100% of the EARLY CHURCH Believed in the REAL PRESENCE (w/ Joe Heschmeyer)
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 05. 2024
- In this clip from my conversation with @catholiccom apologist Joe Heschmeyer, we talk about the Early Church's understanding of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, its centrality to the understanding of the New Covenant, and how Protestants get this wrong.
For the complete interview check out:
• Yes, the Eucharist Rea...
Send your feedback to cordialcatholic@gmail.com.
Sign up for our newsletter for my reflections on episodes, behind-the-scenes content, and exclusive contests at newsletter.thecordialcatholic.com
To watch this and other episodes please visit (and subscribe to!) our CZcams channel.
Please consider financially supporting this show!
For more information visit the Patreon page. All patrons receive access to exclusive content and if you can give $5/mo or more you'll also be entered into monthly draws for fantastic books hand-picked by me at / cordialcatholic
If you'd like to give a one-time donation to The Cordial Catholic, you can visit the PayPal page at paypal.me/cordialcatholic
Thank you to those already supporting the show!
The Eucharist converted me! I was a staunch Baptist, but read the catechism & was interested in learning more about Catholicism. I eventually went to an inquirer’s class in RCIA. By carefully going through John 6 with me I was convicted of the truth of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. This convinced me I had to be Catholic. I still took almost 4 years before I came to believe all the doctrine/dogmas of the Catholic Church, but I never gave up because I wanted Jesus so much.
Praise God! This was similar to my conversion - I just couldn’t believe what I was reading!
@@TheCordialCatholic I believe the BIBLE. And of course it contains zero instances of worshiping the Eucharist.
@@TimSpangler-rd6vs Read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch 50-107 taught by the Apostle John ,again no bible for 350 years with 35,000 different churches what tradition are you in.
@@TimSpangler-rd6vs "is" only means "is" if it agrees with your interpretation. Got it. You do not believe in God or the Bible, tbh. You believe in yourself. You worship your own interpretation of a collection of books and letters we gave you. You're welcome. 🙂
@@Rose19695 Jesus is my Judge and Advocate. You are neither
This video - converting Protestants to Catholicism slowly but surely.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 A.D.)😉😉
For just as the bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ…(Catechetical Lectures 19 [Mystagogic 1], 7)
This one teaching of the blessed Paul is enough to give you complete certainty about the Divine Mysteries, by your having been deemed worthy of which, you have become united in body and blood with Christ. For Paul proclaimed clearly that: "On the night in which He was betrayed, our Lord Jesus Christ, taking bread and giving thanks, broke it and gave it to His disciples, saying: 'Take, eat, This is My Body.' And taking the cup and giving thanks, He said, 'Take, drink, This is My Blood.'" He Himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, "This is My Body," who will dare any longer to doubt? And when He Himself has affirmed and said, "This is My Blood," who can ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood? (22 [Mystagogic 4], 1)
Once in Cana of Galilee He changed the water into wine, a thing related to blood; and is His changing of wine into Blood not credible? When invited to an ordinary marriage, with a miracle He performed that glorious deed. And is it not much more to be confessed that He has betowed His Body and His Blood upon the wedding guests?(22 [Mystagogic 4], 2)
Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but -- be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ.(22 [Mystagogic 4], 6)
Having learned these things, and being fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the apparent Wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so… (22 [Mystagogic 4], 9)
Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual songs, we call upon the benevolent God to send out the Holy Spirit upon the gifts which have been laid out: that He may make the bread the Body of Christ, and the wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Spirit touches, that is sanctified and changed.(23 [Mystagogic 5], 7)
Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that PROPITIATORY victim we call upon God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and OFFER THIS SACRIFICE FOR ALL WHO ARE IN NEED.
Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep; for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this HOLY AND MOST SOLEMN SACRIFICE IS LAID OUT.
For I know that there are many who are saying this: 'If a soul departs from this world with sins, what does it profit it to be remembered in the prayer?'…[we] grant a remission of their penalties…we too offer prayers to Him for those who have fallen asleep though they be sinners. We do not plait a crown, but OFFER UP CHRIST WHO HAS BEEN SACRIFICED FOR OUR SINS; AND WE THEREBY PROPITIATE THE BENEVOLENT GOD FOR THEM AS WELL AS FOR OURSELVES. (23 [Mystagogic 5], 8, 9, 10)
St. Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315 - 368 A.D.)
When we speak of the reality of Christ's nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously -- had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: "My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in Him." As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God. (The Trinity 8:14)
St. Basil the Great (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)
To communicate each day and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ is good and beneficial; for He says quite plainly: "He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life." Who can doubt that to share continually in life is the same thing as having life abundantly? We ourselves communicate four times each week…and on other days if there is a commemoration of any saint. (Letter of Basil to a Patrician Lady Caesaria)
St. Gregory of Nazianz (c. 330 - 389 A.D.)
The tongue of a priest meditating on the Lord raises the sick. Do, then, the greater thing by celebrating the liturgy, and loose the great mass of my sins when you lay hold of the Sacrifice of the Resurrection. Most Reverend friend, Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword. (Letter of Gregory to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium)
Absolutely love Joe Heschmeyer
Me too!
Me too!!
One thing to consider (in general) is that the ancient conception of "symbolism" was different from our modern one where a symbol compares an abstract idea to some thing in the "real" world. The ancients conceived of a symbol as being something truly "higher in nature" being represented to human eyes in this "lesser" realm of reality.
Absolutely. I had Dr. Kenneth Howell on the show years ago who made this same point to say that everyone who thinks the Early Church Fathers believed in a “symbolic” presence simply don’t understand what they meant by symbolic.
as well as "Myth"
Jesus could have made this all a lot more cross-sectional if He had used the words that would have made it a "symbol". The fact that He did not is our proff that it is not a mere symbol. He knows our thoughts, He knew what He was telling us and how we would think of it. He meant what He said.
@@TheCordialCatholic
Genesis 14:18- the first communion.. a celebration
John 6:63- Jesus explains it is figurative speech
John 16:25- Jesus says I was using figurative speech . I won’t use it anymore
All 4 Gospels say Jesus will not drink fruit of the vine again until they are all in heaven
I Cor11:17-34 - the Lord’s supper is a real meal with drunk people and over eating and bias
Hebrews and Psalms Jesus is not a Levitical priest… He is in the order of Melchizedek And he swore it
Hebrew 13:812 Jesus is the same
@@JC_Forum_of_Christ Pathological troll and hater.
Somebody has to leave a comment to get this party started. Ever tried to get Brant Pitre on your show? He makes the same point you do about the New Covenant being greater and using that as a lens for John 6.
Tony, don’t bring this up! Back in 2019 Pitre promised to be on the show (we have lots of mutual friends) but wouldn’t pin down a date. A YEAR LATER he replied to an e-mail from 2019 promising to pick a date shortly and then he disappeared. Granted, he’s a busy man, he’s also become my arch nemesis. So, we’ll see.
@@TheCordialCatholic I'd be happy to represent the Protestant view. What do you say?
I'm amazed that Catholics and most Protestants don't even know what the new convenant is. They don't know who it's for or how you know if we are even a part of that convenant.
@TimSpangler-rd6vs do you know what the new convenant is? Where can you find the new convenant and who it's for in the scriptures?
@@TheCordialCatholic Oh, sry, lol, didn't know it was a sore spot! Keep at him. Will be an awesome show. Thought I saw him somewhat recently on Matthew Leonard's channel.
To respond a comment, I would say this: There are many, many ways to LOVE God: praying, praising, fasting, good works, venerating the SAINTS, venerating the HOLY CROSS, participating in the Sacraments, etc. . But notice that, THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO WORSHIP GOD: the celebration of the BODY and BLOOD of CHRIST: the EUCHARIST.
While praise is commendable, Worship involves SACRIFICE.
Thank you! Love both your channels ☘❤🕊
So glad!
The Didache(c. 90 A.D.)
But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.
First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.
And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs. ( 9:1-5)
On the Lord's Day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions SO THAT YOUR SACRIFICE MAY BE PURE. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled by the Lord: "In every place and time let there be OFFERED TO ME A CLEAN SACRIFICE. For I am Great King," says the Lord, "and My name is wonderful among the Gentiles." (14:1-2)
St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)
They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)
St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.
For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)
Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41)
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)
…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.
He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)
But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)
If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)
Tertullian (c. 155 - 250 A.D.)
Likewise, in regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the SACRIFICIAL prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive THE BODY OF THE LORD…THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE… (Prayer 19:1)
The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God. (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)
The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded to be taken at meal times and by all, we take even before daybreak in congregations… WE OFFER SACRIFICES FOR THE DEAD on their birthday anniversaries…. We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground… (The Crown 3:3-4)
A woman, after the death of her husband, is bound not less firmly but even more so, not to marry another husband…Indeed, she prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, SHE OFFERS THE SACRIFICE. (Monogamy 10:1,4)
Origen (c. 185 - 254 A.D.)
We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.(Against Celsus 8:33)
You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Joshua 2:1)
But if that text (Lev 24:5-9) is taken to refer to the greatness of what is mystically symbolized, then there is a 'commemoration' which has an EFFECT OF GREAT PROPITIATORY VALUE. If you apply it to that 'Bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world,' that shewbread which 'God has offered to us as a means of reconciliation, in virtue of faith, ransoming us with his blood,' and if you look to that commemoration of which the Lord says, 'Do this in commemoration of me,' then you will find that this is the unique commemoration WHICH MAKES GOD PROPITIOUS TO MEN. (Homilies on Leviticus 9)
You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish….how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)
…now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: "MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK." (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)😊😊
yes , the Didache was the first writing of the Apostles ,that is why St. Ignatius writings is very important in the early Church and he followed it, there is so much written that never was put in the bible we trusted St. Jerome, one man I guest he did his best of what he found .
Amazing quotes! I read these during my conversion. They helped greatly in understanding what the Church taught then & now & has always believed.🙏❤️
"Take and eat. *This is my body* "
Great breakdown. I just don’t understand how any scholar of the Bible can know all of the passages referring to the Eucharist and deny the Real Presence… and yet I know various such people who do exactly that; one of them is an apostatized cradle Catholic who debated me again earlier today. SMH 🤦♂️ and prayers ✝️🙏📿
Pray for him!
There were four views of the Eucharist in the early Church.
1. Rememberance only no presence.
2. The Holy Spirit as Jesus says in John 6: 63.
3. Mystical view presence that we can not see.
Literal view Real body and blood of Jesus. Jesus presence.
The first two were dominant.
The last two were from Romanism ( religion of the Church in Rome not Christian)
These last two apparently merged to be Catholic Church view.
🙏❤️
🙏
Who named the collection of New Testament : The New Testament?
Im so glad I converted to Catholicism from the gray, watered diwn theology of evangelicals. Jesus in the eucharist keeps changing my life. I love the one, holy catholic church.
Jesus is not in a wafer. Col. 3:1 KJV Bible. The catholic system preaches a false gospel.
@@user-wk1li2cm5o John 6. Try reading it. No4 a symbol. Christ set up o e way to be worshipped. It's not worshipping the pastor and what he thinks.
@user-wk1li2cm5o OH but He is. How sad for you. Maybe you should rethink your arrogance.
@user-wk1li2cm5o nope that would be the Protestants and their 40,000 denominations.
"Protestant hermeneutic" is an interesting thing. Hermeneutics is interpretive, but it's meant to be un-biasing. Catholics fail to do it at least as much as Protestants. In fact, arguably more, since the church's authority is seen as something like sufficient. No need to address or sort out this or that because "the church teaches." One thing that Catholics need to add to the framework of these conversations, too, is the argument from the "early church" which is manifestly constantly needing of correction. That's what the NT almost wholly is - correction of the early church. So, age of the church or practice is not a justification, even though it's meaningful data. Anyway, it's also very uniting if we could together land on "real presence" which is accepted by wildly most of the early Protestants and many today, as Gavin O has pointed out (speaking of him). Division happens when describing it technically. And like trying to explain the trinity diminishes understanding, explaining the nature of the Holy Sacrament diminishes it. "Symbolic" becomes the reaction. Just like Catholics calling themselves that instead of primarily "Christian" due to reaction against Protestants. But how close are we when removing all explanation but the word of Jesus? It's the distance between two words: re-presentation and representation.
Take RCIA
Some Reformed traditions and Lutherans, Episcopal churches, and Anglicans believe in the real Presence of Jesus in Communion but reject Transubstantiation. I too believe in Consubstantiation as an Evangelical So the thumbnail isn't totally accurate.
Nothing wrong with believing in the Real Presence, so long as we don't idolatrously direct worship toward the image of bread.
1. One of the accidents of the bread is _the appearance or image_ of bread.
2. God forbids directing worship toward images (Exodus 20; Leviticus 26).
3. Therefore, God forbids directing worship toward the _image_ of bread in the Eucharist.
Although the Papacy is not Biblical, I have immense respect and honor to faithful Popes. Not calling for a Crusade or anything, but serving as a chief administrator of the Holy Bible.
Papacy is biblical. Read book Pope Peter by Heschmeyer
Thx for the video. Now first, I am NOT a Protestant. But their argument is coherent. The Sacrifice of Christ‘s Body is the REAL „Presence“ and the New Covenant and therefor the better or the higher thing/covenant. This, in and of itself doesn’t require a real presence in the Eucharist. So…I don‘t think this is a good argument (the new covenant being the higher one) for the real presence. I would rather argue that a symbol in ancient times signified and represented the very thing it symbolized in a real sense. So…why eating bread and drinking wine as something we have to do when it is basically an empty gesture?! That would be a better argument in my opinion…
I have reported 7-8 known pathological trolls and haters just in these comments. If you have an assistant, or spare time, you might pull up their channels and block them. These are some sick puppies.
The Holy Spirit is the Power of God ,he created everything with the power. John 6 : 65 says clearly : nobody comes to me,exept the God Father calles him. We can trye as much as we like ,its God Fathers decision. Not many will go throuh the narrow gate.
The two Witnessis will preach the Truth when they apear soon. Revelation 11: 4
Your title card just states that everyone can make mistakes.
Huh?
@@TheCordialCatholic read your title card and understand that everyone makes mistakes. Even if everyone agrees with you... you might still be mistaken.
@ 10:30---"We don't actually receive food and drink from God (speaking of Israel in the wilderness, who were provided food and drink for their belly [not spiritually]), we receive God directly; in receiving the Eucharist."
John 6: 35 says that when one comes to Him and receives Him (by faith, even without externalities [elements]), they shall never hunger or thirst.
With God, the root importance is a matter of one's heart/faith. The externals only point to the root.
@@sonsofpolaris6102
Yes, one does; but not in the literal/spiritual sense, like literally eating flesh and blood. Or else, there would be a lot of queasy stomachs.
@@sonsofpolaris6102
Transubstantiation is a compound word derived from Latin, and It means to change from one form to another; across (this is what I meant, when I used the word 'literally.'). Substantiation means the form of substance thereof.
Consubstantiation means; with (alongside) the same substance. It also is used to refer to presence. These two words are very much distinct from one other.
The presence of God's Spirit can be experienced in many things pertaining to life and Godliness; such as, partaking of the Lord's table, during time of prayer, during the reading His Holy Word, during praise and worship, during the times of sharing Christ to the unsaved, and during all of the other manifestations of the fruits of the Spirit.
His presence indicates that He is in us, with us, alongside us, and leading us into all truth.
Transubstantiation is not what Jesus taught to His disciples, since it would run very much contrary to John 6:35.
To come to Jesus and to believe in Him requires faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please God."
The elements that Jesus used to explain what He meant by coming to Him and believing in Him are the external elements of bread and drink, which both have a beginning and an end. We know that whatever has a beginning and end is of the temporal realm. We also know that only God and His word has no beginning and no end. We do not fix our eyes on the temporal, but on the eternal. We need to also be circumspect to not fall into the trap of calling that which is temporal, eternal. This is the error of transubstantiation.
@@sonsofpolaris6102
You got a Jesus that taught kingdom of God principles without parables and allegories. Worst yet, you got a Jesus from whom you can pick and choose when He spoke allegorically or when He did not.
Jesus said, "I am the door." According to you, Jesus meant a literal door that one must go through, in order to be saved.
Jesus said, "I am the Vine." According to you, Jesus is a literal vine that one gets literally knitted into, in order to remain in Him.
It makes sense for you to believe that the bread and drink are His literal body and blood, because that is exactly what the Jewish scoffers did at His teaching. They believed that Jesus meant it LITERALLY.
Jesus responded by saying, "The words that I speak to you, they are Spirit and they are life."
But in order for you to believe your church's doctrine on this topic, you must break the uniformity of how Jesus taught the kingdom of God principles. This is what brings heresies, and it is a result of picking and choosing as one sees fit.
@@sonsofpolaris6102 He is a pathological anti-Catholic hater. Reported for stalking and harassment.
@@sonsofpolaris6102
You accuse me of dishonesty and stupidity. Your accusations are designed to bash and demean another who is showing you from the Scriptures the uniformity
of how Jesus taught kingdom principles, by using parables, allegories, and metaphors.
To attribute the word 'bread' to His flesh is metaphorical. To attribute the word 'wine' (true drink) for His blood is metaphorical. Even the word 'eats' is a metaphorical word, since He was not teaching cannibalism; describing a partaking, a fellowship, a relationship, and in alliance with.
Jesus is the true bread come down from heaven, and He is the One we must 'eat' of (partake, fellowship, relationship). We cannot do this, unless a person COMES to Him, BELIEVES in Him by faith. John 6:35.
John 6: 40 is very similar to verse 35. THESE (those who COME TO HIM and BELIEVE IN HIM) will not hunger and not thirst.
Verse 45: "Everyone who has HEARD ("Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God") and LEARNED (taught) from the Father COMES to Me."
Verse 47: "He who BELIEVES has eternal life."
Verse 48: (back to the metaphor of bread) "I am the bread of life."
Verse 49: "Your fathers ate (physically ingested) the manna in the wilderness, and they died (it only fed the flesh).
Verse 50: "This is the bread (metaphor of Jesus, since He was in human flesh) that came down out of heaven, so that one may eat (partake, fellowship, relationship, alliance) of it and NOT die."
Verse 51: Similar to verse 50, with the addition of "...and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."
Again, to attribute the word 'bread' to His flesh is metaphorical; to attribute 'true drink' (wine) to His blood is metaphorical.
It is ALL in the same context. No pulling out or mixing things to defend a church teaching, making what Jesus taught about Himself (through the metaphors of bread and wine) to become literally God.
Heresy!
“There were four views of the Eucharist in the early church. In his magnum opus, History of the Christian Church, historian Philip Schaff (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], pp. 241-245; Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], pp. 494-500) documents the four views the early church held in regards to the way in which Christ was associated with the bread and wine. You had the
(1) mystical view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Cyril of Jerusalem which said the body and blood of Jesus are mystically in union with the elements leading to a sort of repetition of the incarnation, though no change in substance actually takes place as in later Romanism;
(2) the symbolic view of Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, Macarius the Elder, Theodoret, Augustine and Gelasius which said the Eucharist symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus and is a commemoration, not Rome’s literalistic transubstantiation;
(3) the allegorical or spiritual view of Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Athanasius which said the believer receives the spiritual but not physical blood and life of Jesus at Mass; and
(4) the literalistic view of Hilary, Ambrose and Gaudentius which affirmed the bread and wine as being the literal transformed body and blood of Jesus which is basically in line with the modern Roman Catholic system. The Roman view is in the minority, while the symbolic and mystical views seem to be the most primitive and popular.”
What a bunch of made up nonsense. Just for the first 4:
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. " - St. Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 7.
The Eucharist is not a mystical union but IS the FLESH of Christ. How many protestants would claim that denying the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ leads to condemnation?
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." - St. Justin Martyr, The First Apology, Chapter 66.
Yea, bread and wine are transmuted into flesh and blood. But it's all mystical, believe me, bro.
"When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?- even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. Ephesians 5:30 He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones - that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ" - St. t. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 2.3).
So, St. Irenaeus is talking about the physical reality of the Eucharist to refute the gnostic spiritual approach. But sure, all mystical.
"Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature" - St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 22.3
"Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to you, yet let faith establish you. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to you." - Same, 22.6
Isn't this basically the language of transubstantiation? In the accidents of bread and wine we have the substance of Christ's Flesh and Blood.
I rather protestants actually show how the Church Fathers understanding of the Eucharist goes against the Catholic undertanding of it, as opposed to just claiming buch of stuff without proving.
@@ghostapostle7225 “The doctrine concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, not coming into special discussion, remained indefinite and obscure [during the period from 100-325 AD]. The ancient church made more account of the worthy participation of the ordinance than of the logical apprehension of it. She looked upon it as the holiest mystery of Christian worship, and accordingly, celebrated it with the deepest devotion, without inquiring into the mode of Christ’s presence, nor into the relation of the sensible signs to his flesh and blood. It is unhistorical to carry any of the later theories back into this age; although it has been done frequently in the apologetic and polemic discussion of this subject.” Historian Philip Schaff
@@Justas399 So the best you can have with this is "I don't know". But it's pretty much clear by the quotes they're adderessing specifically about how we should apreenhend the meaning of the Eucharist as Body and Blood of Christ and not a vague notion on how to "live the mistery". The main issue is that the way we Catholic approach the Eucharist (not only concerning the theological doctrine of how Christ is present) is miles away closer to the Church Fathers than the protestants today.
@@ghostapostle7225 Nothing about its nature in the 1st 3 centuries.
The rc view is not supported by Scripture.
@@ghostapostle7225 He is a pathological, possibly psychopathic troll. Potentially dangerous. I would avoid contact with him.
How can you say what the early church believed other than what is found in the scriptures. You base your beliefs on history books that you can not 100% say are true. Anyone can manipulate history, you don't even know if any of those "church fathers" even existed. You have to put your faith in those writings. God said he would preserve his word, not the history books of men.
Do you even know what the new convenant is? First God said I will make a new covenant with the HOUSE OF ISRAEL and the HOUSE OF JUDAH. Not with any gentile church. Lets read what will happen with the JEWS when the new covenant. Read Jeremiah 31:31-34, verse 33 and 34 states what the new convenant would look like. Verse 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
You see, your channel would not be needed, all of Israel will know who God is without having to be taught, it is within them now, they have been born again spiritually so now they know exactly who their true Messiah is, they know who God truly is. The fact that you have to teach people shows that you are not in that convenant.
Protestant response. Yes I agree however they did not all agree on how real presence works. All agreed that Christ is present in the Eucharist for sure but they did not all agree on how to explain it. Transubstantiation as a way to explain it was not known in the early church. That is a later historical development first posited in the 10th century but not formally declared dogma until the 16th century Council of Trent. As a Protestant, I believe in the real presence.
As a Protestant do you also believe in an ordained priesthood to offer the Holy Sacrifice?
@@MikeM-cz5ln Yes I believe that Christ has ordained offices in His church (Bishop/Elder/Pastor and Deacon). I also believe that He calls men to serve in these offices and that each office has been assigned a specific role and function with the administration of Word and Sacrament being central. Protestants subscribe to the notion that all Christians are priests. Some Protestant traditions refer to their clergy as priests. I have no huge problem with that as long as it is not used in a sacerdotal sense.
so how does it come about? You have to have a valid Priesthood going back to the Apostles. Even Anglican orders were declared null and void by Leo XIII due to problems in apostolic succession
Jonh 6 53:54 then Jesus said unto them verly verly I say unto you except you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink His blood ye have no life in you 54.whose eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day.
St paul said if we drink from the cup in an anwordly manner we will condemme our soul.
Means to recive our Lord in Eucharist we must prepare first by getting rid of sin.
Virgim Mary said the body and blood of Jesus Christ in Eucharist for the remission of sin, is no negotiable.
No one enters without it.
Also she said multitudes are dying in their sins thinking they are already saved.
The world is full of heresies. And they will take this false gospel around the world.
@@glennlanham6309 I frankly could care less what your denomination declares other than to refute it when it casts dispersions on the validity of my walk with Christ. Christ is our supreme authority in the church. As I stated, he has ordained what is to take place in His church in Holy Scriptures. .
Protestants
Sola Mea Sententia
Only my opinion
WOW, Two Scorpions that came up from their pit! Looking for more food to fulfill their lusts!
What?
@@betterhappensdaily
Obviously you have never studied (as commanded) Gods word! If you had, you would not ask such an ignorant question!
Huh?
@@TheCordialCatholic You'd best block him. He is a known pathological troll and harasser.
@richardjackson7887 not sure if you are talking about the locusts that came out of the bottomless pit in Revelation 9 or what.
I don’t think the ancient peoples had a concept of symbol. This guy talking is bringing modern day sensibilities to the ancient world.
They absolutely did
Methinks you have not done your history.
What did the early Church believe the real presence was? Jesus said it was his Spirit in John 6:63.
“There were four views of the Eucharist in the early church. In his magnum opus, History of the Christian Church, historian Philip Schaff (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], pp. 241-245; Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], pp. 494-500) documents the four views the early church held in regards to the way in which Christ was associated with the bread and wine. You had the
(1) mystical view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Cyril of Jerusalem which said the body and blood of Jesus are mystically in union with the elements leading to a sort of repetition of the incarnation, though no change in substance actually takes place as in later Romanism;
(2) the symbolic view of Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, Macarius the Elder, Theodoret, Augustine and Gelasius which said the Eucharist symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus and is a commemoration, not Rome’s literalistic transubstantiation;
(3) the allegorical or spiritual view of Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Athanasius which said the believer receives the spiritual but not physical blood and life of Jesus at Mass; and
(4) the literalistic view of Hilary, Ambrose and Gaudentius which affirmed the bread and wine as being the literal transformed body and blood of Jesus which is basically in line with the modern Roman Catholic system. The Roman view is in the minority, while the symbolic and mystical views seem to be the most primitive and popular.”
Spirit?
My flesh is true food
My Blood is real drink
Not real spirit.
This use of "Spirit" at the end is not a fix for prots that don't believe.
Christ would have
Started off the Bread of life discourse by analogously formatting it. So not to driveway over half of his disciples
After the discourse he looks around unapologetically asking "will you also leave.,"
An idea I have heard is the walking away is a foreshadowing of the abandonment at the cross.
It's crazy to me to take one verse out of a chapter and just get rid of the rest of it as if Jesus contradicted himself.
@@Justas399 Thank you. I don't have a copy of the Encyclopedia of early Church writings. But this proves my thoughts on it.
@@iggyantioch 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit[a] and life.
So, the real flesh was worthless it is the Holy Spirit that is in the Bread. And the whole passage of the Flesh and Blood is to receive the Holy Spirit which is eternal life.
John 6: 69 Peter says that the message is for them to receive Eternal life ( Holy Spirit and Light). They are unsaved Jews Jesus we as talking to. And they went several other places with the message.
As opposed to the Last Supper which contained no presence, because those it was for has Eternal life.
Matthew 24:23-27 KJV Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
(But wait, The RCC called Jesus a liar)
24. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25. Behold, I have told you before. 26. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
But wait, according to the RCC, no one can be saved before the 3rd century because they did not have the pagan practices of the RCC! Hail Mary, who needs Jesus except to fill the Lusts of the Flesh!
No, people will not be judged retroactively for not believing in things that were defined later.
@@charlesjoyce982
You either believe , understand and live or don't believe, don't understand and die.
Romans 1:20 KJV For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse...
Thing is, it has been defined, you know it, you ignore it, you make excuses!
@@richardjackson7887 apostolic succession is also found within scriptures. The passing on of authority from Christ to the apostles and then to the successors of the apostles all the way down through the Church's history.
@@charlesjoyce982
Acts 1:21-22 KJV Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22. Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
@@charlesjoyce982 An apostle of Christ's was one he picked who was their with him from John's baptism to his resurrection.
How many people do you know that are 2000 years old?
Acts 1:21-22 KJV Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22. Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
The apostles didn’t.
that's a crock...Ignatius of Antioch was taught by John the Apostle, you are tryign to seriously imply the Chruch lost the faith in one generation? Look again
Yeah….except that they did😬
1 Corinthians 11:29
@@aruzsa1554 still, it doesn’t mean that the apostles believed in the presence of Jesus in the bread and His blood in the cup.
@@glennlanham6309
You don’t understand what the Lords supper or Gods grace that’s why you believe in a false doctrine religion
Colossians 3:1 KJV Bible - Jesus is not in a wafer.
“If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.”
Typical ,this verse has nothing to say on the subject. But John 6 is very clear....53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Pathological trolling channel reported to CZcams for hate speech, blasphemy and harassment.
@@HAL9000-su1mz Preaching a false gospel is hate, blasphemy, and harassment. Human trafficking is hate. Me saying so is truth and free speech.
@@glennlanham6309 Jesus made one sacrifice. The mass is false teaching and another gospel. Flee from evil.
@@user-wk1li2cm5o So STOP IT! Do some history and lose the anger and accusations - those are reserved for Satan.