The Blasphemous Catholic Eucharist DEBUNKED | Answering
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 03. 2023
- In this video, I address a passage commonly misinterpreted by proponents of Catholicism. The Catholic Church teaches Transubstantiation, "the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration." Did Jesus teach that we must literally eat his flesh and drink his blood? I pray this videos provides clarity and dispels any confusion. God bless! -OD
HOW TO GO TO HEAVEN: • How To Be Saved From H...
INSTAGRAM: / onodiamante
PATREON: / onodiamante
DONATE: www.paypal.com/paypalme/onora...
#catholic #eucharist #christianity
I was Catholic for over 40 years and all I learned was guilt and fear and shame and condemnation. All about control and manipulation.
We don't have to sacrifice Jesus over and over. His death was a ONE TIME payment for our sins
I was also raised RC as well. Until I read the Bible myself and found the truth. God Bless
40 years, that is sickening to hear, I was a false Christian for about 3 and a half years... Cant imagine going through life that long believing a satanic doctrine
Amen brother I was lost in the Catholic faith nonsense, not once did I hear we’re saved by Grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, everything was about looking to self and making sure individuals were praying the rosary 📿 because apparently she is able to save too, Christ did all the hard work she gets all the glory, makes me sick 🤢
Praise God Bro that we are out of that Christ Decreasing Trash! for me it was the normal Lordship Damnation Garbage... Repent of your Sins, Do good works, Jesus Christ is not enough for salvation... I was one of the sick bastards who told people to repent of their sins or they will go to hell, Then acting like I am my own Savior Jesus Christ seemed like some Cruel dictator I had to please, and I twisted my own mind to think that this is loving.
I got saved about 4 and a half months ago... for a year I went into sins more than ever, and through the Hopeless pit of trash I was in, I only realized then that I cannot make it to heaven
But now we have true rest, In Christ Jesus. Amen :)
Amen, His death was a one time payment for our sins.
He that believeth on Him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already, because has not believed on the only Begotten Son of God.
Kenya 🇰🇪 well represented
Amen
Amen brother!
Amen Brother
@@richardwilliams9532 Amen Brother...
Great to see my country being represented well
Just discovered this channel. Love the brief and to the point teachings that use only Scripture.
I was a cradle Catholic for the first 52 years of my life. Went to Catholic school for 16 years. Did my sacraments. Typical New Englander catholic dead in his faith and going thru the motions.
I was saved 3 1/2 years ago when I first heard the simple, beautiful and true Gospel from God's Word.
Thank you for these videos. I pray other catholics are awakened.
Where in New England? I’m in Rhode Island.
@@OnoDiamante Really? I am born & raised in Johnston. Currently live in North Prov.
@@anthonym.7653 Nice! My Mother and Father are Johnstonians too lol. I don’t know how old you are, but my mother is a Sciarra. Have you ever attended Grace Christian Fellowship?
@@OnoDiamante I am 55. Never attended Grace. Grew up off Killingly Street. My dad had a barber shop on Hartford Ave.
@@anthonym.7653 Small world, big God! My Grandfather Norm ran the shell station on Killingly back in the day.
I was a Protestant and did not believe in the true presence of God in the Eucharist until I asked myself the question:
"Do I believe God created everything from nothing?"
The answer to that question was an astounding "yes"
"how did God create everything from nothing?"
With His Word.
Jesus in the New Testament gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins (John 20:22-23) He does this by breathing on them. The same breath that God the Father used to give life to man, He gave to the Apostles and thus gave them divine authority through the Holy Spirit. This authority can be used to transform the substances of bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.
I am now a Catholic because the only thing keeping me from becoming a Catholic was my lack of faith. What would stop God from literally transforming bread into His flesh? The Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded and is the Church that will last until the end of time. It is a good idea to check your pride and really look into what the Catholic Church teaches because it is based on Scripture and the Traditions of the early Apostles passed down over the course of 2000 years.
If all that isn't enough to convince you, look into Eucharistic miracles.
Repent. czcams.com/video/yvOzb8_ou_s/video.htmlfeature=shared
@@OnoDiamanteshould we ask all Christians in the first 1500 years to repent for believing in the Eucharist?
The problem with what you have stated is that it goes counter to the word of God. God is not a God of confusion. The text of the scripture in John 6 explains exactly what Jesus meant. It is all about believing. Jesus said that the will of the Father is that anyone who looks upon the Son and believes on him will have eternal life and that He would raise them up on the last day. Jesus never said the will of the Father is to eat his flesh and drink his blood. As a matter of fact, you see nowhere else in scripture where eating of the bread and drinking of the wine is equated to salvation. This should give you a clue. If the flesh counts for nothing and it is the Spirit that gives life, how can you not see what Jesus was saying. Jesus was talking about believing in Him. That is the common message of the Gospel. John 3:16 doesn't mention anything about eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. The Apostles, in all of their epistles, did not mention this. Paul chastised the church at Corinth for taking the Lord's supper in a manner that was unworthy, but Paul never equated the Lord's supper/communion to salvation.
@@OnoDiamante Repentance Is what we do in Confession before partaking of The Precious Body & Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. You should repent too and ask for forgiveness instead of asking others to repent but you don't. That's mockery. Also stop blaspheming His Commandment where he Says in The Gospel: "This is my Body, this is my Blood." Stop being rebellious and heretical. Pray the Act of Contrition. Go to Confession and ask for His Mercy and forgiveness.
@@kang7348well we can’t because they are dead and we don’t talk to the dead. And short answer yes they misquoted the verse
I believe that my Lord and my Saviour Jesus Christ is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament. 🙏
But your belief is not based on truth. You should want to do as the scripture says and that is to worship the Lord in spirit and in truth. Do not remain willfully ignorant of the truth.
@@freakylocz14 Jesus was speaking figuratively. Do you not see that? View this through the lens of the Jewish Passover. Every element of the Passover was symbolic of something to remind them of God's deliverance from Egypt.
Do you still drink water or any other beverage to quench your thirst? If so, and you take everything that Jesus says literally, then you should never be thirsty because Jesus told the woman at the well that whoever drinks of the living water will never thirst again. But the woman at the well thought Jesus was talking about physical water, just like you and your fellow catholics think that Jesus was talking about physically eating his flesh and drinking his blood. The catholic church has perverted the scriptures and replaced its authority with that of the magisterium. Papal infallibility is not Bibllical either. You all follow man and not God. Your practices are heretical and you need to repent.
@@icemanred Yes it is.
Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to His disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My Body." And then He took the chalice, and when He had given thanks He gave it to His disciples, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is My Blood of the New and everlasting Covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Mark 14:22-24)
Jesus said, "My flesh is true food, and My Blood is true drink. He who eats 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 he who eats Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from Heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever." (John 6:55-58)
@@freakylocz14Aparentally you stopped at verse 58 of John chapter 6
Verses 58 to 64 mentions...
58"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." 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe."
@@heythere4871 This part describes y'all:
Jesus said to his disciples, "But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him." (John 6:64)
The thief on the cross never did the Eucharist, but was still saved!
Jesus saves us when we Believe on Him! Christ alone is our saving grace; plus nothing, minus nothing.
My friend, we don’t know if the thief received Holy Communion or not. The text doesn’t say.
We also do not know if he was baptized, it too is not written. Finally, just because some people might be able to enter heaven without having received the Eucharist, it’s a pretty dangerous risk to take. Jesus himself has directed you to eat His flesh, and so you should.
Great point to debunk the work + faith false gospel
Well what could he do? He was nailed to the cross. We're bound by the Sacraments, not God. There are exceptions.
I agree, the thief on the cross is the perfect picture of being saved by grace through faith that there is. He was not at the last Supper, and not alive on earth after the crucifixion to have ever of taken communion. He believed the gospel that Jesus preached to him on the cross and it was counted to him for righteousness.
@@EugeneHolley-rc6rythe thief on the cross went to paradise or what is also called abrahams bossom, not heaven, with the other righteous jews before christ descended and saved them. It is a traditional teaching that he baptized all those in paradise so as to allow them to enter heaven.
It is through christ death AND RESURRECTION that we are saved and he did not resurrect immediatly. The sacraments do not take effect until Jesus resurrected from the dead and comissioned the apostles.
At the very least, the thief on the cross was baptized through what is called baptism of desire.
Trust in the blood of Jesus Christ for salvation and the forgiveness of sins , and in the One who shed it for us ( Collossians , 1 , 14 ) .
Where dose it say in John 6 Jesus is speaking figuratively??? I can’t find it anywhere regarding the Eucharist!
Let’s see, do you interpret the words of Christ literally in John 3 and John 4? I’m sure you believe that someone literally has to return to their mother’s womb and be “born again”. Did the Samaritan woman literally have to drink a cup of water? Use some common sense.
@@OnoDiamante This is a horrible example, sir. It’s pretty easy to tell Jesus is speaking figuratively in John 3. After Nicodemus asks if we have to go back into the womb, Jesus tells him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of _water and the Spirit…”_ which quite obviously implies a supernatural rebirth. And if you’re not convinced, in verse 6, He says, “That which is born of the _flesh is flesh,_ and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Jesus is contrasting between a fleshly birth, and a spiritual birth, so again, obviously metaphorical.
Nicodemus may have misunderstood Jesus at first, but that didn’t mean Jesus didn’t clarify, unlike in the Bread of Life discourse. But sir, this is a classic example of taking a text out of context to try to bolster your eisegesis of John 6. But irrespective of whether or not Jesus clarified Nicodemus’ confusion, even if He didn’t, it’s a red herring to assume that Jesus is being metaphorical in John 6 merely because somewhere else He used a phrase that sounded literal but was actually metaphorical. Thats bad deduction, especially since there is _multiple_ other examples of either the author or Jesus clarifying confusion. To conclude, this is hardly a valid objection to Jesus’ words in John 6.
Jesus said “do this in memory of me” that’s why we do it. Jesus told us how to worship. We don’t choose how to worship.
15 O Lord, thou knowest: remember me, and visit me, and revenge me of my persecutors; take me not away in thy longsuffering: know that for thy sake I have suffered rebuke.
16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O Lord God of hosts.
John 6:35: Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of. life. Whoever *comes* to me will *never go hungry,* and. whoever *believes* in me will *never be thirsty.”*
So, how do we eat Jesus? By coming to him. How do we drink him? By believing.
I'm also an ex-roman Catholic. I encountered the Lord six years ago. He is faithful 🙌🏼
Wow good connection
Isn't that scripture in Jn 6 so easy to understand and so the rest falls into place. God bless
The scriptures are so beautiful, start having bible discussions with your friends, God opens his word like a flower, and the more we read and meditate on it.
More grace 🙏🏼
No salvation outside the Catholic Church.
@@CatholicTruth101 that's not what Jesus said.
Though I am a Catholic, I am interested in the things you teach in your channel stands. However, miracles of cardiac tissue and traces of living blood in the Holy Eucharist have already been discovered and scientifically proven in the past century. Just asking, as a fellow Christian in need, what do you make of these?
I think that it would be best for people to go deep into church history and read the church fathers. The students of the apostles such as Saint Ignatius of Antioch. (Student of John the Apostle) He affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He also condemned the gnostics as they did not believe in the real presence.
1 Corinthians 11:29-30
New International Version
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
It concerns me that your answer is to rely on men. Wouldn't it be better to encourage people to pray that the Holy Spirit would lead them to the proper understanding? After all, Jesus did say that He was sending the helper who would guide us in all truth, correct? If someone wrote something, we are to compare it to scripture (as the Bereans did) and trust the Holy Spirit to guide us to the truth of what we have read. Scripture is the only thing that is God breathed , so why not rely on that and the Holy Spirit.
@@icemanred Yes I believe that the Holy Spirit can lead us to all understanding. The question though, is the Holy Spirit leading you or are you coming to your own conclusions.
We trust in scripture that the spirit led the apostles and the early church. With a 20000 foot view of things, I would rather trust the students of the Apostles then a few people 1500 years later with a different doctrine. If you trust the reformers, then you have to be consistent with the view that the church went into heresy right after the apostles, which means the spirit was not guiding them.
Again that’s man not God. Read the Bible
@@Joeyisundead 100% agree. To your point though, The books of the Bible were identified by the church. Why would you trust they got that right, but disagree with mostly everything else.
Bravo Norm! 👏👏👏
"Do this in memory of me..." - Literal not figurative. Nothing, is impossible through God. Jesus, blessing bread to 'transform' into his body in which he sacrificed for mankind, for our salvation, is not impossible for him to do. Turning wine into his blood, in which he shed for us on the cross, is not impossible for God to do.
What evidence, do you have that He was speaking figuratively, that is not your own opinion? Scripture, especially the Word of Jesus (Which is the truth, and not semantics), is quite literal, especially when he said to his disciples (at the last supper) "Do this in memory of me..." - Do not be deceived by the tongue of the Devil, who spreads lies and confusion against the Words of Jesus.
Amen. 🙏🏼✝️🕊️📿 Thankful to Jesus that I’m Catholic. Praise be to God!
@Onorato Diamante Can you please help explain Matthew 16:24 to 28 please.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself,* take up his cross, and follow me.
25
r For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.*
26
What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life?
27
* s For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.
28
* Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Die to the flesh daily and embrace your suffering because we are made strong in our weakness.
If we wish to proglong our lives in this world we will fail, but if we live for (and die for) Christ we will live forever.
Because nothing in this world is eternal and nothing is this world is trading our lives for.
We will be judged by our works at the 2nd coming .
That last verse is most likely talking about the resurrection and assent into heaven.
Praise Jesus.
Hi All- there seems to be a leak in his points (Eucharist being taken figuratively versus literally). Let’s go back to the last supper Mark chapter 14-22…he said “this is my Body” layer in 24 he said “this is my blood of the covenant” if Jesus meant for the bread and wine to be figurative, he should have said this is a representation of my body and blood. So I don’t buy this argument that John 6 is merely metaphoric or figurative. Give me another argument to look at for the Eucharist.
He didn't say I am figuratively the drink that makes you not thirst again.. He said He who drinks of the water I give them will never thirst again.. He didn't actually hand her a glass of water. You miss the fact that he is using Hebrew idioms and not speaking English. When He said the Pharisees teachings are leavened bread of hypocrisy and malice... But the Pharisees weren't actually feeding people bread... Bread represents doctrine, which is why His doctrine was the bread from heaven like the manna. You must feed on Jesus doctrine from heaven and not man made doctrines... Give me today my daily bread isn't actually eating bread it's teaching us daily by the spirit.
He never claimed to be water tho? He said he would give her water, which is Baptism.
Augustine understood John 6 the same way you explain it. He wrote, “Believe in Christ, and thou hast eaten Christ. For believing in Christ is the eating of the Bread of life.”
Taking v. 53-54 literally would make ingesting Almighty God the instrumental means of salvation. That contradicts so many plain scriptures which tell us that faith is the key.
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” - St. Augustine Sermon 272.
@@pariahcovers7769 Whether we recognize the body and blood of Jesus, in some way or other, in the Eucharist is not at issue: we all do.
Whether we recognize the Real Presence is not the issue here. What is at issue is Transubstantiation: the doctrine that says the substances of bread and wine cease to be bread and wine but for their accidents, such that they become the whole physical substances, spiritual Being, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, which the Catholic then worships as God "in the flesh". This is heresy. The early fathers believed that the bread still was bread when they ingested it, and we don't dare worship a man-made object whether it be a golden calf or a wafer of bread.
Pope Gelasius: “The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. *Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine do not cease.* And assuredly *the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ* are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries” (Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium, 14)
Theodoret: “The mystical tokens or sacraments after the Consecration, depart not from their own nature: for *they remain still in their former substance,* and form, and figure.”
Chrysostom: “The very body of Christ itself is not in the holy vessels, but the mystery or Sacrament thereof is there contained.”
And, “The nature of bread remaineth in the Sacrament.”
Augustine wrote much on this subject:
“Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my Body, when he gave a token of his body.”
“Christ took Judas unto his table, whereat he gave unto his Disciples the figure of his body.”
“Unless Sacraments had a certain likeness of the things of which they be sacraments, then indeed they were no Sacraments. And of this likeness oftentimes they bear the names of the things themselves that are *represented by* the sacraments.”
“In sacraments we must consider, not what they be,” (in substance and nature,) “but what they signify.”
“It is a dangerous matter, and a servitude of the soul, to take the sign instead of the thing that is signified.”
“If it be a speech that commandeth, either by forbidding an horrible wickedness, or requiring that which is profitable, it is not figurative: but if it seem to require horrible wickedness, and to forbid what is good and profitable, it is spoken figuratively. Except ye eat (saith Christ) the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He seemeth to require the doing of that which is horrible, or most wicked: *it is a figure, therefore,* commanding us to communicate with the passion of Christ, and comfortably and profitably to lay up in our remembrance, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.”
“It is a more horrible thing to eat man’s flesh, than to kill it: and to drink man’s blood, than it is to shed it.”
“Believe in Christ, and thou hast eaten Christ. For, believing in Christ is the eating of the bread of life.”
Moreover, Augustine made the point that Jesus has ascended into heaven and, according to Scripture, will not be seen again on earth until the Second Advent; at that time, "every eye shall see Him" coming in the clouds. Augustine wrote:
“According to the flesh that the word received : according to that he was born of the Virgin : according to that he was taken of the Jews : according to that he was nailed to the Cross : according to that he was taken down, and lapt in a shroud, and laid in the grave, and rose again, and showed himself. In this respect it is true that he said : Ye shall not evermore have me with you.”
“Until the world be ended, the Lord is above: yet notwithstanding even here is the truth of the Lord. For the body wherein he rose again must needs be in one place.”
Vigilius said likewise: “The flesh of Christ when it was in earth, was not in heaven : and now, because it is in heaven, doubtless it is not on earth.” (Against Eutychus)
Athanasius agreed with this: “Unto how many men could Christ’s body have sufficed, that he should be the food of all the world ? Therefore he made mention of his ascension into heaven, that he might *withdraw them from corporal and fleshly understanding.”*
But Roman Catholics continue to engage in "corporal and fleshly understanding" of the Eucharist!
Exo 20:4,5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..."
Lev 26:1 "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God."
The Israelites created a calf of gold, declared it to be Almighty God, and worshiped it. As punishment, Moses had the calf ground up and made the people ingest the gold.
The Roman Catholics create wafers of bread, declare them to be Almighty God, rear them up in monstrances and worship them. Then they ingest the bread.
Do you see the similarity? Do you see the wrongness of the Roman Catholic Transubstantiation doctrine and RC eucharistic practices?
If it’s just a symbol no one would be willing to die for a wafer. Would you be willing to give your life for a store-bought bread?? So many martyrs gave up their life for that wafer just so it won’t be desecrated because it’s not just a wafer it’s Christ Himself truly present in the appearance of bread. It’s hard for you to believe this I know because this proves Catholicism is true religion and Jesus Christ founded my faith built on the rock.
@@pariahcovers7769amen to that!
@@Maya-yp2ey Oh, come on! No one gave their lives to defend Transubstantiation; that's ridiculous! Give me some examples of Christians who said they were giving their lives for the belief that the substance of bread ceases to be bread, and I will consider your outlandish claim. But look, I can show you that the RC clergy martyred (by burning alive) at least 288 sincere followers of Jesus Christ in England in just 4 years' time (1555-1558) for the 'crime' of disagreeing with the RC doctrine of Transubstantiation; these Christians believed in the Real Presence in a spiritual sense, but they rejected as heresy the RC belief in the _corporal_ (physical, fleshly) presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and for this the RCC had them burned at the stake. I guess that is how the RCC "loves their enemies and does good to them," eh? 🤪
Historical Protestant Christians: "We are concerned that you Catholics are worshiping wafers of bread as God, and we think this is idolatrous. We're willing to die for our belief and will not recant, because we are concerned about honoring our Lord."
Historical Roman Catholics: "Then die, you scum!" 🤮
That the the rotten, disgusting, murderous religious institution you support and defend!
So Jesus broke His own body and poured Him own blood in a cup... which was bread and wine... How could He have made it any clearer that He was speaking metaphorically?
who do you guys think knows more about what Jesus meant, the early Church fathers or some dude on youtube almost 2000 years later?🤔
John 6 was written 90 years after the events and is different than the earlier gospels.
Well that’s why they split into many denominations right. So yea I trust a guy on CZcams actually doing what the Bible says
@@Joeyisundead thank God for this guy then! the Church has been in darkness for 2000 years and we had to wait for his birth to finally see the light!!! give me a break lol. check yourself as Paul taught, it wouldn’t be smart to go against martyrs for the faith. may God bless and humble you.
When they use the Eucharist they are literally re-sacrificing the Lord over and over and we know that He can only be sacrificed once for all. Also in Psalm 22 Jesus said, "I am a worm." I did a study on that type of worm and it blew me away how it ties in to John chapter 6. God bless you and keep preaching the truth!
No they don't.
@@freakylocz14 They do. They are engaging in a demonic practice. Read Hebrews 7:27 and stop engaging in this Evil practice.
@BP-E Catholics are not "...literally re-sacrificing the Lord over and over...". You are free to disagree with the view of the Catholic church but I think it is important to understand what the Catholic church really teaches. It is a sin to bear false witness. Kindly do some readings.
They teach that perverts can commit fornication with children and then cover it up. God is not mocked and he will repay for all their evil. You need to leave that cult now. No purgatory for them. Hell fire and brimstone, unless they repent. @elizariosantos1252
You are just wrong. Read Brant Pitre or watch his videos online. He goes in depth about the Eucharist.
0:31 - 0:38 did anyone else hear his voice good super low while explaining...... like someone else was talking.... I'm not coming as a skeptical person. Was that edited in?
Yes lol, I slow the video down to gain attention where it should be.
@@OnoDiamante haha.. ok whew lol
"Obviously Jesus is speaking in a figurative sense..." Only took 1500 years for Christians to realise that.
Exactly my thoughts too. Even after that 1500 years, some protestants (Lutherans, Anglicans, Some Baptists) still believe in some forms of Christ presence in the Lord's Supper.
I implore you both to watch the video, “Scientific Evidence of Eucharistic Miracles - Inspired By Carlo Acutis” by The Joy of the Faith and come back and tell me that Jesus isn’t physically present in the Eucharist.
The thing is, nowhere can you find in the first 1500 years of Christianity where the Eucharist was thought to be symbolic. It always had a literal interpretation. Becoming just a symbol is a protestant invention.
Not true. The early church fathers saw the bread and wine as symbols of the physical reality of the body and blood of Christ. Not until the 12th century that the church started to talk of the idea of transubstantiation - and then formalised into dogma during council of Trent in 16th century.
But didn’t Jesus also literally speak in so many parables didn’t He speak in parables so that some people can’t understand Him.
Ask yourself If it’s just a symbol no one would be willing to die for a wafer. Would you be willing to give your life for a store-bought bread?? So many martyrs gave up their life for that wafer just so it won’t be desecrated because it’s not just a wafer it’s Christ Himself truest present in the appearance of bread. It’s hard for you to believe this I know because this proves Catholicism is true religion and Jesus Christ founded my faith built on the rock.
When people misunderstood him he would clarify. He doubled down on what he said hear.
Hey my friend, I have to admit that your Hope sign does look like 1Pope. I know you might think it's silly, but I am just saying. I like your videos. I have been living a life of fear for so long because I have had addiction problems and I thought that Jesus would send me to Hell. Your videos have helped me with my addiction because I had hope again in the fact that because of God's grace, through my faith I am saved. Jesus Christ loves us all so much and he wants us to be obedient obviously, but first and foremost he wants us to believe in him and what he did. Once we truly believe and trust him we can do great things because greater is Jesus Christ that lives within me, than he that lives in the world.
Amen. People who preach against free grace and call it a "license to sin" it's ironic because it actually gives you the power to sin less and get rid of addictions. The works salvation false gospel is what keeps people in bondage and condemnation
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
I didn’t know John Cena was catholic
Wrong ! It does not actually become His body or His blood. That would be considered cannibalism. It is in the same way that Jesus told them " year down this temple and I will raise it up again in three days"...... but He was not speaking literally of the temple itself, but He was speaking of His body, in association of His coming death and resurrection.
Cannibalism is eating something that is dead and if the same species. My friend Christ is not dead.
I was blessed to have witnessed a Eucharistic miracle that I will explain and thereby say that this man totally misses the obvious. The manna bread in the desert was NOT the same as the bread we receive in our Holy Eucharist that's transformed by the priest in the consecration part of our mass into the body of Jesus...Here's what happened to me about 5 years ago; will try to be brief..I'm a life long Catholic and now 71 years old about 5 years ago I started being tormented during Catholic mass by questions how do you really know that our communion host really is Jesus...It went on like this for a few weeks; very distressing internally to me walking up to receive Holy Communion...Well my elderly mom who is 98 now has made over 100,000 rosaries over the last 30 years and can no longer attend mass so I bring her Holy Communion home to her with permission from my Catholic church. ..When I was about to give her commuion one evening after Sunday evening massI noticed inlayed and open up on the communion host there was a pure white dove...Startled I looked away then back and the white dove was still there. I gave the communion host to my mom and she acted no differently. The next day I called the church and they said no our communion hosts have no inlayed spread opem white doves on them they are all just wheat colored...Still troubled by what I saw I googled white dove and Holy Spirit and immediately came to the bible verse Luke 3:22 that says of Jesus when he is getting baptized: And the spirit of God came down upon HIM in bodily form in the shape of a dove and a voice from heaven was heard saying this IS my beloved son in whom I am well pleased...That totally floored me cause I knew in a instant God had just answered those tormenting questions coming at me during our Holy Catholic mass...Yeah the bible verse says the dove came down upon Jesus and there was a dove on my Holy Communion host !! God just told me our communion host IS transformef by our Catholic priests to truely become the body of Jesus !!! Yeah not a shread of doubt in my mind now going up to reveive Holy Commumion now...I truely am touching and receiving Jesus and so is everyone else in our Catholic mass that received commumion. God nless you all. Jimmy
Even if an angel of God comes to you and tells you something contrary to scripture. It is not of God.
Beautiful, thank you for sharing!
CT I assume?
@@emeraldstories3586 What’s CT? Catholic? Yes :)
There was a Eucharistic miracle in Connecticut (CT). It was about a year ago
We also see the figurative use of bread in Matthew 16:6 when Jesus tells his disciples to be beware of the yeast of the pharisees. The disciples, like many today, misunderstood this to mean they need to take some bread with them. (v 7). However, Jesus made it clear that he meant the doctrine of the pharisees, not their bread.
Finally, the disciples got it! ‘Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.’ Jesus often used metaphors and stories, a common teaching method in Hebrew culture.
If it’s just a symbol no one would be willing to die for a wafer. Would you be willing to give your life for a store-bought bread?? So many martyrs gave up their life for that wafer just so it won’t be desecrated because it’s not just a wafer it’s Christ Himself truest present in the appearance of bread. It’s hard for you to believe this I know because this proves Catholicism is true religion and Jesus Christ founded my faith built on the rock.
@@Maya-yp2ey Many a Christian also died for the true gospel of faith alone in Christ alone for salvation, some under dreadful torture. God bless their precious memory.
@@krisjustin3884 that’s true but I’m talking about is the Eucharist. No one would give up their life for a piece of wafer. Would you give your life for a store-bought bread?? The point I’m making here is it’s because it’s not just a piece of wafer it’s Christ. Isn’t hard for God to do this?? He’s omnipotent so nothing is impossible to God and you limit God of His power.
As you said he explained it when they misunderstood. He didn’t do that in John 6. He doubled down in John 6.
@@Maya-yp2ey People also gave up their lives because they did believe it was just a wafer or piece of bread used as a sign of Christ’s death for our sins. The days of Bloody Mary with the tortuous burning of people alive show this vividly. Horrendous acts of violence were committed on both sides I’m sad to say. Other faiths also have people dying for what we think is not true. I’m no one to judge. God have mercy on all of us.
Washed with the Blood of Jesus Christ.
MATTHEW 4:4 KJV
EZEKIEL 3:1-3 KJV
REVELATION 10:10 KJV
JOHN 6:35 KJV
Many are "they" that would read unto their own understanding(imaginations)
in error.
The HOLY SCRIPTURES(WORD of GOD) must be read WITH the HOLY SPIRIT.
JOHN 1:1 KJV
Peace Love and Joy brothers and sisters in JESUS CHRIST!
I have recently become catholic but when I was a protestant I was an Anglican which believes Jesus is really present in the Eucharist. It is not a representation there are real consequences when we start taking parts of the bible literally and some not it leads to progressive Christianity. Please come home to the church founded by Jesus to once more be united as one the early church believed that the bread in the Eucharist was Jesus. It is his body it is his blood it is his soul and divinty
He was talking figuratively.
Otherwise, He would be causing His disciples to sin.
Not to mention, if His body was supposed to be nuturing us for eternity, it would mean that the food, His body- the bread would be a spiritual type of food only accessed through faith.
The keyword is, rememberance.
Brother respectfully, you are mistaken. Jesus was not speaking figuratively and we know what because of the greek word used : "trogo" literally meaning to chew or to gnaw. If Jesus were speaking figuratively he would not have used this verb. Secondly, this teaching was the only time in the entire New Testament when it is recorded that several of his disciples left him because they considered it intolerable language. The reason it was intolerable is because these were first century jews and the thought of eating a mans flesh was too much to bear, however when they asked Jesus to clarify he only continued to double and triple down even further which is why they left him. He offered no clarification that he was speaking symbolically.
He looks to Peter at the end of the discourse and asked him " Will you also leave?" Jesus understood that the teaching was difficult to bear but he did not soften it for his Jewish audience and neither does he soften it for us. He also didn't soften it for Peter and the twelve. Peter's response, should be the response of all of us " Lord to whom shall we go, you have the message of eternal life"
Finally, the entire early church was united in the belief of Jesus' literal presence. To disagree and say Jesus was speaking symbolically would be to disagree with the very apostles who lived, walked with Jesus and founded the church. Historically the symbolic representation is simply unfounded.
I will end with this quote from an Early Church Father " That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” Augustine 411AD
So, in order for me to be in communion with the One True Church and to exist in a state of grace, I am required to accept and embrace that a virgin man, dressed like a chess piece, has the power to turn a cracker and wine into the physical body of a deity from the Classical Era by saying some incantations over them. I am further required to believe that it is the actual, physical body and blood or this man-god because that's what someone in the 1st century said. I am further commanded to eat and drink this literal flesh and blood and, at the same time, not to believe that what I am doing is an act of cannibalism, that it's not weird or creepy, and that it is a prerequisite for my salvation. Oh, and if I don't participate, a loving god whom I am commanded to both love and fear at the same time will set me on fire forever.
What's not to love about this religion?
I think the Natural Man has it right and so did the disciples who left. I reject transubstantiation in it's entirety.
“And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”
(John 6:35 KJV)
He didn’t say if you eat my physical body and drink my physical blood.
It transform into Christ Body and Blood. You are limiting God, is that hard for God to do?? The thing is it’s hard for all of you protestants to believe because this only proves that the Catholic Church is the one true church because Jesus is truly present in the Host.
Except he did. Amen, amen I say unto you, unless you eat MY BODY and drink MY BLOOD you have no life within you.
I love you catholic Jesus love you too💞
Amen.
Thank you for the video ❤
Jesus said the words he was speaking were spirit, the flesh profits nothing. That means eating flesh profits nothing.
What was St. Paul referring to then when he says, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."? 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.
This is in reference to the Masses which the early Christians participated in. They acknowledged that it was Jesus's Body, otherwise how could one be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord if not by unworthily receiving Communion? Is this also yet another metaphor?
When Jesus says the flesh profits nothing, He's saying this precisely to the people who doubted the truth of His words. He's saying that the point of eating His Body is to have spiritual life, not earthly life. That's exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. We receive the Eucharist not for its calories, but for God's grace. What a beautiful gift that we get to receive Jesus Himself and His life.
I encourage you to look into the Eucharistic miracles that have occurred over the centuries.
Always makes me sad when the people saying this stuff are so nice, full of kindness and cheer. Such a nice guy, and yet so very wrong.
Why does the Apostle John devote five chapters to the Last Supper, but not include the words of consecration (This is my body, this is my blood) if Jesus meant those words literally. Also, a Catholic can receive Holy Communion every day and still not be assured of eternal life, but Jesus wants us to know.
Matthew includes it so what’s the problem? They talk about different things.
Also a good thing to meditate on is the washing of the feet (what was it like for Judas).
Jesus wouldn’t change His teaching even though it was offensive to some of the flowers. It’s clear
🌸
To be fair, it is a little confusing what Jesus said. He HAD to know that his words would confuse generations to come. And it's odd how he said to eat his flesh and drink his blood and later told us to remember him by the Lord's supper. It almost seems too close a parallel.
The Bible says it was a hard teaching
What evidence do you have that he is speaking figuratively?
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” People tend to interpret spiritual truth in the physical sense. We see this in John 3 with Nicodemus, John 4 with the woman at the well and John 6 with the Jews. You’re making the same mistake.
Can you name any early church fathers that share your interpretation? This passage can be interpreted both ways (although the literal interpretation seems to make a lot more sense to me), but if no early Christian fathers share your view, then clearly your view is incorrect, since that isn’t how the early Christians understood it.
Also, if Jesus was simply speaking figuratively, why didn’t he just say “oh it’s all just a symbol” when everyone got offended?
@@jacobingebrig2625 Low church Protestants are their own church fathers
And then Jesus said, "And make sure a priest is present or else your communion is invalid bro".
Good one. Only a priest can magically turn a wafer and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ. As if...lol
@@w.r.carman3328 Gotta have a virgin man dressed like a 14th century chess piece to make it all work.
Why would you think any ordinary person should have the authority to effect the bread and have it transubstantiate into the flesh of Christ?
@@CatholicTruth101 how is a priest not an ordinary person?
@@snorman1911 Because they went to school for 8+ years being trained in the faith, and because they have the mark of holy orders attached to their soul. They’ve also taken vows of celibacy. None of that is ordinary. No random person at some picnic has the authority to effect the sacrament, but only the ministers of God.
Hi all: The plague behind Ono does NOT say: 1 Pope. It spells HOPE!
Hey Onorato, great sermon but why does your ‘Hope’ sign behind you look like ‘1 Pope’?
Amen, Believers can partake of the Lord's supper together in remembrance of what He finished for them on the cross. They are however already eternally saved because they have believed in His finished work whether they partake or not.
AMEN. Communion should not be turned into an occult ritual that only a priest can perform. Kind of blasphemous, actually. Communion is taken in remembrance. To make a communion wafer "Holy" seems beyond idolatry.
Idolatry of (checks notes) Jesus.
@@emeraldstories3586 you need to read what the Catholic Church's own doctrine says. If you do not know it, as made obvious by your comments, I cannot have any reasonable discussion about the subject. Have a nice night.
13 Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again.[b] The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
Jesus is clearly not talking about a regular water. Great video Onorato. I am surprised how this clear issue they get it twisted.
Amen brother!! Love your preaching and Pastor ricci preaching! I want to leave california and move to Rhode Island.
I just noticed Hebrews , Ch.11 , verse 11 , in reference to Christ: " But this man , after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever , sat down on the right hand of God " . Christ made one sacrifice , forever . The R.C. Church , it seems , keeps re sacrificing Him with their practices . Verse 14 is also very relevant : " For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified " .
As Catholics we are not re sacrificing Jesus over and over this is a common misconception. Please learn actual church teaching before you try to debunk something we never even believed in. Always remember that it is a sin to bear false witness.
I'm entirely satisfied with Jesus' words, "this is my body... my blood of the new covenant." I don't need any consubstantiation or transubstantiation explanation any more than I need to fully comprehend the trinity in order to place my faith in Christ or observe communion. It seems so unnecessary to play the "body, blood, soul, and divinity" explain-game in order to partake. Jesus' words are sufficient, certainly in the wider testimony of scripture that trust in Christ is the basis of salvation, now and ongoingly.
So is it Faith in Christ or the Eucharist Catholic? Which one is that?
If Jesus just wanted those to believe he would have just said believe in me, why would he have to throw in the phrase eat my flesh and drink my blood. Also at the last supper he once again re irrterated to eat this bread and drink this cup as his body and blood. He formulates it into the body and bread. The first church fathers after the apostles also stated that the eucharist is the body and blood of christ and beware of those who do not believe it. Look up St. Ignatius of Antioch. Please research thoroughly on this matter.
Why would I look up St. Ignatius? What would he possibly say that wouldn't be biased?
He’s a 1st martyr and a disciple of John (Author of the Gospel of John)
Shocking... the priest, He is reading scriptures?
I am so sick and tired of these clowns adding to the simplicity of the gospel. Trust the savior, not the sinner.
So a wicked false prophet. He is a son of the devil
Amen
We are not clowns. That is Jesus Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. If you’re so in love with Jesus why won’t you partake in consuming Him? By consuming Him He consumes your soul in the Eucharist. That is the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
@@youngconservativeYou have much to learn. Read the Bible yourself and the Catholic religion will fall apart. That's what happened for me. I pray that you come out of that system and trust on Jesus Christ alone for your salvation.
@@johnjones393 How can the Catholic religion fall apart if the formed and canonized the Bible? 🤣
Jesus also said "you must be born again"; what do Catholics do to symbolize that? After all, if they take the eating and drinking literally, shouldn't they take that literally as well?
To be born again is through baptism. It refers to the transformation that God’s grace accomplished in us during baptism. In baptism we die and rise with Christ to wash away our original sin. We have literally been born again through Baptism. And we partake in the Paschal Mystery during the Eucharist.
@@youngconservative except that isn't how Jesus describes being born again as. He never states that it is done through baptism at any point.
Yes he say s one must be born "of water" and "of the spirit" but the dichotemy in question in those passages is spiritual birth vs physical birth.
To be saved one must be born of water (physically born) and of the spirit (spiritually born)
If you need further context there are any instances In scripture in which people are only baptized after they believe, an are saved. Not as a requirement for it to happen.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).
Read it and weep.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” *Mortalium Animos*
Jesus (more accurately his followers) baptized us with the Spirit. Reread John 1.
This is my flesh and blood means that THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN! BELIEVE IN ME! If you don't and if you don't believe this beware of taking this flesh and blood, because you have nothing to do with me.
If it was to be taken literally than why didn’t it also mention in the Bible how to physically bless the wine and bread to make sure it “transforms” into the blood and flesh of Christ. The Eucharistic ritual is literally a ritual performed to make sure the wine and bread is transformed into blood and flesh and every Single Eucharist reads off the same thing and can’t deviate from this or else the wine and bread aren’t blessed and can’t transform into blood and flesh. For such a strict ritual you’d think it would be mentioned in the Bible in order to physically and literally partake in the consumption of flesh and blood. The only literal thing about it is it’s a man made ritual with no basis in the Bible.
Jesus spoke more than what’s in the Bible. He gave his disciples power to Forgive sins, ordain and make doctrine where Scripture was vague. He gave power to Peter to bind and loose. My point is we need to also consider the Didache (Which means the teaching of the 12), and not just Sola Scriptora.
Now before you make an argument for Sola Scriptora, find for me an OR verse that mentions “The seat of Moses.”
I can't even finish watching this Catholic 🙉😖
So annoying
Not only is he a heretic, he’s full of himself and a pretty face for the RC church
It’s sad to see that you don’t know the Person to Jesus because Father Mike Schmidt’s is radiating Jesus. You obviously don’t know Jesus if you’re thrown off by Father Mike.
@@youngconservative"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9
How is this man radiating Jesus? He's a sinner like all of us and he needs a Savior, not a religion based on works and tradition.
@@johnjones393 Then how did Jesus practice a religion (Judaism) which is a religion based upon works and tradition. You are completely lost if you think Jesus is telling us not to practice faith works tradition and scripture. You’re so lost.
The Eucharist is Jesus. John 6 must be interpreted along with the other passages relating to the Last Supper and 1 Corinthians, where Paul talks about taking the bread and wine in an unworthy manner. In 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, Paul writes, "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." Additionally, in 1 Corinthians 10:16, Paul states, "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"
Just as John 6:60 says, "This is a hard teaching... who can accept it?"
Jesus was using a metaphor to prepare the disciples for His resurrection, and at the Last Supper, He created the "New Covenant" and changed the ritual from manna and the Paschal Lamb to Himself. He is the Paschal Lamb. He is the new manna from heaven when the apostles and their appointed successors take the bread, break it, and bless it with the Eucharistic prayers. The apostles were Jews. They had a Passover ritual. The Last Supper changed that with the "New Covenant" that was to happen.
Protestants get hung up on the specific word "transubstantiation," which was used later in Christianity, but it is simply a way to explain the "mystery of faith" that happens during the Mass. Was there such a thing as gravity or the laws of physics before science defined those theories? Yes.
The apostles and early Church Fathers all believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. All. Of. Them. For over 16 centuries. Even Martin Luther did; he just defined it as consubstantiation, not transubstantiation. That's akin to arguing which side of a rose petal the smell comes from. Is there a smell? Yes, it's irrelevant which side it comes from. Along the same vein, Jesus is present in the Eucharist; that is the Catholic belief. How it happens is explained as transubstantiation. You don't have to believe that term, just that Jesus is present after the blessing.
So, to now say, "Well, those early Church Fathers were wrong," what else did they get wrong? Those were the men who created the biblical canon and had the original deposit of faith from Jesus.
It's a hard teaching. But once you realize this hard teaching by understanding "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." Faith alone is what brings you to Christ. Then you believe He is present in the Eucharist, which brings Him, "the new manna from heaven," down into the bread and wine on the altar.
Read Brant Pitre on this topic. He goes in-depth about the Jewish roots of Jesus and the Eucharist.
Greetings. Good preaching Brother. Blessings !
So, in order for me to be in communion with the One True Church and to exist in a state of grace, I am required to accept and embrace that a virgin man, dressed like a chess piece, has the power to turn a cracker and wine into the physical body of a deity from the Classical Era by saying some incantations over them. I am further required to believe that it is the actual, physical body and blood or this man-god because that's what someone in the 1st century said. I am further commanded to eat and drink this literal flesh and blood and, at the same time, not to believe that what I am doing is an act of cannibalism, that it's not weird or creepy, and that it is a prerequisite for my salvation. Oh, and if I don't participate, a loving god whom I am commanded to both love and fear and at the same time, will set me on fire forever.
What's not to love about this religion?
I think the Natural Man has it right.
Oh dear what a load of garbage. I feel for these people.
Didnt jesus bless the bread and wine at the last summer and say do this in remeberance of me .. he was saying it literallly..the catholic church stems from Jesus..takes its beginnings all the way to christ..jesus appointed Saint Peter as the first pope...leader of the catholic church..Jesus said to Peter "You are the rock in which i build my first church"
Leviticus 17:13-14 This passage is part of the Old Testament and is one of the many laws given to the Israelites by God through Moses. The purpose of this law was to remind the Israelites that life is sacred and that they should respect it by not eating blood. i doubt jesus (who was jewish) would make his disciples (who were jews) drink blood.
@@carsonbaird3904 not old..new..As a final and specially prepared Passover supper was ending, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to his Apostles, saying, “Take, eat” (Matt. 26:26). “This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19).
@@MiriamMoncrief Jesus never rejected the old testament. he still kept Mosiac law he said he was there to fulfill the law not abolish it Matthew 5:17-18 . It is a sin to drink blood
@Petah Gayfin but he said verbatim to do this in remembrance of me..I'm a catholic so nothing will ever change my beliefs of what Jesus said ..Thanks
@@carsonbaird3904 Nice try , but we are not under the levitical priesthood. The NT Priesthood of the Catholic Church is in the order of Melchizedek. So you trying to go and appeal to the OT levitical laws and priesthood does nothing. Jesus instituted the Eucharist and Wine with his pre figurement teachings and commands that we must partake of his flesh and blood for eternal life in the appearance of the bread and wine. The Apostles taught this to be literal not symbolic and the Church has been teaching this for 2000 years
I wonder if he really believes what he's saying but he's too afraid to leave for fear of his life...
It is a VERY powerful organization
with MANY members
who have been brainwashed
and they will tell on him and do whatever the priest tells them to do to him.
And I noticed he didn't use the forbidden book the King James Bible. 🙋♀️✝️
Pamela Corona Thinking the same, have watched a few of this priest's videos & he seems like he is on something or something is in him. Either way, something seems off.
Those who believe something is wrong with Father Mike Schmidt’s have obviously never met the true person of Jesus. Mike has been transformed by the love of Jesus and proclaiming the TRUTH of the Eucharist. If you think something is wrong with him, you have been tricked by the devil.
@@sawyerwhited6802, listen to that discernment. Catholicism is wicked. Doctrines of demons and people filled with religious spirits. Not the Holy Spirit. It's a weird and dark religion...and the fundamentals are completely backwards. It's works based Salvation and they're obsessed with authority, idol worship and poisoning the true Gospel.
The KJV is corrupted.
Praise the Lord, thank you Jesus for salvation
They also put Marry up there with Jesus Christ lol
Cuz she's Mater Dei.
They're practicing a form of cannibalism.
yes and witchcraft because of how they "Bless" the eucharist and also how they "bless" holy water, it's a spell they are casting over these things
@@mikeha You are so correct!
@@mikeha Interesting, makes sense.
@@mikehaNope. The Priest is in the Person of Christ. Jesus is blessing the Eucharist through the Priest. The priest is a vessel used by Jesus.
@@youngconservative call no man father, for there is one Father which is in heaven. Catholic priests are unsaved, and there is nothing in the Bible which justifies their existence.
Absolutely 💯AMEN 🙏 I COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF! 😂 😆🤣 God bless you Dear Brother in Christ! ❤
Read John 6:30 to 35 and but in John 6:33 for the bread of god is he who comes down and gives life to the world and in John 6:32 it talks about how God gave the Israelites bread to eat from heaven people have eaten the Eucharist even before catholics repent and come to the Catholic which is not man made but made by god for Jesus is god in human.
...Holy Baptism...
Amen...Great explanation...The reason some of the people following Christ left Him was because just like this priest...the followers that left were interpreting Christ's words literally and not spiritually...Christ often used Hyperbole (exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally) ... to see who was seeing him with their spiritual eyes and who was not.
I think you are reading into It. Why are you conflating believing in Jesus and eating Jesus’ Flesh and drinking Jesus’ Blood? Jesus wants people to believe, if people believing will keep them from burning in Hell forever, don’t you think that Jesus would’ve been pretty clear at least when it comes to how not to go to Hell?
No, I’m comparing scripture with scripture.
“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”
John 6:40
“Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:54
It’s abundantly clear what he’s referring to. It’s ironic that you’ll readily concede to figurative language in John 3 with Nicodemus and John 4 with the Samaritan woman. Yet you scoff at the idea of Christ speaking metaphorically in John 6.
Consuming blood is forbidden in both the Old and New Testaments, no exception for whose blood it is. So if Jesus said to drink his blood literally then he contradicted Himself and made us commit the above sin!
I was born Catholic. Got caught up in the deception of missionaries. Spent almost two decades in the chaos of Protestantism. Finally got tired of Calvinism, So-called Fundamentalism, and Pentecostalism. I came back home to Ancient Apostolic Faith. Enough said
😂😂😂. Lmao. Pentecostalism is justa satanic cult
You're a wind sock.
It's Jesus last supper with his disciples .He is seated at the right of the Father in heaven scripture says Jesus was crucified once for all. . It is no biblical.
Do Catholics also believe that Jesus was made of photons because he declares he "is the light of the world?" He doesnt say "I am LIKE a light," or a "symbol of light." Do Catholics also believe Jesus is a creeping vine, because he says "I am the vine, you are the branches?" Or that Jesus is literally a door? Maybe there is an argument for transubstantiation but its not because 'Jesus didnt say it was a symbol.'
They are probably still waiting for that water that Jesus described in John 4:14.
I forgive you. On behalf of my fellow Catholic brothers and Sisters I would like to invite you to Mass. Please also read John 6, it will change your life for the best to incomprehensible magnitudes
@@bmfanimationsandstuff I go to full Latin mass about once a year. It's beautiful, but it doesn't mean that I agree with it in totality.
@@LifeOutward Pray and you will find the Truth
THIS RC IS MAKING ME FEEL SICK UGH
Amen brother, well said!!
Imagine the same John 4 when Jesus talked about living waters and by the Jacob's well. There was PHYSICAL water for our body and Jesus was using that as an analogy for the woman - and for us who read John 4 - to say the thirst we need to be quenched is spiritual not physical. It comes when you BELIEVE in Jesus Christ, the Gospel of Christ, and then do you receive living waters. John 7 defines living waters as Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 12 says baptized of Holy Spirit in Christ, Eph. 1:13 says Holy Spirit given when you believe.
You go to all kinds of heresies when you go by human tradition.
That "father", which goes against Matt. 23, is very deceiving with his nice smile and seemingly kind and understanding ways. Satan can be alike, just see 2 Cor. 11. Satan comes as an angel of light to deceive.
May God bless you all :)
...water I eill give....he is talking about Hoky Baptism dude!!
Why does Jesus so specifically say "my body" and "my blood"? I can understand that a symbolic eating of the new bread from heaven is believing in him, but what about eating his body and blood? Blood is never consumed by the fathers in the wilderness, it is a whole new term used here with no real way to circle back to anything literal.
Another point. In John 6:53 Jesus says, ""Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, *you do not have life within you*". Circling back to John 6:40 Jesus says, "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him on the last day". Here Jesus is talking about eternal life, but in John 6:53 he says you can have NO life if you do not eat of his body and blood. I believe what he is saying here is that you must eat of his body and blood to be able to have any life, including eternal life in heaven. If you have no life in you to begin with, how can you achieve eternal life through just belief? (I use the New American Bible)
And within all of this, God is merciful beyond any and every one of us. We cannot have a switch that says "Yes" or "No". God is the ultimate judge and will give us what we deserve.
He hath made us perfect ONCE AND FOREVER. He 10 14. I guess he lied to Catholics who believe they sacrifice him everyday
You people are so dishonest. Read the whole chapter. Hebrews 10:26.
@@CatholicTruth101 I have whats your point.
@@fillup901 The point is that one who has been justified and perfected can lose the state of justification and be damned if they continue in willful sin.
@@CatholicTruth101 I'm assuming you're referring to Hebrews 10:26 correct? However, I don't believe that's what it means because in Romans 7:15 Paul admits to willfully sinning "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I HATE, that do I." I don't think Paul went to hell and Im sure you dont either. If sinning willfully resulted in us losing our salvation no one would be saved, because we all sin willfully. Also, not every biblical mention of fire and burning signifies hell. For example, Isaiah 66: 15-18 "For, behold, the Lord will come with FIRE, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his REBUKE with flames of fire. " God doesn't rebuke/correct people if they're damned. He rebukes only his own children, and I wont write that one out but you can find proof in Dt 8:5, 2 Sm 7:14, Ps 38:1, Ps 39:11 and many more
So much of hate in these videos 😢
Jesus asked to love not hate ❤
Amen. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood is spiritual because eating the flesh, I believe, stands for the struggle against the flesh and the trials a born again Christian has (just like Jesus had), while drinking his blood stands for eternal life because "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev 17:11) and because his blood of course paid for our sins and justifies us. Generally we have to take Scripture literal, but sometimes it's clearly figurative. Jesus is not a literal lamb, not a literal bread, not a literal door and so forth. I find it ironic when a Catholic wants to take a certain Scripture literal because it suits his false doctrine, but then on the other hand they allegorize countless other Scripture that is actually clearly to be taken literal, again in order to suit their false doctrines.
When Jesus talks about Himself, it is always in the LITERAL sense. Jesus never used figurative language when talking about Himself. And when He says, “This is MY BODY, this is MY BLOOD.” That is His Body and is His Blood in the Eucharist. Just like when He says “the Father and I are One,” He never talks about Himself in figurative languages. It’s always direct.
Also you quoted Leviticus wrong, you ignored an entire part of it that you obviously wanted to ignore bc if you kept it in it would have crumbled your whole argument. Leviticus 17:11 says, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.” The altar is where the Eucharist is prepared. Just like the paschal lamb was prepared. Jesus laid Himself down so we may partake in eternal life. And He gives Himself to us through the Eucharist.
Even Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the fruit of the vine with Jesus at the last supper. "He who dips his bread with me". We can be certain he won't be in Heaven. "I have not lost one EXCEPT the son of perdition."
Also, "ye must be born again" was a hard saying for Nicodemus. Clearly it was also figuratively spoken.
That’s a misinterpretation. It wasn’t a “hard saying” as those in John 6 took Jesus’ words. Nicodemus was confused and asked if one can enter his mothers womb again. Hence, _because of his misunderstanding,_ Jesus _clarifies_ by saying you must be born of “water and spirit”, and in this context, Jesus is saying that our _souls_ need to be regenerated, not our bodies (although, Nicodemus is still uncertain since he says, “How can these things be?”). This is also a good example of how when someone misunderstands Jesus, Jesus blatantly points out their misunderstanding (v. 10), but that doesn’t happen in John 6.
In the Bread of Life discourse, unlike with Nicodemus, after the people say, “How can this man give us flesh to eat?”, Jesus doesn’t say, “Do you not understand?” Or, “I’m saying you must believe in me”, instead Jesus not only _reiterates_ the need to consume His flesh and blood six times, but graphically _intensifies_ His speech. Before verse 54, the Greek word Jesus uses for “eat” is _phago,_ which is generic, but then in verse 54, Jesus switches the word to _trogo,_ which means to “gnaw”, or “chew”. It doesn’t make sense that Jesus would use more graphic terminology to convey a less than real meaning of His words. Very misleading indeed if Jesus is intending to be metaphorical. Basically, Jesus is referring to the action you must do with your mouth, namely, to chew. And then after using this explicit word, in the next verse He says, _“For_ my flesh is _true_ food, and my blood is _true_ drink.” To say that Jesus really just means “metaphorical food” and “metaphorical drink” would be an extreme case of special pleading. And it is in this context that the people say, “This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?” Meaning, they weren’t puzzled like Nicodemus, but fully understood Jesus to be speaking literally. They weren’t _questioning_ His words at that point, as where Nicodemus asked a question because he was puzzled. Instead, they just stated that what Jesus just said is hard to swallow (pun intended).
Furthermore, when Jesus states that His words are “spirt and life”, the people leave Him _after He says that._ So 1: Before the “spirit and life” verses, if Jesus’ words were metaphorical, he wasn’t conveying it very well at all, since they still took Him literally. And 2: when Jesus talks about the “spirit” after, if His intention was to explain that His words were symbolic, Jesus wasn’t doing a good job at that either, cause they left Him without dropping the literal understanding!
The metaphorical interpretation of John 6 necessarily requires you to call Jesus competence as a teacher into question, which, if that’s what it leads you to do, then it’s probably not the right interpretation.
@TrickeryMan oh please, Nicodemus wasn't "puzzled" or "confused". He was being sarcastic?
As in, "what am I supposed to do; crawl back up inside my mother's womb?"
You can't possibly believe he thought that was what Jesus suggested. And as far as bread and wine go...Jesus literally said "do this in remembrance of me" while eating LITERAL bread and drinking LITERAL juice or wine (whichever it was).
@@skokenos Sorry for the long comment, it should be quite informational though! I hope you read it :)
You misunderstand me, unless there was a grammatical error in my comment. I didn’t say Nicodemus wasn’t puzzled, he was. I said _unlike_ Nicodemus, Jesus’ disciples _weren’t_ puzzled, but took Jesus’ words _as is_ and said it was hard to accept.
Regarding your last paragraph, the fact that Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me” does not contradict a literal interpretation. This line is being taken out of context.
As you know, or should know, the Last Supper was a _new Passover,_ in which Jesus Himself became the lamb (1Corinthians 5:7). In first century Judaism, so at the time of Jesus, whenever the Passover was celebrated, the rabbis saw it as a way of participating in the first exodus. The Passover was not just a literal sacrifice; it was also a “memorial” or “remembrance” (Exodus 12:14) by which the Jewish would both remember and somehow _make present_ the deliverance that had been won for their ancestors in the exodus from Egypt. An ancient Jewish writing says:
“In every generation a man must so regard himself as if he came forth _himself_ out of Egypt, for it is written… “It is because of what the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:4)” (Mishnah, _Pesashim_ 10:5).
With these words, we see clearly that for ancient Jews, the Passover feast was not just a remembrance of what God had done for their ancestors. In a mysterious way, they saw each Passover, “in every generation,” as a way of sharing in the original act of redemption. They essentially re-enacted the first Passover as if it was happening to them. And this all would have been happening at the time of Jesus-and Jesus, being a faithful Jew, had attended the Passover every year (Luke 2:41), meaning the disciples would have had this perspective on the Passover as well, namely, that it was really to _relive_ the first Passover. They didn’t just metaphorically sacrifice a lamb and eat; they literally killed and ate it. It was a “memorial sacrifice”.
So with this in mind, we can now look forward to the significance of Jesus initiating a new Passover. But first, let me just quickly emphasize what made the Passover valid. Many people think it simply involved sacrificing a lamb, and that’s all that needed to be done. But that’s false. Both the first Passover (especially the first), and the Passover in Jesus’ time was not completed until they had _eaten_ the sacrifice (Exodus 12:8-12). In fact, in Luke 2:41:43, three times the Passover (which was a sacrifice) was called a “feast”. The lamb had to be killed _and_ eaten. Those were major components. When Jesus tells His disciples to go prepare the Passover, it is so that “we may _eat_ it.” And when with them in the room, He says, “I have earnestly desired to _eat_ this Passover with you before I suffer.”
So now when we examine the Last Supper in this context, how would His disciples took His words and actions? At any ordinary Jewish Passover, the entire liturgy revolves around the body and blood of the sacrificial lamb, in fact that was the day it was supposed to be sacrificed (Luke 22:7), yet there was no lamb mentioned during Last supper. Instead, Jesus shifted the focus away from the body and blood of the Passover lamb, and turned it toward His own body and blood. As a Jewish man, he had celebrated Passover many times before; He knew full well what He was doing by changing it this time. He was showing that this was no ordinary Passover; it was the Passover of the Messiah, the night on which some Jews believed Israel would at last be “redeemed” (Exodus Rabbah 18:11).
When He told His disciples to “Do this in remembrance of me”, He was echoing the command of God to keep the ancient Passover as a “remembrance” forever (Exodus 12:14). By means of these words, He was commanding His disciples to perpetuate this new Passover sacrifice in the future. In short, by placing His own body and blood at the center of this new Passover, Jesus revealed that He saw Himself as the new Passover lamb-which has major implications.
In every Passover celebration, from the first one to the Last supper, the lamb was _literally_ killed, it’s blood was _literally_ shed, and it’s flesh was _literally_ eaten. What happens with Jesus? His blood is _literally_ shed, He _literally_ dies… but wait! Just forget the last part🤔No! Jesus asks us to _literally_ eat Him.
In John 6, Jesus said that “the _bread_ that I _will_ give for the life of the world _is my flesh”,_ He’s speaking in the future tense. Now look forward to the night before He dies, Jesus ”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.” Jesus just fulfilled His promise from John 6! Not only that, but this parallels strongly with the feeding of the five thousand.
1) - Feeding the five thousand takes place on the Passover (John 6:4).
- The Last Supper takes place on the Passover (Luke 22:7).
2) - “Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks (Greek eucharistia), he distributed them to those who were seated.” (John 6:11).
- Jesus “took bread, and when he had given thanks (Greek: eucharistia), he broke it, and gave it to them, saying…” (Luke 22:19).
In light of such parallels, to deny any connection to these two events would be prideful and obstinate. The feeding of the five thousand was a prefiguration of the Last Supper in sense.
An important thing to notice in the feeding of the five thousand, is that, after Jesus “gives thanks”, a _miracle occurs._ He did something unexplainable on the natural level. So when Jesus does the same thing at the Last Supper, “giving thanks”, if the feeding of the five thousand was miraculous and a foreshadowing of the next Passover, then it makes sense that the “real deal” would be greater-that is, “miraculous”, doing something unexplainable on the natural level.
So, after all this, in conclusion, when Jesus says “Do this in remembrance of me”, it is not Jesus saying, “Just remember me by metaphorically eating me.” To be honest, it would seem arbitrary and _less real_ than the OT Passover. But that never happens; Old Testament prefigurations are never greater than their New Testament fulfilment. If Jesus was being metaphorical at the last Supper, for 1: this implies there was no real sacrifice in the new Passover, which was _THE center_ of the OT one. And 2: this implies that they didn’t even eat a sacrifice, which again, was the _completion_ of the OT sacrifice. In other words, the new Passover appears to be less important than the OT one from a metaphorical standpoint and also completely misses the point.
But the phrase, “Do this in memory of me.” in Greek reads, “Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin.” There are two aspects of this phrase that deserve consideration. For one, the phrase _touto poieite_ can be translated as _do this_ or as _offer this._ In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites “you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar two lambs” (Ex. 29:38). This use of “poiein” is translated as “offer this” or “sacrifice this” over seventy times in the Old Testament. So the same word that is used for the sacrifice under the Old Covenant is used for the sacrifice of the Passover in the New.
The second key aspect of this phrase is Our Lord’s use of the word _anamnesin._ Every time this word (anamnesis) appears it is within a sacrificial context (see, for example, Numbers 10:10). It also can be translated as “memorial offering” or “memorial sacrifice.” While these nuances are lost in the English translation, Jewish ears would have understood the sacrificial meaning of Christ’s words.
So essentially, Jesus is saying, “Offer a memorial sacrifice for me.” Now, to clarify, yes, _one_ aspect of it is to “remember” what Christ has done, but _only_ for that reason is to miss the point greatly.
It is such a hard saying that few people can bear simply trusting in the finished work of Jesus on the cross alone for salvation.
And I should add that if the taking of Jesus' literal flesh and blood is present in the bread and wine, then why is it that for the most part only the priests get to drink the wine while the congregation gets only the bread? Even by their own heretical and demented view of the rite of communion, they are damning the people to hell for not drinking the blood of Christ. But I guess if you're going to be wrong you might as well be all in on being wrong.
@@richardwilliams9532 Definitely the Holy Spirit makes truth and error clear like that. God bless.
In some places you do get the Wine. But the reason it’s not done is Covid. I really wish they would hog back.
So many inaccuracies and misinterpretations, where to begin... I guess first, I'd recommend to do some historical research on "your" interpretation. There is historical record from Justin the martyr 155 AD wrote a letter to the Emperor of Rome defending Christianity against the persecution of the Roman Empire. Look it up, Chapter 66 he clearly explains the Eucharist and this is not even 200 years after Jesus. Even Martin Luther believed in the Eucharist. The interpretation of Matthew that you have come up with is less than 500 years old. Who should we trust more? These theologians or historical records of people who are not even two centuries from Jesus' time. Secondly, figurative and literal language does not always juxtapose one another, there is such a thing as sylleptic, meaning it can be both. Jesus is using language of bread to associate to the Torah and manna. But, if he was only being figurative, why would he repeat himself 5 times and say truly, truly. In biblical times, when you repeat yourself that adds extra emphasis to what the person is about to say to take it seriously. For the sake of how long this is, I'll do one more. You interpret verse 49 that because they ate literal bread in the wilderness therefore is a literal representation of bread. But, Jesus is the bread figuratively. This is a horrible misinterpretation of what Jesus is truly saying. Jesus is simply stating your fathers ate physical manna to sustain their physical bodies, but my bread (himself) will be sustaining your soul. No where does he say, this is to be taken figuratively. Please do some research
Research? To find what? Appeal to authority fallacy?
@@thomasn3882 it’s not like we can go back in time and ask Jesus what he meant, so we have to use what is written in history of people close to Jesus or as close as you can to see how they understood what Jesus meant it’s not a claim to authority argument, but how any historian tries to understand past events. You go to the source, and then people close to the source. It’s pretty straightforward
@@thomasn3882 well, yea why appeal to the early church fathers who WROTE DOWN THE SCRIPTURES AND APPROVED THE BIBLICAL CANON. Those guys.
The only fallacy is the self refuting fallacy of "solo scripture" which says the bible alone, but, it doesn't say that in the bible. Who says that? The protestant reformers. so, Catholics appeal to the apostles and early church fathers. While others discount them and appeal to the 16th Century reformers "authority".
So, pick your poison Brah! I'm going with the Apostles. Luther was a nutter.
How many blind, handless catholic do you have?
Matthew 5:29-30 King James Version
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
John 6 is speaking in the spiritual, not literal.
John 6:63 King James Version
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.
Amsn
John 6:66, first time the Protestants appears in the Bible
Spiritual things are spiritually appraised. "Let no man teach you". God's Holy Spirit is our Teacher. Test the spirits. Pray for that poor priest-- deceived and deceiving. The Word of God stands, and yes, RIGHTLY DIVIDED. RITUAL SACRIFICES WERE OF THE OLD COVENANT. WHY GO BACK?? Yep. I think we know the answer.
Your caps lock is sticking.
Also RC's Roman Catholics, protestants, other cults, and also 90% of baptist today preach and teach faith plus works salvation false doctrines. They all lead into doubt and never sure they are saved. It's sad but true. John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9 is so clear and yet they still don't get. Thanks for sharing
If you deny John 6 you don’t believe.
The priest was partly telling the truth but did not fully explain that the wafer "host" now contained the actual Jesus himself; hair eyes ,teeth, complete person. Why must it be the actual Jesus? So that they can offer Him up as an actual sacrifice at the sunday mass. When the priest (mediator) between laity and God holds up the wafer/christ and says "lamb of god who takes away sin" he actually means he's holding the very Son of God in his hand. But Jesus is really seated at the right hand of the Father not in the wafer in the priests hand The congregation then say (many unknowingly) amen, so be it to, another Jesus for God does not dwell in a temple (wafer / host) made of hands.(Psalm) also we read; "If anyone says Lo come see the Christ he is in the secret chamber (monstrance) believe them NOT." (Jesus) The Bell rings? Why? To signify that an actual sacrifice is about to take place before your very eyes. The Bell rings again and the congregation then kneel before another Christ. They can also sing praises to the wafer giving it adoration as to the true God They can put the wafer in the box (monstrance) and the faithful bow to it, the wafer, now said to be transformed into God. They can go and gaze at the wafer in the monstrance for it is now Jesus. Yet there is not one iota of scripture that supports this blasphemy. So week after week the priest offers up ,re-presents Christ as a sacrifice on the Catholic altar for without which no Catholic can be saved/reclaimed/forgiven. And any who deny the sacrifice of the mass of the wafer disguised God are said to be cursed. I now certainly deny it. Scripture says in
Heb 7:27 "Who needeth NOT daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this He did ONCE, when He offered up himself."
Never to be repeated, re offered ,re presented or re-inacted. Jesus said it is finished. Saved out of 19 years of Roman Catholic darkness by the gospel of grace.
It’s sad that you are so lost. I’m so sorry and I pray for your soul.
To say Jesus Christ was speaking Figuratively is to call Jesus Christ a LIAR.
That is a very damnable offense indeed.
No where there or else where (in the Matthew, Mark, Luke, or Paul) is Your teaching taught or understood.
As a Catholic it is a great Blessing to be in a Church which reads the Bible plainly and doesn't call Jesus Christ a Liar.
Remember at the Last Supper Jesus does say This IS my Body, never does he say this is Your Faith in Me.
So, in order for me to be in communion with the One True Church and to exist in a state of grace, I am required to accept and embrace that a virgin man, dressed like a chess piece, has the power to turn a cracker and wine into the physical body of a deity from the Classical Era by saying some incantations over them. I am further required to believe that it is the actual, physical body and blood or this man-god because that's what someone in the 1st century said. I am further commanded to eat and drink this literal flesh and blood and, at the same time, not to believe that what I am doing is an act of cannibalism, that it's not weird or creepy, and that it is a prerequisite for my salvation. Oh, and if I don't participate, a loving god whom I am commanded to both love and fear at the same time will set me on fire forever.
What's not to love about this religion?
I think the Natural Man has it right and so did the disciples who left. I reject transubstantiation in it's entirety.
God sends no one to hell. You chose to go there. If you live a life that wants no God, then he grants that wish.
@@emeraldstories3586 Are you saying that a person can't know god without playing this ridiculous game of charades?
@@Flintlock1776 We are required to believe in Holy Eucharist, not because some man said it, but because God Himself said it.
And He back it ot up by dying and raising Himself from the grave.
I believe in Transubstantiation, because of the Person who taught it (hint it was Christ Jesus who did).
P.S. We You die You will be in eternal Fire.
The choice is Love God and be comforted by it or reject God and be tortured by the Fire of God.
There is no escape from God.
@@mbberry135 I reject the Eucharist.
Jesus is the Word of God, so eating his flesh is symbolic of consuming or hearing the Word of God. When we receive a message in web development, it's called "consuming" the message. So when we consume the message of the gospel and believe it, we have eternal life.
I am subscribed to your channel because you have a very simple way of explaning scriptures (the word of God) and conveying the message to the masses. I'm also a Roman Catholic by denomination but a follower of Christ first and foremost. I would say that you have a valid argument on this subject based on scripture but the Catholic Church has a legitimate argument also. One needs to pray to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on this and any issue of contention that arises for confirmation but please know that all Christian denominations have different convictions and if they don't lead the sheep astray they aren't necessarily blasphemous. If you feel compelled to follow a certain conviction because it brings you closer to Christ by all means do so but dont judge others for their own convictions or lack there of. Some Christian's abstain from all alcohol but Jesus enjoyed a glass of wine now and then. There's a difference between social drinking and abuse. Everyone needs to pray to the Lord for wisdom and discernment that they may not be deceived.
Amen
The problem is that Catholics worship idols, believe Mary was sinless and a perpetual virgin, and that by doing sacraments you gain favor with God while working towards salvation. Thus turning it entirely into a different gospel. A broken clock is right twice a day. Just because Catholics may teach a correct thing or two, doesn’t negate the scores of other issues. Lastly, wine in the Bible is juice. Jesus never drank fermented alcoholic wine.
@@1611KJV sounds like you have it all figured out and your salvation isnt in question then, run with it. Continue to follow your convictions and dont worry about what other Christian's believe (judgement of other believers) It will all be revealed to us very soon. We all need to remember to check our pride at the door when the great mysteries are finally revealed to us by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I'm going to say things aren't going to be exactly as we individually believed them to be though. God Bless.
Do you see that there is a huge difference between one who believes that when Jesus died in their place on the cross, their sin debt was fully paid vs one who trusts in their eating the actual body and drinking the actual blood of Jesus week after week to be saved?
This isn't an issue of carpet colour but one of who and how sin is paid for...
Did Jesus do it it does weekly cannibalism of eating Jesus bring salvation... One who believes in the latter had not believed in the former and the latter sends one to hell
@@Livingingrace the only difference that matters is the difference between the saved and unsaved. Those truly in Christ vs the lukewarm followers and nonbelievers. You must be born again, believe Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, be contrite of heart, and repentant of your sins to enter the Kingdom of heaven. Denomination matters not. Get the log out of your eye.
Just from your first few sentences alone, I can see that you do not understand this matter. Yes, it is true that Jesus is not a piece of bread to be eaten. But that is not what Catholics believe. They believe that the host, when consecrated, is the body and spirit of Christ. Not that Christ Himself is just a piece of bread for us to eat… I agree that there are many things in the Bible that are figurative that ignorant people unfortunately view differently, such as the infamous cut off your hand verse. But you have interpreted this matter fundamentally wrong. It is not that Jesus is a piece of bread, it’s that the blessed bread is Jesus. Please do not criticize what you do not understand 😊