A Poor Excuse for Leaving the Church 

I am increasingly convinced that the greatest temptations of our current society are coming from the deadly sin of Sloth. Yes, Pride and Lust and Gluttony are in there as well, but encountering people who seem to just shrug when faced with the deepest and most important questions of their lives is truly astonishing, and depressing.

My husband was a convert 20 years after our marriage. He had firmly stated that he would never ever become Catholic. He had belonged over the years to many Protestant denominations and metaphysical “churches “ I was very surprised when he approached a priest. I asked him some years later and he said that the Catholic Church demanded that he be a better person. It was not the doctrines… although he accepted them. It was what that acceptance meant for his life.

Brian, I left a parish the was a leftist parish, after going to confession with the priest. He was not familiar with the process or even the words, I now go to a parish where the priest who is younger but very orthodox. There is a line for the Sacrement of reconciliation on Saturday morning. He is very fine priest and a good man.

I agree with you, in Spanish we have a saying, "quien no vive como piensa acaba pensando como vive". "Those who do not live according to their thought end up thinking as they live". It requires humility to accept one's failures and weaknesses, and many people twist their minds to accomodate them to one's tendencies and weaknesses.

I see similar comments. We got a younger more serious more Orthodox priest who wears full cassocks and chants in Latin. It's beautiful. He's still fun and engages the youth groups and yet is wise beyond his years.

Eventually the old priest at previous parish retired and was replaced by another young fellow who is very orthodox priest. Praise God.

As a psychologist, I know people often speak about distant, inconcise things when they are really talking about feelings. For example someone could say about the new country they moved into -well, I don't like it here. I don't like the culture. But when you dig deeper into what they don't like about the culture and how it affects them personally they invariably reach a point in which they might say something like: - "I don't know how to interact with people here, they're different from me and I can't find common ground. I feel so isolated" This last one is a much more personal assesment of what's going on. I don't know if this will be helpful but I'd try to go into how this affects them personally in a day to day basis and you might reach a more central reason other than "this teaching sounds absurd to me" I wouldn't approach this things as problems of reason

Thank you for your commentary. When I have encountered others in this circumstance some are dismissive when challenged and when offered additional resources they use the excuse of not having enough time or claim they aren't being fed. In my own journey from protestant to Catholic then taking vows as a 3rd order Carmelite, the journey is a two way street and it is a life long journey which was heavenly designed for us. You get from your spiritual journey what you put into it. I have not encountered any intellectual/spiritual exercise as challenging and rewarding as the Roman Catholic faith. I often learn or confirm something new each week in Mass. We are lucky to have an active and vibrant TLM parish with Orthodox priests. Thank you again, I always look forward to your posts.

I can’t remember where I read this. It might have been an old papal encyclical. But the Church used to recommend that when you don’t fully understand a church’s position or dogma, obey it anyway, don’t go out of your way to resist. Be trusting as a child being led by an adult who understands things better. The whole thought just presupposed a massive amount of humility and trust in the reader or listener. The average lay person doesn’t have all the training to understand everything the Church teaches, but if they have faith they should trust that compliance will be beneficial to them. It’s tough, but humility is the key.

Yes. A sign of true growth is that you want to listen better and do better.

I am so glad I found your channel. I suffer from insomnia and your talk put me to sleep every time I listen to it. I am not leaving the Church. I was looking for arguments to use when friends threaten to leave the Church, If I can stay awaked long enough, I may learn something.

Nice commentary as always, Brian! Keep it going.

Another enlightening presentation ending with a profound moral. Thank you very much.

Man can find a reason for whatever he wants (desires). I know for a fact that if I ever abandon Jesus (again), it will be because I find following Him too hard. But, if I am vain and dishonest enough at that time, I will excuse myself with reasons that will do well with agnostics and atheists. As far as I am concerned, the most important reason for my faith is love. Love for Jesus, Mary and Joseph, the saints, in particular the ones who’s lives I have had a chance too learn more about, and great apologists like C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. I know where and to Whom I want to belong. That is what keeps me going, when the going gets tough. Thank you Brian, for your apostolic work.

There are no good arguments that "exceed our ability to understand". A good argument is always something that is easilly understandable

Which is why I like to say that humility and lucidty are almost interchangeable,

Prayer is the weapon against dryness of faith , pray for the church pray for the pope pray for your local priest , the church is full of sinners we’re all only humans , humans are weak God is all powerful, pray for the church and the faithful.. Pray the rosary daily , pray for each other !

It makes sense that it isn’t what’s in one’s intellect that determines whether he or she will stay-in or leave the Faith; in the end, we won’t be judge by wisdom or knowledge but by Charity, and Charity is in the will, not the intellect.

I really appreciate and value your voice in this space.

We left for 10 years, and we were wrong! We thought we had a pretty good reason: the discovery that a priest had molested our son countless times during his youth. I can’t express adequately our shock and sadness over the revelation, or the tremendous psychological and spiritual harm experienced by all over time, especially our son. Almost 20 years later, we’re still working on recovery. Nor did the Church respond in any way that was helpful or remotely reasonable. Shattered, alone and feeling hopeless, we saw no other option than leaving. Our son had been utterly destroyed by the abuse. He hated and blamed us. We had simply not known why. I tried attending other churches for awhile, but gave up after running out of several sobbing. Things became progressively worse over the next 10 years. It’s a long story, so I’ll just say I reached a point where I was so broken that I was just done…ready to end everything. I was on my way out the door, when I heard the Mother of God say, “Stop!” One word, but it echoed with layers of meaning. I returned, grabbed a rosary, went into another room alone and pled the Blood of Jesus for myself and my broken family on every bead. Two weeks later, my husband and I had returned to confession, the Mass and the sacraments. Two months after that, we found tradition. We quickly came to realize 3 things: (1) No matter how many Judases the Church contains, it’s wrong to leave Jesus because of Judas. (2) It’s not ok for unrepentant Judases to remain unscathed with their deeds swept under the carpet and the damage ignored! (3) We owe it to Jesus, who sacrificed Himself for us, to Mary, Our Mother, to our Church and each other to take responsibility for the corruption in the Church, uncover it and participate in cleaning it up. It’s been a very long road back, but we have a commitment, fervor and desire to learn, promote, and defend our Faith that we lacked before. If anyone needs proof that this is the one true Church, what better proof than the fact that it’s clearly the front lines in the battle against the forces of evil? That’s why whatever happens, we’re here for good. The presence of so many Judases in the Church is a call to the Faithful to stand up and be soldiers for Christ and Our Lady. If we wish to be present with Our Lord on the last victorious day, we must heed that call. Peeling away one at a time to save ourselves isn’t a good option. Take it from us…it only leads to greater destruction.

The downside of using the old thinkers arguments to debate with is that their arguments have the most compelling rebuttals. Sort of a double-edged sword. Anyways, if someone's drifting away then they're drifting away. Probably depression or burnout. I couldn't imagine having someone in one's face telling them that they shouldn consider the ontological argument before leaving would be very effective lol

I think this whole argument vastly overestimates the complexity of these issues. Sure, I've encountered a few very complex arguments on the subject of God, but for most people, including me, those arguments are unsatisfactory at a basic level, not on some extremely subtle, difficult-to-understand point. The moral teachings of the Church, especially on matters of sexuality, have mostly been rejected because they don't jive with people's intuitions anymore, not because the arguments are just too hard to understand. They're not that hard to understand. They're just hard to find convincing. Another issue here is that people perhaps don't want to base their entire lives around things they feel doubtful about. Simply suppressing one's intellectual instinct is, in my experience, only a temporary solution to preserve religious faith. Eventually, the doubts will resurface and demand that they be addressed.

Yes. Well said. You bring forth very good points. Thank you so much for your videos!

This is such a great video, thank you.

I have a very very smart agnostic husband who loves Einstein and other scientific thinkers. This puts into words what I have been trying to say to him: it's an issue of humility.

Why I am not a Catholic but a true CATHOLIC. No where do I see in the Catholic Church that acknowledgement that just because I don't accept the Catholic Church does not mean I am not a Christian. For me I accept Lutherans, SDA, Mormons, Baptist, and any group that follows the teachings of Jesus (love your neighbor as yourself and therefore by doing that you demonstrate your love for God. Anybody who does this in the name of Jesus is my brother in Christ is my brother and sister in Christ. The individuals who do this are part of the Universal Church and therefore part of the great CATHOLIC CHURCH. I view the Catholic Church as a smaller group of a much larger CATHOLIC CHURCH. So just because we argue over doctoral issues does not make me less or more of a Christian than you.

3:51: "I would think for a question that is this important for most people who find themselves drifting away, they would take it seriously enough to [at least] read a few articles from St. Thomas' Summa ...." This is worthy of our hope, but pride goes before the fall and the intellectual or spiritual pride of the obstinate obstructs the requisite humility for them to be open to consider following such sage counsel. Hence, always supply prayer for humility to the one receiving such works of mercy as instructing the morally ignorant, doubtful, or obstinate. Otherwise, with those of presently bad soil: thorny hearts, path-beaten soil, or rocky souls, it will be in vain. Good counsel must be offered while bearing in mind that it is he Savior Who saves. We are merely sign posts towards the Savior.

CHRIST IS KING

I don’t know. I think it might be fair to say “I am having a hard time believing in God. St Thomas’ ways didn’t really make sense to me so I am still not going to believe in God”. Why should I trust something I can’t comprehend?!

Kennedy Hall vs Brian Holdsworth beard battle.

Most of what ppl do is to find rationalizations for what they want to do anyway on a psychological and emotional basis. Intellectual arguments will only take you so far

I’m an Eastern Orthodox catechumen. The people running the Catholic Church must be so out of touch, it’s crazy. How you could get rid of the TLM for Norvus Ordo is beyond me. For a couple months I was discerning between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but the Norvus Ordo mass feels so . . . empty and weightless, especially compared to the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. I just couldn’t do it and had to choose Orthodoxy.

This is why evangelization is rarely about the intellect. Often its about helping someone recieve the Faith. Through teaching them the way we teach children with patience and love.

So basically, since Thomas Aquinas was a man who lived, I have no say onto his arguments because he was this supposed great man who was leagues smarter than any other human being who has walked this Earth. Can’t I say the same with atheists like Stephen Hawking?

Amazing analysis. Thank you.

I have often wondered what it would look like if I left the Church. The more I study apologetics, the more convinced I am that Christianity is true, but there are parts of my life that are a beating temptation for me. If I were to leave Christianity, it would be purely emotional, -and it would be powerfully emotional at that. I could see ways that I would try to rationalize it, but I know within myself that those arguments really fall flat. Arguments about the morality or history of the church is a great example. I've studied pre-Christian Rome, I've studied pre-Christian Scandinavia, I've studied Islamic morality, pagan morality. I've studied the Greek's scoffing of Christians for simply loving each other. I've studied the fall civilizations and the horrors of communism from those nations who have decided to do away with God. I have a friend from Nepal describing how just a hundred years ago they were still burying living wives with their dead husbands, how she herself was arranged a marriage against her will, how the Cast System of Hinduism creates class divides between the wealthy and the poor. Only those blinded by a prosperous Christian nation being fed lies by critics of Christianity come to believe it is horrible. -And yet, those are the popular opinions. If I were to wear out of being unpopular, of being considered fringe and fundamental, I could see myself as an impassioned voice against Christianity. Not for truth, but for societal acceptance. I'm tired of being a Christian, but I know it is true.

What about for those of us that it is the opposite reason. It is not intellectual. It is emotional I don't feel cared for like I matter or included. I don't feel wanted or invited into the catholic church.

I’m trying to find my way back to the church after having left 6 years ago. For me the reason simply was that I had no faith and thought that I was only there because I was put there by my parents. And I don’t like being part of something without believing in it.

I appreciate this!

Which church fallen man's man made religions or the eternal church the bride of CHRIST?

Thank you Brian

have you heard what bergoglio just said about the need to decriminalize sodomy and the need to re-educate those bishops who rightfully still believe it to be sinful.

Another very good video! Deo et tibi gratias, Brian!

How does this compare with the modern "expert-reliant" culture that we find today? We trust Aquinas, Augustine, and the other "adults, but not our liberal institutions? Especially regarding COVID and an earlier video you made about US VP Harris's trust/lack of trust in institutions, Please make a video explaining your position on this. I trust that you have reasons for separating them, but they are unclear to the little child that I am (although I have my hunches),

The problem begins with approaching God from a rationalist perspective. People asking for scientific evidence of God are putting the cart before the horse and seriously need to sort their priorities.

What you've said here won't do much to prevent those who have already reached the point of hiding behind excuses from leaving the Faith. It will, however, help to edify the rest of us from following. Intellectual arguments are sound, but so many who have reached that point are crumbling under the pop-culture machine that makes one its main goals be to mock Christians at all opportunities. It's an emotional issue that is difficult to appeal to intellectually.

thanks again Brian well said.

What would convince me is real evidence of god and what he wants us to do. Now I understand that the evidence of god in some sense can be derived from the world and our understanding of it complexity and beauty but there is no evidence “to be clear convincing evidence” of the nature of god and his preference. Religion is based on serving and satisfying god for something good to happen or else!

Very good points. I’ve referenced atheists before and mentioning St. Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine and I always get the bs response. I’ve found it to be funny. And regarding my own faith, I have doubts at times, sometimes I get a moment where I think perhaps this is all bs. It passes and I go and pick up something regarding my faith and I feel better. Perhaps that’s just the devil at work, I dunno.

I left the church 30 years ago

It’s interesting because there are definitely people out there more educated and smarter than I am who do not agree with me. I have a duty to truth, so in theory if I lost a debate or had doubts, would I have the obligation to abandon my beliefs? I think what is being called for is a sober and serious discernment process if that situation arises, and that is what I am hearing, but also we need to be careful about appeals to authority, unless that authority is grounded in revelation and infallibly proclaimed, we don’t want to cast that net over arguments that are more open to dispute, because if you’re mistaken then what else are you mistaken about? It can cause people to waiver in faith if we are playing fast and loose with the deposit of faith.

I think the most important question to answer is not "is Christianity true" but rather "do I wish Christianity were true", and if not - which part of me doesn't, and do I actually want that part to decide for me. It's impossible to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced.

Gracias, me encantó.

So an argument from authority? We are not as smart as some other people who we seem to assume must be right. Therefore we have to reconcile our beliefs with their conclusions. So what happens when two people who are smarter than us reach different or conflicting conclusions? What happens when people who are smarter than us are Muslim or atheists or Latter Day Saints? What happens when we apply your argument to something other than the conclusion you started with and worked backwards to support? Do we find the argument to be worthless? 😬

Bravo well said.....

Brian, you may have heard this before, but the microphone you're using seems to be a Blue Yeti. These are side address microphones. Pointing the end of the microphone towards may give you an inferior sound. Try instead to talk into the front of the microphone.

5:17 I didn't understand this part. Why are you comparing a scientist with a theologian/philosopher? both have completely different methods ands areas of study. I think that a better criticism would have been mentioning the lack of engagement of debate between the Christian and the non believer instead of implying the non believer to be a liar.

I wonder if the reasons some people drift or leave is not really from intellectual difficulties as they are from affective or emotional ones. If they find the liturgical or spiritual life of the faith to be wanting are they even aware that that is the actual issue rather than intellectual reasons."

I see a lot of Catholics jumping to Orthodoxy. How do you talk to them?

Not exactly the most relevant video but I had the thought and I'd like to hear what Catholics imagine happening and what eternity (or not eternity) would be like in your vision of the afterlife and what is heaven to you, and likewise what is hell to you. I got conflicting information when last I tried to look into it (very casually), as though it was heavily opinion based and some people have quite the difference in opinion. (I'm religious, just not Catholic and respect Brian and his content, so I'm a sub for the sake of general Christian thought and moral principle.)

A sharp outfit and a good message.

Read the Bible and prayer the Bible. And even” gnaw” at the words of the Bible. Read the lives of the Saints Pray unceasingly. And Christianity is not about intellectual thinking. It is about realizing that God is large and in charge. Not YOU. It is not always about US. Sit there and let the help of the Holy Spirit’s intervention.

You underestimate people’s pride in that most people do think they are smarter than great theologians. This is because they just don’t consider them authoritative due to only desiring confirmation bias in saying Christianity is wrong.

Sometimes, even a visit on the catholic answers page and following the sources they provide can settle 99% of intellectual problems with the doctrine.

I grew up Baptist and we changed churches every time my dad didn’t like the music, the pastor, or if they didn’t let my dad teach the Bible study that he wanted. Catholics are supposed to be beyond that, we don’t leave because of petty differences, we work them out. My two sisters in law want to leave the Catholic Church because they see that the Protestants have comfy chairs and no kneelers. They have a coffee bar. They have 5 different services with contemporary music. But guess what they don’t have - the Eucharist.

I take it that you have a good understanding of the people you've had conversations with regarding their motives and level of understanding. It might be good think about what kind of conversation you might have with someone whose objections aren't "sophomoric." Serious, discerning thinkers who have rigorously studied important issues are worth engaging respectfully even if they've arrived at different conclusions than you. I've had more interesting and fruitful discussions about faith (even *the* faith) with some atheists than with many believers.

but you guys left the Church a long time ago

I'd be interested to know whether the persons in question (those leaving The Church for "intellectual" reasons) are principally Novus Ordo or TLM regulars. I've certainly witnessed people leaving in the former ~ for that reason. Those I speak to that leave in the latter usually do so "... because the gospel is proclaimed in Latin", they don't quite appreciate the priest "...with his back to us" or just put off by the silence/plainchant/liturgy and other aspects of the Usus Antiquior.. But a considerable number of people leave The Church because they "did not feel welcome" and met "...proud, puffed up souls who have never once welcomed or even cared to enquire what my Christian name was". All seem pitiful excuses really when Salvation is at stake but helpful to know when encountering our brothers and sisters in The Faith and reveal areas we may like to work on ourselves. So that can't be a bad thing!

I think ultimately part of the human experience requires faith above reason. If you are purely dedicated to the rational you are worshiping yourself.

heres the line "Jesus wasnt kidding w/ all those parables so now you know which servant seed virgin etc you are"

Basically everything you say here is wrong. Intelligence doesn't work the way you suggest. Let's assume that no one in your audience is smarter than Aristotle. That obviously doesn't mean that Aristotle is right about everything he and the members of your audience disagree about. Look up his theories on motion, for example. Everyone here, as stupid as we apparently are, would disagree with what he asserts as fact. And they'd be right. You're right to say that your rejection of Einstein's theories would say more about you than the theories, but you're wrong about why It's not because Einstein is so much smarter than you that we have to just accept whatever he says. It's not even because his theories are so complicated that you (and I) probably don't understand them. What rejecting Einstein's theories says about you is either that you're unaware of the mountains of evidence supporting his assertions or that you don't understand that evidence. It's the evidence that makes your rejection suspect, not his intelligence. Finally, the criticism you levy against people who reject Catholicism applies with equal force against you. As you admit, there are atheists who are smarter than you. So that means that you've accepted Christianity because you've found the best explanation you can understand. That doesn't highlight a weakness in atheism, it highlights a weakness in you. It doesn't come down to Christianity being the most rational explanation, it comes down to it being the best explanation that makes sense to you.

Christianity and Catholicism since the Renaissance are not the same thing. Usury is a sin. Usury means interest. It wasn't until the Vatican was infiltrated by outsiders in the Renaissance that usury was allowed at a rate of 1% at first and then it was gradually accepted and the rates gradually raised. ( I do question Einstein.)

Deal with the racism issues. The Madonna is dark. The church is on a mess because it won't honour that fundamental truth.

BRIAN- if you cant bring yourself to even a ,MEET AND GREET? THEN WHAT ARE YOU HERE FOR AND WHY?

Thomas Aqiunas, most don't even read him.

Proverbs 27:10((N.L.T.))🚪

So u know Sri Sathya sai baba. He didn't have shoes to eat when small and very little food. Yet billionaires flew in in helicopters to receive his blessings and moral teachings. So let's not use those who r worthy of being who they are but were not born wealthy. Don't worry about baba being a park. He's more holy and Catholic than all of the machinery put together.

I think the argument of the video is flawed as it could be utilized by any religion. For example, imagine I'm a doubting Jew that is about to leave my religion for intelectual reasons, but out of nowhere the ghost of Maimonides appears and dispels all of my arguments. So I guess Judaism is the correct religion?

that FIT tho 👀👀👀

🔥🔥🔥

The analogy to someone dismissing Albert Einstein doesn’t hold. He literally made up an unprovable, hypothetical, mathematics-based philosophy in order to solve the problem of heliocentrism. Specifically, it’s inability to be measured, tested, or proven. He said there is no up or down, everything is relative. Laypeople CAN dismiss Albert Einstein. It’s not the same as Augustine, the angelic doctor.

so, your argument basically boils down to an "Argumentum ab auctoritate". not cool

More subs

Catholicism offers no True salvation. Rome is an apostate pagan practicing dogma of wicked men. I mean from Constantine we go from fisherman and Carpenters to tall Mardi Gras hats reminiscent of Baal. Come on.

Aquinas was wroooooong. Make the move to Antioch and Patriarch John X.

This is a strange argument. If experts disagree, and you are not in a position to evaluate their arguments, why not simply withhold belief? This doesn't seem like an argument for or against theism or Christianity. Brian recommends forming your own beliefs tentatively and with humility. That is also good advice, but again, how does that have anything to do with which beliefs one forms. What if someone does that and says, "you know I am no expert, but the brilliant philosophers who disagree with Aquinas make more sense to me"? How is that a mistake on Brian's argument? (For the record, I don't think it is a mistake either way. Make your best judgment and do so with humility and openess to change, reflecting on your own biases and motivations.)

The Sedevacantist position is the true position.

Anyone considering Catholicism, your soul is in very real danger. For Catholics, the Holy Eucharist / Catholic Mass is considered the most important and highest form of prayer. In fact, attending Mass is an obligation, under penalty of mortal sin, each Sunday and on certain other Holy Days of Obligation. The Mass is divided into two sections, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word consists of two readings (one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament), the Responsorial Psalm, the Gospel reading, the homily (or sermon), and general intercessions (also called petitions). The center of the Mass is its second part, the Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist. During this time, Catholics share in the body and blood of Jesus in the form of the bread and wine passed out to the congregation. According to the Bible, this is done in remembrance of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23-25; cf. Luke 22:18-20 and Matthew 26:26-28). However, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit." The catechism continues in paragraph 1367: The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory." In the book of Malachi, the prophet predicts elimination of the old sacrificial system and the institution of a new sacrifice: "I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts" (Malachi 1:10-11). This means that God will one day be glorified among the Gentiles, who will make pure offerings to Him in all places. The Catholics see this as the Eucharist. However, the apostle Paul seems to have a different slant on it: "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1). The Eucharist can only be offered in select places: churches consecrated and blessed according to Catholic canon law. The idea of offering our bodies as living sacrifices fits better with the language of the prediction, which says that the sacrifices will be offered "in every place." The Roman Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus. They attempt to support their system of thought with passages such as John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, "By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II). By sharing in the Eucharistic meal, the Church teaches that Catholics are fulfilling John 6:53: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that "it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63-64). So, if "the flesh is of no avail," why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are "spirit." Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: "Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1). In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus’ real point. In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51) and the entire Mosaic system of Law. The passage from Sirach states that those who eat of the Law will "hunger still" and "thirst for more"; this language is mirrored by Jesus when He says, "He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself ("The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent," John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical. Second, there is a very clear analogy in John 6 to the days of Moses and the eating of manna. In the days of Moses, manna was God’s provision for food for the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. In John 6, however, Jesus claimed to be the true manna, the bread of heaven. With this statement Jesus claimed to be God’s full provision for salvation. Manna was God’s provision of deliverance from starvation. Jesus is God’s provision of deliverance from damnation. Just as the manna had to be consumed to preserve the lives of the Israelites, so Jesus has to be consumed (fully received by faith) for salvation to be received. It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged His followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord’s Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted. As suggested above, it is best to understand this passage in light of coming to Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a "re-sacrifice" of Christ, or a "re-offering" of Christ’s sacrifice, or a “re-presentation” of Christ’s sacrifice, the concept is unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered or re-presented. 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." Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, "For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God..." Christ’s once-for-all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ’s sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith.

You know, I thought the title was a bad enough display of condescension, but upon watching this video, I've realized that the arrogance you display in your title wasn't even a fraction of the arrogance you display in this video. You've shown that you have absolutely no respect for people who disagree with you in this work, and you exhibit none of the humility that you so proudly accuse doubters of lacking. I feel deeply sorry for anyone who had to suffer through one of your confrontations about their faith. If you actually took that calling to keep other members accountable you mentioned at the beginning of this video seriously, you would at least do them the basic decency of respecting them enough to actually listen to what they have to say and work *with* them to rebuild their faith, rather than accusing them of dishonesty and excessive pride if a single confrontation fails to be the end of their doubts. You've made some ridiculous videos in the past, but this is utterly shameful.

This made me laugh.

Read some Nietzsche man! On the will to truth.