Every time he says "This is so important" he actually drops insightful knowledge. One of the best teachers!

@veekee75

3 ай бұрын

Really? You really think this teacher you called "best" drops insightful knowledge? Can you tell me what you learned from this video? I want to know too.

3:15 “Tell me about how you feel Marty” 😂

@lonelyberg1316

2 жыл бұрын

😂 he killed me

@jamesmonahan9408

Жыл бұрын

funniest line ever. lol

It's also important to remember that the passover sacrifice, which the Israelites were told to hold annually, was a re-presentation of the first passover. But, more than just a re-presentation, it was a participation in that 1st passover. When the youngest asks, "why do we sacrifice a lamb, and eat bitter herbs?" the response is, "Because it's what God did for ME, when WE were in bondage" (I am paraphrasing the passover Q&A). As Christ's sacrifice on the cross is the perfection of the passover sacrifice, our remembrance of the last supper/crucifixion is no less a participation in His first sacrifice.

@charlesudoh6034

2 жыл бұрын

Beautifully said

@teacup3133

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you, that really helps

@paulmiller3469

2 жыл бұрын

One of the better comments I've read.

@artcarlson3581

Жыл бұрын

Jews offered sacrifices in the old testament as required. The Church is not Israel we are not commanded to offer any sacrifices animal or otherwise. Why would the Church follow the Passover since this was a Jewish OT event.

@kdmdlo

Жыл бұрын

@@artcarlson3581 Well, we are commanded to "do this in memory" of him. So we are commanded to offer this sacrifice. And, regarding the Passover, you have to remember the first Christians were all Jews. They saw this Christianity as a natural outgrowth (a perfection of) Judaism. The Messiah had finally come!

Brilliant Dr Pitre. You are an outstanding teacher and ambassador for the Catholic Church. Thank you so much for posting these podcasts. Warm greetings from Australia 🦘

I cannot tell you how informative and helpful that lecture was. For some reason, most of these things were absent from my Catholic grade school and high school religious education. The philosophy and theology of Catholicism is beyond beautiful and rational. I hope that they have changed chatechism classes in Catholic schools, teaching the reasoning which stands behind our faith. Without knowledge of these things, Catholics are apt to convert to Protestantism or some other belief.

I believe that our Mass has the same meaning as the annual Jewish Passover, when participants regard themselves as "present participants in a past event". Participants were not present at the original passover when the angel of death "passed over" their homes, and they were "saved by the blood of the Lamb", they participated as though they had been. So too, we Christians are saved by the blood of the lamb, who died ONLY ONCE, and will never die again.

"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice-even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God” (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]). St Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, martyr.

Wow thank you for that insightful and logical explanation on the eucharist..God bless!!

Absolutely AMEN brother praise God forever hallelujah 🙏 Love indeed to hear from you ♥️

I used to be a Rosicrucian, and they use the Holy Scriptures to teach the lies that they teach, with them I learned that it's not about reading Scriptures but rather it's about having the authority to proclaim the correct hermeneutic from which you interpret Scriptures, anybody can pick up the Scriptures and understand them however they want, everybody can have their own "canon" for interpreting, but not everybody has the authority given by Jesus Christ himself to do so. That's why I am now Catholic and not part of any other Christian sect or schismatic "autocephalous churches", it's about authority.

@paulmiller3469

2 жыл бұрын

In a single word, yep.

Thank you for the beautiful explanation.

I learn something new every day. Such a beautiful explanation. Praise be to the Lord Jesus Christ, now and forever! 🙏🏻

@wesleysimelane3423

2 жыл бұрын

This man might be a Dr, but he is waaaaay off!

@paulmiller3469

2 жыл бұрын

@@wesleysimelane3423 Why is he 'off?' Because his interpretation doesn't match what you've heard in your Protestant church? Just differing interpretations, which gets into the question of who has the authority to interpret...

@wesleysimelane3423

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulmiller3469 the Roman Catholic laity thrives on the RCC lies. This man and the likes of Hahn Catholic truth etc love to bend the truth to please the likes of you who can not accept scripture alone or the word of God as final

Utterly beautiful, clear, and holy explanation. Brant, you are brilliant. Thank you! ✝️👍❤️😊😁🎉

Excellent explanation!!! Thank you!

Muito bom. Tudo fica mais fácil de entender quando Brant Pitre está explicando.

Amazing explanation.

dr pitre is wonderful "mass readings explained" a must and his "jewish roots......." series so insightful i prayed for insight and he has given me so much thank you

BLESSED BE FOREVER THE SACRED PASSION AND DEATH ❣️ and RESSURECTION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST 🙏 Amen

Great explanation!

Best of the best Dr. Brant thanks for imparting with the world much needed catholic theology for the laity>>>>>

The Mass best prayer, feeding trough and focus of Catholics, most reviled by non-Catholics. Can't imagine life without it. No wonder the whole of creation waited on the death of Christ.

@LibertysetsquareJack

Жыл бұрын

Agreed.

The difficult most people have and have not learned is understanding what is meant by temporal realm and eternal realm. Temporal realm is that which is measured with time. In other words our earthly life. What is time? The measurement of change. Eternity there is no temporal state. Eternity refers more of a state unchanged. Thus when we say we go to Heaven we want to be eternally in the beatific vision an unchanging state of pure joy happiness and peace. It does not mean for a very long time. Therefore when Christ ascended into Heaven he took our assumed humanity that was sacrificed on Calvary and took it to Eternal realm for a continual presentation of His sacrifice. If he did not do this well then every sin after Calvary would simply have closed the gates to Heaven once again. In other words when we go to Mass we are able to re- present the sacrifice of Valvary because Jesus said taking bread and wine This is my body and this is my blood so after consecration / transubstatiation we re present Jesus as our sacrificial lamb to God the Father each week for the sins the we individually and as a whole have committed since last mass.

@JR-tl8tg

2 жыл бұрын

Wow! your comment will be my go to explaination if you don't mind, well said doc especially the point you made about if Christ had not taken His sacrifice for us into the eternal realm every sin after Calvary would have closed the gates of Heaven. How could the protestants hold fast to a flawed concept of "Once save always save". Thanks again for sharing will keep you in prayer please remember me too doc.

@edr8082

2 жыл бұрын

JR thank you for your kind words. Please do help explain this to family and friends. After reading my response re listen to Dr Pitre and you will be greatly appreciate he is touching on this when he speaks of the ascension. If I can recommend any book I rec Theology for Beginners by Frank Sheed. It’s short but WoW!!! God Bless and I too will keep you in my prayers!

@teacup3133

2 жыл бұрын

thank you

Luther thought he knew more than 1600years if Christianity. Quite an arrogant way of thinking…

@j.g.4942

2 жыл бұрын

To be fair, he misunderstood Catholic teaching; yet still what Dr Pitre says in the latter part of the video Luther and Lutherans agree with. We just focus on the Holy Mystery and gift that God is giving (that gift being participation and union with Christ's Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, and coming in Glory) rather than the sacrifice; we primarily call it sacrament rather than sacrifice. Our teaching on the Ascension is the same as Dr Pitre's.

@samueljennings4809

2 жыл бұрын

Luther never had an issue with transubstantiation.

@aquila2152

2 жыл бұрын

If you read church history and the church fathers, you’ll see there was certainly not one monolithic view on this throughout history. There was disagreement on transubstantiation, the status of the apocrypha, etc. and many other issues where Catholics often imply there was a unified voice. Transubstantiation was only officially affirmed in 1215. There were others throughout church history who agreed more with Luther’s views than what came to be regarded as official church teaching, including other schools active around the time of Luther. Look up also Luther’s priest Johann von Staupitz, who helped and encouraged him in his work.

@jaimeguadarama3141

2 жыл бұрын

If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are in this world we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13). It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day (cited in Hendrix, Martin Luther,

@sylvia54lobo76

2 жыл бұрын

Who set up Luther? Who set up Calvin? Who set up napoleon Bonaparte? Who set up Karl Marx? Who set up Vladimir Lenin? Who set up Hitler? And finally who were the financiers/sponsors of these beings? WAKE up so-called educated spiritually bankrupt societies of the world? God's chastisement awaits you all which will be worse than the DELUGE.

I am proud that.... in near future anybody will ask me ...about mass as sacrifice... I will be able to give witness to my living faith

@wesleysimelane3423

2 жыл бұрын

Sorry, but that just isn't the case in the way Rome needs it to be. There is no problem with the concept of real presence in the frame of Matthew 18:20. The problem is the idea that there is some sort of change in the material of the bread and wine itself. This is taught nowhere in Scripture. One can say, this father said this and that father said that, but those fathers, like the Roman Church, are fallible. Only the Scriptures are infallible.

@josephconnelly5195

Жыл бұрын

@@wesleysimelane3423 who said the Scriptures are infallible?

@MasterKeyMagic

Жыл бұрын

@@wesleysimelane3423But the fathers didn't adhere to scripture alone🙃 They didn't have the Bible yet. Yet they universally believe the Catholic idea of the eucharist. Even the heretics of their day didn't deny it. Why should anyone trust your opinion over the opinion of the first Christians, who pre-date the Bible, and who were taught directly by the Apostles?🙃 I'm going to go with the beliefs of the primary sources sorry.

@wesleysimelane3423

Жыл бұрын

@@josephconnelly5195 What else will you put in the same level as the scriptures, the word of God? Catechism? (T)traditions? Magesterium? You must be joking!

@wesleysimelane3423

Жыл бұрын

@@MasterKeyMagic Catholics routinely say that all the Church Fathers agreed with the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist and transubstantiation. That’s not true. “But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act,” (Athenagoras 133-190 AD, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8). ** “For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble.” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, Letter 98:9). ** “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord,” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24). ** “And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’ - the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’ - the holy stream of gladness.’” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 2:2). ** “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 1:6). ** For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood.” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3). ** “For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body… to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body,” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1). ** “…nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator,” (Tertullian, 155-220 AD, Against Marcion, 1:14)

... do this in remembrance of me. Thank you, Lord Jesus Christ

@bernard9349

Жыл бұрын

Thats why we remember when we eat and drink of his flesh and his blood. Not the symbol of his flesh and blood.

i wish Brant wouldn't use the word 'reformation' in regards to the attack on Holy Church but I guess it's now sadly passed into the lingo, 'deformation' more like.

A very good explanation of how Jesus's sacrifice occurred not only in time and space (i.e. in the created order) but also in eternity (outside of creation) because of his divinity. Thus it eternally affects ALL creation which was made for him. "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. [John 3-4].

Praise be Jesus Christ. May God bless you all.

Excellent explanation of a critical subject, Brant! We'd like to point out that a misunderstanding like that, as Luther made, obviously undermines belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Which ultimately makes the Mass little more than a gathering for prayers and a communal meal where everyone receives their food in the hand. This is unfortunately the unspoken belief of the 70% or so of self-proclaimed Catholics (according to Pew) who believe the Eucharist is merely symbolic. It's what unavoidably happens when non-Catholics are invited in to provide input and advice on a foundational subject with which they're known to disagree.

It's not mentioned in the video or in the notes, but Dr Pitre appears to be commenting on the Second Reading for the Solemnity of the Ascension for Year C.

Thank you

The blessing that derives from participation in the mass actuates from the coming together of the eternal Heavenly Kingdom and this earthly home of ours. In that moment and for sometime afterwards can be felt the power and might, the glory and mercy that a graceful Lord provides for those who worship Him above all things. It can move you to tears and fill you with joy. It can do it all and it will .

Wow! Great!!!

Thanks!

"The teaching of the New Testament is not that there is a perpetual sacrifice, but that there is one sacrifice of perpetual efficacy." AW Tozer

Great video about Holy Qurbana

soooooooooooooooo good ! What a teacher, simply a merciful gift from Christ for our troubled times. I simply can't understand Luthers appalling assessment of the Mass, when he mentions "they" who was he referring to? was it Catholic priest of his time? or catholic priest during the age of the apostolic fathers or was it the Apostles themselves ??? or maybe all of them which clears my understanding as to why many see Luther as a heretic.

Paul VI, from his Ordination rite introduced in 1969 had removed Orations empowering a priest to effect Transubstantiation and to forgive sins. So, this discussion is only of academic interet. Ref: Ordination Old and New side by side.- Internet.

Your are so awesome thank you

Great teaching. Pray some Protestants click on this too. 🙏

@charles3964

2 жыл бұрын

And I pray my Protestant and Catholic brothers and sisters may respectfully listen, dialogue, and help each other learn....in Truth and Love

@mollieboeving7470

2 жыл бұрын

May we all be One as Jesus prayed. May all - Catholics and Protestants - who click in this listen with an open heart to what the Truth is…. Lord, help me listen to You, to what You are saying to me …. Thank you for the gift of You in the mass where you feed my soul from two tables - the Word of God and the Eucharist. Praying for this world that is in darkness. May we be Christ-bearers, Christophers, carrying His Light to others. What you receive, you must bring to others. Be humble. 🙏🙏🙏

@charles3964

2 жыл бұрын

@@mollieboeving7470 amen 🔥🙏🔥 May we all be One

@sylvia54lobo76

2 жыл бұрын

@@mollieboeving7470 lipserving Jesus, our King and God for centuries man founded so-called churches' societies are in horrible condition today religiously, socially, etc. Hohoho. Luther, Calvin, and their ilk must be delighted at the solid foundation they laid for their master lucifer. Wake up so-called educated historians, authors, pastors, preachers, prelates lipserving God. Pity your ilk. What horrible retribution from God on JUDGEMENT day awaits you all!!!!

@timothyfreeman97

2 жыл бұрын

Indeed, keep praying! About four years ago after a lifetime of protestant study and service to my local (c)hurch, clicking on a Brian Pitre video began my curiosity and intrigue to learning more about the Carholic faith. In fact it was the same video that gave me a huge light bulb moment in regards to the authority of the Petrine office.

I went to a parish recently here in Melbourne that FORBADE Catholics from receiving the Eucharist on the tongue. What should be done about this?

@khoalam888

2 жыл бұрын

Go to a different parish if you really wish to receive on the tongue. Find one with altar rails too. There are N.O. parishes that still use these.

@revelation1215

Жыл бұрын

@po18guy No they were bishops. They had consecrated hands. It is a profanity to receive in the hand.

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do(ποιεῖτε) in remembrance(ἀνάμνησις) of me." (Luke 22:19) ποιεῖτε means 'to offer' It's the same word used in the book of Leviticus in the Geek suptuagent to offer up a sacrifice. If He simply ment to just do it he would have used a word like ποιέω. ἀνάμνησις thats translated 'rememberence' means not just to remember, but 'to make present again' So, the one sacrifice (Hebrews 10:10) has always been represented at the Holy Mass.

Did Luther not know that the apostles broke bread and celebrated the Mass immediately after the ascension?

@artcarlson3581

Жыл бұрын

It does not say MASS anywhere. Mass is an invention and perversion

It’s the arrogance mixed with ignorance among prots (that of course started with the mentally unstable monk they follow) that always makes me chuckle.

Can someone explain to me why do we still need the non-blood sacrafice as a part of one and only sacrafice?

@MasterKeyMagic

Жыл бұрын

because Jesus commanded it

@geoffjs

3 ай бұрын

The CC has obeyed Jesus’ command in Jn 6 51-58 for 2000 yrs because He commanded us to do so & because the literal Real Presence gives us eternal life Jn 6 51 Jn 6:66 refers to people who walked away from Jesus. Numbers are important & with God, there are no coincidences

@siew3970

3 ай бұрын

If only one would take Jesus’s words as He said it, there would not be all this confusion. Instead the unbelievers who usually insist on literalist reading claim in this instance that Our Lord did not mean what He said or meant something other than what He said.

The problem that protestants have is the same as Mormonism based on the following 3 arguments. (1) Mormons (Latter-Day Saints, or LDS) believe that after the death of the last Apostle, there was a “Great Apostasy.” Priesthood authority ceased, doctrine began to degenerate, and the true Gospel was lost (necessitating its “restoration” by Joseph Smith in the 19th century). (2) The vast majority of protestants reject multiple doctrines that were believed unanimously by ancient Christians, beginning with the very first Church Fathers who were discipled by the Apostles themselves. Specifically, these protestants reject three key doctrines: a. Baptismal regeneration (how we become Christians); b. Apostolic succession (how the Church is governed); and c. The sacrifice of the Eucharist (how Christians worship). (3) Therefore, whether they realize it or not, most protestants believe in a “Great Apostasy” theory of history that is virtually identical with that of the LDS. If all Christians of which we have any record-including the disciples of the Apostles-were unanimously wrong about how we become Christians, how the Church is governed, and how we worship as Christians (the “Three Doctrines”), there is no more fitting description of this massive falling away than a “Great Apostasy.” This necessarily means that creatures (the protestant “reformers,” or the LDS’s “prophet” Joseph Smith) outperformed the Creator, since their “gospels” and “churches” have now in one form or another lasted for centuries, whereas when Jesus originally established them, they fell apart immediately. In the writings of the Church Fathers every time they spoke about heresy and heretics, they were describing Protestantism. Protestantism is all over the place on the different positions. You can’t speak about the Protestant position on something, except perhaps in the form of a negative, like they’re contrary to the Catholic Church, they’re contrary to the Roman Pontiff. But the methods, the means, by which Protestants arrive at their theological conclusions were common in virtually all the heresies and the heretics that the Fathers talk about. (By Joshua Charles)

Why don't modern Catholic teachers quote anything prior to Vatican II? Most of Francis' citations are to himself. Secondarily to source post Vatican II. Is there a wall or barrier that bars priests, laity, hierarchs for looking before V2?

I'm really into this subject, as I believe Catholics are right in saying there is sacrifice language at the Last Supper, in Luke 22:19. But still, what you say, that Jesus ascended to Heaven in order, not to re-sacrifice himself, I get it, but in order to re-present himself, (that is to offer himself, right?), to the Father. Well, is Luther not right here? Because he's Hebrews 9:25 "Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own."

@Tamous214

Жыл бұрын

I am also in a smaller boat. Nothing to add other than you are not alone.

@tpoy1274

Жыл бұрын

This passage refers specifically to his suffering (immolation). Notice the immediately following verse 25. “… for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world.” (9:25) Christ does not suffer in the Eucharistic sacrifice any more than he suffers in Heaven. And yet, the author of Hebrews tells us that he appears in Heaven before God on our behalf specifically as a priest. In fact, in sharp contrast to the Levitical priests he “entered once for all into the Holy Place…” (9:12). Hebrews makes much of the evident inferiority of the Levitical priesthood to Christ’s in that it required continual maintenance: 1) New sacrifices (newly immolated animals) 2) New priests to replace the old ones In contrast, Christ “resembling Melchizedek” has “become a priest… through the power of an indestructible life.” (7:15-17) The foundation for his heavenly priesthood is the resurrection on account of which he does not lose his priesthood. “Furthermore, the former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” (7:23-25) He is a priest in Heaven “after the order of Melchizedek” (5:6) who “ever lives to make intercession.” (7:25) Hebrews portrays the efficacy of Christ’s mediation not as an accomplishment of the past, but as a heavenly, priestly ministry in the true sanctuary. “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, having been designated by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.” (5:8-10) So he possesses an immutable priesthood and a permanently effective sacrifice in himself. Both are perfect and perpetual on account of the resurrection and ascension where he takes those offices into eternity. His immutable, heavenly priesthood is truly propitiatory (otherwise what would be the point of remaining a priest?), as when Hebrews says, “…it was necessary also for this one to have something to offer.” (8:3) The same idea is briefly presented in 1st John. “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” (2:1-2) This means that if Christians sin after initially repenting and receiving baptism, Christ our high priest in heaven is a propitiation.

@danstoian7721

Жыл бұрын

@@tpoy1274 I think you make a good point, since he is a priest forever, he must do something as a priest. And I think we agree that something is that he intercedes for us. But the image Hebrews leaves me, is one in which he enters Heaven, enters the sanctuary once, only, by the means of his blood. And then on the basis of that one sacrifice, he is sited at the right of the father, notice not anymore in the temple, and makes continuous intercessions.

@tpoy1274

Жыл бұрын

@@danstoian7721 Hebrews appears to depict the heavenly Temple as the very presence of God. The language of Hebrews clearly indicates that not only is Jesus a priest in heaven, as one who holds and actualizes that office, but that his heavenly intercession is quite specifically that of a priest, which is to say propitiatory. Hebrews is partly addressing the problem of post-baptismal sin and finds its solution not just in the past, but in the everlasting presence. The language of sitting is symbolical. After all, we’re talking about eternity. How exactly are we supposed to conceptualize that? I think sitting signifies the consummation of the work of Christ as both priest and sacrifice. The priesthood and sacrifice of Calvary are substantially identical to that consummated in heaven. If anything, it’s not the sitting that is outside of the heavenly sanctuary, but it is the immolation on the cross, not coincidentally analogous to the fact that the animals in the old covenant were slaughtered outside the Temple, and only then after was the blood brought into the inner sanctuary. What it does not signify, and clearly cannot because of passages like 7:23-25, is a temporal cessation of those offices as if left behind in the past (perfected in time) wherefrom they produce their effects directly upon the future. This is the “finished work” idea, forgetful of the resurrection and ascension, especially the way these two work together in the soteriology of Hebrews. The actual language of sacred scripture, here and elsewhere, always points to the living Christ, eternally present high priest, who not only accomplished redemption in the past, but substantially just is personally that redemption (as well as holiness and justification) now and forever on account of his glory with the Father wherein our salvation rests.

I am a Catholic and I believe in The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass. But what I don't understand is why Dr. Pitre is calling it a "unbloody" Sacrifice when Jesus' Blood is made present on the Altar.

i think that it should be reiterated that the catholic church also continues the sacrifice of the tamid in the mass as required by YHVH and has never been abolished. and also the sacrifice of bread and wine and the sacrifice of incense.

According to Scripture (Rev. 13:8) Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The Greek verb "to be slain" is in passive perfect tense. Unlike that of English Greek perfect tense indicates the action described by the verb, that is "to be slain", was completed in the past (before foundation of the world) with continuing effect to the present. For comparison the phrase "it is written", referring to Scripture is also in Greek passive perfect tense. Scripture was complete written in the past and remains written ever since. Whenever you buy a new Bible in any language, Scripture is REPRINTED but it is NOT REWRITTEN. Does "from the foundation of the world" refer to book of life as it is written in Rev. 17:8? It refers to both the book of life and the Lamb. We know this from Heb. 9:24-26 that says if Christ did not offer Himself in heavenly sanctuary, then He must do it every year like OT High Priest, NOT from the year He was crucified but from the foundation of the world. Heb. 9:26 says "His being slain from the foundation of the world" appeared (in active perfect tense) once for all in crucifixion. This is the scriptural reason why Catholics believe His Sacrifice can be made present in every Mass. We do not re-sacrifice Christ in every Mass, just like Scripture is NOT rewritten whenever you buy a new Bible. Any sacrifice requires ministry of priests. The Reformers accept only High Priesthood of Christ and universal or general priesthood of all believers. Catholics also accept those two - all baptized Catholics, males and females, are (universal) priests. Universal or general priesthood of NT is prefigured in OT in Exodus 19:6. Catholics believe that ministerial priests are levitical priests of the New Covenant. Jeremiah 33:17-18 prophesied that God will continue kingship in David's line forever and make levitical priests continue offering sacrifice forever. The former was fulfilled in Christ and the latter was fulfilled in ministerial priests of the Catholic Church. After destruction of their Jerusalem Temple in c. 70 AD levitical priests of Judaism can no longer offer any sacrifice. Another prophecy in Isaiah 66:21 says that God will take as priests and levites from all nations or they are no longer have to be Jews.

@Buffenmeyer

2 жыл бұрын

Wow, that’s pretty deep. Could you recommend a book or share a link that elaborates more on this topic? I wonder if the subtle nuances of grammar inform theology in ways the average reader cannot see.

@justfromcatholic

2 жыл бұрын

@@Buffenmeyer Thomas Howard (former Evangelical who became Catholic) wrote a book: "Evangelical is not enough". From his book I came to know about the implication of Rev. 13:8.

@Louis.R

2 жыл бұрын

Read René Girard

@justfromcatholic

2 жыл бұрын

@@Louis.R Who is he?

@Louis.R

2 жыл бұрын

@@justfromcatholic google it.

How can it be sacrificing Jesus over and over? Did not Jesus say to do this in remembrance of him? Did not Jesus say that his flesh and blood would be offered? Did not Jesus say his flesh is the new manna which offers eternal life? Was not the manna eaten everyday? How can anyone who breaks the bread, not think of his Passion and that his body was offered up for us? Are we sacrificing him every time we break this bread because we think of what he did for us? Are we the just break bread and not remember him and what he did? Luther was an idiot.

@wesleysimelane3423

2 жыл бұрын

Eucharist? It is a spiritual presence. Not physical. Do this in remembrance of Me makes it very clear. He did not say this is literally my body and blood. If He is here physically in the bread and wine why does He say He will return in the last days? There would be no need to return if He is still here in the bread and wine. It's as plain as can be. If you truly understand Christ for who He is, it's a no brainier. But you choose to sacrifice Him daily at your mass {Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit." The catechism continues in paragraph 1367:}

@user-fb2jb3gz1d

2 жыл бұрын

@@wesleysimelane3423 1367 catechism states.... The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. "The victim was s one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of the offering is different.". And since in the divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner...this sacrifice is truly propitiatory." The Eucharist and Jesus sacrifice are the same 1 sacrifice. Not 2 separate sacrifices. John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: of any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (Pay attention, this next verse, 52, is direct towards you and those who believe as you do) John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so shall he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is the living bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. (Again pay attention, this next 2 verses, 60 and 61, is you and others who believe as you do) 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except if were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Where did Jesus say it is not literally his body? Because verse 55, Jesus clearly says his flesh is meat indeed and blood is drink indeed. So your issue is not with me or the RCC, your issue is straight up with Jesus, Himself. And you claim why would Jesus need to come if he is here in the bread? That's a great question......but then I say to you......in Matthew 28:20 Jesus says that he is with you always. So if he is here with you always......then why would he need to come back? And in Matthew 18:20, where there are 2 or more gathered in his name, Jesus is there in the midst of them.......so why does he need to come back? Using your logic, you are making contradictions in the Bible. So that should tell you that your logic is wrong. And again, your logic has you having an issue with Jesus, Himself.....not me.

@wesleysimelane3423

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-fb2jb3gz1d Two great examples you used here: Matthew 28:20 Jesus says that he is with you always. And in Matthew 18:20, where there are 2 or more gathered in his name, Jesus is there in the midst of them. He is there in a spiritual sense. He is not there physically. This is how the "eucharist" must be approached. Not true flesh & true blood. Sorry, but that just isn't the case in the way Rome needs it to be. There is no problem with the concept of real presence in the frame of Matthew 18:20. The problem is the idea that there is some sort of change in the material of the bread and wine itself. This is taught nowhere in Scripture. One can say, this father said this and that father said that, but those fathers, like the Roman Church, are fallible. Only the Scriptures are infallible. For Jesus, eating is believing; drinking is believing. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him. Believe what? Believe that his death - the breaking of his body and spilling of his blood - pays in full the penalty for our sin, and that his perfect righteousness is freely given to us in exchange for our unrighteousness. Believing this is how we “eat” Jesus’s flesh and “drink” his blood. This is why he instituted the Lord’s Supper: he did not want us to forget the very core of what we believe.

@user-fb2jb3gz1d

2 жыл бұрын

@@wesleysimelane3423you read only 2 of my 3 scriptures...... Funny how no mention of John 6, especially where I tell you who you are in the scriptures. You don't have to agree with the RCC teaching but you can't say it's not biblical nor that the RCC made it up. That's really the main thing I care about. But I have to recognize that you said it is his presence. I have to tell you that the unleavened bread at the Catholic Mass is still unleavened bread. Jesus does not say he is there, he says that if you eat his flesh, which is the bread, you will have eternal life and that you are in him and he is in you. So that is his presence. Catholics treat this as holy because Jesus said that it is his flesh and blood. Catholics keep his flesh in the tabernacle and in a chapel that is called the adoration chapel. Where one would go to pray at any hour of the day, to be in the presence of Jesus. This is also why a practicing Catholic, will do the sign of the cross when passing a Catholic Church, because it's to honor the presence of Jesus in the tabernacle and adoration chapel. Sorry brother but Jesus does say the bread is His flesh. He does not say it's like or that his flesh is compared to bread. Jesus says it is his flesh. The people could not handle that teaching and eventually walked with Jesus no more. If you can't find yourself to believe this, you are the people who walked with Jesus no more. John 6 tells us this, write it out for you and told you exactly where you are in it. Not christian of you to not acknowledge that.

@sunnyjohnson992

Жыл бұрын

@@user-fb2jb3gz1dThe New Catholic Encyclopedia cautions: “We should not rely too heavily on the literalness of the words ‘This IS my body’ or ‘This IS my blood.’” This authoritative encyclopedia admits that “the wording of Matthew 26:26-28 does not prove that the bread and wine were changed into Jesus’ literal body and blood at the Last Supper.” Jesus obeyed the Mosaic Law fully and knew God forbade man to consume blood. (Deuteronomy 12:23) And the apostles were inspired by Holy Spirit to renew the command against consuming blood, making that law binding upon Christians. (Acts 15:20,29) Would Jesus really institute an observance that would require his followers to violate a sacred decree of Almighty God? Impossible! Clearly, Jesus used the bread and wine as symbols: The unleavened bread represented his sinless body that would be sacrificed. The red wine signifies his blood that would be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:28) And John 6:35,40 clearly indicates that the eating and drinking would be done by exercising faith in Jesus Christ!

So basically it's not us trying to re-sacrifice christ as the incorrect denominations believe, what it is, is a reminder of our Lord and saviour and his sacrifice for us all.. So we can reflect on stuff praise God for how gifted we are in this dictatorial day and age..

That’s correct

The Mass is a re-enactment of the Last Supper…….”Do this in remembrance of Me”. In the Catholic faith, it is believed the bread and wine, in the Consecration, spiritually becomes the body and blood of Jesus. Our Mass is a beautiful experience.

All is good I can see why Catholics participate in the Eucharist as a remembrance of what Jesus did on Calvary but where does transubstantiation come into play ? And at why is it wrong for Protestants to believe comunión is symbolic and we to take the bread and wine (juice) as a remembrance of what Christ did. Are we not also participating in the tradition by believing it to be a tradition held for remembrance?

@geoffjs

3 ай бұрын

The Mass is a sacrifice, then doesn’t that imply that Christ needs to die again? It’s a common mistake to equate sacrifice with death. To understand the sacrifice of the Mass, it is essential that one understand the biblical picture of a sacrifice: It is always a gift; it is not always a killing. This is why Scripture can speak of a sacrifice of praise (Hos. 4:12) and the sacrifice of thanksgiving (Ps. 50:14). Besides offering lambs, the Israelites also made grain offerings, drink offerings, et cetera. One sacrifice was called the wave offering, and this was an unbloody sacrifice where the Jews would wave a gift before God to symbolically give it to him. In Numbers 8:9-15, the whole Hebrew tribe of Levi was presented to God as a wave offering. In a similar way, the Mass is an offering-a sacrifice-where Christ is presented before the Father. Even if you don’t believe Christ dies during the Mass, the Bible still says that he was offered once for all (Heb 9:24-28). Doesn’t re-sacrificing him at Mass mean Calvary wasn’t enough? Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary took place once, and it will never be repeated. To repeat his sacrifice would be to imply that the original offering was defective or insufficient, like the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament that could never take away sins. Jesus’ offering was perfect, efficacious, and eternal. Protestants have no qualms accepting the perfect and efficacious nature of Christ’s sacrifice, but invite them to consider its eternal.aspect. Jesus is eternally a priest, and a priest’s very nature is to offer sacrifice. In the case of Christ, the eternal sacrifice that he offers is himself. This is why he appears in the book of Revelation as a lamb, standing as though he had been slain (Rev. 5:6). He appears in heaven in the state of a victim not because he still needs to suffer but because for all eternity he re-presents himself to God appealing to the work of the cross, interceding for us (Rom 8:34), and bringing the graces of Calvary to us. The Mass is a participation in this one heavenly offering. The risen Christ becomes present on the altar and offers himself to God as a living sacrifice. Like the Mass, Christ words at the Last Supper are words of sacrifice, “This is my body . . . this is my blood . . . given up for you.” So, the Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends: the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake (Heb 7:25, 9:24). After all, if Calvary didn’t get the job done, then the Mass won’t help. It is precisely because the death of Christ was sufficient that the Mass is celebrated. It does not add to or take away from the work of Christ-it is the work of Christ.

I'm no Lutheran, but this sounds like some very tortured theology. Was the one and only sacrifice on the cross on Calvary, or in heaven after the ascension? Was there another sacrifice in heaven, and if so what was it? And which of these is connected to the Eucharist? Are all three the same sacrifice and if so how? And how do either of these make the Eucharist a sacrifice? Where is the sacrificial element in the Mass? Is it in breaking the bread that Jesus' body is broken by the priest? Dr. Pitre did not state this and it seems the easiest way to see this. Whereas Dr. Pitre's talks are always brilliant and illuminating. This is one occasion where he did not succeed in bringing clarity, at least for me.

@charlesudoh6034

2 жыл бұрын

There are two parts to a sacrifice. Making the sacrifice and offering the sacrifice. What Christ did on earth at calvary was “making the sacrifice” through His suffering and death. However, what he did during the ascension was he took the sacrifice (Himself) that was already made to heaven and offered it to the Father on our behalf. So, the first part of making the sacrifice was on earth. That’s one and done. A historical moment in time. The second part of offering the sacrifice to the Father is in heaven, in eternity. That’s perpetual and everlasting. Since its eternal, it is present at every moment in time. Including right now. So the Son isn’t eternally sacrificing Himself, rather, He is eternally offering His sacrificeD self to the Father on our behalf. That’s why He is called the True High Priest, because that’s what a priest does, he offers sacrifice to the God on behalf of others. At mass, what we do is we *participate* with Christ in His Priesthood (that’s why every believer is referred to as a priest) as He offers Himself to the Father. Since the offering is eternal, it is made present through out all of time, including the moment of the mass. In summary, the mass is an earthly and momentarily participation of believers in the heavenly and eternal offering of the Son to the Father. It is not sacrificing Christ again.

@teacup3133

2 жыл бұрын

@@charlesudoh6034 Wow, thank you so much. I think your explanation is very clear. I'm a Catholic and I did not understand this as clearly, probably because I was unfortunate enough to be in the Vatican II church.

@charlesudoh6034

2 жыл бұрын

@@teacup3133 You are very much welcome. Glad I could help. I wasn’t always a Catholic. I converted from being a Protestant. My mind has just been consistently blown by the Mass and the Catholic faith in general. It is intellectually sound and logically coherent. I really do envy those of you that grew up Catholic.

@DanielFernandez-jv7jx

2 жыл бұрын

@@charlesudoh6034 Charles! Thank you for this crystal clear and theologically coherent explanation! You have set my heart at ease around this question. I have some other doubts and questions that were poorly answered during my RCIA experience. Do you know of a good source, somewhere I could find someone to help answer such questions. They are fairly educated questions and not for just anyone. I would love it if Prof. Pitre would do it, but he seems too busy to respond to his channel comments. God Bless, Daniel

@scottforesman7968

9 ай бұрын

eternal offering? Hebrews says He "sat down" @@charlesudoh6034

I have a serious question which is not meant to be offensive or to make fun of the Catholic teaching about the Eucharist: If a qualified scientist would investigate a consecrated waver would he or she still find molecules of wheat, flour or vegetable starch? And if so, would that not falsify transsubstantiation?

@charlesudoh6034

2 жыл бұрын

To answer your question: Yes, the scientist investigating a “host” (consecrated waver) would find physical evidence that it is still a waver. No, that doesn’t falsify transubstantiation. The problem here is that you don’t understand the difference between “form” and “substance” in a philosophical sense. I do appreciate your honest question and nice approach though. We could talk more about this if you want.

@brotherandrew3393

2 жыл бұрын

@@charlesudoh6034 Thank you for your answer. So in order to be Catholic I have to believe in a sort of philosophical mindset which tells me that something is NOT what it really is in the physical reality? Do you have other examples for that kind of philosophy? Maybe from the bible?

@tryingnottobeasmartass757

2 жыл бұрын

@@brotherandrew3393, Physically, Jesus was a human being. Science would detect no deity in His physical form.

@brotherandrew3393

2 жыл бұрын

@@tryingnottobeasmartass757 I try to carefully frame my questions. Your example does not help. The difference is this: You are talking about the divine in a human being. That is not what I am talking about. I was talking about the problem that despite physical evidence Catholic teaching of the Eucharist denies that bread and wine after consecration are still bread and wine. This would be the same as denying that Jesus Christ was and still is a true man. As if he only "appears" to be human. Now this is NOT taught by the Catholic Church and rightly so. Why then can´t they teach consubstantiation? Again: This is an open question which I would like to receive a good answer.

@tryingnottobeasmartass757

2 жыл бұрын

@@brotherandrew3393, the Catholic Church teaches that the physical properties of bread and wine remain. I am Eastern Orthodox. We don't try to explain the Mysteries, but we also agree that the Eucharistic elements become the very same flesh and blood that died on Calvary. This is the Apostolic Faith. We can teach nothing else than what was handed on to us from Jesus and the Apostles.

How did Martin Luther get it so wrong??? Is there a little bit of Martin Luther in all of us when we refuse to hear the truth and get too fixated and rigid in our thinking? I can imagine that maybe God made Martin Luther (when he went to purgatory) say the same mass over and over again!

So some delucidations, the Sacrifice of Jesus was his crucifixion or his ascension? I remember in another one of your videos you talked about how the jews basically crucified the sacrificial lambs to manage them in the context of the sacrifice, so can we intend the crucifixion as the beginning of the sacrificial act that culminated in the ascension, or is that way off the mark?

@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039

2 жыл бұрын

Like the sacrifice of lambs, Jesus' death on the Cross was his sacrifice for all mankind, so yes.

Luther was a priest. How could he get it so wrong? Wasn’t he a theologian?

@Louis.R

2 жыл бұрын

Priests get it wrong all the time. Theologians are just as vulnerable to error. Just look around, or see the founders of every heresy, great and small.

@myfakinusername

2 жыл бұрын

So was Judas...

@zacharynelson5731

2 жыл бұрын

Almost every heresy in history began with either a priest or a bishop starting it.

@paulmiller3469

2 жыл бұрын

'Wasn’t he a theologian?' My guess is thought he was, though his initial protests were over non-theological questions (e.g., charging for indulgences). And my understanding is he was right about some of that. Had he stopped there, he may be viewed with the same admiration that St. Francis of Assisi is today.

@khoalam888

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulmiller3469 we could have had St. M L. The guy obviously loved God. Too bad he took the reforming too far to schism

What is the point to make the sacrifice, why would you need an altar at all...

@davidcole333

10 ай бұрын

John 6:53

@geoffjs

3 ай бұрын

If the Mass is a sacrifice, then doesn’t that imply that Christ needs to die again? It’s a common mistake to equate sacrifice with death. To understand the sacrifice of the Mass, it is essential that one understand the biblical picture of a sacrifice: It is always a gift; it is not always a killing. This is why Scripture can speak of a sacrifice of praise (Hos. 4:12) and the sacrifice of thanksgiving (Ps. 50:14). Besides offering lambs, the Israelites also made grain offerings, drink offerings, et cetera. One sacrifice was called the wave offering, and this was an unbloody sacrifice where the Jews would wave a gift before God to symbolically give it to him. In Numbers 8:9-15, the whole Hebrew tribe of Levi was presented to God as a wave offering. In a similar way, the Mass is an offering-a sacrifice-where Christ is presented before the Father. 3. Even if you don’t believe Christ dies during the Mass, the Bible still says that he was offered once for all (Heb 9:24-28). Doesn’t re-sacrificing him at Mass mean Calvary wasn’t enough? Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary took place once, and it will never be repeated. To repeat his sacrifice would be to imply that the original offering was defective or insufficient, like the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament that could never take away sins. Jesus’ offering was perfect, efficacious, and eternal. Protestants have no qualms accepting the perfect and efficacious nature of Christ’s sacrifice, but invite them to consider its eternal.aspect. Jesus is eternally a priest, and a priest’s very nature is to offer sacrifice. In the case of Christ, the eternal sacrifice that he offers is himself. This is why he appears in the book of Revelation as a lamb, standing as though he had been slain (Rev. 5:6). He appears in heaven in the state of a victim not because he still needs to suffer but because for all eternity he re-presents himself to God appealing to the work of the cross, interceding for us (Rom 8:34), and bringing the graces of Calvary to us. The Mass is a participation in this one heavenly offering. The risen Christ becomes present on the altar and offers himself to God as a living sacrifice. Like the Mass, Christ words at the Last Supper are words of sacrifice, “This is my body . . . this is my blood . . . given up for you.” So, the Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends: the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake (Heb 7:25, 9:24). After all, if Calvary didn’t get the job done, then the Mass won’t help. It is precisely because the death of Christ was sufficient that the Mass is celebrated. It does not add to or take away from the work of Christ-it is the work of Christ.

If only one would take Jesus’s words as He said it, there would not be all this confusion. Instead those who usually insist on literalist reading claim in this instance that Our Lord did not mean what He said or meant something other than what He said. “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Thanks Dr. Brant, I suppose that many Anglicans are considering if they should leave the now very liberal Anglican Church and become Catholic. Teaching ordinary Catholics this core part of the Mass will help them to explain the Mass properly to those Protestants.

If Hebrews 10 permits an endless re-presentation of the sacrifice on Calvary - if indeed my sins are uncovered and remembered against me until it is applied - well, then how how is my situation now 'better' under this New Covenant? We still have an annual reminder of sins. Christ still appears on the altar time after time after time: not sitting at the right hand of God (Hebrews 10.12), but recalled from heaven again and again and again. We are not(under this New Covenant) perfected forever, nor have we been made holy, because each time we sin it is held against us again and again and again. This New Covenant then is just more of the same. The 'New' as the 'Old'. We, having to return time after time after time, (because we have not been made holy, not 'perfect forever') to avoid God's wrath and damnation. Isn't the point of Hebrews 9/10 that we, by Christ's one sacrifice on Calvary, have been made holy by that offering once for all? As John Stott wrote in his book, 'The Cross of Christ', “Although his work of atonement has been accomplished, he still has a continuing heavenly ministry, however. This not to 'offer' his sacrifice to God, since the offering was made once for all on the cross; nor to 'present' it to the Father, pleading that it may be accepted, since it's acceptance was publicly demonstrated by the resurrection; but rather to 'intercede' for sinners on the basis of it, as our advocate. It is in this that his 'permanent priesthood' consists, for intercession was as much a priestly ministry as sacrifice: 'he always lives to intercede for us.'” “The high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Hebrews 9.25-6

WHAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT BEING A HINDU? By Francois Gautier. Diversity in Divinity and Unity in Spirituality. 1) Believe in God ! - Aastik - Accepted 2) Don't believe in God ! - You're accepted as Nastik 3) You want to worship idols - please go ahead. You are a murti pujak. 4) You dont want to worship idols - no problem. You can focus on Nirguna Brahman. 5) You want to criticise something in our religion. Come forward. We are logical. Nyaya, Tarka etc. are core Hindu schools. 6) You want to accept beliefs as it is. Most welcome. Please go ahead with it. 7) You want to start your journey by reading Bhagvad Gita - Sure ! 8) You want to start your journey by reading Upanishads - Go ahead. 9) You want to start your journey by reading Purana - Be my guest. 10) You just don't like reading Puranas or other books. No problem my dear. Go by Bhakti tradition . ( bhakti- devotion) 11) You don't like idea of Bhakti ! No problem. Do your Karma. Be a karmayogi. 12) You want to enjoy life. Very good. No problem at all. This is Charvaka Philosophy. 13) You want to abstain from all the enjoyment of life & find God - jai ho ! Be a Sadhu, an ascetic ! 14) You don't like the concept of God. You believe in Nature only - Welcome. (Trees are our friends and Prakriti or nature is worthy of worship). 15) You believe in one God or Supreme Energy. Superb! Follow Advaita philosophy 16) You want a Guru. Go ahead. Receive gyaan. 17) You don't want a Guru.. Help yourself ! Meditate, Study ! 18) You believe in Female energy ! Shakti is worshipped. 19) You believe that every human being is equal. Yeah! You're awesome, come on let's celebrate Hinduism! "Vasudhaiva kutumbakam" (the world is a family) 20) You don't have time to celebrate the festival. Don't worry. One more festival is coming! There are multiple festivals every single day of the year. 21) You are a working person. Don't have time for religion. Its okay. You will still be a Hindu. 22) You like to go to temples. Devotion is loved. 23) You don't like to go to temples - no problem. You are still a Hindu! 24) You know that Hinduism ☺ is a way of life, with considerable freedom. 25) You believe that everything has God in it. So you worship your mother, father, guru, tree, River, Prani-matra, Earth, Universe! 26) And If you don't believe that everything has GOD in it - No problems. Respect your viewpoint. 27) "Sarve jana sukhino bhavantu " (May you all live happily) You represent this! You're free to choose, my dear Hindu! This is exactly the essence of Hinduism, all inclusive .. That is why it has withstood the test of time inspite of repeated onslaught both from within and outside, and assimilated every good aspects from everything . That is why it is eternal !!! There is a saying in Rigveda , the first book ever known to mankind which depicts the Hinduism philosophy in a Nutshell -" Ano bhadrah Krathavo Yanthu Vishwathah"- Let the knowledge come to us from every direction "

@bandie9101

2 жыл бұрын

i learned Hindu is a grocery store.

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (St Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]). “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (St Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

As a convert... This still makes no sense... Biblically. Where can I go to get a better understanding

@scottforesman7968

9 ай бұрын

you are not alone. I was an Episcopal priest for 30 years. Converted to the RCC 10 years ago. STILL do not understand the RC explanation. Frankly, the Lutheran explanation (See Jordan Cooper) makes more sense. This really stresses me out.

@geoffjs

3 ай бұрын

Pray & meditate on Jn 6 51-66, 1 Cor 10 16-17 & 1 Cor 11 23-27. Believe & you will understand, not vice versa, it is a test of faith

If the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ, how can it be said that the Eucharist is an "unbloody sacrifice"?

@geoffjs

3 ай бұрын

Believe & you will understand, but no vice versa. What do doubt Jesus’ words?If the Mass is a sacrifice, then doesn’t that imply that Christ needs to die again? It’s a common mistake to equate sacrifice with death. To understand the sacrifice of the Mass, it is essential that one understand the biblical picture of a sacrifice: It is always a gift; it is not always a killing. This is why Scripture can speak of a sacrifice of praise (Hos. 4:12) and the sacrifice of thanksgiving (Ps. 50:14). Besides offering lambs, the Israelites also made grain offerings, drink offerings, et cetera. One sacrifice was called the wave offering, and this was an unbloody sacrifice where the Jews would wave a gift before God to symbolically give it to him. In Numbers 8:9-15, the whole Hebrew tribe of Levi was presented to God as a wave offering. In a similar way, the Mass is an offering-a sacrifice-where Christ is presented before the Father. Even if you don’t believe Christ dies during the Mass, the Bible still says that he was offered once for all (Heb 9:24-28). Doesn’t re-sacrificing him at Mass mean Calvary wasn’t enough? Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary took place once, and it will never be repeated. To repeat his sacrifice would be to imply that the original offering was defective or insufficient, like the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament that could never take away sins. Jesus’ offering was perfect, efficacious, and eternal. Protestants have no qualms accepting the perfect and efficacious nature of Christ’s sacrifice, but invite them to consider its eternal.aspect. Jesus is eternally a priest, and a priest’s very nature is to offer sacrifice. In the case of Christ, the eternal sacrifice that he offers is himself. This is why he appears in the book of Revelation as a lamb, standing as though he had been slain (Rev. 5:6). He appears in heaven in the state of a victim not because he still needs to suffer but because for all eternity he re-presents himself to God appealing to the work of the cross, interceding for us (Rom 8:34), and bringing the graces of Calvary to us. The Mass is a participation in this one heavenly offering. The risen Christ becomes present on the altar and offers himself to God as a living sacrifice. Like the Mass, Christ words at the Last Supper are words of sacrifice, “This is my body . . . this is my blood . . . given up for you.” So, the Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends: the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake (Heb 7:25, 9:24). After all, if Calvary didn’t get the job done, then the Mass won’t help. It is precisely because the death of Christ was sufficient that the Mass is celebrated. It does not add to or take away from the work of Christ-it is the work of Christ. E

Not anymore.

@thedudeabides3930

Жыл бұрын

@po18guy Not in the Novus Ordo.

I love the biblical gymnastics in explaining the unbloody sacrifice of the mass.

@LibertysetsquareJack

Жыл бұрын

Reminding everyone that Christ 1) ascended into Heaven and 2) is high priest im the order of Melchizedek is "Biblical gymnastics"? /facepalm Give me a break.

@davidcole333

10 ай бұрын

You want biblical gymnastics? Go to any Catholic content page. Scroll to the comments. Look for scores of protestants with their proof texts, pulling scripture after scripture out of context that supposedly undo the Catholic church.

Transubstantion is a aristolean metaphysics of accidents and substances.. the priests have the power to transform . Luther was correct.

@frederickanderson1860

Жыл бұрын

@po18guy Judas was lost so why did jesus make him a disciple.then

@geoffjs

3 ай бұрын

@@frederickanderson1860haven’t you heard of free will?

@frederickanderson1860

3 ай бұрын

@@geoffjs in genesis God prewarned Adam not to take the fruit of the tree of free will.

That’s interesting to me because when I was a protesting (church of the nazarene) I was taught that every time we sin we sacrifice Jesus on the cross. Every time over and over etc.

@jd3jefferson556

2 жыл бұрын

Our sins are paid for by the wounds Christ. Every time we greatly sin it is like nailing Him to the wood over and over.

Sadly we still see the spirit of Luther so present in the Church, emphasis on "celebration" and ignoring what is central: sacrifice. Great video.

@eugenebastian8351

2 жыл бұрын

Even the word Eucharist is a misnomer. The correct word should be Qurbana ( Aramaic for Sacrifice ).

🤯

How about taking, what you refer to as the Eucharist, unworthily but the Pope and Priests ignore it. We have people of power in this country, professing Catholicism, while committing mortal sin in public but the Pope allows it even though the sins continue on. The Pope or Priests forgive that but God doesn't. 1 Cor 11: 27 King James Bible Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. I can post examples if you'd like.

@itsspiritual8645

Жыл бұрын

One particularly well-known Catholic method of exploitation in the Middle Ages was the practice of selling indulgences, a monetary payment of penalty which, supposedly, absolved one of past sins and/or released one from purgatory after death.

@geoffjs

3 ай бұрын

We will always have sinful people but that doesn’t negate the need to obey Jesus’ command Jn 6 51-58

If the Mass is unbloody , does the wine not change into Blood of Jesus ?

@kharismabaptiswan1754

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe unbloody means without pain and suffering.

The RC church's position on this is hollow sophistry. If Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is sufficient and entire, why is a further "propitiatory" sacrifice even needed or called for? Christ's words at The Last Supper call for a remembrance ("do this in memory of me") and not an offering or sacrifice. Luther's consubstantiation theology is an unwarranted literalism applied to Christ's words "this my body" and "this is my blood". Priestcraft in other words.

What does it mean that the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice since the Church teaches that the Host is the true blood of Christ?

@davidcarey7396

2 жыл бұрын

My understanding is that the term "unbloody" is to highlight how it is one and the same sacrifice in a different form. On calvary Christ sacrificed Himself in a bloody form because His accidents and substance was Christ. In the sacrifice of the mass the bread and wine have there substance changed to be substantially Christ (transubstantiation). But the accidents is still bread and wine (it still looks and tastes like bread and wine). So even though the bread and wine are substantially Christ. It's an "unbloody" form because the accidents of blood is not present. I hope that was helpful.

@davidcarey7396

2 жыл бұрын

@@DroknarsForge4198 Thanks for the reply! Here’s the CCC: “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory." So, Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary and the sacrifice of the mass is one and the same in different FORMS. One has the accidents and substance of Christ’s body and blood (bloody), and the other has the accidents of bread and wine while the substance is Christ’s body and blood (unbloody). One form has the accidents of blood, and one doesn’t, however they both have the substance of Christ’s real body and blood. So again, same sacrifice, different forms. The use of the term unbloody is to highlight the fact that although we do not behold the Lord’s bloody body as it was seen on Calvary, the sacrifice of the mass is still the same. I disagree with you on the second point, even if every mass changed the bread and wine into Christ both accidents and substance people would probably still deny the sacrifice of the mass. I won’t speak if Luther would have, but there were multiple Eucharistic Miracles before his time.

@davidcarey7396

2 жыл бұрын

@@DroknarsForge4198 Oh I think I see our miscommunication. The Catechism doesn't use unbloody to highlight that the sacrifice is the same. It's saying that the sacrifice is the same. It uses 2 adjectives (bloody and unbloody) to highlight that they're in different forms. An example would be liquid h2o (water) and solid h2o (ice). Both are h2o, but they're in different forms. "The h2o (sacrifice) that was in a solid form (bloody), is now the same h2o (sacrifice) in liquid form (unbloody)" The h2o is the same for both, I'm not using the adjectives to defend that position. I'm just saying it. What the adjectives are used for is to describe its form. Remember that this section of the Catechism is taken from the Council of Trent. It was in response to Luther making the claim that the mass was not the same sacrifice at Calvary. The Church responds and clarifies what the sacrifice of the mass is. "Luther thinks we re-sacrifice Christ over and over again? No, its one and the same sacrifice just in a different form." -The Church My post to the original commenter was to share my hypothesis on why the Church used THOSE adjectives to describe the different forms. How could the Church use the adjective unbloody when we believe that Christ is fully present in the Eucharist? My thought is they used it because of the different accidents. What adjective do you think would fit better? I can't think of any. Thinking about it more if Christ did appear at every mass in accidents and substance, I think people would more likely believe its a sacrifice, but they might not believe it to be the same sacrifice as Calvary. Additionally, I think the charge of cannibalism would definitely come back. And yeah thats probably true about the Eucharistic miracles, if Luther didn't experience one then he could just wave it away.

@charlesudoh6034

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidcarey7396 Beautifully and intelligently said. I loved the example of “h2o” you gave. Really nice 👍🏽

19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, Hebrews 10:19-21 These word also supports that Mass is the new liturgical way through which we can enter into God’s sanctuary.

@wesleysimelane3423

2 жыл бұрын

Lol, no they don't!

@05344

2 жыл бұрын

@@wesleysimelane3423 what is then Mr.Wesley “the new and a living way - through his flesh (Eucharist) which the liturgical form of worshipping the Lord in spirit and truth” Crystal clear …..

@wesleysimelane3423

2 жыл бұрын

@martin varghese here is the mass as explained by catholics. A direct insult God and the hosts of heaven: “When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, BRINGS CHRIST DOWN FROM HIS THRONE, and PLACES Him upon our altar to be OFFERED UP AGAIN as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and ANGELS, GREATER THAN THAT OF SERAPHIM AND CHERUBIM. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, THE PRIEST BRINGS CHRIST DOWN FROM HEAVEN, and renders Him present on our altar as the ETERNAL Victim for the sins of man-not once but a THOUSAND TIMES! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, BOWS HIS HEAD, in humble OBEDIENCE to the PRIEST'S COMMAND. ("Faith of Millions", John O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., 268-269, "nihil obstat" by Rev. T. E. Dillon-Censor Librorum and "imprimatur" by John Francis Noll, D.D. -Bishop of Fort Wayne.) Utter Blasphemy!

@05344

2 жыл бұрын

@@wesleysimelane3423 I remember the verses Jesus told to Sadducees : “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.” Matthew 22:29 Please focus on power of God - this is Holy Spirit. Jesus is working through the Holy Spirit in Alters all around the the world. What Jesus told “Do this” during the Passover ceremony not “read this” but a Verb. It is the New covenant in his Blood. Read 1 Corinthians 10:16 - “is it not the participation in the Blood of Christ? “ Read: 1 Corinthians 11:26- “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” - you Proclaim- Now Read this Colossians 1:22 “he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him,.” Note this - Present you Holy I can give you hundreds of quotes to support the real presence of Christ in EUCHARIST.

@wesleysimelane3423

2 жыл бұрын

@@05344 I see you chose to ignore how your fellow catholics define true mass. An abomination to the Lord! Hebrews 7 v 26-28 “For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily like those high priests to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. Because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath which came after the Law appoints a Son made perfect forever.” The operative word is “once.” One sacrifice. There is no need for daily offering of sacrifices. Any sacrifices being made today are unbiblical and unable to accomplish anything. Any priests today are false claimants to a special priesthood, a special order of priests, since now we are all priests. We are a royal priesthood, all believers. We need no mediator; we all have immediate access to God. We need to make no sacrifices because there is no temple, there are no altars, there are no sacrifices, and we are not in need of any priests. Regarding the mass and rules set out at the rcc canons, I mean, they’ve damned you in every possible way. There is no way out. Roman Catholic theology teaches that a person can attend a thousand Masses, and still leave this life not fully purified, and go into Purgatory and have another thousand Masses read in their behalf, and still not be fully purified, because their attitude isn’t pure, and the attitude of the priest isn’t pure either. What a horrible trap. Absolutely horrible trap. Mystical mumbo-jumbo right out of the pit to take captive the souls of people.

The Mass is a ritual in which God sacrifices Himself to Himself so He can forgive humanity for disobeying Him.

If the Mass isn't a sacrifice then Jesus isn't Jewish and the pope isn't Catholic. And Abraham never brought Isaac to the sacrificial alter not did the Passover ever happen.

Can’t people just have faith , keep tradition and go to church and believe

@wesleysimelane3423

2 жыл бұрын

(T)traditions and many teachings of the "church" do not go hand in hand with sola scriptura. so it's dead faith!

Christ Himself taught the true Catholic mass in His last supper! End of story!

If today’s sacrifice is bloodless, then Catholicism doesn’t believe the transubstantiation doctrine. If that is Christ’s real blood with the Eucharist, then it’s a bloody sacrifice. Can’t have it both ways.

@geoffjs

3 ай бұрын

The Mass is called an unbloody sacrifice to clarify the fact that we do not behold the Lord’s bloody body as it was seen on Calvary. Instead his body and blood are under the appearances of bread and wine. But it is the same sacrifice. This distinction became necessary as the result of the denial of the Mass being a sacrifice by various Protestant groups. Transubstantiation is the how & the literal Real Presence is the result.

@siew3970

3 ай бұрын

The Eucharist is the Resurrected Body of Christ. That is the official Catholic teaching. He continues to give us His Body and Blood. There is no fresh bloody sacrifice but One eternal and infinite sacrifice. God is beyond our limited concepts of space and time.

Most Christians fail to see this: Jesus was a Jew, so He practised Judaism not Christianity! What Jesus did was a Pesach Seder. 'Eucharist' is the greek word for 'give thank' not sacrifice.

Also, that Jesus died for man’s sins then AND man continuously sins up to now, He continuously sacrifices Himself through the mass….because we need it.

Luther “focused on Calvary & forgot about the Ascension” 🤯

Absolutely not. It's "just another" Roman Catholic Traditional ceremony.

@geoffjs

3 ай бұрын

If the Mass is a sacrifice, then doesn’t that imply that Christ needs to die again? It’s a common mistake to equate sacrifice with death. To understand the sacrifice of the Mass, it is essential that one understand the biblical picture of a sacrifice: It is always a gift; it is not always a killing. This is why Scripture can speak of a sacrifice of praise (Hos. 4:12) and the sacrifice of thanksgiving (Ps. 50:14). Besides offering lambs, the Israelites also made grain offerings, drink offerings, et cetera. One sacrifice was called the wave offering, and this was an unbloody sacrifice where the Jews would wave a gift before God to symbolically give it to him. In Numbers 8:9-15, the whole Hebrew tribe of Levi was presented to God as a wave offering. In a similar way, the Mass is an offering-a sacrifice-where Christ is presented before the Father. 3. Even if you don’t believe Christ dies during the Mass, the Bible still says that he was offered once for all (Heb 9:24-28). Doesn’t re-sacrificing him at Mass mean Calvary wasn’t enough? Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary took place once, and it will never be repeated. To repeat his sacrifice would be to imply that the original offering was defective or insufficient, like the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament that could never take away sins. Jesus’ offering was perfect, efficacious, and eternal. Protestants have no qualms accepting the perfect and efficacious nature of Christ’s sacrifice, but invite them to consider its eternal.aspect. Jesus is eternally a priest, and a priest’s very nature is to offer sacrifice. In the case of Christ, the eternal sacrifice that he offers is himself. This is why he appears in the book of Revelation as a lamb, standing as though he had been slain (Rev. 5:6). He appears in heaven in the state of a victim not because he still needs to suffer but because for all eternity he re-presents himself to God appealing to the work of the cross, interceding for us (Rom 8:34), and bringing the graces of Calvary to us. The Mass is a participation in this one heavenly offering. The risen Christ becomes present on the altar and offers himself to God as a living sacrifice. Like the Mass, Christ words at the Last Supper are words of sacrifice, “This is my body . . . this is my blood . . . given up for you.” So, the Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends: the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake (Heb 7:25, 9:24). After all, if Calvary didn’t get the job done, then the Mass won’t help. It is precisely because the death of Christ was sufficient that the Mass is celebrated. It does not add to or take away from the work of Christ-it is the work of Christ.

"Once " the most difficult word to understand in Catholicism

Another way to think about it is this: What is Jesus doing right now? He is in the Heavenly sanctuary, interceding for us (Hebrews). Secondly, He also has the scars of His crucifixion still on His glorified Body (Luke, John). This means that while Christ is interceding for us right now, the unbloody scars of His one Sacrifice are also being made present before the Father. We know that Christ is using His scars to appease the Father's anger because Christ is standing as though slain (Revelation). At Mass, when the priest says the words of consecration, we are joined to Christ's Body which is in the act of interceding for us with those unbloody scars of His one Sacrifice. Christ's Sacrifice atones for sins past, present and future. The Mass is how that is carried out through time. It is like a doctor formulating a cure with equations and test tubes in a lab, then distributing that cure in pills. The doctor doesn't need to go through the process of formulating the cure every time it's needed. "the wounds received for us, He preferred to take them to heaven, He did not want to erase them, to show God the Father the price of our liberation. It is in this state that the Father places him on his right, welcoming the trophies of our salvation; such are the witnesses that the crown of his wounds has produced for us." - St. Ambrose

Jesus said: "Do this in rememberabnce of ME". WHat Jesus DIDN'T SAY was "Make this ceremony into a fake "Sacrifice" with SACRAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE. SInce the ROman Catholic CHurch has always been corrupted by PAGAN CUSTOMS< and maeningless traditions, the Eucharist is just another one of them. The Protestant "Communion" is a MUCH MORE REALISTIC, and true to Scripture custom. One church we attended had people exchange cups with others and speak a blessing to them, which is MUCH MORE accurate to what Jesus did that evening.

How do you labor for the food that endures to eternal life? BELIEVE in me! (John 6:27, 29) “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me [in faith] shall not hunger, and whoever BELIEVES in me shall never thirst.” (John 6:35) “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and BELIEVES in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40) “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever BELIEVES has eternal life.” (John 6:47) EATING IS BELIEVING For Jesus, eating is believing; drinking is believing. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him. Believe what? Believe that his death - the breaking of his body and spilling of his blood - pays in full the penalty for our sin, and that his perfect righteousness is freely given to us in exchange for our unrighteousness. Believing this is how we “eat” Jesus’s flesh and “drink” his blood. This is why he instituted the Lord’s Supper: he did not want us to forget the very core of what we believe. This contrast between physical food and spiritual food sets the stage for Jesus’ statement that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jesus explains that it is not physical bread that the world needs, but spiritual bread. Jesus three times identifies Himself as that spiritual bread (John 6:35, 48, 51). And twice He emphasizes faith (a spiritual action) as the key to salvation: “My Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life” (verse 40); and “Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life” (verse 47).

Sounds like chicken hoopla to me.

The point of Hebrews 9 and 10 is the finality of Christ’s once for all sacrifice. Hebrews 10:12 - “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.” I encourage you to read those chapters yourself. The point of them is that the nature of Christ’s sacrifice is such that it does not need to be continually re-offered by priests. Christ sat down at the right hand of God. The work is finished and accomplished. The sacrifice of Christ brings real, full, and final reconciliation with God for all those who believe. Those for whom Christ died have genuine peace with God all because of what Christ has accomplished and applied to them. To think Christ’s sacrifice needs to be re-offered in the mass and that in each instance of its re-offering sins are forgiven that were not otherwise militates against the nature of Christ’s sacrifice described in these chapters. Trust in Christ and his work alone. Allow what he alone has done to bring you true peace.

@user-fb2jb3gz1d

2 жыл бұрын

You're not paying attention Watch the whole video

@aquila2152

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-fb2jb3gz1d I have. In Catholic theology, is not the mass a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice that it is necessary to continually perform for the forgiveness of sins?

@jasonderosa1137

2 жыл бұрын

@@aquila2152 our Lord commanded, as recorded in the Gospel of St. Luke (22:14ff) and St. Paul First Letter to the I Corinthians (11:23ff), "Do this in remembrance of me." Clearly, our Lord wanted the faithful to repeat, to participate in, and to share in this sacramental mystery. The Last Supper event which is inseparably linked to Good Friday (and the resurrection) is perpetuated in the Holy Mass for time eternal. Additionally, one must broaden our understanding of time. One must distinguish chronological time from kairotic time as found in Sacred Scripture. In the Bible, chronos refers to chronological time-- past, present, and future-- specific deeds which have an end point. Kairos or kairotic time refers to God's eternal time, time of the present moment which recapitulates the entire past as well as contains the entire future. Therefore, while our Lord's saving event occurred chronologically about the year 33 AD, in the kairotic sense of time it is an everpresent reality which touches our lives here and now. The actual sacrifice of Christ on the cross and the sacrifice of the Mass are inseparably united as one single sacrifice

@myfakinusername

2 жыл бұрын

@@jasonderosa1137 Damn man, good explanation

@zacharynelson5731

2 жыл бұрын

@@aquila2152 Is Christs sacrifice something that needs to be continually represented for the forgiveness of sins? Yeah it’s almost as if people keep sinning and need a way to be reconciled with God. At no point anywhere in scripture did Jesus say that we should stop worshipping God after his death. Nor did he say that having faith in him gives you license to go and sin as much as you want to.

But Christ died at Calvary 2000 years ago. This is essentially applied in our Baptism. He said it was finished. He died once for all. That happened in spacetime. There is no "re-sacrifice." This is convolution of what is supposed to be a simple gift we receive as a Means of Grace. Luther was right. Read Chemnitz' response to Trent on this topic. Christ was once slain for all, so whenever forgiveness of sins is granted, we receive the Sacrament of His Body, that through His Blood there may be remission of sins. This issue here actually has far, far more to do with the differences between Rome and Wittenberg regarding the Doctrine of Justification. That's the heart of everything.

@justfromcatholic

2 жыл бұрын

According to Scripture (Rev. 13:8) Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The Greek verb "to be slain" is in passive perfect tense. Unlike that of English Greek perfect tense indicates the action described by the verb, that is "to be slain", was completed in the past (before foundation of the world) with continuing effect to the present. For comparison the phrase "it is written", referring to Scripture is also in Greek passive perfect tense. Scripture was completely written in the past and remains written ever since. Whenever you buy a new Bible in any language, Scripture is REPRINTED but it is NOT REWRITTEN. Does "from the foundation of the world" refer to book of life as it is written in Rev. 17:8? It refers to both the book of life and the Lamb. We know this from Heb. 9:24-26 that says if Christ did not offer Himself in heavenly sanctuary, then He must do it every year like OT High Priest, NOT from the year He was crucified but from the foundation of the world. Heb. 9:26 says "His being slain from the foundation of the world" appeared (in active perfect tense) once for all in crucifixion. This is the scriptural reason why Catholics believe His Sacrifice can be made present in every Mass. We do not re-sacrifice Christ in every Mass, just like Scripture is NOT rewritten whenever you buy a new Bible.

Sacrament.

Luther was playing the devil’s game. Luther knew very well what the Eucharist was since he was a Catholic himself .

@wesleysimelane3423

2 жыл бұрын

But then, his eyes were opened and God showed him the gospel truth, which catholics do not adhere to!

@ilonkastille2993

2 жыл бұрын

@@wesleysimelane3423 his eyes were NOT opened, the devil closed his eyes . The Gospel truth does not come from Luther. The Bible is a Catholic Book, you might not know. You would not have a bible if it was not for the Catholic Church. Luther even took out 7 books to create a Protestant Bible. There were 73 books (old and New Testament) . Protestant bibles have 66 books. They took out 7 . They try to convince people that we added those 7 ???? As for the Eucharist, on Thursday, the night before the Cruxifiction, Jesus instituted the Priesthood by saying to His Apostles :" This IS my Body .......this IS my Blood......" Elsewhere in the Scriptures Jesus is always relating Himself to the Bread ."I am the bread of life and whoever believes in me will never thirst." The Jews thought He meant it metaphorically. He then repeated to them;" I am the LIVING Bread which came down from Heaven, If anyone eats of this bread , he will live forever and the bread which I shall GIVE for the life of the world is my Flesh." I can give you so many examples , the problem is that Luther was against Authority (again a demonic sign). He wanted to decide for himself what to understand and what not . Therefore, each person can judge for himself what and how he understands scripture by reading it and that is that. The "fruits" of this wrong decision were and are to this day disastrous and "his" manmade new church started splitting very soon into a new manmade church and we are now at tens of thousands of churches who disagree with understanding one thing or another. The simple reason: No Authority in following the Teaching of the Apostles and the Church Fathers. Jesus said "There is only ONE Fold and ONE Shepherd . There are tens of thousands of folds and still increasing and NOT ONE single shepherd who leads them. What a clever great job the Evil One accomplished. To top the whole SAGA, the Catholic Church who has the Truth is being attacked from day one and will continue to be attacked till the end. We are the Church instituted by Christ Himself and Christ Himself was attacked from day one and cruxified . He was the TRUTH, the Way and the LIFE , and He Resurrected , which the Church will also . We are now in the Golgotha period but Resurrection will follow. Traitors, like Judas in the time of Jesus, traitors inside the church and enemies outside have tried everything but it is not working . We are still standing after 2000 years . How is this possible you might say? Christ Himself gave us this promise. ".......I will build my Church on this Rock and the Gates of Hell will NEVER overcome it." May God give you a better understanding. Some of our best apologists have become Catholic. It took them years of studies to realise that the words of John Henry Newman who was a theologian, Anglican priest and much more , were so true. He finally realised that "to be Deep in History is to Cease to be a Protestant."

@wesleysimelane3423

2 жыл бұрын

@@ilonkastille2993 “To be deep in church history in the context of the Scriptures is to see that Rome has departed from the Gospel”. - Moi See I can also qoute someone else to dispute your lies. Ma'am, do you know that eastern catholics have more extra books other than the 7 you mentioned above. What is your opinion of a few additional things beyond these 7, found in Eastern Catholic bibles, such as Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 3 Macabees? Do you even know what type of heresies these books contain or you are just happy to have more? The Eucharist is also heresy. For Jesus, eating is believing; drinking is believing. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him. Believe what? Believe that his death - the breaking of his body and spilling of his blood - pays in full the penalty for our sin, and that his perfect righteousness is freely given to us in exchange for our unrighteousness. Believing this is how we “eat” Jesus’s flesh and “drink” his blood. This is why he instituted the Lord’s Supper: he did not want us to forget the very core of what we believe. Surely this rcc can not be the church the Christ built. Read church history. Church history shows us the catholic church murdered bible believing Christians for not accepting the Roman catholic church and her ways. The Roman Catholic church was set up by constantine the emporer it was not set up by Jesus Christ, Far from it. Roman catholicism is just sprinkled paganism. Grace alone faith alone Christ alone Scripture Alone. The Roman Catholic church system which is not found in either testament, cannot abide by these grace alone faith alone Christ alone Scripture alone that’s accursed by the catholic church. But Jesus Christ the Lord said Luke 4:4 Man does not live by bread alone but by every word of God. Catholicism is a Religious mess of paganism set up by men and not God. Paul said I count my religion Dung, my ways Dung.Catholics count their as the best. All that mattered to Paul was receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour without Religion as the most important thing in the world. But continue in the lies of Men all thou wish. Ye Must Be Born Again. Not you must take the sacraments and die in a state of grace.

@ilonkastille2993

2 жыл бұрын

@@wesleysimelane3423 I will try and be as short as possible. Communicating with a person so full of hate is not my ideal past time. Distortions of the truth combined with so much hate always come from one source, The Evil One . I am giving you facts which are facts except if others, for reasons of their own, need to distort them and then try to spread the errors. The Catholic Bible is the first and the ONLY Bible . The Canon of the entire Bible was settled around the turn of the 4th Century. There were 5 instances when the canon was formally identified. 1. Synod of Rome 382 2.Council of Hippo 392. 3. Council of Carthage. 397. 4. Letter from Pope Innocent to the Bishop of Toulouse 405 5. 2nd Council of Carthage 419 The Arian Heresy was the reason why the Universal Canon of Scripture had to be formed once and for all. Eastern CATHOLICS have 73 books in their Bible just like Roman Catholics. We have ONE Church which is Universal. That Church is called the Catholic Church. There are 22 different RITES , Byzantine Rite is one example but all are Catholic Churches. The Orthodox are a split-away Church , they are in Schism from us. Their Biblical canon is NOT universally approved . They are not ONE Church like the Catholics. There are about 16 different Orthodox churches (if I am not mistaken), and if I am not mistaken different churches have different canons. Each Church has a Patriarch . Thank God they kept the 7 Sacraments which Jesus left us , I think each of the 16 churches still have them. There is a lot more which I can say but it will make no difference to you. Take care of yourself my friend.

@wesleysimelane3423

2 жыл бұрын

@@ilonkastille2993 That's exactly my point about catholic "bibles"! If you are referring to the vulgate or Douay-Rheims Bible as the first "bible", how can that be? The Apocrypha is not God-breathed and the books were composed in the years after the Old Testament but before the New Testament.

So what? An unbloody sacrifice is still a sacrifice! The manner of offering is different is still an offering! You guys do not believe Christ will only die once and sacrifice once! And is risen and now seated at the right hand of God. You are trying so hard to explain the unexplainable and it seems you have not explain anything why you are do it again and again and again! By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, - Hebrews 10:10-12 You are leading millions astray and one day you will be accountable to God. Take heed!

@geoffjs

3 ай бұрын

Throughout history, people have offered sacrifices so why would Christianity be any different? The CC is following the precedent of the Early Church practice & what the Early Church fathers wrote about the Real Presence. This teaching is supported by 1 Cor 10 16-17 & 1 Cor 11 23-27 I do know that Catholics believe that the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper literally became the body and blood of Christ when the priest says the words of consecration found in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. I reviewed the entire New Testament carefully and noted that the Eucharist is intimately connected with Christian worship (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7; Jude 12; 2 Pet. 2:13). In fact, it seemed 1 Corinthians 11:20-21 and 5:7b-8 implied a regular celebration of the Eucharist. As for the idea of the “real presence” of Jesus in the Eucharist, the dire warning of Paul-that those who partake unworthily are guilty of “the body and blood of the Lord”-did not lend itself well to my symbolical notion of the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:27-32). Why were Christians in grave sin when doing violence to this particular “symbol” and not to other Christian symbols? Moreover, 1 Corinthians 10:14-18 speaks of us “participating” in the body and blood of Christ at the Eucharist in the same way Israel participated in the sacrifices of the altar-which would be by actually, not symbolically, eating the sacrifice of the Passover. I believe that a literal understanding of John 6:53-54 wouldn’t be entirely out of line. Mal 1:11 refers to gentiles offering a pure sacrifice in all times, in all places. The CC offers Mass daily in most parishes around the world. Consider that the words “daily bread” in their original language mean supernatural or Eucharistic bread. Research Eucharistic miracles that science can’t explain with the same AB blood type & living heart tissue You are free to ignore Jesus’ teaching but are heretical in doing do.

@veekee75

3 ай бұрын

​@@geoffjs you explained so much and accuse me of ignoring Jesus's teachings. Yet when Jesus teaches about the breaking of bread and drinking of the cup, what He said is a very CLEAR and simple statement, "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME" as recorded in Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. This is clearly recorded as Jesus Christ's own words. I think you are the one who blatantly ignores what Jesus teaches, not me! I am not a follower of early church fathers and not a follower of the self proclaiming "one and only true church", so I don't really care what they practice. I am just a follower of Christ. So what Christ said is what I would follow. So tell me again, what is this unbloody manner sacrifice of Christ in the Mass for?

The mass is absolutely not a sacrifice

@jd3jefferson556

2 жыл бұрын

Then I hope you don't call yourself a Catholic. Go to your protestant church because there is no reason to be Catholic if you don't see the power of God found in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Eucharist

@Wgaither1

2 жыл бұрын

@@jd3jefferson556 according to the Roman Catholic Church once a baby is baptized in the Catholic Church, he or she is a Catholic for life. There’s no way to leave, even if you want to. Sounds like a cult to me.

@jd3jefferson556

2 жыл бұрын

@@Wgaither1 actually if you deny the presence of Christ in the Eucharist then you will always be baptized (praise God for that) however denying the presence of Christ in the Eucharist makes you an apostate which means you seperate yourself from the One True Church. It is the responsibility of those that baptized you (your parents and God parents) to bring you back into the Church because apostates and heretics have divided themselves from the Church and this is very sad because there pride is putting there souls in danger.

@Wgaither1

2 жыл бұрын

@@jd3jefferson556 Do you know the Catholic Church allowed someone to commit apostasy from 1983 to 2009? The Code of Canon Law nonetheless prescribes that the faithful who have left the Church "by a formal act" are not bound by the ecclesiastical laws regarding the canonical form of marriage (cf. can. 1117), dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult (cf. can. 1086) and the need for permission in the case of mixed marriages (cf. can. 1124). The underlying aim of this exception from the general norm of can. 11 was to ensure that marriages contracted by those members of the faithful would not be invalid due to defect of form or the impediment of disparity of cult. Experience, however, has shown that this new law gave rise to numerous pastoral problems. First, in individual cases the definition and practical configuration of such a formal act of separation from the Church has proved difficult to establish, from both a theological and a canonical standpoint. In addition, many difficulties have surfaced both in pastoral activity and the practice of tribunals. Indeed, the new law appeared, at least indirectly, to facilitate and even in some way to encourage apostasy in places where the Catholic faithful are not numerous or where unjust marriage laws discriminate between citizens on the basis of religion. The new law also made difficult the return of baptized persons who greatly desired to contract a new canonical marriage following the failure of a preceding marriage. Finally, among other things, many of these marriages in effect became, as far as the Church is concerned, "clandestine" marriages.

@Wgaither1

2 жыл бұрын

@@jd3jefferson556 In light of the above, and after carefully considering the views of the Fathers of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, as well as those of the Bishops' Conferences consulted with regard to the pastoral advantage of retaining or abrogating this exception from the general norm of can. 11, it appeared necessary to eliminate this norm which had been introduced into the corpus of canon law now in force. Therefore I decree that in the same Code the following words are to be eliminated: "and has not left it by a formal act" (can. 1117); "and has not left it by means of a formal act" (can. 1086 § 1); "and has not left it by a formal act" (can. 1124). Likewise, having heard the views of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and after inquiry among my venerable brethren, the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church in charge of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, I decree the following: Art. 1. The text of can. 1008 of the Code of Canon Law is modified so that hereafter it will read: "By divine institution, some of the Christian faithful are marked with an indelible character and constituted as sacred ministers by the sacrament of holy orders. They are thus consecrated and deputed so that, each according to his own grade, they may serve the People of God by a new and specific title"; Art 2. Henceforth can. 1009 of the Code of Canon Law will have three paragraphs. In the first and the second of these, the text of the canon presently in force are to be retained, whereas the new text of the third paragraph is to be worded so that can. 1009 § 3 will read: "Those who are constituted in the order of the episcopate or the presbyterate receive the mission and capacity to act in the person of Christ the Head, whereas deacons are empowered to serve the People of God in the ministries of the liturgy, the word and charity". Art. 3. The text of can. 1086 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law is modified as follows: "A marriage between two persons, one of whom was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid". Art. 4. The text of can. 1117 of the Code of Canon Law is modified as follows: "The form prescribed above must be observed if at least one of the parties contracting the marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1127 § 2". Art. 5. The text of can. 1124 of the Code of Canon Law is modified as follows: "Marriage between two baptized persons, one of whom was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism, and the other a member of a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church, cannot be celebrated without the express permission of the competent authority". All that I have laid down in this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio, I now order to have the force of law, anything whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I direct that it be published in the official gazette Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Given in Rome, at St Peter's, on 26 October in the year 2009, the fifth of my Pontificate. BENEDICTUS PP. XVI