3 Reasons JESUS Gave Us the Eucharist
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 เม.ย. 2023
- Why did Jesus institute the Eucharist? The Eucharist corresponds to the love of Jesus the Bridegroom, who wills to dwell with us, sacrifice Himself for us, and give Himself totally to us. The Eucharist is a mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and Communion, and all three aspects are abundantly prefigured in the Old Testament.
Lawrence Feingold discusses the institution of the Eucharist at the 2022 Catholic Answers Conference, "The Eucharist - I Am with You Always." To attend this year's conference in person and meet your favorite apologists, visit: catholicanswersconference.com
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YpQnHoQvZt4/mqdefault.jpg)
I remember this talk well. I had read his book "The Eucharist꞉ Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and Communion" in anticipation of his talk. Such a great book and one I have used as a reference multiple times since reading it. Highly recommended.
my class (at F U of Steubenville) is using his book, brilliant guy
Thanks for the awesome video 🎉
The best so far. Tnx
😇🙏
Why does some protestants, not all though, don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? They also insult it, calling it names like a "cookie Christ" that somehow the Catholics made up. They also said that it is "wicked", because we're resacrificing Jesus at the Altar.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia cautions: “We should not rely too heavily on the literalness of the words ‘This IS my body’ or ‘This IS my blood.’ The wording at Matthew 26:26-28 does not prove that the bread and wine were changed into Jesus’ literal body and blood at the Last Supper.”
Jesus was speaking figuratively! He compared himself to bread because through his sacrifice he would impart life to mankind. John 6:35,40 clearly indicates that the eating and drinking would be done by exercising faith in Jesus Christ.
@@sunnyjohnson992 Don't twist Christ's words when he makes it clear many times.
john 6:53
Amen, amen, I say to you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man
and drink his blood,
you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever feeds upon my flesh
and drinks my blood
has eternal life,
and I will raise him up on the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food,
and my blood is real drink.
Calvary is the source of Christian life ❤
The eucharist hardly makes any exegetical since to start with.
Tradition cannot be the will of God if it goes against the word of God.
Jesus uses parallelism in this discourse to equate believing with eating his flesh. Note the parallel between verse 40 and verse 54:
(Jn. 6:40) “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
(Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
According to this parallel, beholding and believing (v.40) are equated with eating and drinking Christ’s flesh (v.54). This is further paralleled by verse 35:
(Jn. 6:35) I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
(Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
To “hunger” and “thirst” and parallel to the one who “eats” and “drinks.” But note what Jesus says satisfies our hunger: “He who comes to Me… he who believes in Me.” Jesus isn’t speaking about his literal flesh and blood any more than he is speaking about literal bread (Jn. 6:35) or literal water (Jn. 4:10-14). Indeed, Jesus uses the term sarx for his “body,” rather than the common term sōma (which was the common term used in the Lord’s Supper). Indeed, the “term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper.”[4] Hence, this seems “to caution against a sacramental or eucharistic understand of these verses.”[5] This is why Augustine of Hippo wrote regarding this passage: “Believe, and you have eaten.”
Jesus works in metaphor’s, analogy and hyperbole. In Mark 8 Jesus uses bread language again anhesd calls out those confused thinking he’s being literal not realizing the spiritual message.
The catholic reasoning system will have little influence on the born again believer who’s truly born of the spirit. Those like my self who exegete and derive revelation from the spirit see the heretical lie of transubstantiation.
144000 martyrs disapprove.
you know that those very same people who wrote the NT books did believe the real presence?
@@bandie9101 they did not.
At the Council of Trent Rome taught her belief was affirmed by “all our forefathers” (Thirteenth Session, Chapter 1, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. However, this is certainly not the case.
The Didache (AD 100): “On the Lord’s day assemble and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. If any have a dispute with his fellow, let him not come to the assembly till they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not polluted. For this is the sacrifice spoken of by the Lord; ‘In every place and at every time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, said the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles; (Mal. i. 11, 14).”[1]
This doesn’t refer to Jesus’ sacrifice, but to “your sacrifice.” The same Greek word for “sacrifice” (thusia) is used of Jesus’ sacrifice (Heb. 5:1), but it is also used of doing good deeds, praise, and financial giving (Heb. 13:15-16; Phil. 4:18). The same book also refers to the supper as the “cup” and the “bread,” and a means of remembering Jesus’ sacrifice in thanksgiving (Didache, 9).
Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 180) stated that the elements do not lose the nature of bread and wine (Against Heresies, 4.18.4-5; 5.2.2).
Tertullian (AD 200) said Jesus’ statement was figurative (Against Marcion, 3.19).
Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) called the bread and wine symbols of Jesus’ body (The Instructor, I.6).
Origen (AD 250) held his typical allegorical and spiritual view when referring to the elements in the Last Supper.
Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 340) called the elements the body and blood of Christ, but also referred to them as symbolic of spiritual realities (On the Theology of the Church, 3.2.12).
Augustine (AD 350) believed that John 6:53 should be understood spiritually and symbolically-not literalistically (On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2).
Gelasius I (5th century pope): “The sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of Christ is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be… Thus, as the elements pass into this, that is, the divine substance by the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their own proper nature.”
@@bobbyrice6847 is not it strange that eastern churches (including those who are not in communion with the rest since the 2nd eucomenical council) all profess the real presence despite Rome invented it in the late medieval ages?
@@bobbyrice6847 Brother, let's be loving for one another. There is a lot of quotes in your argument, but I would like to point out to one of them. I believe other quotes might be addressed in a similar way but unfortunately it would have become a very long comment to talk about them all. Anyways, please read it with an open heart :)
Your comment: "Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 180) stated that the elements do not lose the nature of bread and wine (Against Heresies, 4.18.4-5; 5.2.2)." Let's take a closer look at what exactly Irenaeus of Lyons has said. Then, let's ask ourselves if he talks about bread and wine as merely symbolic with merely earthly nature.
In the same book that you pointed out we read "For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity."
In the same book (Book 4 chapter 17), we read "When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?"
In the book 5 chapter 2 we read, "if the body be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His blood nor is the bread which we break the partaking of His body."
Same book, same chapter: "And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time."
Same 5th book, chapter 4: ""He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies."
@@swim96ful The Didache (AD 100): “On the Lord’s day assemble and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. If any have a dispute with his fellow, let him not come to the assembly till they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not polluted. For this is the sacrifice spoken of by the Lord; ‘In every place and at every time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, said the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles; (Mal. i. 11, 14).”
This doesn’t refer to Jesus’ sacrifice, but to “your sacrifice.” The same Greek word for “sacrifice” (thusia) is used of Jesus’ sacrifice (Heb. 5:1), but it is also used of doing good deeds, praise, and financial giving (Heb. 13:15-16; Phil. 4:18). The same book also refers to the supper as the “cup” and the “bread,” and a means of remembering Jesus’ sacrifice in thanksgiving (Didache, 9).
Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 180) stated that the elements do not lose the nature of bread and wine (Against Heresies, 4.18.4-5; 5.2.2).
Tertullian (AD 200) said Jesus’ statement was figurative (Against Marcion, 3.19).
Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) called the bread and wine symbols of Jesus’ body (The Instructor, I.6).
Origen (AD 250) held his typical allegorical and spiritual view when referring to the elements in the Last Supper.
Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 340) called the elements the body and blood of Christ, but also referred to them as symbolic of spiritual realities (On the Theology of the Church, 3.2.12).
Augustine (AD 350) believed that John 6:53 should be understood spiritually and symbolically-not literalistically (On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2).
Gelasius I (5th century pope): “The sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of Christ is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be… Thus, as the elements pass into this, that is, the divine substance by the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their own proper nature.”
Transubstantiation supposes appearances of Christ by power of a priest on earth to deal with sin repeatedly…But Hebrews 9:28 says…
so Christ, having been offered ONCE to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, NOT to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Any reappearance of Christ has yet to happen and is a future event. Not a repeated occurrence thousands of times a day.
Thus, denying the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, is denying all the presence of God in OT, the OT prefigurements of Jesus don't make sense at all.
Must tell to our Protestants friends 😂