Does John 6 Teach that Jesus is Really Present in the Eucharist? 

Praise God!

Faith in God and His mercy for you did it, not the Eucharist.

@@fcastellanos57 Why can't it be both?

@@thekingofsomewhere many receive the Eucharist but their life's are not transformed.. Eucharist is symbolic .. it is the remembrance of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross

@@ashishmachado150 Many people met Christ and heard His teaching but weren't transformed. That doesn't mean Christ isn't God, or sent from the Father, or that Christ doesn't change lives. Adam and Eve spoke with God, walked with Him in the Garden. They still ended up rejecting Him and listening to the words of the Devil. Does that mean God isn't real or does not transform? Peter saw many miracles of Jesus, was one of His closest disciples. He said He would never abandon Christ and He still ended up denying Him three times. Many Protestants "get saved", and still sin and do wrong. Does that mean the Gospel is a fraud? As a former Protestant and convert to Orthodox Christianity myself, I have come to firmly believe that the Eucharist is more than a symbol. That was the testimony of the early Church and of all churches until a bit after the Reformation. Luther believed that Christ was actually present in the Eucharist. And I will tell you that since my first partaking of the Eucharist, I have seen changes in myself for the better.

Interesting timing!

@@GospelSimplicity Austin, I know we’re talking about John 6, but it really seems that in Corinthians 10:16; 20-21, Paul says that, when he celebrates the Holy Sacrifice (Mass), there is a real offer (Jesus, who offered Himself in sacrifice once and forever, not only bread and wine). If Paul blesses the cup and the bread, he considers himself a priest, otherwise there would be no reason for him to bless anything so often… Bread and wine come from the Old Testament as a kind of sacrifice and kept on going through the New Testament (from Genesis to Revalation), and it’s still here... Paul says: Corinthians 10:16; 20-21 - "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (...) [W]hat pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons…You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons". In Christ.

“The Eucharist is my highway to Heaven.” Blessed Carlo Acutis

@@GospelSimplicity Here is Blessed Carlo Acutis' website documenting Eucharistic miracles: www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/liste/list.html

I was thinking exactly this! I love and have been so inspired by Bl. Carlo. I was just asking him to pray for Austin. 😊🙏❤

Welcome home from a fellow convert! What a beautiful story!

Thanks for sharing some of your story!

I am gonna tell you my experience, i was younger and since i was a child i found the stories in the bible about Jesus very interesting..and i used to think how incredible would be to see Jesus in person always used to think that if I knew Jesus were in a special place in the planet i would go to see him even on my bare feet!.. i was catholic.. one day i was working and on you tube i saw a video about eucarist miracles.... and i was like 😱 HE HAS BEEN ALWAYS NEAR i live in front of a catholic church... ♥️ my heart was happyyyyyyyy you have no ideaa... i was catholic but i didnt know!! If i never went to another denomination it was because I respected Mary and in other churches they say you dont have to pray to her... and i didnt like that becuase Mary is his mother and i wanted to know Jesus...how could you love Jesus but dont respect his mother? At least say hi to her...that is what we do with the hail Mary♥️ very beautiful salutation from the Angel to my Jesus's mom🤩🤩🤩 since then.. i tried to visit Jesus as much as i can...i go to the mass..😍

@@mmmendoza1821 i love the way you said it "Hi" to the mother of GOD, the Creator of all things visible and invisible. Hi Mama Mary!... why not? You say hi to your neighbor friend's mother, and why could you not with JESUS' mother. 😍

Christ is present when 2 or 3 "are gathered in My name", I'm sure that has nothing to do with drinking blood as the pagans did though. Bless you.

Amazing, my friend! When Jesus preached about the Eucharist in the Cafarnaum synagogue (John 6, 22-66), the emphasis that there he did not speak symbolically about His body and His blood was a cause for striking scandals; here, by the way, it is the *ONLY passage documented in the Sacred Scriptures in which **_discipleship people abandoned him for simply not accepting the preaching (John 6, 66),_* such is the loathing that aroused when the communicated Eucharistic message to be held on the Last Supper. In emblematic preaching, he proclaimed to the faithful that everyone who eats His flesh and drinks His blood “has eternal life” (John 6, 54). It would be simple to assume that the language proposed a symbolic use for flesh and blood, with the note that such a thesis would not cause the scandal and would already bequeath, without trauma, an “offer of mental doctrinal confort” accessible to all. In John 3, 3-15, when Nicodemus asked how could one be born again returning to mother’s womb, Jesus of course showed that the language was symbolic, and to be born again o WATER and SPIRIT was a clear reference of sacramental baptism. In three chapters later, symbolic language was not the case: Jesus goes on to explain it even more explicitly. His flesh is, in fact, truly eaten, and His blood, truly drunk, as real food and drink (John 6, 55). This was said all in context *FOUR TIMES* in an increasing order of clarity. Three chapters earlier the metaphorical language was explained about the baptismal waters causing the spiritual regeneration (or rebirth), being the condition “to be born again” a metaphor, not a real and physical new parturition from the mother’s womb. But here Our Lord is not only stick to denotative language, but even more clarifying and insistent on the thematic and the terms instead. Realize that the Scriptures bring passages with vehement condemnation for the Jews to eat the flesh by sipping their blood (Gen 9: 2-4); therefore, it would certainly be known to Jesus that the disciples would assimilate the preaching to a blasphemous prescription about something banned, or even to the doctrinal defense of a rude anthropophagy. Why did Jesus, who knew all the Scriptural writings, being the One to whom the Scriptures came to testify (John 5, 39), did not give them a sweet warm clarification? The Bible was unquestionable here: Jesus simply knew *TRUTH WOULD SCANDALIZE his hearers (John 6, 52. 60-61) and beforehand he knew those who would not believe (John 6, 64),* instituting the Most Blessed Sacrament through which he announced His real presence, and by this way, differentiates the *BELIEVERS,* those who eat his flesh and drink his blood - that is, the men in whom Christ remains, and thus remain in Christ, obtaining eternal life (John 6, 54.56) -, from the *UNBELIEVERS* (John 6, 53). Disposing of this sanctifying grace, people simply puts their souls to risk. Actually, if anyone with mortal sin eats the body and blood of the Lord, that not only means an unfruitful disposition to receive the Most Blessed Sacrament, but a grave sacrilege: _“So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord”_ (1 Corinthians 11, 27). This can only be explained by the real and substantive presence in those strict physical elements of the Sacred Body of Christ despite the preserved material accidents, because no one can be condemned of vilipending boiled wheat or fermented grape juice. Not only this, but a serious consciousness in faith is demanded: _“Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For _*_those who eat and drink WITHOUT DISCERNING the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves”_* (1 Corinthians 11, 28-29).

Thanks for sharing your journey! It was a privilege to read about your story and how some of your recent theological changes have impacted you. God bless

@donn8615 - Your story brought tears to my eyes. What a glorious day that will be! I still cry often at Mass when Jesus is held up and I repeat the words my priest taught me to say in my head, the words of a great saint (though I can’t remember right now), “My Lord and my God!” Have you been to adoration? It’s not the same as receiving Him but it’s a beautiful, moving experience.

@@amandah8178 that's what St Thomas, the doubting apostle, exclaimed when he saw the resurrected Jesus. John 20:28 I was taught to repeat this too :)

@@briansardinas1359 Yes! I feel foolish. Thank you.

For the most part, yes. I actually brought that up towards the end

And the Coptic church believes that as well.

How exactly is it literal? Post Vatican 2 Catholicism tells us that atheists, Jews, & Muslims & Protestants & whomever can go to heaven. None of them are taking the Eucharist. This doesn't square with your "literal" reading of John 6. Should I reject a literal reading of John 6 or modern Roman Catholicism?

@@aGoyforJesus you should reject modernism

@@nathanbustamante1525 on what basis should someone reject modernism when your Roman Catholicism wholeheartedly embraces it?

Thanks!

Jesús was a real person, the church has been historical too, this brother is in a correct way, he can't close his eyes to the historical true, what early church believes is very important in our time when every body says to have the true, but true of a lot of people is against the early church believes. Good bless this brother, and helps him to find the true!!! Good bless all you people too, a big hug in Christ our Lord!!!

@New Eyes To See The Bible has to interpreted, and many people come up with many different interpretations of some apsect of the Fatith. Thsi is why we need the whole of Scripture interpreted as a whole, by the whole Church, through the whole of Christian history. Most Christians in most places for most of the past 2000-odd years have believed in the Real Presence and as Austin points out, the first person to talk of this after the NT was written was Ignatius of Antioch, ordained by none other than the Beloved Disciple.

@New Eyes To See Not drifting into non-biblical stuff to placate people, simply a carefully considered - if somewhat tentative - conclusion after considering a large body of evidence. As seekers after truth, we don't have to placate anyone, only Almighty God, and that He Himself has made possible for us through the Sacrifice of His Beloved Son.

@New Eyes To See I understand your position, surely this has been taught to you throughout your life, but I cannot share it, Jesus himself left us a church, and according to Saint Paul: 1 Timothy 3, 15 "if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth" Certainly the Bible is word of God, that is why in our Catholic Church we have a tripod: Apostles, Tradition, and the Bible. The "only the bible" is not a biblical doctrine. God bless you!!!

John 1:14. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Amen!

Amen

The bread is symbolic. The LIVING BREAD abides in all true Believers already

Yes, the Living Bread lives inside believers, but Catholics believe the Bread is more than a symbol; once the priest consecrates the bread and wine it becomes His Flesh and Blood in a mystical way. I chose the above scripture because He also is present in His Sacred Word. He is present in His Holy Name, a name above every other name. He is present when we are alone, and where two or more are gathered. But He chooses to renew His love and sanctifying grace by coming to us in Holy Communion (Even Spiritual Communion)In a most intimate and mystical way...that's what I believe as a Catholic. That said, as siblings, we can agree to disagree. God's mercy and love be with you, Fabio.

Thanks!

Welcome Home Justin.

As an I... Former Bible College grad and youth pastor. It's good to be home, isn't it? The Church is in crisis, and our Catholic family needs our fidelity and support now more than ever.

@@GospelSimplicity I must remind you that John 6 can nevet be anachronistic since Jesus, knowing its meaning, will proceed to reveal at the last supper the how. At that instance, the words in John 6: "It is the spirit that gives life...", come through when epiclessis occurs at the words of Jesus: "This is my Body. This is my Blood", changing the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. God bless.

Matthew 26:28 New International Version 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 1 Corinthians 10:16-18 New International Version 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf. 18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 New International Version 27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without DISCERNING the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. DICTIONARY dis·cern ...meaning verb perceive or recognize (something). "I can discern no difference between the two policies" distinguish (someone or something) with difficulty by sight or with the other senses. "she could faintly discern the shape of a skull" John 6:53-60 New International Version 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. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Thanks for sharing! I bet there's quite the story to that

@Chamindo7 - Welcome home! How did you end up in the Catholic Church? I love hearing fellow conversion stories!

@@GospelSimplicity My friend, JOHN 6 IS NO METAPHOR. IT IS LITERAL. READ WHAT HAPPENS AT THE END IN JOHN 6:71. BY HIS UNBELIEF HE BETRAYED JESUS. Now, don't overlook what other Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures clearly say, which is the same message passed on to successors. John did not need to repeat an established doctrine, mentioned by Paul and widely practiced by Christians already, regarding the Last Supper Eucharist celebration. ▪︎1 CORINTHIANS 11:23-29 23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of BREAD, 24 and when he had GIVEN THANKS, he broke it and said, “THIS IS MY BODY that is for you. DO THIS in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way he took THE CUP also, after supper, saying, “THIS CUP is the NEW COVENANT in MY BLOOD. DO THIS, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For AS OFTEN as you eat this bread and drink the cup, YOU PROCLAIM THE LORD’s DEATH until he comes. 27 WHOEVER, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an UNWORTHY MANNER will be answerable for the BODY and BLOOD of THE LORD. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who EAT and DRINK WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY, eat and drink JUDGMENT AGAINST THEMSELVES. There's no doubt St. Paul understood the real change that occurs at the Eucharistic celebration which was not at all symbolic since they could be "answerable for the BODY and BLOOD of THE LORD". Beyond the Apostles, What did their successors believed and practiced? ● 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. 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. 107 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,...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, Ch. 66) ● 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 (in Greek written εὐχαριστήσας ••> pronounced EUCHARISTĒSAS), 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). FURTHERMORE: The reasons why individual Christians were persecuted from the 1st. Century on were varied. In some cases they were perhaps scapegoats, their faith was attacked in places where more personal or local hostilities were at issue. Contemporary pagan and Christian sources preserve other accusations levelled against the Christians. These were the typical charges: ▪︎Incest (By the general custom of addressing each other as "brothers and sisters" in Christ even if legally married) ▪︎CANNIBALISM, resulting from garbled accounts of the rites of the EUCHARIST (partaking of the body and blood of Christ). ▪︎Refusal to worship the emperor. God bless.

Can you prove that?

@@captaing5166 we don’t have to prove that... Jesus already proved it for the whole world!! The question is are u humble enough to accept it🙏

---- > I haven't heard that from Catholics. It's not physical but it's not just metaphorical, it's spiritual. .... 1 Corinthians 10: 1-4 www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=that+rock+was+christ&version=KJV

Amen!! One holy Catholic and apostolic church!

The fact that every Christian believed it was the true body for 1500 until a mass murdered 500yrs ago started to make things up to suit his palette is proof enough

@@nenabunena ---- > Even if that's true, do you blame God for man's errors? The sins of man don't negate the truth of God. I know there was a dispute among the early church fathers (bishops) about whether the last supper was a necessary doctrine of the church but I never heard they believed it was the literal body an blood of Messiah Jesus. That would make no sense anyway because the physical without the spiritual is meaningless. . I stand by the New Testament scripture. The death of Christ's bodywas physical but the Eucharist of The Last Supper was spiritual. The body of Christ was never literally eaten. He raised transformed n a glorified body.

@@jannmutube seems you haven't studied much yet... The mass is practically that the Eucharist... That's like saying we are Christians but let's dispute whether Christ exists. Lame argument.

Thanks for sharing some of your story! God bless

I did read the fathers. And I came to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Although we both disagree on the church, I am glad that we both agree that there is a historic concrete Church founded by Christ. That is one thing I admire about Roman Catholics even if I disagree with some of their conclusions, I would rather them disagree with my view than them take a low-church ecclesiology. m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ibZN9U3kbzw.html “One pope, venerated as a saint by both Orthodox and Roman Catholics is Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604), who famously opposed Patriarch John of Constantinople’s desire to add the term “Ecumenical” to his title, writing to the patriarch that ”Whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others.” Here's St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome A.D. 590-604, writing to St. Eulogius of Alexandria on how the See of Peter subsists in three patriarchates (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch): "Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us' [John 17:21]." Saint Augustine says Christ built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Sermon 229) None of the fathers indicate papal supremacy. Rather, all of them indicate equality of the successors of the Apostles; the bishops. Let's take Saint Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, who considered Peter the rock (but saw every bishop as owning the chair of peter) he says: "Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133). Saint John Chrysostom: "For the Son of thunder(John), the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now " (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1). St. Bede: “Although it may seem that this power of loosing and binding was given by the Lord only to Peter, we must nevertheless know without any doubt that it was given to the other apostles…Indeed even now the same office is committed to the whole Church in her bishops and priests.” [Bede the Venerable, Homilies on the Gospels: Book One: Advent to Lent, Hom. I.20, p. 202.] St. Isidore of Seville: “So Peter first received the power of binding and loosing, and he first led people to faith by the power of his preaching. Still, the other Apostles have been made equal with Peter in a fellowship of dignity and power. They also, having been sent out into all the world, preached the Gospel. Having descended from these apostles, the bishops have succeeded them, and through all the world they have been established in the seats of the apostles” (De Ecclesiasticus, II.5, M.P.L., Vol. 83, Col. 781-782). ”If, however, Jovinianus should obstinately contend that John was not a virgin, (whereas we have maintained that his virginity was the cause of the special love our Lord bore to him), let him explain, if he was not a virgin, why it was that he was loved more than the other Apostles. But you say, Matthew 16:18 the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. ”St. Jerome, Against Jovianus, Book I: 26 ”St. Bruno of Segni : "Here in fact this statement is said principally to Peter, and it ought to be understood as being said to the rest of the apostles. And not only to the apostles, but truly also to the bishops and priests. In fact, the keys and powers themselves have been given by the Lord to not only will free the Church, but also to open the heavens to others. ”if the keys are the powers of binding and loosing,did not the Lord give this privilege to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18? “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Cyprian of Carthage: “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

My children and I were just received into the Orthodox Church last week and it is truly a joy. I am 37 years old and it is the first time that I have been able to partake of the Lord in the Eucharist : )

Thanks for sharing!

So, it's now literal??

@@Nolongeraslave not now , but has always been since Great Thursday.

@@olgakarpushina492 Problem is that it is NOT, AND YOU KNOW IT!

@@Nolongeraslave you gonna tell ME what I know? 😆

Thank you so much! God bless

I think there's some merit in that. I think we don't want either extreme of blind faith and rationalism.

Couldn't say it any better. God bless

Kerri B Well said. A Priest said that the real miracle of Eucharist is that the Host remains bread. PTL.

@@marccrotty8447 I think maybe a priest saying that would mean that the taste and appearance of bread remains...not that it remains bread...since it doesn’t. Is that what you meant?

@@bartee807 I believe the Catholic Church does differentiate between the appearance (bread and wine) and the reality (Jesus wholly present). Yes, the appearance remains, the super-natural happens at the beckoning of the Priest to the Holy Spirit who causes this transformation. If true, then we are witnessing a miracle every time.

It’s my pleasure! Thanks for taking the time to watch and leave encouraging feedback. I really appreciate that. God bless!

HeavnzMiHome that is a nice part of that

Transsubstantiation had to be defined with a word because Martin Luther taught consubstantiation. When someone miss teaches, guides astray or does otherwise against the deposit of faith words have to be used to help explain on an intellectual level. Scholastic philosophy requires deeper definitions of mystery.

@@GospelSimplicity this is false. Some church farhers who said rhe language was figurstive, symbols were Clement of alexandria, pedagogos, 1,6 Eusebius, evsngelical Demonstration , 8,1 Tertullian, agsinst marcion, 4,40 and of the resurrection of the flesh 37 Ireneaus, fragment 13

@@saramolina8911 Symbol in their language does not mean figurative; it comes from the word symbalein which means put together; two thing come together to form a new reality. That it was symbol meant to them. We mean that symbol today means sign, but those two are not same thing. Sign is a representation of something that point to something else. Symbol is as described above.

Sara Molina you are reading an English translation and understanding the word symbol in modern sense. There is a lot of scholarship to refute your objection.

Steve hopefully he reads your comment

I read your comment and I liked it. Very charitable and you say many of the things I’ve been thinking myself while watching Austin’s videos. I could wish people on all sides of the discussion would be as kind and respectful of him on his Faith journey.

Thank you so much for the kind words! I'm so glad to hear that you enjoyed the video and that the style made you comfortable to comment. That's so encouraging to hear because that's what I would want for everyone. I want to make one point of clarification. What I was trying to say is that I don't think Catholics need to take a hard line on saying there is no metaphor at all here. For instance, the phrase "I am the bread of life" is itself metaphor (Jesus is not bread), but it can point to something literal (we are to eat his flesh). I know this is tricky because "metaphor" is a loaded word, but I was just trying to say that when Catholics are arguing for a "literal" interpretation of this passage, that doesn't mean they can't recognize metaphor as a rhetorical device to point to a literal truth. I actually got this distinction from Ferris who runs the Catholic Apologetics channel @howtobechristian. However, I understand how that could be unclear. I agree that it would seem strange for Jesus to allow everyone to leave and use such visceral language if he didn't want people to take him seriously. There are much easier ways to make a metaphor. Hopefully this provides some clarification. I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this, and thanks again for your encouragement. P.S. - you DEFINITELY don't want me to come paint at your house. I'm much better with words than a paint brush.

@@GospelSimplicity you make a good point, the funny thing though is that even the metaphor of I am the bread of life can be taken literally, because the Eucharist is bread, and the Eucharist is literally Jesus. This is why not only do Catholics eat the consecrated host, we place it in a monstrance and worship it in adoration. You should see what a solemn benediction looks like at a Traditional Latin Church! It is a very beautiful and reverent ceremony where we worship the Eucharist but do not eat it. Haha, fair enough about your painting skills, I will gladly keep listening to you talk though!

Actually, and this is just my thought. No disrespect intended. I first off i can see John 6 as being a forshadowing of the Lords supper, however i also see the deeper spiritual aspect of complete surrender to Christ, which honestly may be more plausible. Jesus wasn't obliged to try to call back anyone, or run after anyone screaming " come back!" Mainly because He wanted people to follow Him even if they didn't always understand Him. These people just witness a multiplying of a few loaves of bread and two fish for five thousand plus people. The text says they also saw the signs He did on the sick. So they were obliviously aware of His supernatural miracles but still walked away. Jesus didn't always explain His parables to everyone that heard Him. It was offen times to His closest disciples. Matthew 13:10-11 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” He answered and said to them, “BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO YOU to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, BUT TO THEM IT HAS NOT been given. NKJV Mark 12:13-14 And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. And they came and said to him, “Teacher, WE KNOW THAT YOU ARE TRUE AND DO NOT CARE ABOUT ANYONE ’S OPINION. For you are not swayed by appearances, but TRULY TEACH the way of God. ESV John 6 may reveal that true faith is following Christ even when it may not always make immediate sense, but to believe no matter what. The text reavels in John 6:64 "But there are some of you who do not believe.” FOR JESUS KNEW FROM THE BEGINNING who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him." Jesus knew that these people did not really believe or care, they just wanted Him to continue to give them what they want. They just witness this grand miracle and obviously some others, but still requested a sign from Him to prove Himself. Matthew 12:38-40 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.” But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. NKJV The text also reveals that God must draw people to His Son. And since the people's hearts were unwilling, He didn't. John 6:43-44 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. NKJV So while i can see the parallel to the Lords supper, I believe it goes much deeper then that to complete surrender and faith to Christ. John 6:35-40 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. HE WHO COMES TO ME SHALL NEVER HUNGER, and he who BELIEVES IN ME SHALL NEVER THIRST. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the ONE WHO COMES TO ME I WILL BY NO MEANS CAST OUT. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and BELIEVES in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” NKJV It therefore makes perfect sense for Him to intentionally drive this point, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you." Luke 14:33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple. NKJV God bless

Haha, we’ll see about that

@@GospelSimplicity So glad to see you are at least considering such a thing. You are a good example of truth-seek for both Catholics and Protestants.

@@GospelSimplicity praying for you! ❤️

Me too! 🥰

See you tube...of dr taylor marshall exactly your question will be answered. Type it in he runs st thomas catholic institute. He was a former protestant. I am a catholic and we do not support the current pope Francis either.

Thanks for sharing these thoughts!

Furthermore for the Jews the sacriface was not complete until the sacrificial lamb was consumed. When we consume the Eucharist at the mass we are participating in Christ's one eternal sacriface.

Precisely.

@David Ortiz Be careful the ADL might attack you over that statement.

Thanks!

Our baptism gives us entry into the Kingdom of God which is WITHOUT stain of Sin. We are given another opportunity AT the Kingdom of God. This IS the 1st Sacrament. The others help us to CONTINUE IN Grace & MAINTAIN our contact with God as we move towards ETERNAL Life.

Thanks for your support

BULL. Jesus himself denies he is physically present in a crumb of bread by telling us his physical presence was GOING AWAY...no less than 10 times. Care to know the verses? No, I didn't think so. We both know old-habits do die hard and you could care less what the Bible says, but only that which the RCC says!

@@eucharistangel4662 and yet from the time of the apostles until the reformation, this was always accepted as truth. The catholic’s and the orthodox are the only ones who can say with truth that they have apostolic succession, as opposed to the heretical sects.

@@clarefraser5231 Apostolic succession is flatly UNBIBLICAL, and is still yet another Catholic doctrine NOT found in the Bible. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vpsafZ-GCtg.html

@@eucharistangel4662 good grief man, what would you guys do without the bible. How do you think Christianity spread before the bible was written? (Apart from change it and remove books to suit your agenda)

Thanks for sharing your experience with this!

Here's Clement saying it's figurative language. -Clement of Alexandria- Pedagogos 1,6 Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out -by symbols- , when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly -by metaphor- the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both - of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. Thus in many ways the Word is -figuratively- described, -as meat- , and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not -figuratively represented as wine?- -EUSEBIUS- Demonstration of the gospel, 8,1 The words, "His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk," again I think secretly reveal the (c) mysteries of -the new Covenant- of our Saviour. "His eyes are cheerful from wine," seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, "Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me." And, "His teeth are white as milk," shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself (d) -the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples- , when He bade them make -the likeness of His own Body- . For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them -bread to use as the symbol- of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, "And his teeth are white as milk." This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, "Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me."

@@GospelSimplicity -AUGUSTINE- On Christian doctrine, 3,16 If the phrase is mandatory and prohibits evil or vice, or iniquity or crime, or commands utility or beneficence, then the phrase is not figurative. But if it appears to command evil or iniquity, or prohibit utility or beneficence, in this case it is figurative. The Lord says: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you28. Here an iniquity or evil seems to be commanded; then it is a figurative phrase by which we are recommended to participate in the Lord's passion, and we are admonished to gently and usefully retain in our memory that his flesh was wounded and crucified for us

@@saramolina8911 St. Justin Martyr: "And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. 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.” - (First Apology, 66) It would be worth check out the following site as well that is FILLED with further examples from the early Church - www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

@@feeble_stirrings hello the thing is we agree with justin -Justin martyr- (in his 1st apology) we Say _"and this food is called among us eucharist"_ WE AGREE with justin here. We call it Eucharist which means thanksgiving. That word Eucharist was used by the apostle paul. Then Justin says, only the baptized and the ones who are living as christ must partake in this food. Here, I agree it should be like that but the church gives people the liberty to partake in the food, each one is responsible of examine themselves and they know if they are living like Christ has enjoined. _Justin says that not as common bread do we receive it, but in like manner as Jesus having made flesh by the word of God had flesh we have been taught that the food that is blessed by the prayer is the flesh of Christ by which our flesh by transmutation is nourished_ I AGREE, with justin here also. He says we don't receive it as common bread and that it's true. It's not common bread it's special because it's the body of Christ. And yes I agree with justin that we are taught that the bread is the body. In the supper the elder or the pastor can say 'this is a the body of Christ" so that is taught in our churches. We can say that with no problem. And I agree too with justin that when we partake in the supper, our body is transmutated. This body of ours gets better (transmutation is a difference in something although it continues to be the same thing) so although our body is the same it gets transmutated, it gets better, and is nourished when we partake in the supper. Justin doesn't say how it gets better, but I think it is because this commemoration makes us reflect in Jesus Christ and what he did for us and we are closer to him and we don't want to commit sin with this body anymore. Our body is stronger to resist the devil. So we don't leave the supper and go have sex with the lover or go get drunk in the night or we don't go the day after to steal to our clients at our bussines. So I agree with all Justin says here.

And I could never disregard my Mother. True to her mission, she brought me back to her Son.

The bread is symbolic. The TRUE LIVING BREAD FROM HEAVEN abides and dwells within all believers already!

@@fabiotuan5206 that isn’t what Jesus said.

@@carolyndutton2851 He was speaking figuratively! He was alive and with them in the flesh when HE said : no man has life unless he eats my flesh and drinks my blood. There was no transabstiation, rcc priests in those times

The reason I did not leave my wife was for the eucharist.

Thank you so much!

Fair point

The CROWDS were NOT SEEKING Jesus FOR Himself but to hear a good preacher SPEAK, or perhaps catch some action - a healing or exorcism. On the other hand Nicodemus, being a TEACHER or Professor or Scholar WAS GENUINELY SEEKING FOR the truth. He was afraid to be seen in public with Jesus, so came to Jesus AT Night. He was there to carry Jesus' body from the cross to the tomb.

Exactly!

@@walterroberts5694 that's right. Nicodemus asked, the others were just against him in their hearts.

Excellent point.

Wow, that's really interesting to hear

Thanks for sharing!

I listen to Brant Pitre's discussion of this all the time. It succinctly makes the case for the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

It's a good point. As mentioned at the end, I'm currently reading that book

@@GospelSimplicity I am reading this book on an off too. God bless. 💕

@David Ortiz I think you misunderstood the comment.

Hello, The manna a figure of the real bread, Jesus The bread of the supper a figure of the bread, Jesus and his gospel So none of them is superior to the "thing" they are figure of. Jesus. The manna was a figure but not of the bread of the supper as I think Brant is confussed here, when he says manna can't be greater than the fulfilment (for him the fulfilment is the bread of the supper but, no. The fulfilment of manna is Christ) And secondly, if we compare figures. The manna figure of Christ The bread of the supper figure of Christ and the gospel The manna is inferior to the bread of the supper Brant thinks of the visible things (not spiritual) and doesn't see the consequence of each figure. He thinks of the wonder of bread comming from the sky. That's a wonder for him, a miracle, and it is. But that bread didn't produce the miracle of people living forever. They ate and they died. It was a bread for the body. The bread of the supper makes an even greater miracle, is a bread for eternal life. FOR THE ELECT. So it's a spiritual bread. With better consequences. But I don't mean that there's transubstantiation and because of that is bread for eternal life. But because when we partake of the supper we remember what he did for us, so, we don't want to sin and that way we have eternal life. They say the phrase IF YOU EAT YOU HAVE ETERNAL LIFE is litteral, So If a person who eats the body at mass but is unfaithful to his wife, should go to heaven, cause it's literal, it's what it literally says, that If you eat you have eternal life meaning to to heaven If he doesn't then IT'S NOT LITERAL God bless

Thank you so much for the encouragement. Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks!

My pleasure!

Hi there! I agree with the part of the Eucharistic institution, although I'm a protestant. It's hard to actual find a great protestant church that doesn't have crazy added ceremonies in their worships or praying in general. But I also don't agree with some catholic viewpoint on the christian faith. I share your hurt, as I sometimes feel hurted the same way, like wouldn't it be easier to be all of us together? I still remember that at the end times, God will reunite His people from the east, west, north and south wind. God made us diversed for a reason and hey, for some people we will be the craziest man/woman alive, but for some really sane. What's important is that we remain his children and if we see Him working in our lives, while we search for His kingdom, then we must be doing something right; regardless of church denomination.

Alma Calix yes! I’m Catholic and even I at times am disappointed with things that go on in the church. The reality is, no matter what church you are a part of humans are deeply flawed. We can not be perfect, only Jesus can. But that’s why I love that at least in the Catholic Church even when it’s flawed humans disappointment, I still get to show up to mass and Jesus himself is truly present in the Eucharist up on that altar. He’s all I truly need and I want to receive him in the fullest way possible, that he left behind for us ❤️ Thank you for your comment! I love that we all have similar experiences! ❤️

Just keep this in mind. If believers are already indwelt with the LIVING SPIRIT/TRUE LIVING PRESENCE then what need is there for a LITERAL PRESENCE!!? Can we receive HIM again and again? Jesus was speaking in figurative language. The bread can only be symbolic.

Fabio Tuan that’s incorrect and the earliest church fathers prove this. You should deep dive into the true historical details of the earliest church fathers. Their writings make it clear as day there was no question Jesus and the apostles taught true presence. But I learned from my own stubbornness, that admitting we are wrong is a hard pill to swallow and that people have to come to these true facts on their own account and their own time. There’s something beautiful and humbling when you discover the truth, but we are all (my self included once) so stubborn we don’t want to see what’s right in front of our faces or listen to what others have to say. You have to discover it for yourself. But when you do it just smacks you in the face and leaves you dumbfounded. But it’s normal, Jesus’ own followers who heard it straight from his mouth and witnessed his miracles, still did not believe Him. The majority never will, even with him standing before them. The minority that day had to take a leap of faith and take His word for it even though it was hard to understand. I’d rather not question His teachings, and be one of the few who simply trust Him. If you truly want to know the facts, you’ll get there some day but no one can force you. You can only lead a horse to water. 🤷🏻‍♀️

@@fabiotuan5206 Hey Fabio i think if you really truly loves Jesus Christ you owe it to yourself and Christ himself to see if what you are saying is wrong or not, to truly dive into what is the truth and see both sides catholic and non catholic because this seemed like a teaching that Christ truly believed and didn’t care whether people believed it or not, because he knew the truth, as far as Catholics go a great video to watch on YT is by a guy named Fr. Mike Schmitz who does an excellent explanation of this very chapter and the Eucharist , on the Protestant side there is an AMAZING pastor named Francis Chan who truly loves god and wants to know him, and he recently had his own revelation on the Eucharist just look that up and you’ll find some information, but most importantly just do your research and ask god to show you what truly is the truth and if you still believe god has shown you that you are right then ok, also if you disagree with somebody online please don’t waste your energy getting upset at somebody else because you believe they are wrong, if you are truly upset then pray for them that they see the truth and that we allow gods will to be done, if you have any questions I’m more than happy to have a mature and fruitful conversation with you just reply here and I’ll send you my info

Yes, this and also we must know and believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist in order for it to take any effect in our souls. Many Catholics receive the Eucharist without believing in Jesus' Presence there, they don't prepare or make sure that they are partaking of the Eucharist worthily, and they ignore Jesus while He is with them, and do not even pray during that time. They also might not care to follow Christ's commands and they don't help bring His presence to others who don't know Christ. Because really, I suppose that they themselves don't truly know Christ.

Interesting. I'd have to think more on that.

Amen Brother

Lou Alcaraz glad to hear you’ve been looking forward to it!

Amanda H thanks!

@@GospelSimplicity strange ! I posted my comments twice but it didn't get through. The comments didn't violate any RU-vid rules. I hope you are not deleting my comments.

I'm so glad that the timing worked out for you!

I appreciate that

Thanks for sharing that! It's my pleasure. God bless!

@Sheri Wilkins - Welcome home! I'm a fellow convert from Pentecostal (and then a few others in between). Congratulations! How did you come to find the Truth of the Catholic faith?

Amanda H , we had lots of wonderful Catholics in our lives and decided to learn more so we could share Christ with them. Little did we know that we would find a much richer and deeper relationship with Christ and His body in the Catholic Church. We had become lukewarm and disillusioned and found beauty and richness. I’m more in love with Jesus now than I ever was in the past. How about you?

@@DrSheri.teaches - We relate to being disillusioned. My husband and I were raised Assemblies of God but found that 1 Co 14 disputed some of our core beliefs. We wandered around for a decade and finally I told Jesus that I was angry that He would promise to lead us into all Truth but make it impossible to find. Long story short, the Holy Spirit led us to some Catholics who invited me to a Bible Study, saying that Catholics were Christians so I should come. I was raised to believe they WEREN'T Christians. My new friend recommended Scott Hahn's "Rome Sweet Home" and half way through I told my husband I thought I would need to become a Catholic. He decided that Luther's 95 Thesis would help steer me into the Lutheran Church of his extended family but instead Luther steered him right into the Catholic Church. We came home 2 years later. It was a struggle and there were times where I was making the journey kicking and screaming but now I can't imagine NOT being a Catholic. Thank you so much for sharing your story! I look forward to 'seeing you in the Eucharist' as my friends and I like to say. God bless you!

Thanks for sharing some of your story! God bless

I really appreciate that

Thank you so much for the kind words David!

These kinds of testimonies nourish me. Thank you, Brother. -Cradle Catholic & wanting to be a lifelong Convert here.

It's my pleasure! Thanks for taking the time to share some of your thoughts and your journey. The only thing I'd be wary of in this comment is to suggest that John potentially put words in Jesus' mouth to settle a contemporary debate. I think that does great harm to the historicity of the text. However, if you're merely arguing for the inclusion because of this, then I'd say that's possible

I’m so glad to hear that! Thank you so much. God bless!

Thanks! I'm so glad that the video could be a pleasant surprise, and I really appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment. God bless!

@@GospelSimplicity Guess the YT algorithm thought it made sense to suggest to me the below video today 😂 it's actually really good, you should watch it ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OHOOy2ijtBU.html

I have a similar heart with you Brother/Sister, many converts I watch on youtube nourishes my views, knowledge, and understanding of Catholicism. I hope this wouldn't affect my want to study on my own...

I’m glad it happened too!

Welcome home!!!! - from a fellow convert

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this!

I'm glad you're enjoying the approach I've taken for these topics. I really appreciate your support. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this! That's interesting to read

Thanks for your support and prayers!

So cool

Yep you got it there. The communion actually turns into the body and blood of Jesus.

What a blessing and gift our Heavenly Father has given us through our Savior Jesus Christ ❤

Protestant here. I think it's worth noting that this kind of language is typical of metaphorical rhetoric. In contrast to a simile, when a comparison between two things is made explicit by the words "like" and "as" (e.g., “For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come *like* a thief in the night”-1 Thess. 5:2), in a metaphor such words are not used and hence the comparison is merely implied (e.g., "The Lord *is* my shepherd"-Ps. 23:1). Thus, I don't think you can make a strong case in favour of the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist purely on the language of Matt. 26:26-28 ("This is my body...this is my blood") because it's entirely possible that this was a simple metaphor, as were many of Jesus' other sayings (e.g., "I am the light of the world," "I am the door" etc.). I realise you probably have other reasons why you believe what you do, but I'm just pointing out that merely citing Matt. 26:26-28 in isolation from those other reasons is not particularly compelling, at least from a Protestant perspective. Figures of speech are used all throughout Scripture, and as far as I can see there is no way to decisively rule out the possibility that Jesus is using one here. Blessings.

@@mikedawson975 haa Catholic here, on a lighter note, you prefer to call it the gift wrapper, we prefer to keep the gift😄 Btw as a Protestant can you answer this question? What does Jesus mean when he says 'Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and Drink of his blood, you shall not have life within you '. Where can you find His Flesh and Blood?

@@SD-fk8bt I'm happy to answer your question. But perhaps before I do that you can give your thoughts on my observations regarding Matthew 26:26-28. You have brought up John 6:53, which is a separate issue, but as of yet have not responded directly to my initial comment.

Thank you so much!

It's my pleasure. I'm really glad that you're enjoying them and finding them helpful. Your encouragement means a lot. God bless!

Haha thanks. That terrifies me when people say that

Awesome priest! 😉☺️🙏🏼

Austin, you don’t have to be a priest. You could also serve as a Deacon or in other roles! Y’all he has a girlfriend so don’t scare him!

@@GospelSimplicity I am a convert and it is really scary when people say you’d make a good priest when you don’t come from a tradition with a parallel to the Catholic priesthood. Now I’m discerning that vocation further and it’s a wild ride for sure

A priest, if he wants to serve God completely, or a Deacon, if he wants to devote his life to God and a family. If Austin is really opened and humble to receive the truth, and wants to serve God, he will become either a priest or a Deacon within the Catholic church.

Thanks for the encouragement and sharing some of your story! God bless

Thanks for the kind words! It was my pleasure. Sounds like a great journey you're on. God bless!

Wow, thank you so much for the encouragement. God bless!

Thanks Rodion! Your support means a lot. God bless!

I think the role of mystery in theology is often undervalued, and I'm working to appreciate it more

Did they eat flesh and drink blood? No! They ate bread and drank the wine. It's a Representation/Symbol Jesus is the living bread that came down from heaven and abides in all born again believers. He was speaking figuratively. He is the REAL PRESENCE! Does it make sense to receive REAL PRESENCE through catholic eucharist week after week when HE ALREADY ABIDES IN US?

@J. Lewis Figurative language perhaps ? HE already abides in believers Believers have LIFE through HIM!

Thanks

@@GospelSimplicity you’re welcome.

If born again christians are already indwelt with the REAL LIVING PRESENCE then does it make sense to receive REAL PRESENCE ( EUCHARIST) week after week if HE ALREADY ABIDES IN US DAILY? Did they eat flesh and blood or bread and wine? So, having eaten bread and wine that means it was a representation/ symbolism! HE IS THE LIVING BREAD FOR WE SHALL NEVER HUNGER

@@fabiotuan5206 When Jesus preached about the Eucharist in the Cafarnaum synagogue (John 6, 22-66), the emphasis that there he did not speak symbolically about His body and His blood was a cause for striking scandals; *here, by the way, it is the ONLY passage documented in the Sacred Scriptures in which discipleship people ABANDONED him for simply not accepting the preaching (John 6, 66),* such is the loathing that aroused when the communicated Eucharistic message to be held on the Last Supper. In emblematic preaching, he proclaimed to the faithful that everyone who eats His flesh and drinks His blood “has eternal life” (John 6, 54). It would be simple to assume that the language proposed a symbolic use for flesh and blood, with the note that such a thesis would not cause the scandal and would already bequeath, without trauma, an “offer of mental doctrinal confort” accessible to all. In John 3, 3-15, when Nicodemus asked how could one be born again returning to mother’s womb, Jesus of course showed that the language was symbolic, and to be born again of WATER and SPIRIT was a clear reference of sacramental baptism. In three chapters later, symbolic language was not the case: Jesus goes on to explain it even more explicitly. His flesh is, in fact, *TRULY eaten, and his blood, TRULY drunk,* as real food and drink (John 6, 55). This was said all in context *four times* in an increasing order of clarity. Three chapters earlier the metaphorical language was explained about the baptismal waters causing the spiritual regeneration (or rebirth), being the condition of “born agains” a metaphor, not a physical new parturition from the mother’s womb. But here Our Lord is not only stick to denotative language, but even more clarifying and insistent on the thematic and the terms. Realize that the Scriptures bring passages with vehement condemnation for the Jews to eat the flesh by sipping their blood (Gen 9: 2-4); therefore, it would certainly be known to Jesus that the disciples would assimilate the preaching to a blasphemous prescription about something banned, or even to the doctrinal defense of a rude anthropophagy. Why did Jesus, who knew all the Scriptural writings, being the One to whom the Scriptures came to testify (John 5, 39), did not give them a sweet warm clarification? The Bible was unquestionable here: Jesus simply knew *TRUTH WOULD SCANDALIZE his hearers (John 6, 61) and beforehand he knew those who would not believe (John 6, 64),* instituting the Most Blessed Sacrament through which he announced His real presence, and by this way, differentiates the _BELIEVERS,_ those who eat his flesh and drink his blood - that is, the men in whom Christ remains, and thus remain in Christ, obtaining eternal life (John 6, 54.56) -, from the _UNBELIEVERS_ (John 6, 53). Disposing of this sanctifying grace, people simply puts their souls to risk. Actually, if anyone with mortal sin eats the body and blood of the Lord, that not only means an unfruitful disposition to receive the Most Blessed Sacrament, but a grave sacrilege: _“So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord”_ (1 Corinthians 11, 27). This can only be explained by the real and substantive presence in those strict physical elements of the Sacred Body of Christ despite the preserved material accidents, because no one can be condemned of vilipending boiled wheat or fermented grape juice. Not only this, but a serious consciousness in faith is demanded: _“Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For _*_those who eat and drink WITHOUT DISCERNING the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves”_* (1 Corinthians 11, 28-29).

@@fabiotuan5206 My friend, I probably would come with some manual for sacramental theology, but I have some scratches that may clarify the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (pretty much everyone outside of Protestantism really) position on the economy of the sacraments. I will take only the Most Blessed sacrament as an example. The Eucharist is the sacrament of the all-delivering love of Lord and, since it is the fullness of Christ presence in total communion with God’s People, it enforces the New Covenant reality of a definitive and perennial loving relationship between God and his elects. The purpose of Eucharist is not to remove sins, but to give the Peregrine (or Militant) Church a foretaste of the Great Banquet in the Heavenly Jerusalem (the Triumphant Church) and give the spiritual nourishment to the faithful in order to confer the sanctifying grace needed to perfecting the faith and our capacity to love God and the others. I know our protestant brothers abandoned the “sacramentality value” and basically dropped the sanctification to pretty much a figure of language since Luther hamartiology hiperfocused on salvation and hipofocused saintity ( _“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect”_ , Matthew 5, 48; or _”You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy”_ , Leviticus 20, 26), even though some denominations still have some sacraments, but I will try to explain it simply. A sacrament is not only a symbol that communicates and interrelates material and spiritual realities, but a visible sign, a signal of the invisible grace operating through Our Lord’s own means in creation, and so it is truly constitutive (rather than mere declaratory or “theatrical”) of the gratitude of the Lord’s benevolence toward us. So it causes what it signifies and actually effect the very grace of God, being not just a theatrical symbol of past consumed events. Of course there is an issue with correct dispositions so that God’s grace be fruitful, but I’m sticking to answer this a least to help you understand the point of view from every Christianity apart from protestants (Catholics, so-called Greek Orthodox, Monophysits Coptic Orthodox, etc. - I mean pretty much everybody apart from protestants). Typologically, the sacrificial lamb of Lord’s Passover (Exodus 12, 1-14), the Manna of the desert (Ex 16, 16-34) or the Bread of the Presence that was served as a memorial food offering to the Lord (Leviticus 24, 8-9; 1 Samuel 21, 5-6; Hebrews 9, 2) are interesting figures to point to the real “bread of life” and the true and definitive SHEKINAH (the presence of the Lord among this people), since, through the Mistery of Incarnation, a fully transcendent all Mighty God comes immanently to live among us: Jesus is no less than God-with-us (“Emmanuel” - Isaiah 7, 14 and Mattew 1, 23). Being clear that none of us could ever be able to repair - in a propitiative manner - the infinite offense in original sin, only the sacrificial offering of the Lord himself could do it, as taking bodily form, since the gravity of the offense is measured by the dignity of the offended. If only God himself went on repairing it for us (that meaning: we could never do it for ourselves) there would be salvation and redemption to a broken humanity. Jesus gives his life bodily so as to give it spiritually to us. But as He is the God incarnate, the understanding of the real presence must not betray the mystery of Incarnation. In the strength of the Holy Spirit, whenever consecrated bread was said to be the signal of the Presence in the Old Testament in a somewhat scattered way, the New Covenant fulfills it in the Eucharist, the True Bread of Life, the True Bread from heaven: Jesus, by delivering his own earthly life to the Father for our sins, gave his body and blood (signals of life in the Old Testaments) so that we can partake in the communion with Him in the deepest sense. Terminating all inefficacious sacrifice of Jewish Law, Jesus took all sacrifices into his own body and made it the only perfect one (Hebrew 7, 27), abolishing sacrificialism.

Thank you so much! I'm glad that you're enjoying the videos. It's truly my pleasure. God bless!

Vera Williams thanks for sharing your thoughts

RCC IS NOT THE ONE TRUE CHURCH! BORN AGAIN BELIEVERS FROM ALL DENOMINATIONS ARE INCLUDING THE RCC

Gospel Simplicity you are being very sweet and kind in your replies to both sides. You’re a very good hearted and sincere young man, and God bless you in your search.

Thanks!

Haha you earned that cookie!

Yes it should be, which is why it was, including this very quote, in the video😁

Here's Clement saying it's figurative language. -Clement of Alexandria- Pedagogos 1,6 Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out -by symbols- , when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly -by metaphor- the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both - of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. Thus in many ways the Word is -figuratively- described, -as meat- , and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not -figuratively represented as wine?- -EUSEBIUS- Demonstration of the gospel, 8,1 The words, "His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk," again I think secretly reveal the (c) mysteries of -the new Covenant- of our Saviour. "His eyes are cheerful from wine," seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, "Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me." And, "His teeth are white as milk," shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself (d) -the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples- , when He bade them make -the likeness of His own Body- . For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them -bread to use as the symbol- of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, "And his teeth are white as milk." This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, "Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me."

@@saramolina8911 In Catholicism it's both symbolic/metaphorical AND Real Presence. You hear us defending the Real Presence more and even denying the symbolic/metaphoric aspect because the Real Presence is what is challenged and argued against. The Eucharist is certainly not symbolic/metaphorical ONLY and that is what Protestants argue. St. Clement of Alexandria (the same one you quoted) on the Real Presence: "The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.", -"The Instructor of the Children". [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D., "The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. 'Eat My Flesh,' He says, 'and drink My Blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!", -"The Instructor of the Children" [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.. ,

@@GospelSimplicity Please see my comment above because you said in your video Catholics should see the metaphorical aspect of the Eucharist.

@@tabandken8562 hello I guess you can sound symbolic also, but haven't read it in any document of the magisterium of the church. Maybe they can say bread is symbol of the death, but they don't say bread is symbol of the body.as Clement did. Or that Jesus used a metaphore, as Clement did. We can say the bread is the body (we can sound very literal) but for us is symbolic even though we can sound literal if we want. On Clement the instructor book 2, chapter 2. What does it say? *And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed* YES, I agree with Clement it's twofold, the one he had in his body, when he sacrificed he saved us all. And with the spiritual he anointed us. You can find that in 1 peter 1:2 that we have been sprinkled with it. Clement continues *And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality* I agree with Clement here too. Drinking gives us a immortality. Jesus said whoever believes in him drinks. And Clement in book 1 said these words were figurative. And that wine was the symbol. So I agree that drinking gives immortality. Clement continues *the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh* I agree here too with Clement. It's obvious, no comment. Clement continues *Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality* I agree with Clement, when we drink wine And water what are we doing? Proclaiming Christ death, strengthening our faith, giving the good news. Participating in the supper gives us faith. And the spirit who dwells in us makes us be good christians, obtain the sanctity necessary to have immortality with God. (Without sanctity no-one will see God) Clement continues *And the mixture of both - of the water and of the Word - is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace* WELL here I don't know if we mix water with wine in our Eucharist, I think ours is wine But maybe they mix it with water, idk. But let's say he's talking about wine with water or wine. Yes I agree, the Eucharist (which means thanksgiving) is a mixture, in that thanksgiving we mix water or wine with Christ, not transubstantiate, not transform, but mix. We mix ourselves with him too. The holy spirit is in the christian. We become one, we become part of his body. Continues Clement *and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul* Of course, when we participate in the supper, with a pure heart, we sanctity or body and soul. We are close to God. Christian life is a continuous sanctification, and when we remember the sacrifice we sanctity or body, we are not going to leave church after the supper and go sin with our body, go to see my lover, no. We don't do that, or in the night go get drunk in a bar. We sanctity our body and of course our soul. The supper is a constant reminder that Christ died in a cross For us, and we will not dishonor that sacrifice. Continues Clement *For the divine mixture, man, the Father's will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word* For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word. It's correct, when we partake of the supper we are united to the spirit of God and to Christ the word. It's correct, the holy ghost is unite with our soul, that's the Christian! A person who the holy ghost lives in him. He inspires us to all good deed, and our flesh becomes as the flesh of christ, without sin because the carnal is the one who uses his body to sin, and spiritual people don't do that. Romans 8:7 says the carnal sins, the carnal can not be subject to the LAW of god, he CAN'T. He can't leave the mistress, he can not stop stealing, or lying, or being a murderer. So when we partake on the supper what do we do? Be closer to god, remind that the son of God Died. And people thinking about that will not go to see the lover. Instead he or she will go to see their families. So. Clement here doesn't say nothing to retract himself of what he said in the first book of the instructor. In the first book he said the language eat my flesh was figurative. Symbolic. Here again -Clement of Alexandria- Pedagogos 1,6 Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out -by symbols- , when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly -by metaphor- the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both - of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. Thus in many ways the Word is -figuratively- described, -as meat- , and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not -figuratively represented as wine?- Now CLEMENT in the same book 2, chapter 2 of the instructor AGAIN says it's figurative speech . Meaning the gospel, his words of eternal life for those who follow him drink. Lets see Clement of Alexandria Pedagogos ( the instructor) 2,2 In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And -He blessed the wine, saying, Take, drink: this is my blood- - the blood of the vine. -He figuratively calls the Word shed for many- , for the remission of sins- -the holy stream of gladness- . And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father. About the quote from instructor 1,6 Clement says *The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. Eat my flesh, He says, and drink my blood. John **6:53**-54 Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children's growth. O amazing mystery* *I AGREE WITH ALL CLEMENT SAYS HERE* First clement says the word is eveeyrhing to a child. I agree, christ is everything for christians then he quotes the lord and says that that food suits us. Of course ir suits us. No disagrement with Clement at all Then he says he offers his flesh Of course he does, he gave it to us, to all of us so we can have eternsl life. So no disagreement with Clement there eirher And then he says is all we need to grow Of course it is, No DISAGREMENT ON THIS EITHER, eating and drinking is all we need, chist said he who believes eats and he who follows him drink. And in this same chapter clement said thw words eat my flesh describes methaphoricaly the faith. So I agree with this he wrote. And it didn't contradict what he said in 1ch Here again What he said -Clement of Alexandria- Pedagogos 1,6 Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out -by symbols- , when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly -by metaphor- the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both - of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. Thus in many ways the Word is -figuratively- described, -as meat- , and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not -figuratively represented as wine?-

Thanks

@BVale Honestly, I just have to share this. I work on a military base, and the church used is used for both protestants and catholics is the same. After mass, I approached the priest and asked for him to bless a rosary I've had, and also asked for where to find the holy water. The room we walked into had that warm, clean, beautiful feeling. I don't know how to describe it but really. It wasn't till I returned the next day to that room, the lights were out and I walked in. Something guided me or nudged me to take my jacket off, and I complied and that feeling was there. As I turned around and looked about the room, the sacristy was over in the corner. I don't even know why I'm writing this to be honest, it feels like something justs completely obvious for why, but that feeling is real.. There is so much stuff that I wish people would know of tbh from the miracles of the Eucharist that expound beyond the Bible but in the modern world. Even back in the 70s I think it was, when the Eucharist changed and was sent acrosst the world to be studied and asked to be identified by scientists and cardiologists. They weren't even told what it was, but they all reported that it was heart tissue from a particular part of the heart. There were still cells that normally die and dissapate when not being actively pumped which were still present. The tissue itself was identified by the doctors as having belonged to someone who had undergone massive pain... ;Even the officials had been called to investigate and they came to the conclusion that there was no foul play involved... I wish people knew of these as a last resort before comdemning things they don't understand... wouldn't people who claim to love Jesus want to believe? want to investigate? instead of spit on the ground and say that's impossible... Who are we to define what the Father has prepared for the course of the world? His reaching out to the world? Who are we to say what isn't Him without even looking at what He has presented to us..

@BVale Every Friday @10 pm

Thank you so much! I really appreciate your support. God bless!

Thanks for your prayers

Thanks

Thanks for sharing!

Thanks!

Jésus dit : "je suis le pain de vie. Celui qui mange de ce pain vivra".

My pleasure!

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks for sharing

@@GospelSimplicity you should say, whst about baptism then?

@@saramolina8911 the author of this comment is slightly off. It's not all sacraments it's really only the Eucharist that is sacrilege. Holy orders and marriage are not good to have when in sin, but every other sacrament is about God's grace healing our soul. The Eucharist is about sustaining a soul that's already in a state of Grace.

@@josephgoemans6948 agree The owner of the channel could have given an answer like yours, but he didnt. I dont know marriage is about healing a soul but i can agree with you that the comment is slightly of. It contradicts catholic doctrine of infant bsptism.

@@saramolina8911 Marriage and Holy orders are about equipping us. Baptism is about initiating our relationship with God through the outpouring of His grace. Confession is about repairing our soul and relationship with Christ. Confirmation is about equipping us for adulthood in Christianity. The sacrament of the sick is about spiritual and sometimes physical healing. The Eucharist is about sustenance of a soul that is in a state of Grace.

Thanks! I really appreciate that

That's an interesting thought. I would agree with what you said at the end that it's too early in the narrative for that to be very compelling. I think it would require a lot of presupposed ideas, but it's interesting. Thanks for your support! Grateful to have you as a part of this community. God bless!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! God bless

Do this in remembrance of me.! there

@@GospelSimplicity Are you aware that "New Covenant" is the same as "New Testament"? That during the Last Supper as Jesus raised the bread and wine, it is the ONLY time Jesus mentions the "New Testament". This is really important to understand. We are in the New Testament/New Covenant. We learn from the Old Testament that we needed to do certain things to be in a covenant relationship with God. A relationship that connects us. Makes us ONE and United with God. The Eucharist IS that thing we need to do in the New Testament to have a covenant relationship with God NOW!!!

It may be symbolic considering that Jesus and the Disciples weren't actually drinking anything but bread and wine at that time. Jesus hadn't even died yet........if it was bread and wine back then it's still bread and wine today!

Glad you're enjoying the channel! I wouldn't count on that, but I appreciate your support nonetheless

Thanks!

It’s a smart religion, they are still right about being the body of Christ.

Why would it stop being the Real Presence once it becomes the Real Presence? That makes no sense. When we consume Him, He becomes part of us, but outside of consumption, the Real Presence doesn’t stop being Him.

I believe the Catholic Church over defined the true presence in that the Church defined the mechanics of a mystery and required belief in it to be part of the Church. Of course the dogmatizing of transubstantiation was in response to elements of the Protestant reformation that were denying the true presence of Christ. In the general scheme of things I prefer the Orthodox unwillingness to explain and to just accept. In saying this I do not personally have any problem with transubstantiation but it feels like to me making it dogma is almost like making how a car’s engine works a dogma necessary to drive the car when the important thing is that it works and gets you from points to point b. Whether the engine is diesel, or gasoline, or electric is important but in the end not a necessary fact to get you on your journey. In the end the blood and wine is truly is the flesh and blood of our savior and wether we call it transubstantiation or a mystery it does not change that fact.

Christopher Wentling it is the core of the Catholic Church. You might want to check out the writings of the Early Church Father’s. Only the Gnostic heretics didn’t believe in the Real Presence.

Christopher Wentling Exactly, all they are saying is that if it becomes the flesh and blood of the Lord, the substance changes from one to another.

That is an important passage to consider

Thanks! That’s awesome. What’s your cousins name?

His name is Jonathan, I dont think you know him, but he is in the guys dorm in the "black sheep" floor I believe.

Thanks for your prayers!

Yes. Even Martin Luther believed in Real Presence, as do modern-day Lutherans.

I do think that Church History is really the key factor here, as you said. Without it, it's a lot more ambiguous. God bless!

@@GospelSimplicity are you thinking about converting into Catholicism?

Actually, one might just remember that the Assyrian Church split after the SECOND COUNCIL and they believe, like everyone else, in the Real Presence!

Thanks for the recommendation and kind words. God bless!

Thank you so much Julian! I really appreciate your encouragement. It's great to hear about the community you're a part of! Sounds like a wonderful thing. God bless!

Thank you so much for the kind words. I love his channel! I’ve reached out but never heard anything

@@GospelSimplicity hopefully soon then! But of course! Elated to see this channel grow more and more. Peace be with you!

Wow, that would've been an interesting conversation to be a fly on the wall

What was she before

@@PInk77W1 church of Christ. They have the symbolic interpretation of the Lord's supper.

@@emmawilson3775 ok. Cool.

@@emmawilson3775 too bad John 6 has absolutely nothing to do with the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s supper comes in 7 chapters later, where Christ says to do this in remembrance of me. This is what Paul refers to later on. Not to John 6. The issue in john 6 is the lack of belief in Christ. The Jews wanted real food, not spiritual food. Eating and drinking the blood is believing in Christ. John 6 is not the Lord’s supper! Completely different context. Sigh. So many people blinded by Rome.

Joe Castillo thanks! I quoted the first of these in the video

The letters of ignatius dont say anythig a protestant couldnt say We say the bread is the body. So you csnt use ignstius on this one And justin either becsuse we protestants dont see the bread as common bread. So zero of two.

@@GospelSimplicity really??? Is all you have to say? Go study your bible and go study church farhers

@@saramolina8911 Sara, I'm sorry but we Catholics are not in competition with the truth. Protestants are and you just demonstrated it. Moreover, there's no valid consecration of the bread and wine in Protestantism, it's all symbolic. In conclusion, you must be Catholic in order to have life, just like Jesus said. May God bless your discernment.

Our body and flesh by trsnsmutation is noirished. What is transmutsted??? The Bread??? No friend. Read The body of christ? No friend. Read Our body is transmutaded Justin is not tslking about the body of christ or the bread, but about our body And transmutation as you may know is not trsnsubstsntistion. So, no friend

Interesting!