The Holy Eucharist Debate: Subdeacon Daniel Kakish vs Dan Chapa
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- 💪Become a Patron for special 1 on 1 courses and access to my private Whatsapp/social media groups: / patristicpillars
💪💪SUPPORT Subscribe: / williamalbrecht
💪💪💪Donate: Paypal: william@patristicpillars.com or click for the Paypal page: www.paypal.com...
💪💪💪💪Check out my Website: Patristic Pillars www.PatristicPi...
💪Follow me on Facebook: / katholikos💪
As a protestant, I've already been debating this topic deeply within myself. This confirmed to me the symbolic view is heresy.
Very interesting to watch, gentlemen. You made some good points, Subdeacon, but I’m mostly grateful for your use of Mark the Monk. That’s a father I hadn’t read before so thank you for introducing me to him. I’m off to get a copy of his work! 👍🏻
Crazy how difficult it is for both Dan and the pharisees to comprehend the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ
Interesting debate, cheers guys.
I think they should do a canon/church authority next, as they was touching on it in the debate.
Love you brother William, both of you brothers in the FAITH of Christianity have gorgeous bald heads 😆 GBU
Luke 24:30-31 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight.
After our Lord has risen, he shows us exactly what needs to happen in the church going forward.
I bet William had to try hard not to jump in. 😊
Excellent Debate and very respectful. Thank you William...@Dan Chapa and Daniel ...✝️
Thanks for the debate. Well done subdeacon Daniel. Sad to see people still stumbling with the deserters of Christ in John 6. Imagine needing to approach plain bread in a worthy manner every time we needed to eat....
Fantastic debate. I learned a lot. What a blessing
Thanks guys for hosting the debate, God bless y'all 🙏
great conversation. May all of us come to appreciate and partake of the Holy Eucharist.
Thank you for your time brothers and Gby all!🙏🤍
When Dan concedes Ignatius’ Ephesians 20, I think that’s the end of it, not sure if any Protestant would confess this belief
maybe an anglican
Interesting debate and was very enjoyable to watch. Brother William thank you and Gby🔥✝️🕊🙏
What a great debate. I thought that the disagreement would be more straight, but there is way more agreement than disagreement it seems, but two great talker.
I enjoyed the debate. I think Daniel might benefit from some formal debate training. I did appreciate his defense of the historical and biblical position.
Good debate! Thank you for hosting William
Well done subdeacon daniel👍
I appreciate Daniel's insights/remarks (esp in his opening and closing), but there were quite a few tangents and lack of focus on the debate topic early on and a lot of semantic confusion later on. I hope Daniel takes this as an opportunity to improve his debating skills.
I would say the one angle to hit on as well is that the Eucharist is a type of Christ's Incarnation. Most of the Gnostics believed that Jesus was never flesh and only a phantasm of God in spirit, and Protestantism being a new Gnosticism up and down the worldview ends up adopting a Gnostic view of the Eucharist. They say it is only spiritual. They also tend towards a Gnostic view of the Church. They mostly say it is just a spiritual reality of all the believers, not firmly a visible institution that binds all believers.
One of the reasons I'm not protestant is because of the amount of gnosticism woven into their doctrines. Their beliefs regarding the Eucharist is a great example of this.
Great debate
Its Subdeacon Daniel who opted to answer using the term "accidents" with the Latins, and then once he noticed he didn't have the knowledge to discuss the Eucharist in that way, he backed out of it. Why attempt to answer like the Latins when you know you aren't competent to discuss in that way?
Additionally, framing his line of questioning as "arrogant" because he asked whether you "correctly" or "incorrectly" call it bread after the word of institution is quite petulant. Firstly, he meant "proper" and "improperly". Secondly, we're debating about the issue of truth here, not my truth or your truth like the modern relativist.
This debate was very interesting! Thank you William it’s always great to have ideas tested against one another
Thank you for hosting this debate! I thought Dan Chapa was quite interesting with the questions he was asking, please have him back on if possible✝️
I agree that we should not be subjectively interpret the Bible and God does not require that from us but rather requires that we be obedient to the holy apostolic catholic Church. BUT the issue IS that you need to SUBJECTIVELY choose and figure out wich is the right Church!
....and if you happen to figure it out wrongly then you might be damned. There are many people who are genuenly trying to find out the truth bit they end up in different traditions.
@@gabrielgabriel5177Why would you be damned if you're truly seeking the truth?
God is free to save whoever He wills, and will He not save those who reach out in faith, seeking Him truly, even if they embrace the wrong tradition overall? Is He not merciful and gracious enough?
There is truly only one Church that the Lord established. Anyone who is visibly outside of that Church now, and yet is called by God a son/daughter, is a part of that Church and a member of the body of Christ. They will be saved despite their errors, having been joined to the true Church of God based on their heart for God, and their beliefs that are in line with the one true Church.
@@MrOlu109 becouse some churches like EO church teaches that there is no salvation outside the church
@@gabrielgabriel5177 And that is true!! But they also add that "We know where the Church is, we don't know where the Church isn't".
Meaning that they know the Orthodox Church saves. But if someone who isn't visibly in communion with the Church gets saved, the Orthodox will say that this person was joined to the Orthodox Church in mystical spiritual way. And this is how they were saved despite their heresy, as there is no salvation outside the Church.
I would advise you read "The Orthodox Church" by Kallistos Ware, where this is discussed.
There is the hardline approach which is that you cannot be saved at all if you're outside the Orthodox Church although most Orthodox don't hold to this. Most would hold to the more balanced view I've explained above.
There is no debate. John 6: 51-71 covers the Eucharist, the reaction of many that couldn’t handle it, and how Jesus gives us the choice to believe it or not.
👍
His words are spirit and they are life. The spirit gives life, the flesh profits nothing!
subdeacon you are blessing
Daniel indeed is a good soldier of Christ
W debate - W Subdeacon - GOD BLESS ALL!
From Ignatius of Antioch we know what the apostles passed on about the subject, no need to speculate, and he has more poignant quotes than the ones used in the debate - “those who hold heretical opinions about the grace of Jesus Christ … refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up”.
There were some missed chances that Daniel should have jumped on.
Wow. His opening is actually “see! It’s wine!” Much like someone would think they’re refuting a trinitarian by pointing out passages that prove Jesus is fully man. It’s fully wine and fully blood. He’s fully God and fully man. We expect to see it described as wine which according to the flesh, it appears.
I havent watched yet, and I do have concerns with how Sub deacon Kakish speaks about the Pope, I sincerely hope he outshined Chapa and brought the truth of the Holy Eucharist to a wider unbelieving audience.
I think Subdeacon Daniel thinks very highly of the Pope of Alexandria, Tawadros II. Lots of love and respect!
@@ProfessorMichaelWingert Friend, I'm not here to start a fight. A person saying "Pope" on a Catholic channel is obviously talking about Pope at Rome.
John 6:35 is mostly left out of the equation by the stout transubstantiation folks, but this verse does resolve what Jesus meant.
We know from what Jesus stated to the crowd in verse 35, which is the opening that leads to the body/blood and bread/drink discussion, Jesus clearly showed that by coming and believing in Him, one would never hunger or thirst. We see that in the following verses, He likens it to one partaking of bread and (unfermented) drink.
It is obvious that the central subject matter was for unsaved Jews to partake of Him by FAITH.
Jesus Himself is the true bread out of heaven. How do we partake of Him? By FAITH. Verse 40: "...everyone who beholds the Son and BELIEVES in Him will have eternal life..." Verse 47: "...he who BELIEVES has eternal life."
It is a heart matter to God, and He always used picture language to accentuate spiritual truth.
Williams head +1
34:40 - 35:00 Dan unintentionally showed us why "sola scriptura" is self-defeating.
The endless "my interpretation is better than your interpretation" argument.
Oops. 😂
Dan does
Heretic!
We are justified by faith !!!! Works is the evidence of our true salvation. But I can only say I am saved by faith in HIM . After that works came automatically.
Why did Jesus serve them wine and not just prick his finger?
What a powerhouse response. All of the Apostolic Churches got it wrong for 2,000 years. This mega-brainiac response has undone our Faith! He clearly would’ve just pricked his finger if he meant it truly became his blood!
@@WilliamAlbrecht I’m just glad I got the creator to respond.
But I notice you didn’t answer my question. Admittedly my remark did not deserve an answer but you responded nonetheless. A lot has been written about this over the centuries. People have wondered if we defecate Christ or if mice eat the body if crumbs hit the floor and are sanctified. I realize that transubstantiation has a long history but earlier even still, Christians would share a celebratory meal together and drink the cup and eat the bread together. This is why Paul rebukes the Corinthians for how they behaved. Today we settle for a ritualistic sip and nibble and we get on with our day. I wonder if that’s what Jesus really meant for us to do as he shared his last meal with the people closest to him. Dan chapa missed a big opportunity to unpack the concept of Passover, which is a memorial feast filled with symbols and an anticipation that the Messiah (or Elijah in some traditions) might show up and dine with them (real presence vibes here). Their 4 cups of wine represent freedom from slavery in Egypt. In the same way, the blood of Christ represents our freedom from the bondage of sin and he tells them, “Do this in ‘remembrance’ of me.”
It's sad how heretical' Protestantism is... (Berengarius*) 😢 and other's 🔥🔥🤪🥴😜
So it’s by faith the Eucharist turns into the body and blood he said we take then we believe it turns it to the body and blood… I don’t know why every one debates this. It’s clear that all Christian’s have the same believe but complicate it with terminology. It all goes back to faith.
You haven’t studied the historic positions on this topic, have you? No Catholic or Orthodox could get on board with that formulation.
Protestant’s and the traditional churches pretty much believe the same thing with slightly different terminology - it’s the both same thing at the end of the day as they both take it regardless what we call it. If the mystery is there happening it’s not us making it happen it’s God so either way it’s God that does everything during the communion …
No. Absolutely not
Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of the Apostle John said: “those who hold heretical opinions about the grace of Jesus Christ … refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up”
There was no time for doctrine to get corrupted, its the fist generation of Christians, so we know what the Apostles passed on, and its not the protestant stance.