Fun Fact: In John 6, Jesus changes the verb "eat" in the middle of the chapter. As people keep questioning Him about whether He is being literal in what He is saying, He changes the verb "eat" to "trogo", which means to gnaw like an animal. So when questioned on this teaching, several times, Jesus gets MORE literal each and every time.
TF; Good point; to chew was necessary because as the passover the Jewish custom was to complete the sedar meal a Jew had to chew the lamb to complete the meal along with the 4th cup. So chewing the eucharist wafer holy communion we complete the meal literally. Jesus is the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. Another fascinating thing Christ at the last supper before finishing the meal Jesus waiting for that 4th cup on the cross.Sour wine on a sponge given by a roman soldier on the cross.That's why Jesus said; It is finished. The meal is finished. Go in peace.After every catholic mass the priest says; Go in peace. The catholic mass is the New Passover.I call it the Superior Passover. Was there not a ABC show called Superior Donuts lol.
Tim, if that's what Jesus meant in this discourse, why did He let a crowd walk away in confusion. He could have clarified that on the spot. Instead He turned to the apostles and asked if they too were going to walk away. And equally important, what meaning can we assume the apostles took from this discourse, based on what we can assume they taught to the next generation of believers?
And their teaching to that next generation is an assumption, granted. But from somewhere St. Ignatius received or conceived the idea of Real Presence. Catholics believe he was taught that by St. John. Even St. Paul, when he warns about receiving Communion unworthily, must have received that notion from somewhere.
It was this very passage that after 30 years as an adult in the reformed church made me look back at Catholicism, the faith I grew up in when I was a child. I have returned there.
Mike Masztal - me too (I was born Anglican but was sent to a Catholic school. Once I had remembered this teaching, as an adult, by Jesus I had to convert - had no choice)
When I take communion as a Catholic I feel so close to Jesus that I am awash with joy and grief at the same time.That is enough for me as God’s ways are higher than our ways.
Perfectly expressed. I think you look perfectly expressed the true understanding of the Eucharist. I praise God for your loving him and expressing it so well here on TH-cam. Thank you And God Bless You, ✝️😁 🙏🏼 Steve 😎
Hi, Brian, I'm a currently Greek Orthodox who is in the process of converting to Catholicism. I discovered your channel by accident yesterday in the evening, while googleing Catholic convert stories. Needless to say, I found your videos very enlightening and immediately proceeded to bingewatch almost all of your videos. I just wanted to sincerely thank you for all of your videos, as they are very helpful to me. If I may request a future topic, I was wondering how you felt and what you were thinking prior to your baptism. You see, I do not consider myself Greek Orthodox anymore, and I do consider myself to be Catholic, but having grown up in a religious Orthodox household, Catholicism still feels kind of foreign to me, which makes me question my conversion. How can I finally feel 100% Catholic and overcome this dichotomy? Or is that not possible before my confirmation? Another topic I'm very eagerly awaiting for you to cover, is how a young adult such as myself(19yo), cannot feel left alone in a largely secular world within a largely secular generation. Please forgive my rambling and if you're reading this, thank you so much for taking the time to read this.
Hi Damian! Thanks for saying that. I'm glad you're enjoying the videos. I was actually baptized as an infant in a protestant church, so I don't have any memory of it. But, yes Catholicism will feel new for a while as you start to live it. That's part of the romance and I'd encourage you to enjoy this period of discovery. Eventually it will feel second nature, but that will take some time. Regarding feeling alone in the world, I don't know if there's much comfort I can offer there. Be wary of news media headlines and secular sounding boards that try to diminish the significance of Christianity and the Church. Their reports are usually an exaggeration. There are many of us left. Invest yourself in a good parish and surround yourself with community and if you can't seem to find it, pray for it. My wife and I felt very alone, socially, after our conversions and so we prayed that God would surround us with YA community. In a funny plot twist, he decided that I should start a YA ministry (which I didn't want to do) and then we ended up with more friends than we could keep contact with.
Thank you so much for repsonding Brian. Sorry, I thought that you had to be baptised because you mentioned you were previously an atheist. In that case, how did you see yourself prior to your confirmation and subsequently, having completed your conversion? Did you feel 100% before completing your conversion, or did that come naturally, months or even years after your confirmation? Also, some theological reading recommendations might be a nice topic to cover in the future as well. Again, many thanks for taking the time to read this and for responding.
No problem. I'm a bit of a contrarian, so I have a tough time fitting in just about anywhere. The important thing is that God meets us where we are at and invites us into deeper intimacy and harmony with him and our neighbors. How you feel is less relevant to what you're doing. The feeling will follow.
Damian also dude, a great way to stay in cultural connection to your Orthodox family, would be to seek out an Eastern Catholic Rite, like Melkite Catholicism. They use the same Byzantine liturgy, and have the same general traditions, so it wouldn’t feel as if you were completely abandoning what you grew up with. Because in truth, there’s not too much that divides Orthodox and Catholic Christians. Welcome back to the One fold, with One Shepherd, btw.
Hi Damian, can you tell me why you are converting to Catholicism? I am a Catholic thinking of converting to Orthodoxy and I'm wondering what is your side of the story
I teach 10th grade Religious Education at Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church in Edinboro, PA. Some of my students are struggling with the Real Presence so I decided to teach an additional lesson on this central tenet of our faith. I found your video- how awesome! I will definitely be using it. Blessings on you and your ministry.
Brian, you are a fantastic apologist and I really appreciate your candor. I am a Lutheran and we hold that the Eucharist is truly Christs' body and blood. Where we would disagree is over transubstantiation - Lutherans simply hold it to be a mystery and don't attempt to explain it - and then the sacrificial elements in the Mass, since Christ died for sins once for all and his perfect atoning sacrifice is complete. Luther once said he'd rather drink the Lord's blood with the Pope than celebrate a memorial with the sacramentarians. Look forward to meeting you in heaven at the Lamb's high feast!
I'm not Catholic (have in fact recently joined a Baptist church), but as also with Bishop Barron, I find your videos deeply thoughtful and informative.
All food and drink that we consume must be eaten in recognition of Jesus Christ , that he gives us life through his death on the cross....both physical and spiritual.....life and to eat without thanking God for this gift can bring judgement upon us....as I was taught....we are the body of Christ.....jp
Thank you so much for this video! It’s enormously helpful. I’ve been trying to discern the same thing for quite some months now. When I came to faith in Jesus it was through reading the gospel of John, and I wasn’t part of any church. I’ve done communion with grape juice! On Passover etc.., seeking the way... but when I felt compelled to attend mass and took communion I was shaking and reduced to tears. I didn’t understand it all...I’ve been trying to find out what happened! thank you very much for this clarification. God bless you.
I was pondering this very same topic last night. I thought about those who thought the saying was too harsh; "How can we eat his flesh?". I philosophised is it really his body, his blood? Then I thought about the miraculous Eucharists turning into flesh and blood as has been documented over the years. So I then postulated why do we still see the wafer and the wine and reasoned that Our Lord would never let us see his real body and blood because we would be too troubled by it especially knowing that we were asked to eat of it. Then i understood what St. Thomas Aquinas meant when he said Our Lord made it so that only the accidents of the bread and wine were visible. Our Lord did not wish to trouble our minds so he left the accidents there for us so that, through faith, we can still believe that it is the actual Body, Blood, Soul and, Divinity of Our Lord.
The Eucharist is perhaps the most difficult part of Catholic doctrine to explain to Protestants and other Christian denominations. I hope to understand it to a point that I can explain it to our fellow brothers.
@kim burley not just false goes against bot OT and NT commandments to abstain from blood. Acts 15: 20 commands us to abstain from blood in the context of pagan religious practices like the rcc mass
Confessional Lutherans and some Anglicans, especially Anglo-Catholica, accept the real presence (i.e., true body and blood of Christ) in the Eucharist for many of the same reasons (scriptural and historical). Thank you for this video.
“He is the bread that comes down from heaven.” Amen. Christ becomes bread. It’s a dual reality. If you deny it’s His literal physical body, you’re mistaken. If you deny it’s literal bread, you’re mistaken. It’s both and it’s a mystery.
This is exactly what Justin Martyr lays out in his Apology. That the presence in communion is analagous to the incarnation. Not the elimination of one transforming into the other Christ assumes both natures. "In like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God . . . so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by assimilation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
Hexameter There’s another early church father less known who made a similar statement. Someday I’ll dig it up. Christ’s body does not supplant the bread - it IS the bread. Likewise, the church is the body of Christ, not by Christ overpowering and removing the identity and nature of the members, but by incorporating us, weak and common as we are. In Him we become divine children. As Paul wrote, the two are one and this is a mystery.
quote; Looking at that first question, the support for the idea that it’s only a symbol seems to be based on the moral objection to cannibalism. ME: From my experience, this IS the number one objection to people taking it literally. They can't explain it, so the default position is that it is a symbol.
In Luke Jesus says, "do this in remembrance of me". I cannot understand why it is Im supposed to believe Jesus is PRESENT in the Eucharist when he says the rite is a REMEMBRANCE. Can you explain that ?
that doesn't even make the list let alone is the number 1 objection of the Christians I know. but if after "consecration" the wafer is literally human flesh and the cup is literally filled with human blood by definition it's cannibalism/vampirism
@@thuscomeguerriero Great question actually... it has to do with both the English translation and Jewish culture. The Old Testament Jews viewed the Passover sacrifice not just as a memorial, but as a ritual that brought the event truly and spiritually present to them. So even though physically they were within their homes, spiritually they were brought to the actual first Passover event; in Greek the term for this is "anamnesis". The whole typology of Jesus instituting the Eucharist at a Passover meal is fascinating, but it's this one specific aspect that's important for this question: He is using the same Jewish concept for the Passover, but for Himself - and the Apostles recognized this. So in the original manuscript which Luke wrote down in Greek, he would have used the term anamnesis: when Jesus says "do this in remembrance of Me," He is saying "do this in anamnesis of Me." Therefore, when we perform this rite, as He commanded us to, we too participate in anamnesis... not the anamnesis of the Passover, but the anamnesis of Jesus's entire Paschal Mystery. Because Jesus desires true, personal, and present intimacy with us, to celebrate communion without this concept of Christ being truly present, that is truly here now in this moment, is to deprive it of its deepest meaning.
@@artigosworld thank you for your reply. 1st thing that comes to mind. I preface this by saying I'm not a greek scholar. However, I dont see anything special about the greek term that would lend itself to this notion that it implicitly, or matter of factly, denotes a relocation..literally or spiritually in time. Could you be more specific as to why the greek term uniquely lends itself to THAT meaning? Also, when Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:24 writes of the last supper he uses a slight variation of the term "remembrance" as found in Luke..but is of course recalling the same "words of consecration" (if you like) as found in Luke. If, therefore, we were to make much of the importance of the precise greek term why wouldn't one conclude that Paul has a different understanding of the Eucharist?..which by the way of course I dont believe. The term as Paul uses it is found elsewhere in the New Testament in the context of simple remembering. Lastly, what does it really mean that the Lord is present in the Eucharist?
Yup. The act in the present is still remembering what he established in the past, both in establishing the Communion rite, at the last supper, and then upon the cross at Calvary fulfilling it. At your anniversary, you remember your marriage, and you reify the past event and it's memory fully in your present act of rememberance (flowers, a nice dinner, reassurance of your love, devotion, and willing self-sacrifice for your spouse; maybe even another piece of jewelry, and repeating your vows again).
Protestants can ignore it because the Roman catholic interpretation of this passage is unmitigated nonsense.I've heard it said that transubstantiation is considered miraculous, but Scripture never posits a presumed invisible miracle....I await your reply,Antonio...(Or anyone else)--- Besides, the Epistle to the Hebrews negates the concept of the so-called mass...😐😐😐
1. If I may - Transsubstantiation is not, accurately speaking, a miracle. A miracle, in Catholic theology, has several characteristics. One of these is, that to be a miracle, an alleged miracle must be - at least in principle - perceptible to the senses. By its very nature, transsubstantiation is not perceptible to the senses, not even in principle. So it cannot accurately be called a miracle. Transsubstantiation is a very great wonder - but not everything that is a wonder, is a miracle. Surgery is a wonderful thing, and (if one is Christian) a cause for thanks to God - but in no sense is it miraculous, because everything about it can be done by man relying on his own abilities, without any supernatural help. As to what is supernatural - forget all the Hollywood stuff about ghoulies and ghosties and demons: such things are not supernatural. From the POV of Catholic theology, only God is accurately described as supernatural. That is, God alone is “above” all created nature. All existing things are either 1. God the Creator or 2. everything else, AKA all created things, from angels to atoms. Miracles are strictly supernatural. That is, they are Divine Acts which God alone does sometimes by doing them through created beings. When the Apostles worked miracles, God worked through their agency, to do His Will - specifically, by doing works beyond their capabilities, but not beyond His. God can cause the dead to live again - even though St Peter, acting by himself, never could have. God supernaturally raised the dead Tabitha from death, and caused her to live again; and God did this, through the agency of St Peter. IOW, God worked a miracle, through St Peter’s agency. The miracle of the changing of the water into wine at Cana in St John 2 is a good instance of a miracle being perceptible to the senses. What became wine, was (to begin with) seen to be water, and not wine at all. There was no doubt as to what it was - it was water, not wine, which is why there was a problem in the first place. That it was water, was perceptible to the senses - that wine was present, where previously no wine had been, was also perceptible to the senses. Transsubstantiation is very different from that. What our senses perceive after the Consecration, is, according to our senses, Bread and Wine - and not the Reality that is the Body and Blood of Christ. Our senses cannot perceive the supernatural Reality that is the Eucharistic Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. We know that what we receive is the Body and Blood of Christ, not through our senses, but because Christ calls what we receive His Body and His Blood. No miracle has taken place, because the Reality of the change in the Eucharistic Gifts is known through faith in Christ’s Words, and not by way of the senses. Transsubstantiation, like the Incarnation, is a “great and mighty wonder” - but unlike the Incarnation, it cannot accurately be called a miracle. 2. As for the objections from the Letter to the Hebrews, if you tell us what they are, perhaps we can discuss them :)
They ignore Maccabee's, 1, Chapter 8, starting with verse 20 establishing WHY!!!!!!!!!! Jesus WAS born back IN the Roman Empire. Protestants avoid that like the Plague itself, cause it would destroy their fake, phony reasons, arguments---- ---- GOOD SUCCESS BE TO THE ROMANS, and to the people of the Jews, by sea and by land for ever: and far be the sword and enemy from them. [24] But if there come first any war upon the Romans, or any of their confederates, in all their dominions: [25] The nation of the Jews SHALL help them according as the time shall direct, with ALL their heart ( look up HEART in a biology book ): [26] Neither shall they give them, whilst they are fighting, or furnish them with wheat, or arms, or money, or ships, as it hath seemed good to the Romans: and they shall obey their orders, without taking any thing of them. [27] In like manner also if war shall come first upon the nation of the Jews, the Romans shall help them with all their heart ( check a biology book for what they imply by heart), according as the time shall permit them. [28] And there shall not be given to them that come to their aid, either wheat, or arms, or money, or ships, as it hath seemed good to the Romans: and they shall observe their orders without deceit. [29] According to these articles did the Romans covenant ( Jesus ALSO came to fulfill Scripture ) with the people of the Jews.
@@lcringo3498 ---- The Apostles were part of what WE Roman Catholic's call, "The PRIMITIVE Church". Define Primitive? Like as in cavemen, un-educated, un-civilized savages. WE all know the Apostles knew how to read and write, but going back to the Primitive Ages of the Human Race, and We ALL know that cavemen were NOT Astro-Physicists, since they the Apostles were NOT genius's, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was Perfected, evolved over course of many, many years.
Jesus was born in "Bethlehem" (Hebrew for City of Bread) and laid in a *manger,* which is a feeding trough. He later refers to Himself as "the bread of life", commands us more than once to "eat His flesh", and on Passover, he declares that a piece of bread is His body and a chalice of wine is His blood, and He calls this the "New Covenant" (as opposed to the old covenant. which of course consisted of sacrificing and consuming an unblemished lamb)
"People left because they took him literally" Well, we Catholics take Jesus literally here, and yet we haven't walked away, in fact the Eucharist is the most fundamental part of our mass; everything we do during mass is to prepare us for that specific sacrament. The people who walked away in John 6 were in fact Jesus' disciples (remember, he had 12 apostles, but he also had like 79 or so disciples), that means: they were followers of Jesus. What is more interesting to me, is that the Eucharist seems to be the ultimate deal breaker for Protestants from becoming Catholic. They can accept that Virgin Mary is important (not just an ordinary woman), they can accept we pray to Saints for their intercession, they can accept the icons and statues... but the absolutely won't accept Eucharist as something that is not mere symbolism. "It's just so difficult to believe" ...well, so said the disciples back then, and so are saying the Protestants of our time. Come home, siblings, let's be together in full communion with Christ.
I am a catholic catechist, love your teachings. Thank you for explaining the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity! Amen!
I am coming to watch this while getting ready to do a study on the Apostolic fathers, earliest church traditions etc. I am only interested in the earliest things. I believe that things that were added much later in time, and were never spoke of in the beginning, are not to be followed. But the real presence seems to be a belief that has always been there for the longest time from he snippets I have gleaned from reading Justin Martyr etc. and I am interested in learning more. I guess I am considered Protestant and don't know if I could ever be Catholic. I made a list of things I have issues with and that list is VERY long. I wrote it all out so I could go through them one by one in detail to be sure.
You just checked one off the list, the Real Presence. I don't think I could ever be Protestant either for the list I have issues with is VERY long too.
Yes, at passover they were commanded to EAT the lamb. They couldn't just kill it, they had to eat it. And in the desert they had to eat the manna that came down from heaven every day. They complained that it got boring so he sent them flesh (quail) to eat also. I never thought about the significance of God sending them flesh as well as manna, bread and flesh together. Also if Jesus changed water into wine, why can't He change wine into blood.
I can't speak for all Protestants, but I don't think that Jesus _can't_ turn wine into His blood or bread into His flesh, but the question is _whether or not that's what happens_ . The argument Brian presents about "Jesus probably would have told the crowd what He meant if they were misinterpreting Him" would be strong if there weren't other times when it is made _clear_ that Jesus is not being literal, then people misinterpret Him but He does not clarify. One example I can give off the top of my head is in John 2 when He tells the people in the temple "Destroy this temple and I will raise it up again in 3 days". The people think He is talking about the literal temple, but the author (John the apostle) clarifies that Christ is talking about His body...but Jesus never clarifies this to the people. That being said, I don't think that argument is the best.
@@someguy9571 But at John 6:48-69 Jesus says over and over again that the Eucharist truly is His Body and Blood, and at Matthew 6:11 He says "Give us this day our supersubstantial bread", at least that's what the correctly translated Douay Rheims version says. And there is 1 Corinthians 11:27, where St. Paul tells us that receivin Communion unworthily makes us guilty of the Body and Blood of Chrst----if It were just a symbol he wouldn't have used such syrong language. Then there is St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred circa 109 a.d.,and who knew the apostles Peter and John personally, who made it very clear that the Eucharist was literally the Lord's Body and Blood.
@@georgepenton808 My comment is outdated; I've conceded on this point and other points over the past few months. I don't consider myself "Protestant" anymore, currently looking to become Eastern Orthodox.
@@someguy9571 Have you considered becoming Catholic? Read Matthew 16:18-19. Consider that the papacy is the glue Jesus gave the Church to keep it united. If you do convert to Orthodoxy by all means receive Communion there and become devoted to Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Their belief about That is identical to the Catholic belief and since their priesthood is valid so is their Eucharist. One difference: they believe that the Eucharist is confected when the priest says "Let the Holy Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy" and Catholics believe This happens when the priest says "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood".
@@georgepenton808 I have considered Catholicism, but there are a number of things that I can't cone to grips with. The papacy/papal infallibility are one, but also things like purgatory, the insertion of the filioque clause, the concept of original sin, etc. I also generally just think that the Orthodox Church has remained more unchanged from ancient Christianity than Roman Catholicism has.
Fun fact: Welch's grape juice started by a prohibitionist Methodist who figured out a way to prevent grape juice from fermenting (through pasteurization), and marketed it to his local churches, as the Methodist Episcopal Church had, the year before, recommended that "in all cases the pure juice of the grape be used in the celebration of the Lord's Supper".
I can't imagine Jesus turning water into Welch's grape juice. Wine was naturally preserved so of course Jesus and the apostles would have been drinking wine.
"Guys, Jesus and co. were obviously drinking fresh-pressed grape juice, so we should only take communion when we can get that, because alcohol is bad."
i was protestant for over thirty years......the Lord corrected me on the error i believed about the eucharist and after prayer and research i was led by obedience of faith to the Orthodox church.....just recently entered the Church of Jesus Christ ...the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church......seek you will find.....He will allow Himself to be found
I'm not a expert, just a self-educated Catholic and former Lutheran, so take this for what it's worth... In my experience, the Lutheran/consubstantiation crowd has an over-simplified idea of what the Catholic teaching is. They'll say things like "We believe that Christ's presence comes in to the elements and it's _both_ bread/wine and Body/Blood" almost in a way that sounds like they're saying they think Catholic teaching says it stops being bread/wine. So I'd start with explaining that the Catholic teaching is that the bread/wine becomes the Body/Blood in it's fullness (every particle of bread is Body) but it still _retains the form_ of bread/wine (the exception being Eucharistic miracles of course).
After being a Charismatic Protestant for sixty one years, four years ago I started studying Catholicm.I loved it I went and talked to a priest. He told me great and now I could go back to the protestant church. Iwent to another Catholic church and enrolled in RCIA. I was basically ignored and was even called names. I have not attended church in one and one half years Brian, do you have any suggestions?
I would recommend finding at least one good Catholic friend, (I'm sure you can find at least one) and ask them who their favorite priest is. Just keep asking as many priests as possible for help, and you'll find at least one good one. Good luck!
I studies Catholicism and I studied Christianity. The bible - Jesus' teaching is a part of Catholicism but the "Catholic church" did add so many things that are not included in the bible as well interpreting what Jesus really said. Jesus often preached in parables so people would understand better the meaning of what Jesus was saying. The Catholic Church applies the parables, the images of what Jesus said as the real thing and makes us believing those things. Following the Bible, Jesus' teachings, is very simple and leads to peace. The Word of God, his commandments, Jesus' sacrifice for our salvation. No confusions, no fears, no misunderstandings, just Love, Peace and Joy with God in our life.
Novus ordo should be outright removed. Its a lutheran, not catholic mass. Its sad to see how many people "try" Catholicism and come away unable to see the difference because they only had novus ordo missae to reference.
@@wulfocrow5549 Not so. The mass is about communion and all that goes with communion. The last supper which was the first mass wasnt in Latin. Lutherans don't celebrate mass. They copy it in their heresy and to their liking but their pastors are not consecrated. They just believe they are, however, a Catholic priest is granted the power by the laying of hands from saint Peter up to today, to turn the bread and wine intro the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If they don't understand that then they are not ready.
If you thibk the goal of Novus Ordo was modernism I such as you read the II Vatican Council it is clear that the problem is not the Mass itself but rather the abuses done within it
@@wulfocrow5549 -- I agree, since the Latin language is ALSO the Judicial Language of the Church whom is the Bride of Christ Jesus. BUT!!! We are not as Roman Catholic as we think we are. After I started to read, study, contemplate and pray The Summa Theologia, and Aquinas's other works, I in humility confess how much I was not with myself, but VERY ignorant. Having Cultural background that is NOT English or Irish, my command of the English language is VERY weak, deficient, or in street lingo, NOT very deep. Holy Spirit ( He IS God with His self ) knows and understands how to draw good, righteousness out of evil.
I'm a protestant believer, and I appreciate that you explained this, because the catholic view of communion makes a lot more sense to me now. I never thought that the verse you used was about communion, so I found that interesting too. I still disagree with this view though. I think for example, the fact that Jesus said the wine is "the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20) instead of "my blood" kind of contradicts this view. If this was all literal, why would the wine become the new covenant for us to drink? What would that even mean? It would make more sense for Him to say "my blood" if it was literal. But I don't think it is, I think it's symbolic. I also find it strange that this specific topic was never discussed by Paul in the epistles. In 1 Corinthians 11, he tells the Church not to have communion as a feast, because the point of communion isn't to eat, but to eat in remembrance of Him. He doesn't at all mention the fact that the bread and wine are Jesus' body, which seems odd since it would fit really well in this situation. For someone who gets really picky about doctrine, Paul doesn't seem to mention this belief at all, even during the time of the gnostic church. I think there's a difference in the way Catholics and Protestants view communion too. The way i understand it, communion in the Catholic church, (breaking the bread, eating and drinking the emblems), is supposed to act as a continuous crucifixion for our sins, whereas protestants treat communion as an act to simply remember the crucifixion and proclaim our faith. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I have been told, and I haven't researched it myself) I think it's more complicated than "cannibalism is wrong" and "it's in the scriptures", but if someone would like to correct me on anything, go ahead.
Paul actually references this theology quite a bit. Try 1 Corinthians 10:16 for a start. Secondly, your understanding of the Catholic view of mass isn't accurate. It's re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice, not a re-crucifixion.
@@ctrlaltshift The catholic mass is in Malachi 1;11. You seem sincere. The catholic mass is a bloodless sacrifice the daily sacrifice in over 300,000 catholic churches worldwide. Matter of fact in John's Revelation John the apostle speaks of the catholic mass from Revelation chapter 1 to 11.Catholics can receive holy communion daily 7 days a week. The eucharist can eliminate all venial sins. The eucharist nourishes the soul.
It would appear from an analysis that Brian's and Catholic teaching is the more logical based on the available evidence as presented in the gospels however i have a question : Is there any information on why ( and no i don't mean " so we might enjoy eternal life" sort of info ) exactly Jesus chose this particular practice for those that wish to follow him, ?I mean I know all about the old testament animal sacrifices and all that but I still find it confusing ( not rejecting.... just confusing ) as to why he picked this as a requirement, any ideas ?
Just found your channel and love it (subbed). I'd love for you to do one on Adoration. I always feel incredibly moved by the presence of Christ at Adoration 😊. My teenage sons and I go and it's a wonderful way to honor our Lord.
tim spangler Why do you think Christians cannot worship and adore our Lord Jesus Christ in manners not necessarily dictated by the Bible. If the Bible says not to, that's different. Furthermore, who do you think you are to question my time and profound experiences with my Lord? I would never do that to you.
Exactly. The second I read your comment I thought "oh boy I'll just click on 'view replies' and there will be Tim Spangler yapping on about worshiping the Eucharist." Sure enough, there he is, as always. Because he is EVERYWHERE doing this. There is nothing you can say to this person that he will acknowledge or understand. He suffers from a spirit of strife and is apparently blinded to the truth by his own choice. He will accept no answer, even from ex-protestant bible scholars. His mission in life is to trash the Catholic Church, period.
Prancer1231 You're so right! He trolls, relentlessly, EVERY Catholic Channel there is, like he regularly trolls Bishop Barron's. Just look at the other comments - he's everywhere. I honestly think sometimes that some Catholic girl must have hurt him. It's all too personal. The level of vitriol never lets up. It's never presented as a reasonable debate or genuine interest in understanding; it's mean spirited.
Tim: Read the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is free online. This covers absolutely everything pertaining to the Catholic faith. Stop badgering Catholics on TH-cam. Of course they have an answer to it. It is adored because it is JESUS CHRIST in the FLESH as he tells you IN THE BIBLE. Jesus tells us in the Bible that the bread and wine are his body and blood. If we worship Jesus, why would we not worship his body and blood? Stop being a pest. Now go read the Catechism, all of it, get busy. And while you're at it, read the ENTIRE Bible and do what it says. Bye now.
I still can't accept that to be taken literally.. at the end of it He says: do this in remembrance of Me. (I'd do that reverently) You keep a ritual to remember or remind one of something. It is something that does not happen all over again. When He says: 'I am the door of the sheep' did not mean He was literally a door and that He was rearing sheep! Jesus, as the occasion required did not talk in the literal sense but rather in parables and i'd say too, a lot figuratively or metaphorically too and this i believe is one of those occasion..
Hi there, I came across your channel a couple of months ago while late night trawling through TH-cam. I really enjoy your content, and the honesty in which you present yourself in the videos. I was born into a Protestant Christian family My parents where pastors of a Pentecostal church in Scotland. And instilled a love for the Lord in I and my siblings.As a child spent a lot of time in Eastern Europe as my parents had a vision and heart for the persecuted Gypsy (Roma) people where the helped in both humanitarian and Gospel mission. I've always seen Catholics as my brothers and Sisters who also love the Lord. So your videos (although thought provoking) a real encouragement. And I look forward to future content. I was wondering what your thoughts on Messianic Jews were? God Bless, Sean.
It’s very clear that Jesus was talking about believing and trusting and following Jesus, and this is found in John chapter 6, also Jesus was the word so communion is remembering what he did us on the cross. To eat and drink the lords body and blood is to believe and follow it’s not actually his physical body. We don’t interpret by what the church fathers said because they say many off the wall thing’s that contradict scripture
Hello friend! If it was clear that Jesus was talking about “believing and trusting and following” Him, then why in John 6:66 do many of His disciples stop following him? These people already “believed and followed” Him. Wouldn’t they have just been like “yeah Jesus, we get it, that’s what we’re already doing.”? Why would they leave?
@@davidcarey7396 because the Holy Spirit was not drawing them as it says in verse 66:5, in verse 66:4 Jesus knew who were truly following him and walking in the spirit. Besides this chapter happened a year before Jesus even instituted communion.
@@EsteemHisWord So, you’re saying that Jesus asserts multiple times that we must consume His flesh among much murmuring and quarreling. And everyone listening, including His disciples, think it is a hard saying. And many of His disciples leave Him and return to their former way of life (people that have already dropped everything to follow Him). And the saying that was so hard was… to believe and follow Jesus. I would disagree with that interpretation. That is not a hard saying for people that have already been believing and following Jesus, that is the very basics of being a follower of Christ. I would contend that Jesus was speaking not only in a symbolic way, but also a literal way and that is the reason it was a hard saying, and that is why people left him, because if his disciples were to believe this hard teaching, then they must avail themselves to the Grace of God (John 6:65). It will take an act of faith to believe Him, they must believe in supernatural (spiritual) terms not human (fleshy) terms (John 6:63). Yes, absolutely, Jesus knew who were truly following Him and believing Him! God stands outside of time and therefore sees things quite differently than we do. Amen with you there, friend! Also, the logic of your last sentence seems very flawed; if it hasn’t happened yet, then it can’t be talked about. So, in Matthew 16:21 Jesus can’t be talking about His death and resurrection because that hadn’t happened yet. Or when He mentions it a second (Mark 9:31) or third time (Luke 18:33)?
@@davidcarey7396 he said it several times but this isn’t even speaking of communion it’s speaking of believing and receiving what Jesus did on the cross, the Bible speaks against cannibalism in Leviticus, remember Jesus is the word and we get fed by reading, hearing and obeying the word. What your thinking is flawed and doesn’t make sense brother
@@EsteemHisWord How is this not speaking of communion? In all 3 synoptic gospels Jesus takes the bread and says this IS my body, and likewise with the cup He says this IS my blood. A direct comparison with John 6 where He says his flesh is the bread of life, true food, and His blood is true drink. I guess we have different views of what Jesus did on the cross. I believe that Jesus became our paschal sacrifice, our unblemished lamb, for us to be partakers of the new exodus. An exodus from sin, and like the old exodus with Moses there is a new Passover feast (the Eucharist). Just like how in the old Passover the sacrificed lamb had to be consumed, so does the new feast. And that’s what Jesus is doing at the last supper, the Jewish Passover feast had a very strict script to be followed by the head of the household, yet at the last supper (which was a Jewish Passover) Jesus didn’t follow that script. He is implementing the Eucharist; He is saying to do this in memorial of me not in memorial of the events of the exodus from Egypt. So that we could all be partakers of His one sacrifice on the cross by consuming His flesh. And my friend your accusation of cannibalism points to that as well, the early Christians were persecuted by the Romans because they partook in the Eucharistic feast! The Romans called them cannibals because they consumed the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the risen Jesus Christ. Early Christians believed that the real presence of Christ was being consumed. Read 1 Corinthians 11:27-32, in verse 27 the Greek text-enochos estai tou somatos kai tou haimatos tou kyriou-translates “will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” The phrase “guilty of blood” is a figure of speech that connotes murder. Now if the Eucharist were anything less than the real presence of Christ Himself this sentence wouldn’t make sense, why would you be guilty of murder if it were just a symbol? If you want extra biblical resources on what the early Church believed we could look at St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a student of St. John, as well as the bishop of Antioch until his death in 110ad. He says in his letter to the Smyrnaeans: “But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Here is a leader of the early Church and student of an Apostle calling such people unbelievers and heretics, saying they do not consume the Eucharist because they don’t believe that it is truly Jesus, and his advice to believers is to “keep aloof from such persons”. Sorry I got a little carried away with all that. So let me just make sure I’m understanding this correctly. You believe that communion was instituted at the last supper, and that John 6 has nothing to do with that. Do you believe we should consume bread and wine as symbols?
I have never seen more devotion, adoration and honor for our lord and savior Jesus Christ, than during the eucharistic prayer absolutely 'Divine' literally Divine... I've been to both protestant celebrations and catholic mass. There is something extraordinary about my Lord inviting me to be one with him, in the holy eucharist. My brothers and sisters we must not let it feel repetitive, there is so much we can learn, to fully understand the meaning of our glorious mass. Let us spread the great news, but first let us make an effort to understand our faith in it's totality. This is one of the, if not, the best video explaining the holy eucharist. Thank you very much for posting. God Bless you :)
Hi tim spangler I for one have no time for a back and forth with you like so many others in the comment section. I highly recommend any book or lecture on the topic, by scott hahn or patrick madrid. I recommend any and every topic with these two gentlemen. If and when you question their interpretation of Holy Scripture, ask yourself who has the more accurate interpretation?, who was with our Lord and Savior while he roamed the world? God Bless you.
Genesis 14: 18-20 is the first mention. But the blessing of bread and wine on the Sabbath is an ancient Jewish practice. The Christian Eucharist replaces the Jewish Temple sacrifice and was practised by the Church from its inception.
"Know that what is written in the books of God is a symbol, and therefore, as spiritual people and not fleshly people, study and understand these words. If this applies to them as fleshly people, they harm you, not feed you. After all, in the Gospels there is also "a letter that kills" (cf. 2 Cor 3: 6). There is a killing letter not only in the Old Testament; also in the New Testament there is a "letter that kills" the one who does not understand the words in the spiritual card. If, in a literal sense, you take the words: "If you do not eat mine and drink my blood" (Jn 6:53), this letter kills. " Orygenes
I wonder why they stopped giving both species ( wine with the Eucharist) in almost all churches??? I remember back in the late 70’s the priest would dip the Eucharist in the wine ? Then that stopped altogether. 🤔
Great video! A few things to point out: the Eastern Orthodox do not define and have not defined the Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament as having transubstantiated. Only Rome insists on Transubstantiation as the only acceptable understanding of the Sacred Mystery. As well, Lutherans and Anglicans believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Lutherans hold to a real, objective Presence that is sometimes erroneously called "Consubstantiation". Anglicans hold to a wider range, from a Receptionist model (we receive Christ by Faith) to an objective model. Some Papal Catholics try to argue that by "spiritual presence" in our Articles of Religion, we deny Real Presence. This cannot be the case, or else St. Paul denies a physical Resurrection by speaking of a "spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44-46). The Anglican insistence upon receiving Jesus spiritually is not a denial of receiving Him physically. Anyway, good video; I just wanted to let you and your viewers know that there are Protestants who do hold to Real Presence.
As a 12 year old child I described the Eucharist in the same way in answer to a question from a faith formation teacher. She however misunderstood what I meant and then proceeded to explain the real presence to the other kids. Looking back I realize that my use of the word symbol made her think I had protestant views.
Thanks for having the courage to bring the subject of the communion up. Communion is the Commandment of Christ and like most of what Jesus said is a Great mystery. Unless once has faith , repentance and direct experience of the communion he will not really understand it meaning and importance. Debating the communion meaning on the level of the human logic is very difficult and almost impossible, because we are on the level that surpasses our logic. Only with the help of the Holy Spirit the meaning of the Great Mystery of the communion can be unfolded.
Thank you for this awesome video. I have added this to like 5 of my playlists on my channel because this message can not be heard enough. My channel is just a “video library “ that I created as I was learning about the faith. I am a convert, and it wasn’t until I was in RCIA that I heard this! I was joining the church for so many other reasons, and then I heard this... I was shocked that I had never heard this!!!! I love the Eucharist, I love the theology of this teaching, I just want everyone to know this! So thank you again.
“At that time, the great and righteous and kings and prophets knew that the Savior was coming. But they did not know or hear that he would suffer and be crucified and shed his blood on the cross. Nor did it occur to them that there would be a baptism of fire and the Holy Spirit, and that bread and wine would be offered in the Church, the antipodes (i.e. figures, symbols) [1] of his Body and Blood, and that those who received the visible bread would eat they will be spiritually the body of the Lord" Simeon of Egypt
7:30 To say the rite is both symbolic and literal is LITERALLY a contradiction in terms. The rite is symbolic..of itself? If the rite were literal..why the need for a symbol? Doesnt work
In China the first things Communist troops would do in entering a citu would be to go to the city's Catholic church, smash open the church's tabernacle, and desecrate the Eucharist by urinating or defecating on It. If It were just a symbol the Commies would have just yawned as they passed a Catholic church.
5:50 Attempt to side step the controversy won't work. If you say that it's not REALLY cannibalism then why did the hearers take offense? Trying to have your cake and eat it too doesnt cut it.
How can something be a metaphor for itself? Why is that not a contradiction or at the very least, redundant? Is the bread metaphor physical while the flesh is metaphysical?
The Lutheran Church believes the true Body and real Blood of Jesus is given in the eating of bread and wine. It is still bread and wine but we receive the real body and blood of Jesus after consecrated. God's peace.
A message I recently sent my friend about the eucharist. whatsup, buenas tardes. I want you to know that what I'm sending to you is not an attempt to attack you or make fun of the catholic faith. You and I both claim we are seeking truth and so I wanted to share why I disagree with the catholic interpretation of the scripture that they interpret as true blood and true flesh. You are a wise person and so I want to share something I hope you will read seriously and intentionally.. it is our duty as believers to seek to know the most real Jesus and his words too. I hope this can lead to a fruitful discussion for us both. Protestants are very critical of scripture... it means we take it seriously and deeply study it to know what is true. Like you have shared with me before, we cant take 1 verse and create a HUGe part of our faith/theology from it.. That's why, for 3xample, protestants dont worship or pray to mary.. because we dont see anything about that in the bible. That's another discussion another day though. So in reference to the eucharist, we dont believe it is the actual blood and flesh of christ because of many reasons. In john 3:3 jesus says,"Unless one is born again, one cannot see the kingdom of God." Does that mean we need to go into our mothers womb and be physically/literally born again? Absolutely not, it was a *spiritual* born again. In John 4 when Jesus says to the woman at the well that He could have given her living water, she asked for it.. but he wasnt talking about a physical/literal living water, he was talking about a spiritual loving water.. which he later confirms in John 7:37-39 when he says, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the scripture said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.' Now this he said about the *spirit*. The water isnt a physical/literal water that we drink... it's a *spiritual* word sumbolizing the spirit. Now in John 6 when Jesus is talking about eating his body and drinking his blood, is he referring about literally/physically *eating him* ?? Absolutely not! This is a continuation of his sermons using a spiritual word. If we were truly commanded to eat his flesh and blood, why, in the last supper, did he not ask his disciples to eat HIM or drink his BLOOD? He gave them fruit of the vine and bread.. he didnt give them his physical body. Matthew 26:26-29, luke 22:14-23 AND mark 14:22-25 Jesus *himself* calls it bread and wine.. and says he will not drink again "of the fruit of the vine" until hes with them again.. why didnt jesus actually just give them his literal flesh and literal blood that night if he wanted them to eat and drink it? It wouldve been easy.. but he didnt. Acts 15:20 and acts 15:29 are commandments NOT to drink blood too. I'd it was actual blood that Jesus wanted them to drink that would be contradictory. Also in that same John 6 chapter right after he talks about the blood and flesh,Jesus says in v 63 "It is the spirit who gives life, the flesh is no help at all. *The words that I have spoken to you are *SPIRIT and life*.".. which is consistent with the rest of John. Jesus has 7 I Am statements in the book of John. I am the light, I am the bread of life, I am the gate.. these were metaphorical .. symbolizing a deeper truth, or do we really think Jesus is a physical/literal gate/door? I dont. On top of all this, lets look at the context of John 6 when Jesus is speaking about the blood/flesh thing. In John 6:53-54, Jesus says," Truly truly I say to you, unless you eat of the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." So if Catholics interpret the flesh and blood as physical/literal, do you also interpret the end of that verse physically/literally too - when it says "you have no life in you." ? Because if you take that verse literally/physically too (which you kinda have to) that means myself and billions of other people literally have no life in us... which is not true.. because I DO have life in me. I'm alive. Catholics cannot say the first part (eat my flesh/drink my blood) is physical/literal and the 2nd part spiritual... that's not intellectually honest. It's the same thing with v58.. Jesus says whoever feeds on this bread (notice he says bread here) he says we will love forecer... is that spiritually or physically/literally? Obviously not physicslly.. because we know we all die. (Notice what Jesus says in John 6:29, 35, 40.. belief.. especially 40.) The catholic mass is a re-presentation of the crucifixion. The mass is an actual sacrifice according to Roman catholic doctrine (council of trent). That's why it's so important for the roman cath church that the eucharist be literal blood and flesh. The problem with this is that jesus shed his blood and flesh ONCE AND FOR ALL on the cross. There is no more need for blood francesca. His blood on the cross was the LAST sacrifice needed for the forgiveness of our sins and salvation. Hebrews 10:11-12: 'And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take easy sins. But when Christ had offered *for all time* a sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God." An important question for all Christian's (catholics and protestants) is to ask ourselves WHY we believe what we believe. Everything we believe should make sense biblically.. as we look at it as a WHOLE scripture.. not just a verse. And did you know that the view of the eucharist and its importance is actually new? Vatican II made a lot of changes with the eucharist. It wasnt celebrated for the first 400ish years in the way catholics celebrate it now .. and before Vatican 2, lay people (people who dont work for the catholic church) werent allowed to drink from the chalice. These changes in tradition are a result of having scripture AND tradition as authoritative.. instead of just scripture. In the end, it doesnt matter if I Ryan disagree with the Roman catholic church's doctrine.. what's important is if the written word of the God of Abraham disagrees with the Roman Catholic doctrine.
You can go every day to church and do your Catholic doctrine but that is no going to calm your hungry nether your thirst, because the real bread and blood is Himself on us through his Holly Spirit. We eat his flesh and drink His Blood following His example, reading and meditating His word, obeying His command, given good fruit, saying no to the ways of the world and yes to his ways, Loving Him over everything of this Universe and Loving others as ourself. THERE we will satisfied our hungry and thirst.
Great stuff ....I think St Augustine's symbol was a real symbol...it is/what it signifies. Real sacramental presence, since where Christ's body and blood are ...there he is in a sacrament designed to be eaten. Christ is present in all sacraments.
No, we specifically DO NOT believe that. If you've been told that then you should ask yourself why someone has to resolve to using slander and strawman arguments to discredit those they disagree with. The Church teaches that it is a "re-presentation" of that same sacrifice.
There is an idea in the ancient times that an image or idol not only symbolically represents something, but also means a real presence of the being it represents. In such manner of thinking it would not be wrong to say that it really is Jesus or that its a symbol because both would mean the same thing.
Yes, when viewed from an Aristotelian world view. But try to actually read when I typed. We now days would say that a pagan idol is just a symbol of that pagan deity. However, the pagans would say that the idol is not just a mere symbol of their deity, but by being a symbol of the deity, the idol becomes the deity itself. That is because often ancient peoples saw an intimate connection between the spiritual and material. For something to spiritually present, such as in a symbol, was to be present materially, and vice versa. The Aristotelian world, which is a more modern way of looking at the world, puts a distinction the observable and the unobservable. That is between the material and the super natural. From such distinctions come forth the idea that a symbol is only a mere symbol and nothing more, but such isn't a necessary conclusion from such a world view. It is only that a definite conclusion can not be made about the unseen. In an Aristotelian world view you are correct. From a Platonic world view, which the early church was built upon, your statement is redundant.
Early church believed dual reality. It’s both bread and body; wine and blood. It’s still bread and wine, as St. Paul says multiple times. If you don’t believe it’s still bread and wine, you’re in denial and not realizing He comes down to the level of bread and wine for us, not just appearing like a man, but truly becoming a man, not just appearing as bread, but truly becoming bread.
Do you think Christ’s body and blood were somehow separate from the food and drink He ate and drank? Do we need Christology for every dissected part of His body and blood? Do we need Christology for the water He drank and the figs he ate? The main problem is your mindset that cannot conceive of a thing having dual reality. This is a mystery, not an either/or situation... body vs. bread. As you know, the early church fathers all called it Mystery. They did not dissect down to plasma and sweat glands and multiply natures because they are all one. Neither should you dissect the sanctified bread and wine which are the body and blood of Christ. “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.” - 1 Corinthians 11:26
I mean, if a parent is playing tag with a young child and they're like "I'm gonna eat you!" and then they catch them and are like "nom nom nom" you could consider that symbolic cannibalism, but it's not wrong...
At the Debating Christianity and Religion Forum, I joined and came into Debate on the Real Presence. I tried to always be respectful, but I was prepared-- but maybe because my opponents we're largely JWs, this is not saying much
So now Justin Martyr is infallible? Simply speaking it is a most serious anamnésis, the remembrance of the One Sacrifice for all time which will never and cannot happen again "It is finished". We should always remember what God has done for us daily and to acknowledge this wholeheartedly from God's Spirit to our spirit.
they take their "church fathers" as infallible when they agree with them and ignore them when they don't. but instead of the bible ---- they drink the "church fathers" kool aid, that's how many are deceived
It's just like the question, when someone dies, do they really die? Or do they just sleep, as Jesus said about dead people so many times? Do you take it literally? Or figurtively?
@william cloud If "the flesh profits you nothing" means we are not supposed to receive Communion, why do the Last Supper narratives in the synoptic Gospels tell us to eat His Body and drink His Blood? "The flesh profits you nothing" obviously means don't indulge the flesh by overeating or overdrinking or committing sexual sins. Jesus wouldn't say over and over to eat His Flesh only to turn around and say Don't eat My Flesh.
@william cloud William, you are using the lamest excuses to get around what Jesus said over and over in the sixth chapter of John---the Holy Eucharist os literally His Body and Blood, and those who exclude themselves form this great Treasure do not go to Heaven. "The flesh profits you nothing" obviously, obviously means don't indulge the flesh. If Jesus' Flesh profits us nothing why did Jesus institute the practice at all? Even if it's just a symbol---which it isn't---why would Jesus bother to institute it if it profited us nothing? "This is a hard saying," many said. This is only a hard saying if we interpret it literally. If Jesus were speaking symbolically it would not be a hard saying at all.
Does anyone know of where communion has been scientifically tested to see if it changes or substantiates i.e. turns into something else such as blood and flesh?
The Church doesn't say that it changes in that way. The accidents (bread and wine) remain, but the substance changes which isn't something you would see empirically. That said, there have been several Eucharistic miracles in which the accidents change and several of those have been tested in a lab and they return startlingly similar results. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle#Tangible_Transubstantiation
The only important thing is: do you believe it is the way we are saved? If not, we can disagree on this and it is not that important. If so, we don’t believe we are saved the same way, I believe in Christ’s death and resurrection, there lies my faith
Great segment. When Protestants tell me that Augustine said that the bread represents Christ, I use an analogy involving the Statue of Liberty. If anyone says that it represents the libertarian ideals that the US was founded on, can’t they still go and visit the monument?
You can’t frame this as transubstantiation versus symbolism. In the early church there were other options in terms of explaining how Christ was present. In fact the transubstantiation theory was a later development.
Transubstantiation was a later definition to the concept that had always been believed. Justin Martyr, writing in the 2nd century, says calls it transmutation.
@@BrianHoldsworth Thanks Brian. Justin does not say that the bread and wine transmutate into flesh and blood, but rather says that OUR flesh and blood are nourished by "transmutation," which is an obvious reference to digestion. The Greek word used by Justin is METABOLHN from which we get the word "metabolism" which refers to digestion. There is a problem with assuming Justin is referring to transubstantiation. Justin did not explain what type of transformation of the elements takes place at the Eucharist, he was simply explaining an effect of it. We have to be careful about reading later understandings of the Eucharist back into Justin Martyr. Can one objectively show that Justin is speaking of the substantial change of the elements in this passage? It can be more accurately interpreted that Justin Martyr is referring to a spiritual change in the believer after partaking of the Lord’s Table Besides this, no one in the Protestant tradition denies that Jesus Himself said that the bread was His body and the wine was His blood, therefore Protestants have no problem with Justin Martyrs language and the burden of proof is on supporters of Transubstantiation to show that he was speaking of an ontological change of the elements in Apology 1.66.
@@paulsmallwood1484 Right, except, he says, about the Trasmutated nourishment that it "is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." He also says that it is "not as common bread and common drink do we receive these". He's specicially saying this isn't just bread and wine, but the flesh and blood of Jesus. All Transubstantiation does is help us understand it in philosophical terms. There's no skirting around this or distorting it into anything other than a clear belief that the food that is blessed becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus. If all he was talking about was how bread changes as its digested, there would be no point in trying to explain that since it's already common knowledge. Aristotelian natural philosophy was a later understanding of concepts like "substances" which was then reconciled into our understanding of theology. As science develops, so too, can our theology if they fit, which Aquinas showed that they do. That isn't a departure from St. Justin, but a development of understanding of what he was already saying.
@@BrianHoldsworth Brian transubstantiation is a sacerdotal act. It requires a sacerdotal priesthood. Sacerdotalism didn’t enter the Christian church until the 4th century. To say there was a Roman Catholic priesthood in the first and early second century is simply not supported by the facts. You are reading the western church of the Middle Ages back into history. It was nice chatting with you Brian. God bless!
@@paulsmallwood1484 OK, well that's an entirely different topic - which is a red herring fallacy. But if you insist on changing the subject... "And all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who do inherit here neither lands nor houses, but serve God and the altar continually." Irenaeus, 2nd century. "Laodicea, Peter ordered the people to meet on the following day; and having ordained one of those who followed him as bishop over them, and others as presbyters, and having baptized multitudes, and restored to health all who were troubled with sicknesses or demons." - Clement of Rome, 1st century "Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" - Ignatius of Antioch, 1st century "And by ordination to the priesthood, which the apostles themselves had received from our Lord, did their Gospel wing its way rapidly into the four quarters of the world." - Teachings of the Apostles Syriac, 3rd century at the latest (but possibly a writing of the apostles)
Here's is what saves, what is important! For God sent His Son to die for our sins, to be our One atonement, One sacrifice for all sin. He was buried and rose from the dead on the third day! The Gospel.
Except that's not the whole Gospel. Scripture describes a LOT more with regards to salvation. All heresies are an attempt to reduce the Gospel to one simplistic thing that neglects the whole.
@@BrianHoldsworth Paul managed to reduce the gospel to one sentence in 1Corinthians: For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, - 1Cor 15:3,4 And Paul makes it quite clear in many of his letters that a person is saved by the gospel. (accepting or rejecting) For example: Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also YOU RECEIVED and in which you stand, BY WHICH ALSO YOU ARE SAVED, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you-unless you believed in vain. 1Co 15:2 (emphasis mine) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for IT IS THE POWER OF GOD TO SALVATION for EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. - Rom 1:16 (emphasis mine) Don't Catholics teach more than "real presence in Communion" = consubstantiation? I thought Catholic teaching was the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ = transubstantiation. I think the quote you gave from Justin Martyr is about consubstantiation.
Thank you for the video. As a Bible believing Christian I completely agree with this understanding. Jesus meant what He said. Protestants have to change their reasoning just for one single chapter to avoid this. Please take 1 Corinthians 11:14 literally too, though.
I understand your reasoning, but I believe the Catholic Church has departed from true doctrine in various areas, so I attend other churches. I consider myself a part of the Church that Christ built.
There's the trouble. Your determination is based upon "I believe". YOU have become the final determiner of "true doctrine". But you were never given the authority to determine that. You are relying upon your own fallible understanding, which funny enough, Scripture says NOT to do.
Interesting refutation of the objection of cannibalism. But I don't see if the "idea" of cannibalism should be objectionable, whether literal or symbolic, why wouldn't the idea of the life giving bread and wine as body and blood be efficacious whether deemed literal or symbolic by the recipient? Christians whether Catholic, Orthodox or one of the Protestant sects all seem to deem this a vital issue. Yet to an outsider like me, it seems insignificant. For Jews, it all boils down to what we do. It isn't about how we feel as we're doing it.
It wasn't that cannibalism was such a 'yucky' thing, I don't think. Even before that consideration, Jews believed they were prohibited from drinking blood, human or animal. But like you say, Jesus never stopped the departing crowd by telling them he was only speaking in symbols. What's more, clearly the early Church believed in the Real Presence, and a generation or two down the road, pagan Romans used to mock Christians with the cannibal label.
Christians in the Empire also saved babies who had been taken to the dump, left exposed to whatever fate might befall them -- death or acquisition by those in search of slaves for various purposes. Even though the parents had abandoned the babies, and many died cruelly, Romans still accused Christians of using the babies in the Sacrifice, killing them and eating their flesh. Of course the reality was that Christians couldn't allow the innocent to suffer. They gave the babies loving homes.
Jews are not supposed to drink blood, because, Blood is Life, and Life belongs to God. "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life" But in this cases, it is God made Man himself wo gives His own Blood/Life "to make atonement for our souls" The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and the christian central rite who actualizes it - the Eucharist -, replaces all rites of the Temple.
I know that it is not cannibalism to receive the Eucharist in the state of Grace but is it cannibalism to receive the Eucharist with a mortal sin on your soul?
No. It's not cannibalism because, while the consecrated Host _is_ the Body and Blood of Christ, it is still in the form of bread and wine. It's not tied to mortal sin.
This is disturbing to me. In fact, early Christians faced accusations they were cannibals based on some of the teaching. The Passover Seder is celebrated once a year which in Jesus time included a sacrificial lamb, unleavened bread and wine. Just as the Jews remembered what God had done for them in bringing them out of Egypt, Jesus was making it known that in the same way he should be remembered for what he was about to do in bringing us out of captivity of sin. His use of bread, wine and of course himself as the lamb were all in this context. Were the Israelites eating and drinking the flesh and blood of God? Of course not and Jesus himself said that God is spirit. But because God provided the sacrificial lamb in Christ why do we automatically assume that we should therefore be eating his flesh in place of nibbling on the roasted lamb? We know that the early Jews would have been grossly offended by any such thing not least because drinking blood was anathema to them and contrary to their kosher laws. Peter himself initially struggled with the idea of being able to kill and eat non kosher food. Instead of literally having to celebrate Passover once a year with lamb, bread and wine, as well as other obligatory sacrifices, the new covenant removed the need for endless sacrifices as a means of escape. Jesus timing was to use Passover to say that instead of endless Passovers and sacrifices where remembrance of bondage and God's provision of freedom were remembered, in future the bread and wine will suffice. Do these things in remembrance of me. Instead of literally having to eat the lamb and bread and drink the wine, we now just eat the bread and drink the wine because the Lamb of God has been the final sacrifice.
I agree..nowhere in the New Testament is the Holy Spirit given (And to my understanding this is the real presence of Christ in the believer) at such a meal. Ever
Reading Brian Muraresku’s scholarly book on the early Christian History and the Book of St John - the Greeks- the eating of flesh and spiked wine and the evolutionary Eucharist and the women who prepared the Sacramento. The Immortality Key The Secret Story of the Religion With No Name. The Immortality Key
Dude! This was a great explanation of the Eucharist! What those who see only symbols fail to realize is that symbols convey what they symbolize. Every day we live with this but don't think about it. The badges that are given to law enforcement officers convey an authority given to them by the governing body. Therefore, when someone flashes their badge, we do not simply blow it off as "just a symbol". We recognize an authority behind the badge. Likewise, the money we use every day is not just a piece of paper but has a value that has been placed in that paper that is acknowledged and allows us to purchase things with it. Why? It's just a symbol! Because symbols convey what they symbolize. If this is true of these common items which are authorized by governments, then how much more true it is with symbols authorized by the God who gives authority to these governments! For this reason, Paul was able to write, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" Communion, if I understand correctly, means those with which we are united. Thus the bread and the wine, when consecrated to God, are no longer common food but convey to us in physical elements the very body and blood of Christ and all the benefits and privileges therein. I think part of the problem is a misunderstanding of the word 'remember'. In western societies especially we have the idea that remembrance is the mental exercise of trying to think about something that happened in past. How can you think about something in the past when you were not present when it happened? Instead, remembrance brings the past into the present through the sanctified elements that God has authorized. (This was also the intention of the Jewish Passover meal.) Thus when we are asked the question, "Were you there when they crucified my Lord," we can answer, "As often as we do this," concerning the Eucharist. This meal of Christ also plays a role in our spiritual warfare as by it we proclaim Christ's death until He comes. Thus our Thanksgiving is not just for our benefit, but proclaims the defeat of the principalities and powers of whom he made a spectacle when he was on the cross, triumphing over them in it! So we are privileged to partake of this victory. Volumes could be written on the Eucharist, but I'll stop here in wonder. Thank you for your video.
Fun Fact: In John 6, Jesus changes the verb "eat" in the middle of the chapter. As people keep questioning Him about whether He is being literal in what He is saying, He changes the verb "eat" to "trogo", which means to gnaw like an animal. So when questioned on this teaching, several times, Jesus gets MORE literal each and every time.
TF;
Good point; to chew was necessary because as the passover the Jewish custom was to complete the sedar meal a Jew had to chew the lamb to complete the meal along with the 4th cup.
So chewing the eucharist wafer holy communion we complete the meal literally.
Jesus is the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.
Another fascinating thing Christ at the last supper before finishing the meal Jesus waiting for that 4th cup on the cross.Sour wine on a sponge given by a roman soldier on the cross.That's why Jesus said; It is finished.
The meal is finished.
Go in peace.After every catholic mass the priest says; Go in peace.
The catholic mass is the New Passover.I call it the Superior Passover.
Was there not a ABC show called Superior Donuts lol.
Tim, if that's what Jesus meant in this discourse, why did He let a crowd walk away in confusion. He could have clarified that on the spot. Instead He turned to the apostles and asked if they too were going to walk away. And equally important, what meaning can we assume the apostles took from this discourse, based on what we can assume they taught to the next generation of believers?
TF, that's fascinating! Thanks for sharing!
And their teaching to that next generation is an assumption, granted. But from somewhere St. Ignatius received or conceived the idea of Real Presence. Catholics believe he was taught that by St. John. Even St. Paul, when he warns about receiving Communion unworthily, must have received that notion from somewhere.
Sorry tim spangler,
1. You don't determine Christian beliefs and doctrines. You have no authority.
2. I reject your fallible interpretation of John 6
It was this very passage that after 30 years as an adult in the reformed church made me look back at Catholicism, the faith I grew up in when I was a child. I have returned there.
Mike Masztal - me too (I was born Anglican but was sent to a Catholic school. Once I had remembered this teaching, as an adult, by Jesus I had to convert - had no choice)
I'm glad you found your way back to the truth from heresy, like I did.
God bless you!
African spirituality is the higher level of Catholic church
@@candyclews4047 anglicans also believe in the real presence just saying
When I take communion as a Catholic I feel so close to Jesus that I am awash with joy and grief at the same time.That is enough for me as God’s ways are higher than our ways.
Perfectly expressed. I think you look perfectly expressed the true understanding of the Eucharist. I praise God for your loving him and expressing it so well here on TH-cam.
Thank you
And
God Bless You, ✝️😁 🙏🏼
Steve 😎
We receive communion .. Is a privilege no a right.
The devil has access to feelings (emotions) which are the lower faculties. even in church.
early church fathers on eucharist..
they believed because they knw it for sure..
th-cam.com/video/dqtJrH43rgo/w-d-xo.html
Cannibal much?
@@Kitiwake The devil? :-)
Are you sane?
Hi, Brian, I'm a currently Greek Orthodox who is in the process of converting to Catholicism. I discovered your channel by accident yesterday in the evening, while googleing Catholic convert stories. Needless to say, I found your videos very enlightening and immediately proceeded to bingewatch almost all of your videos. I just wanted to sincerely thank you for all of your videos, as they are very helpful to me. If I may request a future topic, I was wondering how you felt and what you were thinking prior to your baptism. You see, I do not consider myself Greek Orthodox anymore, and I do consider myself to be Catholic, but having grown up in a religious Orthodox household, Catholicism still feels kind of foreign to me, which makes me question my conversion. How can I finally feel 100% Catholic and overcome this dichotomy? Or is that not possible before my confirmation? Another topic I'm very eagerly awaiting for you to cover, is how a young adult such as myself(19yo), cannot feel left alone in a largely secular world within a largely secular generation. Please forgive my rambling and if you're reading this, thank you so much for taking the time to read this.
Hi Damian! Thanks for saying that. I'm glad you're enjoying the videos. I was actually baptized as an infant in a protestant church, so I don't have any memory of it. But, yes Catholicism will feel new for a while as you start to live it. That's part of the romance and I'd encourage you to enjoy this period of discovery. Eventually it will feel second nature, but that will take some time.
Regarding feeling alone in the world, I don't know if there's much comfort I can offer there. Be wary of news media headlines and secular sounding boards that try to diminish the significance of Christianity and the Church. Their reports are usually an exaggeration. There are many of us left. Invest yourself in a good parish and surround yourself with community and if you can't seem to find it, pray for it. My wife and I felt very alone, socially, after our conversions and so we prayed that God would surround us with YA community. In a funny plot twist, he decided that I should start a YA ministry (which I didn't want to do) and then we ended up with more friends than we could keep contact with.
Thank you so much for repsonding Brian. Sorry, I thought that you had to be baptised because you mentioned you were previously an atheist. In that case, how did you see yourself prior to your confirmation and subsequently, having completed your conversion? Did you feel 100% before completing your conversion, or did that come naturally, months or even years after your confirmation? Also, some theological reading recommendations might be a nice topic to cover in the future as well. Again, many thanks for taking the time to read this and for responding.
No problem. I'm a bit of a contrarian, so I have a tough time fitting in just about anywhere. The important thing is that God meets us where we are at and invites us into deeper intimacy and harmony with him and our neighbors. How you feel is less relevant to what you're doing. The feeling will follow.
Damian also dude, a great way to stay in cultural connection to your Orthodox family, would be to seek out an Eastern Catholic Rite, like Melkite Catholicism. They use the same Byzantine liturgy, and have the same general traditions, so it wouldn’t feel as if you were completely abandoning what you grew up with. Because in truth, there’s not too much that divides Orthodox and Catholic Christians.
Welcome back to the One fold, with One Shepherd, btw.
Hi Damian, can you tell me why you are converting to Catholicism? I am a Catholic thinking of converting to Orthodoxy and I'm wondering what is your side of the story
I teach 10th grade Religious Education at Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church in Edinboro, PA. Some of my students are struggling with the Real Presence so I decided to teach an additional lesson on this central tenet of our faith. I found your video- how awesome! I will definitely be using it. Blessings on you and your ministry.
May I in charity suggest the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Thanks!
Communion with my fellow Christians is very profound, we are in communion with the Lord Jesus in our soul and heart. Praise the Lord.
Brian, you are a fantastic apologist and I really appreciate your candor. I am a Lutheran and we hold that the Eucharist is truly Christs' body and blood. Where we would disagree is over transubstantiation - Lutherans simply hold it to be a mystery and don't attempt to explain it - and then the sacrificial elements in the Mass, since Christ died for sins once for all and his perfect atoning sacrifice is complete. Luther once said he'd rather drink the Lord's blood with the Pope than celebrate a memorial with the sacramentarians. Look forward to meeting you in heaven at the Lamb's high feast!
This is the best thing I've ever watched 😂😂😂😂. I laughed to tears at 2:48.
An excellent articulation of a thorny topic and beautifully related. This has really helped to clarify my thoughts as a new convert. Thank you Brian.
Thank You, Brian. I love all your messages. You teach more clearly than today's bishops and clergy. Keep up your Savior's Teachings.
Brian does a great job with his videos, but I've encountered equal clarity from the clergy I've known.
Then you are truly blessed.
Some priests are better than others. Generally speaking I would say the younger priests are better than the Vatican 2 generation priests.
Romans 12
I'm not Catholic (have in fact recently joined a Baptist church), but as also with Bishop Barron, I find your videos deeply thoughtful and informative.
Thank you. I'm glad you're watching!
All food and drink that we consume must be eaten in recognition of Jesus Christ , that he gives us life through his death on the cross....both physical and spiritual.....life and to eat without thanking God for this gift can bring judgement upon us....as I was taught....we are the body of Christ.....jp
God bless you and your work, Brian! 🙏 Thank you for all these wonderful videos
This is probably the best vid I've seen on the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. Praise God for your work, Brian. God bless you
Thank you so much for this video! It’s enormously helpful. I’ve been trying to discern the same thing for quite some months now. When I came to faith in Jesus it was through reading the gospel of John, and I wasn’t part of any church. I’ve done communion with grape juice! On Passover etc.., seeking the way... but when I felt compelled to attend mass and took communion I was shaking and reduced to tears. I didn’t understand it all...I’ve been trying to find out what happened! thank you very much for this clarification. God bless you.
I was pondering this very same topic last night. I thought about those who thought the saying was too harsh; "How can we eat his flesh?". I philosophised is it really his body, his blood? Then I thought about the miraculous Eucharists turning into flesh and blood as has been documented over the years. So I then postulated why do we still see the wafer and the wine and reasoned that Our Lord would never let us see his real body and blood because we would be too troubled by it especially knowing that we were asked to eat of it. Then i understood what St. Thomas Aquinas meant when he said Our Lord made it so that only the accidents of the bread and wine were visible. Our Lord did not wish to trouble our minds so he left the accidents there for us so that, through faith, we can still believe that it is the actual Body, Blood, Soul and, Divinity of Our Lord.
The Eucharist is perhaps the most difficult part of Catholic doctrine to explain to Protestants and other Christian denominations. I hope to understand it to a point that I can explain it to our fellow brothers.
@kim burley not just false goes against bot OT and NT commandments to abstain from blood. Acts 15: 20 commands us to abstain from blood in the context of pagan religious practices like the rcc mass
@kim burley ---- If you understood human nature, you would not what you wrote.
Save your breath, I've tried, Protestants will disagree simply because it's Catholics
@@cantrait7311 maybe if we actually took them to a Holy Mass so they could see what we were doing...
Thanks for this informative topic 👍 I'm a proud catholic and am so disturbed when the catholic faith is always being criticized by other faiths...😔
Confessional Lutherans and some Anglicans, especially Anglo-Catholica, accept the real presence (i.e., true body and blood of Christ) in the Eucharist for many of the same reasons (scriptural and historical). Thank you for this video.
“He is the bread that comes down from heaven.” Amen. Christ becomes bread. It’s a dual reality. If you deny it’s His literal physical body, you’re mistaken. If you deny it’s literal bread, you’re mistaken. It’s both and it’s a mystery.
This is exactly what Justin Martyr lays out in his Apology. That the presence in communion is analagous to the incarnation. Not the elimination of one transforming into the other Christ assumes both natures. "In like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God . . . so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by assimilation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
Hexameter
There’s another early church father less known who made a similar statement. Someday I’ll dig it up. Christ’s body does not supplant the bread - it IS the bread. Likewise, the church is the body of Christ, not by Christ overpowering and removing the identity and nature of the members, but by incorporating us, weak and common as we are. In Him we become divine children. As Paul wrote, the two are one and this is a mystery.
Right. We do not lose our identity assimulating to Christ in a pantheistic way as a drop into the ocean.
Hexameter
Yes, similarly the bread does not lose its identity as bread. It becomes blessed bread - and we become blessed humans - the body of Christ.
early church fathers on eucharist..
they were ready to die for their faith in christ and eucharist
th-cam.com/video/dqtJrH43rgo/w-d-xo.html
quote; Looking at that first question, the support for the idea that it’s only a symbol seems to be based on the moral objection to cannibalism.
ME: From my experience, this IS the number one objection to people taking it literally. They can't explain it, so the default position is that it is a symbol.
In Luke Jesus says, "do this in remembrance of me".
I cannot understand why it is Im supposed to believe Jesus is PRESENT in the Eucharist when he says the rite is a REMEMBRANCE.
Can you explain that ?
that doesn't even make the list let alone is the number 1 objection of the Christians I know.
but if after "consecration" the wafer is literally human flesh and the cup is literally filled with human blood by definition it's cannibalism/vampirism
@@thuscomeguerriero Great question actually... it has to do with both the English translation and Jewish culture. The Old Testament Jews viewed the Passover sacrifice not just as a memorial, but as a ritual that brought the event truly and spiritually present to them. So even though physically they were within their homes, spiritually they were brought to the actual first Passover event; in Greek the term for this is "anamnesis". The whole typology of Jesus instituting the Eucharist at a Passover meal is fascinating, but it's this one specific aspect that's important for this question: He is using the same Jewish concept for the Passover, but for Himself - and the Apostles recognized this. So in the original manuscript which Luke wrote down in Greek, he would have used the term anamnesis: when Jesus says "do this in remembrance of Me," He is saying "do this in anamnesis of Me." Therefore, when we perform this rite, as He commanded us to, we too participate in anamnesis... not the anamnesis of the Passover, but the anamnesis of Jesus's entire Paschal Mystery. Because Jesus desires true, personal, and present intimacy with us, to celebrate communion without this concept of Christ being truly present, that is truly here now in this moment, is to deprive it of its deepest meaning.
@@artigosworld
thank you for your reply.
1st thing that comes to mind.
I preface this by saying I'm not a greek scholar. However, I dont see anything special about the greek term that would lend itself to this notion that it implicitly, or matter of factly,
denotes a relocation..literally or spiritually in time.
Could you be more specific as to why the greek term uniquely lends itself to THAT meaning?
Also, when Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:24 writes of the last supper he uses a slight variation of the term "remembrance" as found in Luke..but is of course recalling the same "words of consecration"
(if you like) as found in Luke.
If, therefore, we were to make much of the importance of the precise greek term why wouldn't one conclude
that Paul has a different understanding of the Eucharist?..which by the way of course I dont believe.
The term as Paul uses it is found elsewhere in the New Testament in the context of simple remembering.
Lastly, what does it really mean that the Lord is present in the Eucharist?
Yup. The act in the present is still remembering what he established in the past, both in establishing the Communion rite, at the last supper, and then upon the cross at Calvary fulfilling it. At your anniversary, you remember your marriage, and you reify the past event and it's memory fully in your present act of rememberance (flowers, a nice dinner, reassurance of your love, devotion, and willing self-sacrifice for your spouse; maybe even another piece of jewelry, and repeating your vows again).
I don't know how protestants can ignore this important passage in the Gospel.
Protestants can ignore it because the Roman catholic interpretation of this passage is unmitigated nonsense.I've heard it said that transubstantiation is considered miraculous, but Scripture never posits a presumed invisible miracle....I await your reply,Antonio...(Or anyone else)--- Besides, the Epistle to the Hebrews negates the concept of the so-called mass...😐😐😐
1. If I may - Transsubstantiation is not, accurately speaking, a miracle.
A miracle, in Catholic theology, has several characteristics. One of these is, that to be a miracle, an alleged miracle must be - at least in principle - perceptible to the senses.
By its very nature, transsubstantiation is not perceptible to the senses, not even in principle. So it cannot accurately be called a miracle.
Transsubstantiation is a very great wonder - but not everything that is a wonder, is a miracle.
Surgery is a wonderful thing, and (if one is Christian) a cause for thanks to God - but in no sense is it miraculous, because everything about it can be done by man relying on his own abilities, without any supernatural help.
As to what is supernatural - forget all the Hollywood stuff about ghoulies and ghosties and demons: such things are not supernatural. From the POV of Catholic theology, only God is accurately described as supernatural. That is, God alone is “above” all created nature. All existing things are either
1. God the Creator
or
2. everything else, AKA all created things, from angels to atoms.
Miracles are strictly supernatural. That is, they are
Divine Acts
which God alone does
sometimes by doing them through created beings.
When the Apostles worked miracles, God worked through their agency, to do His Will - specifically, by doing works beyond their capabilities, but not beyond His. God can cause the dead to live again - even though St Peter, acting by himself, never could have. God supernaturally raised the dead Tabitha from death, and caused her to live again; and God did this, through the agency of St Peter. IOW, God worked a miracle, through St Peter’s agency.
The miracle of the changing of the water into wine at Cana in St John 2 is a good instance of a miracle being perceptible to the senses.
What became wine, was (to begin with) seen to be water, and not wine at all. There was no doubt as to what it was - it was water, not wine, which is why there was a problem in the first place. That it was water, was perceptible to the senses - that wine was present, where previously no wine had been, was also perceptible to the senses.
Transsubstantiation is very different from that. What our senses perceive after the Consecration, is, according to our senses, Bread and Wine - and not the Reality that is the Body and Blood of Christ. Our senses cannot perceive the supernatural Reality that is the Eucharistic Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. We know that what we receive is the Body and Blood of Christ, not through our senses, but because Christ calls what we receive His Body and His Blood. No miracle has taken place, because the Reality of the change in the Eucharistic Gifts is known through faith in Christ’s Words, and not by way of the senses. Transsubstantiation, like the Incarnation, is a “great and mighty wonder” - but unlike the Incarnation, it cannot accurately be called a miracle.
2. As for the objections from the Letter to the Hebrews, if you tell us what they are, perhaps we can discuss them :)
This is literally the Word of God. Why would Jesus contradict himself. He does not and will not
They ignore Maccabee's, 1, Chapter 8, starting with verse 20 establishing WHY!!!!!!!!!! Jesus WAS born back IN the Roman Empire. Protestants avoid that like the Plague itself, cause it would destroy their fake, phony reasons, arguments----
---- GOOD SUCCESS BE TO THE ROMANS, and to the people of the Jews, by sea and by land for ever: and far be the sword and enemy from them. [24] But if there come first any war upon the Romans, or any of their confederates, in all their dominions: [25] The nation of the Jews SHALL help them according as the time shall direct, with ALL their heart ( look up HEART in a biology book ):
[26] Neither shall they give them, whilst they are fighting, or furnish them with wheat, or arms, or money, or ships, as it hath seemed good to the Romans: and they shall obey their orders, without taking any thing of them. [27] In like manner also if war shall come first upon the nation of the Jews, the Romans shall help them with all their heart ( check a biology book for what they imply by heart),
according as the time shall permit them. [28] And there shall not be given to them that come to their aid, either wheat, or arms, or money, or ships, as it hath seemed good to the Romans: and they shall observe their orders without deceit. [29] According to these articles did the Romans covenant ( Jesus ALSO came to fulfill Scripture )
with the people of the Jews.
@@lcringo3498 ---- The Apostles were part of what WE Roman Catholic's call, "The PRIMITIVE Church". Define Primitive? Like as in cavemen, un-educated, un-civilized savages. WE all know the Apostles knew how to read and write, but going back to the Primitive Ages of the Human Race, and We ALL know that cavemen were NOT Astro-Physicists, since they the Apostles were NOT genius's, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was Perfected, evolved over course of many, many years.
Jesus was born in "Bethlehem" (Hebrew for City of Bread) and laid in a *manger,* which is a feeding trough. He later refers to Himself as "the bread of life", commands us more than once to "eat His flesh", and on Passover, he declares that a piece of bread is His body and a chalice of wine is His blood, and He calls this the "New Covenant" (as opposed to the old covenant. which of course consisted of sacrificing and consuming an unblemished lamb)
he also said we must be born again... so what now?
Sneaky Emu the 7 sacraments
"People left because they took him literally"
Well, we Catholics take Jesus literally here, and yet we haven't walked away, in fact the Eucharist is the most fundamental part of our mass; everything we do during mass is to prepare us for that specific sacrament.
The people who walked away in John 6 were in fact Jesus' disciples (remember, he had 12 apostles, but he also had like 79 or so disciples), that means: they were followers of Jesus.
What is more interesting to me, is that the Eucharist seems to be the ultimate deal breaker for Protestants from becoming Catholic. They can accept that Virgin Mary is important (not just an ordinary woman), they can accept we pray to Saints for their intercession, they can accept the icons and statues... but the absolutely won't accept Eucharist as something that is not mere symbolism. "It's just so difficult to believe" ...well, so said the disciples back then, and so are saying the Protestants of our time.
Come home, siblings, let's be together in full communion with Christ.
I love that this video doesn't say "protestants don't believe in real presence." It's refreshing even if this video is a bit older.
I am a catholic catechist, love your teachings. Thank you for explaining the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity! Amen!
This cleared up a ton for me. Thanks so much for posting!
Oh no! Is it the cannabalism part? Because that's definately a trip-up for me too.
Interesting that the words in Scripture describing followers leaving is John 6:66.
I am coming to watch this while getting ready to do a study on the Apostolic fathers, earliest church traditions etc. I am only interested in the earliest things. I believe that things that were added much later in time, and were never spoke of in the beginning, are not to be followed. But the real presence seems to be a belief that has always been there for the longest time from he snippets I have gleaned from reading Justin Martyr etc. and I am interested in learning more. I guess I am considered Protestant and don't know if I could ever be Catholic. I made a list of things I have issues with and that list is VERY long. I wrote it all out so I could go through them one by one in detail to be sure.
You just checked one off the list, the Real Presence. I don't think I could ever be Protestant either for the list I have issues with is VERY long too.
Yes, at passover they were commanded to EAT the lamb. They couldn't just kill it, they had to eat it. And in the desert they had to eat the manna that came down from heaven every day. They complained that it got boring so he sent them flesh (quail) to eat also. I never thought about the significance of God sending them flesh as well as manna, bread and flesh together. Also if Jesus changed water into wine, why can't He change wine into blood.
I can't speak for all Protestants, but I don't think that Jesus _can't_ turn wine into His blood or bread into His flesh, but the question is _whether or not that's what happens_ . The argument Brian presents about "Jesus probably would have told the crowd what He meant if they were misinterpreting Him" would be strong if there weren't other times when it is made _clear_ that Jesus is not being literal, then people misinterpret Him but He does not clarify.
One example I can give off the top of my head is in John 2 when He tells the people in the temple "Destroy this temple and I will raise it up again in 3 days". The people think He is talking about the literal temple, but the author (John the apostle) clarifies that Christ is talking about His body...but Jesus never clarifies this to the people.
That being said, I don't think that argument is the best.
@@someguy9571 But at John 6:48-69 Jesus says over and over again that the Eucharist truly is His Body and Blood, and at Matthew 6:11 He says "Give us this day our supersubstantial bread", at least that's what the correctly translated Douay Rheims version says. And there is 1 Corinthians 11:27, where St. Paul tells us that receivin Communion unworthily makes us guilty of the Body and Blood of Chrst----if It were just a symbol he wouldn't have used such syrong language. Then there is St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred circa 109 a.d.,and who knew the apostles Peter and John personally, who made it very clear that the Eucharist was literally the Lord's Body and Blood.
@@georgepenton808 My comment is outdated; I've conceded on this point and other points over the past few months.
I don't consider myself "Protestant" anymore, currently looking to become Eastern Orthodox.
@@someguy9571 Have you considered becoming Catholic? Read Matthew 16:18-19. Consider that the papacy is the glue Jesus gave the Church to keep it united.
If you do convert to Orthodoxy by all means receive Communion there and become devoted to Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Their belief about That is identical to the Catholic belief and since their priesthood is valid so is their Eucharist. One difference: they believe that the Eucharist is confected when the priest says "Let the Holy Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy" and Catholics believe This happens when the priest says "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood".
@@georgepenton808 I have considered Catholicism, but there are a number of things that I can't cone to grips with. The papacy/papal infallibility are one, but also things like purgatory, the insertion of the filioque clause, the concept of original sin, etc.
I also generally just think that the Orthodox Church has remained more unchanged from ancient Christianity than Roman Catholicism has.
Fun fact: Welch's grape juice started by a prohibitionist Methodist who figured out a way to prevent grape juice from fermenting (through pasteurization), and marketed it to his local churches, as the Methodist Episcopal Church had, the year before, recommended that "in all cases the pure juice of the grape be used in the celebration of the Lord's Supper".
Levi that's just another protestant twist. They drank wine with alcohol not just juice.
Imbibing to drunkeness is wrong but consuming some is ok
Ninja Master yeah the whole Prohibitionist movement is messed up
I can't imagine Jesus turning water into Welch's grape juice. Wine was naturally preserved so of course Jesus and the apostles would have been drinking wine.
"Guys, Jesus and co. were obviously drinking fresh-pressed grape juice, so we should only take communion when we can get that, because alcohol is bad."
@@levisando We French speakers and speakers of other latin languages know what "vino" means, thank you very much (vin = wine in French).
I know this doesn't really matter, but the music in his more recent videos is much more soothing.
i was protestant for over thirty years......the Lord corrected me on the error i believed about the eucharist and after prayer and research i was led by obedience of faith to the Orthodox church.....just recently entered the Church of Jesus Christ ...the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church......seek you will find.....He will allow Himself to be found
What should I say to someone who says the Body and Blood of Christ are *with* the bread and wine (consubstantiation)?
I'm not a expert, just a self-educated Catholic and former Lutheran, so take this for what it's worth...
In my experience, the Lutheran/consubstantiation crowd has an over-simplified idea of what the Catholic teaching is. They'll say things like "We believe that Christ's presence comes in to the elements and it's _both_ bread/wine and Body/Blood" almost in a way that sounds like they're saying they think Catholic teaching says it stops being bread/wine. So I'd start with explaining that the Catholic teaching is that the bread/wine becomes the Body/Blood in it's fullness (every particle of bread is Body) but it still _retains the form_ of bread/wine (the exception being Eucharistic miracles of course).
Thank you for the video!
After being a Charismatic Protestant for sixty one years, four years ago I started studying Catholicm.I loved it
I went and talked to a priest. He told me great and now I could go back to the protestant church. Iwent to another Catholic church and enrolled in RCIA. I was basically ignored and was even called names. I have not attended church in one and one half years
Brian, do you have any suggestions?
I would recommend finding at least one good Catholic friend, (I'm sure you can find at least one) and ask them who their favorite priest is. Just keep asking as many priests as possible for help, and you'll find at least one good one. Good luck!
I studies Catholicism and I studied Christianity. The bible - Jesus' teaching is a part of Catholicism but the "Catholic church" did add so many things that are not included in the bible as well interpreting what Jesus really said. Jesus often preached in parables so people would understand better the meaning of what Jesus was saying. The Catholic Church applies the parables, the images of what Jesus said as the real thing and makes us believing those things. Following the Bible, Jesus' teachings, is very simple and leads to peace. The Word of God, his commandments, Jesus' sacrifice for our salvation. No confusions, no fears, no misunderstandings, just Love, Peace and Joy with God in our life.
I think every diocese in the whole Catholic world should have a Tridentine Latin Mass, Because it is MORE beautiful than the Norvus Ordo Missal.
Novus ordo should be outright removed. Its a lutheran, not catholic mass.
Its sad to see how many people "try" Catholicism and come away unable to see the difference because they only had novus ordo missae to reference.
@@wulfocrow5549 Not so. The mass is about communion and all that goes with communion.
The last supper which was the first mass wasnt in Latin.
Lutherans don't celebrate mass. They copy it in their heresy and to their liking but their pastors are not consecrated. They just believe they are, however, a Catholic priest is granted the power by the laying of hands from saint Peter up to today, to turn the bread and wine intro the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
If they don't understand that then they are not ready.
If you thibk the goal of Novus Ordo was modernism I such as you read the II Vatican Council it is clear that the problem is not the Mass itself but rather the abuses done within it
@@wulfocrow5549 -- I agree, since the Latin language is ALSO the Judicial Language of the Church whom is the Bride of Christ Jesus.
BUT!!! We are not as Roman Catholic as we think we are. After I started to read, study, contemplate and pray The Summa Theologia, and Aquinas's other works, I in humility confess how much I was not with myself, but VERY ignorant. Having Cultural background that is NOT English or Irish, my command of the English language is VERY weak, deficient, or in street lingo, NOT very deep.
Holy Spirit ( He IS God with His self ) knows and understands how to draw good, righteousness out of evil.
@@Kitiwake the last supper was either in aramaic or greek, but this matters not, i dont mean the language is the problem.
I'm a protestant believer, and I appreciate that you explained this, because the catholic view of communion makes a lot more sense to me now. I never thought that the verse you used was about communion, so I found that interesting too.
I still disagree with this view though. I think for example, the fact that Jesus said the wine is "the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20) instead of "my blood" kind of contradicts this view. If this was all literal, why would the wine become the new covenant for us to drink? What would that even mean? It would make more sense for Him to say "my blood" if it was literal. But I don't think it is, I think it's symbolic.
I also find it strange that this specific topic was never discussed by Paul in the epistles. In 1 Corinthians 11, he tells the Church not to have communion as a feast, because the point of communion isn't to eat, but to eat in remembrance of Him. He doesn't at all mention the fact that the bread and wine are Jesus' body, which seems odd since it would fit really well in this situation. For someone who gets really picky about doctrine, Paul doesn't seem to mention this belief at all, even during the time of the gnostic church.
I think there's a difference in the way Catholics and Protestants view communion too. The way i understand it, communion in the Catholic church, (breaking the bread, eating and drinking the emblems), is supposed to act as a continuous crucifixion for our sins, whereas protestants treat communion as an act to simply remember the crucifixion and proclaim our faith. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I have been told, and I haven't researched it myself)
I think it's more complicated than "cannibalism is wrong" and "it's in the scriptures", but if someone would like to correct me on anything, go ahead.
Paul actually references this theology quite a bit. Try 1 Corinthians 10:16 for a start. Secondly, your understanding of the Catholic view of mass isn't accurate. It's re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice, not a re-crucifixion.
@@BrianHoldsworth Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification. I'll definitely do some more research on this topic.
@@ctrlaltshift The catholic mass is in Malachi 1;11. You seem sincere.
The catholic mass is a bloodless sacrifice the daily sacrifice in over 300,000 catholic churches worldwide.
Matter of fact in John's Revelation John the apostle speaks of the catholic mass from Revelation chapter 1 to 11.Catholics can receive holy communion daily 7 days a week.
The eucharist can eliminate all venial sins.
The eucharist nourishes the soul.
It would appear from an analysis that Brian's and Catholic teaching is the more logical based on the available evidence as presented in the gospels however i have a question : Is there any information on why ( and no i don't mean " so we might enjoy eternal life" sort of info ) exactly Jesus chose this particular practice for those that wish to follow him, ?I mean I know all about the old testament animal sacrifices and all that but I still find it confusing ( not rejecting.... just confusing ) as to why he picked this as a requirement, any ideas ?
Welcome home my brother.
Just found your channel and love it (subbed). I'd love for you to do one on Adoration. I always feel incredibly moved by the presence of Christ at Adoration 😊. My teenage sons and I go and it's a wonderful way to honor our Lord.
tim spangler Why do you think Christians cannot worship and adore our Lord Jesus Christ in manners not necessarily dictated by the Bible. If the Bible says not to, that's different. Furthermore, who do you think you are to question my time and profound experiences with my Lord? I would never do that to you.
Exactly. The second I read your comment I thought "oh boy I'll just click on 'view replies' and there will be Tim Spangler yapping on about worshiping the Eucharist." Sure enough, there he is, as always. Because he is EVERYWHERE doing this. There is nothing you can say to this person that he will acknowledge or understand. He suffers from a spirit of strife and is apparently blinded to the truth by his own choice. He will accept no answer, even from ex-protestant bible scholars. His mission in life is to trash the Catholic Church, period.
Prancer1231 You're so right! He trolls, relentlessly, EVERY Catholic Channel there is, like he regularly trolls Bishop Barron's. Just look at the other comments - he's everywhere. I honestly think sometimes that some Catholic girl must have hurt him. It's all too personal. The level of vitriol never lets up. It's never presented as a reasonable debate or genuine interest in understanding; it's mean spirited.
Exactly.
Tim: Read the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is free online. This covers absolutely everything pertaining to the Catholic faith. Stop badgering Catholics on TH-cam. Of course they have an answer to it. It is adored because it is JESUS CHRIST in the FLESH as he tells you IN THE BIBLE. Jesus tells us in the Bible that the bread and wine are his body and blood. If we worship Jesus, why would we not worship his body and blood? Stop being a pest. Now go read the Catechism, all of it, get busy. And while you're at it, read the ENTIRE Bible and do what it says. Bye now.
Very well articulated, especially the final part on the Lamb of God. Excellent.
I still can't accept that to be taken literally.. at the end of it He says: do this in remembrance of Me. (I'd do that reverently) You keep a ritual to remember or remind one of something. It is something that does not happen all over again.
When He says: 'I am the door of the sheep' did not mean He was literally a door and that He was rearing sheep!
Jesus, as the occasion required did not talk in the literal sense but rather in parables and i'd say too, a lot figuratively or metaphorically too and this i believe is one of those occasion..
I think you covered this topic pretty well.
I miss the chanting at the beginning....
Hi there, I came across your channel a couple of months ago while late night trawling through TH-cam. I really enjoy your content, and the honesty in which you present yourself in the videos. I was born into a Protestant Christian family My parents where pastors of a Pentecostal church in Scotland. And instilled a love for the Lord in I and my siblings.As a child spent a lot of time in Eastern Europe as my parents had a vision and heart for the persecuted Gypsy (Roma) people where the helped in both humanitarian and Gospel mission. I've always seen Catholics as my brothers and Sisters who also love the Lord. So your videos (although thought provoking) a real encouragement. And I look forward to future content.
I was wondering what your thoughts on Messianic Jews were?
God Bless, Sean.
Excellent , we'll explained Brian
It’s very clear that Jesus was talking about believing and trusting and following Jesus, and this is found in John chapter 6, also Jesus was the word so communion is remembering what he did us on the cross. To eat and drink the lords body and blood is to believe and follow it’s not actually his physical body. We don’t interpret by what the church fathers said because they say many off the wall thing’s that contradict scripture
Hello friend! If it was clear that Jesus was talking about “believing and trusting and following” Him, then why in John 6:66 do many of His disciples stop following him? These people already “believed and followed” Him. Wouldn’t they have just been like “yeah Jesus, we get it, that’s what we’re already doing.”? Why would they leave?
@@davidcarey7396 because the Holy Spirit was not drawing them as it says in verse 66:5, in verse 66:4 Jesus knew who were truly following him and walking in the spirit. Besides this chapter happened a year before Jesus even instituted communion.
@@EsteemHisWord So, you’re saying that Jesus asserts multiple times that we must consume His flesh among much murmuring and quarreling. And everyone listening, including His disciples, think it is a hard saying. And many of His disciples leave Him and return to their former way of life (people that have already dropped everything to follow Him). And the saying that was so hard was… to believe and follow Jesus. I would disagree with that interpretation. That is not a hard saying for people that have already been believing and following Jesus, that is the very basics of being a follower of Christ. I would contend that Jesus was speaking not only in a symbolic way, but also a literal way and that is the reason it was a hard saying, and that is why people left him, because if his disciples were to believe this hard teaching, then they must avail themselves to the Grace of God (John 6:65). It will take an act of faith to believe Him, they must believe in supernatural (spiritual) terms not human (fleshy) terms (John 6:63).
Yes, absolutely, Jesus knew who were truly following Him and believing Him! God stands outside of time and therefore sees things quite differently than we do. Amen with you there, friend!
Also, the logic of your last sentence seems very flawed; if it hasn’t happened yet, then it can’t be talked about. So, in Matthew 16:21 Jesus can’t be talking about His death and resurrection because that hadn’t happened yet. Or when He mentions it a second (Mark 9:31) or third time (Luke 18:33)?
@@davidcarey7396 he said it several times but this isn’t even speaking of communion it’s speaking of believing and receiving what Jesus did on the cross, the Bible speaks against cannibalism in Leviticus, remember Jesus is the word and we get fed by reading, hearing and obeying the word. What your thinking is flawed and doesn’t make sense brother
@@EsteemHisWord How is this not speaking of communion? In all 3 synoptic gospels Jesus takes the bread and says this IS my body, and likewise with the cup He says this IS my blood. A direct comparison with John 6 where He says his flesh is the bread of life, true food, and His blood is true drink.
I guess we have different views of what Jesus did on the cross. I believe that Jesus became our paschal sacrifice, our unblemished lamb, for us to be partakers of the new exodus. An exodus from sin, and like the old exodus with Moses there is a new Passover feast (the Eucharist). Just like how in the old Passover the sacrificed lamb had to be consumed, so does the new feast. And that’s what Jesus is doing at the last supper, the Jewish Passover feast had a very strict script to be followed by the head of the household, yet at the last supper (which was a Jewish Passover) Jesus didn’t follow that script. He is implementing the Eucharist; He is saying to do this in memorial of me not in memorial of the events of the exodus from Egypt. So that we could all be partakers of His one sacrifice on the cross by consuming His flesh.
And my friend your accusation of cannibalism points to that as well, the early Christians were persecuted by the Romans because they partook in the Eucharistic feast! The Romans called them cannibals because they consumed the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the risen Jesus Christ. Early Christians believed that the real presence of Christ was being consumed. Read 1 Corinthians 11:27-32, in verse 27 the Greek text-enochos estai tou somatos kai tou haimatos tou kyriou-translates “will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” The phrase “guilty of blood” is a figure of speech that connotes murder. Now if the Eucharist were anything less than the real presence of Christ Himself this sentence wouldn’t make sense, why would you be guilty of murder if it were just a symbol? If you want extra biblical resources on what the early Church believed we could look at St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a student of St. John, as well as the bishop of Antioch until his death in 110ad. He says in his letter to the Smyrnaeans: “But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Here is a leader of the early Church and student of an Apostle calling such people unbelievers and heretics, saying they do not consume the Eucharist because they don’t believe that it is truly Jesus, and his advice to believers is to “keep aloof from such persons”.
Sorry I got a little carried away with all that. So let me just make sure I’m understanding this correctly. You believe that communion was instituted at the last supper, and that John 6 has nothing to do with that. Do you believe we should consume bread and wine as symbols?
I have never seen more devotion, adoration and honor for our lord and savior Jesus Christ, than during the eucharistic prayer absolutely 'Divine' literally Divine...
I've been to both protestant celebrations and catholic mass. There is something extraordinary about my Lord inviting me to be one with him, in the holy eucharist.
My brothers and sisters we must not let it feel repetitive, there is so much we can learn, to fully understand the meaning of our glorious mass. Let us spread the great news, but first let us make an effort to understand our faith in it's totality. This is one of the, if not, the best video explaining the holy eucharist. Thank you very much for posting. God Bless you :)
Hi tim spangler I for one have no time for a back and forth with you like so many others in the comment section. I highly recommend any book or lecture on the topic, by scott hahn or patrick madrid. I recommend any and every topic with these two gentlemen. If and when you question their interpretation of Holy Scripture, ask yourself who has the more accurate interpretation?, who was with our Lord and Savior while he roamed the world? God Bless you.
Genesis 14: 18-20 is the first mention. But the blessing of bread and wine on the Sabbath is an ancient Jewish practice. The Christian Eucharist replaces the Jewish Temple sacrifice and was practised by the Church from its inception.
God bless you Brian.
"Know that what is written in the books of God is a symbol, and therefore, as spiritual people and not fleshly people, study and understand these words. If this applies to them as fleshly people, they harm you, not feed you. After all, in the Gospels there is also "a letter that kills" (cf. 2 Cor 3: 6). There is a killing letter not only in the Old Testament; also in the New Testament there is a "letter that kills" the one who does not understand the words in the spiritual card. If, in a literal sense, you take the words: "If you do not eat mine and drink my blood" (Jn 6:53), this letter kills. " Orygenes
I wonder why they stopped giving both species ( wine with the Eucharist) in almost all churches??? I remember back in the late 70’s the priest would dip the Eucharist in the wine ? Then that stopped altogether.
🤔
Great video! A few things to point out: the Eastern Orthodox do not define and have not defined the Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament as having transubstantiated. Only Rome insists on Transubstantiation as the only acceptable understanding of the Sacred Mystery.
As well, Lutherans and Anglicans believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Lutherans hold to a real, objective Presence that is sometimes erroneously called "Consubstantiation". Anglicans hold to a wider range, from a Receptionist model (we receive Christ by Faith) to an objective model. Some Papal Catholics try to argue that by "spiritual presence" in our Articles of Religion, we deny Real Presence. This cannot be the case, or else St. Paul denies a physical Resurrection by speaking of a "spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44-46). The Anglican insistence upon receiving Jesus spiritually is not a denial of receiving Him physically.
Anyway, good video; I just wanted to let you and your viewers know that there are Protestants who do hold to Real Presence.
Augustine says “symbol” because he is a Neoplatonist, in which symbols participate in the Forms. So a chair is a symbol of the “form” of chair.
As a 12 year old child I described the Eucharist in the same way in answer to a question from a faith formation teacher. She however misunderstood what I meant and then proceeded to explain the real presence to the other kids. Looking back I realize that my use of the word symbol made her think I had protestant views.
Thanks for having the courage to bring the subject of the communion up. Communion is the Commandment of Christ and like most of what Jesus said is a Great mystery. Unless once has faith , repentance and direct experience of the communion he will not really understand it meaning and importance. Debating the communion meaning on the level of the human logic is very difficult and almost impossible, because we are on the level that surpasses our logic. Only with the help of the Holy Spirit the meaning of the Great Mystery of the communion can be unfolded.
Thank you for this awesome video. I have added this to like 5 of my playlists on my channel because this message can not be heard enough. My channel is just a “video library “ that I created as I was learning about the faith. I am a convert, and it wasn’t until I was in RCIA that I heard this! I was joining the church for so many other reasons, and then I heard this... I was shocked that I had never heard this!!!! I love the Eucharist, I love the theology of this teaching, I just want everyone to know this! So thank you again.
Dear Brian thank you for honoring my request for this video.
Amen and amen
Very good Brian. Very well explained. You are not far from the kingdom of God.
He's not far? What does that mean? The Catholic Church IS the Kingdom of God.
“At that time, the great and righteous and kings and prophets knew that the Savior was coming. But they did not know or hear that he would suffer and be crucified and shed his blood on the cross. Nor did it occur to them that there would be a baptism of fire and the Holy Spirit, and that bread and wine would be offered in the Church, the antipodes (i.e. figures, symbols) [1] of his Body and Blood, and that those who received the visible bread would eat they will be spiritually the body of the Lord" Simeon of Egypt
Another meaning you can use instead of to eat is ‘to be one’ or being one as in oneness.
7:30
To say the rite is both symbolic and literal is LITERALLY a contradiction in terms.
The rite is symbolic..of itself?
If the rite were literal..why the need for a symbol?
Doesnt work
Absolutely love this! Bravo Brian!
First read that title as “presence in communism.” I thought this channel was about to get real interesting lmao
In China the first things Communist troops would do in entering a citu would be to go to the city's Catholic church, smash open the church's tabernacle, and desecrate the Eucharist by urinating or defecating on It.
If It were just a symbol the Commies would have just yawned as they passed a Catholic church.
5:50
Attempt to side step the controversy won't work.
If you say that it's not REALLY cannibalism then why did the hearers take offense?
Trying to have your cake and eat it too doesnt cut it.
How can something be a metaphor for itself? Why is that not a contradiction or at the very least, redundant? Is the bread metaphor physical while the flesh is metaphysical?
I agree with Thomas kholer
Amen ❤
The Lutheran Church believes the true Body and real Blood of Jesus is given in the eating of bread and wine. It is still bread and wine but we receive the real body and blood of Jesus after consecrated. God's peace.
A message I recently sent my friend about the eucharist.
whatsup, buenas tardes. I want you to know that what I'm sending to you is not an attempt to attack you or make fun of the catholic faith. You and I both claim we are seeking truth and so I wanted to share why I disagree with the catholic interpretation of the scripture that they interpret as true blood and true flesh. You are a wise person and so I want to share something I hope you will read seriously and intentionally.. it is our duty as believers to seek to know the most real Jesus and his words too. I hope this can lead to a fruitful discussion for us both.
Protestants are very critical of scripture... it means we take it seriously and deeply study it to know what is true. Like you have shared with me before, we cant take 1 verse and create a HUGe part of our faith/theology from it.. That's why, for 3xample, protestants dont worship or pray to mary.. because we dont see anything about that in the bible. That's another discussion another day though.
So in reference to the eucharist, we dont believe it is the actual blood and flesh of christ because of many reasons.
In john 3:3 jesus says,"Unless one is born again, one cannot see the kingdom of God." Does that mean we need to go into our mothers womb and be physically/literally born again? Absolutely not, it was a *spiritual* born again.
In John 4 when Jesus says to the woman at the well that He could have given her living water, she asked for it.. but he wasnt talking about a physical/literal living water, he was talking about a spiritual loving water.. which he later confirms in John 7:37-39 when he says, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the scripture said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.' Now this he said about the *spirit*. The water isnt a physical/literal water that we drink... it's a *spiritual* word sumbolizing the spirit.
Now in John 6 when Jesus is talking about eating his body and drinking his blood, is he referring about literally/physically *eating him* ?? Absolutely not! This is a continuation of his sermons using a spiritual word. If we were truly commanded to eat his flesh and blood, why, in the last supper, did he not ask his disciples to eat HIM or drink his BLOOD? He gave them fruit of the vine and bread.. he didnt give them his physical body. Matthew 26:26-29, luke 22:14-23 AND mark 14:22-25 Jesus *himself* calls it bread and wine.. and says he will not drink again "of the fruit of the vine" until hes with them again.. why didnt jesus actually just give them his literal flesh and literal blood that night if he wanted them to eat and drink it? It wouldve been easy.. but he didnt.
Acts 15:20 and acts 15:29 are commandments NOT to drink blood too. I'd it was actual blood that Jesus wanted them to drink that would be contradictory.
Also in that same John 6 chapter right after he talks about the blood and flesh,Jesus says in v 63 "It is the spirit who gives life, the flesh is no help at all. *The words that I have spoken to you are *SPIRIT and life*.".. which is consistent with the rest of John. Jesus has 7 I Am statements in the book of John. I am the light, I am the bread of life, I am the gate.. these were metaphorical .. symbolizing a deeper truth, or do we really think Jesus is a physical/literal gate/door? I dont.
On top of all this, lets look at the context of John 6 when Jesus is speaking about the blood/flesh thing.
In John 6:53-54, Jesus says," Truly truly I say to you, unless you eat of the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
So if Catholics interpret the flesh and blood as physical/literal, do you also interpret the end of that verse physically/literally too - when it says "you have no life in you." ? Because if you take that verse literally/physically too (which you kinda have to) that means myself and billions of other people literally have no life in us... which is not true.. because I DO have life in me. I'm alive. Catholics cannot say the first part (eat my flesh/drink my blood) is physical/literal and the 2nd part spiritual... that's not intellectually honest. It's the same thing with v58.. Jesus says whoever feeds on this bread (notice he says bread here) he says we will love forecer... is that spiritually or physically/literally? Obviously not physicslly.. because we know we all die.
(Notice what Jesus says in John 6:29, 35, 40.. belief.. especially 40.)
The catholic mass is a re-presentation of the crucifixion. The mass is an actual sacrifice according to Roman catholic doctrine (council of trent). That's why it's so important for the roman cath church that the eucharist be literal blood and flesh. The problem with this is that jesus shed his blood and flesh ONCE AND FOR ALL on the cross. There is no more need for blood francesca. His blood on the cross was the LAST sacrifice needed for the forgiveness of our sins and salvation.
Hebrews 10:11-12:
'And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take easy sins. But when Christ had offered *for all time* a sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God."
An important question for all Christian's (catholics and protestants) is to ask ourselves WHY we believe what we believe. Everything we believe should make sense biblically.. as we look at it as a WHOLE scripture.. not just a verse.
And did you know that the view of the eucharist and its importance is actually new? Vatican II made a lot of changes with the eucharist. It wasnt celebrated for the first 400ish years in the way catholics celebrate it now .. and before Vatican 2, lay people (people who dont work for the catholic church) werent allowed to drink from the chalice. These changes in tradition are a result of having scripture AND tradition as authoritative.. instead of just scripture.
In the end, it doesnt matter if I Ryan disagree with the Roman catholic church's doctrine.. what's important is if the written word of the God of Abraham disagrees with the Roman Catholic doctrine.
I'm very curious how your friend responded to this.
You can go every day to church and do your Catholic doctrine but that is no going to calm your hungry nether your thirst, because the real bread and blood is Himself on us through his Holly Spirit.
We eat his flesh and drink His Blood following His example, reading and meditating His word, obeying His command, given good fruit, saying no to the ways of the world and yes to his ways, Loving Him over everything of this Universe and Loving others as ourself. THERE we will satisfied our hungry and thirst.
So good!!!!!
You forgot to mention that Lutheranism has this belief about the Eucharist as well (ignoring the irrelevant branches).
Great stuff ....I think St Augustine's symbol was a real symbol...it is/what it signifies. Real sacramental presence, since where Christ's body and blood are ...there he is in a sacrament designed to be eaten. Christ is present in all sacraments.
But the Catholics believe Jesus is re-sacrificed at every mass. The bible says his sacrifice was once and for all.
No, we specifically DO NOT believe that. If you've been told that then you should ask yourself why someone has to resolve to using slander and strawman arguments to discredit those they disagree with. The Church teaches that it is a "re-presentation" of that same sacrifice.
@@BrianHoldsworth Okay, I will check my references to see where I got that from and get back to you. Thanks for the reply.
There is an idea in the ancient times that an image or idol not only symbolically represents something, but also means a real presence of the being it represents. In such manner of thinking it would not be wrong to say that it really is Jesus or that its a symbol because both would mean the same thing.
6:59
It IS a symbol, it's just not MERELY a symbol.
Yes, when viewed from an Aristotelian world view. But try to actually read when I typed.
We now days would say that a pagan idol is just a symbol of that pagan deity. However, the pagans would say that the idol is not just a mere symbol of their deity, but by being a symbol of the deity, the idol becomes the deity itself.
That is because often ancient peoples saw an intimate connection between the spiritual and material. For something to spiritually present, such as in a symbol, was to be present materially, and vice versa.
The Aristotelian world, which is a more modern way of looking at the world, puts a distinction the observable and the unobservable. That is between the material and the super natural. From such distinctions come forth the idea that a symbol is only a mere symbol and nothing more, but such isn't a necessary conclusion from such a world view. It is only that a definite conclusion can not be made about the unseen.
In an Aristotelian world view you are correct.
From a Platonic world view, which the early church was built upon, your statement is redundant.
Early church believed dual reality. It’s both bread and body; wine and blood. It’s still bread and wine, as St. Paul says multiple times. If you don’t believe it’s still bread and wine, you’re in denial and not realizing He comes down to the level of bread and wine for us, not just appearing like a man, but truly becoming a man, not just appearing as bread, but truly becoming bread.
So Christ has a third/fourth nature of bread and wine? I don't recall the Church fathers developing that Christology.
Do you think Christ’s body and blood were somehow separate from the food and drink He ate and drank? Do we need Christology for every dissected part of His body and blood? Do we need Christology for the water He drank and the figs he ate? The main problem is your mindset that cannot conceive of a thing having dual reality. This is a mystery, not an either/or situation... body vs. bread. As you know, the early church fathers all called it Mystery. They did not dissect down to plasma and sweat glands and multiply natures because they are all one. Neither should you dissect the sanctified bread and wine which are the body and blood of Christ.
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.” - 1 Corinthians 11:26
I mean, if a parent is playing tag with a young child and they're like "I'm gonna eat you!" and then they catch them and are like "nom nom nom" you could consider that symbolic cannibalism, but it's not wrong...
At the Debating Christianity and Religion Forum, I joined and came into Debate on the Real Presence. I tried to always be respectful, but I was prepared-- but maybe because my opponents we're largely JWs, this is not saying much
So now Justin Martyr is infallible? Simply speaking it is a most serious anamnésis, the remembrance of the One Sacrifice for all time which will never and cannot happen again "It is finished". We should always remember what God has done for us daily and to acknowledge this wholeheartedly from God's Spirit to our spirit.
they take their "church fathers" as infallible when they agree with them and ignore them when they don't.
but instead of the bible ---- they drink the "church fathers" kool aid, that's how many are deceived
Man, you're the best
It's just like the question, when someone dies, do they really die? Or do they just sleep, as Jesus said about dead people so many times?
Do you take it literally? Or figurtively?
@william cloud William, when Jesus says we must eat His Body and drink His Blood, do you find that a hard saying?
@william cloud If "the flesh profits you nothing" means we are not supposed to receive Communion, why do the Last Supper narratives in the synoptic Gospels tell us to eat His Body and drink His Blood? "The flesh profits you nothing" obviously means don't indulge the flesh by overeating or overdrinking or committing sexual sins. Jesus wouldn't say over and over to eat His Flesh only to turn around and say Don't eat My Flesh.
@william cloud William, you are using the lamest excuses to get around what Jesus said over and over in the sixth chapter of John---the Holy Eucharist os literally His Body and Blood, and those who exclude themselves form this great Treasure do not go to Heaven. "The flesh profits you nothing" obviously, obviously means don't indulge the flesh. If Jesus' Flesh profits us nothing why did Jesus institute the practice at all? Even if it's just a symbol---which it isn't---why would Jesus bother to institute it if it profited us nothing?
"This is a hard saying," many said. This is only a hard saying if we interpret it literally. If Jesus were speaking symbolically it would not be a hard saying at all.
Does anyone know of where communion has been scientifically tested to see if it changes or substantiates i.e. turns into something else such as blood and flesh?
The Church doesn't say that it changes in that way. The accidents (bread and wine) remain, but the substance changes which isn't something you would see empirically. That said, there have been several Eucharistic miracles in which the accidents change and several of those have been tested in a lab and they return startlingly similar results. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle#Tangible_Transubstantiation
The only important thing is: do you believe it is the way we are saved? If not, we can disagree on this and it is not that important. If so, we don’t believe we are saved the same way, I believe in Christ’s death and resurrection, there lies my faith
Blessed are those, called to the supper of THE LAMB
What's the painting found at 1:36 ? thanks
Great segment. When Protestants tell me that Augustine said that the bread represents Christ, I use an analogy involving the Statue of Liberty. If anyone says that it represents the libertarian ideals that the US was founded on, can’t they still go and visit the monument?
You can’t frame this as transubstantiation versus symbolism. In the early church there were other options in terms of explaining how Christ was present. In fact the transubstantiation theory was a later development.
Transubstantiation was a later definition to the concept that had always been believed. Justin Martyr, writing in the 2nd century, says calls it transmutation.
@@BrianHoldsworth Thanks Brian. Justin does not say that the bread and wine transmutate into flesh and blood, but rather says that OUR flesh and blood are nourished by "transmutation," which is an obvious reference to digestion. The Greek word used by Justin is METABOLHN from which we get the word "metabolism" which refers to digestion. There is a problem with assuming Justin is referring to transubstantiation. Justin did not explain what type of transformation of the elements takes place at the Eucharist, he was simply explaining an effect of it. We have to be careful about reading later understandings of the Eucharist back into Justin Martyr. Can one objectively show that Justin is speaking of the substantial change of the elements in this passage? It can be more accurately interpreted that Justin Martyr is referring to a spiritual change in the believer after partaking of the Lord’s Table Besides this, no one in the Protestant tradition denies that Jesus Himself said that the bread was His body and the wine was His blood, therefore Protestants have no problem with Justin Martyrs language and the burden of proof is on supporters of Transubstantiation to show that he was speaking of an ontological change of the elements in Apology 1.66.
@@paulsmallwood1484 Right, except, he says, about the Trasmutated nourishment that it "is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." He also says that it is "not as common bread and common drink do we receive these". He's specicially saying this isn't just bread and wine, but the flesh and blood of Jesus. All Transubstantiation does is help us understand it in philosophical terms.
There's no skirting around this or distorting it into anything other than a clear belief that the food that is blessed becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus. If all he was talking about was how bread changes as its digested, there would be no point in trying to explain that since it's already common knowledge. Aristotelian natural philosophy was a later understanding of concepts like "substances" which was then reconciled into our understanding of theology. As science develops, so too, can our theology if they fit, which Aquinas showed that they do. That isn't a departure from St. Justin, but a development of understanding of what he was already saying.
@@BrianHoldsworth Brian transubstantiation is a sacerdotal act. It requires a sacerdotal priesthood. Sacerdotalism didn’t enter the Christian church until the 4th century. To say there was a Roman Catholic priesthood in the first and early second century is simply not supported by the facts. You are reading the western church of the Middle Ages back into history. It was nice chatting with you Brian. God bless!
@@paulsmallwood1484 OK, well that's an entirely different topic - which is a red herring fallacy. But if you insist on changing the subject...
"And all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who do inherit here neither lands nor houses, but serve God and the altar continually." Irenaeus, 2nd century.
"Laodicea, Peter ordered the people to meet on the following day; and having ordained one of those who followed him as bishop over them, and others as presbyters, and having baptized multitudes, and restored to health all who were troubled with sicknesses or demons." - Clement of Rome, 1st century
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" - Ignatius of Antioch, 1st century
"And by ordination to the priesthood, which the apostles themselves had received from our Lord, did their Gospel wing its way rapidly into the four quarters of the world." - Teachings of the Apostles Syriac, 3rd century at the latest (but possibly a writing of the apostles)
Here's is what saves, what is important! For God sent His Son to die for our sins, to be our One atonement, One sacrifice for all sin. He was buried and rose from the dead on the third day! The Gospel.
Except that's not the whole Gospel. Scripture describes a LOT more with regards to salvation. All heresies are an attempt to reduce the Gospel to one simplistic thing that neglects the whole.
@@BrianHoldsworth Paul managed to reduce the gospel to one sentence in 1Corinthians:
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, - 1Cor 15:3,4
And Paul makes it quite clear in many of his letters that a person is saved by the gospel. (accepting or rejecting) For example:
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also YOU RECEIVED and in which you stand, BY WHICH ALSO YOU ARE SAVED, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you-unless you believed in vain. 1Co 15:2 (emphasis mine)
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for IT IS THE POWER OF GOD TO SALVATION for EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. - Rom 1:16 (emphasis mine)
Don't Catholics teach more than "real presence in Communion" = consubstantiation? I thought Catholic teaching was the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ = transubstantiation.
I think the quote you gave from Justin Martyr is about consubstantiation.
Thank you for the video. As a Bible believing Christian I completely agree with this understanding. Jesus meant what He said. Protestants have to change their reasoning just for one single chapter to avoid this. Please take 1 Corinthians 11:14 literally too, though.
+Holiness of the Bride:
Are you Catholic?
No I am not, although I was baptized Catholic.
If you believe Him, then do as He commands and listen to the ONE Church He built.
I understand your reasoning, but I believe the Catholic Church has departed from true doctrine in various areas, so I attend other churches. I consider myself a part of the Church that Christ built.
There's the trouble. Your determination is based upon "I believe". YOU have become the final determiner of "true doctrine". But you were never given the authority to determine that. You are relying upon your own fallible understanding, which funny enough, Scripture says NOT to do.
Brian, please address “co-redemptrix…ism” regarding Mary. I’m in desperate need of clarification.
What part do you want clarified?
Very well done!!!
Interesting refutation of the objection of cannibalism. But I don't see if the "idea" of cannibalism should be objectionable, whether literal or symbolic, why wouldn't the idea of the life giving bread and wine as body and blood be efficacious whether deemed literal or symbolic by the recipient? Christians whether Catholic, Orthodox or one of the Protestant sects all seem to deem this a vital issue. Yet to an outsider like me, it seems insignificant. For Jews, it all boils down to what we do. It isn't about how we feel as we're doing it.
It wasn't that cannibalism was such a 'yucky' thing, I don't think. Even before that consideration, Jews believed they were prohibited from drinking blood, human or animal. But like you say, Jesus never stopped the departing crowd by telling them he was only speaking in symbols. What's more, clearly the early Church believed in the Real Presence, and a generation or two down the road, pagan Romans used to mock Christians with the cannibal label.
Christians in the Empire also saved babies who had been taken to the dump, left exposed to whatever fate might befall them -- death or acquisition by those in search of slaves for various purposes. Even though the parents had abandoned the babies, and many died cruelly, Romans still accused Christians of using the babies in the Sacrifice, killing them and eating their flesh. Of course the reality was that Christians couldn't allow the innocent to suffer. They gave the babies loving homes.
I don't recall ever hearing that before.
Jews are not supposed to drink blood, because, Blood is Life, and Life belongs to God.
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life"
But in this cases, it is God made Man himself wo gives His own Blood/Life "to make atonement for our souls"
The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and the christian central rite who actualizes it - the Eucharist -, replaces all rites of the Temple.
I know that it is not cannibalism to receive the Eucharist in the state of Grace but is it cannibalism to receive the Eucharist with a mortal sin on your soul?
No. It's not cannibalism because, while the consecrated Host _is_ the Body and Blood of Christ, it is still in the form of bread and wine. It's not tied to mortal sin.
This is disturbing to me. In fact, early Christians faced accusations they were cannibals based on some of the teaching.
The Passover Seder is celebrated once a year which in Jesus time included a sacrificial lamb, unleavened bread and wine. Just as the Jews remembered what God had done for them in bringing them out of Egypt, Jesus was making it known that in the same way he should be remembered for what he was about to do in bringing us out of captivity of sin. His use of bread, wine and of course himself as the lamb were all in this context.
Were the Israelites eating and drinking the flesh and blood of God? Of course not and Jesus himself said that God is spirit. But because God provided the sacrificial lamb in Christ why do we automatically assume that we should therefore be eating his flesh in place of nibbling on the roasted lamb? We know that the early Jews would have been grossly offended by any such thing not least because drinking blood was anathema to them and contrary to their kosher laws. Peter himself initially struggled with the idea of being able to kill and eat non kosher food.
Instead of literally having to celebrate Passover once a year with lamb, bread and wine, as well as other obligatory sacrifices, the new covenant removed the need for endless sacrifices as a means of escape. Jesus timing was to use Passover to say that instead of endless Passovers and sacrifices where remembrance of bondage and God's provision of freedom were remembered, in future the bread and wine will suffice. Do these things in remembrance of me. Instead of literally having to eat the lamb and bread and drink the wine, we now just eat the bread and drink the wine because the Lamb of God has been the final sacrifice.
I agree..nowhere in the New Testament is the Holy Spirit given
(And to my understanding this is the real presence of Christ in the believer)
at such a meal.
Ever
Reading Brian Muraresku’s scholarly book on the early Christian History and the Book of St John - the Greeks- the eating of flesh and spiked wine and the evolutionary Eucharist and the women who prepared the Sacramento.
The Immortality Key
The Secret Story of the Religion With No Name.
The Immortality Key
Dude! This was a great explanation of the Eucharist!
What those who see only symbols fail to realize is that symbols convey what they symbolize. Every day we live with this but don't think about it. The badges that are given to law enforcement officers convey an authority given to them by the governing body. Therefore, when someone flashes their badge, we do not simply blow it off as "just a symbol". We recognize an authority behind the badge. Likewise, the money we use every day is not just a piece of paper but has a value that has been placed in that paper that is acknowledged and allows us to purchase things with it. Why? It's just a symbol! Because symbols convey what they symbolize. If this is true of these common items which are authorized by governments, then how much more true it is with symbols authorized by the God who gives authority to these governments! For this reason, Paul was able to write, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" Communion, if I understand correctly, means those with which we are united. Thus the bread and the wine, when consecrated to God, are no longer common food but convey to us in physical elements the very body and blood of Christ and all the benefits and privileges therein. I think part of the problem is a misunderstanding of the word 'remember'. In western societies especially we have the idea that remembrance is the mental exercise of trying to think about something that happened in past. How can you think about something in the past when you were not present when it happened? Instead, remembrance brings the past into the present through the sanctified elements that God has authorized. (This was also the intention of the Jewish Passover meal.) Thus when we are asked the question, "Were you there when they crucified my Lord," we can answer, "As often as we do this," concerning the Eucharist. This meal of Christ also plays a role in our spiritual warfare as by it we proclaim Christ's death until He comes. Thus our Thanksgiving is not just for our benefit, but proclaims the defeat of the principalities and powers of whom he made a spectacle when he was on the cross, triumphing over them in it! So we are privileged to partake of this victory. Volumes could be written on the Eucharist, but I'll stop here in wonder. Thank you for your video.
Catholics have the Feast. Protestants look at the menu.