Catholic priest explains something important that Protestant Christians got wrong

[@ourdailyinspiration]

You might be interested with this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fp_Hf3l8mcSjY6c Fr. Carlos Martins - This demon who calls himself ''Zeus'' (Vol. 2)

[@GWConsultant]

Jesus said this is my BODY rather than flesh and he used spiritual imagery in Jn 6:63, but Roman catholics worship the wafer using words of Thomas - “my God and my Lord”… Despite the wafer might be somehow connected with Jesus but in no way might have fullness of Godhead BODILY and so - you believe you are “eating” the a sacrificial flesh of Jesus that you believe actually is the flesh of Virgin Mary Marie that she “generated” from herself as the flesh of the mortal Jesus when she gave birth - Mary obeys and produces the flesh of Jesus by the command of the priest when he is saying “hoc est corpus meum” - very literal act indeed. We know that gentiles not knowing Latin for centuries heard this as the magic “focus-pocus spell”. Then you believe that the flesh of the blessed Marie-Jesus replaces yours and accumulates in you for the salvation eternal. Jesus says to Nikodeme John 3:6 Flesh is born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit. But “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:50). So how the literal flesh of Jesus that he had received from Mary would benefit the salvation? Mary cannot produce the flesh if resurrection body of Christ, can she? This said - You replace spiritual salvation by physical bodily manipulations with wafer. Do you see? ThHoly Supper us connected with the Jesus death and resurrection on the cross. Why is the cross important? So that Mary can generate more flesh, or that being immersed in Jesus you were dying together with Jesus on the cross and then He became your sin and your curse to leave it in hell, and resurrecting together with Jesus you became a new creature in Christ, abiding in the body of Christ to continue living in faith, being lead by the Spirit that dwells in you. Do you see difference of biblical imagery of the cross vs mechanical “salvation” by eating flesh? What is worshiping? - Is it confessing that wafer is God, or it is Rom 12:1 and Jn 4:34? Think about it! There exist no “collective salvation” with the local church based on the teachings of the local priest! Christ shall judge you rather than pope. You either obey to love Christ and neighbor and act in faith towards God to change your inner spiritual nature according to his revelation in the Bible or you don’t! Your flesh has NO ROLE IN YOUR SALVATION rather than it is supposed to be the dwelling of God in you. Remember that “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:50)! Hence, what happens biblically during the Holy Supper? By “this do in remembrance of me” (1 Cor 11) you eat bread as “His body” and drink wine - “His blood” to spiritually repeat the baptismal experience dying with Christ on the cross and get rid of the sins and all the unrighteousness you just supposedly confessed before the Holy Supper, and resurrecting together with Christ you renew your life according to the NT covenant - living in faith that works through love, being a member of the BODY of Christ. Instead of consuming His literal mortal flesh as something precious you Rather believe that by eating and drinking you strengthen your unity with His body, therefore examine yourself! Are you in faith, and does Christ abide in you? Are you worthy member of the body of Christ, are those around you also members if the body of Christ, because he who eats and drinks “not discerning the Lord’s body” he eats damnation to himself. Therefore “we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.” This is supposed to happen during the Holy Supper rather than consuming a worshiped wafer. God bless you and lead into truth! 🙏🔥❤️

[@MajorTom546]

As a cradle catholic, I took these things for granted. I went away and looked for spiritual food elsewhere. My thirst for the Truth brought me back to the one, holy, apostolic catholic Church trembling. My Lord, and my God, Christ Jesus. We pray for all souls, may they see what they need to see. ✝🙏🏼

[@pgstudio4651]

DEUS VULT!!! You came back into he Arms of Christ.

[@mlib-jmj]

Same!

[@siddywiddyb]

Same. I used to pick and choose not to go up for the Eucharist, when i felt like it! Now i understand, i would never Not receive the body of Christ.

[@mlib-jmj]

@@siddywiddyb when I came to understand in a moment of Grace, I refrained from Communion for a very long time as I had not been to Confession for a very long time. I suddenly understood this necessary Sacrament, too! When I finally got up the nerve to go to Confession, I wept tears of joy when I heard those words of absolution spoken, and was the happiest Catholic in the whole world in that moment! So Blessed to be Catholic!

[@siddywiddyb]

​@@mlib-jmj amen!

[@hynjus001]

You hit a home run with this one. Not to defeat protestants but to convert them back to Life everlasting.

Step by step to the truth Amen; even Catholics we need to convert everyday as it is wise to not assure yourself as holy but always seeking holiness. Daily catholic mass.... I confess to almighty God..... everyday why because even a Just man sins 7 times a day...God Bless.

[@deadeyedickification]

Converting to catholicism does not bring salvation. Belief in Christ and the grace of God does. You people have main character syndrome

[@LozoChez]

RC Bug a Boo

[@LeoOrlando-yd2ut]

When people ran away from Jesus because they were outraged, Jesus never said, “No, you misunderstood. I meant it figuratively.”

[@ChristopherBurse]

Nor would He need to. He was speaking in parables, as He always did to the multitudes. (Matt. 13:34).

[@Hope_Boat]

Orthodox here ☦ Was it not literal when our Lord Jesus Christ said "Drink from it, all of you, This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins"? I ask because Roman Catholic priest usually do not share the wine of the Eucharist to the faithful pretending that blood and wine are the same implying that Jesus didn't mean literally that you had to take both. So how can you criticize you Protestant brothers when yourself do not take our Lord literally? Lord have mercy on us all sinners.

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@ChristopherBurse Jesus always spoke in parables? Read the Bible, Protestant

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@Hope_Boat There have been times throughout history where the distribution of Communion has been limited to one form for reasons of practicality or to combat heresy. In the early Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received generally under both kinds on Sundays, Communion under the form of bread alone allowed for daily reception where Mass was not possible. Likewise, beginning in the late 1200s, distribution of Communion under one form only was required in order to combat the heretical teaching of some that reception under both kinds was necessary in order to receive the whole Christ. By the time of Vatican II, the Council saw no reason not to begin restoring the reception of Communion under both kinds. This was done in stages. In 1970 the Holy See approved for the United States the bishops’ Appendix to the General Instruction for the Dioceses of the United States, which gave permission for Communion under both kinds at weekday Masses (AGI 242:19). The Holy See extended this permission in 1984 to Sunday Masses in the U.S., when it approved the bishops’ directory, This Holy and Living Sacrifice: Directory for the Celebration and Reception of Communion under Both Kinds. The directory stated that, in addition to weekday Masses, “Communion under both kinds is also permitted at parish and community Masses celebrated on Sundays and holy days of obligation in the dioceses of the United States” (HLS 21). The only exceptions are in those cases where the size or circumstance of the congregation would not permit reverent reception of the precious blood or when the congregation is so diverse that the priest cannot tell if its members have been sufficiently instructed about receiving Communion under both kinds. Church Law states: “Communion under both kinds is to be desired in all celebrations of the Mass, though this is not possible in all cases” (HLS 19).

[@vasanthraj9106]

@@Hope_Boat Actually speaking, we do take the communion with both bread (body) and wine (blood), but we do that sometimes and I have no reason why but we do take it occasionally, but please understand that It's not we rejected the idea of wine being blood NOOO, we believe the transubstantiation.

[@karengibbons4293]

Praise the Holy Spirit for leading me to Catholicism over a period of six years!

[@pgstudio4651]

DEUS VULT!!!

[@marlenesmall5527]

I always "knew " the eucharist was the actual body and blood of our Lord, but learning about the eucharistic miracles made it so much more real. At first, I admit, it was kind of shocking, but as I accepted it it changed the way I experienced holy communion. Now after communion I know the Lord is in my heart . I feel His presence and now I understand what communion means. I love You Jesus❤!

[@chrishorton8213]

This message is so vital and important. 🙏🙏🙏

[@ourdailyinspiration]

thanks so much dear Chris! May God bless you

[@WT-Sherman]

When Ancient Israel celebrated Passover, they had to eat the lamb. It was not optional.

[@ourlifeinwyoming4654]

Modern Eucharist deniers claim that they follow the book to the letter, yet they ignore this or rationalize it away.

[@ddzl6209]

As long as they believe in the satanic cult of sola scriptura a man made tradition invented by a devil possessed man, they will oppose anything that Catholics practice whether biblical or not doesn't matter for them .

[@CK-ub7jf]

Profound! The implications for many Protestants is frightening

[@jamesndirangu1197]

Those who walked away from the Word Himself because what He said was beyond their human understanding are the first wave protestants, who, presumably, eventually saw the light and all was quiet for 16 centuries until the 1st century doubts were reignited in the protestant reformation - and what a blaze do we witness! Out of His love and mercy Jesus has continued to perform Eucharistic miracles across different periods in church history to affirm the faith of doubters and reconfirm that of the credulous. Some of us who are alive today have witnessed bleeding hosts and palpitating heart tissue in recent Eucharistic miracles. May I rest my case.

[@MHester-m3f]

Until all Catholics, not just Protestants, believe in the Real Presence, I hope you don’t rest your case, as it is well said.

[@jd3jefferson556]

I would be willing to bet that many of the disciples that walked away from Christ after this teaching, became the first gnostic, which was the first protestant denomination

[@johannedillworth7413]

Sadly the latest edition calls our belief in the Real Presence idolatry and blasphemy in various online comments from evangelicals who usually are self taught or poorly formed ex Catholics who dropped out and trumpet it all over KZbin. They call the miracles “lying signs and wonders”. No teaching them really. They are determined to not hear anything .

[@RosalindToh]

​​@@johannedillworth7413 Have these Protestants committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (the only UNFORGIVEABLE SIN, according to Jesus)? Jesus had mentioned this unforgiveable sin after the Jews attributed his miracles as having come from the devil!

[@johannedillworth7413]

@@RosalindToh They will find out eventually.

[@robinkennedy3190]

Thank you for sharing so much detail. I especially appreciate the papal, theological talks in these videos from Fr. Ianuzzi--himself being a theologian. There are great teachings to help us as Catholics and hopefully other Christians to learn the full measure of Christ's Church in context. Praying for all souls....

[@csongorarpad4670]

Glory be to Jesus Christ!

[@DigitalLogos]

When you receive the Eucharist you just KNOW that it IS Christ

[@Srhyle]

Please elaborate. I've tried from both sides.

[@vtomc]

@@Srhyle For those Protestant AND Catholics who want to argue nonsense, it IS the literal body and blood of Christ. Look at all the scientific evidence and try to refute that. 107 documented Eucharistic miracles. 1. Type AB blood, the same blood found in the shroud of Turin, the same type blood found in all Eucharistic miracles from the first one onward. Why is this important? Because AB blood is the rarest type of blood in the world, with only 1% of the population having it. Blood was discovered to have 4 types in 1901. The chances that all of these Eucharistic miracles plus the shroud having the same type of extremely rare blood is astronomically coincidental. If you want to call it coincidence. 2. It is always the left ventricle of the heart when the host has turned into flesh. Again what are the chances that each one is exactly that? The left ventricle of a human heart? How can anyone claim it is some elaborate hoax over the centuries? 3. There is always the presence of white blood cells, which cannot live outside of the body for more than 30 minutes. And yet there they are, alive and well, as if the heart were still alive…. 4. None of the blood is coagulated, meaning it’s fresh. So no, it didn’t come from some long dead corpse. 5. Cardiac enzymes that are released when a person is in excruciating pain are also found in Eucharistic miracles. Again, please explain that as a hoax. As they say, “follow the science”. Or in this case, the true church that Jesus himself founded, not a protesting offshoot of it. Doubting Thomas groups of people…. What more proof do you need? Does any of this ever happen in Protestant churches of any denomination? Didn’t think so.

[@whathappening5323]

In 1506, one William Tilfrey, a pious man, was burnt alive at Amersham, in a close called Stoneyprat, and at the same time, his daughter, Joan Clarke, a married woman, was obliged to light the fagots that were to burn her father. This year also one father Roberts, a priest, was convicted of being a Lollard before the bishop of Lincoln, and burnt alive at Buckingham. In 1507, one Thomas Norris was burnt alive for the testimony of the truth of the gospel, at Norwich. This man was a poor, inoffensive, harmless person, but his parish priest conversing with him one day conjectured he was a Lollard. In consequence of this supposition he gave information to the bishop, and Norris was apprehended. In 1508, one Lawrence Guale, who had been kept in prison two years, was burnt alive at Salisbury, for denying the real presence in the sacrament. It appeared, that this man kept a shop in Salisbury and entertained some Lollards in his house; for which he was informed against to the bishop; but he abode by his first testimony, and was condemned to suffer as a heretic. A pious woman was burnt at Chippen Sudburne, by order of the chancellor, Dr. Whittenham. After she had been consumed in the flames, and the people were returning home, a bull broke loose from a butcher and singling out the chancellor from all the rest of the company, he gored him through the body, and on his horns carried his entrails. This was seen by all the people, and it is remarkable, that the animal did not meddle with any other person whatever. October 18, 1511, William Succling and John Bannister, who had formerly recanted, returned again to the profession of the faith, and were burnt alive in Smithfield. In the year 1517, one John Brown, (who had recanted before in the reign of Henry VII. and borne a fagot round St. Paul's,) was condemned by Dr. Wonhaman, archbishop of Canterbury, and burnt alive at Ashford. Before he was chained to the stake, the archbishop Wonhaman, and Yester, bishop of Rochester, caused his feet to be burnt in a fire till all the flesh came off, even to the bones. This was done in order to make him again recant, but he persisted in his attachment to the truth to the last. Much about this time one Richard Hunn, a merchant tailor of the city of London, was apprehended, having refused to pay the priest his fees for the funeral of a child; and being conveyed to the Lollards' Tower, in the palace of Lambeth, was there privately murdered by some of the servants of the archbishop.[190] September 24, 1518, John Stilincen, who had before recanted, was apprehended, brought before Richard Fitz-James, bishop of London, and on the 25th of October was condemned as a heretic. He was chained to the stake in Smithfield amidst a vast crowd of spectators, and sealed his testimony to the truth with his blood. He declared that he was a Lollard, and that he had always believed the opinions of Wickliffe; and although he had been weak enough to recant his opinions, yet he was now willing to convince the world that he was ready to die for the truth. In the year 1519, Thomas Mann was burnt in London, as was one Robert Celin, a plain honest man for speaking against image worship and pilgrimages. Much about this time, was executed in Smithfield, in London, James Brewster, a native of Colchester. His sentiments were the same as the rest of the Lollards, or those who followed the doctrines of Wickliffe; but notwithstanding the innocence of his life, and the regularity of his manners, he was obliged to submit to papal revenge. During this year, one Christopher, a shoemaker, was burnt alive at Newbury, in Berkshire, for denying those popish articles which we have already mentioned. This man had got some books in English, which were sufficient to render him obnoxious to the Romish clergy. In 1521, Thomas Bernard was burnt alive at Norwich, for denying the real presence. This so-called TRUTH is not the TRUTH. It has its own TRUTH when they had the power this is how they persuade you this TRUTH is the TRUTH . 2 Corinthian 11 Paul warns us about the lies of the different spirit, Different Jesus, different Gospel. With this History, you can see why Paul warned US.

[@fionamort5837]

God bless you for another great video 🙏🌹❤️☘️

[@anthonypetrozzelli5429]

Our Lord bless me with dreams and visions. One morning during mass, I dosed off, and at the time of consecration, I had a vision dream where I saw a lighting bolt hit the host when the priest elevated it, then a triangular light flash, after that I saw the face of Jesus came down from heaven, and appeared in the Eucharist. His facial image on the Eucharist appeared like a pencil sketch. Now, every time I see the concentrated host, I can see the face of Jesus in the Eucharist! Jesus is present in the Eucharist! We must receive him worthily, kneeling, and on the tongue. Also, I have dreams where I have seen Jesus emanating from the Eucharist.

[@feedogmummy496]

That is beautiful. I have seen His face in the Host during Adoration. He is so good to us.

[@TheBadTrad]

Prots: “call no man ‘father’”! The Eucharist? “Jesus was just talking metaphorically….” They have to deny the Eucharist or their whole man-made religion falls apart.

[@kletterfreak814]

Sadly, not only do they have to reject the most holy sacrament, not only do they have to kick books out of the bible, because of thinking, only European Jews rule (what about ancient Greeks and Africans?!!), no, they do not stop there, don't forget Luther willingly kicked 2 more books out of the OT, just because they didn't fit to his beliefs! No single protestant can ever understand the times and therefore very often as well the sayings of Jesus Christ, which obviously disproves sola scripture as well! Well, Luther may have been right, criticising some practices of some people in his lifetime. But for me, it seems very clear, that he really often lacked that big overview and showed sometimes quite bad knowledge in important things in a lot of his theses.

[@papagin]

According to Ignatius of Antioch, those who do not believe that the Eucharist IS the body of Christ are heretics. Take their complaints to him.

[@Justyouraverageguy172]

YES! It’s so sad as they will be those condemned on the Last Day pleading with Jesus about all their good works but Jesus telling them that I never knew you.

[@TheBadTrad]

@@Justyouraverageguy172 Absolutely. I pray for the ignorant protestants often.

[@essafats5728]

@@Justyouraverageguy172 so 1-dimension, shallow, diluted belief, 1/2 truth, and ignorant Protty: what good works that Jesus explicitly tells that He never knew you? Where was your faith tradition at the compilation and preservation of the bible? Name your faith tradition's ancestors. At Jesus ascension, did HE leave a Church or the bible you use today?

[@luigidemaio6111]

God bless you Father, thanks for the video!!

[@sheilatejada7748]

Bless you Father for explaining. We pray that through this video will enlighten the heart and mind of our brothers and sisters who misunderstood the EUCHARIST of the Catholic church 🙏❤️

[@demetrius409]

without last supper, eucharist, there's no sacrifice. Cross is just roman execution.

[@delvingeorge2807]

Best of everything is it's the Risen Lord in the Holy Eucharist not dead!

[@KristineMarieTxSPI]

1 Samuel 15 22 Samuel says, "To obey is better than sacrifice." The message is clear: God values obedience and faithfulness to His commands more than ritualistic sacrifices or religious rituals performed without a sincere heart.

[@Halloweendm]

Where on earth did you get that? His execution wasn’t empty or lacking in sacrifice! He took on the sin of the world, past, present and future and paid the price God required. Without that sacrificial death, there is no amount of crackers or wine to save one from Hell or restore man’s relationship with God!

[@Skarlet-ju8sr]

​@KristineMarieTxSPI the early Church founded by the Apostles taught it as a sacrifice.

[@james43258]

The church fathers keep me Catholic

[@aruljohnbosco6987]

Excellent and wonderful. Keep up your good work. I Hope this inspires protestants to embrace the central tenet of the Catholic faith - The Eucharist. Ave Maria

[@Hope_Boat]

Orthodox here.☦ I could have been more convincing if you actually gave the Blood of Christ when the Priest says "Drink from it, all of you, This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.", don't you think?

[@Srhyle]

@@Hope_Boat exactly! At least Protestants do both, drink and eat.

[@Hope_Boat]

@@Srhyle And sometimes with ketchup and French fries... Lord have mercy.

[@Srhyle]

@@Hope_Boat eww

[@Artty-fl8ul]

Thank You.

[@IngridRamos-t6j]

Thank you God bless you CHRIST IS KING HIS KINGDOM come Amen

[@gbnessdot96]

A protestant’s belief or unbelief always springs forth from its detestation of the catholic church’s faith. It is a very deep and dark well of contempt.

[@Catholiclady3]

You're so right. It's so sad.

[@Hope_Boat]

Orthodox here. ☦Indeed Protestantism is a reaction as the name suggests. But a reaction to what? hmmm... could it be... no...

[@paulcapaccio9905]

Pride is a sin

[@johannedillworth7413]

@@Hope_BoatThey totally deny you too for the same reasons. Sorry. Current crop wants no limit in what they can do once they say the Sinners prayer. They consider the belief in the Real Presence idolatry. This refers to the newest editions who usually belong to no actual church and claim the Holy Spirit personally instructs them.

[@Hope_Boat]

@@johannedillworth7413 A great deal of protestant pastors converted to orthodoxy in the last years because they started to understand that with sola scriptura and without the guidance of the tradition they spread into myriads of heresies and chapels, but also that the problem with the Roman Pontiff was already correctly diagnosed by the orthodox Church before they protested against it. This said the orthodox Church is not a political party. We are not recruiting. We don't try to be the first in numbers. We don't try to submit anyone to a leader. Our patriarchs are servants not leaders. We just maintain the deposit of the faith as it was given once and for all to that apostles and the holy fathers. Whoever wants to drink from that chalice is welcomed but very few are expected.

[@dravendfr]

My church (Southern Baptist) just partook in Holy Communion over Easter. Members in my family who are leading members of the church emphasized that the act was symbolic, not literal after we were done which really didn’t and doesn’t sit well with me. I finally had to talk to my Pastor and asked him, he gave me the same answer. I love and respect every one of them, but I fundamentally disagree on this. I’ve heard a lot of, “I think” and, “I feel” rather than the basis for where the stance comes from. Where in the Bible does Jesus say, even just imply that the Eucharist is anything but the literal transfigured body and blood of our Lord? Speaking of which, some had never even heard of the term Eucharist. I’m not saying all of this to point fingers. I’m alarmed and worried for us all. I’m not a gambler, especially on matters concerning eternity.

[@mattmoeller1105]

(John 6:26-68) This first verse (v.53) shows that those who came to Jesus were actually just coming to Him for bread, since He just fed the 5,000 men the previous day in John 6:9-14. He knew they were coming to Him for food and not for His words which give life (v.26). Jesus was using a physical necessity to teach a spiritual lesson. What Jesus quotes in verse 63 is vital for understanding what Jesus is talking about. It states, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit; and are life." Whose flesh is Jesus talking about, since He wasn't mentioning anyone else's flesh? It is His flesh He is referring to, eating it will benefit nothing, not even eternal life. Peter understood what Jesus was talking about as he states in v. 68, "Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." The people wanted food, not the word of God, which gives eternal life. We do not need to use our imagination to make up the literal bread and wine into something that it is not. People need to read the whole passage in context, not twist it to fit their traditions, as Catholics do.

[@Dback121584]

​@@mattmoeller1105 This is Protestantism in a nutshell. That's your personal interpretation, contrary to centuries of Church fathers, theologians, and the very apostles who heard the words themselves. But you have no recourse to uncover the truth, just like the other 80,000 different Protestant denominations.

[@cyberfist6568]

​​@@mattmoeller1105 I have read the whole passage. It's odd you could believe God spoke the world into existence, but when he says bread and wine is his flesh and blood it's not possible. Btw verse 53-56 is specifically referring to "his" flesh, not "the" flesh as in 63. It's not just today's Catholics that believe this it was the apostles, early church through the first 1500 years of existence, even luthor himself believed.

[@jdprentice720]

I converted from a Southern Baptist church last year. Best thing I ever did. It was and is hard because my wife still wants the Baptist church and the people there are great. Unfortunately, they do not have the fullness of the Christian faith and they are outside of the Church established by Christ Himself.

[@josh39684]

Read letters of the early church. I recommend starting with Ignatius of Antioch. He was a disciple of the apostle John

[@moonbeam127tmiller5]

Great Video once again! It is the source and Summit of Our Holy Faith! There IS ONLY ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH! Ave Maria! ❤❤❤❤

[@milburncherian5785]

❤❤❤thank you, thank you. John: 6 is is the BEST verse to PROVE the Catholic Church is the True Church and One Body in Christ.

[@Stecer2007]

People like you keep me away from the Catholic Church.

[@39knights]

I used to wonder how protestants could be so stunned as to not see the obvious Truths of the Catholic Faith and yet believe the frivilous illogical things they believe in (ie. sola scriptura, sola fide, eucharist is but a symbol, etc.). Then by the grace of God I received another insight; only those the Father draws can come to Christ. It's like looking at one of those optical illussions ... are the stairs ascending or descending. You stare at it and cannot seem to visualize the flipside and then BOOM suddenly you see it and can't understand why you couldn't see the obvious before that point. Now I wonder why God is keeping the scales over their eyes but I am so blessed to be of the True Faith. It's humbling to know that there but for the grace of God go I.

[@DigitalLogos]

I get the same impression. It's almost crazy until you experience it yourself

[@themysteriousdomainmoviepalace]

He ripped the veil away.

[@bootz0409]

A brilliant explanation! I enjoyed it and learnt from it. Particularly use of the Greek words for gnaw and slurp. God doesn't muck around! He doesn't mince his words. Disbelieve the reality of the holy Eucharist at your own peril.

[@Hope_Boat]

Greek here. ☦ Phagete just means eat it. Piete just mean drink it. It's not gnaw and slurp. That's gross. "Gnaw it" is "trote" and "slurp it" is royphixete . Kyrie eleison!🙄

[@bootz0409]

@Hope_Boat Oh. Thanks for that explanation/ clarification. I suppose the point the person was trying (ridiculously) to make then was that God, in the person of Jesus, wants to give Himself so completely and utterly to us, that He literally gives us Himself to consume physically. I cannot think of a more phenomenonal love than this. So whilst the translation was off and even "grosse" as you describe it, the underlying truth of the perfect love of Jesus is still understood regardless. And that is what is important for Protestants to understand. God bless. 🤎🥰

[@Hope_Boat]

@@bootz0409 On thing I don't get is why he goes to the level of etymology (with unsubstantiated nuances) but fails to notice that when the priest says "Take and drink, all of you" he usually does not offer the wine of the Eucharist and only the clergy drinks of the chalice. There is no need of etymology to understand that "drink, all of you" means that everyone is invited to drink. But I am just a schismatic I guess...

[@bootz0409]

@Hope_Boat Hahaha... but a damn good schismatic at that! Your line of questioning and seeking to understand one of the most important and fundamental aspects of our faith is very admirable. I pray you get an answer from someone worthy... which won't be me. I've not really had any issue with that given the host is the fullness of Christ anyway, which includes His blood. But I agree with your enquiry and would also like to know.

[@GovtWatchdog]

I really need to start going to daily mass. I hunger and thirst for Christ.

[@RedRedReds]

Right off the bat when this guy lumps all Protestants together and says we all belive in memorialism, I tune him out and dismiss him as strawmanning.

[@bridgefin]

Protestantism really can't be characterized but only generalized. Most Protestants I have encountered believe in a symbolic presence only but when Protestants all agree on something they usually are in agreement with the Catholic Church on that as well.

[@kaylenehousego8929]

Thank you 🙏 thank you 🙏 thank you.

[@TheLjdevlin86]

Protestants must proclaim that this teaching is symbolic. To say otherwise would force them out of Protestantism. Pride. 😢

[@TotallyCatholic]

Thank you for this information. It is so important.

[@gregnorthway3814]

The point in Christianity is union with God. Not just escaping sin and death but becoming one with God. One body in Christ. Thus, John 6 is correctly taught and professed by the Church ever since Jesus six or seven times said you must eat my flesh and drink my blood.

[@aisthpaoitht]

Yes! Theosis. God working through us via Christ via the Holy Spirit from within and through us. We participate in bringing Christ back into the world via cooperation with grace.

[@barrytanner9778]

I was once Protestant and became a Catholic convert. When I receive the body of Christ, I truly know He lives in me and I in Him. Receiving of this Sacrament has change me not just here but, for all eternity in union with Him and the entire body of Christ. Why what Jesus said to be a “hard” saying and some abandon Him if the teaching was only “symbolic”? As far as symbolism, without the authority to consecrate the bread(host), then yes it’s just symbolic.

[@Hope_Boat]

Orthodox here. ☦The bread is not symbolic. Amen. But the wine is? Does the Roman Catholic priest do what he says when he repeats our Lord's words "Drink from it, all of you. This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" ?

[@boomct8569]

@@Hope_Boat Yes. The sacrifice is not complete unless the priest consecrates and consumes both the Body and the Blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and the consecrated wine respectively. Only once he does both and consumes both is the sacrifice considered complete (as the priest acts in persona Christi) and then the faithful partake. If he does not do this, then the mass cannot proceed and the people cannot receive the Eucharist. And when we do, we believe that every particle contains the full Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Just as Jesus told the apostles (ordained priests) to receive both the body and the blood of Jesus in turn, so do Catholic priests, they who sacrifice on our behalf (ours as laity is a different sacrifice). We laity can receive one or both species of body and blood via the consecrated bread and /or wine but receive ALL notwithstanding, even if we have a minuscule crumb. And no symbolism at all. He is truly Present. God bless you!

[@Hope_Boat]

@@boomct8569 Ok. I see : You trace a separation between the apostles and the "rest of the Christians" and explain that Jesus spoke only to his "clergy" = the apostles. This is obviously a consequence of your monarchic vision of the Church : Roman Pontiff on the top, clergy in the middle, laity at the bottom. Indeed we orthodox differ a lot on that point. We say the Church IS the laity, not the clergy (well they are in the Church as well obviously but because they are baptized, not because they are serving). We are all living stones of the Church. We are all Peter. A building is not made of one single stone. We say that when Jesus said "Drink from it, all of you. This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." he really meant all of us, not just the clergy. In fact when He spoke to the apostles as "clergy", in Luke 22:24+ he told them that they should not lord it over the nations like the kings do and are called benefactors but instead they should wash the feet of everyone like servants. And this is obvious in John 6:53 : "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." It's not the one or the other. It's both. Lord have mercy on us all sinners

[@PeterRiello]

@@Hope_Boat As boomct said, the Catholic Church teaches that within one crumb of the Host or one drop of the Chalice, there is present entirely the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. Back then, there was the heresy of Utraquism, which taught that one must receive both species to be saved. The Church had already stopped the laity's reception of the Chalice before this due to concerns over spillage, but they continued this practice to emphasize to the people that receiving just the Host was sufficient.

[@Hope_Boat]

@@PeterRiello How can an instruction formally given by our Lord Jesus be declared an heresy? You Roman Catholics as very very very strange people.

[@ChristianChannel]

❤ Amen

[@DarrylCross]

Excellent talk by Fr. Martins. Another interesting detail is that this is the very first time John identifies Judas as a traitor because he did not believe; again this would come up at the account of the Last Supper before Jesus entered His passion. Judas' betrayal of Christ was all about the disbelief in the Eucharist.

[@johnhood9567]

Without transubstantiation there is no Christianity. It's the central, essential doctrine of the Church, given to us directly by Jesus Christ himself. It's this article of faith more than any other that separates true Christians from everyone else. The stark reality is that if you want to be a Christian you must accept the teachings of Christ. It's that simple.

[@josh39684]

Ignatius of Antioch went as far as to say that those who deny the real presence deny the incarnation

[@johnhood9567]

@@josh39684 that makes PERFECT sense to me. I'm deeply, deeply conflicted and troubled by this because everything I've learned about Catholicism over my 61 years inclines me to the sense that Pope Francis's doctrine is essentially heretical, and yet my faith commands me to regard him as the Vicar of Christ on Earth and divinely inspired. I am struggling with it. It's definitely a moment of extreme tension and trial for the Church, and quite a time to be alive! God be praised, God help us. The Pope is in my prayers.

[@josh39684]

​@johnhood9567 it's a difficult time in the church but nowhere near as bad as the time of the Arian heresy. Francis is the Pope regardless and there have been worse ones in the past. I think if I were to be critical of Pope Francis his compassion clouds his judgment sometimes.

[@mak88119]

They didn't even start to believe transubstantiation until the 1200s

[@aisthpaoitht]

@@johnhood9567 You are being wildly misguided then. Ignore the rad trads and those trying to pull the Church apart for personal gain. Francis should be given the same reception as other Popes, even if you dont' like the message. Try opening your heart and understanding Francis. That is our duty, after all. To welcome the Pope's words with an open heart and mind, even if we are not bound by them. Speaking of which, it's okay if you think the Church got something wrong. You have the right to exercise your conscience. No need to worry about heresy this, heresy that. The Church will be fine. Just follow your conscience and allow others to do the same. God bless. Have faith. There is nothing to be afraid of.

[@glennshrom5801]

To say that the literality of the Eucharist was unquestioned before the Reformation, is to ignore the fact that Paul and Luke in their teachings about essential Christianity, in Luke 22.20 and I Cor. 11.25, did not align with the Catholic transubstantiation model. If it were essential for Christians to know that the cup is literally Christ's blood, then Paul and Luke should have told us as much. In their version of the Eucharist, however, the cup is not the blood, but literally the cup is the covenant. Match that up with Scott Hahn's and Jewish seder teaching that the cup was the third cup, the one after the supper, - the cup of redemption - and we understand that the redemption cup formerly associated with being redeemed from Egypt, is now being associated with the redemption at Christ's scourging and crucifixion (and perhaps the second coming redemption as well). The redemption cup, in Luke and First Corinthians, does not become blood that we drink, but becomes a new covenant that we enter into. It is likely for that reason that Paul writes "as often as you drink of this (redemption) cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes". For Catholics to stress the literal teaching that was universal from the beginning, they should include the teaching handed down to the Church, through Paul the Apostle and the words of Jesus recorded in Luke, that the cup is literally transubstantiated into the covenant. If it were a key part of Christianity that the cup (wine) is transubstantiated into Christ's blood, how is it that Paul and Luke left it out, especially seeing how Paul was declaring the whole Gospel to the Gentiles, with the approval of the Twelve?

[@yb5515]

Me thinks thou dost protest too much. Be careful my friend, the words which you are protesting are not those of the Catholic Church but are those of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

[@MegaTechno2000]

You have to look at what Jesus said (John 6) through the lens of the "Supernatural", using "Human Reasoning" you won't be able to understand it.

[@jonbhorton]

The redemption cup must contain the Blood, as it is by the Blood we are redeemed. Hence St. Paul says in 1 Cor 11 that to partake unworthily is to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

[@vtomc]

For those Protestant AND Catholics who want to argue nonsense, it IS the literal body and blood of Christ. Look at all the scientific evidence and try to refute that. 107 documented Eucharistic miracles. 1. Type AB blood, the same blood found in the shroud of Turin, the same type blood found in all Eucharistic miracles from the first one onward. Why is this important? Because AB blood is the rarest type of blood in the world, with only 1% of the population having it. Blood was discovered to have 4 types in 1901. The chances that all of these Eucharistic miracles plus the shroud having the same type of extremely rare blood is astronomically coincidental. If you want to call it coincidence. 2. It is always the left ventricle of the heart when the host has turned into flesh. Again what are the chances that each one is exactly that? The left ventricle of a human heart? How can anyone claim it is some elaborate hoax over the centuries? 3. There is always the presence of white blood cells, which cannot live outside of the body for more than 30 minutes. And yet there they are, alive and well, as if the heart were still alive…. 4. None of the blood is coagulated, meaning it’s fresh. So no, it didn’t come from some long dead corpse. 5. Cardiac enzymes that are released when a person is in excruciating pain are also found in Eucharistic miracles. Again, please explain that as a hoax. As they say, “follow the science”. Or in this case, the true church that Jesus himself founded, not a protesting offshoot of it. Doubting Thomas groups of people…. What more proof do you need? Does any of this ever happen in Protestant churches of any denomination? Didn’t think so.

[@loucasntounas8952]

Its is writen in the holy bible in the new testament . How can we dought the holy spirit and undermind the eucharist? Thanks Olga

[@stevedavis6618]

Thank You Jesus for Your One and Only Holy Catholic Church that created the Bible and provides us with the One and Only New Covenant between God and Man. Luke 22:20 John 6:53-54 Matt 16:13-20

[@sarco64]

Lutherans, the original Protestants, have always held that we receive the true body and blood of Jesus in the sacrament. After all have received the pastor prays "May the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ strengthen you and keep you in God's grace." Two of the hymns that we sang at my Lutheran church during communion this past week were "I Am the Bread of Life" and "Eat This Bread, Drink This Cup." There are many differences between American Evangelicals and historic Protestants, so misconceptions can arise when you lump them all together.

[@bridgefin]

What a shame that they are completely deceived. Luther could confect the Eucharist as a Catholic priest but he could not ordain anyone to the priesthood. What you may believe and what you receive are completely different.

[@watchthisspace2099]

To our Protestant sisters and brothers who do not believe in the true presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, aren't you like the disciples mentioned in John 6:60-61? Think about it.

[@bridgefin]

They are John 666 Christians, having left Jesus because of the Eucharist and never to return.

[@ValAllOver]

​@@bridgefin John 6:60-61, 66 books compiled by Martin Luther 🤯 These people are in a great danger. 😰🙏🏻 Please PRAY for their conversion!

[@chardo24]

The Eucharist is a symbolic ritual for people who had not have that experience yet. It symbolizes the eternality of the physical, that is the physical body has an eternal dimension. As Jesus emphasizes in the Last Super, the physical body is an expression of God power and being in the moment.

[@docgillygun9531]

The way I think of it, the Holy Trinity is everything. Everything was created by God. It is all of God. Therefore, every drink I take, every meal I eat is of God. God has provided me with everything, and Jesus sacrificed everything when he died on the cross for my sins. The priest is the gatekeeper of the Eucharist. So each Sunday my taking of the Eucharist is a humble gesture of gratitude that God loves me and created me to be in His Kingdom.

[@logratis1]

What all non-Catholic "Christians" got wrong, is the part in which they don't have the AUTHORITY given by God to HIS Church, the Catholic Church. They may have the best intentions, they may have a great doctrine, they may interpret scriptures even better than Catholics, but they still don't have the AUTHORITY given by God. So Jesus comes to earth, sacrifice himself for our sins, and then gives Peter the EXCLUSIVE authority to forgive sins in Jesus name based on His sacrifice. Deviating from that, not only is not believing in Jesus and the Bible, but also misguiding other people to perdition, since they will not be pardoned for their sins because they didn't followed the procedure God gave us for that purpose.

[@torbreww]

Where in the New Testament do we read the early church practicing anything similar to Roman Catholic Eucharist or mass? We don’t. What we read about are the ‘love feasts’ which were actual meals in people’s homes. Acts 2:46-47. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. Jude 1:12.

[@vtomc]

For those Protestant AND Catholics who want to argue nonsense, it IS the literal body and blood of Christ. Look at all the scientific evidence and try to refute that. 107 documented Eucharistic miracles. 1. Type AB blood, the same blood found in the shroud of Turin, the same type blood found in all Eucharistic miracles from the first one onward. Why is this important? Because AB blood is the rarest type of blood in the world, with only 1% of the population having it. Blood was discovered to have 4 types in 1901. The chances that all of these Eucharistic miracles plus the shroud having the same type of extremely rare blood is astronomically coincidental. If you want to call it coincidence. 2. It is always the left ventricle of the heart when the host has turned into flesh. Again what are the chances that each one is exactly that? The left ventricle of a human heart? How can anyone claim it is some elaborate hoax over the centuries? 3. There is always the presence of white blood cells, which cannot live outside of the body for more than 30 minutes. And yet there they are, alive and well, as if the heart were still alive…. 4. None of the blood is coagulated, meaning it’s fresh. So no, it didn’t come from some long dead corpse. 5. Cardiac enzymes that are released when a person is in excruciating pain are also found in Eucharistic miracles. Again, please explain that as a hoax. As they say, “follow the science”. Or in this case, the true church that Jesus himself founded, not a protesting offshoot of it. Doubting Thomas groups of people…. What more proof do you need? Does any of this ever happen in Protestant churches of any denomination? Didn’t think so.

[@InterestedInDansk]

*Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition page 274* _“His peculiar point of view liberated him from the scruples of Christian Hermetists in their approach to Hermetic liturgy, and allowed him to choose out the more Pantheist and optimistic treatises of the _*_Corpus Hermeticum_*_ ……_ Ibid “It also allowed him to accept unchristian doctrines, which had been carefully avoided by the Christian Hermetists, for example Metempsychosis (to be found particularly in the *Asclepius* and in the Corpus Hermeticum X40) which Bruno openly accepts in his _Caballo del Pegaseo_ ….. A careful study of Scripture proves Metempsychosis as an acceptable doctrine in very early Christianity and that many texts lead to the discovery of Pantheism especially in St John's Gospel, Geza Vermes makes a point in describing *This state of “being in” or “dwelling in” or “abiding in” someone entails assimilation or absorption and recalls the image of eating and digesting the flesh and blood of Jesus* (John 6:56). In modern religion-philosophical terminology we are faced with here, if not a _pantheistic,_ at least a restricted _panentheistic_ world in which Father, Son and the believers *of all the ages reside* in one another_ Geza Vermes *The changing Face of Jesus* pages 46-47. Very interesting reading. The Council of Trent clashes with any form of Hermeticism yet I agree when the Catholic Church sees something it can use it becomes *Catholic Teaching* the Hermetic Tradition teaches a doctrine of *Revelation* and the Council of Trent is adamant in teaching that it endorses the *Deposit of Faith* which stipulates *No further revelation is necessary* this means that if anyone were to be given a revelation as stated in the Gospel of John in chapters 14 and 16 that person may be considered *Anathema* by the Church, he would be considered another Arius, because the Spirit of Truth is God the Son and this conflicts which church teaching where they say “Jesus saves” but in order for someone to be saved Jesus Christ would have to Judge this is not his privelidge it is God the Son's, neither Jesus nor God the Father judge. Neither does the Church *Save* it's role is to distribute the sacraments. Yet when someone is judged while they live the Hermetic world is open to them providing they can say *I know whence I have come* the Spirit of Truth furnishes the *I know whither I go* because such an experience is progenitive and eschatological a man sees himself in the womb in the mind of God and as a child of God being liberated from the body. Today the Church teaches about Resurrection of the body as though it is a far off event that we cannot aspire too, only Jesus Christ and Mary are certainties, yet Jesus teaches the resurrection of the Queen of Sheba which is hidden away from Christianity, she lived 900 years before Jesus and Jesus correctly teaches that she will *Arise* at the judgement of those Jewish hecklers, it takes a thousand years for someone to reach their own Resurrection and Jesus tells us all that the people whom he is speaking to will be judged in the late first century a. d. Resurrections are a constant and continually happening part of Eschatology. Bruno knows his salvation is not through the Catholic Church but so long as he understands the position of the Son of God is a barrier to the *Beatific Vision* and why, we will see him in Paradise, I hope so anyway.

[@brotherdamien1804]

I argued with my classmates at Oklahoma Wesleyan defending the Catholic position on this issue. I was pretty amazed at the weakness of the Protestant position. Not only did it lack historical backing, but the Scriptural "evidence" showing the body and blood to be symbolic came from one line--“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.(Jn 6:63). The problem here is that if the flesh profits nothing, then Jesus' sacrifice on the cross means nothing as well. Needless to say, I made no converts to the Catholic position.

[@Hope_Boat]

Orthodox here. ☦The Roman position is even weaker. You say you take Jesus words literally. You present the wine, you say "Drink from it, all of you, This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins " but you immediately contradict your mouth by your actions and do not give the blood of Christ to the faithful. You pretend that blood and wine are the same, implying that Jesus didn't mean it literally when He said to take both. So how can you criticize you Protestant brothers when yourself do not take our Lord literally? Lord have mercy on us all sinners.

[@starfishrock]

Idk bout your experience but up til covid times my church did give the congregation wine … been sipping on his blood since the 2nd grade so not sure what you’re talking about

[@starfishrock]

Roman Catholic btw

[@brotherdamien1804]

@@Hope_Boat The Catholic Church does provide both the body and blood of Christ to the faithful.

[@Hope_Boat]

@@brotherdamien1804 Only since Vatican II. Between the council of Trend (16th century) and Vatican II Was was not given to the laity. And still it's quite uncommon today according to the RC people I know..

[@retrac8141]

I wholly reject that interpretation on the premise of "Do this in remembrance of me."

[@jg3685]

It is his body and blood and you can feel it

[@glennshrom5801]

As far as the 1500 years, see Crystal Downing's book on signs. The associations between Christ's physical body (on the cross), the bread and wine, and the people of God being the body of Christ, all are intertwined and unified. They are not to be dissected from one another. But that is neither a literal nor a symbolic model being followed, it is a semiotic relationship.

[@morant3057]

The protestants have the menu, the Catholic Church has the meal.

[@glennshrom5801]

There are several possibilities why the crowd may have grumbled in 6.41. Most likely, it is because Jesus claims to be greater than Moses, and claims to have come down from heaven. (It is preposterous to bring up the idea that coming down from heaven could mean Jesus not having a physical body. Neither Jesus would have claimed that, nor would any listeners have understood him to be claiming that.) Were John 6.55 to refer to the Eucharist, John certainly would have included an account of the Last Supper Eucharistic pronouncement in his Gospel to tie it all together. The "hard teaching" in 6.60 seems to refer to the idea that Jesus came down from heaven (from the Father), rather than the idea that his flesh must be eaten, since Jesus' reply is about the Son of Man ascending back to where he was before. But if 6.60 includes the idea of eating his flesh, Jesus clarifies in 6.63 that it's really about the Spirit, not about the flesh. "The flesh has no benefit." It is belief in Jesus, repeated so often in John's Gospel, that is the way to live forever. John isn't going to say in John 6 that it's one thing (the Eucharist) while in the whole rest of the Gospel saying it is something else (believing in Jesus). The flesh and blood that Jesus offers is his pierced and blood-drained body on the cross. We may see the Eucharist re-presenting what Jesus did on the cross, but in that case the Eucharist is only indirectly involved, not directly what Jesus is speaking about in 6.55. The important thing is reckoning his scourging and crucifixion as the punishment for our sins and finding life in that forgiveness/atonement and in the Spirit he sends. If we appropriate the atonement by believing as we partake of the Eucharist, or if we appropriate it in other moments of our life, it is still that appropriation that matters, not whether or not we put the Eucharist into our mouths and swallow it. John doesn't even mention the bread and wine being the body and blood of Christ, but he insists over and over again that it is faith in Christ which brings us eternal life. John didn't write about the Eucharistic transubstantiation, but what he did write is sufficient for us to "believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (20.31, but see also 17.3 and First John 5.13)

[@jamesmonahan9408]

It's the seder meal. Jesus is the chief priest and the lamb. He drinks 3 cups of wine then takes wine on the cross. He is the sacrificial lamb to atone for all many who follow and does what he says. Study the jewish roots. Imagine the jes not eating the roasted lamb at the seder meal.

[@adam9817]

Jesus' teaching on the "Bread of Life" is what separates the the true believers and the non believing Christians...

[@glennshrom5801]

The video says he goes further to stress the literality of the teaching, but the teaching he stresses as literal is that he came down from heaven. Immediately after doing that, he stresses the figurativeness of the part about eating his flesh.

[@philiphynes71]

If I showed you a photo of my wife and said to you "this is my wife", I surely hope you wouldn't believe that the photo was actually my wife, but a representation of her... When the apostle Paul writes about the Lord's Supper, he says in 1 Corinthians 11 v 25 : "In the same manner, he also took the cup after supper, saying: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."" He says "this cup is the new covenant in my blood", yet the cup isn't the covenant but a symbol, a sign of the covenant. And don't forget, the Lord instituted this Supper BEFORE his crucifixion, he was still in his body. So how could the bread and wine become his body when the Lord Jesus was still with his disciples in his body ? It's amazing that the devil's first attack on the Gospel was on the form and meaning of baptism and the Lord's Supper, transforming their simplicity to make them into a complex and sophisticated ritual, where they can no longer illustrate the beauty and glory of the Gospel.

[@vtomc]

For those Protestant AND Catholics who want to argue nonsense, it IS the literal body and blood of Christ. Look at all the scientific evidence and try to refute that. 107 documented Eucharistic miracles. 1. Type AB blood, the same blood found in the shroud of Turin, the same type blood found in all Eucharistic miracles from the first one onward. Why is this important? Because AB blood is the rarest type of blood in the world, with only 1% of the population having it. Blood was discovered to have 4 types in 1901. The chances that all of these Eucharistic miracles plus the shroud having the same type of extremely rare blood is astronomically coincidental. If you want to call it coincidence. 2. It is always the left ventricle of the heart when the host has turned into flesh. Again what are the chances that each one is exactly that? The left ventricle of a human heart? How can anyone claim it is some elaborate hoax over the centuries? 3. There is always the presence of white blood cells, which cannot live outside of the body for more than 30 minutes. And yet there they are, alive and well, as if the heart were still alive…. 4. None of the blood is coagulated, meaning it’s fresh. So no, it didn’t come from some long dead corpse. 5. Cardiac enzymes that are released when a person is in excruciating pain are also found in Eucharistic miracles. Again, please explain that as a hoax. As they say, “follow the science”. Or in this case, the true church that Jesus himself founded, not a protesting offshoot of it. Doubting Thomas groups of people…. What more proof do you need? Does any of this ever happen in Protestant churches of any denomination? Didn’t think so.

[@jamalama5548]

I knew about the phago/trogo change but I have never heard of the drink/slurp. What are the Greek words for drink and slurp? Is that what was in the Greek translation?

[@Hope_Boat]

Greek here. Drink : Piete Eat : Phagete There is no "bestial" connotation to that verb. In medecine aerophagy means "to ear air" slurp : Royphixete

[@nelmezzodelcammin]

Beautiful! Etymology, from Etimos=Real, true and Logy = words

[@Hope_Boat]

Greek here☦ Phagete = eat it Piete = drink it Trote = gnaw it Royphixete = slurp it Etymology = trust me bro'

[@Stonewall-j5j]

SOME Protestants my friend !!!!!!!!

[@glennshrom5801]

I don't see in John chapter 6 that anyone thinks Jesus is saying that he does not have a physical body. That would have been preposterous, both for Jesus to claim, and for the listeners to think he was claiming that.

[@mimibergerac7792]

It is a mystery outside of human comprehension. But Jesus is also Agnus Dei which as the lamb on passover was sacrificed and its flesh eaten and its blood used as a sign.

[@joannewinters2079]

Amen bless you amour of God thank you 😊 🙏 I am attending a pentecostal church ⛪️ we take communion but it's not given to us the same way the Catholic Church do, I'm just curious does this count 😮 we tend to have it prepared for us on tables and we line up and just take it ourselves any advice would be appreciated folks 😀 thanks 👋

[@rouxmain934]

This might offend you, and I don't mean to : sorry, it doesn't count. There are multiple factors such as no apostolic succession of the one giving it to the congregation, no formulation of "this is my body"... The point is that Jesus' words are literal when he says this is his flesh & his blood, yet he doesn't mean they become meat and blood. It's more than just a commemoration, it is a divine mystery that we are invited to take partake in. If you want to dive deeper into this topic you could look either for the early church writers to see how they described it or the eucharistic miracles. 😁

[@johnsposato5632]

Forgive me, Joanne, but your ministers are not able to provide the Holy Eucharist to you. This authority to consecrate the bread and wine was given to the apostles, who then handed it on to their successors, those that we, in the Catholic Church, call our bishops. This conferral of authority is called apostolic succession. When priests are ordained, the bishop confers this authority to consecrate the bread and wine and perform other priestly duties upon them. When Luther cauesd the Great Schism, that apostolic succession was broken for all churches not in unity with the Catholic Church. Jesus' great gift to His followers was the Holy Eucharist. He - and we, if we are thinking right - is saddened that so many of His followers do not and cannot have access to this great gift. It is one of the tragedies resulting from the lost unity between other Christian churches and the Catholic Church. Have you ever considered joining the Church that Jesus Christ founded? He wants you to come home. Give it some thought and prayer, maybe. I pray you Peace!

[@evangelion1962]

No it doesn't. You yourself don't believe it's him. You throw away the left overs.

[@joannewinters2079]

Thanks I'm not affended at all appreciate your help I'm very close to considering the Catholic faith 🙏 anyway just finding the right church isn't easy God bless 🙏

[@mt7754]

Sorry, the Pentecostal Church does not have the unbroken succession of the Apostolic line. Only through the sacrament of Holy Orders (bishops, priests) by the anointing of the Holy Spirit are able to act in the person of Christ who is the head of the Church. Only in the Catholic Church you will find the Eucharistic celebration-when the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit become Christ’s Body and Blood (The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass).

[@alexghous]

I were once God's right Hand on this earth. Christ were my horse, I bet everything on Him. I can never unsee God becoming satan right in front of me. the wee things have done everything in their power to destroy me. they missed. Christ drank the cup that I were worthy of and gave me His cup. "The Order of the Pheonix" can refer to the cup I drink from, in some circles. Thing is, the same thing were in His cup as in mine.

[@avguy9949]

Mark, Matthew and Luke all use the consecration of the last supper, John explains it. St Paul admonishes the faithful to keep what was handed down traditionally wether in writing or in word, St Paul then writes Corinthians 50 years after Christ and uses the same formula found in Mark, Matthew and Luke. Go figure why 50 years later St Paul is using the TRADITION handed down to him.

[@InterestedInDansk]

Paul's letters predate the synoptic Gospels. Beginning with Romans AD 48 -AD 64

[@avguy9949]

@InterestedInDansk yes you are absolutely correct however 50 years is a long time, same words as last supper described by the gospels. I believe the Lord. Thank you for pointing it out.

[@abrahamphilip6439]

They mistook his words as African Cannibaism when he meant it to be taken wholly , denoted by body & blood ,

[@glennshrom5801]

Psalm 105.40 in the NLT: "They asked for meat, and he sent them quail; he satisfied their hunger with manna-bread from heaven." There was flesh from heaven, and bread from heaven. We see both these repeated in John chapter 6, as Jesus refers to himself as both the bread and the quail (the Israelites gnawed/chewed on the quail). In speculation, the living water of John 4 and the living water of John 7 could be referring to two different occasions Israel had in the wilderness when water was provided from a rock.

[@gluvsd1029]

How long did it take for the word "is" to mean "represents"? 🤔 1500 years..

This is silly because Lutherans don't believe the Eucharist is merely symbolic. You might not believe that we have the valid eucharist, but we do believe that it is the true actual body and blood of Christ. Read the Lutheran Confessions. We don't disagree with Rome or the East that Christ's literal body and blood are present in the elements.

[@evangelion1962]

No you don't. You think the spell ends leaving the room. But your pastors don't have the ability to confect the host since they don't have valid orders.

@@evangelion1962 you don't know what you're talking about, I see.

@@evangelion1962 regardless, that wasn't the point of my post. It seems that it went right over your head.

[@363catman]

You know one of the best explanations I heard on real presence in the eucharist was from a lutheran pastor being interviewed by a calvinist pastor. He said we believe it happens, but we don't try to explain and don't understand how it happens.It's a miracle from God and the difference between a lutherans.And catholics is the fact that catholic church tries to explain how it happens. The greatest minds of the Western world have tried to come up with an explanation of what's beyond human understanding.For the last 2000 years, I don't know how it happens.Do I believe it does yes.

[@paulyosef7550]

I want to hear a Catholic priest explain this: Leviticus 18:22 has been translated in common English versions as: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. And when you’re an abomination you try to obscure that bit of scripture. What would St Catherine of Siena say?

[@jd3jefferson556]

Is your point only to mock Catholic priests? Like protestant pastors don't have their own problems.

[@JWellsUp]

St John 5:39-40 You search* the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.c 40 But you do not want to come to me to have life.

[@rouxmain934]

My friend, your comment is pure gold, thank you for sharing.

[@kletterfreak814]

Don't you recognise, that in John chapter 6, Jesus distinguishes between - "THE flesh" (which means sin/earthly, selfishness/not out of the wholy ghost) and - HIS own, holy flesh and blood, which indeed we should eat and drink?! Having John chapter 6 and the last supper together in mind, everyone could see and understand. Which -by the holy mass- brings us the word as well. You remember: In the beginning was the word .... yes! But then! There was not only the word, then there was creation and man, saved by ... yes, the flesh and the blood of Jesus Christ!

[@peppacorcoran1314]

WHY CALL PRODS OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS? THEY ARE ENEMYS OF CHRISTS CHURCH! - Catholic JOY

[@bridgefin]

As a Catholic you can say that about the first Lutherans but not necessarily of those who followed. Some would have followed what they were taught and what they believed as the proper way to God.

[@bobskanal]

This priest is an exorcist and he has an excellent podcast called:The Exorcist Files.

[@delvingeorge2807]

@Todd_Thinks This is something you should see when reading Bible too the original greek of John 6.

[@vedinthorn]

Jesus also talked about drinking water, but He wasnt actually talking about water.

[@jmj5388]

At least the followers who walked away from Jesus (John 6:66) had the integrity to leave when they could not accept His teaching. Protestants make their rejection of the Eucharist-and so many other articles of the Faith-a line-item veto, while professing to be Christians.

[@simonwesteng3610]

You have explained Jesus' teaching on the Eucharist perfectly, and for why Protestants are not welcome to our sacred Liturgy of the Mass. But may I draw your attention to Jesus' final words to His disciples who "grumbled about His teaching". He said, "What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before". For the Eucharist is the `Sacrament` freely given the faithful in this Age, but there is also the sacred `Reality` of His Reign, "that which is His" which is of the living temple of God (ref John 16:14). The Sacrament is `the Bread of Life`; the Reality is `the Tree of Life`, the self-same `Word of Life` who is Christ Himself (ref 1 John 1:1) who "manifests Himself to His adorer" (ref the Reality: John 14:21/John 16:16 & the Sacrament: John 14:18-19/ John 6:40). Indeed, with this fact of faith in mind, we have only to look at John 14:23 to know what Christ's `real` Reign really means, but neither Catholic nor Protestant have place for this word. Indeed, my friends, 14:23 is an anointing directly from Heaven, and nothing less; it is "giving to God what is God's", and nothing less; it is receiving the abiding Word of Life who longs to "make His home with us", and nothing less. Indeed, this Age of the Church is nearing its end, in judgement, at the coming of our Lord to establish "the Kingdom of God" on the earth ... the realm of physical realities which "God so loves..." As for what Jesus said about "ascending to where He was before": this has nothing to do with His Ascension into Heaven, but has everything to do with that Garden when the Son came down to be "with" Adam at the beginning ...but they did not honour His glorious Presence, they did not eat from that sacred Tree, they did not worship their Lord who manifest Himself to them... I think I've said enough..!

[@ernestosarmiento1273]

To erase doubt about the eucharist Jesus manifested this to the two deciples on the road to emeus. He blessed the bread and gave it to them and their eyes were opened and they were able to recognize our Lord Jesus. The gospel did not elaborate about the way Jesus blessed the bread but logic will dictate that Jesus repeated the way He blessed the bread the way he blessed the bread during passover meal otherwise He will not be recognized by the two deciples. Also, Jesus did the blessings just after His resurrection to emphasize His will “ Do this often in remembrance of me “. It is therefore clear that the breaking of the bread which is now the eucharist extends beyond the passover table to give life to those who believe in Him.

[@ronjones1414]

Literally, Paul tells us to develop our own, private, theological interpretations. I just don't see the argument as relevant. You don't drink blood, you drink wine or grape juice or whatever it is in the cup. Truly, if your salvation is based on whether or not there is blood in the cup then what is the point of salvation?

[@363catman]

Well if it's wine or grape juice then you have to call the truthfulness of every other statement made by Jesus into question. He didn't say 'this represents my body/ blood. To the counter point of those catholics who bash protestants Jesus did not qualify "if two or more are gathered..." that it only counted if you were in union with Peter or had his sanction to meet. Either God is deceptive and does not tell the full story to set man up for failure or Jesus dropped the ball and missed a lot of the key details of critical information, or a lot of this contextual construct is man made to try and have an answer all questions within an organized religion.

[@ronjones1414]

@363catman or your holding an ancient book to criteria that wouldn't be developed for well over a millenia after it was written.

[@363catman]

@ronjones1414 words in Greek and Latin have more precise contextual meaning than modern languages, especially English. You have our current Bible (which is not a singular writing but a compilation of multiple texts) that was codified in western Christianity by the church councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage [ between 382-419] Jerome used the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin texts to singular volume to be used by all Christian chieftain in the common (vulgar) language of the empire. Hence the name The Vulgate.

[@363catman]

@ronjones1414 Jesus drank grape juice. Is a product of the temperance movement. Talk about creating a new false reality. It didn't exist in Christianity for almost 1,800 years but you can't preach drinking alcohol is sinful based on the moral tenants of a religion that the founder (Jesus) drank alcohol.

[@ronjones1414]

@363catman thank you for the history lesson. I don't see its relevance to my statement.

[@Claire-o5g]

❤❤❤

[@scottmiller6958]

The thesis that "Protestants" teach a symbolic meaning of the elements of the Eucharist is incorrect. In Lutheranism (the original "Protestants") the real physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist is absolutely dogmatically confessed (although I have run into individual pastors who heretically deny it). In the Anglican Community, likewise, the wording of the mass very specifically proclaims the real presence as well, although Anglicanism is less dogmatic than Lutheranism and does make allowance for other interpretations among the members. The idea of a non-physical meaning in the Eucharist is a Calvinistic idea based on Calvinism's adherence to the principle of rationalism, which carries over into counter-Calvinistic Arminianism. Many Calvinists hold to a "spiritual" presence of Christ in the Eucharist, although many go all the way to the mere symbolism that the video would ascribe to all "Protestants." Extreme forms of the teaching even go as far as removing the symbolic meaning and say it is a mere "memorial." But that is a Calvinistic or Anabaptist view, and is not the understanding of all "Protestants." I could go into more detail about the difference in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox understanding, but I think that's enough for now. Keep the videos coming though. I LOVE your work.

[@twoody9760]

What Protestants and Catholics mean by the Real Presence is different. Protestants believe in consubstantiation in which the host is both bread and Jesus Christ's body. Catholics believe in transubstantiation in which the bread is completely transformed into Jesus Christ body. The bread no longer exists even though the host still has the appearance and taste of bread. The substance of the host is fully and completely Jesus Christ. When you maintain the Eucharist is still bread and at the same time Jesus body are you denying the power of God to transform the host fully into His body.. Give this some thought and study.

[@scottmiller6958]

@@twoody9760 You are correct, of course. But this gives fuel to further argument from many Protestants that the Catholic Church did not teach this until the 13th Century, and codify it until the 16th century. The argument is specious, as we know. Just because St. Thomas Aquinas, a product of Medieval Scholasticism, did not try to explain HOW the real presences works until the 13th century, does not mean it is not what the church understood since the beginning. Just as the Church did not start believing in the Trinity with the Council of Nicea, but enunciated what it had always understood. The fact remains however that Aquinas did NOT enumerate "transubstantiation" before the 13th century and the Eastern Orthodox never accepted, nor rejected that explanation, but wisely, IMHO, saw fit to leave the question as a mystery. But by focusing on the Christian orthodox (small o) teaching that CLEARLY existed from the beginning, that the Eucharist becomes the real body and blood of Christ, and not simply a representation or a spiritual transformation, those Protestants who DO believe in the Real Presence shouldn't be lumped into the same category as those who heretically deny it, as the video does. I will give your point some consideration. Thank you for emphasizing your point.

[@twoody9760]

@@scottmiller6958 You give a very well informed explanation and I fully agree with what you state.

[@kennotrogzeug7012]

How do we respond when people call us "cannibals"?

[@rouxmain934]

You quote First Apology of Justin Martyr. As he explained the eucharist to the pagan emperor, we shall use the same words against whoever calls us pagans today.

[@Hope_Boat]

That they are blind. We orthodox ☦call it theosis. We don't eat and drink human but God essence to take part to His divinity.

[@mt7754]

We don’t eat the dead. We eat the resurrected, glorified body of Jesus Christ.

[@MegaTechno2000]

You have to look at what Jesus said (John 6) through the lens of the "Supernatural", using "Human Reasoning" you won't be able to understand it.

[@glennshrom5801]

The point to be taken is not to reject all of Protestant teaching, nor accept all of Protestant teaching, not to accept all of Catholic teaching, nor reject all of Catholic teaching, but to immerse one's self (and one's community of shepherds and disciples) in God's Word and be led by the Spirit of God. Both Catholics and Protestants can grow and change through that discipleship model that Jesus established and taught to His Apostles.

[@StevenGianatasio]

Mr Glenn You are wrong about excepting Teachings from the Protesting Protestants. Actually what the Priest was explaining is that there is No Salvation in Protestantism. And only a Ordained Priest can Concencreate the Eucharist. This is why the Church has always taught: (There Is No Salvation Outside Of The Traditional Catholic Church.) There is Only One God There is Only One Truth There is Only One Church And The Gates Of Hell Will Not Prevail Against It. Not Thousands of Different Protestant Denominations with Thousands of Different Protestant Interpretations of the Bible. There is no truth in Thousands of Different Protestant Interpretations. There is no getting around that. We are called to be of One Body, Not Thousands. There is nothing anyone can say to change that fact. In fact Protestants do not agree with each other at all except to Protest the Catholic Church. That is only where the Protestants agree 100%. All Faithful Catholics believe what the Church has always taught for 2000 years or they are Not Catholic. I said Faithful Catholics. There will always be the Rebellious. Following the ways of the World. There are a lot of so called Catholics that do that. Narrow is the path and only few there that find it. That includes Catholics and Catholic Priest and Bishops. Being Catholic is not a free ticket to Heaven. But it is the only way of Salvation. Just as Christ is the only way. There is nowhere in the Bible that even remotely suggests that anyone can Ordain oneself and start a Church. Christ said to the Apostles: (As the Father sent Me I also send you. That is Authority given by Christ. Which also gave them Authority to Ordain others which are their Successors. Nobody can Ordain themselves and nowhere in the Bible that even remotely suggest that idea of Ordaining Oneself. And Satan doesn't care what Protestant Denomination you may be as long as you are not eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking His blood. For Satan that is Mission Accomplished. And The Only place that anyone can eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood is in the Traditional Catholic Church. Because Only a Ordained Priest can Concencreate the Eucharist. A Successor of the Apostles. Protestantism is Not the Succession of the Apostles. There is No getting around that. May The Lord Saturate Your Soul With The Holy Spirit.🔥✝️🙏

[@glennshrom5801]

@@StevenGianatasio Did you mean wrong about "accepting", or wrong about "excepting"? I had mentioned both. A great deal of Protestant teaching matches a great deal of Catholic teaching anyway, so there is a lot of Protestant teaching that Catholics should and do easily accept. What I was trying to say is that the key to accepting any teaching is not how much it lines up with Catholicism or Protestantism, but how much it lines up with the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. The Catholic teaching that is worthy is not worthy because Catholics teach it, but, the basis of its worthiness is that it aligns with the Scriptures and with the Holy Spirit. The reason I don't mention the words of Jesus in this context is because there are spirits of deception that can twist the words of Jesus, the words of the Bible, and the words of the Father. But when we have the Scriptures in light of the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit's voice discerned in accordance with the Scriptures, that is where we find all teaching worthy of acceptance. This is how the Apostles and earliest church fathers went about it. They discerned what the Spirit was saying as He lined up with the Scriptures, and discerned what the Scriptures were saying as illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

[@vtomc]

For those Protestant AND Catholics who want to argue nonsense, it IS the literal body and blood of Christ. Look at all the scientific evidence and try to refute that. 107 documented Eucharistic miracles. 1. Type AB blood, the same blood found in the shroud of Turin, the same type blood found in all Eucharistic miracles from the first one onward. Why is this important? Because AB blood is the rarest type of blood in the world, with only 1% of the population having it. Blood was discovered to have 4 types in 1901. The chances that all of these Eucharistic miracles plus the shroud having the same type of extremely rare blood is astronomically coincidental. If you want to call it coincidence. 2. It is always the left ventricle of the heart when the host has turned into flesh. Again what are the chances that each one is exactly that? The left ventricle of a human heart? How can anyone claim it is some elaborate hoax over the centuries? 3. There is always the presence of white blood cells, which cannot live outside of the body for more than 30 minutes. And yet there they are, alive and well, as if the heart were still alive…. 4. None of the blood is coagulated, meaning it’s fresh. So no, it didn’t come from some long dead corpse. 5. Cardiac enzymes that are released when a person is in excruciating pain are also found in Eucharistic miracles. Again, please explain that as a hoax. As they say, “follow the science”. Or in this case, the true church that Jesus himself founded, not a protesting offshoot of it. Doubting Thomas groups of people…. What more proof do you need? Does any of this ever happen in Protestant churches of any denomination? Didn’t think so.

[@anthonyfowler2623]

And if you read Ezekiel you’ll recognize the symbolism

[@vtomc]

For those Protestant AND Catholics who want to argue nonsense, it IS the literal body and blood of Christ. Look at all the scientific evidence and try to refute that. 107 documented Eucharistic miracles. 1. Type AB blood, the same blood found in the shroud of Turin, the same type blood found in all Eucharistic miracles from the first one onward. Why is this important? Because AB blood is the rarest type of blood in the world, with only 1% of the population having it. Blood was discovered to have 4 types in 1901. The chances that all of these Eucharistic miracles plus the shroud having the same type of extremely rare blood is astronomically coincidental. If you want to call it coincidence. 2. It is always the left ventricle of the heart when the host has turned into flesh. Again what are the chances that each one is exactly that? The left ventricle of a human heart? How can anyone claim it is some elaborate hoax over the centuries? 3. There is always the presence of white blood cells, which cannot live outside of the body for more than 30 minutes. And yet there they are, alive and well, as if the heart were still alive…. 4. None of the blood is coagulated, meaning it’s fresh. So no, it didn’t come from some long dead corpse. 5. Cardiac enzymes that are released when a person is in excruciating pain are also found in Eucharistic miracles. Again, please explain that as a hoax. As they say, “follow the science”. Or in this case, the true church that Jesus himself founded, not a protesting offshoot of it. Doubting Thomas groups of people…. What more proof do you need? Does any of this ever happen in Protestant churches of any denomination? Didn’t think so.

[@jsabri6324]

Jeremiah as well.

[@anthonyfowler2623]

Also described his crucifixion

[@veredictum4503]

Superb presentation. Dr Brant Pitre too, and many other Saints and theologians. We are the True Church. The only big issue is - those who reject it as literal - will they have eternal life? If we take Jesus's words literally, as literal as Transubstantiation, then all those "bible, bible, bible" but no Eucharist, will not make it. We don't know how God will treat them.....

[@mak88119]

@@simonslater9024 The Catholic Church does NOT and can NOT save you. Jesus saves you.

[@twoody9760]

@@mak88119 Jesus saves through the Church He established upon Peter and that is guided by the Holy Spirit. Protestants that are saved are saved through the Catholic Church even though they are not in full communion with the Church. Join in full communion with the Church Jesus established and Jesus will be grant even more grace for salvation.

[@mak88119]

@@twoody9760 Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).

[@twoody9760]

@@mak88119 Peter was the first of 266 popes of the Catholic Church. You can find a list of popes from secular sources that are not fond of the Catholic Church such as wikipedia. History clearly proves you wrong.

[@mak88119]

@@twoody9760 Evidence, you have none. BTW Wikipedia is NOT a credible source.

[@Hope_Boat]

Orthodox here. Why do Roman Catholic priests say "Drink from it, all of you, for this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." but does not give the wine to the faithful? ☦

[@DD-bx8rb]

My friend, it is interesting that you do not care for the authority of the Catholic Church, yet you come on this channel. In any case, welcome...The Precious Blood is available to Catholics at Holy Mass. In any case it is not absoilutely essential. The Body conatains the Blood, and the Blood is also Body....Now, the answers to many of your questions will lie in 2 areas. 1.The Early Fathers of the eastern churches who adhered to the authoritative office of Peter. 2. The 22 eastern Churches who have returned to the Rock of Peter over the centuries. Pax.

[@DD-bx8rb]

I also observe you would do well to avoid the perjorative "Roman Catholic". If you claim the name "Catholic" then why not call yourself an Orthodox Catholic (though this would be erroneous)? Why seek to rob Catholics of the title by employing the Protestant-invented prejorative every time you adress us? Pax.

[@mt7754]

because it’s not necessary; the Holy Eucharist contains Our Lord’s Precious Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. That means we are still able to receive His Precious Blood.

[@rouxmain934]

Hi, sorry for the rudeness of other Catholics. Even if we're right we don't get a pass to be rude. To answer your question, the bread alone is enough as it has been done for millenia as such during fasting periods such as Lent.

[@Hope_Boat]

@@DD-bx8rb The abusive authority of the Roman Pontiff forbid to give the Blood of the Covenant from the council of trend (1563) to Vatican 2 (1965). If the guidance of the monarch pontiffs was serious why did they contradict themselves among the ages? And today still it's a rare option. Jesus said "Drink from it, all of you. This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Was it literal or not? What authority does anyone within the Roman Church has to contradict the Christ? I hear you argument about numbers and influence. This question was also asked to the Lord. “Lord,” someone asked Him, “will only a few people be saved?” Jesus answered, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able. After the master of the house gets up and shuts the door, you will stand outside knocking and saying, ‘Lord, open the door for us.’ But he will reply, ‘I do not know where you are from.’

[@smallparticlelinda]

I believe Jesus was in the Garden of Eden as the form of the tree of life (and maybe simultaneously as the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is the law). If man eats from the tree of life, he lives; if he eats from the tree of knowledge, he dies. Adam broke the covenant, and through him all of humanity is enslaved. Through death with Jesus we are freed from that slavery (Rom 7); by eating the fruit from the tree of life, Jesus, we obtain eternal life. I used to think the Genesis lore was entirely figurative, but the more I learn about the world, its history, physics and genetics, the more I'm inclined to think that it could very well be literal. That's just my opinion though.

[@jemilsense3972]

So how do you demostate how to do it right?

[@Valentix4God33]

To do right what?

[@columbuscamposo9351]

You need to be catholic to received the eucharist ...because only the successors can do that...

[@rouxmain934]

​@@columbuscamposo9351 Bad argument : technically the Nestorians, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Vatican 1 & 2 schismatics are all successors of the Apostles and their orders are usually considered valid.

[@rouxmain934]

You do it right by doing it as the Bible says and as the Church Fathers describe it. - 1st Corinthians 11:23-30 - Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans, Chapters 6, 7, 8 - Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapters 66, 67

[@Hope_Boat]

@@columbuscamposo9351 The successors of whom?

[@Questions-l8r]

The veneration and adoration of Mary is as old as the church itself. The earliest record of Mary’s veneration probably comes from the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in A.D. 431. There church fathers affirmed Mary as the Theotokos, or God-bearer. The title stuck, and today we refer to her as the “Mother of God.” This designation of Mary as the mother of God is really at the root of Roman Catholic veneration. Mary is the link between our broken humanity and the boundless divinity present in the triune God. Mary is redeemed, as she is human, but she is also considered to have a special and unique relationship with God, as she shares DNA with Christ. Mother Teresa once remarked, “She gave Jesus his body, and his body is what saved us.” Mary the mother of God. God of Abraham and creator of the universe protect us from Satan and his lies.

[@SknappCFA]

Catholics choose to believe the scripture is literal and Protestants choose to believe it is symbolic. Neither will convince the other because both see what they choose to believe about what the text says.

[@NevetsWC1134]

I was Protestant and then I read my Bible and saw that it wasn’t a symbol. Catholic friend kept showing me and then I finally saw it.

[@SknappCFA]

@@NevetsWC1134 that’s great. Scores of people have made the exact opposite decision, meaning they left Catholicism to become Protestants. Neither you nor they can be called wrong because your/their decisions were made entirely on the basis of different interpretations of the same scriptures.

[@vtomc]

There’s only one true church that Jesus founded, and it’s not the 70,000+ Protestant churches, each with their own interpretation based on what their pastor of the week says. For those Protestant AND Catholics who want to argue nonsense, it IS the literal body and blood of Christ. Look at all the scientific evidence and try to refute that. 107 documented Eucharistic miracles. 1. Type AB blood, the same blood found in the shroud of Turin, the same type blood found in all Eucharistic miracles from the first one onward. Why is this important? Because AB blood is the rarest type of blood in the world, with only 1% of the population having it. Blood was discovered to have 4 types in 1901. The chances that all of these Eucharistic miracles plus the shroud having the same type of extremely rare blood is astronomically coincidental. If you want to call it coincidence. 2. It is always the left ventricle of the heart when the host has turned into flesh. Again what are the chances that each one is exactly that? The left ventricle of a human heart? How can anyone claim it is some elaborate hoax over the centuries? 3. There is always the presence of white blood cells, which cannot live outside of the body for more than 30 minutes. And yet there they are, alive and well, as if the heart were still alive…. 4. None of the blood is coagulated, meaning it’s fresh. So no, it didn’t come from some long dead corpse. 5. Cardiac enzymes that are released when a person is in excruciating pain are also found in Eucharistic miracles. Again, please explain that as a hoax. As they say, “follow the science”. Or in this case, the true church that Jesus himself founded, not a protesting offshoot of it. Doubting Thomas groups of people…. What more proof do you need? Does any of this ever happen in Protestant churches of any denomination? Didn’t think so.

[@delvingeorge2807]

and only the accidents remain....

[@physiocrat7143]

The Jews would not have been upset and gone away if the Eucharist was just symbolic.

[@thevintagefetcher]

Religion and Politics..I try to stay away from controversial topics. However, I read a poster denouncing The Real Presence today and he even went so far as to say that “MOST” Christians view Communion as a Symbol. He can believe what he likes, but when it comes to what you SAY, it should always be TRUE. So I directed him to Wikipedia. Factually, he is incorrect and perhaps, if he sees his beliefs lie outside the majority of the church, he can gain a new level of insight. It’s not a Catholic vs Protestant thing..MOST of Christianity believes it is MORE than a symbol. For MOST of Christianity (including the 1.3 Billion Catholics) it is MORE than a mere symbol. “The affirmation of this doctrine on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was expressed, using the word "transubstantiate", by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215.[8][9] It was later challenged by various 14th-century reformers, John Wycliffe in particular.[10] The manner in which the change occurs, the Roman Catholic Church teaches, is a mystery: "The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ."[11] In Lutheranism, the terminology used regarding the real presence is the doctrine of the sacramental union, while in Anglicanism, the precise terminology to be used to refer to the nature of the Eucharist has a contentious interpretation: "bread and cup" or "Body and Blood"; "set before" or "offer"; "objective change" or "new significance".[12][13] In the Greek Orthodox Church, the doctrine has been discussed under the term of metousiosis, coined as a direct loan-translation of transubstantiatio in the 17th century. In Eastern Orthodoxy in general, the Sacred Mystery (Sacrament) of the Eucharist is more commonly discussed using alternative terms such as "trans-elementation" (μεταστοιχείωσις, metastoicheiosis), "re-ordination" (μεταρρύθμισις, metarrhythmisis), or simply "change" There are a number of Christian denominations that teach that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, including Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Church of the East, the Moravian Church, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Methodism, and Reformed Christianity.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The differences in the teachings of these Churches primarily concern "the mode of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper".[1] Efforts at mutual understanding of the range of beliefs by these Churches led in the 1980s to consultations on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry by the World Council of Churches.[7][8] The Real Presence is rejected or interpreted in light of "remembrance" (per certain translations of the New Testament) by other Christians, including General Baptists,[9][10] Anabaptists,[11] the Plymouth Brethren,[11] some non-denominational Christian churches,[12] as well as those identifying with liberal Christianity, segments of the Restoration Movement,[11] and Jehovah's Witnesses.[13][14

[@vtomc]

For those Protestant AND Catholics who want to argue nonsense, it IS the literal body and blood of Christ. Look at all the scientific evidence and try to refute that. 107 documented Eucharistic miracles. 1. Type AB blood, the same blood found in the shroud of Turin, the same type blood found in all Eucharistic miracles from the first one onward. Why is this important? Because AB blood is the rarest type of blood in the world, with only 1% of the population having it. Blood was discovered to have 4 types in 1901. The chances that all of these Eucharistic miracles plus the shroud having the same type of extremely rare blood is astronomically coincidental. If you want to call it coincidence. 2. It is always the left ventricle of the heart when the host has turned into flesh. Again what are the chances that each one is exactly that? The left ventricle of a human heart? How can anyone claim it is some elaborate hoax over the centuries? 3. There is always the presence of white blood cells, which cannot live outside of the body for more than 30 minutes. And yet there they are, alive and well, as if the heart were still alive…. 4. None of the blood is coagulated, meaning it’s fresh. So no, it didn’t come from some long dead corpse. 5. Cardiac enzymes that are released when a person is in excruciating pain are also found in Eucharistic miracles. Again, please explain that as a hoax. As they say, “follow the science”. Or in this case, the true church that Jesus himself founded, not a protesting offshoot of it. Doubting Thomas groups of people…. What more proof do you need? Does any of this ever happen in Protestant churches of any denomination? Didn’t think so.

[@edwardlucas3575]

How many times does Jesus need to say something before we believe him? In John, chapter 6, he tells us three times that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Once was enough for me. Some claim that when Jesus says "eat," he really means "believe." That explanation never made sense to me.

[@vtomc]

Copied this from a reply I made earlier, I agree with you and love how you put it! “How many times does Jesus need to say something..” :) For those Protestant AND Catholics who want to argue nonsense, it IS the literal body and blood of Christ. Look at all the scientific evidence and try to refute that. 107 documented Eucharistic miracles. 1. Type AB blood, the same blood found in the shroud of Turin, the same type blood found in all Eucharistic miracles from the first one onward. Why is this important? Because AB blood is the rarest type of blood in the world, with only 1% of the population having it. Blood was discovered to have 4 types in 1901. The chances that all of these Eucharistic miracles plus the shroud having the same type of extremely rare blood is astronomically coincidental. If you want to call it coincidence. 2. It is always the left ventricle of the heart when the host has turned into flesh. Again what are the chances that each one is exactly that? The left ventricle of a human heart? How can anyone claim it is some elaborate hoax over the centuries? 3. There is always the presence of white blood cells, which cannot live outside of the body for more than 30 minutes. And yet there they are, alive and well, as if the heart were still alive…. 4. None of the blood is coagulated, meaning it’s fresh. So no, it didn’t come from some long dead corpse. 5. Cardiac enzymes that are released when a person is in excruciating pain are also found in Eucharistic miracles. Again, please explain that as a hoax. As they say, “follow the science”. Or in this case, the true church that Jesus himself founded, not a protesting offshoot of it. Doubting Thomas groups of people…. What more proof do you need? Does any of this ever happen in Protestant churches of any denomination? Didn’t think so.

[@Lya3588]

👍🙏

[@glennshrom5801]

The "chomp down and gnaw" obviously does not refer to the Eucharist, or else Catholics would have been teaching contrary to Jesus when they advised not to chew on the Eucharist, thinking it most reverent to simply let it dissolve on the tongue. Was Jesus really saying that unless a Catholic chomps down and gnaws on the Host, that person has no life? Was the Catholic clergy trying to get people to miss out on eternal life when suggesting to people that it was better not to chew at all?

[@davidcloyd1296]

And yet it’s “Protestants” that believe we are literally at one with Christ and seated with Him and in Him and He in us and His forgiveness can by blood and is once for all and doesn’t come by confession, but by actual blood and simply requires us to receive it. Btw, read in context and see Jesus say “my words are Spirit” not actual flesh and blood.

[@John_Six]

John 6: 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. So you're saying Jesus' flesh profits nothing right?

[@vtomc]

So I suppose Eucharistic miracles are hoaxes? For those Protestant AND Catholics who want to argue nonsense, it IS the literal body and blood of Christ. Look at all the scientific evidence and try to refute that. 107 documented Eucharistic miracles. 1. Type AB blood, the same blood found in the shroud of Turin, the same type blood found in all Eucharistic miracles from the first one onward. Why is this important? Because AB blood is the rarest type of blood in the world, with only 1% of the population having it. Blood was discovered to have 4 types in 1901. The chances that all of these Eucharistic miracles plus the shroud having the same type of extremely rare blood is astronomically coincidental. If you want to call it coincidence. 2. It is always the left ventricle of the heart when the host has turned into flesh. Again what are the chances that each one is exactly that? The left ventricle of a human heart? How can anyone claim it is some elaborate hoax over the centuries? 3. There is always the presence of white blood cells, which cannot live outside of the body for more than 30 minutes. And yet there they are, alive and well, as if the heart were still alive…. 4. None of the blood is coagulated, meaning it’s fresh. So no, it didn’t come from some long dead corpse. 5. Cardiac enzymes that are released when a person is in excruciating pain are also found in Eucharistic miracles. Again, please explain that as a hoax. As they say, “follow the science”. Or in this case, the true church that Jesus himself founded, not a protesting offshoot of it. Doubting Thomas groups of people…. What more proof do you need? Does any of this ever happen in Protestant churches of any denomination? Didn’t think so.

[@JB91484]

@@John_Six he says "the flesh" not "his (Jesus)" flesh. He is saying the spirit gives life to the flesh or in this case the eucharist. Why do you think he performed the miracles at the wedding turning water into wine and then multiplying the loaves. He is showing the spirit has control and dominion over the material world and can change anything through the mystery of God's spirit.

[@John_Six]

@@JB91484 I understand this, but I was hoping that the protestant would answer. If he would have said that Jesus' flesh profits nothing then that means the crucifixion did nothing and we are not saved.

[@John_Six]

You say that Jesus says, "my words are Spirit not actual flesh and blood," but Jesus also says in John 6: 55 "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."