John 13. God had Jesus time come up at the time of the Passover. God commanded all generations of his people to observe the Passover (Exodus 12:14). When Jews and non-Jew believers observe the Passover, they are to remember Jesus is the Lamb of God. Exodus 12 the lamb blood was what God saw and passed over all the homes of those who had the lamb blood on the doorposts but those who did not all the first born males of that house were killed.
No formal church existed until around 400AD. No early popes, no formal Catholic church. Just local churches, Local leaders. No central authority. that is the history. Get it straight.
@MRGV7373 Pal, do the world a favor: please study the Early Church Fathers before pooping through your mouth and pontificating opinions about something you have no clue.
@tharsiskenobi2 Did you listen to the ending. Even this person does not believe in the teaching of Transubstantiation. So the first 200 years the RCC did not exist and churches were local. So their you go. Many of the early fathers did not teach or believe in this teaching either. Some did, but in my opinion the spiritual real Jesus is about as far it should go. Your comments are quite crude and very unhelpful. How about a real quote or some support of what you might think.
@tharsiskenobi2 You are neither a pal or have any astute comments here. How about some content or details of what you might believe or really think?? Real in Spirit but Real in Flesh?? Cannibalism? Why go this direction and teach such hocus pocus.
Assuming the That, and treating the How's as interchangeable, can you talk about the Why? Why is this necessary? In what way does consuming the flesh and blood of Christ contribute to a persons faith, or salvation, or whatever?
Why do people believe that this is necessary, and why do you think it was put in the gospels at all? It seems to me like just another ritual for people to perform.
@TheSmackerlacker Excellent questions. I have no idea why this made its way into the New Testament and why (some) Christians regard it as necessary other than, of course, their believing that Jesus commanded them to do it and that, at least in the 4th gospel, he is depicted connecting salvation to it.
The Catholic (and Orthodox) understanding is that God works through spirit, body and soul, not merely mind, eg, His forgiveness is performative, not mere sentiment. The Eucharist is understood as a particular ongoing way for the Christian to spiritually unite with God in daily living. The Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 1391-1397 gives the main points relating to this, including ongoing spiritual nourishment, strengthening and cleansing, communality & charity.
One become Whom one eats, is one approach to an answer. This in turn has implications for the Church & for Christian conduct, among other things. A different approach: John 6 contains several "layers" of meaning - "to eat the flesh of" someone is to pursue them with enmity, as several passages show. The saying also one reveals Who Jesus is - a major question in John. John 6 shows Jesus as greater than Moses; the Food He gives, is the new manna that is His flesh, the "True Food".
@KayBeeEee1983 Unfortunately, that is only an extension of the question, more than an answer. What I want to know is how the ingestion of living things is in any way related to the well-being of a supernatural entity, i.e., the soul.
@TheSmackerlacker The answer to this question relies upon the understanding of the Eucharistic as being not merely a physical sacrifice but also a spiritual one. Christ is understood as being a living Spirit, so that ingestion would not be understood in terms of 'accidents' but of 'substance', ie, as living Spirit acting upon living spirit NOT like bread to a physical body. If a Divine Spirit exists, it is reasonable to conjecture that His nature contains aspects incomprehensible to us.
@nepistepa I disagree with the notion that any aspect of a deity should be incomprehensible. There is no good reason to make this assumption, except that it is a convenient way to dismiss the requirement for study and understanding, in favor of blind faith.
@TheSmackerlacker If you take the position that you get to define at least the Christian Deity for Christians (as one among any), then they cannot argue with you about their Christian Deity, as the Deity under discussion is yours, not theirs. But if you are disagreeing with their definition of the Deity, then I would note that one man's lack of grounds does not necessarily suffice to justify or repudiate a given notion, eg, W Wright's "Man will not fly for fifty years".
@TheSmackerlacker I find certain characteristics of my friend (who is often physically present with me) incomprehensible. The notion that there would be incomprehensible aspects of Julius Caesar (who has left much less little evidence of his nature for me to examine) seems quite inevitable to me. I would need explanation as to why any aspect of a god, which is not even a material being and which reveals itself in a limited manner, should be completely comprehensible to me.
One answer to the "why" is that Jesus was not holding back *anything* from his disciples, not even His Body & Blood. His self-giving in the Last Supper is Act 1 of his self-giving, which is completed by his self-giving to & for all men on the Cross.
@5355vbxjbj76rvn I have a better explanation. Christianity is a barbaric, iron age myth which borrows nearly all of its core tenets from more ancient myths, many of which contained strong elements of cannibalism.
@TheSmackerlacker It's to be expected that some of those who don't accept Transubstantiation should see it as you do. Your explanation is different, certainly - not better. It's too vague; it's non-specific, so it could be said a lot of other things too: & it often is. My suggestion is more focussed, & incomplete in a different way from yours, which is *partly* right. What you mention need not be an objection to Transubstantiation; ISTM your objection is in favour of Transubstantiation.
As for this "borrowing" business - why must the idea that comes first in time be the true or best one ? It could instead be that the earlier ideas and practices look forward to the later: "ancient myths" (you don't say which) may be intended to point forward to the Mass. On this theory, bread was invented so that 1000s of years in the future it could be transubstantiated in the Mass. Not from man's POV, but in God's purpose. "Dying gods" point to the Original DG, Jesus. Etc.
@5355vbxjbj76rvn That is baseless speculation in the truest sense.
You've just invented a possible explanation to justify what you believe, without the slightest bit of evidence to support it.
That's what we call "rationalization".
Here's the deal. Anything is possible, but without some kind of evidence, there is no reason to assume that anything is true, unless it is necessary to create a functioning model.
For example, we assume that 1+1=2, but only because we must.
Cool -- normally I can't give a rat's patoot about this sorta thing, but the particular depth and clarity you bring make it interesting. You're like the YT version of John McPhee
@skoockum "Cool -- normally I can't give a rat's patoot about this sorta thing, but the particular depth and clarity you bring make it interesting. You're like the YT version of John McPhee."
I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data,offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity(i.e.,Christian morality,spirituality,social ethic,and philosophy.
I am Catholic because I sincerely believe,by virtue of much cumulative evidence,,that Catholicism is true,and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely-established by our Lord Jesus Christ against which the gates of hell shall cannot and shall not prevail(Mt 16:18),thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to submit!
-150 reasons I'm Catholic and you should be too!, by Dave Armstrong-
When I was a child i was taught sound doctrine and Love in the Catholic Church.When i went to school and met Protestants for the first time,they were full of hate and had weak doctrines,i see they now comment on YT.
Thank God i am a revert to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ teachings for 200 years by the grace of God and to his glory.
the fact remains, despite much of the hatred that is apparent on these comments. the bible is unbelievably Eucharistically oriented. I don't mean to sound haughty when I say this, but I could literally bury you in Biblical texts that attest to the Eucharist. All of the the Church Fathers believed in the Real Presence. I pray that you will all come to see Jesus' amazing Love for us that he wills to bow so low as to become our food. May God bless you and lead you into all Truth.
Cardinal Newman, in his book, "The Development of the Christian Religion," admits that ... "Temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays and season of devotions, processions, blessing of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests and monks and nuns), images ... are all of pagan origin..." (Page 359). “Through some crack or other in the temple of God, the smoke of Satan has entered .” — Pope Paul VI, 1972
Kiwi I have already demonstrated that this qoute is not on page 359 of Cardinal Newman's "The development of the Christian religion" (Which is not even its real name. It entitled the "Development of Christian Doctrine."
Just prior to the consecration of the mass, if someone added arsenic to the elements of bread and wine, would the poison within those elements be changed and made harmless after the consecration was finished, and would the priest and the people now partake of these changed substances, if not why not?
@kiwichristian2009 Catholic belief, as I understand it on this, is that the only elements that admit of transubstantiation in the Eucharistic consecration are bread and wine. Anything that is added to those elements would change them from simple bread and wine. Therefore there would be no change. Why do you ask?
@ProfMTH Wow. Unbelievable. the catholic cult seems to have a way of explaining everything in order to justify their unbiblical heresies. God teaches us not to drink blood. How does the catholic cult deal with that one?
@kiwichristian2009 God never taught anybody to not drink blood, except the Jews in times of fasting. The Catholic church is the church directly from Jesus Christ. Period.
Look up the definition of a cult bro. Whatever your religion is, it doesn't trace it's source back to Christ if you're a protestant. Simple as that.
@xxFairestxx I knw what a cult is, and when we look at the history of the catholic organisation, it fills the requirements to be called a "cult". Don't forget that it tortured and murdered MILLIONS of people who dared to disagree with it. It BANNED ownership of the Bible and there is STILL a canon law ( 1986 ) that forbids catholics from reading any Bible or document that have NOT been approved by the vatican!
@xxFairestxx Decreti, pars ii. causa xxiii. quaest v. can. xlvii: "Those are not to be accounted homicides who, fired with zeal for Mother Church, may have killed excommunicated persons."
@kiwichristian2009 He is the door, yes. The door to Heaven, do you claim that to be false too?
And bud, the Church WROTE the bible lol. And no, that Canon law is not Dogma. It forbids the practicing of religious tradition and absorbtion from religion material not approved by the Vatican. It is not a cult. Christ didn't make a cult. The ONLY true Christian faith is that of the Catholic church. All others are okay, but not complete.
@xxFairestxx So, you take the door statement as symbolic, yet the blood thing as literal? The Bible is NNOT a catholic book. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the OT was in circulation and was quoted by Jesus LONG before your cult came into being a few hundred years AFTER Jesus was resurrected!
@xxFairestxx If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?
@xxFairestxx If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5)...
@xxFairestxx ...The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?
@xxFairestxx God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today....
@xxFairestxx ...A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?
@kiwichristian2009 Well that bible that they put together, is the one that you read and are using to try to disprove Catholic doctrine. Can I follow such reasoning? No. Why? Because it's flawed. You are using a book put together by Catholics, who were not to mention, direct decendents of Peter (You are my rock upon which I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.) to go against them. Yet your faith stems from Catholics.
@kiwichristian2009 The Catholic church is hands down, THE church Christ established. Not the 1st Baptist church of Mississippi, and not the 1st Church of Jesus Christ Lewisville Texas. The Universal Church that stems directly from Christ's words and teachings...is the Catholic church. Read up on the fathers of Christianity. The Apostles: We do exactly what they did. Exactly.
Just as Cain vainly tried to impress God with the works of his hands, so do Catholics try to impress God with their good works and ceremonialism. Catholicism is a damnable lie that has been in the world since Cain. God will smash the Catholic Whore with His judgments.
As far as the New Testament is concerned, Jesus didn't pluck part of His flesh out to be eaten by His disciples at the Last Supper, which should be the primary example of celebrating the Lord's Supper afterwards. Where does the Bible say that the bread actually turns into Christ's flesh? The Last Supper was also symbolic, the Lord's supper is symbolic. Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross was the one true real thing.
@kiwichristian2009 I covered all this in the video. If you missed it, watch the video again. BTW, I don't believe any of it, so spare me your anti-Catholic ranting.
@ProfMTH I don't question the reason for your doubt. I question the maliciousness of your heart in actually going out of your way to given the teaching just to bash it. It's, well, diabolical. It confirms me in my faith. Only the enemy of souls, and the father of lies, would prompt such an odd thing as to begin with the deception, lure people in and then smash the idea. No doubt you consider yourself very clever. The fun ends on judgement day, pal. Remember that.
@tjttzcspplt " I question the maliciousness of your heart in actually going out of your way to given the teaching just to bash it."
Bash it? I presented it accurately--many (*most*) critics don't even understand what it actually claims--and then I said I don't believe it. If you consider that to be bashing, you have set the bar exceedingly low and must find yourself offended quite often.
"The fun ends on judgement day, pal."
Does it feel good to blow a load of evangelistic threat?
You initiated the exchange and were quick with the accusations and threats of divine punishment. If you can't stand the heat, you really shouldn't step into the kitchen.
why dont they make wafers that dont stick to the roof of the pallet of my mouth, I'd spend about 10 minutes kneeling down in my pew after taking holy communion trying my darndest to prize it off with my tongue. It never occured to me as an 8 year I actually had Jesus stuck to the roof of my mouth.
Um.. i wonder if the Catholic church still have me down as a paid up member??
keeping your own tradition would b something ez. like getting drunk on friday nite. and chasing women. getting up at 6 am on sunday to go and worship God in the host is not ez. it is mystery and miracle.
Well, transubstantiation needs some retooling,if not complete overhaul, as the concepts of substance and accidents are clearly out of date now with our current understanding of chemistry. But what's science to stop them?
@eatatmargos Amen! the rcc says that evolution is in line with Christianity and catholics can believe in it. This is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says mary was sinless. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says confess your sins to a priest. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says mary can save you. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says peter was "the rock". this is CONTRARY to the Bible. The rcc murdered MILLIONS of Christians. This is CONTRARY to the Bible.
I was adopted into a catholic family in my late teens.
the idea of transubstantiation was new to me and when i was invited to go to church I was told not to take the sacrament since I was not yet a believer in catholicism.
In reality I never really believed in this because I was not raised in it still I felt left out of some seemingly important act in the church.
Now that I am an atheist it seems silly to me to believe bread to body wine to blood. thanks for posting
@inquiry10 You are an atheist, we can't make you believe. Our belief is called faith... if you are an atheist it is because you don't have faith. Reasonable huh? I believe God hides in the Host ;-)
Lets break down the word faith according to the bible
Now faith is the evidence??? evidence what evidence??? of things hoped for ( you want it to be true??? and the evidence??? of things not seen ( you got that right cant see it)
another translation would say its the substance??? what substance if it cant be seen
Faith is nothing more than saying I DON'T KNOW that seems far more honest than saying you have faith.
@inquiry10 its good that you didnt participate in such PAGANISM. Please read SCRIPTURE & see for yourself this is a claim of MAN, not CREATOR. Tradition & PAGANISM are addressed here, please read this SCRIPTURE... Mark 7:7-9, Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of MEN. Full well ye reject the commandment of GOD, that ye may keep your own tradition.
I only just learnt about transubstantiation the other day as I thought I might as well gain more knowledge about the church because I'm critical of it. Working my way through the book "Double Cross" by David Ranan. The church is making a scientific claim here. Even though not one atom of the bread has changed, they're saying it is different. You've really got to have faith to swallow that (pun unintended).
P.S. I think you failed to mention that in John 6 after he explained "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Many disciples were going to leave...but he didn't say it a different way so the people could understand the "allegory"...he said what he meant...
There is not "mystery of the Eucharist" to be penetrated, Irishwpride. I've explained the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation accurately and completely. Faith would not add a thing to the explanation that's not already there.
@Irishwpride Meaning those who "digest" the Word of God. Remember, He is The Word. Eating means to read, learn, digest, etc. What about not eating blood?
I appreciate your knowledge and insights. In regards to your last statement, that you "don't believe a word of it".
Faith precedes understanding. Even though you have demonstrated knowledge about it's historical, philosophical and scriptural roots, you cannot penetrate the mystery of the Eucharist without faith. I will pray for you.
God bless...and thank you again for your insights!
Good explaination though. But this is the kind of thing a child can believe and hold on to for life, such as myself. I for one will hold on to my child like notion that IT IS, and not really care about the How it is.
In a mainstream Protestant sense, it's a metaphor, the same way Shakespeare says "love is a rose". It's not actually a rose.
Jesus' line "do this in remembrance of me" indicates that the bread becomes communion bread, rather than the ordinary kind, when you eat it in remembrance and acceptance of his sacrifice.
Fundies are weird that way. They are claiming that atheists are controlling the Government through the ACLU, and are mad that there are still institutions like the Boy Scouts that aren't under their control.
It didn't require any real research since I spent most of my believing life as a Catholic and know the Catholic teaching on transubstantiation quite well. As for why I put the video together, if memory serves I explained that at the top of the video: people seemed to be confused about what transubstantiation was, so I thought I'd explain it.
I don't "claim to know Catholic teaching," I *do* know Catholic teaching. And I don't make "videos which mock a strawman view of divine inspiration of Scripture." Clearly, you're still smarting over the fact that you couldn't answer a simple question that I put to you. Well, time to get over it and move on with your life.
If you *know* Catholic teaching on inspiration, then it certainly doesn't jibe with what you are presenting in your videos on Scripture.
You seem to be pretending that the Church holds up some ridiculous fundamentalist notion of "inerrancy," i.e., that because you find Jesus' words repetitive or John's writing deficient in some way that this somehow undermines the revelation contained in the text.
Judging from this video here, it would seem that you should know better.
"If you *know* Catholic teaching on inspiration, then it certainly doesn't jibe with what you are presenting in your videos on the Scripture."
Those videos aren't aimed at Catholicism's view of the divine inspiration of scripture, MilliontheUsername. A survey of the Christian landscape reveals that Catholicism has one of the more sophisticated conceptions of inspiration and, in the main, the official Church is not opposed to historical criticism and the like. You offer a red herring here.
The stuff for this video on transubstantiation is all a product of my training and study as a Catholic. In general, I've been a student of Christianity all my life -- much of that time as a believer, though no longer so.
Roman Catholics (242 branches) Part 3 of 3 • Maronite (Syro-Antiochian, Western Syrian) • Melkite (Byzantine, Greek Catholic; Arabic-speaking) • plural Oriental (jurisdiction for several Eastern rites) • Romanian Byzantine rite • Russian (Byzantine rite) • Ruthenian (Byzantine rite) • Slovak (Byzantine rite) • Syro-Malabarese (Eastern Syrian) • Syrian, Syriac-speaking (Syro-Antiochian, West Syrian) • Ukrainian Byzantine rite ALL UNITED WITH THE HOLY FATHER
The largest is by far the Latin-rite (commonly called "Roman Catholics" by non-Catholic Christians) with 976 million members of the 994 million total members (or 98% of the total, year 1995 numbers). However, since virtually all of these western and smaller eastern rites are in union with the Pope (I am not sure of some of them), there is actually one Catholic Church, not 242 churches or denominations.
Now for a few facts and stats from the actual source: World Christian Encyclopedia by Barrett, Kurian, Johnson (Oxford Univ Press, 2nd edition, 2001).
The source does refer to 33000+ total "Christian" denominations, but it defines the word "denomination" as an organized Christian group within a specific country:
This book has 1,699 pages, of the World Christian Encyclopedia, published by Oxford University Press.
"He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything." (Acts 3:21).
Catholics don't take half the Bible literally*, but when Jesus said,"I am the bread of life," they treat that verse like it's the only thing Jesus said of value!
*For example, Romans 3:23; they believe that Mary did not sin.
@junmeskie There are many groups outside the Roman Catholic Church which are regarded as Catholic sects, such as the Community of the Lady of All Nations, the Palmarian Catholic Church, the Philippine Independent Church, the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, the Free Catholic Church, the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, and others.
@onChristthesolidrock Well, you must first get two catholics to agree on what they think "protestant" means. Technically, a protestant means a former member of the catholic cult who left and PROTESTed its false doctrines. Nowadays, "protestant" seems to mean any religious group that is NOT catholic.
That Mary was (and, of course, we Catholics believe that she still is) full of Grace is clearly evident in Luke 1:28, when Gabriel addressed her as "Full of Grace"!
The problem for many non-Catholic Christians is the idea that she was born not exempted from sin
But Mary had to have been literally filled with Grace because Christ is her Son -- and He is perfect!.
GOOGLE
Immaculate Conception
YAHOO
sinless of Mary
Marys womb is Gods TABERNACLE (made HOLY & PURE) for her son is SINLESS
@onChristthesolidrock You're right. They DENY Jesus died ONCE for ALL.They DENY Jesus is our ONLY salvation.They DENY Jesus did away with the needs for priests.They DENY God forgives us of ALL sin.They DENY only God can forgive sins against God.They DENY we must worship God and God alone.They DENY God when He says "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God"
"Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." ~ John 6: 52-54, John 6:55-56
For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him."
Then many of his disciples who were listening said,
"This is hard; who can accept it?" ~ John 6:60
-- ONLY THE CATHOLICS CAN ACCEPT WHAT JESUS SAID! --
In an uncharacteristic reference to an historical event in the human life of his apparitional Jesus, Paul mentions the institution of the Eucharist ... long before the synoptic gospels were written. The almost identical formula in all four accounts speaks suspiciously to a later addition.
How could a Jew like Paul reconcile the idea of drinking blood, even symbolically, to "The Law"? or how could Matthew, writing as he was for Greek speaking Jews?
What are you like? lol... nice one though! The main study house in Canterbury had both types of Franciscans and also Redemptorists - occasionally people swapped sides - you're not the only one who preferred black.
Interesting... I spent 1 year with the Franciscans (O.F.M.)after coming back from and being inspired by Medjugorje and later, 3 years at the Diocesan seminary... more than enough!
Brilliant and intelligible explanation of transubstantiation. I trained as a Roman Catholic priest several years ago and if I still believed and had become ordained, this video would have been good to use in catechesis! Perhaps I'll give it another shot! I think not...
Hey, thanks very much, UKrational. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the place where they used the video for catechesis. lol Appreciate the comment. Were you going to be a diocesan or religious priest? I aspired to the Franciscans myself.
That's merely your guess. The author of John wrote what he wrote. *That's* what he believed to have happened, and it doesn't include the Last Supper as the synoptic gospels have it.
But it's not a contradiction. John doesn't say whether or not the Last Supper happens. It's not like he said "I am recording everything that happened on the night before Jesus's crucifixion. If an event is not in my account, it is wrong."
Seltian, you're imposing an arbitrary requirement on what the author of John would have had to say in order for this to be a contradiction. That's silly. The synoptics say Jesus did the bread and wine thing at a Passover meal. John's gospel says he washed feet at a meal that took place before Passover had begun. These are not complementary descriptions of the same event.
But they aren't contradictions. I'm not imposing arbitrary requirements on what John would have to say. I'm simply stating that, in order for it to be a contradiction, John's gospel would have to, in some way, suggest, that the Last Supper didn't happen. And it doesn't.
You're imposing that on the text, as if the author of John thought to himself, "Hmm, should I tell the story about the bread and wine *as well* as the foot washing? Nah. I'll just go with the foot washing."
I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree, Seltian. I think each of us has stated his position clearly now.
Thank you for taking the time, unlike most atheists, to actually understand and explain transubstantiation accurately. I do agree with the earlier poster, however, that the omission of the Last Supper from the Gospel of John is not necessarily a contradiction. If you read the very last verse in the Gospel of John he makes it very clear that Christ did and said many things that are not contained in the scriptures. If something is left out of one account, it still may have happened.
And fourth, seeing as how the words "body and blood" are contained in the explanation of what the Eucharist it I'm not sure why you would say that there was an attempt to ward off accusations of cannibalism.
"...seeing as how the words 'body and blood' are contained in the explanation of what the Eucharist it I'm not sure why you would say that there was an attempt to ward off accusations of cannibalism."
I explained that in the video. The official Catholic description of how they believe Jesus is present in the Eucharist avoids the use of the word 'physical'. Note that I didn't say it's a successful attempt to avoid the charge of cannibalism, but merely an attempt.
Third, Transubstantiation is an explanation of "what" happens to the bread and wine, not "how the transformation occurs. For example, to say that the bread and wine become the body and blood by way of transubstantiation is akin to saying that photosynthesis occurs by way of photosynthesis.
I totally don't understand what you're trying to say here. Along with the belief that the Holy Spirit is the agent of transformation, transubstantiation is an attempt to explain how it happens as well as what happens.
Few things, First: The Lutherans do believe in the Eucharist, preferring the "consubstantiation" principle rather than "transubstantiation."
Second: Given Justin Martys's commentary and the reasonable assumption that the real presence had been believed long before the gospels were written, I'm not sure why you would label John's gospel account as a "contradiction" rather than an "omission", as the author was undoubtedly aware of the doctrine at the time that he authored the gospel.
"The Lutherans do believe in the Eucharist, preferring the 'consubstantiation' principle rather than 'transubstantiation.'"
And some of the denominations with Lutheranism even avoid use of 'consubstantiation' to explain their belief that Jesus is present in the Communion elements of bread and wine.
"I'm not sure why you would label John's gospel account as a 'contradiction' rather than an 'omission'"
This was explained quite clearly in the video. Unlike the synoptic gospels'...
...accounts of the Last Supper, each of which includes an account of Jesus instituting the Eucharist, John's version has Jesus instituting a foot washing ceremony. This has nothing directly to do with belief in the real presence.
i see that there has recently been some sort of hubub i the news about a guy taking his holy cracker home instead of swallowing it.bill donahue was of course greatly offended by this"hate crime".from the sound of it, some good natured death threats have changed the lads mind though
I didn't hear about that, Nemo, though incidents like that are reported to happen from time to time. A priest friend of mine said he suspected that 99% of the reports are fake, made up by people who oppose receiving Communion in the hand rather than on the tongue.
i have seen statements that he was planing on showing it to a freind as an aid to explaining the practice,then again i saw something about it being some sort of protest.i was more amused by the people that were acting like the body of christ had ben taken hostage,one should think jesus would be able to look after himself if he found that he was staying the night at a strangers house ; )
John 13. God had Jesus time come up at the time of the Passover. God commanded all generations of his people to observe the Passover (Exodus 12:14). When Jews and non-Jew believers observe the Passover, they are to remember Jesus is the Lamb of God. Exodus 12 the lamb blood was what God saw and passed over all the homes of those who had the lamb blood on the doorposts but those who did not all the first born males of that house were killed.
LightReuse 1 week ago
Comment removed
nepistepa 3 weeks ago
Good point in that no early church leaders were "catholic", they were local only. not much really.
MRGV7373 1 month ago
No formal church existed until around 400AD. No early popes, no formal Catholic church. Just local churches, Local leaders. No central authority. that is the history. Get it straight.
MRGV7373 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 What, if anything, has that to do with this video?
ProfMTH 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 Pal, do the world a favor: please study the Early Church Fathers before pooping through your mouth and pontificating opinions about something you have no clue.
tharsiskenobi2 3 days ago
@tharsiskenobi2 Did you listen to the ending. Even this person does not believe in the teaching of Transubstantiation. So the first 200 years the RCC did not exist and churches were local. So their you go. Many of the early fathers did not teach or believe in this teaching either. Some did, but in my opinion the spiritual real Jesus is about as far it should go. Your comments are quite crude and very unhelpful. How about a real quote or some support of what you might think.
MRGV7373 3 days ago
@tharsiskenobi2 You are neither a pal or have any astute comments here. How about some content or details of what you might believe or really think?? Real in Spirit but Real in Flesh?? Cannibalism? Why go this direction and teach such hocus pocus.
MRGV7373 3 days ago
Assuming the That, and treating the How's as interchangeable, can you talk about the Why? Why is this necessary? In what way does consuming the flesh and blood of Christ contribute to a persons faith, or salvation, or whatever?
Why do people believe that this is necessary, and why do you think it was put in the gospels at all? It seems to me like just another ritual for people to perform.
TheSmackerlacker 3 months ago
@TheSmackerlacker Excellent questions. I have no idea why this made its way into the New Testament and why (some) Christians regard it as necessary other than, of course, their believing that Jesus commanded them to do it and that, at least in the 4th gospel, he is depicted connecting salvation to it.
ProfMTH 3 months ago
The Catholic (and Orthodox) understanding is that God works through spirit, body and soul, not merely mind, eg, His forgiveness is performative, not mere sentiment. The Eucharist is understood as a particular ongoing way for the Christian to spiritually unite with God in daily living. The Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 1391-1397 gives the main points relating to this, including ongoing spiritual nourishment, strengthening and cleansing, communality & charity.
nepistepa 3 weeks ago
@ProfMTH
One become Whom one eats, is one approach to an answer. This in turn has implications for the Church & for Christian conduct, among other things. A different approach: John 6 contains several "layers" of meaning - "to eat the flesh of" someone is to pursue them with enmity, as several passages show. The saying also one reveals Who Jesus is - a major question in John. John 6 shows Jesus as greater than Moses; the Food He gives, is the new manna that is His flesh, the "True Food".
5355vbxjbj76rvn 1 day ago
@TheSmackerlacker I think Christians are supposed to eat the body of Jesus because the meat of animal sacrifices was supposed to be eaten.
KayBeeEee1983 3 weeks ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Unfortunately, that is only an extension of the question, more than an answer. What I want to know is how the ingestion of living things is in any way related to the well-being of a supernatural entity, i.e., the soul.
TheSmackerlacker 3 weeks ago
@TheSmackerlacker The answer to this question relies upon the understanding of the Eucharistic as being not merely a physical sacrifice but also a spiritual one. Christ is understood as being a living Spirit, so that ingestion would not be understood in terms of 'accidents' but of 'substance', ie, as living Spirit acting upon living spirit NOT like bread to a physical body. If a Divine Spirit exists, it is reasonable to conjecture that His nature contains aspects incomprehensible to us.
nepistepa 3 weeks ago
@nepistepa I disagree with the notion that any aspect of a deity should be incomprehensible. There is no good reason to make this assumption, except that it is a convenient way to dismiss the requirement for study and understanding, in favor of blind faith.
TheSmackerlacker 3 weeks ago
@TheSmackerlacker If you take the position that you get to define at least the Christian Deity for Christians (as one among any), then they cannot argue with you about their Christian Deity, as the Deity under discussion is yours, not theirs. But if you are disagreeing with their definition of the Deity, then I would note that one man's lack of grounds does not necessarily suffice to justify or repudiate a given notion, eg, W Wright's "Man will not fly for fifty years".
nepistepa 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSmackerlacker I find certain characteristics of my friend (who is often physically present with me) incomprehensible. The notion that there would be incomprehensible aspects of Julius Caesar (who has left much less little evidence of his nature for me to examine) seems quite inevitable to me. I would need explanation as to why any aspect of a god, which is not even a material being and which reveals itself in a limited manner, should be completely comprehensible to me.
nepistepa 3 weeks ago
@TheSmackerlacker
One answer to the "why" is that Jesus was not holding back *anything* from his disciples, not even His Body & Blood. His self-giving in the Last Supper is Act 1 of his self-giving, which is completed by his self-giving to & for all men on the Cross.
5355vbxjbj76rvn 2 days ago
@5355vbxjbj76rvn I have a better explanation. Christianity is a barbaric, iron age myth which borrows nearly all of its core tenets from more ancient myths, many of which contained strong elements of cannibalism.
TheSmackerlacker 2 days ago
Comment removed
5355vbxjbj76rvn 1 day ago
@TheSmackerlacker It's to be expected that some of those who don't accept Transubstantiation should see it as you do. Your explanation is different, certainly - not better. It's too vague; it's non-specific, so it could be said a lot of other things too: & it often is. My suggestion is more focussed, & incomplete in a different way from yours, which is *partly* right. What you mention need not be an objection to Transubstantiation; ISTM your objection is in favour of Transubstantiation.
5355vbxjbj76rvn 1 day ago
@TheSmackerlacker
As for this "borrowing" business - why must the idea that comes first in time be the true or best one ? It could instead be that the earlier ideas and practices look forward to the later: "ancient myths" (you don't say which) may be intended to point forward to the Mass. On this theory, bread was invented so that 1000s of years in the future it could be transubstantiated in the Mass. Not from man's POV, but in God's purpose. "Dying gods" point to the Original DG, Jesus. Etc.
5355vbxjbj76rvn 1 day ago
@5355vbxjbj76rvn That is baseless speculation in the truest sense.
You've just invented a possible explanation to justify what you believe, without the slightest bit of evidence to support it.
That's what we call "rationalization".
Here's the deal. Anything is possible, but without some kind of evidence, there is no reason to assume that anything is true, unless it is necessary to create a functioning model.
For example, we assume that 1+1=2, but only because we must.
TheSmackerlacker 1 day ago
how can you define or explane a doctrine which is totally false.... this like many other catholic dogmas are false as well
MrLoudmouthspeaker 4 months ago
ok, but what's with the hunks in the background already?
skoockum 5 months ago
@skoockum lol Just goofing around with the beach thing.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
Cool -- normally I can't give a rat's patoot about this sorta thing, but the particular depth and clarity you bring make it interesting. You're like the YT version of John McPhee
skoockum 5 months ago
@skoockum "Cool -- normally I can't give a rat's patoot about this sorta thing, but the particular depth and clarity you bring make it interesting. You're like the YT version of John McPhee."
Thanks!
ProfMTH 5 months ago
Transubstantiation is simple insanity. As someone else said, the catholic whackos will say anything in order to justify their nutty beliefs.
mikefromwa 5 months ago
@mikefromwa Catholics are by no means unique among religionists in this regard.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data,offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity(i.e.,Christian morality,spirituality,social ethic,and philosophy.
heretic154 9 months ago
I am Catholic because I sincerely believe,by virtue of much cumulative evidence,,that Catholicism is true,and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely-established by our Lord Jesus Christ against which the gates of hell shall cannot and shall not prevail(Mt 16:18),thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to submit!
-150 reasons I'm Catholic and you should be too!, by Dave Armstrong-
heretic154 9 months ago
When I was a child i was taught sound doctrine and Love in the Catholic Church.When i went to school and met Protestants for the first time,they were full of hate and had weak doctrines,i see they now comment on YT.
Thank God i am a revert to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ teachings for 200 years by the grace of God and to his glory.
yellowballpoets 9 months ago
LIES AND HERESIES
goldmen7 9 months ago
the fact remains, despite much of the hatred that is apparent on these comments. the bible is unbelievably Eucharistically oriented. I don't mean to sound haughty when I say this, but I could literally bury you in Biblical texts that attest to the Eucharist. All of the the Church Fathers believed in the Real Presence. I pray that you will all come to see Jesus' amazing Love for us that he wills to bow so low as to become our food. May God bless you and lead you into all Truth.
Irishwpride 10 months ago
Cardinal Newman, in his book, "The Development of the Christian Religion," admits that ... "Temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays and season of devotions, processions, blessing of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests and monks and nuns), images ... are all of pagan origin..." (Page 359). “Through some crack or other in the temple of God, the smoke of Satan has entered .” — Pope Paul VI, 1972
kiwichristian2009 10 months ago
@kiwichristian2009
Kiwi I have already demonstrated that this qoute is not on page 359 of Cardinal Newman's "The development of the Christian religion" (Which is not even its real name. It entitled the "Development of Christian Doctrine."
redbaron998 9 months ago
Just prior to the consecration of the mass, if someone added arsenic to the elements of bread and wine, would the poison within those elements be changed and made harmless after the consecration was finished, and would the priest and the people now partake of these changed substances, if not why not?
kiwichristian2009 10 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Catholic belief, as I understand it on this, is that the only elements that admit of transubstantiation in the Eucharistic consecration are bread and wine. Anything that is added to those elements would change them from simple bread and wine. Therefore there would be no change. Why do you ask?
ProfMTH 10 months ago
@ProfMTH Wow. Unbelievable. the catholic cult seems to have a way of explaining everything in order to justify their unbiblical heresies. God teaches us not to drink blood. How does the catholic cult deal with that one?
kiwichristian2009 10 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Go ask a Catholic.
ProfMTH 10 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 God never taught anybody to not drink blood, except the Jews in times of fasting. The Catholic church is the church directly from Jesus Christ. Period.
Look up the definition of a cult bro. Whatever your religion is, it doesn't trace it's source back to Christ if you're a protestant. Simple as that.
xxFairestxx 6 months ago
@xxFairestxx I knw what a cult is, and when we look at the history of the catholic organisation, it fills the requirements to be called a "cult". Don't forget that it tortured and murdered MILLIONS of people who dared to disagree with it. It BANNED ownership of the Bible and there is STILL a canon law ( 1986 ) that forbids catholics from reading any Bible or document that have NOT been approved by the vatican!
kiwichristian2009 6 months ago
@xxFairestxx Decreti, pars ii. causa xxiii. quaest v. can. xlvii: "Those are not to be accounted homicides who, fired with zeal for Mother Church, may have killed excommunicated persons."
kiwichristian2009 6 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Not to mention, Jesus said to eat His body and drink His blood specifically. Learn to follow direction.
xxFairestxx 6 months ago
@xxFairestxx Jesus also said He was the door. Is He a literal physical door?
kiwichristian2009 6 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 He is the door, yes. The door to Heaven, do you claim that to be false too?
And bud, the Church WROTE the bible lol. And no, that Canon law is not Dogma. It forbids the practicing of religious tradition and absorbtion from religion material not approved by the Vatican. It is not a cult. Christ didn't make a cult. The ONLY true Christian faith is that of the Catholic church. All others are okay, but not complete.
xxFairestxx 6 months ago
@xxFairestxx So, you take the door statement as symbolic, yet the blood thing as literal? The Bible is NNOT a catholic book. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the OT was in circulation and was quoted by Jesus LONG before your cult came into being a few hundred years AFTER Jesus was resurrected!
kiwichristian2009 6 months ago
@xxFairestxx If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?
kiwichristian2009 6 months ago
@xxFairestxx If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5)...
kiwichristian2009 6 months ago
@xxFairestxx ...The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?
kiwichristian2009 6 months ago
@xxFairestxx God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today....
kiwichristian2009 6 months ago
@xxFairestxx ...A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?
kiwichristian2009 6 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Well that bible that they put together, is the one that you read and are using to try to disprove Catholic doctrine. Can I follow such reasoning? No. Why? Because it's flawed. You are using a book put together by Catholics, who were not to mention, direct decendents of Peter (You are my rock upon which I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.) to go against them. Yet your faith stems from Catholics.
xxFairestxx 6 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 The Catholic church is hands down, THE church Christ established. Not the 1st Baptist church of Mississippi, and not the 1st Church of Jesus Christ Lewisville Texas. The Universal Church that stems directly from Christ's words and teachings...is the Catholic church. Read up on the fathers of Christianity. The Apostles: We do exactly what they did. Exactly.
xxFairestxx 6 months ago
@DavidKWegley well if you'd rid the world of Catholicism for the first 1500 years after Christ, you'd have rid the world of Christianity. God Bless.
Millingtorres 1 year ago
Just as Cain vainly tried to impress God with the works of his hands, so do Catholics try to impress God with their good works and ceremonialism. Catholicism is a damnable lie that has been in the world since Cain. God will smash the Catholic Whore with His judgments.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
As far as the New Testament is concerned, Jesus didn't pluck part of His flesh out to be eaten by His disciples at the Last Supper, which should be the primary example of celebrating the Lord's Supper afterwards. Where does the Bible say that the bread actually turns into Christ's flesh? The Last Supper was also symbolic, the Lord's supper is symbolic. Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross was the one true real thing.
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
@kiwichristian2009 I covered all this in the video. If you missed it, watch the video again. BTW, I don't believe any of it, so spare me your anti-Catholic ranting.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
2--4--6--8 Time to transubstantiate! Doin' the Vatican Rag!
txvoltaire 1 year ago
your explanation sounds like the credit cards guidelines and contract, In spanish I would compared you with "Cantinflas"
Apolo1428 1 year ago
@Apolo1428 I don't know what 'Cantinflas' means and I don't understand the other part of your comment. Sorry.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH google it!
Apolo1428 1 year ago
@Apolo1428 I'm not really all that interested. If you want to explain it, fine. If not, fine, too.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
If you don't believe it, why do you spend so much time and effort talking about it? Something to analyze. BTW, it's true.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt "If you don't believe it, why do you spend so much time and effort talking about it?"
Actually, all the learning I did about it I did when I was a believer.
"it's true"
Don't be silly.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I don't question the reason for your doubt. I question the maliciousness of your heart in actually going out of your way to given the teaching just to bash it. It's, well, diabolical. It confirms me in my faith. Only the enemy of souls, and the father of lies, would prompt such an odd thing as to begin with the deception, lure people in and then smash the idea. No doubt you consider yourself very clever. The fun ends on judgement day, pal. Remember that.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt " I question the maliciousness of your heart in actually going out of your way to given the teaching just to bash it."
Bash it? I presented it accurately--many (*most*) critics don't even understand what it actually claims--and then I said I don't believe it. If you consider that to be bashing, you have set the bar exceedingly low and must find yourself offended quite often.
"The fun ends on judgement day, pal."
Does it feel good to blow a load of evangelistic threat?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Spare me. You and I both know what you are about. "Blow a load?" What kind of ghetto talk is that? On second thought, never mind.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt "Spare me."
You initiated the exchange and were quick with the accusations and threats of divine punishment. If you can't stand the heat, you really shouldn't step into the kitchen.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
why dont they make wafers that dont stick to the roof of the pallet of my mouth, I'd spend about 10 minutes kneeling down in my pew after taking holy communion trying my darndest to prize it off with my tongue. It never occured to me as an 8 year I actually had Jesus stuck to the roof of my mouth.
Um.. i wonder if the Catholic church still have me down as a paid up member??
bonnie43uk 1 year ago
@bonnie43uk They never told me either.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
I've seen the transubstiation at 3:32 and it looks good! :P
D20018200 1 year ago
Transubstantiation = Platonic drivel.
logik316 1 year ago
pretty accurate lol thanks for not being biased
dcrippen2000 1 year ago
Comment removed
singapore7773 1 year ago
keeping your own tradition would b something ez. like getting drunk on friday nite. and chasing women. getting up at 6 am on sunday to go and worship God in the host is not ez. it is mystery and miracle.
singapore7773 1 year ago
Well, transubstantiation needs some retooling,if not complete overhaul, as the concepts of substance and accidents are clearly out of date now with our current understanding of chemistry. But what's science to stop them?
Daruqe 1 year ago
@Daruqe Exactly. lol
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Mark 7:7-9 addresses this & many other LIES of catholicism.
eatatmargos 1 year ago
@eatatmargos Amen! the rcc says that evolution is in line with Christianity and catholics can believe in it. This is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says mary was sinless. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says confess your sins to a priest. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says mary can save you. this is CONTRARY to the Bible. the rcc says peter was "the rock". this is CONTRARY to the Bible. The rcc murdered MILLIONS of Christians. This is CONTRARY to the Bible.
kiwichristian2009 10 months ago
PAGANISM at its WORST!
eatatmargos 1 year ago
@eatatmargos "PAGANISM"
No short of that in Christianity.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Following SCRIPTURE is NOT PAGAN... catholicism & "reformers" have a LOCK on that!
eatatmargos 1 year ago
this is exactly what i learned in ccd classes- well done explaining properly
pbhs07 1 year ago
@pbhs07 Thanks!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I was adopted into a catholic family in my late teens.
the idea of transubstantiation was new to me and when i was invited to go to church I was told not to take the sacrament since I was not yet a believer in catholicism.
In reality I never really believed in this because I was not raised in it still I felt left out of some seemingly important act in the church.
Now that I am an atheist it seems silly to me to believe bread to body wine to blood. thanks for posting
inquiry10 1 year ago
@inquiry10 Thanks for the comment.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@inquiry10 You are an atheist, we can't make you believe. Our belief is called faith... if you are an atheist it is because you don't have faith. Reasonable huh? I believe God hides in the Host ;-)
Opera680 1 year ago
@Opera680
Lets break down the word faith according to the bible
Now faith is the evidence??? evidence what evidence??? of things hoped for ( you want it to be true??? and the evidence??? of things not seen ( you got that right cant see it)
another translation would say its the substance??? what substance if it cant be seen
Faith is nothing more than saying I DON'T KNOW that seems far more honest than saying you have faith.
I honestly say I do not know not I have faith.
feel free to respond
inquiry10 1 year ago
@inquiry10 mmmmm... well, you are just way to reasonable to see and believe by faith. Nothing and faith can't debate, sorry!
Opera680 1 year ago
@inquiry10 its good that you didnt participate in such PAGANISM. Please read SCRIPTURE & see for yourself this is a claim of MAN, not CREATOR. Tradition & PAGANISM are addressed here, please read this SCRIPTURE... Mark 7:7-9, Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of MEN. Full well ye reject the commandment of GOD, that ye may keep your own tradition.
eatatmargos 1 year ago
@eatatmargos
I don't participate in any of the myths chrsitan pagan ones or any other s that claim some divine super being made it all.
Its all fairy tales and non-sense that I have no time for.
inquiry10 1 year ago
I only just learnt about transubstantiation the other day as I thought I might as well gain more knowledge about the church because I'm critical of it. Working my way through the book "Double Cross" by David Ranan. The church is making a scientific claim here. Even though not one atom of the bread has changed, they're saying it is different. You've really got to have faith to swallow that (pun unintended).
LAnonHubbard 1 year ago
P.S. I think you failed to mention that in John 6 after he explained "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Many disciples were going to leave...but he didn't say it a different way so the people could understand the "allegory"...he said what he meant...
Irishwpride 2 years ago
@Irishwpride
There is not "mystery of the Eucharist" to be penetrated, Irishwpride. I've explained the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation accurately and completely. Faith would not add a thing to the explanation that's not already there.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
@Irishwpride Meaning those who "digest" the Word of God. Remember, He is The Word. Eating means to read, learn, digest, etc. What about not eating blood?
kiwichristian2009 10 months ago
I appreciate your knowledge and insights. In regards to your last statement, that you "don't believe a word of it".
Faith precedes understanding. Even though you have demonstrated knowledge about it's historical, philosophical and scriptural roots, you cannot penetrate the mystery of the Eucharist without faith. I will pray for you.
God bless...and thank you again for your insights!
Irishwpride 2 years ago
Same here.
Good explaination though. But this is the kind of thing a child can believe and hold on to for life, such as myself. I for one will hold on to my child like notion that IT IS, and not really care about the How it is.
God be with you ProfMTH
empacae 1 year ago
Very well done.
ThatRockWasChrist 2 years ago
Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
In a mainstream Protestant sense, it's a metaphor, the same way Shakespeare says "love is a rose". It's not actually a rose.
Jesus' line "do this in remembrance of me" indicates that the bread becomes communion bread, rather than the ordinary kind, when you eat it in remembrance and acceptance of his sacrifice.
If any of it was true, I pooped Jesus.
highwind8124 2 years ago
You get a lot of fundie garble, don't you?
Werekitty 2 years ago
Tons of it.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Fundies are weird that way. They are claiming that atheists are controlling the Government through the ACLU, and are mad that there are still institutions like the Boy Scouts that aren't under their control.
Yeah. Charming folks.
Werekitty 2 years ago
I don't believe a word of it either...
Frankie1410 2 years ago
I find it interesting that at the end of the movie you stated "This video was intended merely to explain it. I don't believe a word of it."
If that's true, what compelled to you put together such a developed, researched, and objective documentary on the subject?
otoolehouse 2 years ago
It didn't require any real research since I spent most of my believing life as a Catholic and know the Catholic teaching on transubstantiation quite well. As for why I put the video together, if memory serves I explained that at the top of the video: people seemed to be confused about what transubstantiation was, so I thought I'd explain it.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
If you claim to know Catholic teaching, why do you make videos which mock a strawman view of the divine inspiration of Scripture?
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
I don't "claim to know Catholic teaching," I *do* know Catholic teaching. And I don't make "videos which mock a strawman view of divine inspiration of Scripture." Clearly, you're still smarting over the fact that you couldn't answer a simple question that I put to you. Well, time to get over it and move on with your life.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
If you *know* Catholic teaching on inspiration, then it certainly doesn't jibe with what you are presenting in your videos on Scripture.
You seem to be pretending that the Church holds up some ridiculous fundamentalist notion of "inerrancy," i.e., that because you find Jesus' words repetitive or John's writing deficient in some way that this somehow undermines the revelation contained in the text.
Judging from this video here, it would seem that you should know better.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
"If you *know* Catholic teaching on inspiration, then it certainly doesn't jibe with what you are presenting in your videos on the Scripture."
Those videos aren't aimed at Catholicism's view of the divine inspiration of scripture, MilliontheUsername. A survey of the Christian landscape reveals that Catholicism has one of the more sophisticated conceptions of inspiration and, in the main, the official Church is not opposed to historical criticism and the like. You offer a red herring here.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I like how people keep popping up around the beach.
xccmx 2 years ago
;-) It was an attempt to keep a video on a rather dry subject interesting.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Its "breadiness" and "wineness" are replaced by "Jesusiness", or maybe that should be "Christiness". Mmm, Christiness...
Ah, good ole Aristotle and his "qualities".
FSMUnicorn 2 years ago
I like that: Jesusiness. lol
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Whats with all the funny people on the beach? :)
cloverfield911 2 years ago
I was trying to insert a bit of levity into a dry subject.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Where do you study this information for your videos? You're too smart. Arg.
TheBlueFalconX 2 years ago
The stuff for this video on transubstantiation is all a product of my training and study as a Catholic. In general, I've been a student of Christianity all my life -- much of that time as a believer, though no longer so.
Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
junmeskie 3 years ago
junmeskie 3 years ago
Roman Catholics (242 branches)
Part 1 of 2
The largest is by far the Latin-rite (commonly called "Roman Catholics" by non-Catholic Christians) with 976 million members of the 994 million total members (or 98% of the total, year 1995 numbers). However, since virtually all of these western and smaller eastern rites are in union with the Pope (I am not sure of some of them), there is actually one Catholic Church, not 242 churches or denominations.
junmeskie 3 years ago
@junmeskie So how can you say there are so many "protestant" denominations when there are many sects within your own cult?
kiwichristian2009 1 year ago
The Facts and Stats on "33,000 Denominations"
by PhilVaz
Now for a few facts and stats from the actual source: World Christian Encyclopedia by Barrett, Kurian, Johnson (Oxford Univ Press, 2nd edition, 2001).
The source does refer to 33000+ total "Christian" denominations, but it defines the word "denomination" as an organized Christian group within a specific country:
This book has 1,699 pages, of the World Christian Encyclopedia, published by Oxford University Press.
junmeskie 3 years ago
"But there are some of you who do not believe."
Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe. ~ John 6:64 (he predicted THE PROTESTants)
Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"
Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? ~ John 6:67-69
===== GO CHURCH HOPPING WITH OVER 33,800 PROTESTant DENOMINATIONS ====
YOU CAN'T GO WRONG!
junmeskie 3 years ago
"He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything." (Acts 3:21).
Catholics don't take half the Bible literally*, but when Jesus said,"I am the bread of life," they treat that verse like it's the only thing Jesus said of value!
*For example, Romans 3:23; they believe that Mary did not sin.
onChristthesolidrock 3 years ago
Jesus promised he would not leave us orphans (John 14:18)
HE LEFT US HIS ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURC
SO WE CAN BE GUIDED the RIGHT WAY
.
but would send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect us (John 15:26).
HE GUARANTEED THE HOLY SPIRIT ONLY TO HIS ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
Jesus did not guarantee The Holy Spirit to all
IF HE DID
WHAT IS THE REASON FOR OVER 38,000 CONFUSED DENOMINATIONS?
JUST WATCH TBN TELEVANGELISTS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.
junmeskie 3 years ago
38,000 denominations? That is incredibly outrageous. Show me a list of even one third that many.
onChristthesolidrock 3 years ago
I got my info from Oxford Christian Encyclopedia in 2001
they also stated that at least 5 new denominations started every week.
GOOGLE
Protestant denomination listings
Books also available at Barnes & Noble or Amazon
These never ending multiplications of Protestant Churches are Satans plan not God.
junmeskie 3 years ago
@junmeskie There are many groups outside the Roman Catholic Church which are regarded as Catholic sects, such as the Community of the Lady of All Nations, the Palmarian Catholic Church, the Philippine Independent Church, the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, the Free Catholic Church, the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, and others.
kiwichristian2009 10 months ago
@onChristthesolidrock Well, you must first get two catholics to agree on what they think "protestant" means. Technically, a protestant means a former member of the catholic cult who left and PROTESTed its false doctrines. Nowadays, "protestant" seems to mean any religious group that is NOT catholic.
kiwichristian2009 10 months ago
That Mary was (and, of course, we Catholics believe that she still is) full of Grace is clearly evident in Luke 1:28, when Gabriel addressed her as "Full of Grace"!
The problem for many non-Catholic Christians is the idea that she was born not exempted from sin
But Mary had to have been literally filled with Grace because Christ is her Son -- and He is perfect!.
GOOGLE
Immaculate Conception
YAHOO
sinless of Mary
Marys womb is Gods TABERNACLE (made HOLY & PURE) for her son is SINLESS
junmeskie 3 years ago
@onChristthesolidrock You're right. They DENY Jesus died ONCE for ALL.They DENY Jesus is our ONLY salvation.They DENY Jesus did away with the needs for priests.They DENY God forgives us of ALL sin.They DENY only God can forgive sins against God.They DENY we must worship God and God alone.They DENY God when He says "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God"
kiwichristian2009 10 months ago
PROTESTANT DOUBT THE DIVINE POWER OF JESUS:
"Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." ~ John 6: 52-54, John 6:55-56
For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him."
Then many of his disciples who were listening said,
"This is hard; who can accept it?" ~ John 6:60
-- ONLY THE CATHOLICS CAN ACCEPT WHAT JESUS SAID! --
junmeskie 3 years ago
"... this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 1 Cor. 11 25-27
For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, ..."
Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the LORD unworthily, shall be guilty ... of the LORD.
"... For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh JUDGEMENT to himself, not discerning the body of the LORD."
"unworthily, shall be guilty"
DOES NOT SOUND SYMBOLIC JESUS IS DEAD SERIOUS
junmeskie 3 years ago
And your point is what, Junmeskie -- assuming you have one?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
In an uncharacteristic reference to an historical event in the human life of his apparitional Jesus, Paul mentions the institution of the Eucharist ... long before the synoptic gospels were written. The almost identical formula in all four accounts speaks suspiciously to a later addition.
How could a Jew like Paul reconcile the idea of drinking blood, even symbolically, to "The Law"? or how could Matthew, writing as he was for Greek speaking Jews?
Downright Dionysian, it is. Pagan! Idolatrous!
Lohitaksha 3 years ago
When nominalists and realists collide, a lot gets lost.
KosmicCitizen 3 years ago
What are you like? lol... nice one though! The main study house in Canterbury had both types of Franciscans and also Redemptorists - occasionally people swapped sides - you're not the only one who preferred black.
ukrational 3 years ago
"...you're not the only one who preferred black."
lol
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Interesting... I spent 1 year with the Franciscans (O.F.M.)after coming back from and being inspired by Medjugorje and later, 3 years at the Diocesan seminary... more than enough!
ukrational 3 years ago
I was going for O.F.M. Conv. -- looked better in black than brown. ;-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Brilliant and intelligible explanation of transubstantiation. I trained as a Roman Catholic priest several years ago and if I still believed and had become ordained, this video would have been good to use in catechesis! Perhaps I'll give it another shot! I think not...
Loved the ending... after all that!
ukrational 3 years ago
Hey, thanks very much, UKrational. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the place where they used the video for catechesis. lol Appreciate the comment. Were you going to be a diocesan or religious priest? I aspired to the Franciscans myself.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
That's not a contradiction. John simply doesn't record the Last Supper. He didn't say that it didn't happen.
seltian 3 years ago
"John simply doesn't record the Last Supper."
That's merely your guess. The author of John wrote what he wrote. *That's* what he believed to have happened, and it doesn't include the Last Supper as the synoptic gospels have it.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
But it's not a contradiction. John doesn't say whether or not the Last Supper happens. It's not like he said "I am recording everything that happened on the night before Jesus's crucifixion. If an event is not in my account, it is wrong."
seltian 3 years ago
Seltian, you're imposing an arbitrary requirement on what the author of John would have had to say in order for this to be a contradiction. That's silly. The synoptics say Jesus did the bread and wine thing at a Passover meal. John's gospel says he washed feet at a meal that took place before Passover had begun. These are not complementary descriptions of the same event.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
But they aren't contradictions. I'm not imposing arbitrary requirements on what John would have to say. I'm simply stating that, in order for it to be a contradiction, John's gospel would have to, in some way, suggest, that the Last Supper didn't happen. And it doesn't.
seltian 3 years ago
"John's gospel would have to, in some way, suggest, that the Last Supper didn't happen. And it doesn't."
Yeah, it does ... by telling a different story.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
No, it doesn't tell a different story. It tells different parts of the same story.
seltian 3 years ago
You're imposing that on the text, as if the author of John thought to himself, "Hmm, should I tell the story about the bread and wine *as well* as the foot washing? Nah. I'll just go with the foot washing."
I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree, Seltian. I think each of us has stated his position clearly now.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Thank you for taking the time, unlike most atheists, to actually understand and explain transubstantiation accurately. I do agree with the earlier poster, however, that the omission of the Last Supper from the Gospel of John is not necessarily a contradiction. If you read the very last verse in the Gospel of John he makes it very clear that Christ did and said many things that are not contained in the scriptures. If something is left out of one account, it still may have happened.
HammerofHeretics 3 years ago
Your videos are great ProMTH. Christianity's a bit weird isn't it?
daryl1q1 3 years ago
Thank you very much and, yes, sometimes more than a bit. :-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Very educational. Thanks ProfMTH!
mavaddat 3 years ago
Thank *you*, Mavaddat. Glad you found it useful.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
FIN.
And fourth, seeing as how the words "body and blood" are contained in the explanation of what the Eucharist it I'm not sure why you would say that there was an attempt to ward off accusations of cannibalism.
good vid. Stay Awsome.
xSpectatoronex 3 years ago
"...seeing as how the words 'body and blood' are contained in the explanation of what the Eucharist it I'm not sure why you would say that there was an attempt to ward off accusations of cannibalism."
I explained that in the video. The official Catholic description of how they believe Jesus is present in the Eucharist avoids the use of the word 'physical'. Note that I didn't say it's a successful attempt to avoid the charge of cannibalism, but merely an attempt.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Transubstantiation" is a definition of what has taken place, not an explanation for how the said phenominon takes place.
xSpectatoronex 3 years ago
It's explains both what and how. The "what" is that Jesus has become present. The "how" is by the work of the Holy Spirit and transubstantiation.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
That's right, maybe I just missunderstood what you ewre saying.
xSpectatoronex 3 years ago
cont.
Third, Transubstantiation is an explanation of "what" happens to the bread and wine, not "how the transformation occurs. For example, to say that the bread and wine become the body and blood by way of transubstantiation is akin to saying that photosynthesis occurs by way of photosynthesis.
xSpectatoronex 3 years ago
I totally don't understand what you're trying to say here. Along with the belief that the Holy Spirit is the agent of transformation, transubstantiation is an attempt to explain how it happens as well as what happens.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Few things, First: The Lutherans do believe in the Eucharist, preferring the "consubstantiation" principle rather than "transubstantiation."
Second: Given Justin Martys's commentary and the reasonable assumption that the real presence had been believed long before the gospels were written, I'm not sure why you would label John's gospel account as a "contradiction" rather than an "omission", as the author was undoubtedly aware of the doctrine at the time that he authored the gospel.
xSpectatoronex 3 years ago
"The Lutherans do believe in the Eucharist, preferring the 'consubstantiation' principle rather than 'transubstantiation.'"
And some of the denominations with Lutheranism even avoid use of 'consubstantiation' to explain their belief that Jesus is present in the Communion elements of bread and wine.
"I'm not sure why you would label John's gospel account as a 'contradiction' rather than an 'omission'"
This was explained quite clearly in the video. Unlike the synoptic gospels'...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...accounts of the Last Supper, each of which includes an account of Jesus instituting the Eucharist, John's version has Jesus instituting a foot washing ceremony. This has nothing directly to do with belief in the real presence.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
i see that there has recently been some sort of hubub i the news about a guy taking his holy cracker home instead of swallowing it.bill donahue was of course greatly offended by this"hate crime".from the sound of it, some good natured death threats have changed the lads mind though
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
I didn't hear about that, Nemo, though incidents like that are reported to happen from time to time. A priest friend of mine said he suspected that 99% of the reports are fake, made up by people who oppose receiving Communion in the hand rather than on the tongue.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
i have seen statements that he was planing on showing it to a freind as an aid to explaining the practice,then again i saw something about it being some sort of protest.i was more amused by the people that were acting like the body of christ had ben taken hostage,one should think jesus would be able to look after himself if he found that he was staying the night at a strangers house ; )
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
Felt obligated to try harder so I opened the nearly 2 hour video and punched in every 2 or 3 m