Is the Eucharist a SYMBOL?! | Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. 

Good. You were taught the truth.

Because it is!

Yes, of course.

@@alhilford2345, did Jesus at the last supper turn the Bread into His literal body and Wine into His literal Blood while he still was yet to be crucified? Did He literally create more of Himself at that very meal? Is it also taught that the host becomes your Body, and that you are actually eating yourself? The scriptures state these things. Or is it possible that the Bread is the Doctrine/Teaching of those in the Body of Christ and the Blood is the Sacrifice/Actions of those in the Body of Christ. Matthew quotes Jesus as connecting the Bread He feeds people to Doctrine/Teachings. Read Matthew 16:5-12, and this goes along with creating it out of nothing. Paul also understood this and spoke to it in his epistle of 1st Corinthians in chapter 11 he is talking about communion and he brings up the problems of Heresy in verse 19. He also goes on to detail out how we can be guilty of the bread and blood in verse 27, and how we must judge ourselves in verse 31-32. If you still believe the host to become Jesus’s actual body, you must ask yourself, which body of Christ is it? Is it His fleshy earthly body, or is it His eternal glorified body? If it is the former, why are we being fed something that has a sin nature, and if it is the latter, how did Jesus exist in Fleshy Earthly Body and the Eternal Glorified Body at the same time as the Bread at the Last Supper became His Body. This would cause issues with other actions like Jesus having to depart so the Holy Spirit could come. So which is it?

​@@Michael_the_Servantthe latter with no issues

Chris Hansen will be knocking on your door any minute

Don't get caught up in jargon of the law. Rather, what does common sense say? Or the reasonable thing is?

@@Harp2033 I agree. I have confidence that the church operates under common sense. Thank you

@@chezjowy8596 I said “I hope so as I think that’s wrong” so no

I don't have a perfect answer to most of your questions, I'm sure someone else will, but I want to point out a specific detail about a potential harm of young marriage which might explain why these ages are the set minimum, or at least why the woman's is. One of the principal physical harms of child marriage is that a girl too young to give birth could get pregnant. This is any age before 15, when, generally speaking, the birth canal in women reaches about its maximum size. After 15, the birth canal widens relatively little. If the minimum age for women is 14, if she were to get pregnant, in most cases (that is, for 9 out of 12 months) she wouldn't give birth until she reaches 15, and at this point, birth is about as safe for her as it's ever going to be.

Pics or it didn't happen

Next time, watch the video first. You fell into the exact mistake he warns against in the first minute of the video.

Because apparently yours ran out on you

@@chezjowy8596 I was expecting an explanation but I’ll just assume you guys don’t have one and are blatantly disrespecting scripture

Aw man he really did, sorry to hear that

@@chezjowy8596 still no answer

Here's hoping one day he answers your call

Do you believe in infant baptism?

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,” ‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1‬:‭24‬

“If you have faith to move a mountain but you have not love, then you are nothing”

Yes it was shed to be drink from the chalice, does your "church" do that?

Quite the opposite. The proof that His Blood was not shed in vain is that through It we acquired the Grace necessary to perform the Works of charity He himself demanded us.

"Seem like Thomas Aquinas invented alot of extra biblical ideas and made an idol in the Eucharist. " Based on what? Because you decided that he did? Why should I believe that? "His sacrifice on the cross was completed on the cross." Correct. But if that is true in the way you seem to be implying it, you must be a universalist. "We no longer need a priest to intercede for us with God the father because Jesus became our high priest and those born again in the Holy Spirit are priests in the new covenant." If we no longer need priests, why are we priests then? Beware the doctrine of man that you are peddling.

@@_Gormakesh_ Because Hebrews 10 tells us it was a one time sacrifice for all sin, why would Jesus need to sacrificed at every mass? Jesus in his resurrection body also returned to heaven and hadn’t returned yet for the second coming so his body can’t be in some tabernacle in a church, hence claiming that the Eucharist is actually his body is making an idol of it. I’m not sure what you mean by universalist, I believe repenting of our sin and believing in Jesus Christ and his one time sacrifice on the cross and resurrection is our only salvation, that is the good news or the gospel. I believe in the Bible and but I’m wary of church traditions built on the wisdom of man and added to over the centuries. I’m not peddling my own doctrine, just checking everything against the scriptures and there is so much add ins here that aren’t found in the Bible and unfortunately they are just diluting the gospel and blinding people to the Truth

@@johnmchugh3981 "Because Hebrews 10 tells us it was a one time sacrifice for all sin, why would Jesus need to sacrificed at every mass?" You're saying that like it's a different sacrifice at each mass. It's not. "Jesus in his resurrection body also returned to heaven and hadn’t returned yet for the second coming so his body can’t be in some tabernacle in a church, hence claiming that the Eucharist is actually his body is making an idol of it." What a strange limit to place on God. Not to mention, that would mean I am technically more powerful than God. Hopefully you don't actually believe that. "I believe repenting of our sin and believing in Jesus Christ and his one time sacrifice on the cross and resurrection is our only salvation, that is the good news or the gospel." Why do we have to repent of our sins? I thought you said Jesus did everything on the cross. "I believe in the Bible and but I’m wary of church traditions built on the wisdom of man and added to over the centuries." Except the Bible itself is a church tradition. "I’m not peddling my own doctrine, just checking everything against the scriptures and there is so much add ins here that aren’t found in the Bible and unfortunately they are just diluting the gospel and blinding people to the Truth" So you will not believe in anything that is not explicitly stated in the Bible? Meaning you do not believe in the Holy spirit, confessing your sins to God, or the canon of scripture? because none of those are written explicitly in the Bible.

If you are suspicious "of the doctrine of man", you probably should be suspicious of the Bible itself. For the Bible, as you know it, is a compendium of disparate books written by many men over the centuries. What books were included in the Bible and what books were excluded were *PURELY THE RESULT MEN* making those decisions. The Biblical canon is, therefore, a man made tradition. If you have faith in the very councils, whose deliberation culminated in the very collection of books that you revere today, then you must believe that these men were guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it stands to reason that their successors who developed traditions - even the Eucharist tradition - could have been guided by that same Holy Spirit.

@@_Gormakesh_ the Holy Spirit is mentioned in scripture…