I can't even imagine how much research this video took, nor how many times you must have had to re-record a part of it when you messed up a line. You did very well!
@@ReadyToHarvestis it the same when you're teaching classes? I had several professors that had to take multiple tries sometimes, but they were honestly some of the best.
@@RealSeanithan I'm better at not messing up when I'm speaking regularly than when I have a script I am reading. But with a script I don't go running down rabbit trails.
I found your channel while I was researching different doctrines, and now I would have to say it's one of my favorite channels! And most useful!! Thank you for all your research!! (:
Joshua: I’ve been following you for awhile. I add to the chorus praising your even hand and well researched objective data! This is your masterpiece, sir! Accurate and fair, I’m glad for what you are doing.
That would be wonderful actually. It’s not something folks think about as much as something like soteriology or sacramentology, but there are some pretty big differences there. It’s something I need to explore more myself.
Heartfelt thanks for your comprehensive, respectful, and reverent presentation of the variations of theology and practice among various Christian denominations with regard to Communion/The Lord's Supper. It was very clearly presented and most helpful to all who are interested in this subject.
You are to be commended for the amount of work involved in this presentation. I'm rather overwhelmed by the amount of ritual surrounding what I think of as a simple memorial.
If you are a Anglican, know that even your ministers know that you are worshipping on the Catholic day of worship (Sunday) and not the Biblical Day of worship (Sabbath Exod 20: 8-11).⁷ And where are we told in the Scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day… The reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the Church, has enjoined it.” Isaac Williams, Plain Sermons on the Catechism, pages 334, 336. Anglican: “Many people think that Sunday is the Sabbath, but neither in the New Testament nor in the early church, is there anything to suggest that we have any right to transfer the observance of the seventh day of the week to the first. The Sabbath was and is Saturday and not Sunday…” Rev. Lionel Beere, Church and People, September 1, 1947.
The didache: On the Lord’s day, when you have been gathered together, break bread and celebrate the Eucharist. But first confess your sins so that your offering may be pure. If anyone has a quarrel with his neighbor, that person should not join you until he has been reconciled. Your sacrifice must not be defiled. In this regard, the Lord has said: In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice. I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is great among the nations.
@@robertdelisle7309 i think the sacrifice we make now is also that of celebration. We call each church service mass which means feast. The propitiation happened on the cross. The sacrifice we make is that of ourselves…. Christianity 101
@@timboslice980 I agree the Eucharist is also a celebration. The big difference in terms of sacrifice between Roman Catholic and Protestant is the Catholic view of propitiation in the Eucharist. The Protestants view the propitiation of the cross happened one time and offered up one time and a Christian receives the salvific effects of it by putting their faith in Christ. Roman Catholics view the Eucharist, as being the same sacrifice of the cross re-presented, but offered up perpetually. It is by eating it that the salvific effects are received by the Christian. Is that your understanding?
@@robertdelisle7309 yeah i think that about covers it. As long as the protestant doesnt think its a different sacrifice and understands that its salvific benefits come from the original passion of the lord. Like you said its a representation of that sacrifice, a reapplication of the same benefits for those that are in christ, and a celebration/participation in that sacrifice. Mass means feast, and feasts are celebrations, idk if an orthodox person would articulate it in the same way but i know our beliefs are very similar.
@@timboslice980 The term "mass" is a derivation of the Latin phrase "Ite, missa est." Those are the final words of the service in the Latin rite. They literally mean "Go, you are dismissed." So, it was the one Latin phrase everyone learned because they were all waiting for the service to end! They ended up calling the service itself Missa which evolved into Mass. The feast meaning is a retroactive one. I'm not Catholic but I learned this from a priest while teaching a comparative religions class.
The first Christians were much more comfortable with divine mystery. After all, Genesis one tells us that this material reality was spun out of nothing from the mind of God by Breath and Word. It is sustained the same way, moment by moment (Hebrews 1:2-3). Trying to overly define things in abstract concepts is what has led to multiple schisms.
You've got the cart before the horse. It was heretics who defined things incorrectly that forced the Church to produce detailed explanations of things that had only been mysteries before the heretics started teaching falsehoods.
As a Real Presence enjoyer, I really respect the Protestants who DONT believe it’s the real presence, but still treat it reverently. No matter what our belief, it should absolutely be approached with respect
For real. Even though I do view the communion as a symbolic memorial, that does not lessen it's importance at all. It is a commandment to partake, and to partake with the right mindset and heart. I also do believe that the Lord's spiritual presence is there with us when we commune, just that he meant it metaphorically that we are eating him. His presence is bound to us honoring him and proclaiming his death, not the literal matzo bread and grape juice that we traditionally use. I am a member of the church of Christ and while we are one of the memorial, low church style sects, we hold VERY strongly to the view that it is a required element of worship and do it every single week as the central point of the service. The Lord's Supper is WHY we meet every Sunday, all the other worship elements are a bonus.
That's a much vast topic that it seems. If Thomas Aquinas was not trying to justify everything through dialectics and human reasoning he might not have made huge errors such as the justification of coercion and violence in matters of faith (he justified capital punishment towards heretics in Summa Theologica). The Roman Church likes to remind everyone that our Lord called saint Peter "Peter" when he spoke words inspired by God. I never heard a Roman Catholic reminding us that our Lord also called saint Peter "Satan" when he spoke his own mind and ordered him to stand behind Him. The orthodox Church always put the sayings of our Lord before whatever thoughts we elaborate as humans and prefers to say "it's a mystery of God's wisdom" rather than pretend we know better Lord have mercy on us all sinners. Kyrie eleison ☦️
@@Hope_Boat: I'm Catholic ( the name of our Church is CATHOLIC, not ROMAN Catholic), and every Catholic is aware of Our Lord's words to St. Peter. As a child in school I had to memorize that Scripture verse, to say every time I was tempted to sin! Tell me, what was the terrible sin that St. Peter committed that caused Jesus to address him in such a manner?
@@alhilford2345 You are Catholic but not Roman? Do you know your own dogmas? Dictatus Papae proclaimed 1) The Roman Church was founded by God alone. 2) The Roman Pontiff alone can by right be called Universal. 8) He alone holds the Imperial Insignia (Of Rome) 9) All princes shall kiss the feet of the Pope alone. 26) He who does not concord with the Roman Church shall not be called catholic. Sounds like the romanity is pretty central to the Catholic Church. Whatever. What was the question again?
@@alhilford2345 Oh yes. You asked what did St Peter say to justify Jesus called him Satan. He spoke his own human mind, and wished that Jesus will not be crucified. He wanted a mashiah in the Jewish sens : a king for Israel. Not a servant who washes the feet of random fishermen and dies on a cross like a thief. That's also why the was not enthusiastic when Jesus told him to give his feet to wash. Kyrie eleison ☦️
This is very well done and quite extensive. Thank you! While your approach to dealing with the wide range of topics was clear and impressive, I would have appreciated your including Methodist approaches to the real presence of Jesus in the Sacrament. For instance, the official position of the UMC can be found in its "This Holy Mystery" statement from 2004, in which we assert that how Christ's body and blood are made really present in the bread and the cup is a holy mystery, but nevertheless very real. Additionally, in the UMC's Great Thanksgiving the following epiclesis is prayed: "Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here, and on these gifts of bread and wine: make them be for us the body and blood of Christ, that we may be for the world the body of Christ redeemed by his blood." Other Methodists have similar positions and similar sacramental prayers (see the Methodist Church of Great Britain and the AME, AMEZ, and CME in the USA); the GMC has yet to have their first General Conference, so they haven't made any statements on the nature of Communion beyond that found in the Articles of Religion.
The general views of Wesleyan denominations are not commonly talked about on youtube. Then again, Methodists are often stereotyped as less focused on theology than some other groups. When it is discussed, it is sometimes discussed incorrectly. Many seem to believe that many Wesleyan denominations hold to something more like the Calvinist or Baptist position.
Fundamentally, the Latins and the Greeks have the same faith as regards the Holy Eucharist. Because both received this faith from the apostles. It's a bit odd that any single Protestant denomination would think itself correct, in the face of such apostolic unanimity.
@@Hope_Boat Y'all just can't resist getting in any anti-catholic jab you can, can you? Your incessant chauvinism is the recent restoration of unity is going to be almost impossible
After attending a church for a while I was invited to 'observe the ordinance'. I wasn't wholly sure what he meant as I'd never heard the term 'ordinance' before only 'ordnance' as in Ordnance Survey maps (official UK maps) and artillery shells. I guessed given the context that it referred to communion but didn't know why. Then I struggled with the word 'observe'. It's awkward and embarrassing when you don't won't to look 'un-Christian' by admitting you haven't a clue what was just offered to you as a sincere guesture of welcome. I was also a bit confused as to the instruction about not sitting in the pews with the members but being able to join in with the hymn. I stayed at the back and watched. General lesson: if you are talking to people who weren't raised in your local church but are Christians assume that they use different terms for things and do things differently and maybe ask about what they are familiar with so when you speak you do so within their contextual understanding
Fascinating and detailed, enjoyed this as the Catholic Church has just finished a series on John’s narration in his Gospel of Jesus instituting the Eucharist as a sacrament!
Some Catholic Writings are anti-Bible. For example Decretals, epistolae decretales, are papal letters that have a claim to universal validity and clarify questions of Church law. The Roman Decretalia states the Pope can pronounce sentences and judgments in contradiction to the right of nations, and to the law of God and man .... He can free himself from the commands of the apostles, he being their superior, and from the rules of the Old Testament,” “The pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.”-Decretal de Translat. Episcop. Cap. The Catholic 10 Commandments found in Catechisms Sections 2052 -2557 are DIFFERENT to God's 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20.
@@xXBlessedXxii: Ahhh... yes... The 'Roman Decretalia'. Also known as the 'False Decretals' or the 'Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals'. Forged in the ninth century. Beloved of Ellen White. Of course they're anti-Bible, because they're not Catholic!
In a church I used to attend, whichever family baked the bread will give a list of those in their extended family or friends for whom they wanted to have prayed for that Sunday.
@ 12:24 "God consistently condemned the drinking of alcoholic beverages." Where does it say that? I seem to recall wine being consumed quite often in the Bible, including by Jesus Himself. His first miracle in the Gospel of John, for example, was changing water into wine.
Isaiah 5:22-24 “22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: 23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! 24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”
As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we do believe that Jesus probably drank alcoholic wine. Members who insist otherwise are mistaken - they are trying to make sense of the discrepancy between our current abstaining from alcohol, and the Savior's apparent consumption of it. The more accurate explanation in our doctrine is simply that God requires different things of His children at different times. For example, the children of Israel had a lower law given because they were not ready for the higher law of Jesus Christ. In a similar manner, we believe we are now asked to abstain from alcohol all together, because we now have widespread access to clean drinking water, which was a big reason for drinking alcohol in pre modern times. Even in the time of Christ however, it was still taught to not engage in drunkenness. We believe the purpose of the sacrament is to remember the sacrifice of Christ, and recommit to the covenants we made at baptism. In that regard, the actual emblems of the sacrament are not as important as the feelings one has as they take it. Bread and water is taken because it is readily available, and because bread and water have symbolic meaning. This is not our doctrine, but my personal thought, that perhaps one reason why we use water in the latter days is because it symbolizes Christ as the living water, and our emphasis on Christ's triumph over death, the reality of His resurrection, while many faiths focus on the cross as a symbol, which we choose not to do - again, as we wish to contemplate the Atonement as the completed victory over sin and death it is.
Thank you for your work. In the future, it would be interesting to see a comparison between liturgies or "worship services" between denominations. God Bless ☦️
Something interesting to note about the Orthodox view of Adoration is that it is allowed in parishes that observe/practice the Western Rite. The process is identical to Adoration in a Roman/Old Catholic Church or a high-church Anglican community, except that one of the Divine Praises that are read to God (if I remember correctly) declares Mary to be blessed in a way that does not mention the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception since the Orthodox do not hold to that view
The Orthodox Western Rite also does not practice perpetual adoration. Eucharistic adoration usually takes place after a Divine Office, usually Vespers, lasts for 15 to 30 minutes, and ends with a eucharistic benediction, after which the blessed sacrament is returned to the tabernacle.
666 is the Papacy Mark of Beast (KJV Rev 13:16 to 18) a)his mark (of authority) b) his name &the number of his name (666) Only the Papacy fulfills all criteria A) He wears 3 tiered tiara to denote authority in heaven, earth and sea. The Roman Decretalia states the Pope can free himself from the commands of the apostles, he being their superior, and from the rules of the Old Testament,” “The pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.”-Decretal de Translat. Episcop. Cap. To receive the pope's mark is to agree to his authority in your mind and in your actions (Rev 13:16) i.e to change God's day of worship to Sunday when it has been the Sabbath day since Genesis. Currently the Papacy is working with leaders to impose a forced day of worship of SUNday i.e Lucifer whereas God's mark or sign on His people Has been Sabbath Keeping Ezekiel 20:20, Exodus 31:13, 17 B) The Pope has many blasphemous titles such as Holy Father, Vicar of Christ(substitute for Christ, Vicarivs Fili Dei) VICARIVS (means in place of /Substitute) V=5 I= 1 C=100 A & R= 0 I=1 V=5 S=0 = 121 FILII -( son ) F=0 I=1 L=50 I=1 I=1 =53 DEI (God) D=500 E=0 I=1 =501 112 + 53 + 501 = 666 Other titles include Dvx Cleri (Captain of the Clergy) D = 500 V= 5 X = 10 C = 100 L = 50 E/R=0 I = 1 666 C) Here are examples of Anti-Christ practices the Papacy permits *'changing' God's laws The Catholic 10 Commandments found in Catechisms Sections 2052 -2557 are DIFFERENT to God's 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20. Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Dark Ages= RCC persecution of the saints via various torturous, barbarous methods i.e Spanish Inquisition, Various massacres and martyrdom of individuals against the RCC and its teachings Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. * Pope declared as Christ the pope] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Source: Pope Leo XIII, Encyclica letter tte Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae *RCC priests declared as Christ Thus the priest, as is said with good reason, is indeed "another Christ"; for, in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ. ...Source: Pope Pius XI, Encyclical lettw AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII 1935. *Mary Declared The Mediator Of Salvation by RCC 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; www.biblelightinfo.com
In the Catholic mass the fraction takes place during the singing of the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world have mercy on us. So the fraction represents the sacrifice of Christ on the cross by which we are forgiven and saved. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a participation in the salvation of the world.
@@CzarLazar1389 I hope would still be on her today! Regardless to a bunch of comparisons, it is what Jesus told us to do in remembrance of Him, and that’s how truly the new covenant Begin!
Very helpful to have the various approaches laid out clearly and concisely. At 9:04 in my experience as a practicing Roman Catholic this is a decision made at the Diocese level by the Bishop rather than at the Parish level. Our Diocese had been giving bread only (in my opinion simple laziness) but our new Bishop announced that communion was to be offered under both species at every Mass, which I subsequently saw being practiced at every Parish I visited.
There are deeper historical reasons why the communion in one kind is usually offered. I can forward a video link explaining it all if you're interested.
@@RichardDCook: When you receive the consecrated Host you are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Our Lord. It is only necessary for the priest to consume both the Body and Blood in order to fulfill the Sacrifice.
I took my cocker spaniel to the Episcopal Church in Barnwell,SC and took the Euchariest using intinction and then gave part to my cocker spaniel. I consider this valid as some translations refer to "salvation for man and beast." (Psalms 36:3)
Well done! I appreciate this. It is overwhelming. Wow. . . all the different churches and ways to do communion. Who has the right way? I grew up Southern Baptist but have visited an ACNA church this summer. I love the liturgy, but I want to understand why they do communion the way they do.
Maybe your next denominational comparison video should be showing videos how people practice Communion! I thought the one where you did videos on Baptisms was very interesting Joshua!
Firstly, great video as always Joshua. A few of my thoughts: I think this video highlights that this issue has become a circus. And please understand, I don't mean this in an insulting manner. I understand this tradition is deeply held by many adherents, as it once was by myself. Can communion be taken, or is communing an act of engaging with someone? I think the idea of "taking" communion implies that different sorts of spiritual means (like grace, holiness or closeness to God for example) can be obtained through consumption, not through the disposition of the heart through communing with God. As the bible says, in Matthew 15:11 "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” This was very important to cover, because many Jews wanted to carry OT dietary laws into Christianity as mandatory (therefore voiding the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice) In short, what you eat or refrain from eating is not what defiles you. It's what proceeds from you. Luke 6:45 “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart." FYI, I grew up with the memorial view under AOG, which was held in a reverent way with the the breaking occurring while the passage was read. I now believe that the Word is talking about communal meals (aka love feasts), explaining that Christians are meant to live life together in communion with one another in unity as one body. Enjoying a meal with people is one of the most intimate actions showing that you are living life together. I think this is clearly supported by some of the issues that Paul addresses in first Corinthians surrounding the Lord's supper. They were partaking in a selfish way, and this was not regarding a wafer and wine. Otherwise the passage doesn't make logical sense. Of course, this comment is not going into detail, and I don't expect to change anyone's mind. But do consider this. I believe any required ritualistic practice of any kind defeats the entire premise of the NT, which is that the law and sacrifices/rituals couldn't save us. I think such practices greatly weaken the gospel message. Furthermore, it promotes pride through attendance and/or participation. IE, those who don't participate are the less holy or evil ones. And I carefully said "required" above. Because, I think certain traditions can be okay, as long as they don't go against scripture and are not made mandatory. This is a topic in itself, but I think communion as something we ingest is anti-biblical and damaging to the faith. Therefore it should be dispensed with. Downstream from this topic is the issue of the religious service. Is there such thing as a religious/church service in the NT? Firstly, the church is Christ's people, past, present and future. Not a place of meeting. Services were held in the OT, as rituals/ordinances required directly by God. In the NT, everything should be done from the outflow of the heart, and not by compulsion. In the NT, Jesus wants our entire lives consecrated as a service to Him, not just specific practices in what we call a service. As most know, you can serve God through attendance or rituals, but your heart can be far from Him. This is what the OT teaches through much arduous detail. To call anything other than picking up your cross and continually giving your life to Christ a "service" I strongly believe is a lie, and reverting to the OT system, allowing people to think that their service to God is through a list of boxes that they check off. Only scratching the surface, but in short, I believe that that name Christianity has ben deeply infiltrated, and the simplicity of the gospel has been turned back into a form of bondage. I would love to hear people's thoughts on my comment. And please don't confuse my comment with promoting licentiousness. I'm not the "anything goes" type who is trying to deconstruct biblical principle. I believe all principles in the bible are universal, and that we cannot make up our own truth. It's the fear of the Lord that causes me to take the scriptures seriously.
Writing in roughly 150 AD, Justin Martyr describes Christian worship consistent with what is generally practiced to this day (ie, liturgy with readings, prayers, preaching, communion). The begins of these practices are clearly observable in Acts and the letters of Paul, though they are not explicitly assembled into a start-to-finish ritual. That assemblage occurs sometime between c.30 Ad to c.150 AD, to the point that very similar practice is observed by in most places. Essentially, your position amounts to believing that the true gospel was universally replaced by a false gospel in well under 100 years since the death of the Apostles.
@@jonathanstensberg Though there is certainly wisdom to be gleaned from history, in which I study. I do not look to post biblical figures for authoritative interpretation of doctrine. And yes, I believe true Christianity went underground fairly quickly. By the time it was made the religion of Rome I believe it was severely doctrinally eroded. And it appears to me there was much build up until that point. I believe that people are the same as they always have been, and truth can deteriorate quickly among the masses, as the stories in the OT highlight. I certainly believe that there have been true Christians at all times since Christ, though I don't think they are represented by institutionalized religion.
I'm an atheist, so you can take this with as much salt as you like, but I was raised in the Presbyterian church. The limited atonement viewpoint is a bit Calvinistic, so a bit puritanical for the average evangelical, but ultimately I think encompasses some of your thinking. As part of God's plan, jesus' death atones for your sins if you are pure of soul and a true beliver. Particularly, I don't mind at all your points about pageantry being elitist and distancing from the message. If the church is when people gather, and we commune with one another, what use do we have for a plate full of crackers and wine. However, some may take issue, as the communion is part of the lords prayer and all that.
@@Iffysiffy1524 Thanks for responding. We might have a differing understanding of what limited atonement is referring to in the Calvinist context. My understanding has been historically that means that Jesus died only for the predestined elect. Specifically, those in whom he has drawn to Himself through grace that is impossible for the individual to resist. I don't hold to this view, and personally think it is a grave distortion of scripture. Is that how you understand limited atonement? To further clarify some of my original points. I don't necessarily think that breaking/passing bread around and sharing a cup (or doing in some other similar manner) is necessarily evil. I think that could be an acceptable practice in the context of true communing together in fellowship and remembering the death of Christ. It's just that what I see in the majority of cases has been twisted into a superstitious pagan ceremony, or in other cases (more-so evangelical cases) has devolved into a vain tradition, like Colossians 2:8 warns about. "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." If you are open to sharing. What primarily caused you to distance yourself from the Presbyterianism you grew up with? Did you ever take it to heart or never fully accept the religion proposed throughout your upbringing to begin with? I'm interested in people's stories, especially since I don't view such organizations as true representation of Christ's church (though some truth is sprinkled in and some people may have a pure disposition of the heart following God to the best of their understanding).
@@JDsVarietyChannel I'm going to go bottom to top with my reply. I'm not religious anymore for a variety of reasons. I am a queer gay so there's that, though in my view I don't think thats necessarily contraindicated to christian belief. I don't think I ever properly, fully believed. I have a memory of being maybe 7/8 reading a book on greco-roman mythology and my father telling me not to get confused, because that is NOT the real thing. I remember thinking isn't it all just parables to teach the ideals that culture valued? Around ten I realized no, this is meant to be real. When I had my confirmation classes I tried to ask questions. The elder told me essentially to shut up, if I wanted to have a church family and community I would toe the line. That certainly didn't help. It's a long story that ends with me being mostly estranged from my family and I'm pretty sure I'm persona non grata at the church community I was raised in. That essentially brings us back around to limited atonement. 2 Timothy 1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," I was not taught that it is impossible to resist, moreso being the elect means that it was predestined through god's will that you would be saved. Heavenly father made you after all, he knows who is destined for salvation and who isn't.
To clarify the Lutheran position. We do believe that anyone who partakes of the sacrament (bread and wine) does truest partake of Christs body and blood orally (regardless of faith) We do affirm we orally receive Christ. The quote that said “not physically by the mouth” is in context about the rejection of Capernaitic eating (Cannibalism). So in context we believe that the body and blood of Christ are present in an unexplainable heavenly mode which does not change the elements of the bread and wine, but when orally received we do partake substantially of both. In this way we do physical partake of Christ (orally) however he is not present in a physical, spacial mode, he is present heavenly in an unexplainable mode. How he can be in heaven bodily yet also in the Eucharist is the finite capable of the infinite.
Why not just say we receive the true body and blood of Jesus Christ -- your explanation is too wordy and confuses even me a Lutheran. It sounds like you only receive a symbol of 'the true body and blood of Jesus Christ'.
@@johnmarquardt1991 because what do you mean by “body and blood of Christ”? Do you mean his physical body as in transubstantiation? The Lutheran confessions reject a corporeal mode of presence. Lutherans also do not believe the elements change, another distinction. We have a unique theology, why obscure it ?
@@WaterMelon-Cat I've heard some lutherans but mostly evangelicals claim that effectively it's the same as what the Eastern Orthodox believe. This somewhat sounds akin to metaousia but I've also seen an Eastern Orthodox priest say that their doctrine isn't the same and you also just said that the theology itself is unique. Would you be able to explain what the distinctions are in either doctrine? Personally, if I had to explain it and in the context of the reformation, it's an "acceptance of the real presence along with an explicit rejection of transubstantiation"
I guess Ive always seen it as symbolic as Jesus himself did it symbolically the 1st time. Its a time of reverance to reflect on Christ's sacrafice. What ever way someone views it, I think its a beautiful reminder of His love for us.
Fascinating, though a bit sad, but interesting to see the myriad of imaginings of communion practices. Love that Buzz Aldrin took communion on the moon! Did not even know about that!
I am Catholic. In my Parish we usually have both bread and wine. Some masses only the priest receives the wine, like tonight's Mass (the Vigil Mass for the Assumption of St. Mary) because we didn't have enough extrordinary ministers of the Eucharist present.
Withholding the cup from the laity is, or was , considered a papal abuse of the sacrament, hence, the reformation during Luther's time. Scripture simply said " TAKE AND EAT, TAKE AND DRINK." There is no historic biblical pedigree to this practice. I know the belief is that the blood is contained within the body( bread), but there really is no need to go there.
666 is the Papacy Mark of Beast (KJV Rev 13:16 to 18) a)his mark (of authority) b) his name &the number of his name (666) Only the Papacy fulfills all criteria A) He wears 3 tiered tiara to denote authority in heaven, earth and sea. The Roman Decretalia states the Pope can free himself from the commands of the apostles, he being their superior, and from the rules of the Old Testament,” “The pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.”-Decretal de Translat. Episcop. Cap. To receive the pope's mark is to agree to his authority in your mind and in your actions (Rev 13:16) i.e to change God's day of worship to Sunday when it has been the Sabbath day since Genesis. Currently the Papacy is working with leaders to impose a forced day of worship of SUNday i.e Lucifer whereas God's mark or sign on His people Has been Sabbath Keeping Ezekiel 20:20, Exodus 31:13, 17 B) The Pope has many blasphemous titles such as Holy Father, Vicar of Christ(substitute for Christ, Vicarivs Fili Dei) VICARIVS (means in place of /Substitute) V=5 I= 1 C=100 A & R= 0 I=1 V=5 S=0 = 121 FILII -( son ) F=0 I=1 L=50 I=1 I=1 =53 DEI (God) D=500 E=0 I=1 =501 112 + 53 + 501 = 666 Other titles include Dvx Cleri (Captain of the Clergy) D = 500 V= 5 X = 10 C = 100 L = 50 E/R=0 I = 1 666 C) Here are examples of Anti-Christ practices the Papacy permits *'changing' God's laws The Catholic 10 Commandments found in Catechisms Sections 2052 -2557 are DIFFERENT to God's 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20. Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Dark Ages= RCC persecution of the saints via various torturous, barbarous methods i.e Spanish Inquisition, Various massacres and martyrdom of individuals against the RCC and its teachings Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. * Pope declared as Christ the pope] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Source: Pope Leo XIII, Encyclica letter tte Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae *RCC priests declared as Christ Thus the priest, as is said with good reason, is indeed "another Christ"; for, in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ. ...Source: Pope Pius XI, Encyclical lettw AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII 1935. *Mary Declared The Mediator Of Salvation by RCC 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; www.biblelightinfo.com
Your research is amazing, I don’t know how you gather such large amounts of data. Can I suggest a few videos about the influencers of Christian culture and their denominations or traditions that trickled down? An obvious one is Martin Luther, but there are so many unknown people who made large impacts in the land scape of Christian culture. I find it so interesting that Charles Finney is usually given responsibility for the altar call although most Baptist leaders have dismissed his doctrinal beliefs. One of my favorite influencers is George Muller. What a life of trust he demonstrated. I’d be so curious to know If he contributed to Christian culture in any way besides the legacy of his journaling. Thanks for all the great info.
I was raised in the Church of the Brethren and we had Love Feast twice a year, which is the closest thing to communion. The congregation would do feet washing and then partake of grape juice and leaven bread, followed by a pot-luck dinner.
I’m fairly traditional liturgically, but even I have celebrated the Eucharist, with friends around a table at a pub, using red wine and garlic bread as the Eucharistic elements.
At about 10:31 you said that the Blood was in the Orthodox Chalice. Actually when Holy Communion is given to the laity, both the Body and Blood are in the chalice. The priests adds the particules to the chalice before the laity is served. On the spoon is a small piece of the Body and there is some Blood. The communicant takes both this way. It cannot and should not be altered no matter what government "expert" says. We go by Tradition as the norm, not as something we keep because we think it is nice. That is one of the major differences between us and all other groups that call themselves Christian. We follow the Tradition of the Apostles. I noticed that you somewhat corrected yourself later which is very good and shows that you do know and did a lot of research on the topics.
666 is the Papacy Mark of Beast (KJV Rev 13:16 to 18) a)his mark (of authority) b) his name &the number of his name (666) Only the Papacy fulfills all criteria A) He wears 3 tiered tiara to denote authority in heaven, earth and sea. The Roman Decretalia states the Pope can free himself from the commands of the apostles, he being their superior, and from the rules of the Old Testament,” “The pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.”-Decretal de Translat. Episcop. Cap. To receive the pope's mark is to agree to his authority in your mind and in your actions (Rev 13:16) i.e to change God's day of worship to Sunday when it has been the Sabbath day since Genesis. Currently the Papacy is working with leaders to impose a forced day of worship of SUNday i.e Lucifer whereas God's mark or sign on His people Has been Sabbath Keeping Ezekiel 20:20, Exodus 31:13, 17 B) The Pope has many blasphemous titles such as Holy Father, Vicar of Christ(substitute for Christ, Vicarivs Fili Dei) VICARIVS (means in place of /Substitute) V=5 I= 1 C=100 A & R= 0 I=1 V=5 S=0 = 121 FILII -( son ) F=0 I=1 L=50 I=1 I=1 =53 DEI (God) D=500 E=0 I=1 =501 112 + 53 + 501 = 666 Other titles include Dvx Cleri (Captain of the Clergy) D = 500 V= 5 X = 10 C = 100 L = 50 E/R=0 I = 1 666 C) Here are examples of Anti-Christ practices the Papacy permits *'changing' God's laws The Catholic 10 Commandments found in Catechisms Sections 2052 -2557 are DIFFERENT to God's 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20. Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Dark Ages= RCC persecution of the saints via various torturous, barbarous methods i.e Spanish Inquisition, Various massacres and martyrdom of individuals against the RCC and its teachings Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. * Pope declared as Christ the pope] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Source: Pope Leo XIII, Encyclica letter tte Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae *RCC priests declared as Christ Thus the priest, as is said with good reason, is indeed "another Christ"; for, in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ. ...Source: Pope Pius XI, Encyclical lettw AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII 1935. *Mary Declared The Mediator Of Salvation by RCC 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; www.biblelightinfo.com
The United Church of Canada seems to be going off the edge of a steep cliff. Some of the churches in town are now mosques, others are now music halls and a few are barely holding on.
I'm Episcopalian and we can come to the rail and kneel, but we also have a standing station. Sip from the chalice or intinction. I prefer to sip. I've never gotten sick from this. It feels much more sacred than an individual cup of grape juice to me.
@alanduff2205 Ha! I guess it's comments like yours that kept me from The Word of God for most of my life. Thankfully, God is my judge, and not you. He knows the truth while you are just making assumptions. I hope you remember to tidy your own room before you tell your brother how to clean his.
@Qwerty-jy9mj it's wine. Sorry, I wasn't trying to make any judgments on anyone. I'm just a new Christian who loves my church, and was sharing how we do it in the spirit of the video that was sharing this type of information. It's just my experience. I'm not trying to take away from anyone else's church not trying to be mean spirited. I'm just happy to be following Jesus after ignoring him for 40 + years of my life.
@alanduff2205 Also, my priest isn't gay, but I assume that he is human and, therefore, is a sinner. What is the real church I should attend that has sinless clergy? I am not a young person, but I am new to this, and would like to know the correct church if you have the answer to that.
So, are you going to visit the Blessed Sacrament in Eucharistic adoration? If you already deny it, don’t bother. If you would like to know the Truth, I humbly recommend you look up your local Catholic parish and visit when the Blessed Sacrament is ‘adored’! ;)
Read the Articles of Faith, the 49 Articles, in the BCP. The Gnesio-Lutherans saw the so-called 'via media' solution of Lizzie Tudor for what it was, Calvinism with an option to dress up.
@@philodendron6 also not all calvinism is calvinism. strict BCP teaching is calvinistic buuuuuuuuuuut no anglican is required to subscribe to the three forms of unity. thus there is ever inherent ambiguity in the XXXIX articles concerning any 'reformed' teaching
@@HenryLeslieGraham 'Not all calvinism is calvinism.' Not all cannabilism is cannabilism. The Lutherans, and Catholics, saw what the Articles were regarding, 'Mass', a barely disguised Calvinist interpretation of the Real Presence. No wonder Rome refuted, along with the Orthodox, the validity of anglican ordinations and the Eucharist. No amount of mitres, crosiers, smells and bells, the Adiaphora, can hide Anglicanism as nothing more than Jean Calvin fopping about.
He was the word that spake it/He took the bread & brake it./And what His word did make it,/That I believe & take it." It is a Mystery; the details are not to be defined too stringently.
1:08:30 The fancy technical term for non-practice is "adeipnonism" (from Greek "a deipnon", meaning "no meal"), just in case you want to annoy your friends.
I was once visiting an Orthodox Church in Augusta,Georgia where they give communion to young children. A young boy received communion and then spit it out on the floor. The priest hurriedly retrieved the host with cloth but I did not see what he did with it.
While it is often stated that the Orthodox understanding of Eucharistic sacrifice is virtually the same as that of Roman Catholicism, at least some within Orthodoxy would hold a different opinion. Certainly there is no denial of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ (and Christ's "soul and Divinity") after the completion of the consecration. Anyway, it is noted that in Roman Catholicism, the priest reciting the words of institution are considered to consecrate the sacrament. In Orthodoxy, this is not the case. In Orthodoxy, the words of institution are repeated, but then, The bread and wine are offered, but the offering is seen as the offering of the entire cosmos to the Father in Thanksgiving. It is only after this offering, "thine own, of thine own, we offer unto thee [O Lord] in behalf of all [things] and for all [persons]" that the Holy Spirit is invoked to sanctify the congregation present and to consecrate the bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ. Then, once Christ is deemed to be present on the altar, the priest then offers prayer for the Church both on Earth and in heaven. There is also prayer that all who receive the body and blood of Christ do so worthily and are thereby further united with Christ and sanctified.
Just one question: if the offering is seen as the offering of the entire cosmos, what exactly is the “sacrifice of the Mass” for the Orthodox then? I ask b/c numerous Orthodox pages/parish websites will say that they do believe in it in a similar way/the same way Roman Catholics do. If the bread and wine are not considered consecrated by the time they are offered to the Father, where exactly does the “sacrifice of Calvary” take place?
@@jatar6605 it would not be seen as a repetition of Calvary, but the sacrificed and resurrected Christ (who, after all, remains eternally sacrificed although risen to die no more) is considered to be present in the bread and wine after the invocation of the Holy Spirit.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj that may be the opinion of some, but typically, I would say that this notion is not emphasized the way it is in the RCC. Remember that the moment of consecration it's not the recitation of the words of institution, but the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts.
@@jimbobjones5972 the the eastern Catholic rites, the rite is different and it's not specified to happen at the utterance of the words of consecration, but we would still say that the priest acts in persona Christi It's hard for me to imagine the eucharistic liturgy as something other than a representation of calvary, I don't get it.
@ReadytoHarvest you may be interested to know there are churches where the minister explicitly denies that the host and the cup are the body and blood of the LORD. the minister will say 'this bread ONLY represents His body' and 'this juice only represents his blood'. the minister may say explicitly that the elements are 'just symbolic'. these churches will remain nameless. but they exist.
I have seen a PCUSA church do this. That’s the only time I’ve encountered it. But if you actually drilled down I’m sure tons of Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, even others like Methodists and Roman Catholics, actually believe this.
The church I was raised in was Conservative Baptist (the convention now has a warm fuzzy name). We were a grape juice and stale cracker kind of church. One Sunday I recall someone performing the communion service and saying, "This represents My body.". Even as someone who was quite comfortable with a memorialist view, that wasn't okay. It must have been something others weren't okay with, either, because I never heard that again. But it happens. I have since been confirmed in the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod, and I think hearing the words of Christ changed that day planted a seed against the memorialist view.
@@angiebee2225 thank you for sharing. I have had a similar experience. I now strongly oppose a memoralist view. I hold to something between sacramental union and transubstantiation
@@silversurfer2703 the lutheran view sometimes called consubstantiation (there are issues with this term) but preferably called sacramental union, is simply that the body and blood are unified with the elements of communion after (at the moment of) consecration. that is to say the body of christ is present in, under, and over the elements, the means of which remain a mystery. that is the body of christ is present, yet the bread remains bread. the communicant truly consumes the body of the lord, but also consumes bread. the reason for this language is to avoid scholastic/philosophical language which sought to circumscribe and detail the manner in which the elements become the body and blood of the lord and the status the elements thereafter. Lutherans differ in practice on what to do with the leftover elements. but i would imagine the most conservative denoms would consume the leftovers reverently.
Officially in the LDS faith it is called the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which is commonly abbreviated to just the Sacrament. In spite of the name, LDS consider it to be an ordinance.
@@DavidPeel-fo9xv As a practical matter I suppose that is true, however official manuals and handbooks use "Sacrament" as a proper name, and "ordinance" as an generic term for an act performed by the power of the Priesthood.
LDS are not Christians. They cannot recite the Nicene nor Apostles Creed and thus are not Christian in denomination or sect. They are their own breed of religion in which Jesus Christ is included in the greater scheme of things (which are totally not of Christian theology).
σῶμα sōma so'-mah From G4982; the body (as a sound whole), used in a very wide application, literally or figuratively: - bodily, body, slave. Though I am not a Greek expert so'mah seems to lend itself to figurative and or literal wide application with emphasis on wide application That's what the bible says. Remembering what Christ did is the purpose turning into a law is what Christ freed us from. in other words we are commanded to remember not obligate to ourselves to a ritual. RTH does great content very well informed and very helpful.
I hope people who’ve watched this will look into WHY it’s a “punishment” to NOT receive the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist). Look into WHY you must examine yourself before receiving or else eat or drink damnation upon yourself. - a symbolic or spiritual view doesn’t pose much consequence. - so why so much consequence?
Real presence isn't Catholic Trans. View. Ask yourself why cannibalism was forbidden and Jesus fulfilled the Law : he didn't change cannibalism to be justified now. .
@@davidjanbaz7728 Think paschal lamb. Think “Lamb of God.” Think “Lamb of God who came to take the sin of the world.” Then read my previous comment again.
@@SolaPastora Every memorialist/spiritual presence believer I talked to believes the sacrament/ordinance give grace or at least strenghten faith, and an unworthy reception will result in condemnation. Kinda like if you wipe your *ss with the US flag in front of the president, you will face consequences, even if the president is not physically present in the flag. What I found is that in the understanding of the effects and benefits of the Eucharist, Christians are more united that may seem. It is primarily the substance of the Eucharistic elements itself which is so often questioned.
@@daliborbenes5025 That’s fine. I’d get more offended by an EO who devalues the consecrated elements (as some presbyters do), and memorialists who take the faith alone approach to grace. Wiggle room, wishy washy should be avoided.
Wow, that’s a lot of different procedures for various churches! I heard you mention the forgiveness of sins as one of the purposes of communion for one of the denominations. What other churches/denominations say the communicant receives from consuming the communion (or loses if they don’t)?
did not realise there are so many different ways of doing this. If i visited another church and saw as different way if receiving communion I would notice it but would not call heresy (unless there is real heresey going on) and it is not really specified in the Bible in exact terms how the ritualistic part of communion goes. In all cases, I would only expect reverence.
In Hong Kong Catholic churches, lay intinction is permitted, wherein the communicant first receives from one mininster in the hand then walks to another minister and dips the host into the chalice himself. I am no fan of this practice and must admit I received in this manner before,but now believe it to be an abuse.
666 is the Papacy Mark of Beast (KJV Rev 13:16 to 18) a)his mark (of authority) b) his name &the number of his name (666) Only the Papacy fulfills all criteria A) He wears 3 tiered tiara to denote authority in heaven, earth and sea. The Roman Decretalia states the Pope can free himself from the commands of the apostles, he being their superior, and from the rules of the Old Testament,” “The pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.”-Decretal de Translat. Episcop. Cap. To receive the pope's mark is to agree to his authority in your mind and in your actions (Rev 13:16) i.e to change God's day of worship to Sunday when it has been the Sabbath day since Genesis. Currently the Papacy is working with leaders to impose a forced day of worship of SUNday i.e Lucifer whereas God's mark or sign on His people Has been Sabbath Keeping Ezekiel 20:20, Exodus 31:13, 17 B) The Pope has many blasphemous titles such as Holy Father, Vicar of Christ(substitute for Christ, Vicarivs Fili Dei) VICARIVS (means in place of /Substitute) V=5 I= 1 C=100 A & R= 0 I=1 V=5 S=0 = 121 FILII -( son ) F=0 I=1 L=50 I=1 I=1 =53 DEI (God) D=500 E=0 I=1 =501 112 + 53 + 501 = 666 Other titles include Dvx Cleri (Captain of the Clergy) D = 500 V= 5 X = 10 C = 100 L = 50 E/R=0 I = 1 666 C) Here are examples of Anti-Christ practices the Papacy permits *'changing' God's laws The Catholic 10 Commandments found in Catechisms Sections 2052 -2557 are DIFFERENT to God's 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20. Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Dark Ages= RCC persecution of the saints via various torturous, barbarous methods i.e Spanish Inquisition, Various massacres and martyrdom of individuals against the RCC and its teachings Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. * Pope declared as Christ the pope] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Source: Pope Leo XIII, Encyclica letter tte Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae *RCC priests declared as Christ Thus the priest, as is said with good reason, is indeed "another Christ"; for, in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ. ...Source: Pope Pius XI, Encyclical lettw AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII 1935. *Mary Declared The Mediator Of Salvation by RCC 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; www.biblelightinfo.com
The book, Amongst Us our Beloved Stands by Michael A. G. Haykin is a great read to get an introduction to the development of Baptist understanding of the sacraments over time, particularly the Lord’s Supper. The earliest Baptists had a Calvinistic understanding, rather than the Zwinglian understanding that is more common today. It does focus largely on Particular Baptists, but does make occasional reference to General Baptists.
If you are a Baptist, your statement of faith usually has something similar to We believe that the law of God is the eternal and unchangeable rule of His moral government.” “Baptist Church Manual,” Art. 12. Your ministers know that you are worshipping on the Catholic day of worship (Sunday) and not the Biblical Day of worship (Sabbath Exod 20: 8-11). A baptist is an indirect catholic. Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, author of the Baptist Manual states that “Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask: ‘Where can the record of this transaction be found? Not in the New Testament-absolutely not. There is no scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week.
@silversurfer2703 As an affirmation of fellowship with those who are unwilling or unable to take the Sacrament; e.g. non Orthodox Christians who may be present.
It's called "antidoron," which means "not the gift"; i. e. it is bread taken from the same loaf as was the bread that got consecrated, but the antidoron remains unconsecrated.
@@aLadNamedNathancorrect the antidoron is “instead of the gifts”. My priest cuts out a piece of the prosphora then I cut the prosphora into bite size pieces. It is later blessed by the priest after the consecration. I am an adult altar boy
@@aLadNamedNathan His Eminence Metropolitan Savas of Pittsburgh will be tonsuring me a reader next time he comes to visit. But I’ll continue to stay in the altar because that’s where my priest wants me. The goal is to become a sub-deacon after I find a wife
Mark 9:38-41 NKJV [38] Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” [39] But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. [40] For he who is not against us is on our side. [41] For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.
24:45 Might not have been stated, but commonly, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the individual taking the sacrament take it with their right hand and passing with their right hand to the next person down the pew with their right hand as well. Not laid out explicitly anywhere, but I thought I'd give some insight. 29:00 Additionally, as long as the Bishop of the Ward gives the OK (that Sunday or as an ongoing thing, like during the pandemic), a Priesthood-bearer could bless and pass the sacrament to their family any time on Sunday. 45:14 In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, if a Sacrament prayer is not said correctly, it is repeated until it is done so. 52:15 Children can participate in the actions, but we believe that Children "are alive in Christ" until the age of accountability (8).
The LDS church is by definition polytheistic and not Christian. I know this because I was forced into the LDS organization, did my very best to follow the doctrines and went through the temple multiple times. Never was a better day than when I escaped and saw how false all of it was. I hope you find that too.
@@codename495 I'm clarifying a "What is" question, and you come to this comment and *impose* yourself upon it with something not even relevant. All you've done is put your own insecurity out on display for all to see and judge. Not only that, it's the weakest form of argumentation there is (except for name-calling). All this shows is a thoughtless and mentally-unstable approach you took to your situation and are looking for "Oh dear God PLEASE"-tier any reinforcement of that poor decision. Now, you're going to hate me for a while (might even respond to this with a "nuh-uh"-tier response and be angry). Consider, instead, reflecting on any decision you make in the future, and making the choice to not respond in the moment.
@@codename495 Your definition is wrong, and your claim of "polytheism" shows a clear lack of understanding. "Escaping" something is pretty easy when all you have to do is stop attending worship services. The truth of God found in the restored Church of Jesus Christ is wonderful.
Never understood those Lutherans and Episcopalians that pour away wine. Just drink it! It is so simple and reverend. If there is a large amount, ask more than one layman to help.
Very interesting. But I don't like how you put non-christian groups (groups that don't believe in the trinity) in here without clarification (like mormons and JWs). Could you explain why you choose to include groups like this in this way?
I just want to say that from my own research and experience, the witnesses basically make a mockery of communion by not allowing all their adult adherents participate. If there was ever a blatant example of apostasy, it's the witnesses. They claim to be the only ones that have the truth. Communion is about affirming that you believe in Jesus, His sacrifice, and that He saved you from eternal damnation. By not allowing their adult adherents to participate in communion, the witnesses are literally denying salvation. I love communion now that I know its true purpose
Imagine having God giving us a whole new covenant based on a true and living relationship with Him and then we just create these non-ending theoretical religious explanations focusing on elementary principles of the world.
To clarify the historical Lutheran majority position: baptism, confession, absolution, and Eucharist can be validly but not licitly performed by the laity, as in an emergency when no ordained pastor is available. Also, the eucharist will only consubstantiate if the recipient is a believer. Sorry satanists, host desecration is off the table.
I know. I truly hope that in the totality of this video some people's eyes are opened to the wickedness of such doctrines. I don't think anything other than demonic manifestations can explain such things. They are certainly speaking from reported and/or personal experiences.
46:00 I would suggest that all those easy going and easy living Lutherans review what Luther did when some wine was spilled. He got down and lapped it up with his tongue. Now there is a real Lutheran!
@@P-el4zd Good thing the vast majority of historic Protestantism wasn't Zwinglian then! And I like how you say 'Lutherans and Anglicans only', as if they aren't arguably two thirds (or possibly two quarters, i.e. half) of the major Reformation movements.
@@Mic1904 Sadly the largest single group Americans protestants are Baptist/Evangelical gnostic Zwinglians. Zwingli and Calvin are essentially in agreement, they both believe the Eucharist is merely bread and wine. Those churches who follow the theology of Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin do not believe in the real corporal presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Rather, they believe in representation, that bread and wine only represent the body and blood of Christ. From his misunderstanding of the two natures in Christ. Zwingli revived the error of Nestorius, who denied there was a sharing of attributes between the two natures in Christ. Zwingli did not believe that the human nature of Christ could share in the attributes of his divine nature and still remain human. “the finite is not capable of the infinite”-(Latin: finitum non est capax infiniti).
@@P-el4zd Just how did you come to that conclusion? Nestorian theology has nothing to do with the Eucharist. Neither Zwingli nor Calvin was Nestorian in their theology on Christ's nature, what you are doing here is simply false confirmation, "If they don't believe in actual presence, they must also believe that Christ's two natures are not shared and are totally distinct like Nestorian thought ". This an unfounded assumption, btw, Cavin never denied the presence of Christ in the substance, he just defined it further by saying that it is a spiritual presence, God is after all spirit so there is no confusion.
Yes...that's correct...and the Catholic Church denies it to laity. When we say cup we mean the wine. I know it's confusing. Traditional Lutheran is like in the Bible...bread and then the cup with real, non-watered down wine
You left out 2 important facts. Only a validly ordained Catholic/Orthodox priest can consecrate the Eucharist. In other words the minister must be validly ordained. Secondly the dogma for Catholics is that we believe the Eucharist is the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. You cannot remain Catholic and not hold this view. Also it is essential to read Johns Gospel Chapter 6 to understand this doctrine properly. It is the only time in Sacred Scripture where Jesus's' followers leave him over what He taught. On hearing it many of them said, "This is a hard saying, and who can accept it" and they walked with Him no more". (John 6:60). And Christ turns to the Apostles and doubles down ! "Will you also leave" He challenges them ? and Peter famously answers. Also it is this doctrine where Judas makes the break. Later we learn that Judas is a traitor and a thief, but it is right here that Judas falls away from Christ. (John 6.70) Judas rejects what Christ teaches on the Eucharist and he doesn't leave, and here, for the first time, we see Our Beloved Messiah say, "...but one of you is a demon". Lets face it, Jesus just said, "Unless you eat my body, and drink my blood you will have no life in you" and He says it 5 times in this passage. The Catholic Church has taught this dogma for 2000 years because Jesus taught it and there is no modifying it.
I can't even imagine how much research this video took, nor how many times you must have had to re-record a part of it when you messed up a line. You did very well!
I've gotten quite good at repeating the same line six times. And then finally getting it right on the seventh.
@@ReadyToHarvestis it the same when you're teaching classes? I had several professors that had to take multiple tries sometimes, but they were honestly some of the best.
@@RealSeanithan I'm better at not messing up when I'm speaking regularly than when I have a script I am reading. But with a script I don't go running down rabbit trails.
Wikipedia
@@geodavras websites he linked?
Just want to say: your thorough research is IMMENSELY appreciated!!
I found your channel while I was researching different doctrines, and now I would have to say it's one of my favorite channels! And most useful!! Thank you for all your research!! (:
Did you do this with zero cuts? This is a long video with a lot of information. I'm impressed.
It's my ninja editing skills. I'm not that good of a speaker! :-)
Joshua: I’ve been following you for awhile. I add to the chorus praising your even hand and well researched objective data! This is your masterpiece, sir! Accurate and fair, I’m glad for what you are doing.
Thank you, Steve! It was a big task and I'm so glad you enjoyed it.
It would be interesting a video about what different denominations say about ordination!
That would be wonderful actually. It’s not something folks think about as much as something like soteriology or sacramentology, but there are some pretty big differences there. It’s something I need to explore more myself.
😮😮😮 YES, PLEASE!!!!! 😅😅
Agreed, but likely much more challenging to research.
Especially when you consider that Joe Exotic was ordained minister (Universal Life Church) xD
He would need to split up the differences within denominations I would imagine. Ie. Wels and elca.
Heartfelt thanks for your comprehensive, respectful, and reverent presentation
of the variations of theology and practice among various Christian denominations with regard to Communion/The Lord's Supper. It was very clearly presented and most helpful to all who are interested in this subject.
You are to be commended for the amount of work involved in this presentation. I'm rather overwhelmed by the amount of ritual surrounding what I think of as a simple memorial.
Thanks for this great video. Absolutely loved it. I’m high church Anglican.
If you are a Anglican, know that even your ministers know that you are worshipping on the Catholic day of worship (Sunday) and not the Biblical Day of worship (Sabbath Exod 20: 8-11).⁷
And where are we told in the Scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day… The reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the Church, has enjoined it.” Isaac Williams, Plain Sermons on the Catechism, pages 334, 336.
Anglican: “Many people think that Sunday is the Sabbath, but neither in the New Testament nor in the early church, is there anything to suggest that we have any right to transfer the observance of the seventh day of the week to the first. The Sabbath was and is Saturday and not Sunday…” Rev. Lionel Beere, Church and People, September 1, 1947.
The didache: On the Lord’s day, when you have been gathered together, break bread and celebrate the Eucharist. But first confess your sins so that your offering may be pure. If anyone has a quarrel with his neighbor, that person should not join you until he has been reconciled. Your sacrifice must not be defiled. In this regard, the Lord has said: In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice. I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is great among the nations.
The Didache references Malachi 1:11. My understanding is The sacrifice is one of praise and thanksgiving not a propitiatory one.
@@robertdelisle7309 i think the sacrifice we make now is also that of celebration. We call each church service mass which means feast. The propitiation happened on the cross. The sacrifice we make is that of ourselves…. Christianity 101
@@timboslice980 I agree the Eucharist is also a celebration. The big difference in terms of sacrifice between Roman Catholic and Protestant is the Catholic view of propitiation in the Eucharist.
The Protestants view the propitiation of the cross happened one time and offered up one time and a Christian receives the salvific effects of it by putting their faith in Christ.
Roman Catholics view the Eucharist, as being the same sacrifice of the cross re-presented, but offered up perpetually. It is by eating it that the salvific effects are received by the Christian.
Is that your understanding?
@@robertdelisle7309 yeah i think that about covers it. As long as the protestant doesnt think its a different sacrifice and understands that its salvific benefits come from the original passion of the lord. Like you said its a representation of that sacrifice, a reapplication of the same benefits for those that are in christ, and a celebration/participation in that sacrifice. Mass means feast, and feasts are celebrations, idk if an orthodox person would articulate it in the same way but i know our beliefs are very similar.
@@timboslice980 The term "mass" is a derivation of the Latin phrase "Ite, missa est." Those are the final words of the service in the Latin rite. They literally mean "Go, you are dismissed." So, it was the one Latin phrase everyone learned because they were all waiting for the service to end! They ended up calling the service itself Missa which evolved into Mass. The feast meaning is a retroactive one. I'm not Catholic but I learned this from a priest while teaching a comparative religions class.
This is a great video. I did laugh out loud when you mentioned "sending jesus though the mail" regarding remote communion.
Im leery of sending birthday cards!
@@FranzAntonMesmer I missed that one.
The first Christians were much more comfortable with divine mystery.
After all, Genesis one tells us that this material reality was spun out of nothing from the mind of God by Breath and Word. It is sustained the same way, moment by moment (Hebrews 1:2-3).
Trying to overly define things in abstract concepts is what has led to multiple schisms.
You've got the cart before the horse. It was heretics who defined things incorrectly that forced the Church to produce detailed explanations of things that had only been mysteries before the heretics started teaching falsehoods.
God is Love. Therefore He did not make the universe out of nothing; He made it out of Love. Everything is God's substance.
@@iuutoobGod is love
Therefore he created with Love
That is a non sequitor. Your conclusion does not follow premise.
People thinking they have the right to decide what is and is not true doctrine is what has led to schism
@@iuutoobthat is a non sequitor. God is Holy. Does that mean he created things out of holiness?
I am constantly impressed with your objective, unbiased, straightforward, just the facts presentations.
As a Real Presence enjoyer, I really respect the Protestants who DONT believe it’s the real presence, but still treat it reverently. No matter what our belief, it should absolutely be approached with respect
Agreed. There is a notable absence of respect in numerous denominations
For real. Even though I do view the communion as a symbolic memorial, that does not lessen it's importance at all. It is a commandment to partake, and to partake with the right mindset and heart. I also do believe that the Lord's spiritual presence is there with us when we commune, just that he meant it metaphorically that we are eating him. His presence is bound to us honoring him and proclaiming his death, not the literal matzo bread and grape juice that we traditionally use. I am a member of the church of Christ and while we are one of the memorial, low church style sects, we hold VERY strongly to the view that it is a required element of worship and do it every single week as the central point of the service. The Lord's Supper is WHY we meet every Sunday, all the other worship elements are a bonus.
I grew up Catholic, but now attend a UMC church. I do feel that the Methodist view on communion is lacking.
Very comprehensive, and a good understanding of what others believe about the Eucharist/Communion!
I think that the Orthodox view "it's a mystery" may be the best answer to the question.
That's a much vast topic that it seems. If Thomas Aquinas was not trying to justify everything through dialectics and human reasoning he might not have made huge errors such as the justification of coercion and violence in matters of faith (he justified capital punishment towards heretics in Summa Theologica).
The Roman Church likes to remind everyone that our Lord called saint Peter "Peter" when he spoke words inspired by God.
I never heard a Roman Catholic reminding us that our Lord also called saint Peter "Satan" when he spoke his own mind and ordered him to stand behind Him.
The orthodox Church always put the sayings of our Lord before whatever thoughts we elaborate as humans and prefers to say "it's a mystery of God's wisdom" rather than pretend we know better
Lord have mercy on us all sinners.
Kyrie eleison ☦️
@charles...:
Or the Catholic view that it's a miracle!
@@Hope_Boat:
I'm Catholic ( the name of our Church is CATHOLIC, not ROMAN Catholic), and every Catholic is aware of Our Lord's words to St. Peter.
As a child in school I had to memorize that Scripture verse, to say every time I was tempted to sin!
Tell me, what was the terrible sin that St. Peter committed that caused Jesus to address him in such a manner?
@@alhilford2345 You are Catholic but not Roman? Do you know your own dogmas?
Dictatus Papae proclaimed
1) The Roman Church was founded by God alone.
2) The Roman Pontiff alone can by right be called Universal.
8) He alone holds the Imperial Insignia (Of Rome)
9) All princes shall kiss the feet of the Pope alone.
26) He who does not concord with the Roman Church shall not be called catholic.
Sounds like the romanity is pretty central to the Catholic Church. Whatever.
What was the question again?
@@alhilford2345 Oh yes. You asked what did St Peter say to justify Jesus called him Satan.
He spoke his own human mind, and wished that Jesus will not be crucified. He wanted a mashiah in the Jewish sens : a king for Israel. Not a servant who washes the feet of random fishermen and dies on a cross like a thief. That's also why the was not enthusiastic when Jesus told him to give his feet to wash.
Kyrie eleison ☦️
Very informative, I really enjoy your videos. Church of Christ member here.
This is very well done and quite extensive. Thank you! While your approach to dealing with the wide range of topics was clear and impressive, I would have appreciated your including Methodist approaches to the real presence of Jesus in the Sacrament. For instance, the official position of the UMC can be found in its "This Holy Mystery" statement from 2004, in which we assert that how Christ's body and blood are made really present in the bread and the cup is a holy mystery, but nevertheless very real. Additionally, in the UMC's Great Thanksgiving the following epiclesis is prayed: "Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here, and on these gifts of bread and wine: make them be for us the body and blood of Christ, that we may be for the world the body of Christ redeemed by his blood." Other Methodists have similar positions and similar sacramental prayers (see the Methodist Church of Great Britain and the AME, AMEZ, and CME in the USA); the GMC has yet to have their first General Conference, so they haven't made any statements on the nature of Communion beyond that found in the Articles of Religion.
The general views of Wesleyan denominations are not commonly talked about on youtube. Then again, Methodists are often stereotyped as less focused on theology than some other groups. When it is discussed, it is sometimes discussed incorrectly. Many seem to believe that many Wesleyan denominations hold to something more like the Calvinist or Baptist position.
Thanks for the great videos!
Glad you like them! I appreciate that!
I've been waiting for this one for a long time. Really impressive.
Fundamentally, the Latins and the Greeks have the same faith as regards the Holy Eucharist. Because both received this faith from the apostles.
It's a bit odd that any single Protestant denomination would think itself correct, in the face of such apostolic unanimity.
💯
With the difference being that orthodox priests mean if when they consecrate the blood of Christ and say 'drink from it all of you' ...
@@Hope_Boat Y'all just can't resist getting in any anti-catholic jab you can, can you? Your incessant chauvinism is the recent restoration of unity is going to be almost impossible
Love these. Thank you 🙏🏻🙏🏻
After attending a church for a while I was invited to 'observe the ordinance'. I wasn't wholly sure what he meant as I'd never heard the term 'ordinance' before only 'ordnance' as in Ordnance Survey maps (official UK maps) and artillery shells. I guessed given the context that it referred to communion but didn't know why. Then I struggled with the word 'observe'. It's awkward and embarrassing when you don't won't to look 'un-Christian' by admitting you haven't a clue what was just offered to you as a sincere guesture of welcome. I was also a bit confused as to the instruction about not sitting in the pews with the members but being able to join in with the hymn. I stayed at the back and watched.
General lesson: if you are talking to people who weren't raised in your local church but are Christians assume that they use different terms for things and do things differently and maybe ask about what they are familiar with so when you speak you do so within their contextual understanding
Was this an LDS church?
Fascinating and detailed, enjoyed this as the Catholic Church has just finished a series on John’s narration in his Gospel of Jesus instituting the Eucharist as a sacrament!
Some Catholic Writings are anti-Bible. For example
Decretals, epistolae decretales, are papal letters that have a claim to universal validity and clarify questions of Church law.
The Roman Decretalia states the Pope can pronounce sentences and judgments in contradiction to the right of nations, and to the law of God and man .... He can free himself from the commands of the apostles, he being their superior, and from the rules of the Old Testament,”
“The pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.”-Decretal de Translat. Episcop. Cap.
The Catholic 10 Commandments found in Catechisms Sections 2052 -2557 are DIFFERENT to God's 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20.
Big cope lol bro, also the commandments were never numbered.
@@xXBlessedXxii:
Ahhh... yes...
The 'Roman Decretalia'.
Also known as the 'False Decretals' or the 'Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals'.
Forged in the ninth century.
Beloved of Ellen White.
Of course they're anti-Bible, because they're not Catholic!
In a church I used to attend, whichever family baked the bread will give a list of those in their extended family or friends for whom they wanted to have prayed for that Sunday.
@ 12:24 "God consistently condemned the drinking of alcoholic beverages."
Where does it say that? I seem to recall wine being consumed quite often in the Bible, including by Jesus Himself. His first miracle in the Gospel of John, for example, was changing water into wine.
Isaiah 5:22-24 “22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:
23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!
24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”
@@nicolassanchez2292That refers to drunkenness.
@@nicolassanchez2292So Jesus was drinking Ocean Spray right?
@@DANtheMANofSIPAWelches.
As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we do believe that Jesus probably drank alcoholic wine. Members who insist otherwise are mistaken - they are trying to make sense of the discrepancy between our current abstaining from alcohol, and the Savior's apparent consumption of it.
The more accurate explanation in our doctrine is simply that God requires different things of His children at different times. For example, the children of Israel had a lower law given because they were not ready for the higher law of Jesus Christ.
In a similar manner, we believe we are now asked to abstain from alcohol all together, because we now have widespread access to clean drinking water, which was a big reason for drinking alcohol in pre modern times. Even in the time of Christ however, it was still taught to not engage in drunkenness.
We believe the purpose of the sacrament is to remember the sacrifice of Christ, and recommit to the covenants we made at baptism. In that regard, the actual emblems of the sacrament are not as important as the feelings one has as they take it. Bread and water is taken because it is readily available, and because bread and water have symbolic meaning.
This is not our doctrine, but my personal thought, that perhaps one reason why we use water in the latter days is because it symbolizes Christ as the living water, and our emphasis on Christ's triumph over death, the reality of His resurrection, while many faiths focus on the cross as a symbol, which we choose not to do - again, as we wish to contemplate the Atonement as the completed victory over sin and death it is.
Thank you for your work. In the future, it would be interesting to see a comparison between liturgies or "worship services" between denominations. God Bless ☦️
Another great video. Thanks for the collection of all the videos into one.
Something interesting to note about the Orthodox view of Adoration is that it is allowed in parishes that observe/practice the Western Rite. The process is identical to Adoration in a Roman/Old Catholic Church or a high-church Anglican community, except that one of the Divine Praises that are read to God (if I remember correctly) declares Mary to be blessed in a way that does not mention the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception since the Orthodox do not hold to that view
The Orthodox Western Rite also does not practice perpetual adoration. Eucharistic adoration usually takes place after a Divine Office, usually Vespers, lasts for 15 to 30 minutes, and ends with a eucharistic benediction, after which the blessed sacrament is returned to the tabernacle.
666 is the Papacy
Mark of Beast (KJV Rev 13:16 to 18)
a)his mark (of authority)
b) his name &the number of his name (666)
Only the Papacy fulfills all criteria
A) He wears 3 tiered tiara to denote authority in heaven, earth and sea.
The Roman Decretalia states the Pope can free himself from the commands of the apostles, he being their superior, and from the rules of the Old Testament,”
“The pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.”-Decretal de Translat. Episcop. Cap.
To receive the pope's mark is to agree to his authority in your mind and in your actions (Rev 13:16) i.e to change God's day of worship to Sunday when it has been the Sabbath day since Genesis. Currently the Papacy is working with leaders to impose a forced day of worship of SUNday i.e Lucifer whereas God's mark or sign on His people
Has been Sabbath Keeping Ezekiel 20:20, Exodus 31:13, 17
B) The Pope has many blasphemous titles such as Holy Father, Vicar of Christ(substitute for Christ, Vicarivs Fili Dei)
VICARIVS (means in place of /Substitute)
V=5 I= 1 C=100 A & R= 0 I=1 V=5 S=0
= 121
FILII -( son )
F=0 I=1 L=50 I=1 I=1 =53
DEI (God)
D=500 E=0 I=1 =501
112 + 53 + 501 = 666
Other titles include
Dvx Cleri (Captain of the Clergy)
D = 500 V= 5 X = 10 C = 100 L = 50 E/R=0 I = 1 666
C) Here are examples of Anti-Christ practices the
Papacy permits
*'changing' God's laws
The Catholic 10 Commandments found in Catechisms Sections 2052 -2557 are DIFFERENT to God's 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20.
Daniel 7:25
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Dark Ages= RCC persecution of the saints via various torturous, barbarous methods i.e Spanish Inquisition, Various massacres and martyrdom of individuals against the RCC and its teachings
Luke 16:17
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
* Pope declared as Christ
the pope] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Source: Pope Leo XIII, Encyclica letter tte Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae
*RCC priests declared as Christ
Thus the priest, as is said with good reason, is indeed "another Christ"; for, in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ. ...Source: Pope Pius XI, Encyclical lettw AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII 1935.
*Mary Declared The Mediator Of Salvation by RCC
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
www.biblelightinfo.com
In the Catholic mass the fraction takes place during the singing of the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world have mercy on us. So the fraction represents the sacrifice of Christ on the cross by which we are forgiven and saved. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a participation in the salvation of the world.
28:06 That is cool that an astronaut 👨🚀had communion on our moon landing in 1969! I did not know that Joshua! Thank you for sharing that with us!
@@CzarLazar1389 I hope would still be on her today! Regardless to a bunch of comparisons, it is what Jesus told us to do in remembrance of Him, and that’s how truly the new covenant Begin!
@@CzarLazar1389
He has to do it in secret even at the time
Very helpful to have the various approaches laid out clearly and concisely. At 9:04 in my experience as a practicing Roman Catholic this is a decision made at the Diocese level by the Bishop rather than at the Parish level. Our Diocese had been giving bread only (in my opinion simple laziness) but our new Bishop announced that communion was to be offered under both species at every Mass, which I subsequently saw being practiced at every Parish I visited.
There are deeper historical reasons why the communion in one kind is usually offered. I can forward a video link explaining it all if you're interested.
Holy Communion under both species is a just one of the aberrations of the Novus Ordo.
I am thankful that many bishops do not permit it.
@@alhilford2345 When you begin considering what Christ commanded us to do an "aberration" it's time to do some soul-searching.
@@anastasijahrsak5751 hey I would like to know the historical reasons. Could you send me that link please?
@@RichardDCook:
When you receive the consecrated Host you are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Our Lord. It is only necessary for the priest to consume both the Body and Blood in order to fulfill the Sacrifice.
I took my cocker spaniel to the Episcopal Church in Barnwell,SC and took the Euchariest using intinction and then gave part to my cocker spaniel. I consider this valid as some translations refer to "salvation for man and beast." (Psalms 36:3)
Might be your best video
27:52 Ready to Harvest prolly the only one on TH-cam who says it with a straight face
Josh knows that makes it even funnier.
This video is done VERY WELL. ❤
Well done! I appreciate this. It is overwhelming. Wow. . . all the different churches and ways to do communion. Who has the right way? I grew up Southern Baptist but have visited an ACNA church this summer. I love the liturgy, but I want to understand why they do communion the way they do.
Maybe your next denominational comparison video should be showing videos how people practice Communion! I thought the one where you did videos on Baptisms was very interesting Joshua!
Firstly, great video as always Joshua.
A few of my thoughts:
I think this video highlights that this issue has become a circus. And please understand, I don't mean this in an insulting manner. I understand this tradition is deeply held by many adherents, as it once was by myself.
Can communion be taken, or is communing an act of engaging with someone? I think the idea of "taking" communion implies that different sorts of spiritual means (like grace, holiness or closeness to God for example) can be obtained through consumption, not through the disposition of the heart through communing with God. As the bible says, in Matthew 15:11 "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” This was very important to cover, because many Jews wanted to carry OT dietary laws into Christianity as mandatory (therefore voiding the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice) In short, what you eat or refrain from eating is not what defiles you. It's what proceeds from you. Luke 6:45 “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart."
FYI, I grew up with the memorial view under AOG, which was held in a reverent way with the the breaking occurring while the passage was read.
I now believe that the Word is talking about communal meals (aka love feasts), explaining that Christians are meant to live life together in communion with one another in unity as one body. Enjoying a meal with people is one of the most intimate actions showing that you are living life together. I think this is clearly supported by some of the issues that Paul addresses in first Corinthians surrounding the Lord's supper. They were partaking in a selfish way, and this was not regarding a wafer and wine. Otherwise the passage doesn't make logical sense.
Of course, this comment is not going into detail, and I don't expect to change anyone's mind. But do consider this. I believe any required ritualistic practice of any kind defeats the entire premise of the NT, which is that the law and sacrifices/rituals couldn't save us. I think such practices greatly weaken the gospel message. Furthermore, it promotes pride through attendance and/or participation. IE, those who don't participate are the less holy or evil ones. And I carefully said "required" above. Because, I think certain traditions can be okay, as long as they don't go against scripture and are not made mandatory. This is a topic in itself, but I think communion as something we ingest is anti-biblical and damaging to the faith. Therefore it should be dispensed with.
Downstream from this topic is the issue of the religious service. Is there such thing as a religious/church service in the NT? Firstly, the church is Christ's people, past, present and future. Not a place of meeting. Services were held in the OT, as rituals/ordinances required directly by God. In the NT, everything should be done from the outflow of the heart, and not by compulsion. In the NT, Jesus wants our entire lives consecrated as a service to Him, not just specific practices in what we call a service. As most know, you can serve God through attendance or rituals, but your heart can be far from Him. This is what the OT teaches through much arduous detail. To call anything other than picking up your cross and continually giving your life to Christ a "service" I strongly believe is a lie, and reverting to the OT system, allowing people to think that their service to God is through a list of boxes that they check off.
Only scratching the surface, but in short, I believe that that name Christianity has ben deeply infiltrated, and the simplicity of the gospel has been turned back into a form of bondage.
I would love to hear people's thoughts on my comment. And please don't confuse my comment with promoting licentiousness. I'm not the "anything goes" type who is trying to deconstruct biblical principle. I believe all principles in the bible are universal, and that we cannot make up our own truth. It's the fear of the Lord that causes me to take the scriptures seriously.
Writing in roughly 150 AD, Justin Martyr describes Christian worship consistent with what is generally practiced to this day (ie, liturgy with readings, prayers, preaching, communion). The begins of these practices are clearly observable in Acts and the letters of Paul, though they are not explicitly assembled into a start-to-finish ritual. That assemblage occurs sometime between c.30 Ad to c.150 AD, to the point that very similar practice is observed by in most places.
Essentially, your position amounts to believing that the true gospel was universally replaced by a false gospel in well under 100 years since the death of the Apostles.
@@jonathanstensberg Though there is certainly wisdom to be gleaned from history, in which I study. I do not look to post biblical figures for authoritative interpretation of doctrine. And yes, I believe true Christianity went underground fairly quickly. By the time it was made the religion of Rome I believe it was severely doctrinally eroded. And it appears to me there was much build up until that point. I believe that people are the same as they always have been, and truth can deteriorate quickly among the masses, as the stories in the OT highlight. I certainly believe that there have been true Christians at all times since Christ, though I don't think they are represented by institutionalized religion.
I'm an atheist, so you can take this with as much salt as you like, but I was raised in the Presbyterian church. The limited atonement viewpoint is a bit Calvinistic, so a bit puritanical for the average evangelical, but ultimately I think encompasses some of your thinking. As part of God's plan, jesus' death atones for your sins if you are pure of soul and a true beliver.
Particularly, I don't mind at all your points about pageantry being elitist and distancing from the message. If the church is when people gather, and we commune with one another, what use do we have for a plate full of crackers and wine. However, some may take issue, as the communion is part of the lords prayer and all that.
@@Iffysiffy1524 Thanks for responding. We might have a differing understanding of what limited atonement is referring to in the Calvinist context. My understanding has been historically that means that Jesus died only for the predestined elect. Specifically, those in whom he has drawn to Himself through grace that is impossible for the individual to resist. I don't hold to this view, and personally think it is a grave distortion of scripture. Is that how you understand limited atonement?
To further clarify some of my original points. I don't necessarily think that breaking/passing bread around and sharing a cup (or doing in some other similar manner) is necessarily evil. I think that could be an acceptable practice in the context of true communing together in fellowship and remembering the death of Christ. It's just that what I see in the majority of cases has been twisted into a superstitious pagan ceremony, or in other cases (more-so evangelical cases) has devolved into a vain tradition, like Colossians 2:8 warns about.
"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ."
If you are open to sharing. What primarily caused you to distance yourself from the Presbyterianism you grew up with? Did you ever take it to heart or never fully accept the religion proposed throughout your upbringing to begin with? I'm interested in people's stories, especially since I don't view such organizations as true representation of Christ's church (though some truth is sprinkled in and some people may have a pure disposition of the heart following God to the best of their understanding).
@@JDsVarietyChannel I'm going to go bottom to top with my reply. I'm not religious anymore for a variety of reasons. I am a queer gay so there's that, though in my view I don't think thats necessarily contraindicated to christian belief. I don't think I ever properly, fully believed. I have a memory of being maybe 7/8 reading a book on greco-roman mythology and my father telling me not to get confused, because that is NOT the real thing. I remember thinking isn't it all just parables to teach the ideals that culture valued? Around ten I realized no, this is meant to be real. When I had my confirmation classes I tried to ask questions. The elder told me essentially to shut up, if I wanted to have a church family and community I would toe the line. That certainly didn't help. It's a long story that ends with me being mostly estranged from my family and I'm pretty sure I'm persona non grata at the church community I was raised in.
That essentially brings us back around to limited atonement. 2 Timothy 1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," I was not taught that it is impossible to resist, moreso being the elect means that it was predestined through god's will that you would be saved. Heavenly father made you after all, he knows who is destined for salvation and who isn't.
To clarify the Lutheran position. We do believe that anyone who partakes of the sacrament (bread and wine) does truest partake of Christs body and blood orally (regardless of faith) We do affirm we orally receive Christ. The quote that said “not physically by the mouth” is in context about the rejection of Capernaitic eating (Cannibalism). So in context we believe that the body and blood of Christ are present in an unexplainable heavenly mode which does not change the elements of the bread and wine, but when orally received we do partake substantially of both. In this way we do physical partake of Christ (orally) however he is not present in a physical, spacial mode, he is present heavenly in an unexplainable mode. How he can be in heaven bodily yet also in the Eucharist is the finite capable of the infinite.
Wonderfully explained. Always great to see a fellow Lutheran clarifying our often misunderstood view. God bless you.
@@unit2394 peace be with you 😁
Why not just say we receive the true body and blood of Jesus Christ -- your explanation is too wordy and confuses even me a Lutheran. It sounds like you only receive a symbol of 'the true body and blood of Jesus Christ'.
@@johnmarquardt1991 because what do you mean by “body and blood of Christ”? Do you mean his physical body as in transubstantiation? The Lutheran confessions reject a corporeal mode of presence. Lutherans also do not believe the elements change, another distinction. We have a unique theology, why obscure it ?
@@WaterMelon-Cat
I've heard some lutherans but mostly evangelicals claim that effectively it's the same as what the Eastern Orthodox believe. This somewhat sounds akin to metaousia but I've also seen an Eastern Orthodox priest say that their doctrine isn't the same and you also just said that the theology itself is unique. Would you be able to explain what the distinctions are in either doctrine?
Personally, if I had to explain it and in the context of the reformation, it's an "acceptance of the real presence along with an explicit rejection of transubstantiation"
I guess Ive always seen it as symbolic as Jesus himself did it symbolically the 1st time. Its a time of reverance to reflect on Christ's sacrafice.
What ever way someone views it, I think its a beautiful reminder of His love for us.
I did not know about Buzz Aldrin's communion, facinating.
Fascinating, though a bit sad,
but interesting to see the myriad of imaginings of communion practices.
Love that Buzz Aldrin took communion on the moon! Did not even know about that!
I am Catholic. In my Parish we usually have both bread and wine. Some masses only the priest receives the wine, like tonight's Mass (the Vigil Mass for the Assumption of St. Mary) because we didn't have enough extrordinary ministers of the Eucharist present.
Did the Priest hold a Vigil Mass tonight, because he has another Church to Pastor tomorrow...?
If so, we may be in the same Parish.
In many parishes in my area they reserve the wine for Sunday Mass. for Saturday vigils only the priest receives the wine.
I grew up Catholic, and know a lot of Catholics that don't drink the wine. Germs being the biggest factor.
Withholding the cup from the laity is, or was , considered a papal abuse of the sacrament, hence, the reformation during Luther's time. Scripture simply said " TAKE AND EAT, TAKE AND DRINK." There is no historic biblical pedigree to this practice. I know the belief is that the blood is contained within the body( bread), but there really is no need to go there.
666 is the Papacy
Mark of Beast (KJV Rev 13:16 to 18)
a)his mark (of authority)
b) his name &the number of his name (666)
Only the Papacy fulfills all criteria
A) He wears 3 tiered tiara to denote authority in heaven, earth and sea.
The Roman Decretalia states the Pope can free himself from the commands of the apostles, he being their superior, and from the rules of the Old Testament,”
“The pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.”-Decretal de Translat. Episcop. Cap.
To receive the pope's mark is to agree to his authority in your mind and in your actions (Rev 13:16) i.e to change God's day of worship to Sunday when it has been the Sabbath day since Genesis. Currently the Papacy is working with leaders to impose a forced day of worship of SUNday i.e Lucifer whereas God's mark or sign on His people
Has been Sabbath Keeping Ezekiel 20:20, Exodus 31:13, 17
B) The Pope has many blasphemous titles such as Holy Father, Vicar of Christ(substitute for Christ, Vicarivs Fili Dei)
VICARIVS (means in place of /Substitute)
V=5 I= 1 C=100 A & R= 0 I=1 V=5 S=0
= 121
FILII -( son )
F=0 I=1 L=50 I=1 I=1 =53
DEI (God)
D=500 E=0 I=1 =501
112 + 53 + 501 = 666
Other titles include
Dvx Cleri (Captain of the Clergy)
D = 500 V= 5 X = 10 C = 100 L = 50 E/R=0 I = 1 666
C) Here are examples of Anti-Christ practices the
Papacy permits
*'changing' God's laws
The Catholic 10 Commandments found in Catechisms Sections 2052 -2557 are DIFFERENT to God's 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20.
Daniel 7:25
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Dark Ages= RCC persecution of the saints via various torturous, barbarous methods i.e Spanish Inquisition, Various massacres and martyrdom of individuals against the RCC and its teachings
Luke 16:17
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
* Pope declared as Christ
the pope] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Source: Pope Leo XIII, Encyclica letter tte Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae
*RCC priests declared as Christ
Thus the priest, as is said with good reason, is indeed "another Christ"; for, in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ. ...Source: Pope Pius XI, Encyclical lettw AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII 1935.
*Mary Declared The Mediator Of Salvation by RCC
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
www.biblelightinfo.com
Your research is amazing, I don’t know how you gather such large amounts of data. Can I suggest a few videos about the influencers of Christian culture and their denominations or traditions that trickled down?
An obvious one is Martin Luther, but there are so many unknown people who made large impacts in the land scape of Christian culture. I find it so interesting that Charles Finney is usually given responsibility for the altar call although most Baptist leaders have dismissed his doctrinal beliefs. One of my favorite influencers is George Muller. What a life of trust he demonstrated. I’d be so curious to know If he contributed to Christian culture in any way besides the legacy of his journaling. Thanks for all the great info.
Thank you for the informative video. I can only imagine the amount of time it took to make this video.
This video made me glad to be Catholic
Me too. VERY GREATFUL TO BE CATHOLIC. BLESSED BE GOD FOREVER ❤
Same here brother I'm grateful to be Catholic
Real
Really??!! 😮😲🤯
🇻🇦
I was raised in the Church of the Brethren and we had Love Feast twice a year, which is the closest thing to communion. The congregation would do feet washing and then partake of grape juice and leaven bread, followed by a pot-luck dinner.
I'm more catholic now
I’m fairly traditional liturgically, but even I have celebrated the Eucharist, with friends around a table at a pub, using red wine and garlic bread as the Eucharistic elements.
At about 10:31 you said that the Blood was in the Orthodox Chalice. Actually when Holy Communion is given to the laity, both the Body and Blood are in the chalice. The priests adds the particules to the chalice before the laity is served. On the spoon is a small piece of the Body and there is some Blood. The communicant takes both this way. It cannot and should not be altered no matter what government "expert" says. We go by Tradition as the norm, not as something we keep because we think it is nice. That is one of the major differences between us and all other groups that call themselves Christian. We follow the Tradition of the Apostles. I noticed that you somewhat corrected yourself later which is very good and shows that you do know and did a lot of research on the topics.
666 is the Papacy
Mark of Beast (KJV Rev 13:16 to 18)
a)his mark (of authority)
b) his name &the number of his name (666)
Only the Papacy fulfills all criteria
A) He wears 3 tiered tiara to denote authority in heaven, earth and sea.
The Roman Decretalia states the Pope can free himself from the commands of the apostles, he being their superior, and from the rules of the Old Testament,”
“The pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.”-Decretal de Translat. Episcop. Cap.
To receive the pope's mark is to agree to his authority in your mind and in your actions (Rev 13:16) i.e to change God's day of worship to Sunday when it has been the Sabbath day since Genesis. Currently the Papacy is working with leaders to impose a forced day of worship of SUNday i.e Lucifer whereas God's mark or sign on His people
Has been Sabbath Keeping Ezekiel 20:20, Exodus 31:13, 17
B) The Pope has many blasphemous titles such as Holy Father, Vicar of Christ(substitute for Christ, Vicarivs Fili Dei)
VICARIVS (means in place of /Substitute)
V=5 I= 1 C=100 A & R= 0 I=1 V=5 S=0
= 121
FILII -( son )
F=0 I=1 L=50 I=1 I=1 =53
DEI (God)
D=500 E=0 I=1 =501
112 + 53 + 501 = 666
Other titles include
Dvx Cleri (Captain of the Clergy)
D = 500 V= 5 X = 10 C = 100 L = 50 E/R=0 I = 1 666
C) Here are examples of Anti-Christ practices the
Papacy permits
*'changing' God's laws
The Catholic 10 Commandments found in Catechisms Sections 2052 -2557 are DIFFERENT to God's 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20.
Daniel 7:25
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Dark Ages= RCC persecution of the saints via various torturous, barbarous methods i.e Spanish Inquisition, Various massacres and martyrdom of individuals against the RCC and its teachings
Luke 16:17
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
* Pope declared as Christ
the pope] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Source: Pope Leo XIII, Encyclica letter tte Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae
*RCC priests declared as Christ
Thus the priest, as is said with good reason, is indeed "another Christ"; for, in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ. ...Source: Pope Pius XI, Encyclical lettw AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII 1935.
*Mary Declared The Mediator Of Salvation by RCC
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
www.biblelightinfo.com
The United Church of Canada seems to be going off the edge of a steep cliff. Some of the churches in town are now mosques, others are now music halls and a few are barely holding on.
I'm Episcopalian and we can come to the rail and kneel, but we also have a standing station. Sip from the chalice or intinction. I prefer to sip. I've never gotten sick from this. It feels much more sacred than an individual cup of grape juice to me.
does the chalice have actual wine in it? or is it also grape juice?
@alanduff2205 Ha! I guess it's comments like yours that kept me from The Word of God for most of my life. Thankfully, God is my judge, and not you. He knows the truth while you are just making assumptions. I hope you remember to tidy your own room before you tell your brother how to clean his.
@Qwerty-jy9mj it's wine. Sorry, I wasn't trying to make any judgments on anyone. I'm just a new Christian who loves my church, and was sharing how we do it in the spirit of the video that was sharing this type of information. It's just my experience. I'm not trying to take away from anyone else's church not trying to be mean spirited. I'm just happy to be following Jesus after ignoring him for 40 + years of my life.
@alanduff2205 Also, my priest isn't gay, but I assume that he is human and, therefore, is a sinner. What is the real church I should attend that has sinless clergy? I am not a young person, but I am new to this, and would like to know the correct church if you have the answer to that.
So, are you going to visit the Blessed Sacrament in Eucharistic adoration? If you already deny it, don’t bother. If you would like to know the Truth, I humbly recommend you look up your local Catholic parish and visit when the Blessed Sacrament is ‘adored’! ;)
Thanks for mentioning impanation. It is my favorite Eucharistic heresy if heresy it be.
We all have a favorite Eucharistic heresy. Mine's Receptionism.
@@TurtleMarcus glad you recognize it as a heresy. Why is it your favorite?
More stuff like this
What’s your opinion of the Eucharistic Miracles?
Eucharistic miracles have only occurred in the Catholic faith.
That's enough to convince me that I'm in the right Church!
when you realise that anglicanism's views on the eucharist can basically be every one of those described in the video = ????????????? total confusion
Read the Articles of Faith, the 49 Articles, in the BCP. The Gnesio-Lutherans saw the so-called 'via media' solution of Lizzie Tudor for what it was, Calvinism with an option to dress up.
@@philodendron6 39 ;)
@@philodendron6 also not all calvinism is calvinism. strict BCP teaching is calvinistic buuuuuuuuuuut no anglican is required to subscribe to the three forms of unity. thus there is ever inherent ambiguity in the XXXIX articles concerning any 'reformed' teaching
@@HenryLeslieGraham 'Not all calvinism is calvinism.' Not all cannabilism is cannabilism. The Lutherans, and Catholics, saw what the Articles were regarding, 'Mass', a barely disguised Calvinist interpretation of the Real Presence. No wonder Rome refuted, along with the Orthodox, the validity of anglican ordinations and the Eucharist. No amount of mitres, crosiers, smells and bells, the Adiaphora, can hide Anglicanism as nothing more than Jean Calvin fopping about.
He was the word that spake it/He took the bread & brake it./And what His word did make it,/That I believe & take it."
It is a Mystery; the details are not to be defined too stringently.
1:08:30 The fancy technical term for non-practice is "adeipnonism" (from Greek "a deipnon", meaning "no meal"), just in case you want to annoy your friends.
I was once visiting an Orthodox Church in Augusta,Georgia where they give communion to young children. A young boy received communion and then spit it out on the floor. The priest hurriedly retrieved the host with cloth but I did not see what he did with it.
While it is often stated that the Orthodox understanding of Eucharistic sacrifice is virtually the same as that of Roman Catholicism, at least some within Orthodoxy would hold a different opinion. Certainly there is no denial of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ (and Christ's "soul and Divinity") after the completion of the consecration. Anyway, it is noted that in Roman Catholicism, the priest reciting the words of institution are considered to consecrate the sacrament. In Orthodoxy, this is not the case. In Orthodoxy, the words of institution are repeated, but then, The bread and wine are offered, but the offering is seen as the offering of the entire cosmos to the Father in Thanksgiving. It is only after this offering, "thine own, of thine own, we offer unto thee [O Lord] in behalf of all [things] and for all [persons]" that the Holy Spirit is invoked to sanctify the congregation present and to consecrate the bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ.
Then, once Christ is deemed to be present on the altar, the priest then offers prayer for the Church both on Earth and in heaven. There is also prayer that all who receive the body and blood of Christ do so worthily and are thereby further united with Christ and sanctified.
Just one question: if the offering is seen as the offering of the entire cosmos, what exactly is the “sacrifice of the Mass” for the Orthodox then? I ask b/c numerous Orthodox pages/parish websites will say that they do believe in it in a similar way/the same way Roman Catholics do. If the bread and wine are not considered consecrated by the time they are offered to the Father, where exactly does the “sacrifice of Calvary” take place?
@@jatar6605 it would not be seen as a repetition of Calvary, but the sacrificed and resurrected Christ (who, after all, remains eternally sacrificed although risen to die no more) is considered to be present in the bread and wine after the invocation of the Holy Spirit.
@@jimbobjones5972
does the orthodox priest act in persona Christi?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj that may be the opinion of some, but typically, I would say that this notion is not emphasized the way it is in the RCC. Remember that the moment of consecration it's not the recitation of the words of institution, but the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts.
@@jimbobjones5972
the the eastern Catholic rites, the rite is different and it's not specified to happen at the utterance of the words of consecration, but we would still say that the priest acts in persona Christi
It's hard for me to imagine the eucharistic liturgy as something other than a representation of calvary, I don't get it.
Great video! Appreciate your treatment of the Latter-day Saint tradition
@ReadytoHarvest you may be interested to know there are churches where the minister explicitly denies that the host and the cup are the body and blood of the LORD. the minister will say 'this bread ONLY represents His body' and 'this juice only represents his blood'. the minister may say explicitly that the elements are 'just symbolic'. these churches will remain nameless. but they exist.
I have seen a PCUSA church do this. That’s the only time I’ve encountered it. But if you actually drilled down I’m sure tons of Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, even others like Methodists and Roman Catholics, actually believe this.
@@silversurfer2703 because i dont want to get in trouble. i formerly attended that family of churches
The church I was raised in was Conservative Baptist (the convention now has a warm fuzzy name). We were a grape juice and stale cracker kind of church. One Sunday I recall someone performing the communion service and saying, "This represents My body.". Even as someone who was quite comfortable with a memorialist view, that wasn't okay. It must have been something others weren't okay with, either, because I never heard that again. But it happens. I have since been confirmed in the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod, and I think hearing the words of Christ changed that day planted a seed against the memorialist view.
@@angiebee2225 thank you for sharing. I have had a similar experience. I now strongly oppose a memoralist view. I hold to something between sacramental union and transubstantiation
@@silversurfer2703 the lutheran view sometimes called consubstantiation (there are issues with this term) but preferably called sacramental union, is simply that the body and blood are unified with the elements of communion after (at the moment of) consecration. that is to say the body of christ is present in, under, and over the elements, the means of which remain a mystery. that is the body of christ is present, yet the bread remains bread. the communicant truly consumes the body of the lord, but also consumes bread. the reason for this language is to avoid scholastic/philosophical language which sought to circumscribe and detail the manner in which the elements become the body and blood of the lord and the status the elements thereafter. Lutherans differ in practice on what to do with the leftover elements. but i would imagine the most conservative denoms would consume the leftovers reverently.
Officially in the LDS faith it is called the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which is commonly abbreviated to just the Sacrament. In spite of the name, LDS consider it to be an ordinance.
I always thought of the words “ordinance” and “sacrament” as meaning the same thing in the LDS faith.
@@DavidPeel-fo9xv As a practical matter I suppose that is true, however official manuals and handbooks use "Sacrament" as a proper name, and "ordinance" as an generic term for an act performed by the power of the Priesthood.
@@brettmajeske3525 Makes sense
LDS are not Christians. They cannot recite the Nicene nor Apostles Creed and thus are not Christian in denomination or sect. They are their own breed of religion in which Jesus Christ is included in the greater scheme of things (which are totally not of Christian theology).
I guess a non-Christian group can do whatever they want.
Me, 16 minutes in: "This must be close to finished, right?
oh."
just like real mass
σῶμα
sōma
so'-mah
From G4982; the body (as a sound whole), used in a very wide application, literally or figuratively: - bodily, body, slave.
Though I am not a Greek expert so'mah seems to lend itself to figurative and or literal wide application with emphasis on wide application That's what the bible says. Remembering what Christ did is the purpose turning into a law is what Christ freed us from. in other words we are commanded to remember not obligate to ourselves to a ritual.
RTH does great content very well informed and very helpful.
I hope people who’ve watched this will look into WHY it’s a “punishment” to NOT receive the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist). Look into WHY you must examine yourself before receiving or else eat or drink damnation upon yourself. - a symbolic or spiritual view doesn’t pose much consequence. - so why so much consequence?
Real presence isn't Catholic Trans. View.
Ask yourself why cannibalism was forbidden and Jesus fulfilled the Law : he didn't change cannibalism to be justified now. .
@@davidjanbaz7728 Think paschal lamb. Think “Lamb of God.” Think “Lamb of God who came to take the sin of the world.” Then read my previous comment again.
@@SolaPastora Every memorialist/spiritual presence believer I talked to believes the sacrament/ordinance give grace or at least strenghten faith, and an unworthy reception will result in condemnation. Kinda like if you wipe your *ss with the US flag in front of the president, you will face consequences, even if the president is not physically present in the flag.
What I found is that in the understanding of the effects and benefits of the Eucharist, Christians are more united that may seem. It is primarily the substance of the Eucharistic elements itself which is so often questioned.
@@daliborbenes5025 That’s fine. I’d get more offended by an EO who devalues the consecrated elements (as some presbyters do), and memorialists who take the faith alone approach to grace. Wiggle room, wishy washy should be avoided.
A traditional Anglican church (PCK)would only allow communion once per 24 hours. Ifound this out by attending midnight and morning services.
A thousand years ago people were excommunicated because of the question of using yeast or not man
I wonder if the Bible says how Jesus re-presents the Passover for 33 years. Lol.
@papa...:
Who was excommunicated?
That's an old saying in theological circles: a pinch of yeast and a single word* split Christianity in two.
*Filioque in the Nicene Creed.
@@alhilford2345 the pope excumunicsted the eastern patriarchs and they excommunicated the pope
I can't believe he said them all with a straight face. I had to role my eyes multiple times.
In the LCMS we also cross arms for receiving a blessing instead of communion.
Wow, that’s a lot of different procedures for various churches!
I heard you mention the forgiveness of sins as one of the purposes of communion for one of the denominations. What other churches/denominations say the communicant receives from consuming the communion (or loses if they don’t)?
did not realise there are so many different ways of doing this. If i visited another church and saw as different way if receiving communion I would notice it but would not call heresy (unless there is real heresey going on) and it is not really specified in the Bible in exact terms how the ritualistic part of communion goes.
In all cases, I would only expect reverence.
In Hong Kong Catholic churches, lay intinction is permitted, wherein the communicant first receives from one mininster in the hand then walks to another minister and dips the host into the chalice himself. I am no fan of this practice and must admit I received in this manner before,but now believe it to be an abuse.
666 is the Papacy
Mark of Beast (KJV Rev 13:16 to 18)
a)his mark (of authority)
b) his name &the number of his name (666)
Only the Papacy fulfills all criteria
A) He wears 3 tiered tiara to denote authority in heaven, earth and sea.
The Roman Decretalia states the Pope can free himself from the commands of the apostles, he being their superior, and from the rules of the Old Testament,”
“The pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.”-Decretal de Translat. Episcop. Cap.
To receive the pope's mark is to agree to his authority in your mind and in your actions (Rev 13:16) i.e to change God's day of worship to Sunday when it has been the Sabbath day since Genesis. Currently the Papacy is working with leaders to impose a forced day of worship of SUNday i.e Lucifer whereas God's mark or sign on His people
Has been Sabbath Keeping Ezekiel 20:20, Exodus 31:13, 17
B) The Pope has many blasphemous titles such as Holy Father, Vicar of Christ(substitute for Christ, Vicarivs Fili Dei)
VICARIVS (means in place of /Substitute)
V=5 I= 1 C=100 A & R= 0 I=1 V=5 S=0
= 121
FILII -( son )
F=0 I=1 L=50 I=1 I=1 =53
DEI (God)
D=500 E=0 I=1 =501
112 + 53 + 501 = 666
Other titles include
Dvx Cleri (Captain of the Clergy)
D = 500 V= 5 X = 10 C = 100 L = 50 E/R=0 I = 1 666
C) Here are examples of Anti-Christ practices the
Papacy permits
*'changing' God's laws
The Catholic 10 Commandments found in Catechisms Sections 2052 -2557 are DIFFERENT to God's 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20.
Daniel 7:25
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Dark Ages= RCC persecution of the saints via various torturous, barbarous methods i.e Spanish Inquisition, Various massacres and martyrdom of individuals against the RCC and its teachings
Luke 16:17
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
* Pope declared as Christ
the pope] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Source: Pope Leo XIII, Encyclica letter tte Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae
*RCC priests declared as Christ
Thus the priest, as is said with good reason, is indeed "another Christ"; for, in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ. ...Source: Pope Pius XI, Encyclical lettw AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII 1935.
*Mary Declared The Mediator Of Salvation by RCC
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
www.biblelightinfo.com
We use mixed wine," oriental orthodox" except our sister church Armenian apostolic.
The book, Amongst Us our Beloved Stands by Michael A. G. Haykin is a great read to get an introduction to the development of Baptist understanding of the sacraments over time, particularly the Lord’s Supper. The earliest Baptists had a Calvinistic understanding, rather than the Zwinglian understanding that is more common today. It does focus largely on Particular Baptists, but does make occasional reference to General Baptists.
If you are a Baptist, your statement of faith usually has something similar to We believe that the law of God is the eternal and unchangeable rule of His moral government.” “Baptist Church Manual,” Art. 12.
Your ministers know that you are worshipping on the Catholic day of worship (Sunday) and not the Biblical Day of worship (Sabbath Exod 20: 8-11). A baptist is an indirect catholic.
Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, author of the Baptist Manual states that
“Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask: ‘Where can the record of this transaction be found? Not in the New Testament-absolutely not. There is no scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week.
Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics have a practice where a portion of the preconsecrated host his given to the congregation after the liturgy.
@silversurfer2703 As an affirmation of fellowship with those who are unwilling or unable to take the Sacrament; e.g. non Orthodox Christians who may be present.
It's called "antidoron," which means "not the gift"; i. e. it is bread taken from the same loaf as was the bread that got consecrated, but the antidoron remains unconsecrated.
@@aLadNamedNathancorrect the antidoron is “instead of the gifts”. My priest cuts out a piece of the prosphora then I cut the prosphora into bite size pieces. It is later blessed by the priest after the consecration. I am an adult altar boy
@@danfsteeple I also was an adult altar boy--until I got an upgrade to being a reader.
@@aLadNamedNathan His Eminence Metropolitan Savas of Pittsburgh will be tonsuring me a reader next time he comes to visit. But I’ll continue to stay in the altar because that’s where my priest wants me. The goal is to become a sub-deacon after I find a wife
Mark 9:38-41 NKJV
[38] Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.”
[39] But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. [40] For he who is not against us is on our side. [41] For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.
27:10 It reminds me a bit of the Stillstand of the Schwenckfelders.
24:45 Might not have been stated, but commonly, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the individual taking the sacrament take it with their right hand and passing with their right hand to the next person down the pew with their right hand as well. Not laid out explicitly anywhere, but I thought I'd give some insight.
29:00 Additionally, as long as the Bishop of the Ward gives the OK (that Sunday or as an ongoing thing, like during the pandemic), a Priesthood-bearer could bless and pass the sacrament to their family any time on Sunday.
45:14 In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, if a Sacrament prayer is not said correctly, it is repeated until it is done so.
52:15 Children can participate in the actions, but we believe that Children "are alive in Christ" until the age of accountability (8).
The LDS church is by definition polytheistic and not Christian. I know this because I was forced into the LDS organization, did my very best to follow the doctrines and went through the temple multiple times. Never was a better day than when I escaped and saw how false all of it was. I hope you find that too.
@@codename495 I'm clarifying a "What is" question, and you come to this comment and *impose* yourself upon it with something not even relevant.
All you've done is put your own insecurity out on display for all to see and judge. Not only that, it's the weakest form of argumentation there is (except for name-calling). All this shows is a thoughtless and mentally-unstable approach you took to your situation and are looking for "Oh dear God PLEASE"-tier any reinforcement of that poor decision.
Now, you're going to hate me for a while (might even respond to this with a "nuh-uh"-tier response and be angry). Consider, instead, reflecting on any decision you make in the future, and making the choice to not respond in the moment.
@@codename495 Your definition is wrong, and your claim of "polytheism" shows a clear lack of understanding. "Escaping" something is pretty easy when all you have to do is stop attending worship services. The truth of God found in the restored Church of Jesus Christ is wonderful.
I’m a former member of Members Church of God International (MCGI) and they do not practice communion open or closed.
Incorrect. mcgi.org/the-lords-supper-5782/
If it's just a symbol, to Hell with it.
-Flannery O'Connor
Amen!
Ordnance sounds strange to me. Like if communion was a weapon or ammunition.
Ordinance and ordnance are different words. Ordinance means, I believe, something that has been commanded.
Ordinance as in something that has been ordained as in set apart.
Never understood those Lutherans and Episcopalians that pour away wine. Just drink it! It is so simple and reverend. If there is a large amount, ask more than one layman to help.
Very interesting. But I don't like how you put non-christian groups (groups that don't believe in the trinity) in here without clarification (like mormons and JWs). Could you explain why you choose to include groups like this in this way?
It isn't our table, it is God's. If anyone recieves who oughtn't, God will deal with that person.
I just want to say that from my own research and experience, the witnesses basically make a mockery of communion by not allowing all their adult adherents participate. If there was ever a blatant example of apostasy, it's the witnesses. They claim to be the only ones that have the truth. Communion is about affirming that you believe in Jesus, His sacrifice, and that He saved you from eternal damnation. By not allowing their adult adherents to participate in communion, the witnesses are literally denying salvation. I love communion now that I know its true purpose
I'm deacon in the copyic orthodox church and we use mixture of water and wine I belive 1 part wine and 1 part water
I grew up in the Church of God Anderson, IN. I remember taking Communion as a kid with the juice being in a Dixie Cup. They Dedicated Babies.
Ahh, the dreaded dixie cup that feels like paper on your lips and gives me chills. lol
I'm guessing that Canadian dog was wearing a hat and glasses when it took communion, and everyone thought it was a person.
Imagine having God giving us a whole new covenant based on a true and living relationship with Him and then we just create these non-ending theoretical religious explanations focusing on elementary principles of the world.
To clarify the historical Lutheran majority position: baptism, confession, absolution, and Eucharist can be validly but not licitly performed by the laity, as in an emergency when no ordained pastor is available. Also, the eucharist will only consubstantiate if the recipient is a believer. Sorry satanists, host desecration is off the table.
Some Eastern Orthodox tabernacles look like a dove.
You could make a book out of this.
41:51 “or of a child”??😯
I know. I truly hope that in the totality of this video some people's eyes are opened to the wickedness of such doctrines. I don't think anything other than demonic manifestations can explain such things. They are certainly speaking from reported and/or personal experiences.
46:00 I would suggest that all those easy going and easy living Lutherans review what Luther did when some wine was spilled. He got down and lapped it up with his tongue. Now there is a real Lutheran!
Lutherans and Anglicans are the only Protestants that are not Nestorians.
Oh boy...
@@Mic1904 Oh boy is right. All theology is Christology. Zwingli literally resurrected the ancient heresy of Nestorianism.
@@P-el4zd Good thing the vast majority of historic Protestantism wasn't Zwinglian then! And I like how you say 'Lutherans and Anglicans only', as if they aren't arguably two thirds (or possibly two quarters, i.e. half) of the major Reformation movements.
@@Mic1904 Sadly the largest single group Americans protestants are Baptist/Evangelical gnostic Zwinglians. Zwingli and Calvin are essentially in agreement, they both believe the Eucharist is merely bread and wine.
Those churches who follow the theology of Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin do not believe in the real corporal presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Rather, they believe in representation, that bread and wine only represent the body and blood of Christ. From his misunderstanding of the two natures in Christ. Zwingli revived the error of Nestorius, who denied there was a sharing of attributes between the two natures in Christ. Zwingli did not believe that the human nature of Christ could share in the attributes of his divine nature and still remain human. “the finite is not capable of the infinite”-(Latin: finitum non est capax infiniti).
@@P-el4zd Just how did you come to that conclusion? Nestorian theology has nothing to do with the Eucharist. Neither Zwingli nor Calvin was Nestorian in their theology on Christ's nature, what you are doing here is simply false confirmation, "If they don't believe in actual presence, they must also believe that Christ's two natures are not shared and are totally distinct like Nestorian thought ". This an unfounded assumption, btw, Cavin never denied the presence of Christ in the substance, he just defined it further by saying that it is a spiritual presence, God is after all spirit so there is no confusion.
8:26 its the bread and the *wine* that are the elements. Not the cup we drink it from
Yes...that's correct...and the Catholic Church denies it to laity. When we say cup we mean the wine. I know it's confusing. Traditional Lutheran is like in the Bible...bread and then the cup with real, non-watered down wine
Ever since i started making my own challah for shabbat night, things have just become so much easier.
Some of these folks are just silly.
You left out 2 important facts. Only a validly ordained Catholic/Orthodox priest can consecrate the Eucharist. In other words the minister must be validly ordained. Secondly the dogma for Catholics is that we believe the Eucharist is the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. You cannot remain Catholic and not hold this view.
Also it is essential to read Johns Gospel Chapter 6 to understand this doctrine properly. It is the only time in Sacred Scripture where Jesus's' followers leave him over what He taught. On hearing it many of them said, "This is a hard saying, and who can accept it" and they walked with Him no more". (John 6:60).
And Christ turns to the Apostles and doubles down ! "Will you also leave" He challenges them ? and Peter famously answers.
Also it is this doctrine where Judas makes the break. Later we learn that Judas is a traitor and a thief, but it is right here that Judas falls away from Christ. (John 6.70)
Judas rejects what Christ teaches on the Eucharist and he doesn't leave, and here, for the first time, we see Our Beloved Messiah say, "...but one of you is a demon".
Lets face it, Jesus just said, "Unless you eat my body, and drink my blood you will have no life in you" and He says it 5 times in this passage. The Catholic Church has taught this dogma for 2000 years because Jesus taught it and there is no modifying it.
The council of Florence contradicts the motion that the Orthadox hold valid sacraments.
He meant it symbolically.
Jesus did not condone cannibalism.
@@sird2333 All the early Christians flatly contradict you
@@WaterMelon-Cat Brother I will go look it up and thank you
@@WaterMelon-Catthe same council of Florence that was meant to unite the Orthodox and Catholic via the filioque?