I agree with this. My wife is a Protestant and to support her, I sometimes attend her services with her. I always come away thinking to myself, wow what a desiccated thing that was.

Amen! I also agree. I am currently converting (from Protestant to Catholic), and when I started attending mass, I would also go to my previous church because at first I thought I still needed to be around the familiarity of the environment, the music, the people, the pastor, etc. But then I simply stopped going back after a few weeks. Don't misunderstand me, there was nothing wrong per se... but it just seemed..."watered down" (I truly don't mean this to be offensive- it's simply the only metaphorical words that occur to me to describe the difference that I feel). A Catholic mass is aimed entirely toward worshiping God- it is such a reverent and solemn experience, and it engages all the senses.

First of all you don’t convert to a religion or a denomination, you convert to Jesus.

@@user-fi1pe4dg3u Hmm, I must disagree- according to normal usage of the word "convert" in the English language, one can certainly "convert to a religion." In fact, "convert to a religion" is such a common collocation that if a random native English speaker were prompted to complete the phrase "convert to ________", he/she would likely intuitively fill in the blank with the word "religion" or a specific choice- e.g. "Christianity," "Islam," etc. If you don't think so, I wonder which word you would personally use to describe, for example, someone who switches from Hinduism to Islam or from Buddhism to Christianity... Would you not use the word "convert" in that situation?? And as for "converting to Jesus"...well, I personally have never used that phrase before (nor heard anyone else express it). I suppose it could be used to describe someone who becomes a Christian (since Jesus is Christ), but it does sound a bit funny, to me at least, when I hear the phrase "convert to Jesus"... As for "converting to a denomination," I guess I partially agree with you (only partially though)- in this case, it simply depends on whether we wish to restrict the usage of the verb "convert" within a religious context to describe only a change from one distinct religion to another distinct religion (and not to apply it to a change from one branch of a religion to another branch within that same religion)- but I still feel that to impose that limitation of usage would be unnecessarily pedantic.

@@verdecillo9940 Your comment is very good, then what God would expect from someone is, to give his or her life to Jesus Christ.

Rock on! Amazing explanation. Thank you!

First of all, you should get yourself a Catholic Bible and get it blessed by a Priest! You will experience a big difference. When I first picked up a Protestant Bible afterwards it felt so empty! Because it is NOT the whole Bible! Also, once I started having visions in Mass on the Eucharist, I knew it was real presence of Jesus!

Father Mike's exuberance is positively infectious :)

There are several that do! There are some very good Priests!

Hope you know even Protestants are against things like that. Using the church for your own gain

All the ancient churches believe it is the body and blood of Christ, and there is no record of disagreement about it going all the way back, the difference is Orthodox say how it happens is a mystery. so you are completely wrong about your history

why Paul exhorted Corinthians to "discern the body and blood", as people eat and drank as if they were with hunger? why to call atention to forbbid public sinners to eat during this time in specific? beware of late translations, be more attached to the earliest ones from the firsts centuries. Also, His sacrifice took place “ONCE for all time.” (Hebrews 9:25,26), like you said, but people still sin to this day, so how is it posible that the world itself didnt changed but the grace of Jesus in the cross? The thing is, Jesus cannot fogive a sin that doesnt exist in current time, but every sin that existed. He justified every honest and just people before Him, including the "good thief", as everyone were bid to the old convenant. Jesuss new covenant will only work as the writter dies (Jesus himself), thats why we dont do circunsition, it was refined with the batism with water. Still, every time this memory of Him in the cross is done in paralelism of his last banquet with the 11 apostles, we are updating the effect of his grace, for our salvation, as humanity continues to sin... We cannot participate in something 2000 years ago, but Jesus give this opportunity by this update of His Grace. You dont clean your room because of the future dirts, but a true cleaning can put a old house into a new shape. You dont use antibiotics to treat a symtom that doesnt exist, but it will cleanse your body from a disease that is happening from days or even year latent into your body. Unless we think the salvation, seeing in his Body and Blood, as a vaccine, i would agree with your view from Hebrews 9, that its effect is current posterior to his Death. But, still, why do we still sin then? by lack of knowlegde? actually, one can know the bible, but to follow the ultimate commandment of "loving God with all force and all spirit, also loving the next one as loving self" its really hard. Once you lack patience with someone, even by a little bit, you sinned. But after the sin, what we do (or we should do)? ask forgivness. Whats the image that came into mind? His Death in the cross, the motive He did it, totally selfless, it makes we to repent sincerely. Then we ask forgivness. His grace with His merits in the Cross will work everytime we do this, if we dont, it wont happen. Its an active act, not pasive. We need to repent every day, we need to update His grace, if we dont, there is no salvation (lack of repetence doesnt lead to heaven, in other words). But it depends in our action, to repent and ask forgivness, it doenst need to be a physical act, even a thought is sufficient, as someone can do external acts without humilty and repetence from the heart. "Once for all time" refer from all time in past and present / current time, as future doesnt exist, thats the problem from this interpretation, also induces to accept the sin as a "fate", which is wrong, as we have a choice in the present. That's fundament of God's grace, as being saved by Him, while we ask for it. That's why men can stop sinning same sins as before (to stop gambling, to stop sodomy, to stop having sexual intercourse before and outside the matrimony, to stop doing false testmony, to stop stealing, etc). But if this could help you, the correlation done with the slain animals from old covenant laws are intrisicaly related to the figuration of the imolated lamb as Jesus Christ. As no animal was pleasant to God anymore (as the sins were reaching the heavens in number and the sacricifes were low or done without heart), His Son will suffice with infinite price and efficiency that no imolated animal could do, since any patriach that existed. And what God ordered tho those patriachs to do with the sacrifices? eat. This sounds terrific if applied to Jesus, but remember when 70+ discipules and man were with Him, and He said about eating him Flesh and Blood, they said "its too much" and disbanded until resting 12 apostles alone. Paul wasnt within those 12, but he believed until the point of exhorting the corithians, as i said before, with extreme respect to the elements of bread and wine. Thats a thing to reflect on, as many christians, from Iberic penisule to India, christian communities released rites to do this memory Jesus ordered to the 11 apostles in the first century, and historical documents and emphasises it, like from "Justin, the martyr" when asked by romans what christians in those reunions, at second century... The Malabar (siriac-malabar) rite in india, since 2000 years, to celebrate this memory of real Body and Blood of Jesus, despise not being the roman rite of Roman church, in other words, the "eucharisty is a invention of IV century theory" falls apart. And for us, christians, God and coincidences/casuality/accidents cannot coexist. To receive better grace than Jesus himself, there is no greater honor, even lacking of merit to receive it (but Jesus wants, and that suffices) as it confirms once again, every sin done so far will be cleansed from God's Justice, as the salary of the sin is the death. Jesus is Life himself. But, once again, no public sinners/ promoters of scandals, CANNOT enter the row of communion to receive Jesus himself, or they will receive their DAMNATION, instead of Life. This is also from Paul's exhortation for Corinthians and says much. Like, someone wanting the grace, but doesnt change the heart. Their praise to Lord is external, so He will puke those. Its historical belief and practice, those outside from the community also public sinners were fobbiden to receive Eucharisty, as it would be rather offense to Lord himself. Didnt you asked yourself why not all catholics receive communion, if its a common sense for them? Also why some catholic did trend topics at internet about the "scandal" of some import catholic politician receiving communion, while being a notorious pro-choice (favorable to abortion)? Again, the warning from Paul isnt being respected... Even worse if some stranger from the community to receive and "safe it" for whatever reasons. No one should do that, even less to touch it with barehands. But since the modernization from CVII, this value is being lost. If you compare any old rite with the Novus Ordus Mass, you see clearyly the lack of respect in many points... if God is present in the enviroment, shouldnt be the men more respectfull, without noisy instrument? The memory Jesus ordered wasnt supposed to be a contemplation, instead of a party?

U don’t know what the Trinity is do you?

do you have the power to spread that belief? goodluck

@@healhands5760 Power? I have no power whatsoever. We plant, God gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:6-8).

@@user-rj8py9ld3j [John 6:22] onwards will answer all your questions my brother. and why lots of christians hate Catholics regarding the bread and wine. it is all in that chapter.

@@healhands5760 Right…who gave them the bread? "Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath *God the Father sealed."* (John 6:27) "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but *my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven."* (John 6:32) So even in this context, Jesus still speaks of the Father and how it was GOD the Father who gives us the bread of life. Don’t take scripture out of context.