The Bible on the Eucharist: Strange, Sacrificial, Serious, Sacramental, and Shocking

[@shamelesspopery]

New upload that fixed the freezing! Sorry for the inconvenience and enjoy 😄

[@jayv9006]

Thank you for your thoughtful explanations. Please address v 63 on John 6. I get tripped up on this quite easily and it does sound like Jesus is countermanding himself. I know that He isn't but what would be a good way to explain this verse in light of everything that he had said earlier.

[@josephross1900]

​@@jayv9006the best way I heard it was when he referred to the flesh counts for nothing, in this context the flesh is the sinful nature of man.

[@nerlam1]

The fact that this channel only has 11k subscribers is actually WILD. Amazing dive into the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist

[@jamesv2471]

All the more we who are subscribed need to spread the word!!!

[@daniels3537]

The channel is fairly new. Give it time, and KZbin's algorithms will draw in more viewers/subscribers. The content is top notch. I've learned so much from Joe since he began his blog back in 2009. I'm quite sure I've read every post he ever wrote, some many times! It's been fun watching him transition to full time apologetics and working at Catholic Answers.

[@sethw7399]

Im converting from nondenom fundamentalists to Catholicism. This is a great video and the verses take on a whole new meaning when you think of them as the Eucharist.

[@garyr.8116]

​ @sethw7399 Take a look at this; the Eucharist was taken away from Adam and Eve @ Genesis 3:22 --> then restored to those who 'overcome' at Rev 2:7 % 17 !!!! God 'bookmarks' what's important in the whole of scripture by showing us the End (Rev 2:7&17) from the Beginning (Genesis 3:22 & Genesis 14:18) making scripture REAL, because only God can do this - Isaiah 46:10 " I make known the End from the Beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My purpose shall stand, And I will accomplish all My pleasure," !!!!!!

[@mikelopez8564]

@@garyr.8116what?! How are you coming to this?

[@garyr.8116]

@@mikelopez8564 By reading the scriptures! Did you read Genesis 3:22 (**EAT** to have eternal life) & Rev 2:7 (given right to **EAT** from tree of life) & John 6 (unless you **EAT** my flesh you have no life in you) & he who **EATS** my flesh and drinks my blood will never die) !

[@daniels3537]

@@mikelopez8564Great question! If we take a big step back, consider all the consequences of the fall: not only did Adam and Eve break the covenant and bring death to all, but they also lost access to the paradise that God had created for them, including the fruit of the tree of life, a fruit which hung from a tree, and which by eating they would persevere in immortality. Further, two angels with swords were posted at the entrance to Eden, showing that only by blood can one even attempt to enter Eden...and that no mere human would ever be able to get back in by their own power. Imagine, just for a moment, if you were Adam and Eve, their offspring, or any Old Testament believer. This is your story. You and all of God's people are banished from paradise, wanderers, with no access to the Tree of Life, now seemingly lost to history. And then suddenly...Christ comes, and after his death, resurrection, and ascension to heaven, God gives St. John a revelation that we have regained access to the Tree of Life. That revelation should hit us like a thunderclap. And then what do we see in Revelation, we see the "Lamb, standing as though slain," our savior who had hung from the tree of the cross and who offers his sacrifice "once for all" time on the altar of the new and more perfect paradise, heaven. And we on earth, who enter into that heavenly liturgy portrayed in Revelation through the Mass, get to partake of that "medicine of immortality," as St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Eucharist, as we consume Jesus's body, blood, soul, and divinity. Because many non-Catholics do not have this view of salvation, salvation is often spoken of as salvation FROM sin. But being saved from sin, as glorious and wonderful as that is, only rises to bringing us back to our state in the garden of Eden. No, praise Jesus, our "happy fault" in Eden brought about "so great a salvation" (as we proclaim at Easter Vigil). We are saved FOR union with God, to be "partakers of the Divine Nature," and we enter into that communion/partaking through our communion in the Eucharist (1 Cor. 10-11). This is the faith of the Church. Let all Christians say "Amen!" There is no news as good as this! As St. Paul says, every time we partake of the Eucharist, we proclaim the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Eucharist IS the Good News, because the Eucharist IS Jesus. He became lower than the angels (Heb. 1), he shed blood for the forgiveness of our sins, paving our way to the New Eden of Heaven!

[@irishmclass2042]

If you read and meditate on John 6, and re-read and pray, then look at all the scriptures Joe has noted, Jesus himself will convict you on the Eucharist and the Catholic Sacrament and Teaching. It is straight from the Bible! Now you can understand “the real presence” doctrine!

[@HumanDignity10]

Thank you for the thorough and thoughtful explanations Joe! It’s baffling to me that Protestants accuse us of not focusing on Jesus when that’s literally what we do at every Mass, which is offered daily.

[@paularnold3745]

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my And we maintain our unity in His body. He is in us and we are in Him.

[@ilonkastille2993]

Pure ignorance is destroying them.

[@Questions-l8r]

I would not say they are ignorant. They might be over thinking issues. Do this in remembrance of me, creates a snag for them. They also get hung up on Jesus was a one time sacrifice, often times saying that he said it was finished as well as other verses. As I have mentioned other times using a verse and not the whole letter or story line can mislead people or cause confusion. Ambiguity is there especially when people flip back and forth between literal and figurative while using the Bible.

[@Redwarfa]

@@Questions-l8r ignorant? Catholics weren't allowed to read the bible until the 50s and masses were given in Latin to keep you all ignorant

[@NTNG13]

"If you couldn't be confused with a cannibal then you're not eucharistic enough" - Ngl sounds pretty cool, I'll take it.

[@sebinantony6983]

However hard a Catholic would try to convince a Protestsnt on Eucharist, the more he will remain Protestant. If they accept this the very moment protestantism will cease to exist. To a Catholic, he has utmost faith in Jesus' words because He cannot cheat or cannot be cheated. Even at the time of Jesus, many left him hearing this. But Jesus did not went back from his statement. Instead, he asked the desciples, wheter they also wanted to go. For them, Peter replied, where shall we go, your words are eternal life giving words. So, there are skeptics from that time onwards. Even before the Protestants originate, in 1200s on skeptic challenged St.Antony. St. Antony accepted the challenge. The skeptic unfed hid donkey for a week. Thereafter, he brought it before the church. He kept the feed at a visible distance and then asked Antony to bring the Echarist. When the Eucharist was brought outside the church, he released the donkey. The hungry donkey instead of running towards the food, went towards the Eucharist and kneeled down before it. There are so many other Eucharistic miracles took place, one of them had been examined by a scientific team of the UNO in 1975, and their study confirmed it as part of the living tissues of the heart of a person going severe physical stress. The blood group idetified as AB+, the same blood group found in the Shroud of Tourin. In another case, the DNA was tested and could found only the part of the female side. The Bible says Jesus was born by the act of the Holy Spirit. So, the Catholics, who are followers of Christ through Peter have no iota of doubt about the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

[@truthseeker5489]

As a nonChristian who is looking into Christianity, I agree with the presenter that this IS strange. As I have learned more, I recognize the polarization regarding this teaching. The Protestants I have spoken with insist that Jesus's words (i.e., eat my body and drink my blood) cannot be taken literally. I don't understand why they make this claim because Jesus' audience takes him literally. "The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:52) Whatever else may or may not be going on here, it seems irrefutable that Jesus spoke literally. The preceding verse provides additional evidence that Jesus was speaking literally. Jesus says, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." All the Christians I have interacted with so far believe Jesus meant that he intended to offer himself literally (not symbolically) on the cross.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

Thank you for looking into our beliefs!

[@TruthHasSpoken]

"Jesus' audience takes him literally. " Also must read para 1 in Chapter 7 as there were no chapter divisions when scripture was written: 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him. _1. After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, _*_because the Jews sought to kill him_* ** the Jews took him literally too, adding a reason for wanting him killed.

[@1901elina]

I'm a recent convert to Christianity, as well. I highly suggest watching the Pints of Aquinas episode with Father Andrew Dalton. It's on the scientific study of Jesus's burial cloth and it all but proves the resurrection. It's amazing. Enjoy : )

[@TruthHasSpoken]

Note, do watch the video here by Dr Brant Pitre, _Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist._ He has book of the same title which I have given away numerous times to both Catholics and non-Catholics. It's very helpful to see the Old Testament typology that foreshadows the New Testament fulfillment. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hmWYc3t6h6Zqprcsi=J2wuh-sy0g1ZP-1E

[@Redwarfa]

Most protestants do believe this is literal ,the Anglicans ,the Lutherans Don't believe Catholic propaganda and remember this is between you and Jesus and is no one else's business

[@mikeoconnor4590]

I’ve always found it interesting that this teaching on the Eucharist is the very issue that it seems that caused Judas to stop believing in Jesus . Judas s stumbling block

[@tiagorodrigues3730]

I'm not sure that this is the case, actually. The theory I've heard from a homily was that Judas was actually a Judaean nationalist, and did not hate Jesus at all, but thought he would be the kind of military leader who would push the Romans out of Judah and then become a victorious general, as the Jews at that time thought. So the betrayal of Jesus was a very deliberate way to force Jesus's hand into jumpstarting the war for the independence of Israel, which is why after Jesus allows himself to be arrested rather than start an uprising he immediately goes to the Sanhedrin to throw the money into their faces and then goes out to hang himself. Of course, this does not make Judas into a misunderstood figure; he was wrong in trying to force the Messiah to fit into his conception of him, and even worse, he despaired afterwards. I'm sure that had he not despaired and killed himself, even he might have had an opportunity to confess his sins and be forgiven like Saul. But he did not, so his story ends there.

[@wynbrown5985]

That's weird. I was just thinking exactly what you said today. Jesus would have forgiven Judas and Judas would not have hanged himself. Regards from Ireland. ​@tiagorodrigues3730

[@theo-dr2dz]

@@tiagorodrigues3730 The idea that Judas is a Sicarean, a nationalistic group that committed political murders, is based entirely on his nickname Iskariot. But that could also mean that he is from a place named Kariot. Judas was a very common name. I think it could also be like this: Judas expected that Jesus would either be acquitted (he couldn't know that Jesus would be crucified) or that He would somehow get out of it, miraculously if that was what it takes. He was God after all. But it all backfired horribly: Jesus was crucified and died. All seemed to be lost. And it was all his fault. So he despaired and hanged himself.

[@rafexrafexowski4754]

​@@tiagorodrigues3730 We also have to remember that Judas' betrayal was not the only bad thing he did. He also withheld money that was supposed to be given to the poor (John 12:6).

[@franng7480]

Did our Lord not say, after the Bread of Life discourse "yet one of you is a devil". Please stop trying to make Judas less of the devil he was. Our Lord tried to save him, but he would not have it. The matter ends there as he de spaired of forgiveness, as many do.

[@BensWorkshop]

Wait! What? The Holy Spirit and Jesus so abandoned the Church that it was corrupted in the first generation taught by the Apostles? If true, that would mean Jesus's promises are no good and therefore there is no reason to believe in them at all. And yet the people who profess that, claim to be Christian and claim Roman Catholics are not! Absolutely wild!

[@danielc608]

This was an amazing teaching. I feel so much stronger in my Faith after hearing this. Praise be to Jesus and His Holy Curch.

[@josh39684]

My mom believes that Jesus wasn't speaking literally because if he was he was breaking the Mosaic law. Not Catholic because I still live with my anti Catholic parents. I want to be prepared to face the whirlwind of anti Catholic hate when I do. These podcasts help a lot

[@bethanyjohnson8001]

God be with you!

[@georgefuentes4112]

God be with you. Call on the Holy Spirit to be with you whenever you need.

[@RenegadeCatholic]

I've been there, buddy. I come from an extremely anti-catholic fundamentalist family. They basically acted like I didn't exist for over a year after I converted. As a result, I became obsessed with apologetics. Fast forward 3 years later to today, and practically my entire immediate family denies sola scriptura and eternal security, just as a result of charitable conversations once they decided to start speaking to me again. Isaiah 6:8

[@josh39684]

​​@po18guydefinitely. I wrote a 460 plus page paper on church history and Catholic dogma as well. In the final editing process and also going to do a short paper on the Eucharist as well. Trying to become prepared

[@josh39684]

​@@RenegadeCatholicit's a very difficult time for me. Praying the Rosary everyday as well as divine mercy chaplet and st Michael chaplet as well

[@robertotapia8086]

@Shamelesspopery @Joe Heschmeyer thank you for all that your doing to teach us our Catholic faith and at the same time teach our separated brothers, GOD Bless your family and you.Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷

[@hoffmantrey]

Hey Joel, I’m a 54-yr old, 21-yr Catholic and your podcast is one of the best. I wanted to see if you or someone you know has used Elisha’s bones as an apologetic for praying to saints? (Referring to when a murdered man’s corpse came in contact with Elisha’s bones and rose from the dead.) Seems like a very strong biblical example of heavenly intercession through the remains of a saint. Thoughts?

[@damnedmadman]

Yep, definitely. I think he even mentioned it in one of his videos.

[@Redwarfa]

The saints in the new testament were alive and were the congregation of the churches

[@PhillipHartley-y6i]

So true

[@suzannelangdon]

Joe thanks be to God and His Holy Blessed Mother that He has given us souls like you 🙏 I'm lucky enough to be born Catholic and I could never thank God enough for this blessing. To have the privilege of The Holy Eucharist my entire life blows my mind and I hope and pray that so many will have their hearts opened by your videos. There is no greater love than wanting our protestants brothers and sisters to have The Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour like we do ❤

[@Redwarfa]

Why are you thanking Mary? What has she to do with anything My children do not thank me for giving birth to them or put me above other woman for doing so

[@suzannelangdon]

@@Redwarfa it's your pride that is comparing yourself and your children to Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Holy Blessed Mother. I will pray for you 🙏

[@Redwarfa]

@@suzannelangdon no . It's because I believe in scripture Why do you pray to dead woman,when the bible tells you not to? The saints in the bible were the Christians and the apostles admonished those who wanted to revere them

[@suzannelangdon]

@@Redwarfa my Lord and Saviour is a God of the living not the dead. Those in The Presence of The Almighty God are more alive than me or you. Turn your heart over to Him Who Gave His Life for you and Let Him change your life and Bring you to The Fullness of His Truth and His Holy Church 🙏

[@Redwarfa]

@@suzannelangdon so I can pray to my relatives who are in heaven,according to you Yet the old testament says consulting with the deceased is an abomination to god If people are buried,they are dead. You do not consult with spirits

[@zzzaaayyynnn]

Such an elightening commentary! I was recently at an nondenom church where the preacher was ridiculing the importance of the eucharist WHILE THE CHURCH HAD THE "LORD'S SUPPER." I just don't understand how some Christians can't see how central this rite is.

[@wonchurlyi6367]

So grateful for such clear and intellectual honesty apologetics.

[@MrsYasha1984]

That was amazing! Thank you so much Joe, this really did put things into context. I love how weird our faith can be 😊

[@crusaderACR]

"I love how weird our faith can be" I love it. That's how it really feels when it comes to things like the Eucharist. Hey, if the Apostles found it shocking and strange so can I, right? But the Eucharist is still such a blessing. A great honor.

[@ozoz2931]

Awesome video! Great points for sure. It goes without saying that to believe in what most evangelicals believe, you have to also believe that the church started about 450 years ago. What they believe about the Eucharist, salvation etc, didn’t come about until then.

[@michaelbledsoe4355]

The Eucharist didn't come until the 12th century Why? If it's a true sacrificial ritual

[@michaelbledsoe4355]

@@TheCoachsCoach933 You should study the history of this doctrine and practice. The apostles didn't practice this sacrificial ritual. Protestants believe in the real presence in the eucharistic but not the sacrifice

[@michaelbledsoe4355]

@@TheCoachsCoach933 Transubstantiation didn't exist until the 12th century

[@michaelbledsoe4355]

@TheCoachsCoach933 Can you provide me those references please

[@michaelbledsoe4355]

@@TheCoachsCoach933 Paul's point is that by consuming the bread and wine together, we all participate, symbolically, in the body and blood of Christ. They become part of who we are. He will go on to link this idea with the eating of food that has been offered to idols.

[@gregcook9856]

This ties in really well with Brant Pitre's "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist."

[@angelahull9064]

And Michal Hunt's "Jesus and the Mystery of the Tamid Sacrifice"

[@brob368]

You know how you read the Bible and at the same time don’t take it in till it’s the right time? Thank you Lord for this teaching.

[@MsCazanova55]

We have the many Eucharistic miracles through the ages, some of which have been scientifically tested, which shows that Jesus continues to show us signs pointing us to the truth..

[@D12Min]

Satan can do miracles too, careful here. A miracle alone is not proof that God is behind something.

[@iggyantioch]

What miracles

[@bourbonrebel5515]

@@D12MinWhat miracles does Satan perform?

[@D12Min]

@@bourbonrebel5515 Exodus 7:11 But Pharaoh also called the wise men and the ]sorcerers; so the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. 12 For every man threw down his rod, and they became serpents

[@bourbonrebel5515]

@@D12Min Interesting point. Although I would like to point out the impossibility of Satan performing the Eucharist.

[@juphy7525]

Another great episode. I have been bingeing your podcasts while decorating my house for Christmas and each episode has been edifying and educational. Appreciated your theory about the juxtaposition between Judas’ betrayal of Jesus at the Passover beginning with his doubt about the Eucharist at the prior Passover.

[@rodrigofernandes5242]

Joe, o seu conteúdo é muito bom. Você explica as coisas de forma clara e objetiva.

[@cribedadabecri5764]

As always, incredible stuff, Joe. Poor brothers in Christ that dont beleive in the real presence. They must feel as those good disciples who left Jesus, not even asking him for an explanation. Here you have an outstanding, explanation, good brothers. ¿Can you ask for something clearer than this?

[@PInk77W1]

I was debating a Protestant online I brought up Jn 6. “My flesh is real food.” The Protestants answer to me was “Obviously he didn’t mean that.”

[@Defender_of_Faith]

Joe does a video on the Our Father laying out Catholic practices. Really good video.

[@levrai944]

So basically their basically calling Our Lord a liar or at the very least a conman. It’s disgusting

[@PaxMundi118]

Excellent work, Joe!

[@johniteshi4457]

Should Catholics really be labouring too hard on this argument this way? Isn’t it enough to emphasise the impossibility that the Holy Spirit misled everyone in the first 1500 years of Christianity? I think that’s the key because we do not believe because we’re super educated and intelligent but because God gave us the grace. What we should be doing more is praying for non Catholics and admonishing people on pride, arrogance and self righteousness which blind people understanding.

[@jeannebouwman1970]

You can and absolutely should do that, but you should also seek to convince people using the totality of God's word. God gives us many tools for evangelisation, and w2 should use them all

[@mariatr492]

Watching this video after coming back from mass today is perfect timing

[@Sicarius089]

Great video, I wish I had watched it last week when I was talking to an evangelical. Oddly enough I used the same scriptures, he kept insisting that it's only a symbol whilst also claiming it nourishes us. Apart from pointing out the contradiction and that the nourishment can only happen if Christ's presence is actually in it, he also referred to when Jesus says to do this in memory of me, I had to draw upon the point that yes we do it in memory so as to call upon mental contemplation of preparing ourselves so we're fully aware of what we're receiving. Even quoting St Ignatius of Antioch he was quite dismissive. Unfortunately a horse can be led to water but it won't always drink.

[@matthewwysocki5019]

Joe, thanks for your clear and comprehensive way of communicating the things of God. Insightful, thus thought provoking.

[@carolzappa1804]

Thank you so much for diving into this one.😉 Superbly done, as usual. 🙏✝️👑⛪🙏🕊❤

[@johnnynesbit8289]

This has encouraged me to learn more. If I ever do change churches I would go to the orthodox. There's no way I would acknowledge your pope or even that a pope is what God intended.

[@dougmoore8314]

Yes, I do believe Jesus. Praise him!

[@andym5995]

This is SO great! Thanks Joe! I thought I’d read/heard everything on John 6 but the connections to St Paul are fascinating. Definitely going to buy the book this is taken from.

[@TCM1231]

God Bless

[@rankpa]

I think that the stone-walled sheepfolds didn’t have actual ‘doors’. The shepherd would herd the flock into the fold for protection overnight, and then he himself would bed down in the opening in order to keep the sheep inside and lurking dangers outside. So in a deeply significant and emotionally touching sense the shepherd IS INDEED the door and we can understand quite literally what Jesus meant by saying that He was the door. “We move toward what we picture in our minds.” - Dale Carnegie

[@HisPoem]

Thank you for this teaching with all the scriptures you quote. Wonderful. I have a question: If we faithfully partack of the Eucharist and follow Christ's teachings, Do you think our bodies have to die?

[@crusaderACR]

Even if our bodies die, they will be risen on the last day. The Resurrection of the Dead is one of the core teachings of Christianity.

[@HisPoem]

@@crusaderACR Yes, I agree with the teaching of the resurrection of the dead. But that is not my question. I would like to know if death of the physical body is necessary if we partake of the Eucharist and follow Christ's teachings. I would like our teaher's opinion on this. Thanks.

[@TheJbrammo]

Thank you my brother for all your work on the truth!!

[@lylemuegge5811]

Regarding 1 Corinthians 11 Scripture often warns us that God's instructions are not to be taken lightly (Galatians 6:7; Hebrews 2:2-3; Deuteronomy 30:15). Even when the consequences of disobedience aren't immediate, they can be devastating (Romans 2:5). Here, Paul reveals the high stakes for those participating in the Lord's Supper in an "unworthy manner." The Corinthian Christians had been doing exactly that: using the Lord's Supper gathering as a freewheeling party of sorts, with the wealthy believers treating the poorer believers badly (1 Corinthians 11:17-22). Paul writes that blatant ungodliness while eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord's Supper will cause them to be guilty of sinning against the blood and body of Christ. In a sense, Paul is saying that the person who does this becomes liable for the Lord's death. Symbolically, communion is meant to commemorate the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. Those who treat such an event as a party, or take it in a careless way, are not entirely unlike those who stood by and laughed while Jesus died (Matthew 27:38-44). Or the indifferent soldiers who pursued pleasure as He bled to death (John 19:23-24). Unlike those real-life bystanders, born-again Christians are supposed to know the meaning and importance of the crucifixion. To disrespect communion-the Lord's Supper-through selfishness or arrogance is not a small charge. The verses that follow show that such disrespect risks paying a heavy price. Copied from BibleRef.com

[@TheLjdevlin86]

Great rundown any comments on John six versus 63-It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life…seems like Protestants confuse this often! Be blessed

[@CoenBijpost]

Sola scriptura is so funny if you hear St Paul say he received the “eucharistic teaching” by DIVINE REVELATION 😂 Yet St Paul is the biggest source for most protestants…

[@princewembo8905]

😂 very true

[@genecanevari8763]

I so much appreciate this in-depth teaching and> this has always been a struggle for me, specifically the "why" of it. Why did our Lord choose to become Bread and Wine for us to eat? I don't think I have heard a teaching on that aspect of it and I simply cannot understand why. If you have any insight, or your book covers that please let me know. Love your channel and look forward to each week's podcast. Thank you.

[@gc3563]

He’s the lamb of God and establishes the new and eternal covenant at the last supper. The old covenant, an unblemished lamb was sacrificed and they had to eat the Passover meal. Jesus is the unblemished lamb of God 🙏🏻

[@kerry8506]

I recently heard someone talking about the Jewish sacrifices, that the sacrifice was only applied to individuals once they ate the lamb.

[@shamelesspopery]

I really like the point that St. Gregory of Nyssa makes in his Great Catechism (A.D. 385). He points out that "the human being is a twofold creature, compounded of soul and body," and since the Fall harms us both spiritually and bodily, "it is necessary that the saved should lay hold of the Author of the new life through both their component parts." Gregory says that there's this twofold action in salvation, "the soul being fused into Him through faith derives from that the means and occasion of salvation; for the act of union with the life implies a fellowship with the life. But the body comes into fellowship and blending with the Author of our salvation in another way." And that other way? "Yet in no other way can anything enter within the body but by being transfused through the vitals by eating and drinking. It is, therefore, incumbent on the body to admit this life-producing power in the one way that its constitution makes possible." In other words, the problem with "faith alone" is that it treats us like angels, or like souls without bodies. But we're body-soul composites, and so Christ comes to us both spiritually and bodily.

[@genecanevari8763]

@@shamelesspopery Wow!... that is an amazing answer that I am going to need to read and contemplate more. I appreciate the follow-up!!

[@genecanevari8763]

@@gc3563 Thank you for the follow-up. I just read @shamelesspopery's response and think that answered my questions!!

[@StevenAzoro-dd2rb]

The explanation is so "in-my-face" 😂😂 Thanks a lot sir 🙏

[@beorbeorian150]

What is sad it is the scene from Jesus Christ Superstar that really convinced me. The words are so emphatic in the Bible it becomes obvious in the emotional scene from the movie .

[@Questions-l8r]

Very good a lot to think about. I was never taught this way with such good details.

[@SteveSturdivant-y5z]

I'm a Protestant but I'm completely convinced the Catholics got the Eucharist right !!! I'd be in trouble at my church , if I said this.

[@uhhyeacoolman2786]

I totally understand, but trust me, biting the bullet and making the conversion is liberating for the spirit

[@billlee2194]

I think this was my 3rd listen to this video :).As a slow learner lol, I finally realized 2 things. 1) Paul compares the partaking of the table of the body of Jesus to the table of demons and to the OT Jewish table. Both the Jewish and pagan tables were tables of 'sacrifice' from which the sacrificed victim was literally eaten after the sacrifice. 2) In all the other parables told by Jesus, his disciples do not question Him and they continued to follow Him. e.g. I am the true vine, the door, the true sheperd, the way, the truth and the life, the gate, etc. but, after the 'bread of life' discourse in John 6, many of His disciples questioned Him and found His words so disturbing that many of them turned away and followed Him. Of course, then there's Paul's statement that taking the body nd blood of Jesus, some drink damnation on themselves. It's a stretch to conclude that eating a 'symbol' unworthy would send someone to hell. None of the other symbols, the vine, the door, etc., we're ever said to bring damnation

[@R.C.425]

Just what I needed thank you so much

[@aggelos8256]

I love your videos and watch them regurarly, however theres an issue. You should get bigger slides and a smaller version of yourself when reading passages, because the reverse breaks immersion and makes it really hard to read along.

[@georgefuentes4112]

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my😂😂😂

[@anthonyfowler2623]

I am the bread of life…no one comes to the father but by me

[@ApostolicStorm]

14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. - Luke 22:14-20

[@HisPoem]

If we faithfully partacke of the Eucharist and follow Christ's teachings [and it is well before the Resurrection] do you think our physical bodies can continue to live forever [even if it is hundreds of years before the Resurrection]?

[@MataniuFulu]

Satan get away from this person right here now...

[@mangispangi]

Joe is the best catholic and eastern orthodox apologist of our time.

[@tony1685]

ask him why he keeps running from a discussion about John 14:15 in comparison with Exodus 20:8-11 then.

[@kennethprather9633]

All Christians and the Body of Christ.

[@MsCazanova55]

Amazing..❤

[@AllanKoayTC]

is this a re-upload? the previous video had glitches.

[@ChericeGraham]

There are others, including Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and Lutherans who believe that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus and who would agree with the quotations from St Ignatius.

[@tony1685]

yet the same people totally ignore John 14:15.

[@GarthDomokos]

If one claims that the Eucharist is metaphoric, then one needs to read scripture. In Leviticus 6-11 in regards to to the portion of the food burnt for Yahweh "anyone who touches it, will become holy".

[@keithwilson9172]

You will be consecrated or set apart or holy, not righteous or purified.

[@Jose-ru2wf]

Good deep dive into probably the second most unpalatable catholic bit after the papacy.

[@rhwinner]

It's not just Catholic, but all Apostolic traditions. 😉

[@iggyantioch]

The usual , standard objections. Welcome. You seem concerned. Thanks. I'll pray for you at Mass tomorrow! Seriously we know you're not interested in a dialogue on this. That's ok. Could I ask your faith traditions

[@iggyantioch]

​@@rhwinner You say Apostolic Traditions. Like the Orthodox Church? Thanks for including them They have a valid Eucharist! Good stuff. Thanks for being clear

[@rhwinner]

@@iggyantioch Of course. Much love for our Orthodox bros and sisters! ❤️❤️❤️

[@Questions-l8r]

After Mass I was puzzled by the reading it was Hebrews 9. When I came home I read it in total and I have a question. If this is one time sacrifice , why do we have to sacrifice Jesus on the alter each mass? I am not questioning just looking for clarity. Does the priest sacrifice Jesus again or does he bless the host to turn them into the body and blood of Jesus?

[@valeriemorton5517]

I hope that your question is sincere, and not merely a way to start an argument. That said, the Eucharistic sacrifice is not an additional sacrifice to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, but a super natural extension of our Lord's sacrifice on the cross across time and space so as to allow all Christians to participate in that Sacrifice through communion with Him by the consumption of His Body and Blood. This is the same Body which hung on the cross, and the same Blood which ran from his side. The priest does NOT re-sacrifice our Lord on the altar, rather when he confects the Eucharist he and the congregation are brought super naturally to the moment of Christ's one holy and perfect sacrifice, and participate therein. Any other understanding of this contradicts Saint Paul's teaching on the Eucharist in his letter to the Corinthians, where he states " is not the cup of blessing a participation in the blood of Christ?"

[@Questions-l8r]

Thank you, after reading some more and seeing a video by a Catholic apologist it cleared up this question. I was not instructed clearly in the faith.

[@wierdpocket]

So I’m 100% with you in your conclusion, but I’ve always found it weird that a Catholic will say, “how could gnaw mean anything else??!” When we literally have an equivalent phrase in English: “chew on it.”

[@catkat740]

That’s true, but “chew on it” after you’ve been talking about eating would suggest the literal meaning. Right? “I have this idea for a project: It might sound crazy but give it a couple weeks, chew on it” v. “Eat this cookie. Chew on it”

[@wierdpocket]

@@catkat740 of course, but the prots are just going to interpret this as metaphorical, so it just becomes a more poignant way to say “spiritually chew on this” - I mean you hear pastors say this kind of thing about “the word” all the time: you have to not just read the Bible, but “gnaw on it” “wrestle with it” etc etc. I’m just saying that it’s not unprecedented to think of “chew on it” as a way of doubling down on the importance of understanding the Truth in a deep way as opposed to literally just eating it with your physical mouth. And therein lies a big distinction between prot/catholic thought: prots are more into epistemology and Catholics are more in to ontology.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

Perhaps the difference is that you can "chew on" an idea, which is immaterial by thinking about it. But Jesus says "chew on me." The metaphor doesn't really make sense anymore when you look at it that way, so the literal interpretation makes the most sense

[@catkat740]

@@michaelbeauchamp22Exactly!! “ on it” and “ on me” is an important distinction!

[@catkat740]

⁠@@wierdpocketThey might say that but it’s an easy point to refute. Is that even an idiom in Greek? I mean I think that’s the reason he uses that stronger verb! The “eat” verb could’ve been taken metaphorically so he is doubling down on the literal meaning by using “chew/gnaw”. At least that’s how I learned it 🤓🤓

[@Vidmr2407]

So how is it that these scholars don’t come to the obvious Catholic understanding of the Eucharist? What or who is it that blinds them? Thanks for any thought on this…

[@iggyantioch]

Because they'd have to give it all up. Too attached to the world and they're man made traditions

[@levrai944]

@@iggyantiochyup, human pride is one hell of a thing. It’s scary

[@genecanevari8763]

In the video, it was mentioned that Catholics were thought to be practicing cannibalism. My daughter just recently asked me why it's not cannibalism, can anyone help me answer that one?

[@fantasia55]

because miracles are beyond human understanding

[@lellachu1682]

Cannibalism is the eating of the flesh of a dead person, usually in a disrespectful manner. The Eucharist is a living sacrifice in which we reverently consume the flesh of the Resurrected Jesus that He offers as spiritual nourishment.

[@fantasia55]

@lellachu1682 Jesus is the Lamb of God.

[@elizabethking5523]

Cannibalism, would be if the bread and wine, would be turned into visible flesh and visible blood. And if that visible flesh and blood were ate and drank, then that would be cannibalism. That certainly isn’t what happens at a Catholic mass! 😊🙏🏻❤️

[@elizabethking5523]

Let your daughter listen to this video.😊🙏🏻

[@kennethprather9633]

Abides in me and I in him is the Holy Spirit in us. You have to stay in the light until death to attain it. If you fall in darkness repent and return. Those who don't go to hell. "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes [1] so that it will be even more fruitful.3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.8This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.9"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love.10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love.11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.14You are my friends if you do what I command.15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit--fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.17This is my command: Love each other. Jesus is the Vine and has the Father in him. The light of the Father connects us via our Holy Spirit. This allows us to talk directly to God (Jesus) and hear from him. We have to stay in the light and grow fruits of the Spirit and ask for Gifts of the Spirit. As we mature we do works and gain treasure for heaven. This whole walk is how we are judged in this life. Remember a person receives the Holy Spirit and Light immediately upon believing in Jesus as God and Messiah. This is the Baptism of the Spirit.

[@chrisflanigan7908]

Volume issue is fixed 📢. Grampa can hear ... next we deal with the cops.

[@frederickanderson1860]

The logos of God is the bread of life. Logos is he is the logos became flesh. He became as one of us. To partake of our physical selves to suffer pain and suffering and hunger and thirst. He is the high priest of the new covenant. He sacrificed himself not like the priests of the old covenant.

[@philiphynes71]

John 6:41-42 : "The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”" John 6:64 : "But there are some of you that do not believe." John 6:68-69 : "Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."" A personal relationship with Jesus is at stake here, believing in him personally is like eating.

[@jun101ph]

God ordered Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. While Jesus ordered us to eat his flesh and drink his blood literally.

[@kennethprather9633]

So, no one with the Holy Spirit needs the Eucharist until they loose their Holy Spirit ( unrepentant sin). You have to have the rememberance.

[@dartheli7400]

It‘s interesting how Catholics think that Jesus was speaking in a literal fashion in John 6, yet they won‘t actually interpret this in a completely literal fashion. Because if Jesus meant he was the literal bread of life and his followers would have to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, then why didn‘t this apply then and there? Put differently: Why didn‘t the disciples start chewing on him right on the spot?

[@miracles_metanoia]

Because Jesus literally consecrated the bread and wine, and He said the consecrated bread and wine were His body.

[@dartheli7400]

@@miracles_metanoia Not so fast. Jesus said „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.“ That is present tense. He didn’t say „Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood once he has consecrated the bread and wine, you have no life in you.“ So why didn‘t the disciples start chewing on him right on the spot, if his words are to be taken literally?

[@dartheli7400]

@po18guy I‘m not sure what your argument is.

[@dartheli7400]

@po18guy I see. It seems your „defense“ is entirely based on assumptions, invented categories (e.g. material grace) and unsupported claims. Therefore, it doesn‘t answer my question.

[@dartheli7400]

@po18guy I‘m not going „full troll“ on anyone. Just answer the question. It seems you are all over the place with your response. I‘m just asking for a straightforward answer.

[@garyr.8116]

Take a look at this; the Eucharist was taken away from Adam and Eve @ Genesis 3:22 --> then restored to those who 'overcome' at Rev 2:7 % 17 !!!! God 'bookmarks' what's important in the whole of scripture by showing us the End (Rev 2:7&17) from the Beginning (Genesis 3:22 & Genesis 14:18) making scripture REAL, because only God can do this - Isaiah 46:10 " I make known the End from the Beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My purpose shall stand, And I will accomplish all My pleasure," !!!!!! The WHOLE of scripture becomes LIVING when viewed from the perspective of the Eucharist: Beginning to End!

[@kerry8506]

I get confused about the difference between Paul and the other apostles or if there is a difference. When the 11 replaced Judas, they said it would need to be someone who was there to witness Christ’s entire ministry, death, and resurrection, right? So that makes it seem like apostleship is a really unique thing that couldn’t continue on through the ages, unique men with a unique experience and mission. But then Paul becomes an apostle through just a vision and he’s not a witness of the entire ministry of Jesus. I’m thinking about Mormons having a quorum of twelve apostles. None of them witnessed Christ’s ministry, so that seems like they can’t really be the new 12 apostles. That was a one time thing. But they could be like Paul if all it takes is a vision. I’d the idea of an ongoing 12 apostles an absurd idea or reasonable? I’m afraid I’m not asking a really clear question. But I would appreciate any thoughts.

[@keithwilson9172]

She gave his flesh by his beating and death, it is to believe in his death and resurrection which point to who he is, that gives life everlasting.

[@Christina00nline]

Thank you so much for this video Joe! I already believe in the real presence, but this was a lot of other the biblical evidence that I was looking for to defend that belief. I have Protestant family members (All who were actually born Catholic and converted to church of Christ ) and one was trying to direct me away from Catholicism by having me talk to her Church of Christ pastor. While he was very knowledgeable, it was very frustrating to me because he wouldn't hear any of the evidence about eating the Eucharist, he just kept saying Jesus himself said to " do this in remembrance of me" so therefore it must be a symbol because you're doing in remembrance of him.... You're not doing it to rejuvenate yourself or to bring Jesus into your body and yourself into the body of Christ, or as an act of the new covenant. You are simply doing it to remember him as a token memorial. And he would not listen to any evidence because he said this is Jesus's actual command for taking communion. Undoubtedly his previous teachings were very serious, but the actual last supper does seem to be a little bit more light language wise. Why do you think this was?

[@mikelopez8564]

If I may, the bread of life discourse took place around Passover, and Jesus revealed the mode in which we would receive Him. At the last supper there was more context to His words and He revealed that He was the new Passover lamb. I’ve always imagined that Jesus filled in the blanks for the apostles at some point, since there doesn’t seem to be any more dismay, other than His “one of you will betray me” statement.

[@elizabethking5523]

It seems to us as Westerners, that it is lighter language. To a Jew, it is not. Remembrance to them., means more. It is an entering into! at Passover, they enter into that very night of Passover! Their readings prove this out 100%! They read and speak as if they are the slaves of Egypt! This is the same exact thing that Catholics do at Mass! Catholics enter into that exact event on the cross at Mass! The priest stands as persona Christi, What lies on the altar, is the lamb in the form and matter of bread and wine! It is Christ offering Himself to the Father!!! You see, the veil has truly been torn, and we as believers, participate! It is awesome! It is everything!!! Blessings to you on your journey! ❤️🙏🏻

[@HumanDignity10]

Yes, our priest just did a talk on this topic. Here is what Rabbi Gamaliel says about Passover for Jews: “In every generation a person is duty bound to regard himself as if he personally has gone forth from Egypt.” Catholics do something similar at Mass, when we are bringing ourselves into what happened at the Last Supper and the crucifixion. So it’s deeper than how we modern western folks think of “remembering”, it’s a form of participation in the events that happened in the past. It’s a way for Christians to enter into the Paschal Mystery.

[@vonKobra]

Why don't we connect the sacrifice of the mass both with the second part of the Jewish sacrifice, that is the eating of the sacrifice, and the feeding of the 5000. It seems to me that Jesus was sacrificed once, but can distribute that sacrifice to all the world and still have 7 baskets left over. In addition the changing of water into wine, the wine ran out but Jesus made more. Not only that, but the head of the house complaining "Why have you saved the good wine for last?" The blood of the new covenant is superior to the blood of the old. This seems like the complete discription of his ministry. The one true lamb that only need be sacrificed once to save all.

[@thehitomiboy7379]

The only one I don't agree with is Shocking. At the time, as a jew, would I find it shocking? Yeah probably. Today? I grew up with it; why would it be *shocking*?

[@keithwilson9172]

He also says to drink the cup he drank. That wasn’t literal.

[@jackross5698]

Just devil’s advocate here. What do we say in response to a Protestant that suggests that we eat and drink judgement on ourselves if we fail to understand Christ’s point of his body and blood lecture. They might say that us Catholics are eating and drinking judgement on ourselves for not understanding the teaching Christ was trying to teach the disciples. They might argue that the whole thing was about consuming the the word of God (through him through his apostles) as being the body and blood of our Lord. How would we defend our beliefs then?

[@michaeljefferies2444]

Well, I would ask if there is any place in Scripture that says the scriptures are the body of Christ, the blood of Christ, or both? If not, then the passage in 1 Corinthians, a passage explicitly talking about the reception of the eucharist, is a very strange place to introduce this idea. Also, again the context of the 1 Corinthians passage deals with the sins of the members of the Corinthian Church in how they are practicing the eucharist. Namely, the rich members are gathering early, consuming all of the eucharist and getting drunk off the sacramental wine, before the poor laborers are able to join them. Everything about the passage is about the eucharist, not understanding Jesus' Bread of Life discourse.

[@jackross5698]

@@michaeljefferies2444 well put and thorough! Thank you.

[@marcus3591]

I would point out that the protestant has failed to establish that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is somehow a failure to understand what Jesus really meant in John 6:53. In fact, I could turn that verse from Paul around on the protestant and use to demonstrate how seriously Paul and the early church took the Eucharist. If I want to push it further, I could then accuse the protestant of being guilty of 'eating and drinking condemnation upon himself' by defying Christ's real presence and manufacturing his own false Eucharist in his protestant services.

[@robt5430]

What's the explanation of Jesus's follow-up with his disciples in John 6:60-63? If the flesh profits nothing, then why is physical communion more profitable than spiritual? Would this be the explanation from Jesus or the narrator you were talking about? I dont quite see that Jesus can't be speaking metaphorically (I'm open to enlightenment so don't take me wrong). Why can't Jesus be using stronger language to describe that we need to be consumed in him metaphorically? After all the people Jesus was dialoging with wernt coming with a mindset of surrender to or trust in Jesus but a self centered what can Jesus do for them mindset. Take an example of a person who goes to church receives communion then goes and plays golf afterwards( not saying it's wrong), and he isn't thinking Jesus, but bettering his course score ( obviously he cand do both but for sake of my thought he isn't thinking of Jesus but himself). On the other hand you have a person goes to church doesn't receive communion but goes to a jail to preach to inmates afterwards out of charity. The one person may have made a flesh act of communion, but the other is applying himself to try to perform work for man's spiritual edification. Is the man playing golf for himself more in communion with Christ still because of him physically taking communion? I'm not the best with anoloigies but I'm giving it a go.

[@georgepierson4920]

John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. John 6:54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; John 6:56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. The Institution of the Lord’s Supper Matthew 26:26-30 26 While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ 27 Then he took a cup, and after giving 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 the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.’ 30 When they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. The Institution of the Lord’s Supper Mark 14:22-25 22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is my body.’ 23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.’ The Institution of the Lord’s Supper Luke 22:14-23 14 When the hour came, he took his place at the table, and the apostles with him. 15 He said to them, ‘I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you, I will not eat it[c] until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’ 17 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, ‘Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.’ 19 Then he took a loaf of 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.’ 20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[d] 21 But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table. 22 For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed!’ 23 Then they began to ask one another which one of them it could be who would do this. Abuses at the Lord’s Supper 1 Corinthians 11 17 Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. 19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. 20 When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper. 21 For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. 22 What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do not commend you! The Institution of the Lord’s Supper 23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for[g] 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. Partaking of the Supper Unworthily 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[h] without discerning the body,[i] eat and drink judgement against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[j] 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined[k] so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brothers and sisters, [l] when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If you are hungry, eat at home, so that when you come together, it will not be for your condemnation. About the other things I will give instructions when I come.

[@kennethprather9633]

So, we must have Jesus in us. The Holy Spirit is of Jesus and God the Father. God the Father and Jesus are one. The Holy Spirit in us is Jesus in us. By mouth and belief. Or Jesus says I stand at the door and knock any one that opened it and let's me in will have eternal life. Holy Spirit in us. Jesus told the church at laodicea. You are luke warm I will spit you out. Meaning if they don't repent and return to the light they will go to hell. Gnawing on the Flesh of Jesus ( Holy Spirit) is working to understand and gain Gifts of the Spirit and Fruits of the Spirit.

[@ToeTag1968]

Hi Joe. I watch you on Catholic Answers now and then. I'm a Protestant. I'm just about a 5th of the way through and had a question about John 6:51 at the 8:35 mark. My interpretation is that Jesus is talking about his crucifixion here. Cannot that be the case? To believe that his sacrifice would save the world? Believing that Jesus is the Son of God, who died on the cross for our sins, and who was resurrected on the 3rd day is the beginning of receiving God's grace through faith, right? It seems to me that Jesus is setting this up to be a moment of faith for the world, much like Matthew 16:18 where Peter's profession of faith that Jesus is the Son of God would be the start of the global church. If it is about a glimpse of the Eucharist, verse 63 seems to mean that it isn't literally about his earthly flesh and blood, but rather a spiritual matter. As to your question to Protestants at 13:45, I would ask your thoughts on John 4:14. Jesus was speaking spiritually here about living water, yes? In Revelation 21:6, God tells the believers that He will let us drink from the spring of the water of life. So is it Jesus' blood that gives us life or the water of life from the spring? Aren't these all spiritual matters? Paul seems to tie in John 6 with 1 Corinthians 10 where he talks about the manna and drank from the well... "and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ." And, in Matthew 4, Jesus says, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." The word of God also gives us life. Reading and following the truths within might literally extend our life on earth, but it is pretty clear Jesus is speaking spiritually again, right? Following Jesus and accepting his sacrifice bridges the gap between sinful man and our Holy God Most High. Revelation 7 says we won't hunger or thirst anymore and Jesus will guide us to springs of living water. As someone who believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but not in the same way Catholics do, I too feel it is important to read early church fathers for their wisdom in such things. The elements do not physically become the flesh and blood of Christ once consecrated. They become the flesh and blood of Christ spiritually through the help of the Holy Spirit. First, let's look at what Irenaeus says from around 170 A.D. "But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." Irenaeus had a high view of the Supper. The elements, when they are consecrated, become sacramentally (not literally) Christ’s body and blood. For Irenaeus, the Supper is the body and blood of Christ. It does not become the body and blood. By the way, there is no indication here that the body and blood of Christ is considered to be “in, with, and under” the elements nor a mere memorial or symbol. The transformation that takes place is not literal or substantial. It is consecration, the setting apart of the common for sacred use. That is not a small thing but neither is it a miracle. I've written a lot here. Sorry. So I'll close things up with the views of Clement. "And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both - of the water and of the Word - is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father's will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word." ---- Somewhere in the 1200 years between Christ's sacrifice, and the time when the transubstantiation pronouncements were made, the truth got lost. Sacraments are a spiritual matter. And the Holy Spirit, by faith, gives us the real presence. And let me, please, ask this final question. If the Eucharist was a physical matter and in truth, we are physically eating the flesh and blood of Christ, why do we grow and eat any other foods? His flesh and blood gives us life, yes? God bless you all. May Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, lead us all to a more perfect understanding.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

Where does Ireneaus deny that the elements become litterally the flesh and the blood? Yes, it's not a physical transformation, but what *exactly* do you mean by spiritual?

[@elizabethking5523]

No Friend, the truth did not get lost! Westerners are mis-reading, John, chapter 6. John chapter 6 mentions that this is spiritual. And indeed it is.. it is not symbolic! And that is exactly the problem. You were also reading the church fathers with protestant glasses on. ( I know, I was one.) Spiritual and symbolic are two different things! St. Ignatius in his letter even uses the word, literal body and blood. And if you do not believe in the literal body and blood of Christ, you are outside of the church. That is what Saint Ignatius states clearly . I know, that you are seeking. And that you mean well. I pray that you will continue to study. May God be with you.🙏🏻

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@ToeTag1968 Ireneaus: "“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200)" The THANKS are the words of consecration by the priest. He simply says the bread IS the BODY OF THE LORD. " transubstantiation pronouncements were made" Transubstantiation is the articulation of HOW the bread and wine become the Resurrected Christ. Long before the theological articulation, the Church commonly used the words BECOMES, CHANGING ... as well as TRANSFORMED, TRANSMUTED, TRANSMUTATION (note the "TRANS") “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, *so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by TRANSMUTATION are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”* Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165). “You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread *BECOMES* the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ….When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373). “…if a person sees bread he also, in a kind of way, looks on a human body, for by the bread being within it the bread becomes it, so also, in that other case, the body into which God entered, by partaking of the nourishment of bread, was, in a certain measure, the same with it; that nourishment, as we have said, CHANGING itself into the nature of the body. For that which is peculiar to all flesh is acknowledged also in the case of that flesh, namely, that that Body too was maintained by bread; which Body also by the indwelling of God the Word was *TRANSMUTED* to the dignity of Godhead. Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was *TRANSFORMED* in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, ‘is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer’; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, ‘This is My Body.’” Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383). “Then He added: ‘For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].’ Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: ‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are *TRANSFORMED* into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s Death.'” Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 4, 10:125 (A.D. 380). “He did not say, ‘This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,’ but, what is set before us, but that it is *TRANSFORMED* by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood.” Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on Matthew 26:26 (ante A.D. 428).

[@ToeTag1968]

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my There is no doubt there are people much smarter in the world than I. I, too, rely on the testimony and instruction from early church leaders. Even then, depending on era, and other factors, they vary in interpretation. I choose to believe the earliest (Clement being one of my faves due to his name being in scripture associated with Paul), but still continue my search for truth in all things.

[@ToeTag1968]

@@elizabethking5523 I know it is not symbolic. I said as much in my original text. But, neither it it physical. The Holy Spirit spiritually (not symbolically) makes the bread and wine the flesh and blood. Paul, and the earliest church fathers, would be "outside the church" as you put it, because they believed it was a spiritual change, too.

[@DannyLoyd]

Matt 26:26 " Now as they were eating, Jesus took BREAD, and blessed, and broke it, and gave IT(BREAD) to the disciples and said," Take, eat, this is my body". What was his body? It was the bread. Next it says, " And Jesus 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.....I tell you I shall not drink again OF THIS FRUIT OF THE VINE.....". Jesus said drink the fruit of the vine, not his literal blood and Jesus told them to eat the BREAD, not his literal body. Mark 14:22 " And as they were eating, he took BREAD, and broke it and gave it(BREAD) to them, and said, Take this is my body....took a cup...this is my blood.....I shall not drink again of the FRUIT OF THE VINE....". Every Sunday I partake of the bread and the fruit of the vine

[@georgepierson4920]

Right, and while you are having ordinary bread and ordinary wine, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Polish National Catholic Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East are having the Eucharist.

[@lylemuegge5811]

@shamelesspopery You mentioned many verses in John 6. But I noticed you didn’t mention/address verse 63 which says “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)). Why is that? Why would you not mention that verse? Is it because Jesus himself said “the words I speak to you are spirit” which seems to imply that He was speaking figuratively, not literally, in the previous verses in which He says to eat his flesh and drink His blood. Would you please explain what you think the object and meaning of John 6:63 is?

[@iggyantioch]

Look up the Catholic apology on this. It's everywhere on the web. I guess you're in the yeah but tract. Do the research.

[@lylemuegge5811]

@@iggyantioch repent and believe the gospel. Give up trying to merit grace. God offers grace as a free gift if you simply trust in Him ALONE. If you try to earn grace through the sacrament then it’s not grace. Grace is a gift and can’t be earned. If you partake in the sacraments in hopes of receiving/meriting grace then what you are actually doing is attempting to bribe God and to earn your salvation. Salvation can’t be earned. It’s a free gift. Ephesians 2:8-9 says “For it’s by Grace you have been saved through Faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift from God, not of works, lest any man should boast.” Give up the battle, repent and trust in Jesus ALONE (not in sacraments, Mary, the church, etc.) to save you from God’s wrath that will be poured out in hell and then the Lake of Fire.

[@iggyantioch]

Who said I was trying to merit a free gift? Presumed. Grace... Um how do you know about Grace?

[@iggyantioch]

You quote Ephesians 2. Yep. My question is how do you know? Did Paul write it or maybe Luke?

[@lylemuegge5811]

@@iggyantioch my apologies. What I should have said is that the Catholic Church teaches that the Catholic must merit/earn grace to be saved. And if they die without meriting enough grace to go straight to heaven then they can earn the rest of the required grace by being “purified” in purgatory and possibly with the help of friends and family via the purchase of Mass cards. That’s not grace. Grace is a free gift. Grace is when you get something you do not deserve. The Catholic can actually boast in all the things they have done to earn salvation or at least a shorter stay in purgatory. How do I know about grace? By reading the Bible. Ephesians 2:8-9 gives a great definition of grace by stating that it is something that “is not of your own doing”, that it is “the gift of God” and that it is not the result of works. Here is the entire verse quote from a Catholic version of the Bible (NRSVCE) Ephesians 2:8-9 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God- 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast. Here’s another verse that shows we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus alone: Romans 5:1-2 “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have obtained access[b] to this grace in which we stand; and we[c] boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God.” Here’s another one: Romans 6:23 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. It’s a free gift which means you can’t earn it. You just have to humble yourself, be genuinely sorry for sinning against God (this is called contrition) and the trust what the Bible says which is to believe on/trust in Jesus and what He did on the cross and His resurrection and when you do that God will remit your sins and grant you everlasting life. John 3:16 tells us how to be saved: John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Romans 10:13 also tells us how to be saved: For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” John 6:40 also tells us how to be saved: (Jesus speaking): This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.”

[@scoobles4736]

Unfathomably based……

[@D12Min]

As based as blessing gay couples?

[@supercoolandawesomefr]

@@D12Min refuted into oblivion, find better slander

[@kennethprather9633]

To be partner with a demon it enters you were the Holy Spirit would go in a Christian.

[@betrion7]

Why skip words of Jesus in John 6:63 in your presentation thoug? There was a chance to solidify the teaching with it. As it is you left a significant hole for the critics. I'll quote from NET translation that I think speaks for itself: John 6:63 NET [63] The Spirit is the one who gives life; human nature is of no help! The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

[@TheGospelAccordingToMarkyD]

John 6 CANNOT be a metaphor to consume His Word as a necessity for Eternal Life. Please give me a moment to explain why. First, Jesus is talking about food that He will give sometime in the future (verse 27). He later explains the necessity of eating the food in order to attain Eternal Life. He also explains that to not eat it, you will have no life in you. If John 6 is to be understood as a metaphor for consuming His Word, it would follow that His previous Words would not be necessary for Eternal Life…only those Words that He will give in the future. We would then find ourselves struggling to figure out what those words were.

[@johnp.6043]

Acts 2:41-47 King James Version 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.( there is no support here for “ Transubstantiation” notice the word “they “ whose the “they” the three thousand that were saved. And they followed the apostles “ doctrine” again no support for “ transubstantiation. Jesus told his apostles I had meat to eat that you no not of , my meat is to do the will of the Father. 1Cor. 10:3 3And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. Do this in remembrance of me.

[@stooch66]

@@johnp.6043”sanctified cannibalism”- so you’re saying we are, in fact, consuming the body of Christ. Agreed.

[@johnp.6043]

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my I am obedient to the word of God as my final authority.

[@DannyLoyd]

John 6:61 " But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, " Do you take offense at this? .....It is THE SPIRIT THAT GIVES LIFE, THE FLESH IS OF NO AVAIL, THE WORDS THAT I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE". Jesus tells them, "THE FLESH IS OF NO AVAIL", the bread is the word, the word of God is what gives life. Peter says in v68 " You have the WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE". v45 " and they shall all be taught by God. Every one who has HEARD AND LEARNED FROM THE FATHER COMES TO ME". 1Cor 11:23 " 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 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...." The Churches of Christ partake of the Lord's supper every Sunday to proclaim the Lord's death until he comes, we partake of the bread and the fruit of the vine. We do not believe the bible teaches cannibalism.

[@georgepierson4920]

Was Jesus saying that his own flesh was of no avail?

[@michaeljefferies2444]

In Calvin's defense, he actually did reject a false Ignatius. The Ignatian corpus of his time was made up of more than 7 letters, many of which were entirely inauthentic, and even the 7 genuine letters had large interpolations from another author. We call the versions of those letter "The long recension" of Ignatius' letters, which you can easily find today. The middle recension, which is what pretty much everyone agrees are the authentic versions of Ignatius' letters were not rediscovered until the 17th century, well after Calvin died. So, I don't think its fair to say he rejected Ignatius' letters merely because they were "too Catholic", but because they actually were, at least in part, inauthentic.

[@shamelesspopery]

Right, and some of Calvin's critiques are just (e.g., the line about respecting the "forty days" IS a later interpolation). But Calvin doesn't just reject the long recension. As L. Stephanie Cobb points out in her work on the subject, "Calvin, uniquely, rejected all of the letters." He was an outlier even amongst Protestants on this point, and there were plenty of Calvinists (particularly Presbyterians) who continued to maintain that none of the letters of Ignatius were authentic, even long as Ussher had proved the antiquity of the middle recension.

[@michaeljefferies2444]

​@@shamelesspoperyMy point is more along the lines of, since even the 7 genuine letters he had were corrupted, why should he have assumed that any of them were authentic? But totally agree, the continued denial of the letters by Calvinists well into the 19th century was completely unfounded and based on their refusal to believe that such thoroughly Catholic language would be used by an orthodox Father who knew the Apostles.

[@shamelesspopery]

@@michaeljefferies2444 Right, my point wasn't "Calvin's a bad man for assuming Ignatius' writings were forgeries" (his view strikes me as perfectly rational at the time he was writing), but "Calvin's apparently outright denial of the authenticity of Ignatius' letters highlights just how Catholic they actual are," even accounting for the later interpolations.

[@MasterKeyMagic]

The one teaching fundamentalists refuse to read literally. Hypocrites

[@mmeyerdc]

❤

[@MsCazanova55]

A quick google search will enlighten you..

[@frederickanderson1860]

How can u prove he multiply the fish and loaves and jesus floating on the lake. U cant so u take it literally,go through the writings over the centuries

[@DannyLoyd]

In Matt 5:29 tells us to pluck out our eyes if they cause us to sins, do you practice this? literally? I have yet to see a Catholic do this, why?

[@kennethprather9633]

Blood is the Light flowing through you. Giving you power.

[@DirtExtractor]

The diciples did not believe this as also many of your church fathers. Do a read from John 3 into 6. 2 things tou'll find: 1. Jesus said if you believe on him you'll have eternal life which flies in the face of you mustveat his flesh & drink his blood. 2nd is if youvreadcthru you'll find him talking about water, living water, a water if you drink you'll never thirst, meat that if you eat you'll never hunger. He's talking about belief, faith, dwelling in him. What century did y'all bring in transubstantiation? 12th century, ok, ok

[@Redwarfa]

Most protestants believe what Catholics believe about communion

[@levrai944]

No they don’t.

[@Redwarfa]

@@levrai944 Lutherans, Anglicans and others So you are not so special

[@tony1685]

no we don't. it's symbolic, period or we'd see people in the NT pretending to literally chew Him. heck, catholicism doesn't even abide by John 14:15, why would any believe this nonsense?

[@Redwarfa]

@@tony1685 Lutherans and C of E do

[@levrai944]

@@tony1685 it’s not symbolic, if it was they crowds wouldn’t have walked away, it was too hard of a teaching for them to receive because they took it literally. Your stubbornness and doubt isn’t the standard for what’s true or not, that’s just your own subjective opinion. And please enlighten me on how Catholics don’t abide by John 14:15. As a lifelong Catholic I can’t wait for you a non Catholic to inform me on what Catholics do and don’t do.

[@sebinantony6983]

The very verses which St. Paul uses to make clear, that the Eucharist is not idolatry, the Protestants use to twist it. After all who is the loser, Paul or Protestants?

[@damnedmadman]

John 6:66... Isn't it interesting? The Beast whose number is 666 will lead many believers away. I myself, a cradle Catholic, was once very close to leaving the Church because of the teaching on Eucharist. As a child I've never thought about the seriousness of it, and the NO masses didn't make it too explicit. When I realized how crazy it actually was, I was lost. But then I prayed a lot for the Holy Spirit to lead me to the truth no matter what it might be, and soon after everything started to make sense - also thanks to the videos like this one!

[@D12Min]

ADDRESSING THE ARGUMENT FROM 1 CORINTHIANS 10-11 Here Paul does not call the Lord´s Supper an action of sacrificing as the clip wrongly claims. That has to be read into the text. The sacrifice is eaten AFTER the sacrifice has been offered. The sacrifice of Christ has been offered "ONCE AND FOR ALL" according to Hebrews 10. Now we eat based on the already offered sacrifice. But clearly that eating is not the same as that of the pagans, as the pagans ate literal physical meat. The parallel is that there is a meal which is based on the earlier sacrifice and which connects the participants to that sacrifice. Thus, Herschmeyer evidently is taking the parallel way too far. Also, in the video it is claimed that the Lord´s Supper cannot be symbolic because it is sinful to do it in the wrong way in 1Corinthians 10. But that is obviously wrong. If you spit on a memorial (which the Lord´s supper literally is according to Christ) or a flag that is clearly an offense against that which is represented by the memorial. In sum then, the arguments based on 1Corinthians 10 fall short based on simple logic.

[@jerome2642]

When Hebrews 10:12 said that Jesus offered Himself "once and FOR ALL", what does the word "ALL" mean ? Is it "ALL men" ? Or "ALL time" ?

[@D12Min]

@@jerome2642 all time, forever, see v. 14.

[@D12Min]

@patriceagulu8315 your issue is with Paul, not with me. And Paul warned of ravenous wolves that would rise out of their midst. So there is that. Remember when Jesus said "You will know a tree by its apostolic succession and not by its fruit?" Right, me neither. Now, how would you rate the fruit of literal, century long mass murder (just google what the Catholic church did to the Waldensians for instance)? Good or bad? Let´s take this a step further. Jesus gave us a clue who is behind murderous people. John 8:44 "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning" You have literally been duped by the devil and God is calling you to forsake this evil church that is not a church.

[@jerome2642]

@@D12Min Yeah right. Catholics were the ONLY people who murdered others while Non Catholics NEVER murdered a SINGLE PERSON ? Really ? If "murder" is the "fruit" we are to consider here, then NO ONE is the true church of Jesus, neither Catholics nor Non Catholics

[@D12Min]

@patriceagulu8315 no, I do not reject the teaching of the first Christians, which were the Apostles. Why do you reject the Apostles´ teachings and instead follow ravenous wolves who changed his teaching from: "Christ was offered once and for all" (Hebrews 10) to "he is continually offered in the Eucharist"?