Blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it: Through the Holy Spirit, God has put it on me to preach to those lost in the devil's deceit! Hear me when I say, ye that are Catholic have been deceived and know not God. Ye worship Mary, praying to her; when God tells his to worship none other than him. It is idolatry. Catholicism has its own Bible and teachings, which are blasphemous to the word of God: the Holy Bible. As ye follow the teachings of man and not God; ye hear the pope, but not Jesus, yet ye claim to be his disciples! These are but a few things I named ye dwell within; there are many more. I tell you now to repent of your sins, accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and you'll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit upon asking the Father! There are *NO* sub-divisions of Christianity. You're either a disciple of Christ or not. A Christian is someone who follows God's word, not a religion. Who obey the Father and follow his will; not man's nor their own heart's. Unless you keep Jesus' commandments, think not the Holy Spirit will dwell within you! They who heed this message and did what was stated with an open heart to God... Read the Holy Bible (KJV) daily and every time before you read, pray to the Father and ask: "Lord I ask that you give me understanding of your word, that I interpret it the way you want me to, and none of my own. I ask you in Jesus' name, amen." Revelation 22:8-9 KJV 8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. 9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. Acts 2:38 KJV 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Luke 11:13 KJV 13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? John 14:21-24 KJV 21 *He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.* 22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, *If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.* 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and *the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.* 3 John 1:11 KJV 11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. *He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.* 1 John 3:6-10 KJV 6 *Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.* 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: *he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.* 8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 *Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.* 10 *In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God,* neither he that loveth not his brother.

Could you please do a video on Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist?

Dr Pitre is a huge blessing to the church. Yeah, many protestants are misguided by our faith. You correct them and they still don't get it. Pray for their hearts and minds to soften

Why do you put rituals in quotations? If one knows what a sacramental is, in relation to a sacrament, then one should be able to parse out what a ritual is, in relation to a rite, without the scare quotes, no? Is this a term of art to the Protestants with a significance beyond the obvious one conjugated?

This book helped me convert to the Catholic faith

Souls do t exist and neither does your god. Thankfully. Yahweh is a monster.

Thanks for your approval 🙄

You do believe Jesus is as Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharisty as catholic do, right? Catholic here.

@@rubemartur8239 yes

​@@rubemartur8239we Catholics also believe that since they still follow apostolic succession that the Orthodox sacraments (including communion) are valid

@@rubemartur8239 pride separates us, not doctrine.

Because eating/drinking the blood is a violation according the mosaic law

Because he said he came down from heaven. It is Catholics who think they left him because from what the Jews misunderstood.

​@@jotink1John 6:52 -Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

@@aruhe6650 yes it was thoseJews who had followed Jesus after the feeding of the five thousand not his disciples. The disciples found it difficult and offensive later on in v60 and Jesus knew their thoughts gave a reply in v62. His reply has nothing to do in answering them if the disciples concern was eating him but it does if he was the bread that came down from heaven. It was not until v66 we are told they left him which was after he also said what if you see the son of man ascend. The offence Jesus answered was him coming down from heaven by saying they would see him ascend not eating his flesh.

and he doubled down on it

Christ is King

@@bobthebuildest6828 so true brother

Christ is king and the church is his kingdom!

@@andreassvensson895 AMEN!!!

And the Blessed Virgin Mary is Queen.

Jesus often explained his parables to his disciples and not the crowds. Therefore, in 6:60-6:65 Jesus explained to his disciples (more than just the 12) and said in John 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." (ESV). I think it is possible that the metaphor for His flesh was the reality of death on the cross and then Resurrection! In John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” Here He states that the bread will be given and it will require Him to give His flesh, which points to the Crucifixion of Jesus. May God Bless us all in this, and not turn us sour to each other.

What Our Lord said in John 6, He repeated same on Last Supper. It was no metaphor, or parable John 16:29: His disciples said, "Behold, now you speak plainly and tell no parable

Yep, and then he doubled-down on the teaching, he didn't soften it.

​@@HumanDignity10How then do you explain the Last Supper? Jesus gives the actual sacrament and makes clear that the bread symbolizes His body by having the disciplined eat the bread "in remembrance of Me." Why would they have to remember Him if He was right there in the flesh? I think Jesus does lean into a more literal understanding of the sacrament earlier in His ministry in order to challenge the disciples to truly consider if they are willing to abandon everything but Him, including ideas that sound irrational and uncomfortable. That said, He gives the final word on the meaning of the sacrament when He actually leads the disciples in practicing it through bread and wine as a symbol of what was to come.

@@HumanDignity10 exactly!

Why did the crowd leave him? “After this many of his disciples turned back…” (John 6:66) What was the ‘this’? It wasn’t Eucharistic language, it was what he said in the very preceding verse: “And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”” Predestination language was what caused the crowd’s reaction. The apostle literally tells us - after **this**, ie what was just said.

​@lectorintellegat john 6:56-60 do not seem to be helping your point friend. Anyone reads this, read the whole chapter, not just two verses it makes no sense with out context

Does this come close? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hbF2e7V1u82diHk.html

Love is love is completely incoherent. I don’t love my child in the same way I love my wife. I don’t love my wife in the same manner I love my friend. These slogans are for the uninformed that don’t take the time to think through these propaganda slogans

It's not even sexualization of love and reduction. It's now that love is redefined as permissiveness. As though allowing non-believers and believers alike to continue to sin and merrily dance their way into hell is the loving thing to do

@@bradberkely7448The West has become Sodom & Gamora

God is love, but His Holy Love is not even remotely the same as man's worldly (unholy love). Even apart from that, the atheist knows that not all love is right and true (equal) because a psycho can easily claim to love his or her victims before they rape, murder, torture, or abuse them. Also, love between spouses is not the same as love between siblings, friends, or neighbors, so the "love is love" lie is just a childish excuse to do what one wants whether it's right or wrong (without judgement). In Christ, Andrew

Yahweh Lev 3:17 “issue a perpetual LAW against eating ANY blood”. Jesus “ drink my blood”. - guys, your cult doesn’t worship Yahweh.

@@rogermills2467 The Mosaic Law isn't perpetual, it was abolished with the sacrifice at Calvary. Are you telling me that Abraham and Isaac and Jacob are in Hell because they didn't have the Mosaic Law, therefore didn't follow it?

@@rogermills2467 To be more specific, the Mosaic Law is not an eternal and universal Law. It was given to the Israelites mainly on account of their hardened hearts.

@@thereasonableman2424 I am saying if God says “It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.” I will take him at his word. Because I God also warned in Deut 13 about evil people who would preach rebellion against His statutes. And I also know that numbers 23:19 that god doesn’t lie or change his mind. Also, no where in the OT is there an a provision that Gods laws are temporal. In fact psalm 19:7 God’s law is perfect and soul refreshing making the wise simple. What does Paul say about God’s law “ITS A CURSE”. Your cult rests on the Paul’s perception of Hebrew Scriptures and the fictions of Jesus written decades after Paul’s heresy. But then again, when the Hebrew Scriptures were written around 400 BCE, of course the God they worshipped will like all the rituals and customs in the scriptures and stories they invented.

@@rogermills2467 How did Abel present a pleasing sacrifice to God if he had not received the Law of Moses? God literally gives succesive Covenants with different stipulations throughout the OT, the mosaic Covenant was just the more developed on account of needing to preserve the truth through the Israelites, even though they frequently disobeyed these laws. You think you're smart, "picking apart" the word of God, reading the Scriptures and giving the most uncharitable interpretation you can, but you're not that smart.

Are you saying Protestants don’t worship God?

@@Wgaither1 They don't, because they don't sacrifice anything to God.

@@Wgaither1 Actually, to be more specific, they don't render any worship beyond that which might be due to say, a human ruler. The worship due to God, Latria, always involves sacrifice, which is why Pagans actually have a more developed sense of worship due to God compared to Protestants: Pagans know that a sacrifice is needed to properly worship God, protestants think you can make do with only praise.

I wouldn’t say there’s anything wrong with Protestant services like the ones I grew up with. Generally speaking they consisted of 25-30 minutes of singing/worship time, announcements, and then 25-30 minutes of a “message” portion. The message typically connected everyday life to a Bible story, or was a deep dive into a story explaining the “how’s and why’s.” I think that kind of service can be very beneficial to Christians. As I’ve grown in my faith and looked into other traditions, I’m seeing a lot of things that I like (more?). Catholicism has had my interest since Easter. Even if I become catholic sometime in the future, I would never say that my protest brethren back home weren’t giving their hearts to the lord every Sunday. There can be very good things that happen in Protestant churches.

@@Wgaither1No not really. It seems like a extended Bible study where a preacher takes 2-3 verses and expands upon for an hour or more. It’s great for learning Scripture but that’s not worship

Many of Luther's writings were bombastic to elicit thought. My perspective on his view on the Eucharist was, that he did not want to get hung up about on the process. As the split was happening, he had forces in his life (Zwingli) were deconstructing everything about doctrine and dogma. He was pressed about explaining transubstantiation, and he came to a middle point explanation. I view (my perspective) it as a distinction without a difference. Human words will always fail in understanding the magnificent mystery of our Lord.

I've gone though the Babylonian Captivity. Luther of course says nothing about cannibalism. He only critiques the Hussites for using John 6 as a defence for communion under both kinds, as the meaning of "eating the flesh and drinking the blood" are clearly figures for faith in this passage. The Eucharist has to be read back into the text. Luther would use other passages for establishing the belief in the Real Presence.

What do you mean by "biblical" in this context?

@@markpugner9716 mainly in the context of if something is affirmed by the scriptures (or at least the apostles) or not.

@@Sanguinary797 Ah. Well then, I don't think they're biblical. But I don't think they are counter to scripture either. That's my two cents.

It's absolutely relevant. You can't understand the new without the old. Here's one video I made about the OT. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fMiXl6qHnqm1hoE.html

I think that it would be better to argue about whether or not it's okay to eat Jesus' body, rather than argue whether or not eating Jesus' body is cannibalism. Cannibalism isn't bad in every case.

Your question implies that there's something that would forbid us from eating chunks of Wolverine or Deadpool

@@markpugner9716 Ok, fine, but how is it distinct from cannibalism? I think this is one of those mysteries where any analogy you make probably makes you a heretic if you think about it too hard. 🤔 😆

@@RandaEd I don't think it's distinct from cannibalism but different enough from man eating man to be excluded from the prohibition of cannibalism

Was bait for both sides, i guess?

It's a distinction without a difference, unless those who don't believe in what Jesus said and did to provide us with His glorified and resurrected flesh to open our eyes (see road to Emmaus story) is really supposed to be an argument like Bill Clinton made about the definition of "is"! It's ridiculous, and even more so since the Greek word for "life" used in John 6:53 is "zoe" which means resurrected life with Jesus! It's all there, and not symbolically (literally)! In Christ, Andrew

@@Ezekiel336-16 thx Andrew. Perhaps it is ridiculous. I am no longer an advocate of the symbolic memorial view, so I’m not particularly interested in defending it. Just think it should be accurately represented when responded to. BTW, ζωή just means life, any kind of life. It can even refer to your livelihood, or the substance you have to live on. It’s not exclusively supernatural life

@@NomosCharis If you look at the definition for "zoe" in the concordance and related lexicon for that specific verse (John 6:53) you will see that it doesn't mean life in any ordinary sense at all. In Christ, Andrew

@@Ezekiel336-16 yes, but that meaning is arrived at by examining the context of John 6:53, not the Greek word itself. The Greek word by itself can mean any kind of life. It does not refer to a special kind. The Greek here does not help your case (or hurt it, for that matter). Accuracy, my friend. Accuracy and honesty.

Protestant churches did not even exist before Luther founded his in AD 1524, after rebelling against the Catholic Church. All protestant churches reject and work against the Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and, thus, reject Our Lord, Head of the Church, His Body and Bride whom He saves (Eph 5:23). Our Lord said, "Whoever is not with Me is against Me (Matt 12:30). "Whoever listens to you listens to Me. Whoever rejects you rejects Me and rejects the One who sent Me (Luke 10:16; John 13:20; Matt 10:40). Whoever rejects Me and does not accept My Words has something to judge him; the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day (John 12:48). You do not believe because you are not among My sheep (John 10:26)." Do you think people, who lived before Luther, were deceived by the Catholic Church lost their salvation? Nonsense! Can the Only Divine Institution fail to fulfill the mission given Her, the salvation of souls until the end of the world? Never (Matt 16:18)! Thus, whoever follows protestant churches, which teach partial truth (taken from Bible to deceive and lure unsuspecting souls) mixed with heresies and lies (to lead them to their master, enemy of souls and father of lies), is sheep outside Our Lord's Only Fold (John 10:16), in great danger of losing its eternal life. All pastors in protestant churches are wolves in sheep's clothing and, unless repent and convert, they will hear Our Lord's words, "I never knew you. Depart from Me, you evil doers (Matt 7:21-23)." Brothers and sisters, who, without fully understanding the True Faith, follow false teachings of protestant churches, come quickly to Our Lord's Only Sheepfold before it is too late (for the Satanic reign of the Antichrist is very near) so that you may hear His Voice, know and follow Him, and be saved eternally by Him. Amen!

I might be wrong but I think the argument could be more accurately simplified as something like the following two points… 1. It's not _wrong*_ to consume the Body of Christ in the form of the elements of the Eucharist because they are not acquired through violence or death. 2. Even if Christ meant "this is my body" just symbolically (and not literally in the way Catholics understand it) doesn't make it not cannibalism, and surely symbolic cannibalism in that form should also be wrong. *Notice that it's not about whether or not it is cannibalism but whether or not it is wrong. Not all cannibalism is wrong!

If his body isn't human, what is it?

@@zwijac it is pure spirit

Cats and dogs don't argue, they fight. Humans argue because we are higher in our faculties. We have more noble alternatives to violence. The expression *fight like cats and dogs* is meant to describe people who don't argue, but resort to lower forms of conflict.

@@BrianHoldsworth I think the comparison was not misplaced? But to show my compromising nature, perhaps “Fighting like Confederates and Unionists” would meet with more approval?. Let’s face it you did used to FLCaU all over the place and still do in some parts!. Where as I can’t think of a single atheist on atheist war over whose version of M Kutzen to follow. But give it time and I sure there will be one.

Because atheists are more oeace loving? Atheist regimes have murdered 10s of millions of people in the last century alone my friend. What's the death toll of prot v catholic conflict?

Because the Church isn't here to put undue burden on the laity. In this case anyone who doesn't take the Eucharist during Mass would effectively be admit that they're in mortal sin, therefore being a source of scandal, which would definitely lead people to taking the Eucharist even if they are in mortal Sin, therefore defeating the whole purpose of taking the Eucharist.

@@thereasonableman2424 Then why require holy days of obligation then, you can say that’s a undue burden. And the number is different depending where you live. I find that problematic, especially for someone that’s not faithful, who has the most days of obligation

@@Wgaither1 It's not an undue burden because holy days of obligation are few and far between, you only have to attend if that wouldn't put undue burden on you. For example, if you live 2 hours away from any Mass or if you are gravely ill, you are not obligated to attend Mass every sunday or on holy days of obligation.

@@thereasonableman2424 Why not make the number of holy days of obligation the same amount all over the world, it would be more fairer don’t you think?

@@Wgaither1 No, because different places have different customs, why are you quibbling about the Church being reasonable and adapting to what is reasonable for each place in the World? Nations aren't amorphous blobs that are the same all over the world, there's no need to have uniform days of obligation regardless of customs and tradition.

@@LiliGoof-gh4ch God uses the matter which He created to inject his being into it. Just like Jesus is both human and God, not God instead of human, so the consecrated bread and wine get this dual nature. Consecration is nothing else than Incarnation. In our physical world there's nothing outside the appearances. When you see a horse, you know it's a horse, because it has all measurable appearances of a horse. The consecrated bread and wine retain "only" the appearances, because nothing else made them what they were. It's the spiritual/metaphysical reality that undergoes the change, NOT physical. That's why in physical terms it's still 100% bread and wine, and to deny it would be unwise. Bottom line - the senses lie to you only if you ask them the wrong question 😉

@@LiliGoof-gh4ch Secondly - when you say "literally flesh and blood", what do you actually mean by "literally"? Because by all accounts, flesh and blood are human tissues of strictly defined appearances. So you mean what? That it's made of the same cells, atoms? Apparently not, because the chemical composition of bread/wine and bodily tissues are quite different. Maybe the same neutrons, protons and electrons, or even smaller particles? But then there would be too little - Catholics eat tonnes of the Body and Blood every week! So what do you mean by literally? Clearly it's not the case. For me the only possible explanation is that the connection is again metaphysical, unaffected by its physical state. If it were otherwise, its effects wouldn't be metaphysical and eternal as Jesus promised.

@@LiliGoof-gh4ch Wait, you yourself confirmed what the Church teaches - that everything is changed except the appearances. All I'm saying is that in this physical world there's nothing else than the appearances. Do you disagree? If not, then from this follows that the whole physical nature of the bread and wine remains unchanged, therefore it's still bread and wine - but no longer just that, because it now has a new, heavenly dimension. The eucharistic miracles are to remind us that underneath it's the body and blood, but human tissue is not the natural state.

@@LiliGoof-gh4ch Either you're trying hard to persuade me that I'm a heretic, or you refuse to understand me 😁 I don't believe in consubstantiation, because I don't believe that normal bread/wine have any substance - but even if they had it, it would be replaced with Jesus. The point of contention seems to be where's the boundary between appearances and substance. To me, it's simple. Appearances are all that is physical. Substance is metaphysical. If substance were physical, then it would be detectable ie. would be part of appearances, which cannot be because these are separate categories.

So you admit the Eucharist is Jesus?

Fantastic! You're well-versed in premises and conclusions. Debate and discussion. So you also know, you put yourself into an either-or category. 1. If you believe it is cannibalism, than you believe the Eucharist is actually the body of the Lord. 2. If you don't believe Catholics possess the body of Christ on their altars, then you can't hold the argument that they are committing cannibalism. It has to be one of the two.

So which is it? Is it that your entire premise is asinine and doesn't actually exist? Or do you believe that Catholics through the ministry of their priests, transubstantiate bread into the Lord Jesus Christ?

Do you believe (human) cannibalism to be morally/ethically wrong, and why?

> There are NO sub-divisions of Christianity. You're either a disciple of Christ or not. Is it not possible to be a disciple of Christ but also be mislead?

So you eat meat that has been drained of blood?

Christ be with you Ours is the New Covenant not the Old. If you don't have the Son you don't have life (1 John 15:11-13) come to Christ

@@MrKev1664 you do know what perpetual means? Permanent. You do know what any blood means? Not any blood. Yahweh warned about people preaching rebellion against his commands. Deut 13. “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God,

@Roger Mills Please educate yourself "The Roman Catholic Church traces its history to Jesus Christ and the Apostles" (Encyklopedia Britannica)

@@zxcasdqwe12 yup, your cult is 2000 years old. Doesn’t make what I said untrue. Tell me where in the Hebrew Scriptures where Yahweh says his laws are temporal.

Justin Martyr and Augustine disagree. Also, Jesus isn't crucified again. The faithful get an unbloody representation of that sacrifice.

​@@jamesajiduah2001 Any disagreement between Justin Martyr and Augustine is not germaine to the above. "Re-presentation" and "repetition" are distinctions conjured by the same semantic sleight of hand which sets out "adoration" as distinct from "worship" in order to defend idolatry and communication with the dead. That is made very clear when one considers, in spite of the semantics, that the inviolable bottom line is that a person is required to accept that the priest calls down Christ to an _altar_ (a sacrificial table), transforms his body and blood _really and substantially_ into an edible substance which are then supposedly literally eaten and drunk. That indicates to the mind, "this is a sacrifice". How this ritual can be called "unbloody", when the blood must be, in the mind of the priest and communicant, on pain of anathema to believe otherwise, believed to be literally there in the cup, is perplexing and contradictory.