alright here goes...all of the pause quotations... 3:42 -> Council of Trent, Ch. 4: On Transubstantiation... "And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which he offered under the species of bread to be truly his own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation." 8:01 -> "As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10, 16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11, 28: Let him so eat of that bread." 9:06 -> Council of Trent, Chapter 2: That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory, both for the living and the dead... "...this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory, and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different..." 10:31 -> The Condemnations of the Council of Trent/Trent-On the Sacrifice of the Mass, Chapter 3: "If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema." 11:26 -> Luther's Small Catechism-VI: The Sacrament of The Altar, as the Head of a Family Should Teach It in a Simple Way to His Household: "What is the Sacrament of the Altar? - Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself." 11:55 -> (continued from previous reference) "What is the benefit of such eating and drinking? - Answer: That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation." 12:27 -> Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1391: "Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: 'He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.' Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: 'As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.'" 13:39 -> Council of Trent, Canon V: "If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that other effects do not result therefrom: let him be anathema." There ya go! :D I don't think I missed anything lol (and shoutout to whoever probably did this before me hahaha 😂)
Mr. Perry: Consider Jeremiah 23:22-24 Had they stood in My council and did they but proclaim to My people My WORDS, They would have brought them back from evil ways and from their wicked deeds. Am I a God near at hand only, says the LORD, and not a God far off? Can a man hide in secret without My seeing him? says the LORD. Jeremiah 7:8-10 But here you are, putting your trust in deceitful words to your own loss! Are you to steal and murder, committ adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal, go after strange gods that you know not, and yet come to stand before Me in this house which bears My name and say: "We are safe; we can committ all these abominations again"? Has this house which bears My name become in your eyes a den of thieves? I too see what is being done, says the LORD. Hebrews 4:13 No creature is hidden from Him but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must render an account. Jeremiah 17:5 Cursed is the man who trusts in human beings, who seeks his strength in flesh, whose heart turns away from the LORD. Jeremiah 15:16 When I found your WORDS, I devoured(ate) them; they became My joy and the happiness of my heart, Because I bore your Name, O LORD, GOD of hosts. Revelation 19:13...and His Name is called the WORD OF GOD. Revelation 1:16...A sharp two-edged sword came out of His mouth... Hebrews 4:12 Indeed, the WORD OF GOD is living and effective(POWERFUL), sharper than any two-edged sword... 1John 2:5 But whoever keeps His WORD, the LOVE OF GOD is TRULY perfected in him. Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away but My WORDS shall not pass away. 1Peter1:23,25 You have been born again(anew), not from perishable but from IMPERISHABLE seed, through the living and abiding WORD OF GOD... but the WORD OF THE LORD remains FOREVER. This is the WORD that has been proclaimed to you. Acts16:30-31 "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" "Believe in the LORD JESUS and you and your household will be saved." Hebrews 8:13 When He speaks of a NEW covenant, He declares the first one OBSOLETE(out of date, no longer used). And what has become OBSOLETE and has grown OLD is close to DISAPPEARING. Matthew 27:51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. Hebrews 4:16 So let us CONFIDENTLY(BOLDLY) approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and to find grace for timely help. 1Corinthians 11:25 "This cup is the NEW covenant in My blood..." Hebrews 3:1 Therefore, holy brothers, sharing in a heavenly calling, reflect on Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession... 1Timothy 2:5 For there is ONE God. There is also ONE mediator between God and the human race, CHRIST JESUS, Himself human, who gave Himself as ransom for ALL. John 3:3... no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from ABOVE. ... no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of Spirit is spirit. John 17:17 Consecrate(Sanctify) them in truth. Your WORD is TRUTH. Ephesian 5:26-27 to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the WORD, that He might present to Himself the church in SPLENDOR without spot or wrinkle or any such thing that she(church) might be holy and without blemish. 1John 2:27 As for you, the anointing that you received from Him remains in you, so that you DO NOT NEED anyone to teach you. But His anointing teaches you about everything and is TRUE and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him. John 15:7 If you remain in Me and My WORDS remain in you... John 15:26 When the Advocate comes whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of TRUTH that proceeds from the Father... Jesus lives in my heart. Jesus is not in container for me. Matthew 8:20..."Foxes have dens and birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to rest His head.
Whenever this subject arises, I remember C.S. Lewis, "The command is 'take, eat' not 'take, understand.'" So let's just do what we're told to do and trust God for the rest.
Dear Michael Woods: "Take Eat" in the Scriptural context, means "Come And Dine!" Take eat is an invite from the Lord's Christ Himself, to His table, so accept the invite, it is prepared for you, by Christ.
@@GloomZzyy Dear Antonio: Jesus Christ invites His disciples to "Come and dine (John: 21:12)." Christ alone has the power to invite us to dine with Him. Church groups and Lutheran synods with a separate practice of "Closed communion," reject projecting Christ's invite to people. The "Closed Commmunion" altered doctrine opens the door to false projections that assumes that the pastors are the earthly visible presence of Christ. Instead of Christ only having the power to invite us to His presence, pastors make the decision of who is invited. If we - and by "We" I mean the one body of offices(pastoral office included) in the Church (Romans 12: 4-15) along with guests - accept the message of Christ, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, who empowers us to have faith in God's Word, we have also received the will to want to take Christ's invitation to partake in His fellowship. It is Christ's message itself that is poured into us that invites us. Pastors or any person are powerless to invite Christ to their table. Christ, alone, by His own merits, has mercy on us sinners, by His grace. No person earned the grace of God, Christ earned God's grace for us.
@@karlkunze7172 AOC is that you? Nice word salad there! I'll bet you don't believe it is the actual body and blood of Christ Jesus who is the LORD our God. You like to change God's word for your own "understanding"?
@@causeimbatmaaan Dear Causi: When Christ pours His Word into our hearts, and we are receptive to His message (Not our own), we can, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, understand and accept what Luther came to understand and accepted about the real presence of Christ. Luther came to know and accept that it was truly Christ who was inviting Luther, and Christ is inviting us to the Lord's table, both where we are present now (As we open the Bible and read 1 Corinthians 11: 24-25, and by faith believe that Christ is present), and in public fellowship (Church). Before sitting down to eat, we do well to open the Bible to Luke 22: 17-20, and receive Christ's words, and His hidden presence in His words, as the Holy Spirit helps us to accept by faith the hidden presence of Christ, in the elements of food and drink. Let Christ invite you to His table. In the sacramental union the consecrated bread is united with the body of Christ and the consecrated wine is united with the blood of Christ by virtue of Christ's original institution with the result that anyone eating and drinking these "elements"-the consecrated bread and wine-really eats and drinks the physical body and blood of Christ as well. Lutherans maintain that what they believe to be the biblical doctrine of the manducatio indignorum ("eating of the unworthy") supports this doctrine as well as any other doctrine affirming the Real Presence. The manducatio indignorum is the contention that even unbelievers eating and drinking in the Eucharist really eat and drink the body and blood of Christ.
I think it is admirable that a Lutheran minister is trying, in a peaceable manner, to give a fair account of doctrines he does not hold. Especially as relations between the two groups have often been far from peaceable.
@@xtusvincit5230 might I suggest that how we receive the information given (insulting or not) is more of a subjective matter? I came from a different Protestant tradition, yet I did not find him insulting and thought his citing of official statements to be refreshing. I often hear "they say or believe _______" without any foundation. These statements are often rude, misinterpreted, or downright erroneous. When coming to the Lutheran arm of the faith a few years back, I was very interested to see the similarities and differences from the Anglican doctrines. I dearly hope that the tone used here becomes more pervasive than the "devil may care" (he does) attitude I often received. On the other hand, one might easily find their way to a place of fwwling insulted or resentful when referred to as being anathema. I sometimes feel that being conciliatory is the policy of modern discourse rather than being both cogent in presentation, convicted in faith, and charitable (the original "showing love to God and neighbor" meaning).
@@jon-marcmaclean3784 Do you think the Catholic Church has written nothing about the Eucharist since the 1500s? This man has chosen only to look at texts written in an age of polemicism. In the past 50 years, there have been all kinds of official documents written IN COOPERATION with Protestant churches on the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist. Why not read from one of these? But this man's purpose is only to promote continued division and tension. Maybe is gives him more clicks? Maybe it makes him feel more justified as a Protestant? Maybe he is still stuck in the old anti-Catholic bigotry that is very much more in fashion now among Protestants?
Sir my pastor recommended you to me this morning and I absolutely love your videos, I’m a truck driver and don’t get home as much as I’d like to and I’ll take all the good teaching I can. Thank you very much for your instructional videos, they aren’t condescending nor do you ever talk down to us. God bless, now I’m going to binge.
Pastor Bryan, I’m a Catholic Educator and must say that you did a pretty good job at explaining transubstantiation and the Catholic understanding of the Holy Eucharist. I’m glad you allowed people to review the actual statements of the Council of Trent as well. You said midway through the video that Lutherans don’t need Aristotle to help them understand Jesus, but just the Bible and what Jesus said. I agree to greater degree. However, you pulled out Luther’s Catechism to help explain what Jesus already said IN the Bible. What happened to Sola Scriptura? Just like you use Luther’s various catechisms/discourses as an aid to interpret scripture and theology, Catholics just happen to use Aristotle and different sources as well. The problem is every theologian or church body (ELCA, WELS, LCMS, etc) has their OWN interpretation of Scripture and each thinks that they right and the other is wrong, or not-so-right. I believe in the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Scripture as it pertains to the Eucharist, just as you believe in Luther’s interpretation of Scripture as it pertains to the Eucharist. One thing I will say is that I think all of our churches do some pretty interesting theological gymnastics to prove their point. Like, don’t the Lutherans believe that Jesus is only present in the Eucharist during the liturgy and communion and after the liturgy He is no longer present? Isn’t that the reason why the Eucharist is not generally reserved in the Lutheran church and if the sick desires Holy Communion, an abbreviated “consecration” takes place bedside? I don’t know if Jesus told us how long he stays in the Eucharist, but the Catholic Church has developed its own theology which says as long as the “accidents” remain and I think the Lutherans have a different viewpoint. Like you said about the Orthodox, they like the word “mystery”, that they do. I tend to go that route personally. Whether Jesus is present via transubstantiation, consubstantiation or spontaneous combustion, Jesus said, “This is my Body... this is my Blood” and so it must be. Peace, Joseph
Do you know what Sola Scriptura is and what Lutherans believe? Because according to you it is that we have only one authority, and that is the Bible. Actually, Sola Scriptura means that Bible is alone at the top, in RCC(Roman Catholic Church) Bible, Holy Tradition, Papal authority and Church's inerrancy are at the top. So we do not reject any authority beneth the Holy Scripture, but if they(Bible and Tradition) are in contradiction, that part in Tradition should be rejected. But not our highest authority, The Bible.
Do Early Church Fathers support Lutheran beliefs? Yes: 👇 Anything outside of the Bible "For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?" St. Ambrose, On the Duties of the Clergy, Book I, Ch. 23, 102 👇 Only Bible "There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source..." St. Hippolytus, Against Noetus, Ch. 9 👇 Sola Scriptura literally mentiond by Early Church Father, here: "Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathens, and let them support their inquiries from the SCRIPTURE ALONE..." Tertulian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 👇 Saying that everything opposed to the Bible should be rejected "Conserning the hearers: that those hearers are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, recieving what is in CONFORMITY with the Scriptures, AND REJECTING WHAT IS OPPOSED TO THEM..." St. Basil of Caesaria, The Morals, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 9, p.204. So even the Tradition of the Church says we should have Bible alone, regarding the doctrines and dogmas.
@@SlovakLutheranMonarchist This is generally why I dislike Roman Apologists, they assume we're all Baptists and believe in the Bible alone as if we're somehow smarter than the eunuch who needed St. Philip to exposit scriptures to him in the book of Acts. There are nuda scripturalists within wider protestantism, but historic Protestants, even Calvin, proclaimed themselves as catholic. We did not create a new church, we reformed it much like Pope Gregory in the gregorian reforms.
@@PipingPsalmist It gets even worse when discussing Eucharist, they all think we are those Zwinglians or Modern Evangelicals that do not believe in Real Presence of Christ in Eucharist.
@@SlovakLutheranMonarchist Exactly; not too long ago I was dialoging with an Orthodox and even after affirming several times that I accept the objective real presence, he then tried to argue that I didn't among issues with the deuterocanon. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding on both sides
Roman Catholic Eucharist is the doctrine of demons. There is no perpetual sacrifice. Christ died once and is seated at the right hand of the Father. If Hes seated at the right hand of the father how can yous preform the sacrifice again again and again at each ‘mass’.
@@jakestevanja1304 that isn't the Catholic view on the Eucharist at all. Christ isn't sacrificed again and again. Christ was sacrificed once and for all. What happens at the mass is that one sacrifice, 2,000 years ago, is re-presented during the mass. That sacrifice is celebrated, and through a miracle of God - who is timeless - we get to share in that once for all sacrifice. Christ died one time, he isn't re-crucified
Recently started my conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy, we believe that it is the Actual Body and Blood of Our Lord, (Of the Risen Christ rather than the Roman prospective) We call it the Divine Mysteries since how it is transformed other than it’s the work of the All Holy Spirit is unknowable to us. Just as how The incarnation of the God-Man with Christ being fully God and Fully Man is something we know as a fact but can’t explain. We love the word Mystery because we understand other that has been revealed by God through Holy Scripture and sacred Tradition passed down through the ages is unknowable to us including the Divine Mysteries. That being said since we believe it’s actually Christ’s Body and Blood we hold it with high regard and reverence, our Divine Liturgies are reverent and beautiful, instead and modernized and dumbed down. “The Rule of prayer is the Rule of believe” so how they treat communion is often a good way to know what they believe. Want to know what Orthodox believe, attend our liturgy, best advice I heard. God Bless,
Hello Pastor. As a former Lutheran, now Catholic, I found your discussion very enlightening. I very much appreciated your reasonable explanation of Transubstantiation (essence and accidents). I also would like to point out that the main difference between Catholics and Lutherans regarding the Eucharist is not necessarily what form the Body and Blood takes on, but in regards to the Catholic understanding of the Mass being primarily a SACRIFICE of ATONEMENT (capitalized for emphasis) as is in conjunction with the Old Testament sacrifice. I believe this was a larger sticking point for Luther than the Aristotelian explanation used by the Latin Church. In fact, many Catholics today don’t realize that reception of the Eucharist on a very frequent basis is something modern in Church history. The primary purpose is the perpetual sacrifice itself instituted by the priest. This is very much in accord with the typological understanding of the Old and New Testaments. I would like to share a link to a very interesting presentation by a Monsignor who explains philosophically the progression through history of how the Catholic Church arrived at the term of transubstantiation. I found it extremely enlightening: m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-filV-JMFc98.html
I couldn't become Catholic. Why? Things like this... ‘If you say the Rosary faithfully until death, I do assure you that, in spite of the gravity of your sins “you shall receive a never-fading crown of glory.” Even if you are on the brink of damnation, even if you have one foot in hell, even if you have sold your soul to the devil as sorcerers do who practice black magic, and even if you are a heretic as obstinate as a devil, sooner or later you will be converted and will amend your life and save your soul, if - and mark well what I say - if you say the Rosary devoutly every day until death for the purpose of knowing the truth and obtaining contrition and pardon for your sins.’ -St. Louis Marie de Montfort (Secret of the Rosary)
@@BibleLovingLutheran Yeah or, "O Mary, Virgin most powerful and Mother of mercy, Queen of Heaven and Refuge of sinners, we consecrate ourselves to thine Immaculate Heart. We consecrate to thee our very being and our whole life; all that we have, all that we love, all that we are. To thee we give our bodies, our hearts and our souls; to thee we give our homes, our families, our country."
@@Mygoalwogel That prayer to Mary is a big yikes. Catholics insist they venerate, but don't worship Mary, but that's a prayer that should be reserved only for God. I was baptized Catholic and go to Mass now, but have been non-denominational all my life. As in different protestant churches and now Catholic. I've thought of converting to Catholic, not because I think it has the whole truth (which I think all our earlthly churches are flawed), but even more than my discomfort w/ Mary veneration, is the purgatory beliefs. That addition of purgatory, along w/ penance is a step too far, becasue it takes away from grace through faith and Christ's ultimate atonement. Catholics are my beloved brethren though and I there are some beautiful and devout priests. The deacon at our church was definitely called of God and his prayers and council has been wonderful. He has an echumenical spirit like me and loves to see Christians unite as I do.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I like your way of looking at these things. During times I wasn't able to attend Lutheran churches, I was happy to attend Roman mass. Despite their ugly history, acceptance of idolatry, and overblown claims to truth and authority, the Roman church is the by far the biggest and most likely to reunite everybody.
The EO position is almost exactly like the Lutheran position, btw. The only difference is that EO emphasize that they believe that the elements become the body and blood AT the moment of blessing/prayer while the Lutherans usually believe that it is the true body and blood *when* consumed. Lutherans actually like their mysteries, too. ;)
You died?🤔 Do not speak,laugh or put down others,if it is on purpose or not. To do so can emotionally hurt others. No one likes "Do unto others ,as they do unto you" well,that speaks for the majority........but I accept the wrongs others may say about me. Hurts? Sometimes I imagine it could, but I say to myself, to God "Jesus forgive them for they know not what (they do....or say... etc)" Ignorance is something that others might 😕 use against another.Let it be.If you (anyone) needs to laugh,become angry etc. Toward a person,or behind a person's back,think first. Will that harm another,thy self,others? Would l,could do that 🤔 Well,be as God would want you to be.😊 God Bless all people in the world. Smile to others during the day😊
I’m 71 but as a Catholic for the last 30 years (give or take) but with all of the ‘recent’ hullabaloo been thinking about options so following your RU-vid programs. You bring incisive clarity. Please continue.
I was Eastern Orthodox, but I had some concerns, in addition to living too far from an Orthodox Church. Yes, one could say “just move closer!” We DID. We moved to our intended retirement area. It was to be our last move. And then the church was closed within a few months. But even that wasn’t our ONLY concern. So we started looking around. I am now very happily at home with the LCMS.
419 My Remnant Church, inspired by the Prophet Enoch, will create hatred Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 @ 19:00 My dearly beloved daughter, I come this evening to tell you that a great token of My Love and Mercy will now manifest within the hearts of believers everywhere. They will feel My Presence within their hearts in a way they will not be able to explain and they will unite their hearts with Mine. This Gift will make them strong in My Faith and they will hunger for My Presence daily. I urge all of God’s children, who feel the Flames of My Love engulf their souls, to receive My Body and My Blood, in the Holy Eucharist, as often as they can. You, My beloved disciples, will need the Gift of My Body, through the Holy Eucharist to give you strength, for you will need every ounce of strength, as you witness the falling apart of My Holy and Apostolic, Catholic Church. My Holy Eucharist will be desecrated as I foretold some time ago. Excuses will be made to render this Most Holy Gift as simply a gesture in remembrance of My Crucifixion. Very soon My Real Presence will be denounced as part of a new modern catholic church, which will include other religious churches. Once this happens, the love and devotion to the Holy Trinity will dwindle and fall away. Instead false gods will take its place. While this will be difficult, you must remember, I will never forfeit My Church on Earth. My allegiance is to the Church founded by Me before I ascended into Heaven. The Church upon the Rock founded by My beloved Peter, cannot and will never die. For I will lead My Church now in the end times, and will renew the prophecies, foretold long ago. My Gospels will be preached by My Remnant Church, in every corner of the Earth. My Remnant Church, will be inspired by the Prophet Enoch, and this will create hatred everywhere My Holy Word is heard. The Holy Spirit will ignite the faith of My Remnant Church who will never give up proclaiming the Truth of the Gospels, till its dying breath. Go now and prepare My Remnant Church, by following My Instructions. Trust in Me always, for all will be well. Your beloved Jesus
Main mistake: catholics really belive that the Eucaristic Sacrifice is for the forgivness of sins. But they also say that the effect is not ONLY the forgivness of sins but it has ALSO the effects that you read on the Catholic Cathechism. Eresy (from the greek verb aireo, to choose) means that you choose one truth and you eliminate the others. That is what Martin Luter did in this case, and also when he decides that the ONLY source of Revelation is the Bible. If you study the history of the church you will descover that both catholics and ortodoxes have ALWAYS belived that the autentic Tradition (with the big t) and the Magisterium are ALSO sources of the Revelation. Second mistake: protestants do not really belive that the bread and wine of the Eucarist ARE the body and blood of Jesus. Aristotelic philosophy is just a LANGUAGE to espress this truth and preserve it from mistakes or erroneus interpretation. There is a real identity not a similarity. Saint Paul also used philosophy in order to communicate the truths recived by the apostoles. As a protestant you can freely say that bread and wine are mere simbols of Jesus and you will not be excomunicated. Third: the concept of priesthood was not invented by catholics. If you read the writings of cristians and bishops of the first, second and third century is really clear that they have the same idea of priesthood catholics and ortodoxes have today. This idea is profundly connected with the concept of APOSTOLIC SUCCESION. Simplifing: if you want to be a successor of the apostols you must be ordained by an apostol or by someone ordained by them with the rite of imposition of the hands. Luterans broke this "line" of apostolic succesion, and there cannot be any real priesthood or pastorhood as you call it. I invite you to read the writings of the apostolic fathers of the first three centuries to realised that Luther invented something completly new with the idea of "sola scriptura". And that is the reson becouse protestant churches are so many and divided. God bless you.
@@thomastr914 : Don't worry. Your posting was clear. My Italian would be a nightmare! Some people just need an excuse to avoid facing the Truth. Sursum Corda!
Thomas TR9 -- good point. I'm Catholic and this was a point for me too. The Bible, the witness of the Church Fathers, the catechism, etc. all make clear that Eucharist does forgive sins. The point made in the Council of Trent was that the PRIMARY benefit of the Eucharist was union/intimacy with Christ. This is literally why it is called 'Communion.'. But I think that this minister made some very good points, and I long for total Christian unity. Peace to all in Christ Jesus!
He knows Catholics believe forgiveness of sins is an effect of the Lord's Supper. He didn't dispute that at all. It's listed as one of the effects. However, Trent condemns NOT just those who believe forgiveness is the ONLY effect but also those that believe it's the CHIEF effect. Lutherans are all condemned- we believe forgiveness of sins is the chief benefit but certainly not the only benefit.
Thank you Pastor Wolfmueller for this explanation. I am a "cradle Catholic" (born and raised RC) who has been struggling with my belief in Catholicism for a long time now. Your explanation of the differences between Communion in the Lutheran and Catholic Churches just solidifies my new understanding that I would like to learn as much about Lutheranism as possible and open my whole self to it What did Christ say? That is what I've always been interested in. "This is my Body. This is my blood." I need no greater answer. THANK YOU.
Dear brother in christ. Each and everyone of us have to Discover our faith. Cradle Catholics especially. We have been tested and without knowing why and how we practice our faith we would be defenceless. Please read the stories and writings of converts to Catholicism such as Dr Scott Hann, Steve Ray, Matthew Leonard and even St Henry Newman. His statement on the development of doctrine (understanding devine revelation) is shown through our history beginning with the circumcision question settled during the council of Jerusalem, following the other councils settling the trinity (Holy spirit is consubstantial with the Father and Son) Christology (Christ is equally God and Man) his mother is the Theotocus (mother of God incarnate). The RCC with the same authority used to settle the disputes of the past have explained and defined to those in dispute what didn't need explaining before.
Emily, I grew up Lutheran, earned undergrad degrees in Bible and Music, continued education... It doesn't matter. I converted to Catholicism because it is the Church Jesus Christ founded and maintains. You do not want to join a man-made-up religion by an angry German that was told by Satan that the Catholic Church is false and left for political reasons. Luther even took out books of the Bible because he didn't like the theology. Lutherans are fake. They do not follow the Bible. They have made up their own religion. This guy doesn't understand the Bible or Catholic theology - which is Christian theology. Don't follow a 500 year old cult, follow the Church Jesus is in. Jesus wants to have a personal relationship with you. Find a good priest to talk to. If you can, start going to the Latin Mass. You will find good Christian people there.
419 My Remnant Church, inspired by the Prophet Enoch, will create hatred Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 @ 19:00 My dearly beloved daughter, I come this evening to tell you that a great token of My Love and Mercy will now manifest within the hearts of believers everywhere. They will feel My Presence within their hearts in a way they will not be able to explain and they will unite their hearts with Mine. This Gift will make them strong in My Faith and they will hunger for My Presence daily. I urge all of God’s children, who feel the Flames of My Love engulf their souls, to receive My Body and My Blood, in the Holy Eucharist, as often as they can. You, My beloved disciples, will need the Gift of My Body, through the Holy Eucharist to give you strength, for you will need every ounce of strength, as you witness the falling apart of My Holy and Apostolic, Catholic Church. My Holy Eucharist will be desecrated as I foretold some time ago. Excuses will be made to render this Most Holy Gift as simply a gesture in remembrance of My Crucifixion. Very soon My Real Presence will be denounced as part of a new modern catholic church, which will include other religious churches. Once this happens, the love and devotion to the Holy Trinity will dwindle and fall away. Instead false gods will take its place. While this will be difficult, you must remember, I will never forfeit My Church on Earth. My allegiance is to the Church founded by Me before I ascended into Heaven. The Church upon the Rock founded by My beloved Peter, cannot and will never die. For I will lead My Church now in the end times, and will renew the prophecies, foretold long ago. My Gospels will be preached by My Remnant Church, in every corner of the Earth. My Remnant Church, will be inspired by the Prophet Enoch, and this will create hatred everywhere My Holy Word is heard. The Holy Spirit will ignite the faith of My Remnant Church who will never give up proclaiming the Truth of the Gospels, till its dying breath. Go now and prepare My Remnant Church, by following My Instructions. Trust in Me always, for all will be well. Your beloved Jesus
Bryan, As an "Old Catholic," I'm trying a learn a little more about my Lutheran brothers and sisters. I respect Luther a lot! He wasn’t perfect but none of us are. I have to say I like your style MUCH much better than the guy on “Ask The Pastor.” Keep up the great work! Thanks for the video.
How can a true Catholic respect Luther. Ah, but I suspect that rather than being a person of advanced years, you belong to an obscure protestant group. That would explain it!
@@alhilford2345 I am a 67 year-old Catholic, and I found your reply to Tremblay to be incredibly arrogant. Luther in fact was one of the greatest men to live in Western Civilization. At the time of Luther the Catholic church was unbelievably off-course; it took a priest like Luther to wake them up. It was not Luther who left the Church, rather the Church gave him the heave-ho. Thank God for Luther.
@@alhilford2345 snob. Will Heaven be full of snobs like you? I am not asking but you should be asking yourself this question. You are not Catholic you are just a trouble maker.
I grew up Lutheran and my parents are still Lutheran , however when I was around 18 I became a Baptist over the reason of communion and infant baptism . I was not saved until I was 18 so until that time I had never read GODS word for myself . Now 25 years later I have come to the conclusion that I don’t argue over secondary issues to salvation . Salvation through Christ Jesus is what it’s all about . GOD in his grace and mercy allows us to be wrong when it comes to his word in other areas by his love and mercy ! Now however i have no problem of different denominations but for myself even though I do go to baptist churches I tell people I’m I child of GOD not a denomination! Great video and thank you for your diligent study in these areas to share with everyone!
When I was 18 I had a similar issue. Raised Lutheran, and debated with my pastor about the sacraments. And though I couldn't get my head around Baptism and Communion, I didn't leave the Lutheran church. At about 22, while living in Nashville, I finally actually read Romans. Romans 6 can't be any more plain. In baptism, we die. 1 Peter 3 couldn't be any more plain. Baptism saves. So, it was either my stubbornness against God, or by His Spirit I repented and acknowledged the truth. The same for the Lord's Supper. "This is" means "this is", and it doesn't matter if we understand it. This isn't "denominational". This is about faithfulness to the Scripture. Do you want to believe what is right, what is truly taught in the Scripture or do you see all this as opinions or interpretations? I had to learn that it isn't about my opinion or how churches interpret things to suit their own inhibitions or agendas. It's about what the Scripture says. And if being faithful means being Lutheran, then I will howl Lutheran to the moon!
Vdma , it is true you must be baptized, by the Holy Spirit into your life . Water baptism is an outward showing of the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the inside . However if you have repented and believe on the lord Jesus then you are saved !!!! Therefore like I was saying we can be wrong on some issues , like GOD said in his word we currently see things dimly however when we are with him we will see all things clearly . Sin in us causes us all to see things wrong at times . Even when we don’t know it . But GOD doesn’t save us based on having a full perfect understanding of all things . I have once held theological positions at one time I no longer hold but am saved and a child of GOD just the same my friend ! GOD bless you
@@krist7697 Where does the Scripture say that baptism is an outward sign, or that holy spirit baptism is distinct? Please provide references to these statements.
@@hei0919 You must ask the question: what does Baptism do...what does it accomplish. If Baptism were "our work" that we do "for God", then yes the thief on the cross would be in trouble -- assuming he wasn't baptized. But is baptism "our work for God"? Just because baptism is a physical thing doesn't mean it's our work. Jesus was a physical being, but he wasn't "our work" but God's work for us. Likewise, whenever the Scripture speaks of Baptism, it is passive; it is not our work, but it is God's work for us. God, in baptism, does precisely what the Scripture says: saves, kills the old man, brings the new man to life, drowns our sin, etc. Only God can do these miraculous things, and thus, Baptism is God's work. When the preacher preaches, is it the preacher doing the work of bringing sinners to repentance and faith, or is it God's work through the preacher? Same with Baptism. Though a person might be applying water, it is God, in the water, doing the might work. THIS is what baptism accomplishes. It is God's work for us which brings us salvation and eternal life. And what's really awesome is that I don't have to rationalize or step outside of what the Scripture teaches to make these statements. But anyone who denies baptismal regeneration, they can only do it by rationalizing and avoiding the clear passages of Scripture. And it is dangerous and ungodly to quote one passage into order to negate the importance of another. Take the whole of Scripture and believe.
There was a time I wanted Luther's doctrine of Justification but without the "trappings" of the "added" archaic sacraments. I later was given the understanding that my understanding of Luther's doctrine of Justification was wrong without the sacraments. I'm so thankful for God's means of grace in these sure and certain promises administered to us. I can't "do" righteousness; He feeds me His righteousness as food and drink. I was bathed in the waters of regeneration to make me clean. And through the proclamation of His word faith is given me; and through this gift of faith it is declared that I have "Done" that which is needful and that it will not be taken away.
I enjoy watching and listening to your videos! Baptized in the Lutheran Church and still a LCMS member. I love your teaching style! Keep it coming, Pastor Wolfmueller. 😊
Well, I would make just a few small points. First, the term "transubstantiation" was coined by Aquinas (1225-1274). He employed Aristotelian philosophical techniques in his writings. However, the notion that the bread and wine are converted into the true body and blood of Christ was NOT a thirteenth century invention. Sure, Aquinas' approach/description is Aristotelian ... but this belief was long, long rooted in the Church, going back to the Apostles. Read Paul, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertulian, etc. They're all very, very clear on the matter - and very, very Catholic. Second, the reverend says that he wants to stick to the Bible alone (by the way, where does the Bible say that the Bible alone is authoritative?); see time marker 7:22. But then he immediately refers to something Luther wrote! How is that sticking to the Bible? He's relying on an outside opinion (Luther's) and not the Bible, as he advocated. Then later (11:11) he refers to the small catechism. It's almost comical. Third, lets take a quick look at the bible. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have the institution narratives, which clearly say that it IS His body and that we are to continue in this new passover sacrifice (albeit an unbloody fashion). Moreover, John 6 (22-71) is pretty clear. Jesus isn't talking metaphorically, as He repeats Himself numerous times. He even lets some of His followers abandon Him over this issue (eating His body and drinking His blood). But lets not stop with the gospels. See 1 Cor. 10: 16-21. Yes, Paul says "bread" ... but just because Paul describes it by how his senses experience it (i.e., the accidents), it doesn't follow that Paul didn't believe that the essence of the bread wasn't covered into His body. Please note that Christ has been referred to as the manna (John 6:31) and as bread (John 6:41). And why would Paul say that a person who partakes of the Eucharist in an unworthy fashion is guilty of murder in 1 Cor. 11: 27-28 (in Greek: enochos estai tou somatos kai tou haimatos tou kyriou) unless it's actually Jesus Christ? In short, I don't see how the reverend has made any progress in undermining the truth taught by the Catholic Church. He may disagree with the Church - and that's fine. But I don't think his argument is compelling. However, I do applaud him for taking up the subject. Thank you!
... The English rendering of the word, "is", is just as accurately translated from the Aramaic to "signifies". Secondly, you cite John Ch. 6. What do verses 28 & 29 of John 6 say? Jesus replied.. that to work the works of God.. one "must believe in Him whom He has sent." Thus, it is not anything that we can DO, or are expected to "do". It is what we BELIEVE. All Jesus said and meant at the Last Supper was, "Do this IN MEMORY OF ME." Jesus implied nothing else. Faith and salvation are not conveyed or infused into any individual on the basis of what a person does --- that is strictly by FAITH alone.. straight from the Holy Spirit to the account of an individual. As Romans 3, says, ".. a faith outside of ourselves [extra nos]", apart from us. Thus, one's standing is the imputation of Christ's righteousness to an individual believer, while our sin(s) are placed upon Christ." Believers are transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of His dear Son."
@Quigle- Dorf Cannibalism is not forbidden in the Bible. The OT teaches that if the Israelites stubbornly refused to repent of sins, a siege or famine could become so bad that they would be forced to eat human flesh. Your sin has put you into such a famine and under such a judgement. It's that bad! You are starved for righteousness and the only flesh that isn't completely rancid to feed you is the flesh of God the Son.
Thank you for presenting this, I learn something new. Lutherans and Catholics should focus first on similarities they share, rather than what divides them
You are right. Indeed, the very first Lutheran Confession (1530, the Augsburg Confession) starts by confessing the very catholic faith, the same since the first Centuries confessed by the entire Church. What they rejected were the abuses and errors.
I believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. My problem with the Roman Catholic Church is that they try to explain exactly what is happening. My belief is that it is a mystery that we cannot fully understand or explain. I believe that the Orthodox Church takes a similar view.
Apostle Paul is the only scripture writer who introduces the "church, the Body of Christ." It is doctrine he received directly from Christ and not from man. His attention to the communion of the Body of Christ in I Cor. chap. 11 I submit explains how it is that some of his followers were "not discerning the Body of Christ." In their unsaved state (unbelief) they didn't realize the presence of Christ in the believers that made up the Body of Christ in that locale. Reminder: When one believes the gospel of Christ (I Cor. 15:1-4) one is then sealed into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13,14.1Cor. 12:13)
I don't really think we want to explain exactly what is going on. I think we want to explain our understanding of why we see bread and wine when it's the body and blood of the Lord. It's not tongues of fire, it's the Holy Spirit, appearing as tongues of fire. It's not a pillar of fire and a pillar of cloud, it's the Holy Spirit, appearing as those pillars. We're merely answering the question: WHAT IS THAT? Lutheran answer is IT'S TWO THINGS, BREAD AND BODY. Catholic answer is IT'S ONE THING, THE BODY, IN THE FORM OF BREAD. This understanding is really not in contrast with Paul's teaching really, in our own view of course. We have no problem with saying "when you eat of this bread" because it really is the accident of bread. We would have no problem with saying "those tongues of fire", "that pillar of fire". We can even say "you see that pillar of fire? It's actually the Holy Spirit"..."You see that piece of bread? That's actually the body of the Lord". "Really? Then why do I see bread and not the body of The Lord?". "Because the look, feel, smell, and all those properties are just accidents. The real substance is the body of the Lord ... BUT AS TO HOW BREAD CHANGES TO BODY AND STILL HAS ALL ACCIDENTS OF BREAD, AND WINE CHANGES TO BLOOD AND STILL HAS ALL ACCIDENTS OF WINE, WE DON'T KNOW. IT'S GOD'S DOING, HOW CAN WE UNDERSTAND IT??" I think there is a false notion that Catholics try to explain the how. No we don't. We explain the what. What is that? The body and blood of the Lord. What is its form? Bread and wine
I find it refreshing that Catholics try to explain it, and even give the transformation a name. Seems like Lutherans believe the same, but don’t want to have to explain it...as you’d then have to defend your explanation as Catholics do. It’s the easy way to just call it a mystery...
@@geraldnichols2722 Paul said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the Lord’s body and *blood."* I don't think the Bible ever referred to the church as the blood of Christ.
Steven: No. Very different. The Catholic Church was established by our Lord Jesus Himself. The Lutheran Church was established by a heretic, Martin Luther. They may appear alike on the surface, but they promote vastly different beliefs.
Compared to newer ‘denominations’ they are very similar. Lutherans are often called Catholic “lite” 😆 But Martin Luther was definitely a sharp contrast to the Catholic Church. I find it so ironic that the ELCA is so steeped in traditions similar to Catholicism (that are completely foreign to other denominations), yet also so progressive compared to the Catholic Church and arguably one of the most progressive denominations out there.
If you believe in the real presence I don’t see how the doctrine of transsubstantiation should be an issue. It’s a way of explaining how the bread is obviously still bread yet at the same time also the body. So that Our Lord and St. Paul were referring to the same thing.
Not really... In the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the bread ceases to be bread, and the wine ceases to be wine, according to the current catechism of the Vatican.
Because in Transubstantiation you introduce philosophy and human reason into the mix, and it results in bread no longer being bread and wine no longer being wine, which distorts what our Lord institutes.
@@evangelicalcatholics Christians who fail to discern Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist have been tragically misled. All Christians believe in an omnipotent God who could perform the miracle of transubstantiation if He willed it to happen. That same God inspired scriptures that teach that the communion meal is truly Jesus’ body and blood. That God who inspired the Scriptures built a Church based on the words of Jesus concerning the Eucharist. Ask yourself why the Jews were so horrified when Jesus said it was his body and blood (John 6:52-53) and ask yourself why Jesus did not placate them and say "hey, it's only a symbol".
@@candyclews4047 No one should refute that God can do what He wants, but the Scripture does not say that the bread turns into body/wine turns into blood. There is still bread/wine (fully) AND there is body/blood sacramentally (really/truly/but not in a way we can or should explain). This is where orthodox lutherans and roman catholics start to differ.
I’d love it if you and Rev Fisk and Rev Weedon would do a series on Eastern Orthodoxy. Almost bit on that one myself and am finding my way back to Lutheran pure Gospel. It has been a long journey. God bless. Love your work.
Having ordered a copy of "A Martyr's Faith in a Faithless World" from CPH today, not (at first) having noticed its author's name, and having begun to watch some of your videos only within the last couple of days, I can already tell I'm going to enjoy the book. You have a very down-to-earth and friendly way of presenting information, and as I'm taking baby-steps back into the Lutheran faith (consciously steering away from Canada's version of ELCA, now that the differences have become so clear to me), and wanting to learn as much as I can as I seek a LCC (Canada's LCMS) congregation to call my church-home.
@@Michael-Archonaeus And how do you think the early christians did eat the word of God? Most of them couldn't eaven read. So I purpose you should study a bit the early christians, how they interpreted the word of god where in John 6 51-66. As you see There were some early followers of Jesus which where Jews. And if you say Jews do not understand the meaning of that what Jesus said. Can you explain to me why the left all (only the 12 stayd) Jesus. That's because he really meant that we have to eat his flesh. So if you say, Jesus didn't mean that we should eat his flesh, are you saying that Jesus is a lier? Second, you're calling up to sola scriptura, but please tell me too: how could the early christians read a scripture when there was non scripture written? Your scriptures which you use in Lutheran church please research where do you have it from? Go back to the history and you will find that your Bible has the background of the catholic church. The problem is, there was a person who did decide to move some books from your Bible. - And if you're calling up to sola scriptura, please let me know where it's written in the bible that only the word ist truth?
@@Michael-ArchonaeusWhy would Jesus use such an ambiguous, confusing and generally weird way of explaining what he wanted of us. Why would he use the eating body, blood, flesh etc. at all if that wasn't what he really meant? Was he just setting some kind of trap for us.
I accidentally found your channel just yesterday and so far I'm really taking to it. I was raised Lutheran, became a Christian in the Baptist church but am attending a Lutheran church again because my CHILDREN love that church the best. My in-laws are Catholic and that's the religion my husband left when he was a young man. One of his brothers go to a Baptist church and another brother became Morman! I have a lot of interest in denominations especially when there are so many in my immediate family alone. I also find Messianics very intriguing the way they still follow the Torah as well as recognizing Jesus or Yah as God in the flesh. Our Messiah. I look forward to watching more of your videos and hope to learn so much more about the differences between denominations. (And you're a bit silly and lighthearted making these videos entertaining as well 😄.)
Confused as to what the final difference between Catholic and Lutheran view of the Lord`s supper is. They both believe that the bread is the body and the wine is the blood of Christ.
"Anathema" doesn't mean damned to hell. It means excommunicated from the Catholic Church, which is a medicinal penalty for Catholics who commit very grave sins or deny the teaching of the Church. Excommunication excludes a person from the communion of the Church, but even in the case of a Catholic it doesn't mean that they are automatically going to hell. In the case of non-Catholics, excommunication is irrelevant since they are already separated from regular communion with the Church.
Consubstantiation (Lutheran) versus transubstantiation (Roman Catholic) versus a more inexplicable Real Presence (Orthodox) versus spiritual presence (Reformed) versus symbolism (evangelical, non-denominational). I was in a LCMS church in grad school days, but recently embarked on the path to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. I really appreciate your videos for laying out the various confusing views.
when you mentioned the Orthodox view of communion, i had to laugh, i am orthodox, and you're right, we love the word mystery so much we call the Eucharist the holy mysteries.
Firstly, you are wonderful in your ability to explain the differences between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic communion. I am trying to better understand as many of these differences as possible to understand my husband and his relationship with his own faith. I was initially going to say that I wished you had been my confirmation teacher when I was younger and then I realized just how good a job my pastors from my youth had actually been as well. Thank you for helping me better understand what they were trying to teach that I simply didn't see then. I think they told me all of this and I honestly wasn't ready yet to truly get it. I'm not saying I yet have full comprehension, but you have helped me think more clearly on the matter. Heck, I think I have a better handle on what my dad was trying explain as well. Again, thank you. I hope you have a wonderful day sir.
Pastor, I think you misunderstand what is written in Canon V of Trent on the Eucharist. "If any one shall say, either that the chief fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that from it other effects do not result; let him be anathema." It anathematized those who only believe in remissions sin as the only or chief effect of the Eucharist. Let me quote from catechism of the Catholic Church # 1393: "For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins." Thus Eucharist both unite us to Christ and cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins. As you pointed out the Catholic Church still keeps ministerial priesthood and universal priesthood, while all Protestants keep only the latter. The former is tied up with Eucharist celebration which catholics understand to be the same sacrifice Christ offered on the cross. Catholics do not re-sacrifice Him in every Mass - this is the common charge made against us. All Protestants deny sacrificial nature of the Eucharist and consider it to be a mere memorial meal - just like you eat Turkey on Thanksgiving Day. Catholics do not deny memorial statement about Eucharist, butt it is sacrifice memorial of Christ. Let's look at ministerial priesthood. It is nowhere mentioned in NT and that is the main reason why Protestants reject it. However if you read Jer. 33:18-22 God will make levitical priesthood offering sacrifice forever. Levitical priesthood of Judaism cannot fulfill this prophecy - since their Jerusalem Temple was destroyed by the Romans in c. 70 AD they can no longer offer any sacrifice to this day. The other prophecy in Isaiah 66:21 says that God will take some from all nations to be priests and levites - in other words levitical priesthood will be no longer based on blood or descendants of Aaron. BTW Universal priesthood is not introduced in NT but it was prefigured in OT as well (Exod. 19:6). Why Catholics believe in sacrificial nature of Christ? Scripture says that as the Lamb Christ has been slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8). The Greek verb of "slain" is in passive perfect tense. Unlike that of English perfect tense of Greek implies an action that took place in the past with continuing result to the present (from writer/speaker point of view). Thus Christ was slain, not two thousand years ago on the cross, but at the foundation of the world! In 1 Cor 1:23 Paul wrote that he preaches Christ crucified (also in passive perfect tense). For comparison the phrase "it is written" in NT, referring to Scripture, is also in Greek passive perfect tense. Whenever you buy a new copy of the Bible the same words of God is reprinted but they are not re-written. The Bible was written long time ago and remains written ever since. Thus Christ was slain at the foundation of the world and crucified two thousand years ago and He will remain slain and crucified until now. That is they reason why Catholics consider Eucharist as sacrifice and why we crucifixes, not crosses, in our churches.
@Quigle- Dorf Celibacy is not a doctrine but a discipline imposed on priests of (Western) Catholic Church. Those of Eastern Catholic Church may choose to marry before being ordained. In the past we did have married priests, even married pope, even in Western Catholic Church. In the future this celibacy requirement may or my not be lifted. Ministerial priesthood of New Covenant is the Levitical priesthood of the Old Covenant. Scripture says that God will perpetuate Levitical priesthood and will not make them ceasing offering sacrifice (Jer. 33:17-22). Levitical priesthood of Judaism cannot fulfill this prophecy after Jerusalem Temple was destroyed in c. 70 AD - they no longer can offer any sacrifice.
You said he misunderstood the Council of Trent but he explained exactly the same way you did. You: it anathematized those who only believe in remissions sin as the only or chief effect of the Eucharist. Him: it anathematizes those who believe the chief benefit is the forgiveness of sins.
@@EK-iz2jk He said that according to Trent we do NOT get remission of sins from Eucharist. But Trent says remission of sins is NOT the only outcome of Eucharist.
Brady Bartell: Although you may well be a Roman Catholic (I, of course, take you at your word), you are incorrect regarding Pastor Wolfmueller's explanation of the R.C. teaching. What he said is exactly what is taught in the R.C. Catechism in sections 1773-1377, pp. 346,347 [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1995]. Without being argumentative or condescending, he simply reiterated the catechism's position. Pax.
@@Kitiwake: Who would that be? In all seriousness, though you are not angry, you find using RC as somehow derogatory. Please understand, I have spoken against Evangelicals that consider Roman Catholics as somehow not Christian, part of a "cult." Yet, the R.C. church is not THE church. I mean no offense, but that if false R.C. dogma. THE CHURCH is made up of ALL baptized true believers in the triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And just as people respond to me as a member of the LCMS (i.e. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) it would never occur to me to be offended are take it in any derogatory sense. I most certainly am a catholic (i.e., "of a whole", "universal"). Rome does not own that word even though it is in their title. The word "catholic" has a glorious and meaningful history in the ancient church. Just as the church titled, "The Christian Church - Disciples of Christ" do not own the word "Christian" so too Rome does not possess the word "Catholic." Now you may disagree but history is on my side. If a believer was orthodox then they were a member of the church catholic as confessed in the ancient creeds (Thankfully the word "catholic" has not been replaced by the word "Christian" in the Athanasian creed as has happened in the Apostle's and Nicene. For in that context the word "Christian" is not really correct. The stress is not on specific doctrine which Christian would imply. Instead it is on the unity, the catholicity of the person as part of the body of Christ that is in view). Thank you for your query. Like you, I take no offense at your words but simply wish to enlighten you to the historicity of the word catholic regardless how it has come to be used improperly today. Pax.
The Orthodox “who knows” comment made me laugh. It’s not untrue but I would add that we believe that Christ is fully present in the Eucharist and that the bread and wine truly become His Body and Blood. We just don’t like trying to rationalize it or explain “how” the change happens (ie Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation) . We just know that it does. “It’s a mystery!”. Actually how you explained the “change” is identical to what the Orthodox Church teaches. “The bread and wine is the Body and Blood of Christ and we don’t get any more complicated then that.” And that it’s taken for “the remission of sins and the healing of soul and body”.
Right. Our views are very, very similar on many levels. And regarding "Consubstantiation", as you would likely have heard in the video, we have always outright rejected that. It's a funny thing, as no one in history has ever taught Consubstantiation, but yet there are those who are trained to argue against it. 🤣 It is actually a label coined by the Protestants (the Reformed) when they tried to quantify what Augsburg Catholics (Lutherans) believe, when we don't even quantify it to begin with (as you likely heard in the video), and so this ancient mythical teaching ends up being a perfect example of a strawman argument. So it's a quirky little phenomenon. That would be as weird as somebody saying you folks believe in Transubstantiation (since Protestants often tend to think you guys are just Roman Catholics with beards 😂 ). So maybe that helps the understanding.
I'm a former Catholic, and former Catholic Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion what used to be called Eucharistic Minister. In my training transubstantiation was taught me like this: it is when the bread and wine by the power of the Holy Priest at the altar transform them into the Body and Blood of Christ, and then the Holy Priest at the altar for a moment becomes God Himself and sacrifices Christ again. Not forthe forgiveness of our sins. Because as Catholics we were taught that we could not receive the Eucharist unless we had already been to confession and had perfect contrition and was forgiven of our sins and in perfect Grace. And we were 17:13 taught to venerate the Holy Priest because he does have the power of God. And that we the meddling lay people were merely spectators and that the Mass was solely for the for the Holy Priests. And our presence there is Lay ministers was only because there were not enough Holy Priests to distribute the Eucharist. At least that's how my Parish taught us. Which after now becoming Lutheran I realize this wholly unbiblical. I now have a greater appreciation for the Lutheran Theology! Thanks be to God for leading me into Lutheranism!
I know you did this video a year ago, but I just came across it. I am Catholic by denomination and I still attend the Catholic church of my youth. I have been reading the Bible a lot lately, something that Catholics were taught not to do, and I've been watching TV and RU-vid ministries. Because I'm starting to understand the Bible, there is doctrine in Catholicism that I know longer agree with. One of them is, Transubstantiation. If the bread and wine are "literally" turned into the body and blood of Christ during mass, doesn't that mean that Christ is being sacrificed 10's of thousands of times each day? The Bible says, "For Christ also died for sins [once] for all..." 1 Peter 3:18 (NASB) (Emphasis added). Christ died "once" on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. Doesn't transubstantiation go against that? Doesn't it send the message that once wasn't enough? That He has to be sacrificed over-and-over again? And if that is what transubstantiation is, doesn't that make it Bionically wrong?
Jtodora: You need to know more about your Catholic faith. No. Jesus is not sacrificed over and over again. It can be explained and there are many sites on youtube that you can look into. Sorry, but it's too detailed to go into here, but I recall an earlier post on this thread that may cover it. I wish you well on your search for the truth, and I know you'll find it in the Catholic Church.
Also, please listen to Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Brandt Pitre or the Supper of the Lamb by Scott Hahn! They make very good Biblical cases for the real presence
Definitely! Reading that book would remove the sarcastic look Bryon Wolfmueller had on his face as he read Catholic doctrine in this video. Bryan, I challenge you to read this book, brother. I dare you :) ... I double dog dare you! hehe :)
you are my third fav preacher, thank you for putting out this information. raised Cath,married Pres and our church jumped pcusa and became CCC. My current preacher is 1hey elliott, my cath priest retired is 2 by the way.
I just want to clarify the position of the Catholic Church at 13.36. When one takes Holy Communion, Catholics should be in a state of grace (meaning they have examined their consciences and confessed mortal sins to a priest or venial sins direct to God). The Church presupposes one is in a good moral state to receive Holy Communion which is why it is not for the remission of sins. Christ did indeed say “This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28)) but He was referring to the effect of His own sacrifice not of the sacrament of the Eucharist; for He did not say that His Blood would be DRUNK unto remission of sins, but SHED for that purpose. It is for this reason that the Apostle Paul also says "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor 11:27)
I was doing other things while I was listening to this the first time, and every time you randomly and sternly said, "Focus!" I was confused, and thought you were being neurotic and trying to tell yourself to pay attention to the topic at hand. 😂 The third time you said it, I looked over, I saw the blur, and shortly thereafter you mentioned needing a new camera, and it was then that I understood. 🤣 I was so perplexed before then, but I laughed pretty hard when I finally understood the context. 😃
“Beware of those who have false opinions and believe in unfamiliar doctrines about the grace of Jesus Christ… They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, and they deny that the Eucharist is the very flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Who suffered for our sins, and Who was raised up by the Father in His goodness. Those who speak against this good gift of God are dead in their dissent. It would be better for them to have love, so they might also rise again. It is fitting to shun such men. Do not speak about them, either in private or in public. Instead, study the prophets, and especially the Gospel, which reveals the passion and resurrection. Avoid all conflict and division, for they are the beginning of evils.” - Saint Ignatius of Antioch 1st century Roman Catholic Bishop who learned directly from the John the apostle
It's bad when you are forbidden to partake of the Eucharist. I left an abusive marriage and remarried. I had to think of the safety of my children and now I'm committing a sin. I don't think so!
Marie De-Giorgi truly sorry to hear that, continue to pray and hopefully God will grant you the grace to peace. I am not trying to beat you up, but it is important that what we think or believe is not relevant to the truth of God. Catholic Study Bible Matthew 6:33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well. This is always the truth even when it’s hard and sometimes seems impossible.
The unfortunate Lutheran language that the body is “in” the bread seems to say that the bread is not the body - it’s just hiding inside, like the bread is a box and the body is hidden inside. However, the Lutheran view is more like: the body is so united to the bread that the bread is the body, just like we humans are so united to Christ that we become members of His Body. We truly are his body. The bread is literally and physically part of the Church and the Church is His Body.
Regarding your implied statement on Concilium Tridentinum, Session XIII, Canon V @13:15: We need to bring up this discussion, because we know that Jesus came to die for our sins. The reason for the remission of sins is not for its own sake. The reason we desire to be cleansed of our sins is because we desire full communion with God and His holy Catholic Church. It is a dogma of the Church that the Most Precious Blood spilt at the Cross remits sins, and we acknowledge heartily that the worthy reception of the Eucharist, which is the presentation of the bloody, Holy Sacrifice of the Cross in an unbloody manner, remits venial sins. However, we must recognize that what it means to be a human in communion with God is to continually offer a pure sacrifice to him, recalling St. Malachi’s prophecy: “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.” As part of the Church, we all possess the common priesthood of the baptized. We are authorized and enabled in Holy Baptism to worthily offer ourselves and our suffering in union with the Sacrifice of the Cross. Since we can offer this holy and living sacrifice of ourselves, it unfortunately means that we can be unprepared to worthily offer the sacrifice, especially at Mass. St. Paul insists that this is the cause of some of the Corinthians’ difficulties, since they defile the sacrifice which he received as he delivered unto them. It is clear, then, that those who offer the sacrifice cannot be under mortal sin, since they have chosen to reject God by sinning mortally. It is necessary to bring back into the Church those who desire to offer pure sacrifice but have sinned gravely. The Church has always understood this to be effected through the sacrament of Penance (Confession) - “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” Our Lord Himself even demands of us that we make sure we can offer a clean sacrifice by reconciling with our brethren. Hence, the principal fruit of the Eucharist is not the remission of sins - this is the principal fruit of Penance. The principal fruit of the Eucharist is truly the holy and living sacrifice made of oneself to God in union with our High Priest, which truly accomplishes and brings the remission of sins, but whose primary goal is to bring us to the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary, making the Most Holy Eucharist both “the source and summit of our faith.”
also Malachi 1:11 you should check the translation used in your comment. Incense (prayers in Revelation) are offered. Bread and wine represent (not resacrifice) Jesus' body and blood. Romans 12:1 tells us what offering Malachi refers to as well. Purgatory is false, Popes are fallible and many were murderers, liars and thieves.
I’m ignoring the parts of your comment which do not pertain directly to the current discussion. The Church’s position is that it is not a resacrifice, but a re-presentation of the same Sacrifice offered on the Cross. The Sacrifice is made present and rightly said by the saints to be immolated, but there is not a re-slaying of the Lamb. The mechanism by which this happens is unknown to us - we simply trust what the Lord told us and how St. Peter and St. Paul and their successors passed it down to us - “This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal covenant, the MYSTERY of faith, which for you and for many is poured unto remission of sins. Do this in commemoration (anamnesis) of me.” (Emphasis and parenthetical comments mine)
@@benjaminluna6021 You did not address any of the things I commented about. You just said what the tradition in the RC system is again. Papal authority is not actually apostalic, if men who are sinful claim infallibility on doctrine (which the papacy does) then they lie and create doctrine contrary to scripture (which they've done) then nobody should follow that system, you are told you have to trust what councils and popes say, not the Word of God. The veil in the temple was torn about 2000 years ago, and we have the written Word of God, be freed by Truth. The RCC tells you you cannot know but to trust them because they know, and you don't see through that? The character and actions of the men you claim to have been apostalic throughout the history of the organization does pertain, at least to some of us.The catechism of the RCC calls it an unbloody sacrifice, while maintaining the wine is blood and then when faced with scripture saying the sacrifice of Jesus according to scripture was once and is accomplished (which remits sins and destroys false doctrine of purgatory) you then revert to saying the bread and wine are a representation of His sacrifice. Please read Isaiah, Daniel and Hebrews.
Reading the comments from the Roman Catholic side here makes me heartily sad. Basically no discussion (or even understanding!) of what they believe, just rote "you bad, us good" gruntings. The singular thing that shone out to me in orthodox Lutheran practice is the insistence that as Christians, we should know our faith and be prepared to defend it - not just with anger and sword - but with teaching and understanding. Truly, they have forgotten (or never known) their fold. "My people have been lost sheep. Their shepherds have led them astray, turning them away on the mountains. From mountain to hill they have gone. They have forgotten their fold." Jeremiah 50:6
Catholic Church teaching of Transubstantiation isn’t accidental. It is because the Church is Ancient (the First), and as the Apostles and First Christians had a heavy Greek influence, Aristotle’s influence was no doubt a way for many early believers to understand the concept.
I heard Consubstantiation taught in Catechism Classes as: The Bread and wine stay bread and wine here in the Material realm, while in the Spiritual realm, it becomes Body and Blood - this makes sense to me and fulfills the Scripture as written....
What do you think about the Roman Catholic Church who keeps Jesus in the tabernacle and even adore Him in Eucharistic Adoration? How come Lutherans don't do that?
I enjoy listening whenever Lutherans explain difficult doctrines. Somehow the Lutherans have a way of making doctrines appear simple and rational in accordance with Scripture and church traditions.
Dear Pastor Wolfmueller, as a catholic christian I would like to add only one short comment. Of course, there is a significant difference between the terms of transubstantiation and consubstantiation, and the latter seems to be much easier to understand. Antient and early mediaeval christians did not use aristotelian terms of substance, and probably even did not try to explain the mystery of eucharist in such a "technical" way. The doctrine of transubstantiation was introduced in the catholic Church as late as in the 13th century at IV. Lateran Council, as the fruit of "modern" scholastic theology. I think Luther's rejection of that teaching was inspired by his idea of coming back to the roots of Christianity. But we still should keep in mind that Luther stood clearly for real, not only symbolical presence of Christ under bread and wine. This makes lutheran understanding of the Lord's Supper still closer to catholic than reformed teaching. Thus I don't think it a good idea to overemphasize differences between Catholic and Lutheran teaching on this important issue. There are some, of course, but there are similarities as well. Luther was very deeply rooted in the Catholic tradition, much more than all the modern protestants nowadays. May God bless you and your church. Greetings from Poland!
How long have you been looking into eastern orthodoxy? I'm a Roman Catholic, but attended non-denominational, Christian church for 25 years. I'm going to the Russian Orthodox church now and plan to be chrismated soon.
@@marijakurosaki3967 No! Stay Roman Catholic! I recommend the” reason and theology show”. I finally came home to Rome. Stay a Catholic or go to an eastern Catholic Church. You cannot compromise on truth for the sake of conformity, and that is what I did. Protestantism is schismatic and should be avoided like a plague. Look into the history of Martin Luther, and how he had a poop fight with satan. Wish I was joking. Also look into Dr. Taylor Marshall he is a strong Catholic with amazing content that will help you!
@@anthonygarcia3960 I watch Dr. Taylor Marshall's videos along with Anthony Stein's. In my area there aren't any eastern Catholic churches. The Eastern Orthodox church is the closest to the traditional Roman Catholic church. It just happens that there is a American Carpatho-Russian Greek Catholic church in my area. That's the church I'm being chrismated into. The non-denominational church I attended in metro Detroit was great. They tried to stay within Catholicism, but they are a "seeker friendly" church. The pastors did emphasize that we need to stay in The Word.
@@marijakurosaki3967 Your last paragraph is fascinating. How does a non-denominational church try to stay w/in Catholicism? I've always considered myself non-denominational and have went to a number pentacostal and other protestant churches, and Catholic lately. There is a big difference though. I really can't take on the works based parts of Catholicism, esp. the idea of purgatory. I do like the traditional mass.
The foxes I see from time to time will always have added significance after this exposition. Thank you. I rewatch this often and it’s all becoming clearer.
How do we know what Jesus meant when He said "this is my body" and "this is my blood"? Well, we can come up with our own personal opinions, as Martin Luther and the other "reformers" did, in violation of Proverbs 3:5 and 2 Peter 1:20, or we can go by what our Holy Mother the Catholic Church has always taught. The latter takes humility but at least this way we get the honest, truthful, unchanging teachings of God. The Catholic Church has always taught that when a validly ordained priest pronounces the words "this is my body" and "this is ny blood" over the bread and wine, the vread and wine miraculously change into the actual Body and Blood of Christ. Yes, we do call that transubstantiation. It is a miraculous thing and only a validly ordained priest has the supernatural power to do this. The priest has this power, not because of his cleverness, personal holiness, or learnedness, but because he received this power when his bishop ordained him a priest (the bishops received THEIR power from the bishops who consecrated them, and those bishops from the ones who consecrated them, all the way back to the apostles and Christ). Lutheran ministers and other Protestant ministers do not have this handed down supernatural power ("apostolic succession"), so in their "communion" services, the bread remains bread and the wine wine, no matter if they do believe in some degree of Real Presence. Anglican "piests" also do not have apostolic succession so their "eucharists" are just bread and wine----Protestants, including Anglicans, are just playing around. Their parishioners get nothing. Eastern Orthodox priests, on the other hand, do have vaild apostolic succession so they do have the Real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, even though they are separated from the True Church. Protestants, you have no idea, no idea what Great Spiritual Treasure you pass up when you pass up Jesus in the Catholuc Mass. I imlpore you to turn away from your. Ministers who are feeding you watered down mush and convert to Catholicism, where you can have Jesus Christ, alive and in Person, in the Holy Eucharist. It is often said that we must have a personal relationship with Jesus to be saved. That is very true. What could possibly be more personal than eating Jesus' Body and drinking His Blood?
So what if you had a pedo priest "blessing" the bread and wine for years and years, and the parishioners kept eating and drinking, does that still count? Did God bless the bread and wine JUST because of the priests appointed position?
@Quigle- Dorf On what issue did the Catholic Church change one of her core doctrines? Especially concerning the Holy Eucharist, when did the Church change any doctrine?
@@chrisd653 Our Holy Mother the Catholic Church teaches that the efficacy of any sacrament does not depend on the worthiness of the minister. Suppose I am out of town on a trip and I go to a Catholic church somewhere. Or maybe a visiting priest comes and says Mass some Sunday. I don't know this guy. I don't know if he is a good priest or not. I can't hire private detectives to check his background.
I would LOOOOVE to believe me...but I have a few issues. Purgatory, stealing of donation money and fraud at vatican bank, pope, Mary worship (may not be RCC stance but they sure don't stop majority of catholics from doing it), handling of sexual abuse just for starters. I also have issue with Luther's Solas......so I guess I'm just lost and confused honestly.
I worked at a bank years ago with an LCMS minister who had become WELS. He told me that to have communion, you needed a Lutheran Pastor present. Why is that? If there is no apostolic succession, what is it about a pastor that allows him to officiate at the Lord's Supper and actually change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus? I am new to your videos. It would be great to have a video on exactly what is happening during the Lord's Supper and what/who makes it happen.
I have been a life long member of Trinity Lutheran, ELCA, in Sioux City, IA. I assume you are a LCMS pastor. Please confirm my understanding that the ELCA and the LCMS believe the same concerning communion? @PastorBryanMueller
Thank you very much for this video. I never got a clear explanation of this in my local ELCA church. I also have Catholic friends who think the bread and wine are just a memorial. It seems like those of us who find this important are among the few.
I was raised Baptist. My son recently married a Lutheran girl. He is now Lutheran. I want to understand the stance taken on this issue. Despite all the things you read from various books, I did not receive Biblical basis for this. Please quote scriptures for me.
9:06 Council of Trent Session 22 Chapter II That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead. And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the apostles.
Hello Pastor, I am an evangelical Christian, Argentine, and in the Church we are studying Christian history. We are quite surprised with Luther. He would like to ask you a few questions regarding what the Lutheran Church understands about the Lord's Supper. Suppose that on Tuesday the Christian sins, he asks God for forgiveness on Tuesday, and on Sunday he participates in the Lord's Supper. Did he receive forgiveness on Tuesday by faith without the Lord's Supper or did he receive it on Sunday at the Supper? If he received it on Tuesday, it was on Sunday and he was already forgiven. So in the Lord's Supper we do NOT receive "forgiveness of sins, life and salvation" (as the Lutheran Small Catechism says), but rather the strengthening of faith in those things. Is that so? Thank you so much. Greetings.
So, Hebrews 10:10, which says ONCE FOR ALL is just ignored? He must be sacrificed over and over?? Makes no sense: this one event is THE propitiation. “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
@@alhilford2345 They were Jews. It was Passover. They were eating unleavened bread and drinking wine. Jesus had told them to prepare a table for Passover.I could be wrong but walks like a duck .....
@@wjcolby : Yes, they were celebrating Passover, just as Jewish people celebrate to this day, but the Passover ritual does not, and never has, included the words "..this is my body,...this is my blood of the new and eternal covenant..." Devout Jews, like Our Lord Jesus and His followers would never dare to stray from the strict ritual of Passover unless He had something else in mind. And what is this "something else"? It is the New Covenant, to replace the Old. He, himself, would be the Sacrificial Lamb, and to complete the Sacrifice the Lamb had to be eaten, just as it was in Egypt. Jesus, that night, ordained His Apostles to be priests and to continue His work of offering the sacrifice, telling them to "..do this..." It's obvious that that particular Passover was unlike any that had ever occurred before, or ever will again.
@@alhilford2345 A student of Hillel he saw that the "Fence around the Torah" was a huge burden and the leadership was robbing the people and full of evil and deceit. I believe the body and blood part was added when the gospel was written over a century later to Un-Jew Jesus by Gentiles.He may have believed he was Messiah but He found sadly he was not "My god, why have you forsaken me"
@@wjcolby : I realize now that you are not even a Christian and definitely not Catholic. I don't expect you to understand a book that you reject. Until you open your mind to the truth, nothing that I can say will convince you, and nothing that you can say will even tempt me to leave the one true Church.
I am a catholic priest. Would anybody explain me why - when I pronounce the words of the "epicletic prayer" (sorry, I do have just a small knowledge of the english language), every time I say the words on the species of bread and wine, that very moment a flux of energy flows out from my hands, sometimes producing even a gentle, undeniable and amazing tremor? How can be explained the fact that when I was ordained a priest, the same flux of energy was bestowed on me through the bishop's hands, while he was laying them on my head?
You have been blessed with that experience, I don't doubt your experience, but a Lutheran pastor could have the same experience since the consecration of the elements is a supernatural reality.
Just for people's own culture, Saint Augustine believed in the doctrine of transsubstantiation (he used the term transelementation) and it was declared a dogma in the Coucil of Lateran in 1215, 302 years before Luther became someone. It is not honest to cite only the council of Trent because it would let people think the doctrine of transsubstantiation was a "reaction against Luther". It was not, it existed since the 4th century and was declared valid 300 years before Luther.
Here are the "pause quotations" in this video with corresponding timestamps. I hope this is useful to other viewers: Lutheran View of Communion 7:59 / On Transubstantiation (Source: The Smalcald Articles) “As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10:16: 'The bread which we break.' And 1 Cor. 11:28: 'Let him so eat of that bread.'” 11:20 / What is the Sacrament of the Altar (Source: Luther’s Small Catechism) “It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.” 11:38 / What is the benefit of this eating and drinking? (Source: Luther’s Small Catechism) “That it is shown in these words: 'Given and shed for you, for the remission of sins;' (ref. Matt. 26:26-28) namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.” Roman Catholic View of Communion 3:43 / On Transubstantiation (Source: The Council of Trent) “[Because] Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.” 9:07 / On the nature (act) of Communion (Source: The Council of Trent) “And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different.” 10:32 / On the nature (act) of Communion cont. (Source: The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent) “If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass…is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema. 12:27 / The fruits (benefits) of Holy Communion (Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church) 1. “Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: 'He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.' (John 6:56) Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: 'As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.'" (John 6:57) 2. [Strength] 3. [Separation from Sin] 4. [Charity which protects us against venial sins] 5. [Charity which preserves us from mortal sins] 6. [Unity with the Mystical Body of Christ] 7. [Commitment to the poor] 8. [Unity feast of all Christians] 13:36 / The fruits (benefits) of Holy Communion cont. (Source: Council of Trent) “If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that other effects do not result therefrom: let him be anathema.”
And for the "act" and "benefits: Quotes for the “act”: Council of Trent: “And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penance, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of the offering being different.” Condemnations of the Council of Trent: If any one says that the bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but is not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema. Luther’s Small Catechism: What is it? It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and drink, instituted by Christ Himself. What is the benefit? It is shown in the words, “Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins,” namely that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation. Catholic Catechism Benefits: 7 benefits are: 1. Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.” 2. Strength 3. Separation from sin 4. Charity 5. Also charity 6. Unity with mystical body of Christ 7. commits us to the poor 8. unity feast of all Christians Council of Trent: If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.
Lutheran Church Pastor Anna Helgen asked the congregation to stand in “body or spirit” to “confess our faith” in the “sparkle creed,”The church went on to chant a statement of faith in the “nonbinary God” and in Jesus Christ, “who had two dads.” “I believe in the nonbinary God, whose pronouns are plural. I believe in Jesus Christ, their child, who wore a fabulous tunic, and had two dads and saw everyone as a sibling child of God,” the church recited. “I believe in the rainbow spirit who shatters our image of one white light and refracts it into a rainbow of gorgeous diversity. I believe in the church of everyday saints, as numerous, creative and resilient as patches on the … quilt. Whose feet are grounded in mud and whose eyes gaze at the stars in wonder. I believe in the calling to each of us that love is love is love, so beloved let us love. I believe, glorious God, help my unbelief, Amen.🤣🤣
Early Church Fathers continued #2 Irenaeus of Lyon Fragments 13 (120-180 ad) For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Irenaeus of Lyons Fragment 37 [120-180 AD] "Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips." Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by canceling it; but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God "in spirit and in truth." And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom. Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses Book IV ch 33.2 [120-180 AD] "If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" Irenaeus of Lyons [120-180 AD] Adversus Haereses (Book IV, Chapter 18.5) Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses Book V Chapter 2 [120-180 AD] When Christ visited us in his grace, he did not come to what did not belong to him: also, by shedding his true blood for us, and exhibiting to us his true flesh in the Eucharist, he conferred upon our flesh the capacity of salvation... Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses Book V Chapter 2.2 [120-180 AD] But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body... Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses Book V Chapter 2.2 [120-180 AD] "He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses Book V Chapter 2.3 [120-180 AD] When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones -- that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body.through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ Clement of Alexandria The Paedagogus Book I ch 6 [150-215 AD] "'Eat my flesh,' [Jesus] 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" Clement of Alexandria The Paedagogus Book II ch 2 [150-215 AD] ...is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul... Clement of Alexandria The Stromata Book I ch 1 [150-215 AD] Both must therefore test themselves: the one, if he is qualified to speak and leave behind him written records; the other, if he is in a right state to hear and read: as also some in the dispensation of the Eucharist... Clement of Alexandria Stromata book 4 ch 25 (150-215 ad) For Salem is, by interpretation, peace; of which our Saviour is enrolled King, as Moses says, Melchizedek king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who gave bread and wine, furnishing consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist. Tertullian Appendix Against All Heresies ch 2 (160-240 ad) His power and majesty (they say) Moses perceiving, set up the brazen serpent; and whoever gazed upon him obtained health. Christ Himself (they say further) in His gospel imitates Moses' serpent's sacred power, in saying: "And as Moses upreared the serpent in the desert, so it behoveth the Son of man to be upreared." Him they introduce to bless their eucharistic (elements). Tertullian On the Resurrection of the Flesh ch 8 [160-240 AD] "[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" Tertullian On Prayer ch 19 [160-240 AD] Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station must be dissolved by reception of the Lord's Body. Does, then, the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God? Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God's altar? When the Lord's Body has been received and reserved? each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty. Tertullian On Modesty ch 9 [160-240 AD] The "ring" also he is then Wont to receive for the first time, wherewith, after being interrogated, he publicly seals the agreement of faith, and thus thenceforward feeds upon the "fatness" of the Lord's body,--the Eucharist, to wit. This will be the prodigal son, who never in days bygone was thrifty; who was from the first prodigal, because not from the first a Christian. Him withal, returning from the world to the Father's embraces, the Pharisees mourned over, in the persons of the "publicans and sinners." But now I write to you, if any is named a brother among you, (being) a fornicator, or an idolater" (for what so intimately joined?), "or a defrauder" (for what so near akin?), and so on, "with such to take no food even," not to say the Eucharist: because, to wit, withal "a little leaven spoileth the flavour of the whole lump." Tertullian The Chaplet ch 3 (160-240 ad) We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours….We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. Tertullian Prescription Against Heretics ch 36 (160- 240 ad) This she seals with the water (of baptism), arrays with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom, and against such a discipline thus (maintained) she admits no gainsayer Tertullian Against Marcion Book 5 ch 8(160-240 ad) In like manner, when treating of the gospel, we have proved from the sacrament of the bread and the cup the verity of the Lord's body and blood in opposition to Marcion's phantom Tertullian Against Marcion Book 4 ch 34 (160-240 ad) If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side destroy marriage, not uniting man and woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of baptism and of the eucharist those who have been united in marriage anywhere else, unless they should agree together to repudiate the fruit of their marriage, and so the very Creator Himself? Tertullian Against Marcion Book 3 ch 19 (160-240 ad) For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery.
Thank you for your comprehensive explanation of the difference in RC and Lutheran teaching - it is often a difficult topic to try and explain in a simple way. I am in Australia where the Lutheran Church of Australia (LCA) is about to hold its Synod next week. One of the topics that will be put to a vote is the ordination of women. My understanding is that the New Testament does not allow for women to be pastors so why then do some Lutheran churches have women pastors and how should those who do not agree, respond to such a change if this happens in the LCA? Your thoughts in addressing this important issue in Australia would be welcome. Thank you, Ian.
This reminds me alot of Jesus being "true God, and true Man". We can't possibly understand how that works. Just the same, it is truly bread and wine and truly the body and blood
I think we have to ask for the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love. Through these virtues our minds are heart warming to the teachings of Christianity under the scripture and traditions from the teaching Church which is the Catholic Church.
A very informative video and interesting to see a bit of a comparison. I does not seem that there is not much disagreement between Catholics and Lutherans at the very core of the Eucharist. The difference seems to come from how deep into the mystery of the Eucharist we choose to explore; Catholics going deeper, while Lutherans content with a more simplistic understanding. I was impressed to see a Lutheran minister has Catholic books, especially the Catechism, from which to read and cite. Again, very interesting and good video.
Michael: Catholics know that there is a big difference between Catholicism and Lutheranism. This speaker presents what he erroneously believes to be Catholic doctrine. The Lutheran church was established by a heretic who turned his back on the true Catholic Church and made up his own catechism. The only similarity is in some of the prayers and vestments.
@@alhilford2345 Respectfully, I see far more similarities than just some prayers and vestments. And I say that as a Catholic. They believe in the Trinity. That's more than "prayers and vestments". I'm sure we could find many more theological similarities. Remember, Martin Luther was a Catholic monk (albeit, a bad one), so the Lutheran faith stems from the Catholic Church. They are protestants, because they are protesting certain aspects of the Catholic doctrine. You make it seem as though they are an entirely different religion, like Hinduism. We should strive to reach out to our protestant brothers and sisters, rather than drive a wedge between us. The best way to do that is to start by finding common ground.
@@michaelarchangel130 : I understand your concern, and I have no wish to argue, but the "certain aspects" that you mention happen to be the basic tenets of our Catholic Faith. There is no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, no Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and no Apostolic Succession. Lutherans have one Sacrament, Baptism. Can you see the difference now? I agree that they are our brothers and sisters, children of God, and I love and pray for them as fellow Christians, but I pray that they will come home to the true Church. Yes, Martin Luther was a Catholic priest, but he made a conscious decision to reject the true faith and he preached heresy. You should try reading some of his books if you don't believe me. May God bless you. Sursum Corda
@@alhilford2345 You are either ignorant of, or choose to lie about what Lutherans believe. They have always taught 2 sacraments, & some of your other numerous statements are in error also. Might I suggest that you speak/write only about what you know & believe, rather than trying to speak for others whom you do not even understand
Pastor, Love the videos, love the content, however the volume of the music is overshadowing your words . The music is fun but too loud and it is making it difficult to hear you.
I'm a Catholic and have done a lot of recent studies and have noticed that many protestants, do not tell the full story, specifically about Martin Luther...Luther was a Catholic and inherited the Catholic Church as his teaching which thought about the Lord's supper the same today as ot did when the Apostles were thought by Christ...It has not changed, Luther came along in the 1500's and put his own teaching about it...so would I trust a man like Luther or Jesus himself who gave the teachings to the Apostles...Luther changed the meanings because he could no longer pass on the proper teachings of the Church because he was no longer in communion with the Church. Getting hung up on the council of Trent is what this pastor is trying to trick you with...the council of Trent was a reaction to what Luther was doing in his time, destroying the only Church our Lord founded, the Catholic Church...how else would Luther have started as a Catholic? I would appreciate your kind reply. God bless.
Abel Iriarte What would you like a response to? Luther's biography? Apostolic doctrine on the Lord's Supper? The Council of Trent? We can talk about how each of these relate, but I'm not sure where you are going with this. You claim that talking about the Council of Trent is a "trick" because it was a "reaction", but the Council of Trent is the statement of the teaching and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. How is it a trick to accept what the Roman Catholic Church says is its teaching and doctrine and use that to contrast against the doctrine of the Lutheran Confessions? I would appreciate a kind reply explaining this odd statement that Protestants are tricking people by quoting from the Roman Catholic Church's official documents.
I have a hard time with this concept simply because the scripture says “if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness”. So, we are forgiving when we confess our sins (and in context 1Jn is essentially referring to the initial step at conversion and regeneration. We, as believers are then kept saved by the power of God
We are forgiven when we are baptized. We are forgiven in repenting, i.e. returning to our baptism. We are forgiven when we confess our sins. We are forgiven when we forgive others. We are forgiven in the Lord's Supper which is "given and shed for your for the forgiveness of sins." It's not either or. It's grace upon grace. God is good. God is better than your black and white mentality want Him to be.
Baptism and the Lord's supper are the 2 ordinances found in the New Testament. They do not save you, but we are commanded to do them if we are in Christ.
I hate to mention this...but it bears repeating...Smalcald PartIII, Article VI. The Sacrament of the Alter and Lutheran plain understanding of God's Word and no desire to rely on "sophistry," and Part II, Article II, The Mass, and how the Mass is in contradiction to the Institutions of Christ's Supper Matt 26:26-28 and as a tradition of man so that "In vain do they worship Me, teachings as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt 15:9) If I must be counted among the Trenten heretics, might as well quote the Dr. Luther while I am at it, and the Gospel of Matthew, and the Holy spirit of the Triune God that inspired Matthew's Gospel...just saying. Then, how everything falls back on Part II, Article 1. The Chief Article, "Nothing of this article can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth and everything else falls (Mark 13:31). For there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12) And with His stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5) Jesus + X = salvation... If X = anything but 0, Jesus is diminished.
@@preussischblau Tell them ahead of time, and provide them with an acceptable substitute that looks as close to what they use now, so they have it on hand for you. And don't crunch while people can hear you. Lol crunch while you're walking back to your seat. 😊
Have been to many different denominations of Christian churches. I became baptized when I went to a Lutheran church, I was middle aged. I love the Eucharist in this faith. I’ve heard where some denominations will not allow people to take the Eucharist if your not a member of their church because it’s only for members.? I don’t understand this thought at all. There are people in the hospital, you can take the Eucharist then, many times from a pastor you have never seen before. God is love, Jesus was born to bring us the good news, his words are right there in the gospels, so why do other denominations make things so divided?
Is it me or does he look like the Lutheran priest version of Tom Cruise? Also thank you for the way you teach things. I have been trying to delve into meaty issues of the faith and it is much appreciated that your are easy to understand.
3:39 Pause Quote: Council of Trent Chapter IV /On Transubstanciation/ And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which he offered under the speices of bread to be truly his own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood; which conversion is, by the Holy Catholic Church suitably and properly called Transsubstanciation.
