Roman Catholicism and How It Distorts the Work of Christ

How does the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the mass distort the person and work of Christ? In this episode evangelist and former Catholic, Mike Gendron looks through the lens of Scripture to contrast the Eucharistic Christ of Roman Catholicism with our all-sufficient Savior who is gloriously revealed in the Bible.
Watch this series, "Roman Catholicism: Through the Lens of Scripture with Mike Gendron."
Watch episode 1 for free: www.watchagtv.com/roman-catho...
#catholic #christian #christianity

[@luisernestovarela555]

Have mercy on those who are still in error. Let them be known to you, the Most High and Merciful God!

[@pattiliba8188]

Its clearly stated in scripture several times instructing us not to add nor takes away from the word of God,so why is there a catechism?? Plus throughout history all these things have been added to catholicism Relic worship 337A.D Rosary 366A.D Mass 394A.D Eternal torment 590A.D Indulgences 799.A.D Mary worship 850A.D Confessional 1198A.D Bible forbidden 1299A.D Infant baptism 1311A.D Tradition above scripture 1563A.D Catholicism looks nothing like the original early Christian churches,in fact even the arrogance of claiming everyone who is not catholic goes to hell,is the assumption that they have a monopoly on 'truth' is laughable,but unfortunately what the majority believe.I would say that those who believe all the hocus-pocus have had their eyes closed.

[@Ben-pk4cv]

I came out of this Idolatry. Praise God! I didn't even fully see it because it had become normalized for me by attendance week after week. When I began to pursue God and found a non-Roman Catholic Church, I got saved and gradually my eyes were opened to the false Catholic Church I had grown up in. I was never saved. I didn't know if I was good enough to get into Heaven. I never knew how I stood with God in the Roman Catholic Church. Pray for my biological Father to come out of Roman Catholicism. By his own words, he doesn't know if he will be in heaven or not.

[@doctrinachristi]

Please I want you to this bible verses John 6:53-58 1 Corinthians 11:24 Luke 22:19

[@Ben-pk4cv]

@doctrinachristi I read the verses. I don't know why people want to take the Gospel and turn it into just another pagan religion with strange rituals. Just how do thousands of priests each day somehow have the power to make bread into a human flesh? It's never human flesh outside the body or inside a person's body. God isn't granting the wishes of thousands of Catholic priests every day, so Catholics can eat human flesh. The Catholic Church may have been faithful to the Gospel in the early years, but it has allowed more and more error into it and has statues of idols in every church and even relics in their alters. The One True God would never allow idols in his places of worship.

[@doctrinachristi]

@@Ben-pk4cv Please also read Matthew 16:18 Matthew 24:11-13

[@Ben-pk4cv]

@@doctrinachristi What do you think about that heartbreaking quote Mike Gendron reads in the video?

[@doctrinachristi]

@@Ben-pk4cv I'm glad you asked Please read this and also confirm it 1 Corinthians 11:23-31 [23]For the tradition I received from the Lord and also handed on to you is that on the night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, [24]and after he had given thanks, he broke it, and he said, 'This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.' [25]And in the same way, with the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.' [26]Whenever you eat this bread, then, and drink this cup, you are proclaiming the Lord's death until he comes. [27]Therefore anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily is answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. [28]Everyone is to examine himself and only then eat of the bread or drink from the cup; [29]because a person who eats and drinks without recognising the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. [30]That is why many of you are weak and ill and a good number have died. [31]If we were critical of ourselves we would not be condemned,

[@Terrylb285]

What a tremendous burden being lifted knowing I have access to Christ apart from a Church lording Christ over me .

[@lupelo8819]

People need to come out of that false system and come to the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

[@yucatansuckaman5726]

I'm still going to mass. This doesn't shake my faith in the catholic church at all. Silly

[@Joshula337]

Friday, February 7, 2014 Blasphemy and Heresy in "The Faith of Millions" A book that is often quoted by Evangelicals to criticize the Catholic Mass is “The Faith of Millions” by Fr. John O’Brien. Anyone familiar with Catholic doctrine can’t blame them, for the book genuinely contains blasphemous material; what they don’t realize is that it does not present actual Catholic teaching. We’ll explore the blasphemy in “The Faith of Millions” in a moment; but first, a note to Evangelicals about selecting Catholic sources to cite in your work. There is a world of difference between an official, authoritative magisterial document issued by a college of bishops and a book such as this. It is often pointed out that “The Faith of Millions” bears an imprimatur from a Catholic bishop. An imprimatur usually bears a notation in these or similar words: “The imprimatur is a declaration that a book is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that the one who has granted the imprimatur agrees with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.” An imprimatur is not infallible, nor does it make the book an official, authoritative Catholic Church document. No individual bishop has the authority to issue magisterial teaching; that may only be done through bishops acting in collegiality with each other and the Pope. An imprimatur simply means that in the opinion of this one particular bishop, who is not protected from error when issuing statements as an individual, the work is free of error. A bishop acting and speaking as an individual can be wrong. This is the case here. Tragically, “The Faith of Millions” contains serious error. Fortunately, it is not an authoritative Catholic Church document; in fact, it bears no authority at all. Let’s focus on a passage that is often cited by Evangelicals, who mistakenly believe this is really Catholic doctrine. I’ll underline the portions I really need to address: “When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man…. The priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man-not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.” This is pretty awful stuff. And it isn’t Catholic. First of all, the Catholic Church has never taught that what happens at Mass is the priest’s doing-true Catholic doctrine says that Jesus Himself does everything at Mass, using the priest merely as an instrument. This is clearly taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraphs 1544 and 1545 (emphasis added): “Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the one mediator between God and men. The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, ‘Priest of God most high,’ as the prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique ‘high priest after the order of Melchizedek’; ‘holy, blameless, unstained,’ ‘by a singular offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,’ that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross. “The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood: ‘Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers.’” Jesus does not bow in obedience to the priest-the priest lays prostrate in obedience to Jesus on his ordination day as he becomes an instrument through whom Jesus will act, not the priest himself. St. John Chrysostom expressed this in the fourth century, explaining why the assembly replies to the priest’s words “The Lord be with you” with the words “And with your spirit”: “You don’t first partake of the offerings until he has prayed for you the grace from the Lord, and you have answered him, ‘And with your spirit,’ reminding yourselves by this reply that he who is here does nothing of his own power, nor are the offered gifts the work of human nature, but it is the grace of the Spirit present and hovering over all things which prepared this mystic sacrifice.” The Catholic Church does not teach that Jesus is crucified again at every Mass. It teaches that this sacrifice which happened only one time in history is mystically made present (there’s a big difference) so people of all generations and places can be joined to the one sacrifice that was offered for their sins. (The Old Testament roots of this belief are explored in my article “What the Bible Teaches About Eucharist, Part 1”). James Penrice

[@owenkilpatrick3972]

I knew there was something suspicious about the quote from this video. I figured it was either taken out of context or not really Catholic Church teaching. Thank you for clearing this up!

[@justmorenoise]

Yes, as much as I respect these guys at American Gospel, they got this wrong. It is totally different from what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states. It clearly teaches there is one and ONLY one sacrifice. Jesus Christ crucified at Calvary. The consecration of the mass is more like a mirror back in time. Union. Or a transportation of you to Christ at Calvary if you want to be out there. It 100% says that Christ dies once and for all as a sin offering for our sin. The miracle that they claim is happening at communion is not by any power of the priest. It is by the power of God. Father Son and Holy Spirit. The priest is the donkey God chooses to use but it’s not him but the power of an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent God. Im not Catholic but just trying to be fair hear. As much as I have problems with some stuff attacking them for this is unfounded if you are claiming it’s official teaching, dogma, or even standard. They have this stuff clearly written in there Catechism and that’s their proclamation of faith and a breakdown of what they believe and teach new members being trained or children/youth growing up. They cover THIS very important topic in depth. Having said that, ofcause, much of the Catholic Church in the west is apostate and in rebellion to Catholic teaching. something called called post modernism and it’s a problem like it is starting for us now with progressive Christianity and new ideas. The actual church in 2022 does not agree with these progressives and wanna be reformers. It’s getting bad don’t get me wrong. But it’s not correct technically to say that this random quote is by any means officially a Catholic teaching. Perhaps in time they will change their Catholic teaching officially and begin officially teaching error concerning this topic and edit the catechism but it has not happened as of 2022. Saying it’s official church teaching is dishonest and bearing false witnesses about them. Once again, not a Roman Catholic, but I like things to be factual and not misleading.

[@rinihogewoning6528]

@@justmorenoise If Catholics believe "It 100% says that Christ dies once and for all as a sin offering for our sin", then why do Catholics need purgatory? Hmmm....

[@theopneustos3712]

If it is a one time sacrifice offered for their sins, how many times does a Roman Catholic require the Eucharist in his life? You are correct in saying Jesus' death was a one time sacrifice. To quote Jesus, "It is finished."

[@Joshula337]

@@theopneustos3712 what you are asking does not pertain specifically to Catholics but to Christians in general. How little should one partake of communion? Did Christ have any instructions involving it? Did the apostles have any teachings regarding it? To quote Jesus and apostles I have included a few verses below. But a great deal of problematic theology comes with what you say. Definitely, there appears to be a misunderstanding of the purpose of sacrifice. If you have in mind, some sort of penile substitution theory for the most part, you can toss that out. These are ideas imposed on the Scriptures and not found Within it when you break down the theology. Essentially, the Christian may walk with God in a way even superior to Adams walking with God. And Christ himself is the tree of life and the rivers of living water. Unless we feed off of him, we have no life in us. It is finished by the way as much deeper meaning. What is finished? Here we have Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The eternal beginning less God hanging on the cross. He himself is the fruit on the tree of life which is the cross. He is dying in the short time leading up to the Sabbath day of rest. “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭1‬-‭3‬ ‭ESV‬‬ There are plenty of enough writings from the early church that are in agreement that amongst things meant when Christ said “it is finished” that this in truth is the completion of the creation of mankind and the making of the cosmos. It is finished. Then he hangs his head in the truest rest. Our God, neither slumbers nor sleeps yet here is God in the deepest of slumbers. And to further this idea, historically early Christians already had the notion that Christ resurrection is the eighth day. The eternal day. So the Eucharist is not something looked at as so-and-so consumed Eucharist X number of times in his life. Rather you a finite being are partaking taking in the same communal meal that Christ shared with his apostles. It is Christ himself feeding you and this is not only clearly practiced in the early church, but is ultimately shown to also be the very marriage, supper of the Lamb spoken of in revelation. So the Eucharist is not transactional. You haven’t achieved some thing or been granted some special thing because you have eaten it. But you are actively participating in the life of the God man Jesus Christ. And you are allowing him to infuse you with his own very being. So how often must we partake of it? As often as as reasonable. And only when we are living out repentance. Because scripture also warns that if we partake in an unworthy manner, we could actually get sick or even die from taking on the holiness of God, while actively unrepentant and embracing unholy life. To quote Jesus, and then Paul : “Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” ‭‭John‬ ‭6‬:‭32‬-‭35‬ ‭ESV‬‬ “The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”” ‭‭John‬ ‭6‬:‭52‬-‭58‬ ‭ESV‬‬ “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” ‭‭Luke‬ ‭22‬:‭19‬-‭20‬ ‭ESV‬‬ “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭26‬:‭26‬-‭28‬ ‭ESV‬‬ “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭11‬:‭23‬-‭30‬ ‭ESV‬‬

[@henrybayard6574]

This guy is a former catholic who didn't know his faith. I suppose the Lutheran churches which believe in the real presence of christ in the Eucharist are in league with Rome. Or how about the Eastern orthodox or the Coptic churches. It's sad to see that this bible believing protestants doesn't believe the bible when it says. John 6:53.

[@craigj5403]

Henry B. - Catholics will take one verse as John 6:53, and ignore the whole section of the verses contained around it in context, Christ is not talking about wafers and wine taken in by our flesh and do perish (John 6:27), He teaching about the power of His word and His Spirit entering into a person (affirmed in John 6:62-63, John 6:68, Romans 1:16). To think that some selfproclaimed "Priest" pretending that he has authority over the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. To fool the ignorant of the truth of the finished atonement of Christ is very sad. Hebrews 10:11-12: Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He (Christ), having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, (Hebrews 10:11-12,) [about 2000 years ago , He said: "It is finished"] and YES, we do take communion, The Lord's Supper, as believers in remembrance of Christ, the New Covenant in His atonement with His blood sacrifice for our sins. (1 Corinthians 11:23-34).

[@henrybayard6574]

@@craigj5403 so you believe that your spiritual father Martin Luther was wrong when he said that it was the body and blood of christ??

[@craigj5403]

@@henrybayard6574 My spiritual father is not Martin Luther for sure, he had been indoctrinated with Roman catholicism for many years, so he was still learning, I wouldn't recommend the Lutheran church in the places I've lived, don't know if Martin would recommend any Lutheran churches now days either. Matthew 23:8-10: "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ..." (Matthew 23:8-10,)

[@henrybayard6574]

@@craigj5403 please don't start using these old protestant quotes about calling someone father. In your bible. Stephen the first martyr who was filled with the holy spirit called others father. Acts 7:2. How about the apostles John who Jesus loved. He called others father too. I John 2:13-14. Are they blasphemers or maybe Jesus was using hyperbole to make a point. Hmmm???

[@craigj5403]

@@henrybayard6574 Matthew 23:8-10 - is a quote from Jesus, I don't know where you get the so-called "old protestant" quote you mentioned. As far as being call a "father", that's obviously what men are when they help conceive children or raise their children, but it's not used as a title to some so called spiritual authority, as what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 23. Your Pope takes on this title as the so called "Holy Father", ignoring the fact that Jesus' prayer in John 17 is to the Holy Father. So your Pope elevates himself above God, so is that what you do too. And what about your so called "Fathers or priests" that sexually molested children and then were shifted from town to town to try to cover up what they do? Just a little discernment would help.

[@daisyreyes3256]

wow this is horrible....sad and even angering ...just wow😔

[@Joshula337]

It’s also false. This video would be as bad as a Roman catholic pointing to Kenneth Copeland and saying he represents all protestants and their doctrine. knowcatholicism.blogspot.com/2014/02/blasphemy-and-heresy-in-faith-of.html?m=1

[@tinaahwawuda3527]

So true

[@Redeemed.of.YHVH.thru.Christ]

Jesus Christ offered Himself up ONCE as the atoning sacrifice for all who believe on Him. Hebrews specifically says because of the death of Christ on the cross, IT PUT AN END TO THE DAILY SACRIFICES OF THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD. If CathoIics don’t come out of this false, Whore of ßabylon, Roman Catholic Church, and repent of their blasphemy and pagan idolatry, they will spend eternity in the lake of fire. Most of them don’t care to know the truth, because they are married to their religion, and its false doctrine, and vain traditions. Those who are married to false religion are who Jesus Christ is addressing when He says “Howbeit IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, following for doctrine the commandments of men. Full well, they REJECT the commandments of God, so they can keep their vain traditions”. Yes, scripture says you can believe and worship IN VAIN.

[@dawn7664]

I have been Catholic all my life but only found God when I left their Church and began living by the scriptures. I have fellowship with others in a Church that studies the scripture and I finally found and understand what try faith is. I do not like the Dogma of the Catholic Church and never have. I confess my sins to God and Jesus every night through a priest. They are supposed to be spreading the Good News not creating rules and laws for believers to be saved. We are saved through faith and Grace not worship. Not that God doesn't love worship, he does but it is not a requirement to be saved. Love God and love thy neighbor. Be a good disciple and help bring people to his glory when you can, even if it's only one person I'm not convenience that the dogma is sinful, just unnecessary. However, the Priests, Popes, and Bishops do create false teaching that they are closer to God than you and I and that is just not true. I do fear that their view of Mary is idol worship, after all, Mary is not sitting at the right side of God and has a hierarchy, she even said Jesus was HER savior. The eucharist is false teaching, but not idol worship IMO. In the end, God will judge. I believe that if Catholics actually studies the bible, they too would move away from their teachings. I do find it to be blasphemist,

[@530jazzercise]

Go back to the Church...proddyism was invented to make usury legal...bible alone isn't in the bible; Jesus never said faith alone, he said the opposite; luther pimped out nuns - how could he have been God's instrument?

[@johnflorio3576]

You know more than the gospel writers, the apostles, and the Early Church Fathers?

[@pattiliba8188]

@dawn7664: you speak truth,and I'm happy to hear you left the cc.Once one reads scripture on your own asking Holy Spirit for discernment, everything becomes clear,you do not need the tradition of men,you certainly don't need to be robbing God of worship and Glory by saying umpteen dozens of prayers to Mary,they are robbing God of the glory that is rightfully his.

[@nathankimball5380]

Check out Trent horn and Catholic answers YT pages. You will be surprised how misinformed people are on what the Catholic church actually teaches and believes

[@floogelhornzzz4770]

Here's what it teaches (I mean besides _bowing_ before graven images and killing all the "heretics" and Protestants in an _infallible_ "Sacred Inquisition").: Blasphemous titles claimed for the pope have been embellished and enlarged over the centuries. But a few of these boastful claims appear in an ecclesiastical (Roman Catholic) dictionary, by Lucius Ferraris, entitled _Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica,_ Vol. VI, pgs. 438, 442, article "Pope." _The Catholic Encyclopedia,_ 1913 edition, Vol. VI, p. 48, speaks of this book as "a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge," and "a precious mine of information." "The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God." "The pope is of such lofty and supreme dignity that, properly speaking, he has not been established in any rank of dignity, but rather has been placed upon the very summit of all ranks of dignities. . . ." "He is likewise the divine monarch and supreme emperor and king of kings." "Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions." "So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the pope." "The pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been entrusted by the omnipotent God direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly kingdom." "The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God." The above quotes are from _What's Behind The New World Order?_ Go to CatholicNewWorldOrder.com and click on the top link. ---------- "The Pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ." _-Decretal De Translat. - Espiscop. Cap_ "I am all in all and *above all,* so that God, Himself and I, the Vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do ALMOST ALL THAT GOD CAN DO . . . What therefore, can you make of me but God?" -Pope Nicholas, quoted in _Antichrist_ by Ian Paisley, pg. 54. "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means I am God on the earth." -Pope Pius XI, April 30, 1922. The pope calls himself God, i.e., "Lord God the pope," "another God on earth." "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty," Pope Leo XIII said in an _Encyclical Letter,_ June 20, 1894. "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh," the _Catholic National_ said in July 1895. And every priest is an "Alter Christus," Another Christ. So every priest is Jesus. Plus, during the Mass the priest transubstantiates the bread into the literal, "real presence" of Christ. In other words, man creates God. He is "the creator of his Creator. . . . 'The power of the priest,' says St. Bernardine of Sienna, 'is the power of the _divine person;_ for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world.' . . . As the Word of God created heaven and earth, so, says St. Jerome, the words of the priest create Jesus Christ." _-The Dignity and Duties of the Priest_ by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Ch. 1, Part IV, pg. 11. How is any of this _not_ blasphemy?! Christianity teaches that the pope is the Antichrist. The proud pontiff's official title is Vicar of Christ, meaning "in the place of Christ." Vicar of Christ translated into Greek is Antichristos, in English Antichrist, also meaning "in the place of Christ." Vicar of Christ and Antichrist are the exact same word in two different languages. Vicar of Christ in Latin is Vicarius Filii Dei, meaning Vicar of the Son of God, or Vicar of Christ. VICARIVS FILII DEI. Add up the 11 Roman numerals and you get 666. Rev. 13:18. angelfire.com/on/3angels Revelation 13. 1 I . . . saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns . . . and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 2 And _the _*_dragon (Satan)_*_ gave him (the beast) his power, and his seat,_ and great authority. 4 And _they worshipped the _*_dragon_*_ which gave power unto the beast:_ and they worshipped the beast . . . 5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies . . . 6 And he opened his mouth in *blasphemy against God,* to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, *_Come out of her,_** my people,* that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities." Rev. 18:4, 5.

[@sjv9147s]

What does it mean when, at the cross, Jesus said, "It is finished"? How, in any way, does the Eucharist support the finished work of Christ? For the sake of the Catholic consecration, does the Son of God have to go through the ordeal, indeed torment, of the cross some 20,000 times/day everyday?

[@yelsawRednaxela]

You are arguing against a proposition that was never held by the Catholic Church.

[@sjv9147s]

@@yelsawRednaxela The Eucharist is not a proposition. It is a central consecration of Catholicism, viz. a sacrament.

[@ryanjamesc9996]

Who came up with this videos title?! 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@angelraymond9301]

That is scary!!!!!

[@angelraymond9301]

I don’t want a “Savior” that takes commands from humans. No thanks.

[@floogelhornzzz4770]

1:43. 20,000 or 200,000?

[@beyond0077]

What's sad is that people actually believe in this guy. The earliest Christians were accused of being atheist, incestuous, and cannibals... hmm wonder why cannibals? Oh yeah maybe because they actually believed the breaking of the bread and the consecrated wine was truly His body and blood.

[@scottw4202]

I agree with what Mike Gendron says, up until he mis-applies Matthew 25:23 as speaking to the Eucharist. That scripture is specifically speaking about how during the great tribulation period, if someone tries to point people to an actual physical false Christ or false prophet, an actual physical person, to not believe them. Not a piece of bread. I think he’s being a bit too loose with his application of the scripture on this specific point.

[@apologiaromana4123]

Notice how Mike never quotes any Church documents- only a random priest (who by the way is never mentioned) and vaguely claims that this vague statement by a vague priest has the vague approval of the Catholic Church itself.

[@jasonanderson7343]

Thank for this teaching

[@adelinaclonts6429]

Sit with all due respect you’re committing a grave sin by spreading false teaching. You are NOT being truthful. You do not know your theology. Let’s have a conversation because you have no clue!!

[@geordiewishart1683]

You do know Mike was himself a rabid papist for over thirty years?

[@judgedredd31]

I would love to see you have a conversation with him.

[@Mjwells7]

Thank you for this!

[@whiterosesforthebrideofchrist]

We are commanded by Messiah that, “...repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:47). In other words, we are supposed to preach the gospel that came out of Jerusalem and not preach the gospel that came out of Antioch, or Rome, or England, or New York, or Chicago, etc. By the time the gospel got to Antioch it had already been perverted as we read, “...And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26). The problem with this is that YHWH spoke of a people called by His name (Deuteronomy 28:10; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Isaiah 43:6, 7; Daniel 9:19; Amos 9:12; Acts 15:17). YHWH did not choose the name “Christian” for Himself. The people of Antioch chose that name and all the so called main denominations of today embrace that name “Christian” for themselves. When Peter and Paul preached the gospel they quote the prophet Joel, “Whosoever shall call on the name of YHWH shall be saved.” (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13). The English word "Lord" is not a translation for the name YHWH but is a substitution. I ask you, how many of the church fathers and so called main denominations of today preach that gospel? None of them. Absolutely none! Paul makes it crystal clear that the end result of him preaching the gospel was that the people would call on the name YHWH. He says in (Rom. 10:14,15), The preachers are sent. They preach. The people hear. The people believe. The people call on the name YHWH (Rom. 10:13). I ask you, how many of the church fathers and so called main denominations of today preach that gospel? None of them. Absolutely none! It took only one generation after the death of Joshua for the children of Israel to forget the mighty works of YHWH which He had worked through Moses and Joshua and to began to serve the elohim of the heathen people around them (Judges 2:7-13). It took only one generation! The most important thing that I learned in life is about the mikvah for the bride of Christ. A mikvah is a pool of water used for immersion. It has been used for thousands of years in the Bible and it is still being used today by both Jews and Christians. However, Christian denominations have turned baptism into an initiation for lifetime membership into their particular denomination. However, most believers know that Christ is coming back for His bride. But I just found out last year that every Jewish bride immerses herself in a mikvah before her marriage ceremony. Therefore, the reason I am telling you and my family and friends about this is that the next time you are in a pool of water immerse yourself as a mikvah to be part of the Bride of Christ calling on the name of Yahweh (Jesus = Yahoshuah = Yahweh salvation) for the remission of sins. ... ... ...

[@normmaclean375]

Whose righteousness am I depending on? Mine? Mary's? or SOLELY on Jesus' and that received as God's gift of love.

[@marybrouillette8656]

I was Catholic for 60 years, praise God, He called me away from the heretic false religion, Catholicism. I pray for all Catholics that someday they will repent, and turn from this false pagan faith.

[@florencebeebee2967]

I believe the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH teachings about the SUBSTRANTIATION

[@darthlinathegreat7489]

Transubstantiation to you not sub that is the Protestant term.

[@neia7560]

The blasphemy 🤢

[@philipvarghese2366]

With due respect - 1. Though there are mistakes in almost all the Churches - the self-righteousness of certain people of certain churches is baffling. 2. This is not to say that the Catholic Church is all right only. Nor do I believe that non- Catholic Church is right only. Both have exceptionally good help towards finding the Truth that's Lord Jesus and living the Truth as best- in this compromised world of contemporary mankind. 3. Catholic priests do not ask.Lird Jesus to vone to the Wafer. They pray to The Lord God. They are nobody to ask Lord Jesus Christ. It is not the teaching of the Catholic Church at all. If a Catholic or a priest says like that, that is wrong and it is his personal interpretation and it is not right. It is strange that Catholics are not upfront in refuting such malicious interpretations... Too over-confident or too timid. 5. Vis a vis- Holy Communion- What Lord Jesus told about the Holy Communion at the Supper with His Disciples is this -"This is my body, which is given for the forgiveness od sins. Eat of it. Do it in my remembrance." Lord Jesus didn't tell - This is like my body. He categorically said "This is my body." We don't have to try and add to it or reduce it or selectively use the words- "Do it in my remembrance." What about the words before that? What happened to the disciple who received the body of Lord Jesus (the Bread that was given by Lord Jesus) with evil design in him? When Judas Scariott took the bread satan entered him. The agreements and ridicule put up by the Protestants is tnat Catholics is similarl to tje arguments and ridicule made by Muslim against Christians saying a. Christians had distorted the Bible... b. Lord Jesus never told that He is The Son of God. c. Lord Jesus was a Muslim. d. Lord Jesus told that the Helper will come. That is Mohammed. They continued teaching this for long ..even confusing many free-thinking Christians. However, now Christians are reading Quran and replying nicely - with facts. And Muslims are seriously on the defensive, and many Muslins had given up Islamic Faith also.

[@giannipizarro2092]

So many people spread misinformation about the Catholic Church. Do good, deep research on your own. Don’t jump to conclusions.

[@icxcnika7722]

Mike Gendron speaking on Roman Catholicism is like going to a chiropractor for neurosurgery.

[@ShruteFarms001]

You don't need to be a genius to understand catholicism. Catholics say they are so old and ancient and deep that is why you compare it to neuroscience. But it is a simple religion that changes with every pope. What today's catholic believes is not what a catholic from 1500 years ago believed. Most Catholics outsource their thinking to three pope or bishop they really don't understand their own religion

[@GR65330]

@@ShruteFarms001 well.... That's not true as doctrinal teaching cannot and has not been changed. All you need to do is read the Church fathers to see that doctrinal teachings has not changed in the Catholic Church.

[@emmanuelochieng]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣soo true

[@geordiewishart1683]

He was a Catholic himself for over thirty years

[@geordiewishart1683]

The Roman Catholic faith has been an evolution over many centuries. Catholics teach their faith was handed down from the Apostles and they only formally established these doctrines as the need arose yet a careful study of the writings of the church show that most of these doctrines were not held by the early church and were later additions. TIMELINE DATE EVENT 250 BC OT canon is universally accepted 33-100 AD Apostolic age 60 AD Paul returns to Rome ~68 AD Paul dies; Peter dies around the same time 95 AD Clement of Rome mentions at least 8 NT books 100-325 AD Ante Nicene period (separation of Christianity from Judaism and growth) 108 AD Polycarp, acknowledged 15 books 115 AD Ignatius of Antioch acknowledges about seven NT books 170 AD Muratorian Canon[BV1] includes all of the NT books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John 185 AD Irenaeus mentions 21 books 170-235 AD Hippolytus recognizes 22 books 200 AD Under Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, a basic version of Catholic structure was installed with Roman direction 300 AD Prayers for the dead began 313 AD Emperor Constantine legalizes Christianity and moves the Roman capital to Constantinople 325 AD The First Council of Nicea, called by Constantine, attempted to structure church leadership around a model similar to that of the Roman system and formalized some key articles 363 AD Council of Laodicea states that only the OT books (along with one book of the Apocrypha[BV2] ) and 26 books of the NT (everything but Revelation) were canonical 375 AD Veneration of angels and dead saints, and the use of images 393 AD Council of Hippo affirmed 27 books 394 AD The Mass as a daily celebration 397 AD Council of Carthage affirmed 27 books[BV3] 431 AD Start of the veneration of Mary and first use of the term “Mother of God” at the Council of Ephesus 500 AD Priests began to dress differently than layman 526 AD Extreme Unction 551 AD Council of Chalcedon declares the church in Constantinople to be the head of the eastern branch of the church and equal in authority to the Pope 590 AD Pope Gregory I becomes Pope and the church enters into a period of enormous political and military power. Some call this the beginning of the Catholic Church as it is known today 593 AD The doctrine of Purgatory established by Gregory I 600 AD The Latin language imposed by Gregory I 607 AD Title of pope, given to Boniface III by emperor Phocas 632 AD Islamic prophet Mohammad dies beginning a long conflict between Christianity and Islam 709 AD Kissing of the pope’s foot began with pope Constantine 786 AD Worship of the cross, images, and relics authorized 850 AD Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest 927 AD College of Cardinals established 995 AD Canonization of dead saints, first by John XV 998 AD Attendance at Mass made obligatory 1054 AD The great East-West schism marks the formal separation of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches of the Catholic Church 1079 AD Celibacy of the priesthood decreed by pope Gregory VII 1090 AD The Rosary invented by Peter the Hermit 1184 AD The Inquisition instituted by the Council of Verona 1190 AD The sale of indulgences begun 1215 AD Fourth Council of the Lateran - ratified the teaching of transubstantiation. Also the confession of sins to a priest 1439 AD Purgatory proclaimed as dogma by the Council of Florence 1517 AD Luther publishes the 95 Theses 1534 AD King Henry VIII of England declares himself to be the supreme head of the Church of England, severing the Anglican Church from the Roman Catholic Church 1545-1563 AD Catholic reformation begins 1545 AD Tradition declared of equal authority by the Council of Trent 1546 AD Council of Trent official accepts 11 of the Apocryphal books as canonical[BV4] 1854 AD Immaculate Conception of Mary proclaimed by pope Pius IX 1870 AD The First Vatican Council declares the policy of Papal infallibility 1950 AD Assumption of Mary (bodily ascension into heaven) proclaimed by pope Pius XII 1960s AD Second Vatican Council 1965 AD Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church

[@zeropride1133]

I think anyone who has sought with honesty on what the catholic church teaches could point out how wrong that priest is.

[@Zeebee03]

Let us pray that the papists truly come to Christ and his Gospel.

[@johnflorio3576]

We Catholics had the gospel 1500 years before your founders made up their own religions.

[@geordiewishart1683]

There were bible centred believers even before the Reformation. The history of the papacy is one of bloodshed and error

[@idankpoaugustine1983]

Ironic.

[@judgedredd31]

@@johnflorio3576your church is Roman, but not part of the Holy Catholic Church. You can no longer claim the early church fathers but you can keep your popes. We have Jesus as our one (only) high priest. You have idolized Mary. Please repent

[@sharathshinoy4495]

Yeah this is from a book and it is not official teaching of the catholic church , the official teaching actually contradicts this statement . So once again Mike Gendron cant go to the original source of catholic teaching and resorts to other faulty sources of catholic teachings and claims this is what catholic teaching is . Mike Gendron is a fraud and he is not bring very honest here

[@judgedredd31]

This is a small segment of an 8 episode series where most of his quotes come directly from CCC. Try again.

[@MW-eg4gu]

Mike Gendron, I have seen his type several times throughout my 75 years, is that soft-spoken believer that he, the individual, claiming the Holy Spirit guides him, can interpret the Bible, and needs no Church authority, which is a very New World, American, philosophy. He could be called a type of Pilgrim. The past 500 years ago, the individual sees in his personal Bible - and notice the timing - about the time the invention of the printing press was finally getting Bibles into everyone's hands - interpretations that proliferated into the many denominations the world has today. And Mr. Gendron is a product of this, wasting his time and others' time, seeing in the Bible that X,Y, Z must be done - unlike the Catholic Church's A, B, C, or you're not saved, meaning the Catholic is not saved. There is a set of steps towards salvation that is correctly epoused by the Catholic faith. But even the Catholic faith teaches if someone is ignorant of this, he or she can still go to Heaven. No such hope according to Mr. Gendron's Bible teaching. Mr. Gendron is a drag, a tiresome Bible-thumper, of which there are so many. Is he from the Church of Christ? I had two texts from an actual Church of Christ MINISTER telling me if I don't leave the Catholic Church, I will go to hell. Or, my Pentecostal relatives, so many on my father's side of the family, that I need to leave the Catholic Church and join them. Or, the Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons annual knocking on my door. And, recently, an old friend reconnected with me, who used to talk my ear off about I must join the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. And all of them say they follow the Bible. And all of them owe it to themselves to try to get deep into listening to the Catholic position, now very within their grasp on many videos on the internet. If afterward they still cannot come to believe the Catholic faith, follow their consciences as best they can. Which is a Catholic teaching.

[@AmericanGospel]

What you believe, and what all these different groups (Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.) say is similar: Follow these steps to salvation, and to maintain your salvation. The true gospel stands in stark contrast to this: You can’t do anything. God saves you as a gift that you receive by faith alone (trusting in what He has done). Even your faith and repentance are gifts granted by God.

[@judgedredd31]

It’s like he is a Berean… using the Helper Jesus left behind… imagine that.

[@theextreme7134]

Other than Satan, I can think of no greater enemy of the true gospel than the Roman Catholic church.

[@floogelhornzzz4770]

Exactly!

[@iwillcuturgrass3248]

Mormons, SDA, Jehovah's witnesses to name a few are far worse than the Roman Catholic Church. You seem to have a great bias against Catholics

[@Katholikos22]

Reaching for straws, only the ignorant would stop at this horrible attempt to undermine the teaching of Christ.

[@helenjohnson3917]

"Do this in memory of me... For this is my body" Guess Jesus was just kidding.

[@theextreme7134]

Jesus never intended that statement to be turned into a black magic ceremony where you attempt to channel a spiritual entity into a wafer and eat it.

[@alexandercabeza2442]

Yes Helen, only in memory not as a ongoing sacrifice over and over again .The King of Kings is not subject to any man

[@geordiewishart1683]

First - there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal Nowhere in scripture do we find this teaching. We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words when talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,” (John 6:63). He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood. But, a Catholic might object and say that Jesus clearly said, “This is My blood…” and “This is my body…” This is true, but Jesus frequently spoke in spiritual terms: “I am the bread of life,” (John 6:48); “I am the door,” (John 10:7,9); “I am the resurrection and the life,” (John 11:25); “I am the true vine,” (John 15:1), etc. In the context of John 6, Jesus is telling His disciples that they must eat His body and blood (John 6:53). He clearly says He was speaking in spiritual terms, “…the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,” (John 6:63). Second - the elements of the communion supper were still referred to as bread and wine After The institution of the communion supper, both the elements were still referred to as bread and wine. “And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom,” (Matt. 26:26-29). After Jesus said, “This is my blood,” (Matt. 26:28), he said, “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom,” (Matt. 26:29). Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as “the fruit of the vine” if it was his literal blood? He called it wine. “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup,” (1 Cor. 11:23-28). If the elements were changed and were really the body and blood, then why does Paul refer to the element of bread as bread and not the literal body of Christ? Third - there is no indication the disciples thought the elements changed There is no indication in the biblical accounts of the Last Supper that the disciples thought that the bread and wine changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Are we to believe that the disciples who were sitting right there with Jesus actually thought that what Jesus was holding in his hands was his literal body and blood? There is no indication that they thought this. Fourth - there is no indication the disciples worshipped the elements We see no indication at all that the disciples worshipped the elements. The adoration of the Eucharist is practiced during the Mass. Catholicism says, “Moreover, the Catholic Church has held firm to this belief in the presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist not only in her teaching but in her life as well since she has at all times paid this great Sacrament the worship known as “latria,” which may be given to God alone.”1 Where is the worship given the Sacrament by the disciples anywhere in the New Testament? It is not there. Fifth - the supper was instituted before Jesus’ crucifixion The Mass is supposed to be a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. Therefore, according to Roman Catholic theology, the bread and wine become the broken body and shed blood of Christ and are, somehow, the crucified body and blood of Christ. But how can this be since Jesus instituted the Supper before He was crucified? Are we to conclude that at the Last Supper, when they were all at the table, that when Jesus broke the bread, it actually became His sacrificial body-even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? Likewise are we to conclude that when Jesus gave the wine, that it became His actual sacrificial blood - even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? That would make no sense at all.

[@geordiewishart1683]

Sixth - the Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism. What does the Scripture say concerning this? “For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off,” (Lev. 17:14). Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ. To the RCC it is not just symbolic; it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ. Some Roman Catholics respond by saying that Jesus had instituted the new and everlasting covenant in which the sacrificed body and blood of Christ was reality. Therefore, because it was a new covenant, it was also the sacrificed body and blood. But this cannot work because the new covenant could not yet be instituted until after the death of Christ as the Scriptures state. “And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it,” (Heb. 9:15-16). Therefore we can conclude that the Levitical law was still in effect because the new covenant had not yet been established. So, the Roman Catholic position would have Jesus himself violating Old Testament law by having the disciples drink the blood-if it were literal blood. Yet another response is that in Mark 7:19 it says, “‘because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?’ (Thus He declared all foods clean).” The problem with this response is that it tends to set scripture against scripture and doesn’t really address the issue of Leviticus 17:14 and the particularly relevant comments by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:19-20 also forbidding the eating of blood. Therefore, it seems that Jesus was declaring all animals were clean in the sense that they do not defile a person. Again, in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, James the apostle gives instructions and said, “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood,” (Acts 15:19-20). Some say this refers only to animal blood. But if that is so, then “all foods clean” (ref. Mark 7:19) would have to include animal blood. But, that doesn’t make sense in light of the instruction is still to abstain from drinking blood. Seventh - it is a violation of the incarnation The biblical doctrine of the incarnation states that the Word which was God and was with God (John 1:1), became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). This “became flesh” involves what is known as the hypostatic union. This is the teaching that in the one person of Christ are two natures: divine and human. That is, Jesus is both God and man at the same time, and He will forever be God and man. Furthermore, by definition, for Jesus to be human, He must be located in one place. This is the nature of being human. A human male does not have the ability to be omnipresent. He can only be in one place at one time. To say that Jesus in His physical form is in more than one place at a time is to deny the incarnation. That is, it denies that Jesus is completely and totally a man - since a man can only be it one place at one time. Therefore, to say that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is to violate the doctrine of the incarnation by stating that Christ is physically present all over the planet as the mass is celebrated. This is a serious problem and a serious denial of the true and absolute incarnation of the Word of God as a man. But, did not Jesus say in Matt. 28:18-20 that He would be with the disciples always-even to the ends of the earth? Is this not a declaration that Jesus will be physically present everywhere? No, this is not what is stated. The answer is found in the teaching of the communicatio idiomatum. This is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human nature are ascribed to the single person of Christ. It does not mean, however, that anything particular to the divine nature was communicated to the human nature. Likewise, it does not mean that anything particular to the human nature was communicated to the divine nature. It means that the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ. Therefore, Jesus is omnipresent-not in His human nature but in His divine nature.

[@CatholicWisdom]

What an appallingly ignorant video. St. Thomas in 1200, centuries before your denomination was even invented, articulated the theology of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, simply repeating some of the core principles of christian tradition, rooted in the gospel. I’m praying for more unity among all christians, through education.

[@nathanlancaster3770]

What that priest says does contain heresy, yes. However, please educate yourself on the Eucharist, and what Catholics truly believe about it. It is our spiritual medicine that protects us, just as God protected the Israelites in the desert with the Bread of Angels. I would highly encourage you to read “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” by Dr Brant Pitre.

[@floogelhornzzz4770]

I would highly encourage you to read this: Blasphemous titles claimed for the pope have been embellished and enlarged over the centuries. But a few of these boastful claims appear in an ecclesiastical (Roman Catholic) dictionary, by Lucius Ferraris, entitled _Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica,_ Vol. VI, pgs. 438, 442, article "Pope." _The Catholic Encyclopedia,_ 1913 edition, Vol. VI, p. 48, speaks of this book as "a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge," and "a precious mine of information." "The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God." "The pope is of such lofty and supreme dignity that, properly speaking, he has not been established in any rank of dignity, but rather has been placed upon the very summit of all ranks of dignities. . . ." "He is likewise the divine monarch and supreme emperor and king of kings." "Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions." "So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the pope." "The pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been entrusted by the omnipotent God direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly kingdom." "The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God." The above quotes are from _What's Behind The New World Order?_ Go to CatholicNewWorldOrder.com and click on the top link. ---------- "The Pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ." _-Decretal De Translat. - Espiscop. Cap_ "I am all in all and *above all,* so that God, Himself and I, the Vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do ALMOST ALL THAT GOD CAN DO . . . What therefore, can you make of me but God?" -Pope Nicholas, quoted in _Antichrist_ by Ian Paisley, pg. 54. "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means I am God on the earth." -Pope Pius XI, April 30, 1922. The pope calls himself God, i.e., "Lord God the pope," "another God on earth." "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty," Pope Leo XIII said in an _Encyclical Letter,_ June 20, 1894. "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh," the _Catholic National_ said in July 1895. And every priest is an "Alter Christus," Another Christ. So every priest is Jesus. Plus, during the Mass the priest transubstantiates the bread into the literal, "real presence" of Christ. In other words, man creates God. He is "the creator of his Creator. . . . 'The power of the priest,' says St. Bernardine of Sienna, 'is the power of the _divine person;_ for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world.' . . . As the Word of God created heaven and earth, so, says St. Jerome, the words of the priest create Jesus Christ." _-The Dignity and Duties of the Priest_ by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Ch. 1, Part IV, pg. 11. How is any of this _not_ blasphemy?! Christianity teaches that the pope is the Antichrist. The proud pontiff's official title is Vicar of Christ, meaning "in the place of Christ." Vicar of Christ translated into Greek is Antichristos, in English Antichrist, also meaning "in the place of Christ." Vicar of Christ and Antichrist are the exact same word in two different languages. Vicar of Christ in Latin is Vicarius Filii Dei, meaning Vicar of the Son of God, or Vicar of Christ. VICARIVS FILII DEI. Add up the 11 Roman numerals and you get 666. Rev. 13:18. angelfire.com/on/3angels Revelation 13. 1 I . . . saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns . . . and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 2 And _the _*_dragon (Satan)_*_ gave him (the beast) his power, and his seat,_ and great authority. 4 And _they worshipped the _*_dragon_*_ which gave power unto the beast:_ and they worshipped the beast . . . 5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies . . . 6 And he opened his mouth in *blasphemy against God,* to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, *_Come out of her,_** my people,* that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities." Rev. 18:4, 5.

[@Hopeforreal]

I've always known that they were satanists, but to hear it stated like that is sickening.

[@JoshN91]

I had a true conversion experience… into the faith of our fathers. The Catholic Church that is. 😊 Never been closer to our Lord. I worship our one God in three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Check out the early church. A lot closer to Catholicism than anything that came out of the 15th century.

[@theservantsresource3565]

When I read the New Testament Scriptures I see nothing like the Roman Catholic Church. First, they had no priests in the early church. They did not venerate Mary or any saints, but worshiped Jesus only. There were only 2 sacraments: communion and baptism. Neither of these had special powers. There was no pope, no monasteries, no nuns or monks. There were no cardinals. There was no concept of purgatory or penance. Confession was not to a priest, but to Jesus, and to one another. The only one who had authority to forgive sins was Jesus, and he imparted it only to the apostles. Salvation was by grace alone by faith apart from works of the law. There was no Mass, and there certainly were no cathedrals, stained glass windows, vestments, or any of the extravagance that the Middle Ages and modernity brought to the church. When I read the Scriptures I see Jesus as he really was and is, not the caricature that the Catholic clerical class has crafted in the likeness of worldly elitists hungry for power and influence. That’s not the Christ of Scripture.

[@nathankimball5380]

Yes sir, I always had a loose faith growing up pentecostal. Really tried to learn and grow in that church but it just didn't satisfy me intellectually or spiritually. Then now in my mid 20s was able to be introduced to actual Catholic teachings and wow it's everything I ever wanted and more

[@theservantsresource3565]

@@nathankimball5380 But it’s not the truth. It doesn’t matter what you always wanted if it isn’t true. The Scriptures have Jesus saying this: [He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am {he} you will die in your sins.] John 8:23-24 ESV Jesus says we will die in our sins unless we believe something particular about him. We must accept him for who he is, and not create our own version of him. Catholicism is a made-up (man made) version of Jesus. It is then another (different) Christ. It’s a Christ who must submit to the priest and be sacrificed continually for our sins in the Eucharist. This is not the Jesus of Scripture. First, Jesus’ death on the cross was final. It already paid the price for our sin. A continual sacrifice is not needed, and it’s not in Scripture. Therefore it was not an element of the apostles’ teaching - it is false doctrine. 2nd, Jesus submits to no man; not even a priest. Jesus is the one to whom we must submit; because he is our judge - and he is our only priest. 3rd, the Holy Communion is symbolic, and not supernatural. Jesus said “do this in remembrance of me.” Neither he or the disciples taught that the wafer transubstantiates into his body. So the Christ of the Eucharist is a different Christ than the Christ of the Bible. And that matters, when it comes to our salvation. You must submit to Christ through faith, repentance, and Christ’s work in you towards sanctification. There’s no other way. The Bible makes that clear.

[@nathankimball5380]

@@theservantsresource3565 my search for truth led me to the Catholic faith. Your interpretation of scripture has no authority. The bible was canonized by the Catholic church. No offense but it's really crazy how disrespectful and arrogant Protestants are towards the longest standing christian church

[@AnakinSkywalker-mm6ge]

@@theservantsresource3565 So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you." (John 6:53) How do you explain this verse? Jesus said to do this in remembrance of me. I see Catholics following this command, do you?

[@michelleheltz6116]

Whoever wrote that is not a practicing Catholic and Mike Gendron probably knows this. Nowhere in the catechism does it say Jesus comes off His throne. This is slander!

[@duck-fil-a3606]

Actually it was Roman Catholic Priest John O’Brien in his book ‘The Faith of Millions’.

[@whathappening5323]

@@duck-fil-a3606 1-third DON'T believe in the Real Present. In America, 37% approx., don't believe in the RP. Do you know what the RCC used to do to those who didn't believe their Dogma? When they had the power to curtail people's right to think and question the Dogma of the RCC?

[@madeleinelindstrom7326]

If Christ is not truly present in the Holy Eucharist then He is a liar. He said, "Behold, this is my body." He said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you." And, "I am with you until the end of time." To proclaim that Jesus is not really present and that the Sacrifice is not real is leading people away from the real presence of Christ, from salvation itself! You need to repent for judgment will fall heavily upon you!

[@geordiewishart1683]

First - there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal Nowhere in scripture do we find this teaching. We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words when talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,” (John 6:63). He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood. But, a Catholic might object and say that Jesus clearly said, “This is My blood…” and “This is my body…” This is true, but Jesus frequently spoke in spiritual terms: “I am the bread of life,” (John 6:48); “I am the door,” (John 10:7,9); “I am the resurrection and the life,” (John 11:25); “I am the true vine,” (John 15:1), etc. In the context of John 6, Jesus is telling His disciples that they must eat His body and blood (John 6:53). He clearly says He was speaking in spiritual terms, “…the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,” (John 6:63). Second - the elements of the communion supper were still referred to as bread and wine After The institution of the communion supper, both the elements were still referred to as bread and wine. “And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom,” (Matt. 26:26-29). After Jesus said, “This is my blood,” (Matt. 26:28), he said, “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom,” (Matt. 26:29). Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as “the fruit of the vine” if it was his literal blood? He called it wine. “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup,” (1 Cor. 11:23-28). If the elements were changed and were really the body and blood, then why does Paul refer to the element of bread as bread and not the literal body of Christ? Third - there is no indication the disciples thought the elements changed There is no indication in the biblical accounts of the Last Supper that the disciples thought that the bread and wine changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Are we to believe that the disciples who were sitting right there with Jesus actually thought that what Jesus was holding in his hands was his literal body and blood? There is no indication that they thought this. Fourth - there is no indication the disciples worshipped the elements We see no indication at all that the disciples worshipped the elements. The adoration of the Eucharist is practiced during the Mass. Catholicism says, “Moreover, the Catholic Church has held firm to this belief in the presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist not only in her teaching but in her life as well since she has at all times paid this great Sacrament the worship known as “latria,” which may be given to God alone.”1 Where is the worship given the Sacrament by the disciples anywhere in the New Testament? It is not there. Fifth - the supper was instituted before Jesus’ crucifixion The Mass is supposed to be a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. Therefore, according to Roman Catholic theology, the bread and wine become the broken body and shed blood of Christ and are, somehow, the crucified body and blood of Christ. But how can this be since Jesus instituted the Supper before He was crucified? Are we to conclude that at the Last Supper, when they were all at the table, that when Jesus broke the bread, it actually became His sacrificial body-even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? Likewise are we to conclude that when Jesus gave the wine, that it became His actual sacrificial blood - even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? That would make no sense at all.

[@geordiewishart1683]

Sixth - the Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism. What does the Scripture say concerning this? “For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off,” (Lev. 17:14). Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ. To the RCC it is not just symbolic; it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ. Some Roman Catholics respond by saying that Jesus had instituted the new and everlasting covenant in which the sacrificed body and blood of Christ was reality. Therefore, because it was a new covenant, it was also the sacrificed body and blood. But this cannot work because the new covenant could not yet be instituted until after the death of Christ as the Scriptures state. “And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it,” (Heb. 9:15-16). Therefore we can conclude that the Levitical law was still in effect because the new covenant had not yet been established. So, the Roman Catholic position would have Jesus himself violating Old Testament law by having the disciples drink the blood-if it were literal blood. Yet another response is that in Mark 7:19 it says, “‘because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?’ (Thus He declared all foods clean).” The problem with this response is that it tends to set scripture against scripture and doesn’t really address the issue of Leviticus 17:14 and the particularly relevant comments by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:19-20 also forbidding the eating of blood. Therefore, it seems that Jesus was declaring all animals were clean in the sense that they do not defile a person. Again, in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, James the apostle gives instructions and said, “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood,” (Acts 15:19-20). Some say this refers only to animal blood. But if that is so, then “all foods clean” (ref. Mark 7:19) would have to include animal blood. But, that doesn’t make sense in light of the instruction is still to abstain from drinking blood. Seventh - it is a violation of the incarnation The biblical doctrine of the incarnation states that the Word which was God and was with God (John 1:1), became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). This “became flesh” involves what is known as the hypostatic union. This is the teaching that in the one person of Christ are two natures: divine and human. That is, Jesus is both God and man at the same time, and He will forever be God and man. Furthermore, by definition, for Jesus to be human, He must be located in one place. This is the nature of being human. A human male does not have the ability to be omnipresent. He can only be in one place at one time. To say that Jesus in His physical form is in more than one place at a time is to deny the incarnation. That is, it denies that Jesus is completely and totally a man - since a man can only be it one place at one time. Therefore, to say that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is to violate the doctrine of the incarnation by stating that Christ is physically present all over the planet as the mass is celebrated. This is a serious problem and a serious denial of the true and absolute incarnation of the Word of God as a man. But, did not Jesus say in Matt. 28:18-20 that He would be with the disciples always-even to the ends of the earth? Is this not a declaration that Jesus will be physically present everywhere? No, this is not what is stated. The answer is found in the teaching of the communicatio idiomatum. This is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human nature are ascribed to the single person of Christ. It does not mean, however, that anything particular to the divine nature was communicated to the human nature. Likewise, it does not mean that anything particular to the human nature was communicated to the divine nature. It means that the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ. Therefore, Jesus is omnipresent-not in His human nature but in His divine nature. To make this more clear, let’s look at some verses that illustrate the communicatio idiomatum: “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was,” (John 17:5) “And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man,” (John 3:13). Please notice that in these two verses, Jesus lays claim to the glory that He had with the Father before the foundation of the world. He also claims to have descended from heaven, but how could these be true since He is a man? The answer is that the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ. Therefore, the person of Christ could claim to have glory with the Father and could claim to descend from heaven. But we know that the man Jesus, in the flesh, did not exist until His conception. Furthermore, this means that the two natures of Christ are distinct, yet they are in Union in the one person of Christ (the hypostatic union). It further means that the attributes of the divine and the attributes of the human are not transferred to one another-the divine does not become localized and the human does not become infinite. If this were the case, then the nature of the divine and the nature of the human will be violated. Therefore, we can see that for Jesus to be a man, He must retain the attributes of humanity. This means that He must be localized, and it means He cannot be physically omnipresent. If He were, by definition He would not be a man. But the Roman Catholic position is that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ, and this violates the doctrine of the incarnation. Therefore, transubstantiation cannot be the correct teaching of Scripture.

[@andrewk.7498]

Idolatrous catholics!

[@kell_checks_in]

Sleazy narcissist propagandists! Hey, why should you be the only one who gets to wallow in all that yummy egotistical outrage?

[@Joshula337]

Yeah except this whole video is incorrect. knowcatholicism.blogspot.com/2014/02/blasphemy-and-heresy-in-faith-of.html?m=1

[@nathankimball5380]

No idolatry is a major sin in Catholicism. You can look it up in any official Catholic catechism

[@theopneustos3712]

@@nathankimball5380 Then, when will they stop?

[@nathankimball5380]

@@theopneustos3712 ?

[@laddy2737]

😂😂😂😂 FAKE NEWS BRO GET REAL AND DO RESEARCH

[@dantealighieri1566]

Prepare to get debunked by Trent Horn!

[@floogelhornzzz4770]

Can he debunk this?: Blasphemous titles claimed for the pope have been embellished and enlarged over the centuries. But a few of these boastful claims appear in an ecclesiastical (Roman Catholic) dictionary, by Lucius Ferraris, entitled _Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica,_ Vol. VI, pgs. 438, 442, article "Pope." _The Catholic Encyclopedia,_ 1913 edition, Vol. VI, p. 48, speaks of this book as "a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge," and "a precious mine of information." "The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God." "The pope is of such lofty and supreme dignity that, properly speaking, he has not been established in any rank of dignity, but rather has been placed upon the very summit of all ranks of dignities. . . ." "He is likewise the divine monarch and supreme emperor and king of kings." "Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions." "So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the pope." "The pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been entrusted by the omnipotent God direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly kingdom." "The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God." The above quotes are from _What's Behind The New World Order?_ Go to CatholicNewWorldOrder.com and click on the top link. ---------- "The Pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ." _-Decretal De Translat. - Espiscop. Cap_ "I am all in all and *above all,* so that God, Himself and I, the Vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do ALMOST ALL THAT GOD CAN DO . . . What therefore, can you make of me but God?" -Pope Nicholas, quoted in _Antichrist_ by Ian Paisley, pg. 54. "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means I am God on the earth." -Pope Pius XI, April 30, 1922. The pope calls himself God, i.e., "Lord God the pope," "another God on earth." "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty," Pope Leo XIII said in an _Encyclical Letter,_ June 20, 1894. "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh," the _Catholic National_ said in July 1895. And every priest is an "Alter Christus," Another Christ. So every priest is Jesus. Plus, during the Mass the priest transubstantiates the bread into the literal, "real presence" of Christ. In other words, man creates God. He is "the creator of his Creator. . . . 'The power of the priest,' says St. Bernardine of Sienna, 'is the power of the _divine person;_ for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world.' . . . As the Word of God created heaven and earth, so, says St. Jerome, the words of the priest create Jesus Christ." _-The Dignity and Duties of the Priest_ by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Ch. 1, Part IV, pg. 11. How is any of this _not_ blasphemy?! Christianity teaches that the pope is the Antichrist. The proud pontiff's official title is Vicar of Christ, meaning "in the place of Christ." Vicar of Christ translated into Greek is Antichristos, in English Antichrist, also meaning "in the place of Christ." Vicar of Christ and Antichrist are the exact same word in two different languages. Vicar of Christ in Latin is Vicarius Filii Dei, meaning Vicar of the Son of God, or Vicar of Christ. VICARIVS FILII DEI. Add up the 11 Roman numerals and you get 666. Rev. 13:18. angelfire.com/on/3angels Revelation 13. 1 I . . . saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns . . . and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 2 And _the _*_dragon (Satan)_*_ gave him (the beast) his power, and his seat,_ and great authority. 4 And _they worshipped the _*_dragon_*_ which gave power unto the beast:_ and they worshipped the beast . . . 5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies . . . 6 And he opened his mouth in *blasphemy against God,* to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, *_Come out of her,_** my people,* that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities." Rev. 18:4, 5.

[@synestauromai]

Jesus Christ has founded only ONE church and that is the Catholic Church. If Jesus is God, Catholic Church can't teach anything wrong. Anybody who rejects Catholic Church knowingly, rejects Jesus.

[@jewelanna2959]

Jesus Christ did not found the Catholic Church.

[@jesusistheonlywayjohn146]

and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. Mark 1:15 KJV for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23 KJV For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23 KJV Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 1 Corinthians 15:1‭-‬4 KJV that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:9 KJV Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6 KJV For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8‭-‬9 KJV

[@andreazumpano8006]

How about doing some research. The real body and blood of Jesus Christ is in every consecrated Eucharist. There’s plenty of proof. This is what Jesus meant at The Last Supper. The disbelief is what’s so sad. The Catholic Mass relives The Passion of Christ every day. Even Martin Luther and other Protestants believed this in the beginning. What’s happened?

[@CatholicWisdom]

American education happened, unfortunately.

[@geordiewishart1683]

Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states, The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (CCC, 1376). Because they are the presence of Christ himself, Catholics worship and adore the elements. The Mass contains a series of rituals leading up to the Lord’s Supper which also contains a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. Furthermore, transubstantiation states that the substance of the elements is miraculously changed even though their appearance is not. In other words, the bread and wine will appear as bread and wine under close scientific examination, but the true substance is mystically the Body and Blood of Christ. Synonymous with Transubstantiation is the doctrine of the Real Presence. Where transubstantiation is the process of the change, the real presence is the result of that change. In other words, the doctrine of the real presence states that the bread and wine contain the actual presence of Christ in bodily form as a result of the process of transubstantiation. Roman Catholicism states that the incarnation of Christ itself, where Jesus was a man but contained an invisible divine nature, is analogous to the doctrine of the real presence. Some of the verses used to substantiate this teaching are the following: “for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins,” (Matt. 26:28). “The Jews, therefore, began to argue with one another, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 53 Jesus, therefore, said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves,'” (John 6:52-53). 1 Cor. 11:27, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord,” (1 Cor. 11:27). Can we conclude from the above verses that the Communion Supper actually involves the change of the elements into the mystical Body and Blood of Christ? Let’s take a look. First - there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal Nowhere in scripture do we find this teaching. We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words when talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,” (John 6:63). He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood. But, a Catholic might object and say that Jesus clearly said, “This is My blood…” and “This is my body…” This is true, but Jesus frequently spoke in spiritual terms: “I am the bread of life,” (John 6:48); “I am the door,” (John 10:7,9); “I am the resurrection and the life,” (John 11:25); “I am the true vine,” (John 15:1), etc. In the context of John 6, Jesus is telling His disciples that they must eat His body and blood (John 6:53). He clearly says He was speaking in spiritual terms, “…the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,” (John 6:63). Second - the elements of the communion supper were still referred to as bread and wine After The institution of the communion supper, both the elements were still referred to as bread and wine. “And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom,” (Matt. 26:26-29). After Jesus said, “This is my blood,” (Matt. 26:28), he said, “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom,” (Matt. 26:29). Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as “the fruit of the vine” if it was his literal blood? He called it wine. “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup,” (1 Cor. 11:23-28). If the elements were changed and were really the body and blood, then why does Paul refer to the element of bread as bread and not the literal body of Christ? Third - there is no indication the disciples thought the elements changed There is no indication in the biblical accounts of the Last Supper that the disciples thought that the bread and wine changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Are we to believe that the disciples who were sitting right there with Jesus actually thought that what Jesus was holding in his hands was his literal body and blood? There is no indication that they thought this. Fourth - there is no indication the disciples worshipped the elements We see no indication at all that the disciples worshipped the elements. The adoration of the Eucharist is practiced during the Mass. Catholicism says, “Moreover, the Catholic Church has held firm to this belief in the presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist not only in her teaching but in her life as well since she has at all times paid this great Sacrament the worship known as “latria,” which may be given to God alone.”1 Where is the worship given the Sacrament by the disciples anywhere in the New Testament? It is not there. Fifth - the supper was instituted before Jesus’ crucifixion The Mass is supposed to be a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. Therefore, according to Roman Catholic theology, the bread and wine become the broken body and shed blood of Christ and are, somehow, the crucified body and blood of Christ. But how can this be since Jesus instituted the Supper before He was crucified? Are we to conclude that at the Last Supper, when they were all at the table, that when Jesus broke the bread, it actually became His sacrificial body-even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? Likewise are we to conclude that when Jesus gave the wine, that it became His actual sacrificial blood - even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? That would make no sense at all.

[@geordiewishart1683]

Sixth - the Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism. What does the Scripture say concerning this? “For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off,” (Lev. 17:14). Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ. To the RCC it is not just symbolic; it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ. Some Roman Catholics respond by saying that Jesus had instituted the new and everlasting covenant in which the sacrificed body and blood of Christ was reality. Therefore, because it was a new covenant, it was also the sacrificed body and blood. But this cannot work because the new covenant could not yet be instituted until after the death of Christ as the Scriptures state. “And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it,” (Heb. 9:15-16). Therefore we can conclude that the Levitical law was still in effect because the new covenant had not yet been established. So, the Roman Catholic position would have Jesus himself violating Old Testament law by having the disciples drink the blood-if it were literal blood. Yet another response is that in Mark 7:19 it says, “‘because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?’ (Thus He declared all foods clean).” The problem with this response is that it tends to set scripture against scripture and doesn’t really address the issue of Leviticus 17:14 and the particularly relevant comments by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:19-20 also forbidding the eating of blood. Therefore, it seems that Jesus was declaring all animals were clean in the sense that they do not defile a person. Again, in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, James the apostle gives instructions and said, “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood,” (Acts 15:19-20). Some say this refers only to animal blood. But if that is so, then “all foods clean” (ref. Mark 7:19) would have to include animal blood. But, that doesn’t make sense in light of the instruction is still to abstain from drinking blood. Seventh - it is a violation of the incarnation The biblical doctrine of the incarnation states that the Word which was God and was with God (John 1:1), became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). This “became flesh” involves what is known as the hypostatic union. This is the teaching that in the one person of Christ are two natures: divine and human. That is, Jesus is both God and man at the same time, and He will forever be God and man. Furthermore, by definition, for Jesus to be human, He must be located in one place. This is the nature of being human. A human male does not have the ability to be omnipresent. He can only be in one place at one time. To say that Jesus in His physical form is in more than one place at a time is to deny the incarnation. That is, it denies that Jesus is completely and totally a man - since a man can only be it one place at one time. Therefore, to say that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is to violate the doctrine of the incarnation by stating that Christ is physically present all over the planet as the mass is celebrated. This is a serious problem and a serious denial of the true and absolute incarnation of the Word of God as a man. But, did not Jesus say in Matt. 28:18-20 that He would be with the disciples always-even to the ends of the earth? Is this not a declaration that Jesus will be physically present everywhere? No, this is not what is stated. The answer is found in the teaching of the communicatio idiomatum. This is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human nature are ascribed to the single person of Christ. It does not mean, however, that anything particular to the divine nature was communicated to the human nature. Likewise, it does not mean that anything particular to the human nature was communicated to the divine nature. It means that the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ. Therefore, Jesus is omnipresent-not in His human nature but in His divine nature. To make this more clear, let’s look at some verses that illustrate the communicatio idiomatum: “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was,” (John 17:5) “And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man,” (John 3:13). Please notice that in these two verses, Jesus lays claim to the glory that He had with the Father before the foundation of the world. He also claims to have descended from heaven, but how could these be true since He is a man? The answer is that the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ. Therefore, the person of Christ could claim to have glory with the Father and could claim to descend from heaven. But we know that the man Jesus, in the flesh, did not exist until His conception. Furthermore, this means that the two natures of Christ are distinct, yet they are in Union in the one person of Christ (the hypostatic union). It further means that the attributes of the divine and the attributes of the human are not transferred to one another-the divine does not become localized and the human does not become infinite. If this were the case, then the nature of the divine and the nature of the human will be violated. Therefore, we can see that for Jesus to be a man, He must retain the attributes of humanity. This means that He must be localized, and it means He cannot be physically omnipresent. If He were, by definition He would not be a man. But the Roman Catholic position is that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ, and this violates the doctrine of the incarnation. Therefore, transubstantiation cannot be the correct teaching of Scripture. Eighth - the Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ The Bible tells us: “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,” (Heb. 10:10-14). In the Roman Catholic Mass, there is a sacrifice of Christ. In other words, in the ceremonies, is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice of Christ per the Mass. This is an obvious contradiction to the Scriptures which teach us that Christ died once for all, and that by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. It does not state in the Word of God that the sacrifice of Christ must be repeated in order to forgive us of our sins or somehow help us to maintain our salvation by the infusion of grace. The fact that Christ died once and the sacrifice occurred once is proof that it is sufficient to cleanse us of our sins. We connect with the sacrifice of Christ by faith - not by a ceremony. Conclusion It should be obvious to anyone who believes the word of God that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is not biblical. For the reasons listed above, we urge that Roman Catholics recognize that Jesus Christ died once for all and that there is no need to participate in a ritual where His re-sacrifice is practiced. Finally, because the sacrifice of Christ was once for all, it is sufficient to save us; and we do not need to maintain our salvation by our efforts or by our participation in the Lord’s supper. It is not a means of grace that secures our salvation or infuses into us the grace needed that then enables us to maintain our salvation by our works. Instead, we are made right before God by faith. “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,” (Rom. 3:24). “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” (Rom. 3:28). “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness,” (Rom. 4:3). “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith,” (Rom. 4:13). “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Rom. 5:1). “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved,” (Rom. 10:9).

[@margrose5]

I pray your eyes will be opened.

[@floogelhornzzz4770]

They advanced and learned better. God never intended that the Protestant Reformation should end with the reformers of the 1500s, but that man should always be learning and advancing in religious knowledge until the close of time, putting away our old ideas and learning more of God's will, not stagnating. "The light is to shine more and more unto the perfect day." "Knowledge shall be increased." The Apostle Peter said that "Christ also hath *_once_*_ suffered for sins,_ the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." 1 Peter 3:18. In Hebrews 10:10-12 it says that Jesus Christ offered His body *_"once_*_ for all"_ and "after he had offered *_one_*_ sacrifice for sins _*_forever,_* sat down on the right hand of God." And in the Revelation of Jesus Christ He says, "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, _I am alive _*_for evermore,_* Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death." Rev. 1:18. If Jesus is telling you that He suffered and died for our sins only *_once_* and is alive for evermore, _never to die again,_ why do you keep putting Him to death? _He_ offered His body *_once._* So _who,_ exactly, is offering you His body again??

[@richardounjian9270]

This guy is a heretic. A true heretic!!!!

[@Wgaither1]

He’s a man of God