3MC - Episode 38 - What is the Eucharist?

[@fishmanfishman6511]

Awesome! Thank you. Peace Be With You. 😇🙏

[@d_item]

This is what I'm looking for thanks!

[@atenschun6254]

What do you mean 'real presence'? If I take the Eucharist I cannot see, hear or feel anything. What do you mean?

[@dabondemdonuts8062]

Please make more vids these are great!!!!

[@donjojohannes]

Glad you find them helpful. There are 72 of these with a total of 4 hours, 27 minutes and 20 seconds here: kzbin.info/aero/PLIcePO_eJb2_EElTdFm1PFLNkH17EQcV-

[@suzannebarbeau8937]

It took me a long time to understand « Die protestantische Ethik und der “Geist” des Kapitalismus » from Max Weber and the notion of "Beruf" (profession, work) in Luther. It got me confused. Paul of Tarsus gave a lot of importance of having a virtuous "working activity" and his writing are extraordinary, reflecting and orienting in the Love of Jesus. The philosopher Weber explained in his essay how protestantism led to capitalism. Well, to keep it simple, I decided to remain catholic to follow the advice of my mother before her death and I do not regret my choice.

[@mwanakijiji]

What is inside the tabernacle

[@curtpiazza1688]

Good teaching!

[@shadybro3459]

yo zeian thia is omar hope you see this comment

[@Galactic_The_Star]

tysm that helped

[@Galactic_The_Star]

if u dont know tysm means thank you so much

[@tizianorepetto]

thx

[@iedvesmaindonesia6768]

Let's get Eucharist

[@AJ21969]

Transformed By Who?

[@Darkknight-Rises]

Jesus said to eat this bread in remembrance of me. Rather he didn't said to worship it

[@donjojohannes]

Thank you for your comment. If you look at any ancient church, going back to the apostles (Catholic, Orthodox, Armenian, Syrian, Coptic) they might differ on some things but they all share the same belief in the Eucharist. Is that of any significance? Well, not only have they transmitted the books of the bible (which did not exist as a book until much later) to begin with but more importantly a common doctrine on how to understand these passages. And you will find a number of texts referenced by them - if you can read them not with a novel post reformation (16th century) mind, but in the way the early Christians understood it (even according to Roman sources: hence the - misguided - charge of canibalism). The passages I suggest you look at are John 6,30 ff (try to understand the outrage of the opponents of Jesus at the end of the passage that he could have calmed by simply saying: "it's symbolic" - which he did not) and 1 Corinthians 11,23-32. I hope this helps. Peace.

[@moonflower167]

Jesus said, in John 6:35 "I am the Bread of Life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. " In John 6:54 Jesus said *Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day* Then He said: "This IS my body,...my blood, which is given up for you." Luke 22:19 Jesus NEVER said that the bread is only symbolic, He made that very clear. So - that "bread" which is consecrated, truly becomes His Body. When we eat His Body in Holy Communion we receive eternal life. And since we worship Christ.... what better way to do it than to worship Him in the living Sacrament??

[@rmason5477]

@@moonflower167 one also need to believe that Jesus Christ is the only way, to do what is right everyday, with His help one can achieve this

[@AJ21969]

At the Last Supper, What was The Lord JESUS Celebrating? Was it Not The Passover?

[@heezuk_2230]

Hello:) I am watching a video well. Could you please add Korean subtitles?

[@donjojohannes]

정희주 sorry. I don't speak Korean. But if someone wants to translate, I can add them.

[@heezuk_2230]

I want you to add Korean subtitles. sorry to bother you. But I hope..

[@donjojohannes]

_Heezuk If you have subtitles in Korean, I can add them.

[@seanluu7188]

The eucharist is joe

[@AJ21969]

Would the Jewish New Testament Authors Have Any Idea Of This?

[@donjojohannes]

A reasonable question. There is a difference between knowing a truth and expressing that same truth through reflection. An example for that, on a subject we can maybe agree upon: The new testament authors did not use the word Trinity or formulated their faith in expressions identical to the Nicean creed, but the belief in one God is clear, as is the divinity of the Son und and the Spirit. Now how to understand - or more importantly - defend that belief? Theology is the attempt (and strenuous process) to bring to expression that which is contained within the mystery received - a process that usually originates from a challenge. Arius came along and trying to preserve the unity of God, postulated that Christ and the Spirit were lesser "gods". Yet bishops objected that this was not an adequate representation of the truth of revelation. Discussion ensued, arguing, and eventually a formula that sought to express the faith of the apostles more clearly (and after more discussion arriving at a precise distinction of the meaning of person and substance and emploing the term "homoousios" for how the Son relates to the Father). It is much the same with other doctrines. Transsubstantiation might be a latin medieval term foreign to the tongue of St. Andrew but the only really relevant question is, whether it represents the biblical faith adequately. Looking at John 6 an the teaching of Paul, I contend it does. But more importantly it is the expression developed by the living community of the Church. For you might be aware, that Jesus did not write a book or entrust his message to pages (which he absolutely could have done), but to a living communion, entrusted especially to Peter. The church had no bible (other than the Old Testament) for the better part of 300 years and though it preserved its different books it did not have a "canon" to go to. God knew that obviously. So if Jesus' act of founding his community was not to be in vain (and his promise a false one), then I trust that the community founded by Jesus will pass on his teachings authentically. The novelty of "sola scripture" on the other hand is barely 500 years old and has - quite understandibly - not brought union in faith but a myriad of Christian denominations at odds with each other, all claiming that their own personal interpretation (for which they all claim the Spirit) is the right one.

[@georgerizzo9054]

The hi

[@Galactic_The_Star]

?

[@cicprods]

He didn’t say do it over and over. And he told the disciples to do it. Not us.

[@donjojohannes]

It was actually his disciples telling us that he told them. For Christ didn't write a book. The disciples wrote the text that would become the New Testament. Now, what would be the point of the disciples at the end of their lives telling all about Christ's command? And further: would't it be the case that by your logic when he commanded them anything else (love your enemy...) it would't concern us because "he told them and not us". So I think that is not a good argument to make. The disciples of the disciples seem to agree because they are evidence of the continued "over and over" as the Didache and the letters of Ignatius of Antioch or Justin Martyr show. They knew the apostles. So generally they are better witnesses the mind of Christ expressed by the disciples than any of us could ever be. God bless !

[@cicprods]

Donjojohannes - Birett Ballett - Kathmedia We don’t know who wrote gospels nor Pauline text. The Eucharist is a ritual for ppl to remember not a commandment from Jesus.

[@donjojohannes]

@@cicprods I don't know what it matters for this question who wrote the texts. If we can agree that Jesus did not write them himself, then obviously disciples of his did (regardless of whether they were among the 12 or not). They obviously wrote down what they considered relevant and the words of institution are formulaic indicating ancient use at the time of Paul already. All early texts (including non christian roman accounts) indicate a repeated celebration on the 8th day and the fact that his disciples (and their disciples) did it. I stated in reference to some relevant texts that the early church therefore disagrees with the claims of your first comment. On what basis are you saying that it is no "commandment of Jesus"? What is your source? What is your authority? The texts themselves don't allow that conclusion. Why should I regard your opinion higher than all ancient texts? What do you know that Justin Martyr didn't? Why should I discount the Didache in favor of a youtube commentor? Why would you think the Pauline epistles worthless in this regard and 2000 years later tell me that you are giving a better account of what Christ did and said and meant than the earliest texts of the New Testament? It is difficult to recognize your authority for you don't provide your reasoning. Can you elucidate? Nobody denies that the Eucharist involves ritual that developed later and surrounds the original core. That does not invalidate the core and how the early Christians understood the reality of the Eucharist can be gathered from both Paul and John 6 as well as the texts I already mentioned. Even the Roman Authorities indicate what people understood Christians to do. And a mere remembering is not it as is clear if you actually read the sources. Christians could have avoided much ridicule by telling everyone that they were just "remembering a meal Jesus once had". But that is not what they understood it to be by any account.

[@sarasrandomlife3534]

Fun fact: Jesus was middle eastern and Jewish so he probably looks nothing like the drawings of him

[@sarasrandomlife3534]

Also God doesn’t have a gender therefore God is non-binary

[@HunterLowther]

thx