Francis Chan on Communion: Is it Literal or Symbolic? 2023
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 08. 2024
- In 2023, let's consider what communion really is and what we should consider it to be according to Francis Chan. This sacrament of Holy Communion, is it literal or just symbolic for us Christians? As with all the other Francis Chan videos and sermons that we've posted, this will help you understand God's ways more. Learn what you should think about when taking the bread and the cup during the Lord's Supper.
In this podcast conversation, Francis discusses whether Christ is present with us when taking communion and whether or not the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine becomes His blood. This is a very important biblical topic that must be bound by scripture. Let's discuss is christ present in the eucharist.
#francischan #francischansermons #communion
My prayer is that this helped you grow in Christ!
Let’s grow in Christ!
Let’s keep our minds OPEN to truth and scripture!
🙏🏻✝️
✝️✝️
Blessed are those who come to the table of the Lord! We follow a mystical Christianity….and when we receive the Precious body and blood we experience a transcendence.
I am an American and a Catholic presently serving with friends in Ukraine. There was only a small Catholic Church in the city I was so I often went to an Orthodox Church that was open during the day for prayer, yes you could buy candles. I in my limited Ukrainian, and yes google translate ask the Orthodox Priest if I could take communion? He said yes, but just do not eat after 12AM. Oh I was born into a family that my father was Italian, my mother Irish, only went to church on Christmas Eve and maybe Easter. I got encountered Jesus at the age of 27 and reverted to Catholic at the age of 62. I am 75 now. My Protestant friends know I am Catholic but have respect for me because they know me. I was allowed to teach in church and always share when doing ministry. Yes, you share the scripture and personal experiences which my friends liked that I did that.
Jesus said to do this in His rememberance! 🙏🏻✝️
🙏🏻📖
John 6:48-61
[48]I am the bread of life.
[49]Your fathers ate manna in the desert, and they died.
[50]This is the bread which descends from heaven, so that if anyone will eat from it, he may not die.
[51]I am the living bread, who descended from heaven.
[52]If anyone eats from this bread, he shall live in eternity. And the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world."
[53]Therefore, the Jews debated among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
[54]And so, Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you.
[55]Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
[56]For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
[57]Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[58]Just as the living Father has sent me and I live because of the Father, so also whoever eats me, the same shall live because of me.
[59]This is the bread that descends from heaven. It is not like the manna that your fathers ate, for they died. Whoever eats this bread shall live forever."
[60]He said these things when he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.
[61]Therefore, many of his disciples, upon hearing this, said: "This saying is difficult," and, "Who is able to listen to it?"
Some of his disciples left because they eating his body was considered canabalism. Jesus didn't back and he he actually doubled down to eat his body and drink his blood. He also compared his body that you eat to the mana that came down from heaven. Lastly, all the early church fathers who were taught by the disciples believed the bread and wine was Jesus's real body and blood. see below;
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
“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 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Even the reformers had a higher Eucharistic view than what you say. It's only Zwingli that said it was just remembrance.
Read what John Calvin, Martin Luther & Perer Martyr Vermigli said about the Eucharist.
There are reformed churches now returning back to the view of Calvin.
Edit: I'm a Catholic, and even though I respect the view of Catholics & Orthodox more than Calvin's, I think Calvin is at least better than Zwingli.
Yes, Catholics remember Christ by the Eucharist. But, it goes beyond a mental image. We remember to do what He said. Eat his flesh and drink his blood. Does the host become bloody flesh? No. But for God nothing is impossible. If Jesus says, these is my body and this is my blood, we believe it.
The Eucharist Miracles will help to understand 🙏😁
Thank you for this video and your comments 🙏❤️
Any time! 🙂👍🏻🙌🏻 let’s grow!
Great discussion. I to believe that the eucharist IS the body and blood of Christ, just as HE said it is.
The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is that it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a "re-sacrifice" of Jesus Christ for our sins, or as a “re-offering / re-presentation” of His sacrifice. This is directly in contradiction to what Scripture says, that Jesus died "once for all" and does not need to be sacrificed again (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18). Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself."
@@vladtheinhaler8940THATS NOT WHAT WE BELIEVE! The sacrifice of Calvary is an eternal sacrifice, every mass, that one same sacrifice is re presented in an unbloody manner - this is what Christ meant by do this in memory of me, that’s Jewish language for a real participation in an event.
@@vladtheinhaler8940You should get a job as a journalist for CNN, ABC, MSNBC, BBC, you have an ability to twist the truth and make it say what you want. Sola Scriptural, each one has their own opinion, why so many Protestor Denominations! Go online and see how protestors attack one another. I am sure you have skills at this!
@@vladtheinhaler8940Sorry one more reply. Stop inhaling it is really infecting your thinking!
@@lukewilliams448 AMEN
Jesus said, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you don’t have life in you”. (John 6:54). We can know that Christ was speaking literally because many of His followers couldn’t accept this and left. (John 6:67) And rather than clarify to them that it was a metaphor or symbolic speech, He looked to His Apostles and asked where they stand on this. They acknowledged that this was very difficult to fathom yet remained. Christ said what He meant and meant what He said.
@27:50 Actually- The name, and the words 'hocus pocus,' which were often chanted during tricks involving sleight of hand, is believed to be a perversion of the Latin blessing from the Catholic mass, Hoc est corpus meum, or “This is my body.”
Your talking about Communion in the Catholic or Orthodox Church.
Any other communion or "Lords Table" away from the Ordained priesthood in Apostolic Succession, produces just bread and wine (or grape juice)
"The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops becuase when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent." --Ambrosiaster commenting on Ephesians 4:11-12
St. Willehad the presbyter built churches and ordained presbyters in Lower Saxony starting in 781. He was not made bishop until 787. Nobody thought he was acting wrongly or reconsecrated his presbyters.
Paphnutius the presbyter ordained his own successor, Daniel, according to Cassian.
There's also the famous Letter 146 of Jerome.
The Assyrian Church of the East did not change from a presbyterial to an episcopal structure until the 300s. --Sr. Roselin Aravackal MTS
These examples have led several Papal scholars to conclude that Presbyterial ordination is not entirely invalid.
Fr. George Tavard concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said:
"I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today."
Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent:
"We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent."
Let’s THINK 🤔 💭
🙏🏻✝️
At some point 7 years ago , I decided to assist to catholic church cause the eucharist view and other issues, I was a reform Guy. I tried to stay there but the the brothers there were hermetic and zero community. So I went back to a Baptist church, but every Sunday I always feel something is lacking, why to much preaching. Is sad to take communion only 4 times at Year.
The Eucharist Miracles will help you understand it is truly him, Go to Adoration. Just look for a Catholic Church 🙏
Praise God! The Holy Spirit has truly revealed this to you, Francis!
”being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.“
Romans 3:24-26 KJV
I sense his precious presence the same with the blood and body at communion , and also when I just think of Jesus shedding his precious blood atonement on the cross.
Saint Ambrose of Milan used the bodily intimacy verses of the Song of Songs to describe the experience of the Eucharist.
Jesus prayed for unity in his church. I am wondering if this pursuit of the first century observance of the Lord's Supper that is emerging among many protestant Christians, might be instrumental in becoming the body Jesus desires.
The path to Christian unity is the Eucharist, when Protestants recognise that Christ instituted the new Passover sacrifice at the last supper, and that when Christ said This is My Body and This is My Blood, that Christ meant what he said - and that if we do not eat of the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood we will have no life in us. From the Eucharist, the new covenant priesthood will be derived, for who offers sacrifice other than priests.
John 6:48-61
[48]I am the bread of life.
[49]Your fathers ate manna in the desert, and they died.
[50]This is the bread which descends from heaven, so that if anyone will eat from it, he may not die.
[51]I am the living bread, who descended from heaven.
[52]If anyone eats from this bread, he shall live in eternity. And the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world."
[53]Therefore, the Jews debated among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
[54]And so, Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you.
[55]Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
[56]For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
[57]Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[58]Just as the living Father has sent me and I live because of the Father, so also whoever eats me, the same shall live because of me.
[59]This is the bread that descends from heaven. It is not like the manna that your fathers ate, for they died. Whoever eats this bread shall live forever."
[60]He said these things when he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.
[61]Therefore, many of his disciples, upon hearing this, said: "This saying is difficult," and, "Who is able to listen to it?"
Some of his disciples left because they eating his body was considered canabalism. Jesus didn't back and he he actually doubled down to eat his body and drink his blood. He also compared his body that you eat to the mana that came down from heaven. Lastly, all the early church fathers who were taught by the disciples believed the bread and wine is Jesus's real body and blood. see below;
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
“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 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
👍🏻
Which podcast was this clip taken from?
Remnant Radio
Why are you just posting this whole interview from Remnant Radio?
During the ministries of Ignatius and Irenaeus , both men found themselves contending against the theological error of docetism (a component of Gnostic teaching), which taught that all matter was evil. Consequently, docetism denied that Jesus possessed a real physical body. It was against this false teaching that the apostle John declared, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist" (2 John 7).
In order to combat the false notions of docetism, Ignatius and Irenaeus echoed the language Christ used at the Last Supper (paraphrasing His words, “This is My body” and "This is My blood"). Such provided a highly effective argument against docetic heresies, since our Lord's words underscore the fact that He possessed a real, physical body.
A generation after Irenaeus, Tertullian (160-225) used the same arguments against the Gnostic heretic Marcion. However, Tertullian provided more information into how the eucharistic elements ought to be understood. Tertullian wrote:
“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).
Tertullian's explanation could not be clearer. On the one hand, he based his argument against Gnostic docetism on the words of Christ, “This is My body.” On the other hand, Tertullian recognized that the elements themselves ought to be understood as symbols which represent the reality of Christ's physical body. Because of the reality they represented, they provided a compelling refutation of docetic error.
Based on Tertullian's explanation, we have good reason to view the words of Ignatius and Irenaeus in that same light.
The bread and the wine have been viewed as symbolic representations of the body and blood of Christ.
What is he waiting for to become Catholic? The Lord is waiting for him.
Because Satan crept in very early. Remarkably apologetics moved away from Scripture as intelligent men tried to make the Lord's teachings acceptable to the reason of man. So the early fathers can be scrutinized where as Scriptures are authoritative
CANNIBLE
False teaching!
Maybe have a look at what the ante nicene fathers taught, read st ignatius letter in which he says heretics do not confess that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.
John 6:66 They don't believe Jesus.
Many believe in Jesus, but few believe Jesus
Its literal not symbolic.
The Satanicos recognized Jesus in the Eucharist they pay $ big money to still the Eucharist from the Catholic Church 😔
Apostasy.
John 6:66 Many believe in Jesus, but few believe Jesus
@@Alma-ge6qo Hi Alma I'm afraid that Chan is your greatest enemy because he's not telling you the truth about your religion. The RC religion is the sin of idolatry as it turns Jesus into a wafer. Please read John 4. Praying for your salvation as your true friend.
CHAN IS FULL OF PRIDE
Stop accusing the brethren… that’s satans job sister.