hahn's book, "The Fourth Cup," proves without any real shadow of a doubt what Jesus intended when He established the Eucharist.
Last year in my small parish we had about 8-10 new members of the Catholic Church in our RCIA class. This year, we have nearly 25 new souls on fire for the Eucharist.
Read all the books you want. There are books on systematic theology that will contradict what Scott Hahn has written. No one with any sense can believe that consuming Christ and creating disks of Jesus every day would allow Priests to be pedophiles. That is absurd.
I consider myself fortunate. As a believer in God my whole life, but ignorant of scripture and skeptical of organized religion, in a moment of pure emotion, I promised my Catholic mother, as she lay dying, that I would be baptized. And then I double-downed and told her I would be baptized Catholic. At the time, I had no idea what I was saying and truly thought I would have to deny truth and logic to fulfil my promise to my mother. Honestly, I was truly dreading the thought of having to go through RCIA and play along with something I was certain I would not believe.
An attorney by profession, I always feel it necessary to educate myself to some degree before entering into any situation where debate may be present. So, a few months prior to RCIA beginning, I determined myself to read the New testament, once and for all. Having never fully read it the first 55 years of my life. My knowledge of scripture was only the bits and pieces I had heard from others having grown up and been educated in the American South. I knew nothing of Catholicism other than what I had seen portrayed on TV and movies. Honestly, I believed that followers of any denomination, while admirable in their dedication, were simply minions under the power of the Church to which they belonged. I believed that whatever relationship I had with God was sufficient and surely God would not complicate his message with organized religion.
I have to say, reading scripture for the first time, I was truly shocked to learn that Jesus started a church. To learn that the establishment of a Church was central to his presence on earth. But as a complete neophyte to scripture, reading it for the first time, it was very clear that Jesus did indeed start a church. As for the Eucharist, it was totally foreign to me. But Jesus' words were not ambiguous. There it was...comsume my flesh...drink my blood. These were complete and shocking revelations. After reading such, I felt it was necessary to learn what became of the church that Jesus started. I thought to myself this will surely be the end of me being a true Catholic and that the fulfillment of my promise was, unfortunately, going to be based on lies and self-deception. I thought it would be as easy as proving that Christians never consumed his flesh and blood as he asked. And if they did, they had long since ceased to do so. I had never heard of such a practice.
Folks, it took all of one afternoon to learn the truth. Having read some of the writings of early Christians, and the Didache, Acts, and other materials, the truth was very evident to me. Immediately I learned that the Catholic Church was the one true church and that it has always existed. It was also abundantly clear that the Eucharist was central to the worship of God and Jesus Christ. My entire viewpoint on God and religion changed in an instant. I have since immersed myself in scripture, the history of Christianity, and the Catholic Church. Always skeptical, my concerns and doubts are always resolved through scripture and the history of the Church/Christianity. I now simply marvel at the mental gymnastics protestants go through to justify their faith. Their self-serving interpretation of scripture would be comical if it were not taking them further and further from God.
I will be baptized this Easter and my journey to become Catholic will be complete. I am overwhelmed with joy to have found the Church and to have come to understand Jesus fully and completely. I feel fortunate that I began my journey with scripture and history as I feel it took me straight to God.
Welcome home brother. That’s a beautiful testimony.
Thankyou for sharing your story. It was clear, precise & flowing. You might like a channel called 'The Catholic Brothers' - They have a wonderful series called, 'The First 500 years' 👍
@@pop6997 - Hi Pop! 👋
@@atrifle8364 Ha! We seem to haunt the best channels 😁
@dalepress1581
Welcome home to Jesus' Church. That is an awesome testimony, excellent writing. God Bless! Thanks for sharing.
For years I never saw the obvious. Jesus was very clear when He said that we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
Once I realized what it was that early church believed about the Eucharist, the scriptures became even more alive and enlightening to me. I began to see what was right in front of us the whole time. The old and New Testament point to the Eucharist.
@@_ROMANS_116it’s not the bs you’re about to spew. People are waking up to your anti Catholic bigotry and propaganda. It doesn’t work anymore. If this pisses you off……good. Stay in your lane, ignorance is the only thing saving you right now. Along with your Faith. But if you keep doing the work for the other team, it ain’t gonna end well. You’re not a white knight slaying Catholics for protestant Jesus. Again you’re not doing Jesus any favors. Again you’re not doing Jesus any favors. That feeling of anger you have from reading this, comes from the one who’s sent you. BTW, remind him that his head will be crushed by her heel.
Once you believe Jesus was serious almost every catholic dogma falls into place. It's almost like an institution to protect the eucharist!
@@_ROMANS_116 If you go by what Jesus actually said, yes! 😂
@@_ROMANS_116 you failed to understand the scriptures and the fullness of the gospel. That is because you, like I and Hugh once believed, what the gospel is according to men who had left the Catholic Church, or were born into the Protestant tradition. Their understanding of the gospel and the beliefs of the church were formed apart from the traditional understanding that had been passed on from one generation to the next and instead have developed new meanings that depart from the churches well guarded truths as passed down over the centuries. These beliefs and teachings can be traced back to the earliest days of church just as the Catholic Church can be traced back to the apostles and our Lord Himself.
@@_ROMANS_116
John 6:53
Jesus said to them, “I am telling you the truth: if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in yourselves.
I was debating a Protestant online.
I brought up Jn 6
“My flesh is real food”
His exact words to me were
Obviously he didn’t mean that.
ha!
Yes obviously he did not mean that. It so obvious because JESUS would have cut a portion of HIS flesh and just put a tiny drop of HIS blood to show that it is not a symbolism.
JESUS just show us how this symbolism is not an ordinary way of partaking bread and wine. I hope you can understand how clear JESUS has emphasized this on the scripture. He can easily cut a portion of HIS body if it was so. Please understand.
He did mean that. The unsaved dont understand and cant understand. Jesus is the Word. His flesh is Word. Believe his Words is eating his flesh.
@@lemuel888 Early Christians disagreed with you, obviously.
Catholics didn't believe it either until 1556, when transubstantiation became dogma at the Council of Trent.
Weird that something so plainly obvious took a millennia and a half to become official.
Oh, and the Eastern Orthodox and the Easter Catholic churches aren't as dogmatic about it as you are.
The many, many Eucharistic miracles over the centuries PROVE that the Catholic Eucharist is indeed the TRUE BODY AND BLOOD of Christ !!!!
Those miracles are still occurring today.
@williamburych2136
Amen 🙏.
And in most cases, the evidence from recent miracles is actually sent for forensic analysis. Human cells are found, and the blood type matches that from the Shroud of Turin!
@@catholicskeptic How does it prove that?
If these miracles actually happened, why does this prove true presence? the whole idea is that the bread/wine do NOT change their physical features in any way.
Additionally, if no miracles like this had ever been recorded, Roman Catholics would still hold to true presence, correct? If that's the case, you should be able to demonstrate the idea without interpreting these miracles as evidence for true presence.
Im an Anglican (part of the Anglican church called Anglo-catholic) and i just reached out to my Catholic diocese today and they immediately put me in connection with my local priest with regards the to Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. Ive always believed that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Our Lord but i dont know of any Eucharist miracles in the Anglican church , the Anglican Church is full of faithful Christians who love Christ but the Priest does not have the power from God to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord. This has become clear to me. As Anglicans (especially us Anglo-Catholics) we have always been told by those fundamental protestants that we are "too catholic" lol well very shortly i will be an actual Catholic and thank the Lord for that.
Many Anglicans hold to transubstantiation (specifically Anglo-Catholics) , i certainly did when i was an Anglican and many at my church did (i just started my journey to Catholicism today through my local diocese)
So very awesome!! I'm excited for you!
Glad you stopped polluting Anglicanism with your improper beliefs, but sorry you fell for the lie that you can consume all of God via the digestive tract. You seem to forget that what goes in the mouth eventually comes out, into the toilet.
God bless you and your family 🙏
Anglicans who do not hold to this need to examine themselves. Is means IS. This IS my body. This IS my blood. IS. IS. IS. And we MUST eat his flesh and drink his blood. The Eucharist is how we do this. For real. Not a symbol. FOR REAL.
A constant misunderstanding among Christians today is that we look too much at Jesus's humanity and not at what he truly was. The Word of God. He said that man shall live by eating the word of God. This is the eating unto life. I do believe that communion is important, but daily feeding the body with the word is just as important.
You could do an entire series on the verses Evangelical do not believe. A short topical list includes all the verses on tradition, the Spirit guiding the church into all truth, the seven sacraments, laying on of hands, ecclesiology, purgatory, Mariology, and the communion of saints. The thoroughly emaciated beliefs of the Evenaglicals testifies to the inevitable progress of the secular age we are all now suffering through.
With reference to the linked video below, how contradicting that you believe the Holy Spirit guides your Catholic Church into all truth, and Protestants testify to the progress of secularism. So then, why has your supposedly-INFALLIBLE Pope, the Vicar of Christ made homosexual no longer a sin for Catholics by allowing your priests to bless same-sex couples. Is it because your ‘Holy Father’ Pope and you believe in Matthew 16:19, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” and you being an obedient, faithful Catholic are supposed to literally believe that too? Well then, all you Catholics who have been ‘hiding in the closet’ because you have been having secret desire for an intimate and passionate relationship with someone of your same sex, YOU CAN NOW BOLDLY AND FEARLESSLY COME OUT WITH YOUR SIGNIFICANT OTHERS AND GO TO YOUR PRIESTS TO GET THEIR BLESSINGS! By the way, according to Jesus, the title ‘Holy Father’ righteously belongs to HIS FATHER, THE TRUE GOD. Beware, this is from your Catholic Bible, 2 Thessalonians 2, “…But the coming of the wicked One will be marked by Satan being at work in all kinds of counterfeit miracles and signs and wonders, and every wicked deception aimed at those who are on the way to destruction because they would not accept the love of the truth and so be saved. And therefore God sends on them a power that deludes people so that they believe what is false,…”
th-cam.com/video/EvjXuLXO24Q/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ixFNKoqpuAg8_DKH
Likely true, but the same could be said of Catholics. We all need to stop avoiding difficult verses....
@@vincewarde The entire bible is entirely Catholic and the Catholic church does not avoid any biblical verse.
With reference to the linked video below, how contradicting that you believe the Holy Spirit guides your Catholic Church into all truth, and Protestants testify to the progress of secularism. So then, why has your supposedly-INFALLIBLE Pope, the Vicar of Christ made homosexual no longer a sin by allowing your priests to bless same-sex couples. Is it because your ‘Holy Father’ Pope and you believe in Matthew 16:19, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” and you being an obedient, faithful Catholic are supposed to literally believe that too? Well then, all you Catholics who have been ‘hiding in the closet’ because you have been having secret desire for an intimate and passionate relationship with someone of your same sex, YOU CAN NOW BOLDLY AND FEARLESSLY COME OUT WITH YOUR SIGNIFICANT OTHERS AND GO TO YOUR PRIESTS TO GET THEIR BLESSINGS! By the way, according to Jesus, the title ‘Holy Father’ righteously belongs to HIS FATHER, THE TRUE GOD. Beware, this is from your Catholic Bible, 2 Thessalonians 2, “…But the coming of the wicked One will be marked by Satan being at work in all kinds of counterfeit miracles and signs and wonders, and every wicked deception aimed at those who are on the way to destruction because they would not accept the love of the truth and so be saved. And therefore God sends on them a power that deludes people so that they believe what is false,…”
th-cam.com/video/EvjXuLXO24Q/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ixFNKoqpuAg8_DKH
You totally ignore Exodus 20:4.
They believe and take the bible literally unless they don't like what it says. Then it's just a symbol 😂😢
The Bible is full of metaphorical language. To pretend like it isn't is disingenuous ...
@@TheAegis1000the crux is discerning when Jesus is speaking Truth
@@TheAegis1000- There's a lot of evidence that that particular passage is meant in a realistic way. Also lots of people pride themselves on being "literal Bible believers".
@@essafats5728- Jesus is always speaking truth. The issue is how to apply it
@@atrifle8364 I know ZERO Christians who take EVERY verse literally
God bless you, Hugh. Your aside about John 6:66 being the saddest verse in the New Testament really touched me. I can just imagine the heartbreak of our Lord in that moment, despite already knowing it would happen, to have come all this way to tell these people what they needed to know to spend eternity with Him and to be rejected. Of course He has a much fuller understanding of their hearts and why they would than I ever could, but it's a relatable thing for a Christian who's tried telling friends and family about Jesus only to be brushed off.
@@penanceixx447 Amen, thanks for the comment. All Glory to God.
Thank you Hugh. Your clear exegesis of the Holy Scriptures always empowers me to share the One True Catholic Faith with all who listen.
Being a 64 year old cradle Catholic, my faith has waxed and waned. But I am always drawn back to Christ when I listen to excellent teachers like you.
May God continue blessing you.
@OzCrusader
Thanks for your encouraging words, glad the videos have ministered to you, all the Glory to God. Please pray for me, and be assured you are in my prayers, God Bless.
@@catholicskeptic
Thank you Hugh🙏
As predicted, there is a whole lot of "Jesus didn't mean it THAT way" in the comments. 🙂
No you are right, of course.
We aren't allowed to explain without being condensed to.
Very Christ like.
@@zrayish5164 - Evangelicals are the vast majority of both US and worldwide Protestantism. Anglican and Lutherans are minorities. Further, Anglicanism deliberately broke their apostolic succession way back around King James.
@@razoredge6130 - I find that it's usually Protestants who have a hard time imagining that Catholics have a defense of the Church's interpretation of Scripture.
As predicted Protestants don't believe Jesus meant transubstantiation and meant something else? Well of course that goes without saying...that wasn't much of a prophetic prediction lol.
That seems to me both a preposterous and arrogant comment...the very thing in question or dispute (the point of difference) is the interpretation/meaning of the passage so duh of course people will say Jesus did not mean it that way. Why should that not be expected?
Excellent excellent profound video,you sir are very gifted for you definitely speak all truth and prove that in your presentation YEAH AMEN DEO GRATIS ALLELUIA 🐑🕊️✨🌈
To eat something is to absorb it. It's the "remembrance" of Him as we eat bread that changes it from just eating bread to 'absorbing' Him -- to have His presence. He is the "bread from heaven".
The EUCHARIST (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ) is the ONLY WAY for Christians all across the world to be ONE! It encompasses Faith, Love and Truth... It allowed the Catholic Church to remain for 2000 years and not collapse completely due to the corruption of human beings. It is through the EUCHARIST that full unity will happen. I don't know how long it will take before it finally occurs, but I know how it will: The EUCHARIST!!!!!
Amen AK. You speak the truth of Christian unity and John 17:21 “May they be ONE.”
Spot on! It has occurred to me that Protestantism in 1517 was the first attack by Satan on the CC, followed by Freemasonry in 1717 & Communism in 1917.
The confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects caused by personal interpretation is not of God when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21
You misunderstand my friend, the way we become one is by the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is who connects us, for that’s how Jesus can declare He and the Father are One, because the Spirit is the Holy Spirit. We are connected by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Him alone. Christ as He left the earth gave us the comforter (The Spirit). No idol holds us together.
@@blakers430
Please define “idol”.
@@OzCrusader Any physical object or point of object that is not God but is regarded to have God in it. I.E. an image, a picture, an item that is said to hold certain qualities like healing and such that is world centric. Sure physical healing is good, but that which is heavenly is better. God sent Himself to us so that He would dwell in us. We are now temples of God, what thing on earth is greater than this? For His Spirit is worth far more than any thing that is regarded as “holy” on the earth.
LOL! Great show.
Jesus established one church, 1Tim3:16, “the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” This is not a metaphor.
I always love and am constantly amazed how certain Christians are so dismissive of John 6:51-58, 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” They put their limitations on Jesus. Tell where and when did Jesus give us his flesh for the life of the world? Both here (future tense) on Calvary and in the Eucharist. God bless you.
“It’s infallible, but a metaphor…well it’s not really wine anyway it’s grape juice”
Great point, they can’t even agree on the basics, in spite of what the Bible says. God, please help them overcome their blindness caused by sola Scriptura & personal interpretation
Does an infant drink grape juice or wine? No. Does an infant eat (literally chew and swallow) bread? No.
Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Yet, even though they have not eaten or drunk anything except their mother’s milk, they are declared by the Roman church to be saved by the sacrament of baptism.
Irrespective of the fact, that Christ himself said until they ate his flesh and drank his blood they have no life in them. So you have to choose whom to believe and whom you will follow: Christ or the Magisterium of the Catholic Church; because they are not in agreement.
Most Catholics (not all, but most) will reject Christ and follow instead their pipes because they are not saved.
@@mephi654 maybe read your bible
For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Therefore, 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.
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”
Kids need to learn and understand what they are doing to be properly catechized. It’s not unreasonable for the church to make a process to learn and understand what it means. I mean look at your own understanding…you’re an adult commenting without a charitable understanding of Catholic teaching. Teachings that go back to the students of John the Apostle who stood at the foot of the Cross of Jesus Christ.
i think ur missing the point being that jesus and the apostles didnt exactly have the ability to refrigerate grape juice (no one did). freshly spawned "wine" juice isnt fermented, especially if it hasnt been in existence till more than a minute. Go ahead and tell me God would inebriate His followers with something that isn't beneficial for the human body. Wine was common, cheap. Everyone had it because no one could refrigerate it.
@@mephi654 Christ regarded teaching on the Eucharist as a watershed teaching. If folks would not believe this teaching, he let them walk away. He didn't run after them and tell them "Stop, stop, cool your jets, I was just speaking metaphorically."
All four gospels and Paul in a Corinthian letter said that Christ held up the bread after it was consecrated and said "This is my body."
Perfectly explained 🙏
Protestants forget Jesus is God and what he says is, if you explain away what Jesus said then you deny Gods word and this is the sin against the Holy Spirit and it cannot be forgiven.
Jesus said to call no man on this earth father. Catholics trample those words into the ground. But you all try to explain it away. Dont worry, your statues will save you on the terrible day of the Lord.
@@peterzinya1
Clearly you have no father just a mother 🤣 the Catholic Church has never said statues will save you 🤣these are your private interpretations of the Catholic Church and Catholics and like all Protestants you believe in your own individual private interpretation of scripture and because each Protestant is his own church pope and counsel and only their views and opinions matter on scripture and that’s why there are over 40 thousand different Protestant denominations.
Thanks for the laughs 🤣
God bless you and your family
@@martinmartin1363 Jesus didnt say not to use the word father. he said call no man father as a title. Jesus was looking at all the religious holymen who loved titles when he said that. Do cTHOLICS EVER CONSIDER THAT? No, they just call their holymen father while they getup from off their knees from some statue or another. While your on your knees you might ask the statue to save you.
@@peterzinya1
Matthew
23:8 Vos autem nolite vocari Rabbi. Unus est enim Magister vester, omnes autem vos fratres estis.
23:8 But you must not be called Master. For One is your Master, and you are all brothers.
23:9 Et patrem nolite vocare vobis super terram: unus est enim Pater vester, qui in cælis est.
23:9 And do not choose to call anyone on earth your father. For One is your Father, who is in heaven.
23:10 Nec vocemini magistri: quia Magister vester unus est, Christus.
23:10 Neither should you be called teachers. For One is your Teacher, the Christ.
23:11 Qui maior est vestrum, erit minister vester.
23:11 Whoever is greater among you shall be your minister.
23:12 Qui autem se exaltaverit, humiliabitur: et qui se humiliaverit, exaltabitur.
23:12 But whoever has exalted himself, shall be humbled. And whoever has humbled himself, shall be exalted.
23:13 Væ autem vobis Scribæ, et Pharisæi hypocritæ: quia clauditis regnum cælorum ante homines. Vos enim non intratis, nec introeuntes sinitis intrare.
23:13 So then: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! For you close the kingdom of heaven before men. For you yourselves do not enter, and those who are entering, you would not permit to enter.
23:14 Væ vobis Scribæ, et Pharisæi hypocritæ: quia comeditis domos viduarum, orationes longas orantes: propter hoc amplius accipietis iudicium.
23:14 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! For you consume the houses of widows, praying long prayers. Because of this, you shall receive the greater judgment.
23:15 Væ vobis Scribæ, et Pharisæi hypocritæ: quia circuitis mare, et aridam, ut faciatis unum proselytum: et cum fuerit factus, facitis eum filium Gehennæ duplo quam vos.
23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! For you travel around by sea and by land, in order to make one convert. And when he has been converted, you make him twice the son of Hell that you are yourselves.
23:16 Væ vobis duces cæci, qui dicitis: Quicumque iuraverit per templum, nihil est: qui autem iuraverit in auro templi, debet.
23:16 Woe to you, blind guides, who say: ‘Whoever will have sworn by the temple, it is nothing. But whoever will have sworn by the gold of the temple is obligated.’
23:17 Stulti et cæci: Quid enim maius est, aurum, an templum, quod sanctificat aurum?
23:17 You are foolish and blind! For which is greater: the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold?
23:18 Et quicumque iuraverit in altari, nihil est: quicumque autem iuraverit in dono, quod est super illud, debet.
23:18 And you say: ‘Whoever will have sworn by the altar, it is nothing. But whoever will have sworn by the gift that is on the altar is obligated.’
23:19 Cæci: quid enim maius est, donum, an altare, quod sanctificat donum?
23:19 How blind you are! For which is greater: the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift?
23:20 Qui ergo iurat in altari, iurat in eo, et in omnibus quæ super illud sunt.
23:20 Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears by it, and by all that is on it.
23:21 Et quicumque iuraverit in templo, iurat in illo, et in eo, qui habitat in ipso:
23:21 And whoever will have sworn by the temple, swears by it, and by him who dwells in it.
23:22 et qui iurat in cælo, iurat in throno Dei, et in eo, qui sedet super eum.
23:22 And whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits upon it.
23:23 Væ vobis Scribæ, et Pharisæi hypocritæ: qui decimatis mentham, et anethum, et cyminum, et reliquistis quæ graviora sunt legis, iudicium, et misericordiam, et fidem. Hæc oportuit facere, et illa non omittere.
23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! For you collect tithes on mint and dill and cumin, but you have abandoned the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, while not omitting the others.
23:24 Duces cæci, excolantes culicem, camelum autem glutientes.
23:24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat, while swallowing a camel!
23:25 Væ vobis Scribæ, et Pharisæi hypocritæ, quia mundatis quod deforis est calicis, et paropsidis: intus autem pleni estis rapina, et immunditia.
23:25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! For you clean what is outside the cup and the dish, but on the inside you are full of avarice and impurity.
23:26 Pharisæe cæce, munda prius quod intus est calicis, et paropsidis, ut fiat id, quod deforis est, mundum.
23:26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the dish, and then what is outside becomes clean.
23:27 Væ vobis Scribæ, et Pharisæi hypocritæ: quia similes estis sepulchris dealbatis, quæ aforis parent hominibus speciosa, intus vero pleni sunt ossibus mortuorum, et omni spurcitia.
23:27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed sepulchers, which outwardly appear brilliant to men, yet truly, inside, they are filled with the bones of the dead and with all filth.
23:28 Sic et vos aforis quidem paretis hominibus iusti: intus autem pleni estis hypocrisi, et iniquitate.
23:28 So also, you certainly appear to men outwardly to be just. But inwardly you are filled with hypocrisy and iniquity.
23:29 Væ vobis Scribæ, et Pharisæi hypocritæ, qui ædificatis sepulchra prophetarum, et ornatis monumenta iustorum,
23:29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites, who build the sepulchers of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the just.
23:30 et dicitis: Si fuissemus in diebus patrum nostrorum, non essemus socii eorum in sanguine prophetarum.
23:30 And then you say, ‘If we had been there in the days of our fathers, we would not have joined with them in the blood of the prophets.’
@@peterzinya1
Clearly the verse and chapter says call no man Father or teacher or master, if you believe they are titles then nobody can teach be regarded as a master of anything and father is not be honoured
Excellent video! I recently became born again and had been searching for a church to join. My mother invited me to the Methodist church and for the most part I found it to be good but always felt like something was missing, little did I know that as I delved deeper and deeper into scripture and history I found that something was pulling me back to the Catholic Church but I resisted it at first because I had believed all the lies that were told about the church through the years. Fast forward a few weeks and I’m finally going to commit to something I should have done a long time ago; going back home to Christ’s church; the holy Catholic Church.
@Rocknroller795
Welcome Home to His Church! God Bless!
As a retired Free Methodist pastor, whose degree is from a Baptist school, I come down much closer to the Catholic position. The real presence of Christ in Holy Communion cannot be denied without violating Scripture. It is also clear that while the presence is indeed real, it also is not literal, but spiritual. Do we not believe that spiritual things are real?
Christ meets us in Holy Communion. As Wesleyans, we also encourage sincere seekers to partake. Indeed, I have seen a man come to faith during Holy Communion - and yes, I had the privilege of Baptizing him.
It is indeed sad that more evangelicals do not comprehend these truths....
My understanding is that this is the Reformed/Presbyterian view. Jesus is truly present in the bread and wine, but spiritually present rather than bodily present. Is this also the official position of Methodists/Free Methodists/Wesleyans?
@@sarco64 Thanks for the question. Rather than "wing it" from memory, I thought it best to actually copy and paste our formal doctrinal statement. I would like to make a few personal points:
1) I ***believe*** our position would be closest to that of the Anglican church, rather than Reformed/Presbyterian
2) We consider Holy Communion to be a sacrament rather than an ordinance
3) We affirm a real presence, but that real presence is spiritual, rather than physical
This sets us apart from both the typical Baptist view of mere symbolism and the Catholic view of transubstantiation. It would best be described as a form of consubstantiation, IMHO. While we differ, I see it as much closer to the Catholic position. Our doctrinal statement is below and it is likely that any other evangelical group in the Wesleyan tradition would have very similar beliefs.
The Lord’s Supper
The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death. To those who rightly, worthily and with faith receive it, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. The supper is also a sign of the love and unity that Christians have among themselves.
Christ, according to His promise, is really present in the sacrament. But His body is given, taken and eaten only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. No change is effected in the element; the bread and wine are not literally the body and blood of Christ. Nor is the body and blood of Christ literally present with the elements. The elements are never to be considered objects of worship. The body of Christ is received and eaten in faith.
Jesus: this is My body; this is My blood.
Protestors: this is not really His body; this is not really His blood.
@rhwinner
Yep 😆
Protestors: "Make sure you attend a bible based Church." Me: Ever heard of the Cannon of Scripture?
@@ourlifeinwyoming4654
Yes!👍
"This is my body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19). Why do you disobey Jesus? You do communion to get more grace, to get more of God, and to consume the Almighty via the digestive tract. Why don't you simply do it in remembrance of Him? And look how Jesus said, "This is my body which is given for you..." WHEN was Jesus' body given for us? Not that night! He gave His body and blood for us on the cross, on the following day! This proves that Jesus was not talking about literally eating His physical flesh at the Last Supper (or at Communion), for the bread _represented_ the physical body and blood He would voluntarily lay down on the following day!
@@rexlion4510 Because Jesus said so! And He established a living Church. No where does He say, I'll send you a book, just go by that. He established a Church, gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. ( Matthew 16:13-19)
As a Messianic Jew, I have other issues besides the conclusions of the Latin Rite regarding the Eucharist. However, to this particular point, I find it highly unfortunate that the sacrament of Communion has been so divorced from its setting within the observance of Passover.
@@sonsofpolaris6102 statement, not argument. The sacrament of communion used to be part of the larger Passover observance ceremony.
Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is the most perfect model of obedience. As He was obedient in Nazareth to St. Joseph and Mary and on Calvary to His executioners, so likewise in the Eucharist He is perfectly and perpetually obedient, submitting to His priests until the end of the world. Christ obeys His priests absolutely and unconditionally in the Blessed Sacrament. He comes when they validly consecrate, and He stays present until the sacred species of the bread and wine are digested or corrupted.
Excellent witness, well said, though Protestants are stubborn so I don’t know how many will agree!
This is a challenging argument. Im a protestant, meaning I do not partake in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Yet, I've been listening to Catholic Apologists and reading church history and come to the conclusion that: yeah, this makes sense, Catholics. Perhaps I need a further explanation with these things. Either way, thank you for this video. I like challenging myself to know more about God and His Word!❤
With prayer & meditation on Jn 6, the Holy Spirit will lead you
Jesus many times used metaphors and similes and the form is "I am" this or that. But in His institution of the Eucharist the form is "This is my.." which occurs nowhere else. If i say my true loves hair is golden flax i am using metaphor. But i would not say this flax is my true love's hair. When I was a Protestant I was challenged to defend the doctrine that communion is only a memorial. It was this argument that undid me. It was only a mattet of time before I swam the Tiber.
Did not CHRIST conclude in John 6:63 KJV "It is the SPIRIT that quickens (gives eternal life); the flesh profits nothing (flesh means physical works of any sort in a physical world): the WORDS that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE." (CHRIST says HIS WORDS have spiritual meanings NOT physical/flesh meanings and are spiritually discerned and give SPIRITUAL LIFE which is FOREVER.
@@jacktracy8356Catholic believe that v 63 means the “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. If you don’t agree with that interpretation, the Real Presence is supported by 1 Cor 10 16-17 & 1 Cor 11 23-27
@@geoffjs CHRIST's Words were spirit meaning spiritually discerned not to be understood physically along with CHRIST saying HE was the LIGHT, DOOR, and GOOD SHEPHERD which were not to be understood as being those things physically.
@@jacktracy8356some parts of scripture are to be read figuratively & some literally, such Jn 6 where Jesus very clearly & repeatedly instructed His Apostles to eat His Flesh & drink His blood, under the appearance of bread & wine, nothing figurative about His words.
Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 which became known as the Catholic or Universal Church in 110. The Church is the pillar & foundation of the Truth 1 Tim 3:15. She codified the Bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2
The defining difference between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches & false man made Protestantism is the literal Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 & esp 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25
To preempt the usual knee jerk response, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary NOT a resacrificing as Protestantism incorrectly claims.
Also Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice in all places at all times. The CC offers Mass daily in most parishes around the world. As Protestantism, generally, doesn’t believe in sacrificial worship Jn 6 51-58, they have no altars & no liturgical worship so no “church”, more like a synagogue with prayer & teaching.
The words “daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, in their original language mean supernatural bread ie the Eucharist. Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain, same AB blood type and living heart tissue. Luther believed in the Real Presence
O Ye of little Faith! For those with Faith, no explanation is necessary & for others, no explanation is possible! Try believing & understanding will follow, but not the reverse
Many Christians don't like the Book of James because they have to take responsibility and WORK on their faith.
And have you notice that they never refer to the works of Mt 25 31 on!
That's why Christians are confused. Jesus didn't have time to say all the truth like he wanted to. That's why the Spirit of Truth comes.@@geoffjs
@kenowens9021
Amen!!! 🙏
@@geoffjs Amen !!! 🙏
So … I don’t understand you mocking Protestants.
And don’t understand the difference you make.
You say it doesn’t transform into flesh and blood. (Thank you for clarifying.)
So we are not biologically eating flesh and blood.
Then you say it is not sacrificing Christ again, but renewing the event of the sacrifice in your mind.
Good. Jesus says do this to remember him.
So Catholics and Protestants both agree it is not biologically the flesh and blood of God and taking it is to remember Jesus’s sacrifice.
And that when they both take communion that Jesus is there with them as he is with all believers.
I don’t understand where we differ.
lets for humorous sake, that his words were metaphoric for "teaching". This would create a schwackload of error. In the beginning of chapter 6, this was right before the Passover. The Passover makes it very clear in chapter 12 of Exodus the precise procedure in how they are to procure the lamb. In fact, it outlines the upmost importance in this celebration. If what Jesus said was a metaphor, then the whole exodus account and basically the whole bible becomes metaphoric, and the whole Christian faith becomes one gigantic fraud, period. Jesus even says at the end of John 6 "if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me" All of the sudden, metaphoric language goes out the window very quickly. Not including Leviticus 6 verse 11 "whoever touches the oblations becomes Holy" If just a metaphor, Jesus would have been nothing more than a great teacher, a Rabbi, but nothing more. In fact further reading in that chapter, Jesus say's "you search the scriptures because you think you have eternal life through them, ... but you do not come to me to have eternal life". Doesn't sound like Jesus's bread is simply reading scripture, not remotely close. (would explain why there's thousands of Protestant denomination out there) So how did the early church survive since the bible was not even compiled? In fact If one really meditates on this, there's too many holes in understanding Jesus words as metaphor, and there's nothing in the bible to support that position, but rather the opposite.
“I do not ask how Christ can be God and man, and how his natures could be united. For God is able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the body of Christ is not there when Christ himself says, ‘This is my body.’ I do not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments, as for example, that a large body could not fill a small space. God is above and beyond all mathematics, and his words are to be adored and observed with awe. God, however, commands: ‘Take, eat; this is my body’. I request, therefore, a valid proof from Holy Writ that these words do not mean what they say.” Luther The Marburg Colloquy
Thank you brother, that was good preaching!
@jamestrotter3162
All the Glory to God, please pray for me.
@@catholicskeptic And I would ask of you to pray for me as well.
Manna ~ 1) Was a gift from God that sustained the Israelites through the wilderness. 2) The Israelites had to humbly receive it by bending over and picking it up daily. 3) It was given out of Grace and wasn't earned. 4) They couldn't hoard it and had to daily eat it.
Of course, this is a metaphor. Jesus Christ is the WORD OF GOD. He was given out of GRACE and sustains us. We need HIM daily as we walk through the wilderness of this life.
How offensive this must have been to the religious leaders. Them not getting the meaning is just like a Pharisee not getting, YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN.
@jthomas7904
And Gentle Jesus just let all those disciples walk away without explaining it was a metaphor. Hahaha 😂.
Also readers, notice how this person doesn't even address the clear words of Christ, but distracts to an utterly unrelated reference from the Old Testament.
@catholicskeptic Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. ~ John 6 : 49.
Unrelated? Are you sure ? I mean... Manna... Wilderness.... Your Fathers.... It's possible that I'm wrong but it's also possible.... IT'S RELATED.
How does this conclude?
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven-not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
Same line again.... Your fathers... manna... ?
@@jthomas7904 Oh it's related for sure, I phrased that badly . But Christ made His words very clear in John 6. It takes an enormous amount of jibber jabber to try to get around His clarity . Sadly so many of you Protestants do this with so many scriptures: Matthew 16:21-23, John 20:21-23, James 2:24, etc. , and I did to when I was a Prot Pastor, but I saw the Light, hope someday you will too. Praying for you.
@@catholicskeptic Yes, Christ usually made things clear from the Old Testament in the Synagogue. Understand Jesus Christ used Parables mostly when speaking outside but either way He spoke of Himself being the Messiah.
This is exactly what He is doing in John 6. Pointing out WHO HE is from an incident that happened in the Old Testament.
Remember the "Parable", which it is not, of the Prodigal Son? Certain Father, 2 Son's, one left, one stayed, one tended animals, RUNNING, KISS.... does this sound familiar from the Old Testament? Even today some do not correlate Jacob and Esau.
It's not about Protestant or Catholic, those are just labels created by men. It's about rightly dividing and understanding the word.
@@catholicskeptic You just jump all over the place. First, it's not a Protestant vs Catholic debate. Those are man's terms found no where in the Bible. Secondly, Jesus Christ used OT scripture in teaching in the Synagogues. He does this to point out WHO HE IS. Thirdly, it's about interpreting the scripture correctly and SCRIPTURE is the best commentary on Scripture.
Do you consider the Prodigal Son story a parable? Luke 15 : 11 - 32.
Excellent Hugh, Protestants have a blind spot when reading John 6, esp with v 63, and to justify their scriptural view, are obliged to take a contrary stand, as their beliefs fall or stand on their personal interpretation of John 6. Otherwise, if they believed in the literal Real Presence, they would have to join the CC as they do not have a validly ordained priesthood.
The reality which Protestantism can’t seem to grasp is that without liturgical sacrificial worship as Jesus commanded in v 51-58, they do not have “church”, instead, more like a synagogue with prayer & teaching
Protestant pastors don't have teaching authority, governing authority and sanctifying authority.
They don't have authorised priests and so they can't offer the sacrifice on the altar. And hence, they have to say the eucharist is symbolic.
Yeah, so what? catholics dont believe one word of the bible. Thats why you can find them on their knees befor graven images.
Protestant checking in. I actually agree with these criticisms, but they are targeted at modern Evangelicalism, not historical Protestantism. As a Lutheran, I believe in the real, true, bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist given for the forgiven of sins. Also believe in baptismal regeneration, confession absolutions, the importance of valid ordination, the importance of liturgical worship (we distinguish Eucharistic sacrifice, which is admittedly very different than the Catholic sacrifice of the mass).
@@zrayish5164 - You have all of those things because Martin Luther was originally a Catholic monk who didn't stray as far from the faith as Jean Calvin.
@@zrayish5164I appreciate your comments. It would have been great if Protestantism hadn’t splintered into 000’s sects caused by heresies of sola Scriptura & personal interpretation which has caused confusion, division & scandal, when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21.
The Eucharist was universally accepted by all Christians for 1500 years.
It was no coincidence rebelling and creating new doctrines gave men positions and power.
Why does Acts 15:29 say to stay away from blood?
Leviticus 17:10-17 also says not to eat blood and that God will cut them off from their people.
It seems to me that if Jesus' words are taken literally, God is contradicting himself. And the Bible doesn't make an exception when it comes to the blood of the Lord.
I feel like most Christians and a majority of catholics are keeping themselves from being in a relationship with God and are too invested in their man made religion.
Jesus wasn't Catholic, neither orthodox or Coptic or protest and or evangelical.
Don't follow tradition, follow the Lord Jesus.
Jesus established an organized Church with 12 Apostles. It's clearly documented in the NT. The way to have a personal relationship with Jesus, is the way He intended, through His Church.
@@atrifle8364 RC doctrine sets up the RCC as a necessary mediator between God and man. But what does scripture say?
1Tim 2:5 "For there is one God, and _one mediator_ between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
Not 2 mediators, Christ and the RCC. Just one mediator, Christ. We go directly to Him in faith. Stop dividing your faith between Christ and your church, because your church didn't die for you and your church cannot save you.
@@rexlion4510Christ is the head of the One True Church that He founded Mt 16 18-19 which is the pillar & foundation of the Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & it gave you your codified bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2
Jesus instituted 7 sacraments which are biblical as His way of giving us grace, like electricity without which nothing functions. Specifically, He said that 2 of those sacraments are necessary for salvation Baptism Jn 3:5 & Eucharist Jn 6 51-58
@@geoffjswhich books do you mean? And what are those 7 sacraments?
@@LouisSlibithe 7 apocryphal books that were in the Septuagint.
Seven Sacraments that Jesus instituted which are biblical,
Baptism Jn 3:5
Confirmation Acts 8 14-17
Confession Jn 20:23,
Eucharist Jn 6
Priesthood @ the Last Supper, Jn 6 do this in remembrance of me,
Healing of the sick, throughout scripture &
Marriage (pre-existing) Jn 2 1:12
Prophecy foretold the children of God are scattered, and in the end the Lord God will gather them.
What it means is His people will be in every denomination. But Lord Jesus will gather them to worship Him in Spirit and in truth. What is Spirit and truth? Spiritual life is living by the laws and commandments of God; This is the truth that every child of God will have to learn to live by in order to enter the Kingdom of God.
Matthew 19:17
So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
One of the commandments of God is you shall not carve an image of anything. No one has seen God. In the physical days of the Lord Jesus Christ, Israel was governed by the Law of Moses. Anyone who was caught carving or painting anyone's face will be stoned to death. That means no man dared to paint the face of Christ. Leonardo da Vinci was the first painter who painted The Last Supper. He did not know what the face of Christ nor had seen Him. He had to look for someone's face to be a model of what he thought Lord Jesus Christ should look. Catholic religion spread that false image of Christ. Movie industries looked for an actor who would play the role of Lord Jesus Christ, the one who has similarities of what Leonardo da Vinci painted. The world that does not the truth worships it.
John 14:17
The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
You are sitting with many books behind you and many idols such as pictures and skulls. They are abominations in the eyes of God. Paul said he does not desire to know anything except Christ being crucified. You left the Christian religion and that is good, but the bad thing is you came to another false religion that teaches you to worship carve image, a sin towards God's Law. There are only two churches that came out from the mouth of God where you should go and get saved: House of Israel and Mount Zion, Heavenly Jerusalem, as well as there are only two names for the children of God: Children of Israel and children of Zion. You must live by the truth. Lord Jesus will rebuild His city Mount Zion, in the far east, Negros Philippines, where the daughter of Zion was born. This is a place where His people will learn holy, righteous, and obedient life.
Obadiah 1:17
But on Mount Zion there shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; The house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.
You would wonder why Mount Zion is in the Philippines. Mount Zion is the Kingdom of God. He took it from the children of Israel after they crucified Him and gave it to us, the children of Zion. There is a difference between Zionists and children of Zion. Zionists are a part of the religious group while the children of Zion came from the tribe of Judah.
Matthew 21:43-45
Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder. Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.
The Spirit and the bride
Gabriel, an angel of the Lord
Daughter of Zion
Mount Zion, Heavenly Jerusalem
Will the world believe this truth before JESUS comes again.For the sake of the world have mercy on us LORD.❤❤❤
Also they deny Baptism is necessary for salvation, even though it is Scriptural.
Protestantism, which is supposedly Biblical, fails to recognise that Jesus said that Baptism is necessary for salvation Jn 3:5 &1 Peter 3:21. Jesus said in Jn 6 51-58 that His flesh is Real Flesh & His blood is Real Blood, not symbolic as their interpretation suggests
Some Protestants use grape others, wine, go figure!
Baptism is necessary, that being Baptism of The Holy Spirit. Just as John the Baptist states that one will come after him who is greater than him who will baptize them in the Spirit. When you believe in Jesus, by that you receive Him, and by receiving Him, you receive His Spirit, the Holy Spirit, which is not seen. There is nothing that you could ever do to make God love you, other than accepting His death as your salvation, that God Himself provided a perfect Lamb, sacrificed it on our behalf, and rendered our lives new. No work is good enough to present before a perfect, Holy, and Just God, for as it is written, our good works are as filthy rags before God. Only God can save us, as it is also written “there is no other savior besides me”. Go and read the Old Testament, you’ll see the truth, Jesus is the only way. No idols, no angels, nothing but God alone can save.
@@blakers430 It is Baptism of water and the Spirit. Baptism is called the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit, for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one can enter the Kingdom of God.
@@aussierob7177 By water meaning of the womb, you must be born first, and of Spirit meaning, of the Holy Spirit. How then does a man who was sentenced with the same sentence of death who hung beside Jesus get told He too would enter Paradise? Or did he have to get off the cross and get submerged first? No the Holy Spirit is what baptized Him, by His belief he was made clean. Or do you deny the inherency of the Scriptures?
@@blakers430 Baptism was made official after Christ's Resurrection.
Jesus is the Word of God. We feed upon the Word because in the Word is life. If we believe the Word, we have eternal life.
Kinda. He was quite specific in John 6 though. And it’s no coincidence that those who rejected what he clearly said, repeatedly, turned away in John 666 (6:66)
The biggest obstacle for me when it comes to sola scriptura is how much scripture I'd have to ignore to follow its traditions.
Which scriptures are you having trouble with? I'm no expert, but I'd like to try and help/clarify anything you might be struggling with
@@mikekukovec4386I think he’s referring to verses often ignored or set aside by most Evangelicals, like every verse in which Jesus warns that believers can end up in Hell, where Bible says works of love are required to be saved, the whole bread of life discourse, etc.
Just curious, but what are you doing now for a living?
John 8:12 KJV "Then spoke JESUS again unto them, saying, I am the LIGHT of the World
John 10:9 KJV "I am the DOOR: by ME if any man enter in, he shall be saved.....
John 10:11 KJV "I am the GOOD SHEPHERD: the Good Shepherd gives his life for the sheep."
Was CHRIST a physical Light, Door, and Good Shepherd like you make the bread and the wine to become???
No, HE was spiritually those things as CHRIST concluded in John 6:63 KJV "It is the SPIRIT that quickens (gives eternal life); the flesh profits nothing (flesh means physical works of any sort in a physical world): the WORDS that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE." (CHRIST says HIS WORDS have spiritual meanings NOT physical meanings and are spiritually discerned and give SPIRITUAL LIFE which is FOREVER.
You nailed it. The Roman Catholics will consider context when interpreting those verses, but when it comes to verses 53-58 they have blinders on. They only believe what the RCC spoon-feeds them, like spiritual babies.
The One True Church that Jesus founded Mt 16 18-19 is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 which codified your Bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2.
If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25
The defining difference between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches & false man made Protestantism is the literal Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 & esp 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God.
To preempt the usual knee jerk response, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary NOT a resacrificing as Protestantism incorrectly claims. Also Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice in all places at all times. The CC offers Mass daily in most parishes around the world. As Protestantism, generally, doesn’t believe in sacrificial worship Jn 6 51-58, they have no altars & no liturgical worship so no “church”, more like a synagogue with prayer & teaching.
The words “daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, in their original language mean supernatural bread ie the Eucharist. Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain, same AB blood type and living heart tissue.
O Ye of little Faith! For those with Faith, no explanation is necessary & for others, no explanation is possible! Try believing & understanding will follow, but not the reverse
1 Corinthians 10:1 KJV "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was CHRIST."
Note: They spiritually ate and drank CHRIST long before CHRIST was made physical flesh. Symbolically eating and drinking CHRIST is a spiritual truth and only a remembrance of HIM giving HIS real blood and real Body on the cross for the forgiveness of all sins once for all which applies to the LORD's Supper where a true believer eats and drinks CHRIST spiritually NOT physically.
Catholics have no spiritual faith which is eternal. They live in the flesh/physical world which is temporary. They must see, hear, feel, eat, taste, handle, and so forth or there's nothing for them.
Here is a description of the real church:
1 Peter 2:3 KJV "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious (forgiven of all sins).
4 To Whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen (elect) of GOD, and precious,
5 You also, as lively (living) stones (Petras), are built up a spiritual house (the true Church), a Holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices (fruit of the spirit, obedience, thanksgiving), acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."
Description of true believers:
9 "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that you should show forth the praises of Him Who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light"
Also see below:
Revelation 1:6 KJV "And has made us kings and priests unto God and His Father; to Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."
Revelation 5:10 KJV "And has made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth."
The true Church is spiritual NOT a palace in Rome.
If u believe in trans substantiation or not I don’t care. Living a life of humble obedience to Christ is what makes u a Christian. Theres plenty on both sides that deny Him on both sides of the divide. Perhaps we should try to come together over that instead of mocking each other.
Agreed however there are major differences!
Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 which became known as the Catholic or Universal Church in 110. The Church is the pillar & foundation of the Truth 1 Tim 3:15. She codified the Bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2
The defining difference between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches & false man made Protestantism is the literal Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 & esp 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25
To preempt the usual knee jerk response, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary NOT a resacrificing as Protestantism incorrectly claims.
Also Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice in all places at all times. The CC offers Mass daily in most parishes around the world. As Protestantism, generally, doesn’t believe in sacrificial worship Jn 6 51-58, they have no altars & no liturgical worship so no “church”, more like a synagogue with prayer & teaching.
The words “daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, in their original language mean supernatural bread ie the Eucharist. Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain, same AB blood type and living heart tissue. Luther believed in the Real Presence
O Ye of little Faith! For those with Faith, no explanation is necessary & for others, no explanation is possible! Try believing & understanding will follow, but not the reverse
YOU WIN..GREAT TEACHING BROTHER...
PRAISE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST...
He is a blind leader of the blind.
@@peterzinya1 Yeah he was until he was protestant not any more
Praise to our lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
@@alexanderfernandes2146 Now he belongs to a cult of the graven image. Smooth move.
@@peterzinya1 Better than without the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ
@@peterzinya1 Hahaha, it's fascinating how you can "accuse", umm , who is the accuser of the brethren? 🧐. But of course are utterly incapable of refuting my point, which is the Word of God, thus ironically, like those in actual cults, you change the subject. Thanks for the laughs, but really it is so sad. Everyone please pray for this soul. 🙏
To eat His flesh and drink His blood is a striking way of expressing how completely we must bring the Savior into our life-into our very being-that we may be one. How does this happen?
But figuratively eating His flesh and drinking His blood has a further meaning, and that is to internalize the qualities and character of Christ, putting off the natural man and becoming Saints “through the atonement of Christ the Lord.”
Evangelicals HATE Mary… that’s weird
Sadly, some that follow their traditions get up every morning with a goal to conquer Catholics. Why? Where does it say in the Bible to put a bullseye on Catholics? I'm too busy trying to prefect myself, to attain grace and atone for my sins to make my Baptist neighbor the sole focus of my faith. I read scripture to prove people wrong; I read scripture to get close to Christ.
You wrote: "Evangelicals HATE Mary" That's total BS. Evangelicals simply understand that Mary, wonderful as she was, is not invested with Godlike qualities; she cannot hear millions of prayers every day, all around the world, many of which are unspoken prayers. Mary is a created human being. Mary is not omniscient, and although she was Jesus' mother on earth she is only one of the redeemed in heaven. Spend the time praying to God instead of to Mary, because we are certain that He hears and responds.
@@rexlion4510Sadly, that’s not always true. I hear them actually disparage her. They’re so invested in being NOT Catholic that they attack the mother of our Savior. Lord have mercy!
@@TrueChristianityWithSandra Disparagement does not equal hate. If you, a Christian, disparage your neighbor for routinely doing things you find unpleasant (like if they play the drums until 3 a.m. or they reduce your property's value by letting their place look ratty), does that mean you _hate_ your neighbor? Not necessarily... and since you are a Christian I'd venture to say that you'd still love your neighbor even while you disparaged them for their actions.
@@rexlion4510classical irrational response. Loving, Our Lady who always brings us closer to her son, can’t be compared with loving a noisy neighbour..
She is our spiritual mother, who is alive as Queen in Heaven, is the New Eve, The Ark of the New Covenant & the woman of Rev 12. If you don’t believe that she is Heaven, where are her relics?
I do dispute your title. There seems to be lots of scripture that (depending on sect) protestants ignore.
The Catholic church gave us the bible, so who's best to interpret it?
Great point! Protestantism doesn’t understand the Deposit of Faith concept that has been developed over 2000 yrs from the time of Christ starting with oral Sacred Tradition which complemented Sacred Scripture when the CC codified the bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2
Sacred Tradition & Sacred Scripture are subject to the unifying authoritative interpretative authority of the Magisterium flowing from the authority given to St Peter to bind & loose Mt 16 18-19. The result is a balanced 3 legged stool providing stability compared to the one legged stool of Protestantism’s flawed cornerstone of man made sola Scriptura
The Holy Spirit and the context of the passages within the Bible.
The Holy Spirit gave us scripture, the church did not.
@@geoffjsdid Mary get bodily assumed to heaven, and if so what evidence is there for that?
Jesus did not make these statements in the context of the Lord's Supper. He made it in context of people being in need of bread after he performed a miracle of feeding thousands. The meat and blood of Christ are his teachings, which are found in scripture. He even says in John chapter 6 it is spiritual not literal.
So I think there needs to be a little clarification here. It’s not that Protestants don’t believe John 6:53-58 and RC’s do. They both believe it. They just disagree on what it means. Obviously a Protestant would point out that Jesus’ words in the Gospel of John are frequently misunderstood. He uses common words and phrases, but infuses them with spiritual meaning. For instance, John 3:3 Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born again. Nicodemus misunderstands and thinks he has to climb back into his mother’s womb. In John 4:10-14 Jesus tells the Samaritan Woman about living water, and that if she drinks of it she will never thirst again. She misunderstands Him and thinks she will not have to come back to draw water from the well. Jesus never corrects her misunderstanding. In John 4:31-32, the disciples misunderstand Jesus’ reference to “meat” as food. He corrects them and explains that His “meat” is to do the will of the Father. So it’s not outside the bounds to assume that Jesus is referring to some deeper spiritual meaning in John 6:53-58. Incidentally, my mind hearkens back to the movie Lady Jane and her question to her confessor, “Is Jesus a door?” (Or something like that). So obviously, this has been an issue for quite some time.
But let’s assume it isn’t some deeper spiritual truth (quite an assumption), but a requirement to eat his actual flesh and drink his actual blood. How exactly are we to do that? He isn’t here for me to go slice off a piece of his flesh or to open up one of his veins. So this fellow here suggests that this is a reference to the Last Supper where Jesus declared the fruit of the vine to be His blood and the bread to be his body. I just want to point out that nowhere in John 6 does it say anything about Passover or the Lord’s Supper. That’s just his interpretation. In fact, Jesus refers to manna in the wilderness, but not the Passover meal. Also, I think it’s interesting John is the only Gospel without a recounting of the Last Supper and does not repeat the formula that you see in the Synoptics or in 1 Corinthians. Let’s just hope that whomever is reading this Gospel had one of the Synoptics or 1 Corinthians, or they never could figure out what John 6 meant.
But once again, let’s assume that John 6 is a reference to the Last Supper (that John doesn’t even bother to recount). As far as I know, most Protestants obey Jesus and celebrate the Last Supper in the ordinance of communion or the Lord’s Supper. They think the bread is symbolic of the body, and the fruit of the vine is symbolic of his blood. They see the elements as symbols of the reality, or symbols of the true body and blood of Jesus. And, according to this fellow, the RCC believes that the host becomes the “true” body of Jesus (but not the actual body of Jesus), while the cup becomes the “true” blood of Jesus (but not the actual blood of Jesus).
So what makes these elements “true” (but not actual)? Evidently, the mass. That’s where things get sticky. There’s nothing in the NT about priests and masses and all the hoopla attendant to this ritual. It’s all just made up. This fellow tries to justify the RCC understanding of communion by anchoring it in John 6 and the various Lord’s Supper accounts, but their understanding of communion is tied to the mass, which is something completely unbiblical.
One last question, I attend a Lord’s Supper meeting every week at my Protestant church. We recite the formula from 1 Corinthians 11 at each one. Am I eating the “true” body of the Lord Jesus Christ? Am I drinking the “true” blood of the Lord Jesus Christ? The RCC would say “no.” Why? Because I am missing the priest, the mass, the altar, etc. But none of those things are found in John 6, the Synoptics’ accounts of the Lord’s Supper, or in 1 Corinthians 11. So it’s not a matter of Protestants not believing John 6. They understand it differently. But we just need to make it clear that the RCC uses John 6 to justify all sorts of institutions and practices that are non-biblical. That should be made clear by this fellow.
John 6:64 - “it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing…” this is said by Our Lord in response to his disciples unbelief in v61 “…this is a hard saying, who can hear it?” Clearly rebuking them for trying to “understand” his words with the FLESH of their human reason. Only the spirit will be able to help them understand. Jesus is most certainly NOT contradicting what he said earlier. As you said Hugh, he doubled down and now he TRIPLES down.
All you're doing is twisting Christ's words so they mean something completely different from what he originally meant. You already have this preconceived notion of what is true, and you're twisting his words so it fits your preconceived view. He was saying yes, we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood -- very simple. That's like me saying: "I'm going to get a glass of milk" and you twist it to mean "He said he's going to buy a refrigerator." You're not being intellectually honest.
@@cocoalovethax I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Yes, of course he meant we have to eat his flesh. That is not what I'm arguing about.
Subscribed.
That was impressive. I don’t watch many Catholic videos, but this was good.
I hope this video will do a great deal of good, and will be used to explain the truth of what the Church teaches about the Eucharist Presence of Christ.
First time on this channel....
And....
SUBSCRIBED!
I may be wrong, very wrong, but do I sense a conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism here? That well-used copy of the Holy Bible is a big tell!
[Edit: I wrote this just a couple of minutes into the video. Later on, I came across the part (@ 12:30) where @Hugh Quinn mentions his receiving cracker and grape juice for Sunday service. So, I was right in my presumption! Thanks to all our converts because they bring their tremendous Biblical scholarship into the Church.]
HC-JAIPUR (St. Joseph's Feast, 2024)
.
I’m a Protestant who believes in transubstantiation, and it really upsets me that I’m not allowed to receive the bread and wine in a Catholic Church without going through a rigmarole. It’s like an exclusive club. It surely should be an open table, not exclusively for official members of the church.
To call the historic rite of entering the Catholic church a "rigmarole" is very disrespectful. If you are serious about Catholicism become a Catholic but if you believe that you can get everything you need in a protestant church why would it bother you? You do understand the Catholic position is that the protestant church is heretical and they condemned it at the council of Trent? why would they hand out the body and blood of Jesus to heretics before they repent and come home to Rome? you can disagree with this but surely you know they believe this? And you said it should be an open table and it is , anyone is free to join the Church , come and join you are most welcome.
As a Christian I believe the scripture, and also that Jesus used bread and wine for a very good reason.^^ Communion is not Catholic Church exclusive.
"Splaining' away" verses is what many Protestants spend the most time on. St. Peter being made the very 1st Pope is one I find incredulous that one could reject the plain meaning of Mt:16:18.
The fruit of unbiblical & unworkable sola Scriptura together with confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of God
@@_ROMANS_116 There is no reasonable interpretation other than the Catholic one.
@@geoffjs That's right. Under Protestantism, God IS the author of confusion.
@@_ROMANS_116certainly not you!
A quote I found from Joseph Ratzinger when he was Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, which I think means he was the chief theologian of the Catholic Church when he said this. "Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord's Supper." There is no Catholic Magisterial correction of this statement by the later to become Pope. This is the stance of my Lutheran Church towards the Catholic expression of the Eucharist.
@ralf547
The Official, infallible declaration of the Church would say otherwise. The Church makes no effort to nitpick and spy out every opinion of the theologians , chief or other wise. The current guy in that position has written a couple of awful, disgusting books, but they still reflect his opinion, nothing more.
@@catholicskeptic another commenter has remarked that the comment was incorrectly attributed. Looked legit to me, but it's the internet and I accept his correction. This reply of your is also true and helpful.
Muchos gracias, amigo!🍀
AS a Protestant, I BELIEVE EVERY WORD OF THE BIBLE ..... okay I may have a different opinion/interpretation of some verses .... but that doesn't mean I dont believe those verses to be true.
If you don't act on their truth, though, what then?
@@atrifle8364 Who says I don't act on their truth? In the context of the topic (i.e. Eucharist/Holy Communion), I do act on the truth; I partake of Communion along with other saints of God with whom I fellowship.
The communion you speak of is not the flesh Christ speaks of. You’ve chosen not to believe what Christ is saying because “this teaching is hard”. Good luck to you.
@@perryellison5255 Eating His flesh and drinking His blood mean far, far more than merely participating in Eucharist/Holy Communion. Paul, the apostle, speaks of "the fellowship of sharing in His sufferings"; by which he meant living a life of suffering for the sake of the Gospel of Christ. Many bishops, popes, and cardinals participate in Communion, yet, have lived lives of sexual debauchery, drunkenness and political power; and participate in Eucharist - Do you honestly think that they will be saved on the day of judgement? Yes, I know that many Protestants have also lived lives that leave a lot to be desired - and the same question could be asked of them.
Typical Protestant contradictory logic! You believe every word of the bible, subject to your fallible interpretation. The great heretical formula that has caused confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21
Transubstantiation came into the Church over 1000 years after Christ. If you're familiar with the Passover meal, then understanding his statement makes sense. He is not talking Cannibalism.
The use of the word "transubstantiation" may have.
However, belief in the True Presence in the Bread is found in 1 Cor 11
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My Body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
25In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This Cup is the New Covenant in My Blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
27Therefore, 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.
28Each one must examine himself before he eats of the Bread and drinks of the Cup.
29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
31Now if we judged ourselves properly, we would not come under judgment.
32But when we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
Transubstantiation can be found at the Last Supper. The word does not have to exist for the process to have been there since negative Day 1.
@atrifle8364
Sacred Apostolic Tradition:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My Body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
25In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This Cup is the New Covenant in My Blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
27Therefore, 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.
28Each one must examine himself before he eats of the Bread and drinks of the Cup.
29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
31Now if we judged ourselves properly, we would not come under judgment.
32But when we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. (1 Cor 11)
@@atrifle8364 the last supper is the Passover meal. Jesus is referring to himself as the bread and wine in Jewish symbology.
@@atrifle8364 in the Passover each part means something.
The Jews did eat all the meats they sacrificed to God unless it was to be charred, (I don’t profess all the Jewish ways) but, those who knew the Torah and the TaNaKh, certainly knew their scripture was all about he Messiah and that He would come when God willed it.
Modern Jews are not ancient ones. It's a huge help not to confuse the two.
No where in the bible does it say by faith alone
In the words "faith alone", Martin Luther added the word "alone".
@aussierob7177 the heretic luther ,protestantism was all his making
Romans 3:28 "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law"
Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God"
"Faith Alone" does NOT mean that's all you need. If I have faith that Jesus is God, but then I don't think that information is important enough to change my ways, that faith is not going to save me. As James 2 talks about, a saving faith will result in you changing your life to be more Christ-like. But the point of the statement is that it's the FAITH that justifies me in front of God, not the good things I did because of that faith.
Sure it does!
Roman’s 10:17 Faith comes from hearing the word of God.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1 Corinthians 8:6
“But to us there is but one God.
Which equates to God alone is one. 1Tim.2:5
There is your answer.
@@johnp.6043you’re dreaming!
I think you misidentify protestants,and what the verse you are quoting is saying is that you must be a partaker of jesus.1 corin 10:16,17,21,also 2 timothy 2:6,7.you must be a partaker,not a cannibal.psalm 78:17 -22 is asking the same question in a different way.trusting in the Lord's salvation is trusting in jesus,and his sacrifice,wich was accepted by god.he was the perfect sacrifice,altar,temple,and priest.all other priests have to be cleansed and purified and hope they dont contaminate themselves.they used to wear bells to make noise in case they died when they entered holy of holies,but jesus didnt have to worry.he was spotless without blemish and accepted without doubt.we must believe in him and know he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him
@@martinmartin1363 verse 17 specifically say so.wich means you must be a believer of what Jesus did.all Scripture was given to us for reproof,correction,doctrine and instruction in righteousness,I Timothy 3:16 is telling us we don't know how to do things on our own.god says your ways are not my ways,your thoughts are not my thoughts.he wanted us to know his thoughts and ways,and that's why we are in dwelt by holy Spirit and given the word which is the scriptures.we still need faith that comes from hearing what the scriptures say
@@gurudude6842
My apologies 🙏
@@martinmartin1363 it's all for the glory of god.hes the one we magnify.someone once asked what is the meaning of love.solomon answers it with Ecclesiastes 12:13.fear God,because he's the only one who can not just kill us but cast our soul into hell,and keep his commandments,which is always a good thing,not to steal ,covet ,commit adultery,and all the things in the commandments.the main one which is mostly unread is 1john 3:23
Protestantism is like intellectual Christianity and Catholicism is the actual experience.
You’re too kind to Protestantism. Catholicism is by far more intellectual, whist at the same being simple & easy to understand.
You are correct that Catholicism is based on actual experiences specifically, her sacraments are expressed using material items like water, wine & bread.
That man is right. If God sees him trying to read the Bible sincerely then God will help him understand or send him preacher.
Not trying to argue, just want to hear thoughts and responses:
John 6:63a "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all"
This is part of what Christ said to his disciples after teaching on his flesh and body.
I aa a clarification that Jesus was talking symbolically when talking about his body and his flesh in the same why he clarified with Lazarus.
It also fits in nicely with the required rebirth in the spirit in John 3.
Looking at John as whole the symbolic interpretation seems to be pretty reasonable.
But I would love to hear push back on this.
How do you explain disciples walking away in John 6, if it's a figurative passage? What can the words of the Last Supper mean, if John 6 is merely figurative?
In fairness if someone is accustomed to a Protestant framework it will seem obvious that John 6 is somehow symbolic. Unfortunately however, it has to be symbolic for the vast majority of Protestantism because they don't have the Eurcharist. The conclusion is built in to the framework.
The key to understanding John chapter 6 is by starting at verse 27. Jesus says he is going to give us food that won't perish and lasts for eternity. He then tells you what that food is in verse 51.
@@henrybayard6574 And my question is how can that container be Christs literal flesh when the flesh is no help at all for giving life as seen in vs 63?
This is not an attempt at a gotcha comment. I genuinely do not understand and would embrace a well thought out teaching on the matter.
@@nullassumptionsna3239 Christ said THE flesh profits nothing. But if you go back and read the previous verses he said to eat HIS flesh which gives life. The bible often refers to the works of the flesh or people born of the flesh to convey the sinful nature of human beings. Christ's flesh however was pure, holy and glorified. There's a big difference. Hope that helps.
@@henrybayard6574 I think that opens up a whole other can of worms ranging from the nature of Christ to purity rituals in the Old Testament. But thank you for your input. I genuinely appreciate it
The Bible is full of metaphorical language. To pretend that it isn't ... can only be described as disingenuous ...
And yet it is also full of language that is direct instruction, as in the Great Commission. The tricky part is figuring out which is which.
And yet prots declare themselves the singular authority over what is and isn't metaphor. Bunch of popes you all are 😂
The fruits of sola Scriptura & personal interpretation, confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21.
When people questioned His teaching & left Him Jn 6 66, Jesus didn’t call them back to correct them. He had repeatedly said, eat my Body, drink my Blood so wasn’t speaking metaphorically. Read 1 Cor 10 16-17 & 1 Cor 11 23-27
Try combining Sacred Tradition, which existed before the NT, from the time of Jesus with Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective
Protestants believe everything that Jesus said in John 6, what we don't believe is that Jesus was teaching Transubstantiation in John 6. I hope this has cleared up your confusion. Peace.
No, it it is the Protestant who are confused. Jesus is very clear about His literal Real Presence in the Eucharist after Consecration & in fact, repeats Himself many times. v 66, He doesn’t call back those who disbelieve & leave Him. Supported by 1 Cor 10 16-17 & 1 Cor 11 23-27
Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain where the blood type is AB with living heart tissue
John 6:63 KJV
[63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
What are the words he is saying? Spirit!
Good question. In v 63, Jesus is saying “the” not “my” flesh meaning, the “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25
The words “daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, in their original language mean supernatural bread ie the Eucharist. Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain, same AB blood type and living heart tissue. Luther believed in the Real Presence
We chatted recently on another one of your videos. And my much, much longer comment is below. I am a Protestant (in a rather broad sense since I really have no intellectual or religious ties to the actual reformers, many of whom were sort of crazy in some ways) that takes what I call the Lord’s Supper weekly at my local assembly. For the sake of argument, let’s just say I agree that John 6 is referring to the Lord’s Supper (or Communion, as you call it). Would you agree that I am eating the Lord’s flesh and drinking His blood when I partake of the Lord’s Supper?
Only the CC & Orthodox Church has a validly ordained priesthood in the unbroken line of apostolic succession so only their priests can properly confect the Eucharist. So no, as a Protestant, you are participating in the symbolic Eucharist which is not what Jesus commanded in Jn 6.
If you don’t believe in His True Real Presence in the Eucharist, I suggest that you research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain where the blood is AB+ & the flesh is living heart tissue. Likewise, why do satanist steal consecrated hosts from Catholic Churches for use in black masses?
@@geoffjs That’s just silly on so many levels. I hardly know where to start. So I’m not going to bother. Satanists … lol
@@geoffjs But one question, where in the NT do you find these priests of which you speak? I see no evidence of them at all. I see church elders, but no priests. I find passages that say that all those that believe are a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:7-9). But nothing about a special, set-apart office of priest. So where would I find a description of this office of priest in the NT?
@@geoffjs One last thing, nowhere in John 6 does it say anything about Passover or the Last Supper or the Lord’s Supper or communion. It talks about the bread from heaven that Moses gave the Israelites, which is not a picture of the Passover. And I just want to point out that the Gospel of John doesn’t even recount the Last Supper, which would be odd if John wanted us to make the connection between John 6 and the Last Supper. But I’m not necessarily opposed to the notion that the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Jesus. But I am opposed to the notion that a human priest has anything whatsoever to do with such transformation. It says nothing whatsoever about priests and masses in John 6, the synoptic Gospels recounting of the Last Supper, or in 1 Corinthians 11. Not one word about priests or masses. We Protestants use the same formula found in 1 Corinthians 11 when we take our Communion. If the bread and wine transforms for you, it transforms for us too. Our subjective understanding of what’s going on does not affect the objective reality of what happens when we take Communion. Personally, I don’t think John 6 has anything to do with the Lord’s Supper. That’s because it doesn’t say that in the text. If it said it, I’d believe it. But that doesn’t mean that the bread and wine absolutely does not transform, but you certainly can’t prove it by John 6.
@@toddstevens9667The apostles that Jesus selected were the first bishops who in turn delegated their authority to what we today refer to as priests (presbyters) & deacons. He appointed the apostles as bishops at the last supper when He washed their feet & commanded them to offer His body & blood as an unbloody representation of His sacrifice that He offered on the cross. In addition, Jesus instituted confession Jn 20 21-23
I understand you disagreeing on Catholic doctrine, but any comments on unexplained Eucharistic miracles that He has sent us as signs?
One of the reasons that only men can become priests is that they act in persona Christi when offering the Holy Mass. When a priest says “this is My body, this is My blood” he is referring to the body & blood of Christ, not his own. Both John 6 & the Last Supper provide evidence of Jesus appointing His apostles & giving them authority. No non Catholic or non Orthodox has an unbroken line of apostolic succession where the laying on hands can be tracked by each bishop back to his successors back to the time of Christ, another sign of His One True Church.
If I haven’t been able to provide a satisfactory response, I suggest that you research the early fathers on what they had to say about these topics.
If it's indeed literal that Jesus promised that consuming the food he provides would result in never hungering or thirsting again, then why is it that after partaking of the Eucharist, I still experience physical hunger and thirst?
Because he partook he will receive eternal life at the ressurection. Those who didn’t wont. But it has direct effects aswell, spiritual satisfaction, decreasing of fleshly desires and so on.
@@Catholic-Christian See, now YOU are the denier of Scripture. YOU don't believe literally what Jesus said. You *interpret* Scripture according to the surrounding context, like a Protestant interprets John 6! 😂🤣
You nailed it. They don't take Jesus' words literally, when it doesn't suit them to do so. They interpret that verse properly by looking at the surrounding context, but they won't do the same with John 6!
@@rexlion4510 Nobody denies that. It’s when Jesus reiterates again and again that he means it literally that you deny the plain truth and follow your desires.
@@Catholic-Christian If you look at the whole of Scripture, the plain truth (reiterated again and again) is that _we receive God's saving grace_ (unto justification & eternal life) _through faith in Jesus Christ's atonement for our sins._ But the emphasis of the RCC is that you receive grace via the digestive tract. Your entire Mass points to the physical ingestion of your wafer god as *the main thing* about your religion. The RCC pays lip service to the concept of having faith in Christ's atonement, but by its actions it teaches a different concept of having faith in the weekly (or even daily) eating and drinking.
I hope you mean the universal church"catholic" not the roman church which wasn't founded till 1054.
John 6:55-56 For my flesh is meat indeed.
John 4:32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Notice the similarities.
Jesus always explains what he means in both comments.
4:34 my meat is to do the will of the Father. 1st answer.
John: 35 Jesus said I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 2nd answer.
johnp. 6043
It is amusing to watch Protestants try oh so hard to avoid scripture that doesn't line up with their beliefs. Jesus did always explain His metaphors, as STATED in the video. Jesus makes it very clear in John 6 His flesh is food indeed and His blood is drink indeed. Then there are all the other scriptures I gave. And then there is the testimony of the early Church fathers , and all of Church history. But hey, Protestant rebels, making up their own understanding 1500 years later, yeah just go with that! As one of my old teachers use to say, "the mind is the gland that excretes justification." 😆🤣🤣😂
@@catholicskeptic Well, Ok. Let’s look at more scripture.
( A) Jesus said I am the door.
(B) Jesus said I am the vine.
( C) Jesus said I am the Rock.
(D) Jesus said I am the temple.
( E) Jesus said I am the bread.
Which on of these can you eat?
Jesus breaks the bread, to represents his broken body for you, and said eat for this is my body and do this in remembrance of me.
For I speak to you spiritually. (John 6:63)
@@catholicskeptic One hundred fourteen times the word “Justification”comes up in scientific.
Paul writes that Jesus justifies us by his blood from the cross to wash our sins by faith.
His justification is inputed to us by his righteousness for the remission of sins.
James writes “ we”are justified by faith and works. ( Notice we are justified this is not referring to Jesus inputed justification.)
Example if you were accused of murder, so you went to court to be judged, but you had all the evidence that you were innocent. This is your “Justification” you justified yourself. This is what James is saying we are his workmanship called unto good works) Ephesians 2:10) , but not for salvation for that is a gift from God.
@@catholicskeptic Correction One hundred fourteen times the word “ Justification “comes in scripture, not scientific. This computer does and auto word change.
Regarding the Sacrament of the Supper, those who deny it's efficacy go through a lot of contortions helping Jesus explain what He said. They can't accept what Jesus said. Seems a lot like those who couldn't accept what He said in the scriptures you are discussing.
Furthermore, how about the one where Jesus told Peter that he wishes that his Church is united and as one. Not sure which verse in the Bible says that Jesus told Peter that he would like his Church to be splintered into 40K pieces.
This again?
Only a priest (Pharisee) can perform the act of transubstantiation. This is a continuation of Jewish temple religion.
Do you believe this HOLY SCRIPTURE???
Hebrews 10:12 KJV "But this MAN (JESUS CHRIST), after "HE had offered ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOREVER" sat down on the right hand of GOD"
14 For by ONE OFFERING (CHRIST shedding HIS real blood and giving HIS real body on a real cross) HE has PERFECTED FOREVER (saved) them that are sanctified" (forgiven of all sins)
18 Now where remission of these (sins) is, "there is NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN"
Catholicism denies CHRIST by teaching that you still have sin to be forgiven through a process of sacramental works and later purgatory.
The One True Church that Jesus founded Mt 16 18-19 is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 and it codified your bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2
Jesus instituted 7 sacraments which are biblical, through which He provides us with grace, like electricity, starting with baptism Jn 3:5 Acts 2 38-39. I find it amazing that many Protestants regard baptism as optional or superficial, when Jesus Himself said, baptism is necessary for salvation. It is therefore understandable that Protestants reject Jesus’ teaching of His literal Real Presence as they wouldn’t be true to themselves if they didn’t Protest!
@@geoffjs CHRIST instituted the sign/ordinance of the LORD's Supper symbolically shown in the signs of the bread and the cup as a remembrance only.
The true Church are individual believers whose bodies are the habitation of GOD/temple built up a Church which is spiritual not a palace in Rome. Baptism is a physical sign representing the Baptism of the Holy Spirit where GOD indwells a person with His Holy Spirit making them His habitation/temple and should be done as a witness of this glorious truth BUT is not necessary to salvation. For example, the thief on the cross was not baptized.
1 Peter 2:3 KJV "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious (forgiven of all sins).
4 To Whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of GOD, and precious,
5 You also, as lively stones (living stones), are built up a spiritual house (the true church), a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices (fruit of the spirit, obedience, thanksgiving), acceptable to GOD by JESUS CHRIST."
Description of true believers:
9 "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that you should show forth the praises of Him Who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light"
Also see below:
Revelation 1:6 KJV "And has made us kings and priests unto GOD and His FATHER; to Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."
Revelation 5:10 KJV "And has made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth."
Your argument is not with the Catholic Church, it is with Jesus. He’s the one who said you can forfeit Salvation through your actions.
@@TrueChristianityWithSandra How so??? Also consider this:
John 3:15 That whosoever believes in HIM (CHRIST) should not perish, but have ETERNAL LIFE.
16 For GOD so loved the world, that HE gave HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that whosoever believes in HIM should not perish, but have EVERLASTING LIFE.
17 For GOD sent not HIS SON into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through HIM might be saved.
18 He that believes on HIM is NOT CONDEMNED: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the NAME of the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD."
Note: If you do not know where you will immediately go when you die then YOU DENY that your sins are forgiven by GOD's grace through faith in CHRIST and HIM crucified and deny that you have ETERNAL and EVERLASTING LIFE and you deny that you are NOT CONDEMNED as CHRIST said, therefore you deny CHRIST.
@@jacktracy8356OSAS is heresy, because according to St Paul, we work out our salvation with fear & trembling Phil 2:12. It is the sin of presumption to say that one is saved because it is possible to loose one’s salvation.
In a previous comment, you fallaciously claim that baptism doesn’t save, contradicting Jesus Jn 3:5 & 1 Peter 3:21. The thief on the cross was repentant & unknowingly desired baptism ie the baptism of desire
What verse was that where his followers actually ate his flesh and drank his blood?, must have missed that part. Thanks.
Unbeliever & doubter of His words. See 1 Cor 10 16-17 & 1 Cor 11 23-27
@@geoffjs no reason for hostility..... just asking an easy question.
Since Jesus was clearly teaching cannibalism to the point, many of his followers left, and the bread and wine were NOT a symbol or metaphor as this video vehemently claims, where is the verse where Jesus passed around his foot and everybody took a toe? Seems pretty simple to prove if it's there........
@@ThePopOptic100no hostility intended, however, the words of Jesus are clear & He repeatedly says, eat My flesh, eat My Body. The use of the word cannibalism is construed as blasphemy by believers in the literal True Presence & is disrespectful. If Jesus had given us His physical flesh & blood to consume, then I can see the applicability of the word. However, Jesus used the practical realities of bread & wine to change into His flesh & blood, while retaining their appearances.
I understand people having difficulty with the concept of transubstantiation, however, over time & with meditation, understanding has flown from belief, but the opposite is not necessarily true.
The defining difference between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches & false man made Protestantism is the literal Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 & esp 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25
To preempt the usual knee jerk response, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary NOT a resacrificing as Protestantism incorrectly claims.
Also Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice in all places at all times. The CC offers Mass daily in most parishes around the world. As Protestantism, generally, doesn’t believe in sacrificial worship Jn 6 51-58, they have no altars & no liturgical worship so no “church”, more like a synagogue with prayer & teaching.
The words “daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, in their original language mean supernatural bread ie the Eucharist. Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain, same AB blood type and living heart tissue. Luther believed in the Real Presence
O Ye of little Faith! For those with Faith, no explanation is necessary & for others, no explanation is possible! Try believing & understanding will follow,
A lot of “they believe this” and “they believe that” without actually being aware of what the variety of denominations believe. Some of us definitely believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. And that baptism with water is expected of us.
@emton55
I am well aware of those who "do believe ", but I spent 30 Years in the area of the Protestant world that, a) did not believe, b) hated and mocked this particular belief, and the members of those groups are the most active Protestant groups that keep watching and commenting on my videos. So the "being aware", comment is non sequitur. Plus I opened the video making the distinction of those Protestants who do "believe " in the Real Presence.
If the Lord meant that the bread and wine of His Last Supper are transubstantiated then it happens universally wherever his people celebrate it, not just in Roman Catholic churches.
@Jere616
The Lord established a living Church; He gave Simon Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. That Church has been here 2000 years. No where does Jesus ever say On this paper I'll write My book, and the gates of hell not prevail against it. He did say "on the rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall bot prevail against it. ( Matthew 16:13-19) " His people" are His Church. The foundation of Truth is the Church ( 1 Timothy 3:15). The Lord said what He meant and meant what He said.( see John 6). Only the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have taught this truth down through the ages. Protestant rebels who started 500 years ago decided to change it all, based on their private views of a Book the Church gave us, yet they reject the Church itself. Protestantism is an absurdity.
@@catholicskeptic The keys were evidently shared among the other apostles as Matt 18:18 shows, but what gets me about the RC assertion that it's upon Peter *alone* whom Jesus builds His Church is why there's an utter lack of Peter's endorsement by Paul to that effect. Not only that but Paul wasn't converted even indirectly through Peter yet he goes on to be used by the Lord to build much of the Church through his campaigns and writings.
@@Jere616Can’t help yourself, always Protesting, goes with the territory! St Augustine said believe & you will understand.
Hugh’s Bible looks like it’s been put to some use…
Lutherans don’t believe it’s a metaphor. We believe it’s Christ’s true Body and True Blood. We might define the Real Presence differently, and Roman Catholics don’t believe that the Eucharist is valid within the Lutheran tradition, but to say that all Protestants don’t believe in Real Presence is not accurate. Lutheran Eucharist theology clearly teaches that it’s is physically Jesus given to us for the forgiveness of sins.
LOL! While there are numerous scriptures Catholics don't believe, that directly contradict what Catholicism teaches. Such as there is one mediator beween God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). And, there is none righteous, no, not one (Romans 3:10), but still believe Mary didn't have sin. Scripture that Jesus had half brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3), nope, they don't believe that either. Or forbidding to marry is a doctrine of demons (1 Timothy 4:1-3). Nope, they still forbid priests to marry. There are just three off the top of my head.
Quick question… did anyone ever give you this pitch when you were Protestant? How long did it take to realize you were wrong and humble yourself after the first time someone tried to show you your error?
5:45 Jesus clarified what he meant that time because he was talking to the disciples, not a large crowd. We should not expect him to explain a parable/metaphor to a large crowd because he explains things to the disciples. Jesus even explains exactly why he doesn't do this for crowds in Matthew 13:10-14.
that being said, not all Protestants reject true presence. It's actually the historic view of a lot of the traditions, and it makes me a little sad to see that some may have abandoned it completely on the basis of sounding "too Catholic-y". We just reject that only the Roman Catholic church can administer communion.
It would be nice if y'all could give us our real name, ie the Catholic Church. Most modern Protestants reject the Real Presence. The Catholic Church does not claim that she only administers communion. She is the only one administering it lawfully under Peter. Those groups with apostolic succession will have consecrated Hosts. That said, the group most likely to call itself Catholic - the Anglicans - broke their apostolic succession deliberately hundreds of years ago.
@@atrifle8364 I didn't intend to use an improper name, is "Roman Catholic Church" not appropriate? "too Catholic-y" was a self-diss on certain Protestants, not Roman Catholics.
As for communion, I've been trying to figure out Christianity for the last year and a half now, and I understand communion to be one of the most important things a Christian can do- "do this in remembrance of me". I've been to a lot of churches, and the Roman Catholic parish I visited was the only one who made it absolutely clear I was not welcome to receive it with them despite being a baptized believer. I've also been informed by Roman Catholics that not only have I never actually had a valid communion, but additionally for them to remember Christ's sacrifice with me in my church would be such a grave sin that it would ENDANGER THEIR SALVATION.
@@mikekukovec4386The reason that you can’t receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church is that you are not Catholic & at face value don’t believe in the literal Real Presence. It is wrong & sinful for Catholics to symbolically receive communion at a Protestant service
Taking Jesus' words in John 6:53-58, without regard for the context of the surrounding discussion (in the entire 6th Chapter) is no better than saying that there are no true believers in the world since no one has water gushing out of his navel. What? Don't you believe Jesus when He said, " He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" (John 7:38)? See, you can't just take everything Jesus said at face value, totally literally. *Obviously* we must consider the context surrounding that statement in order to properly interpret it and understand what Jesus meant. Interpreting John 6 is no different; The RCC pulls bits and pieces of what Jesus said (in John 6) out of context.
What earthly use would it be for us to actually eat human flesh and to actually drink human blood? Or do you suppose that you can get more of God inside you by ingesting the Almighty physically?
It really is sad with people like Hugh Quinn come along with his attitude of smug superiority and misleads people into believing that Christianity is all about consuming God via the digestive tract. Try consuming Christ by faith instead!
The One True Church that Jesus founded Mt 16 18-19 is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 which codified your Bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2.
If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25
The defining difference between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches & false man made Protestantism is the literal Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 & esp 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God.
To preempt the usual knee jerk response, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary NOT a resacrificing as Protestantism incorrectly claims. Also Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice in all places at all times. The CC offers Mass daily in most parishes around the world. As Protestantism, generally, doesn’t believe in sacrificial worship Jn 6 51-58, they have no altars & no liturgical worship so no “church”, more like a synagogue with prayer & teaching.
The words “daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, in their original language mean supernatural bread ie the Eucharist. Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain, same AB blood type and living heart tissue.
O Ye of little Faith! For those with Faith, no explanation is necessary & for others, no explanation is possible! Try believing & understanding will follow, but not the reverse.
It is good to recognize the bread and wine as the true flesh and blood of Christ, but I am rather skeptical over the idea that grace flows through the sacrament. Indeed, the grace is given to us through faith as it is written : "For by grace are ye saved through faith", and "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." And it makes more sense that way as it is also written : "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." Once we have received an heart of flesh, what should we do more ? Make this heart more of "flesh" ? This is why, once you have received the gospel by faith, you do not need such "sacraments" to receive more grace, as all grace has already been given to you through faith. And the grace of God is to recognize his Son and this is what John 6 is all about. This is why in this chapter, Jesus says stuff like : "I came down from heaven", "I do not do my own will, but the will of my Father", "I will raise him up on the last day", "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father", "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life", ... In fact the people present on that day were already believing in Him, but not for what he was, knowing his divinity. They were alredy saying : "This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world." But now Jesus wants to reveal his divinity. This is why he ends up saying : "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Because as the people around him were Jews, they were forbidden to drink blood as it is written : "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." But if that blood, is Life itself, as God is the source of all life, then it makes sense to commune with it. Thereby, the one who believes in the divinity of Christ, and thus has life in him because of his faith, eats his flesh and drinks his blood as Jesus has commanded us at his last meal.
Then He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, He blessed and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the multitude
truly truly i tell you. you do not seek me because of signs and miracles, you seek me because i fed the loaves and you were filled
“Why do you reason because you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart still hardened? Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments did you take up?”
They said to Him, “Twelve.”
“Also, when I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of fragments did you take up?”
And they said, “Seven.”
So He said to them, “How is it you do not understand
i believe twelve are the sacred apostolic tradition.. and the seven represents the sacraments through His Church.
Do you have any of Jesus flesh? Why didn’t the apostles eat his flesh after Romans crucified Him? Where does it say that the bread turns into the body of Christ after eating the bread?
It turns into that before eating it. See the Last Supper about how bread->body of Jesus.
Yes it's in the tabernacle at church. They did. Literally every church father and ecumenical council affirm it. The true presence in the consecrated bread and wine was believed by every Christian until the 1500s. Maybe you should ask yourself why you're the odd man out.
@@USDebtCrisis I find your rebuttal unremarkable.
@@atrifle8364 He takes the bread and says this is my body; if this is what is meant literally, then the bread should have transformed into a hunk of Christ's flesh right in front of the apostles and a section of His body should be missing a hunk of flesh. But the scriptures never say that. It is suspiciously convenient to have the flesh remain in bread form when it can be seen, and then have it change appearances when it is in the belly and out of sight.
@artemusbowdler7508 luckily there is an entire deposit of faith that has survived since the very beginning that can attest to the fact that it is his body and blood. It's the church that Jesus himself established, the catholic church.
Christ said in John 6:53 that “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”
No baptized infant believes in Christ (Protestant interpretation of his words), and no infant eats bread nor drinks wine (Catholic interpretation of his words).
So, according to Christ himself the ‘sacrament of baptism’ performed on an infant accomplishes nothing. They still “have no life” in them. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church directly contradicts Christ himself. Choose carefully whom you will follow.
Classical irrational Protestant response. Yes, baptism is necessary for salvation, unless you don’t believe in Original or the sin of Adam. If baptism replaces circumcision, wouldn’t it follow that infants should be baptised & the Bible doesn’t forbid it. In fact, households were baptised se Acts 2 38, 1 Peter 3:21. What is the downside to baptising infants, an ancient practice of the CC?
The Sacrament of Confirmation confirms young baptised adults in their faith Acts 8 14-17
Infants are too young to receive the Eucharist so typically, children from the age of reason circa 7 yrs receive the Real Presence
I grew up Protestant...attended many churches. We all took the Eucharist seriously. I'm not sure what Protestants don't believe in the Eucharist...it's just we disagree with Catholics on how the Real Presence exists in reality when consuming the Eucharist. I was always taught to take the Eucharist seriously. Grew up Baptist when I was young. 😂
The problem with Protestants are the varying beliefs, most of which are symbolic. In any, event, without an ordained priesthood in the unbroken line of succession from the Apostles, no literal Real Presence in the Eucharist can be confected. Believers should seriously consider the Catholic or Orthodox Churches
"Come out of her my people". Rev. 18:4. I'll keep praying for my Brethren who are still captivated by the "Universal" (Catholic) church.
@Bevofan
Matthew 16:13-19. Rest assured I and the others who have come home to the One True Church will be praying for you. Thanks for commenting and thereby helping grow the channel and spread the Catholic Faith.
You don’t realise how wrong & heretical you are!
Yes! Please do pray for all your brethren! But also pray that our Lord will continue to lead you to the FULLNESS of Truth ❤
Jesus Himself gives us the interpretation key in John 6:63:
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life.
That is why it is a metaphor. Eating Jesus flash is believing His Words!
Jn 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25
Also 1 Cor 10 16-17 1 Cor 11 23-27
@@geoffjs John 6 is not even about the Pascal meal where Jesus took to bread and the wine. So it is clearly interpreted with the key in John 6:63 to believe the words of Jesus.
1 Cor texts are referring to the meals that the community had, but full meals not just a taste. But as the Jesus said at the last Passover about the bread: this is my body, this was a image, as the bread is broken to give life also Jesus body would be broken to give life. So it is a metaphor. Like John used the words: The Lamb of God about Jesus. Jesus was not a lamb in the literal sense, but in the metaforic sense having characteristics of the lamb: quiet and humble while going to the death. By remembering Jesus we are partaking of His body, meaning the bread that we brake to remember His sacrifice. And also His body in 1 Cor are we all the believers because we eat from the one bread.
@@cosmingcosma Mat 26:26,28 *THIS IS MY BODY. THIS MY BLOOD*
@@For3nity John 1:29, 36 "Behold the Lamb of God"
Do you think Jesus was a lamb in the literal sense?
@@cosmingcosma Why St.John said Jesus is the Lamb of God?
Can you tell what movie that clip was from? The boat scene.
Pirates of the Caribbean
It's from pirates of the Caribbean
If everything can be a metaphor and Jesus "obviously didn't mean that" then why do protestants believe the miracles in the bible and in the Resurrection itself? Raising the dead and walking on water is honestly, from an objective point of view, a lot harder to believe than bread being the Body of Christ
I first recognized the Catholic view of this scripture years ago. I agreed with the view... But never felt the need to be Catholic. My commitment is to the truth, not an organization.
Even an “organization” founded by Christ?
@@TrueChristianityWithSandra That is a myth. A very effective myth but the Roman Catholic Church was formed long after the Church was established.
@@nathanshearer30 Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal by Ignatius in 107, codified your bible in 382. His Church is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed, in spite of sinful men, for 2000 yrs, proof of its divine origin. Jesus as the head of His Church appointed Peter was His earthly representative with an unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter to Francis
The fruits of sola Scriptura & personal interpretation, confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21.
Try combining Sacred Tradition, which existed before the NT, from the time of Jesus with Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective
No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21
No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening!
Have you ever considered the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
Every believer in the Eucharist reads John 6 right up till verse 63 then the illiteracy kicks in instantly 🤦🏻♂️
John 6:63 NASB1995
[63] It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
Jesus in v 63 it is THE flesh, not MY flesh The “flesh” He notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25. Luther believed in the Real Presence
Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain, same AB blood type & living heart tissue
There’s a Scripture that Catholics never explain, can someone explain this “While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Matthew 12:46-50
If Mary is so highly esteemed, why would Jesus not honor her a little more than this? The answer is because though Mary was blessed by God to carry the Messiah, she was not to be exalted as if she was deified.
Keep in mind that Jesus was sinless (obviously) and therefore obeyed the 10 Commandments perfectly. Yet you’re implying that your interpretation of Scripture shows Jesus disrespecting his mother, which is a sin. So your interpretation of this passage is demonstrably incorrect. Add to that that Mary was the very first Christian on earth.
Since we know Jesus cannot have sinned, there must be more to this passage: Jesus was telling us that those who obey God and follow Jesus are part of God‘s family now. We become adopted children of God.
Classic Protestant deflection from the topic under discussion.
Since you ask, Mary was a very special woman, Immaculately Conceived, led a sinless life & was Assumed into Heaven, where as Queen (Esther), she is the woman of Rev 12. If you disagree where are her relics? If Enoch & Elijah were assumed into Heaven, why would Jesus not do the same for His mother?
@@geoffjs Mary was a sinner like you and I. Nowhere in scripture does it say Mary was sinless. It doesn’t say Mary was assumed into Heaven either…..it’s not in the text.
You are confusing Catholic doctrine with actual Scripture. At some point you’re going to have to decide who’s right, the Scripture itself or Catholic doctrine.
@@elitedrumlessons6174Protestantism, with its flawed sola Scriptura teachings has a very narrow view as the bible was codified in 382 & only became mass printed in the 16th century & even then, most people were illiterate so, sola Scriptura was unworkable for at least 1500 yrs. People relied on Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Christ & complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the Magisterium, a reliable, stable 3 Legged stool. Remember also that the bible says that it doesn’t contain everything Jn 21:25 such as the words bible & Trinity. All Catholic teaching is biblical, either implicitly or explicitly
To be the mother of Jesus, Mary had to be Immaculately Conceived Lk 1:28, she is “full of grace” ie no sin., all generations will call me blessed, Lk 1 42-44 Her Magnificat Lk 1 46-56
With God, all things are possible eg saving the thief on the cross, we believe that Mary’s saviour saved her when she was conceived & she was Assumed into Heaven as Queen (Esther) where she is the woman of Rev 12. If Enoch & Elijah were assumed into Heaven, Jesus could do the same for His mother. If you don’t believe this, where are her relics?
Ok, I'm Catholic but also a lifelong (Gen Z) fan of POTC. Your background and the DMT clip has my attention.
Commendable you quote the KJV for your exegesis - only makes sense in arguing apologetics with an evangelical.
Why is it okay to accept science's understanding of the origins of life and view the 6 days of creation as symbolic/metaphorical/allegorical, but you will not view the bread being Jesus' body as symbolic/metaphorical/allegorical while also refusing to let scientist weigh in on this? If the bread is the actual human flesh of Jesus Christ, then let scientist do exploratory surgery to verify that you have human flesh in your belly after consuming the Eucharist.
You’re putting God to the test by challenging His words.
The One True Church that Jesus founded Mt 16 18-19 is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 which codified your Bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2.
If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25
The defining difference between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches & false man made Protestantism is the literal Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58 & esp 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God.
To preempt the usual knee jerk response, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary NOT a resacrificing as Protestantism incorrectly claims. Also Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice in all places at all times. The CC offers Mass daily in most parishes around the world. As Protestantism, generally, doesn’t believe in sacrificial worship Jn 6 51-58, they have no altars & no liturgical worship so no “church”, more like a synagogue with prayer & teaching.
The words “daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, in their original language mean supernatural bread ie the Eucharist. Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain, same AB blood type and living heart tissue.
O Ye of little Faith! For those with Faith, no explanation is necessary & for others, no explanation is possible! Try believing & understanding will follow, but not the reverse.
@@geoffjs Brilliant rebuttal. Please do not every use science; if you do, then you must lack faith.
@@artemusbowdler7508The Church embraces science in the search for Truth, so why don’t you research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain. Protestantism is unsurprisingly not interested because these miracles may destroy your assumptions.
Also, why do Satanists steal consecrated hosts from Catholic Churches for Black Masses if they didn’t believe that they contain His True Real Presence?
@@geoffjs Miracles do not need to be defended. I believe that Genesis is historically accurate. If you cannot take God at His word in Genesis, then how can you take God at His word in the Gospels?
Please show me the scripture that says believers “time travel” back to the last supper.
Or is that hyperbole and metaphor?
Did you not know God is outside of Time? That time is part of His creation? Or are you merely putting limits on God’s omnipotence?