... Lying about Catholicism? Is Jacob Prasch that, or just a dupe?

When a teen, I stopped reading and returned to the Freemason who had lent me it, Origin of the Species after reading and noting the context of the page where I considered he had made a fault in logic. It is the fault called "de minore ad majus". However, here I stop hearing the video when I hear one or possibly even two lies, at 4:46 of a video more than one hour in length.

Video

Questions For Catholics (Jacob Prasch)
Veruka psalm40verse2 | added 6th of March 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwLy283To7Y

I

2:32 Here is what wikipedians have had to say about Pope Vigilius:

"Vigilius refused to acknowledge the imperial edict and was called to Constantinople by Justinian, in order to settle the matter there with a synod. According to the Liber pontificalis on 20 November, 545, while the pope was celebrating the Feast of St. Cecilia in the Church of St. Cecilia in Trastevere, and before the service was fully ended, he was ordered by the imperial official Anthimus to start at once on the journey to Constantinople. The pope was taken immediately to a ship that waited in the Tiber in order to be carried to the eastern capital while a part of the populace cursed the pope and threw stones at the ship. Rome was now besieged by the Goths under Totila and the inhabitants fell into the greatest misery. Vigilius sent ships with grain to Rome, but these were captured by the enemy.[13] If the story related by the Liber pontificalis is essentially correct, the pope probably left Rome on 22 November 545. He remained for a long time in Sicily and reached Constantinople about the end of 546 or in January 547."

"After his transfer to Constantinople, Vigilius wrote/said to his captors: "Do with me what you wish. This is the just punishment for what I have done." and "You may keep me in captivity, but the blessed Apostle Peter will never be your captive."[14]"

"While in captivity, Vigilius sought to persuade the emperor to send aid to the inhabitants of Rome and Italy who were so hard pressed by the Goths. Justinian's chief interest, however, was in the matter of the Three Chapters, and as Vigilius was not ready to make concessions of this point and wavered frequently in his measures, he had much to suffer. The matter was further complicated by the fact that the Latins, Vigilius among them, were for the most part ignorant of Greek and therefore unable to judge the incriminated writings for themselves.[12] The change in his position is to be explained by the fact that the condemnation of the writings mentioned was essentially justifiable, yet appeared inopportune and would lead to disastrous controversies with Western Europe. Finally, Vigilius acknowledged in a letter of 8 December 553 to the Patriarch Eutychius the decisions of the Second Council of Constantinople and declared his judgment in detail in a Constitution of 26 February 554. Thus at the end of a sorrowful residence of eight years at Constantinople the pope was able, after coming to an understanding with the emperor, to start on his return to Rome in the spring of 555."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Vigilius

II

2:47 Third Council of Constantinople, Honorius.

Roman Catholic canon law says a vote on a council is not sufficient unless there is a signature from Pope or Papal Legate.

This means, Pope St Leo II confirmed the posthumous blame on Honorius in as far as Honorius was guilty of inaction indirectly supporting Monotheletism and of urging others to such inaction (notably St Sophronius who did not obey), but he did not confirm Honorius as guilty of Monotheletism. In other words, Honorius was a bad Pope, not a heretic.

2:56 Honorius was not kicked out of office, since he was already dead by the time of the decision.

Third Council of Constantinople
Date 680–681
Accepted by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Council_of_Constantinople

Pope Honorius I
Pope Honorius I (died 12 October 638) was Pope from 27 October 625 to his death in 638.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I

More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things".

Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." The Sixteenth Session adds: "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"

However, Pope Leo II's letter of confirmation of the Council interprets the council as intending to criticize Honorius not for error of belief, but rather for "imprudent economy of silence".[7] Leo's letter states: "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, ... and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."[1] The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: "It is in this sense of guilty negligence that the papacy ratified the condemnation of Honorius." Persons such as Cesare Baronio and Bellarmine have challenged accusations that Pope Honorius I taught heresy.[8]

... Historian Jaroslav Pelikan notes: "It is evident, as Maximus noted in exoneration of Honorius, that his opposition to the idea of 'two wills' was based on the interpretation of 'two wills' as 'two contrary wills.' He did not mean that Christ was an incomplete human being, devoid of a human will, but that as a human being he did not have any action in his body nor any will in his soul that could be contrary to the action and will of God, that is, to the action and will of his own divine nature."

3:07 Honorius was not proclaiming Monotheletism.

3:16 Honorius was not sacked, he was already dead.

Michel Colin claimed to have received in 1950 a revelation saying God had sacked Pius XII and he took the name Clement XV.

III

By the way, I could introduce myself. You hail from two backgrounds, Jewish and Catholic. I hail from four of them, or five : Agnostic, Atheist, Lutheran-Church-Hopping, Jewish and Catholic. My name is Hans-Georg Mikael Elitzur Lundahl.

["You" = speaker, Jacob Prasch, not video owner, not Veruka psalm40verse2]

IV

3:41 Note, Popes have erred, we agree.

When saying, not when proclaiming ex cathedra.

Honorius erred in taking Monotheletism as innocuous in wording (by the way, the last Monothelites who were so became the Uniate Maronites and accept the Third Council of Constantinople). His words were disciplinary, like "do not preach against Monotheletism".

Paschal II John XXII erred in accepting a then popular among Eastern Schismatics doctrine of Soul Sleep. He was opposed by people threatening to withdraw obedience - that is, presumably, declare him a non-Pope. Since he withdrew his error, it is clear he cannot have made a kind of "final statement".

"Pope John XXII inadvertently caused the beatific vision controversy (1331–34) by suggesting that the saved do not attain the Beatific Vision, or "see God" until Judgment Day (in Italian: Visione beatifica differita, "deferred beatific vision"), which was a view possibly consistent with soul sleep. The Sacred College of Cardinals held a consistory on the problem in January 1334, and Pope John conceded to the more orthodox understanding. His successor, in that same year, Pope Benedict XII, declared it ex cathedra doctrine that the righteous do see Heaven prior to the final judgement."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism#Ninth_to_fifteenth_centuries

So, he erred. Obviously, his cardinals did not.

V

4:04 “Every cleric must obey the Pope, even if he commands what is evil; for no one may judge the Pope.”

God gave an inspiration for when you said that. 4:04 suggests "error 404" or page missing.

Here is a discussion of that quote:

https://forums.catholic.com/t/is-there-a-source-for-this-alleged-pope-innocent-iii-quote/75255/4

This quote appears in chapter 7 of Dave Hunt’s “A Woman Rides the Beast” and is quoted on many anti-Catholic websites. I have searched in vain for a source document.

If you claim you have found the quote in "Rome Has Spoken", where do they give their attribution for the source?

Could Maureen Fiedler and Linda Rabben by some chance have given credence to fake quotes?

Did you say they were nuns?

Linda Rabben's page on Amazon doesn't say so.

"Linda Rabben is an anthropologist, human rights advocate and author or editor of eight books on human rights-related subjects. She has worked for organizations such as Amnesty International, the Rainforest Foundation, the International Center for Transitional Justice, and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. She did ethnographic fieldwork in Brixton, South London, UK, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where she acquired proficiency in the samba. Her work as a writer, editor, researcher and public speaker has taken her to Mozambique, France, Mexico, the Netherlands and other countries. She has also traveled much in Iowa. After spending more than 25 years focusing on Brazil, she became interested in refugee, asylum and immigration issues in the mid-1990s. Her most recent book, "Sanctuary and Asylum: A Social and Political History," grew out of that involvement. She writes accessible, straightforward prose and speaks to a diverse, "crossover" audience of students, engaged scholars, activists, policymakers, lawyers, refugees, immigrants and lovers of social history. "

https://www.amazon.com/Linda-Rabben/e/B001IXSE4C/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2?qid=1520413937&sr=1-2

Maureen E. Fiedler has no author page. Her other work on Amazon seems to be about feminist theology of some sort:

https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Through-Stained-Glass-Ceiling/dp/1596271205/ref=la_B00J7OCVIY_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1520414062&sr=1-1

Even if she is a nun, she need not be considered as faithful to the magisterium and as having no anti-Catholic (usual historic sense) bias.

Also, the quote could have been included due to Linda Rabben.

VI

4:46 Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Be, not is.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

It is not necessary for your salvation to believe a Pagan is subject to the Pope, it is necessary for your and for the Pagan's salvation to be Catholic Christians subject to the Pope.

At 4:40 there is a misquote "that every human being is subject to the Roman Pontiff"

This is not what the Bull says.

VII

If Jacob Prasch hails from partly Jewish background, he might have a somewhat better grasp on language than misquoting "be" as "is", with an indicative (statement of fact) for subjunctive (statement of necessity by condition, here).

Is Jacob Prasch a liar, or has he quoted from a book by liars?

J 74 070 04
. 78 140 12
P 80 220 12
R 82 300 14
A 65 360 19
S 83 440 22
C 67 500 29
H 72 570 31 601 (JA. PRASCH instead of J. PRASCH would give 666)

Risk zone?

Yeah, I checked at 1:22 Jacob Prasch said "written by two Academic Roman Catholic nuns"

Can he document either is so?

... on Mark of the Beast, Giants, and the Eucharist (dialogues lead to diversions)

Antichrist Will Be The Genetic Son of Satan (& How the Mark of the Beast Damns You) - Douglas Hamp
Veruka psalm40verse2 | Added 2 Sept. 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwCB_eSIJaA

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What do you think happens to someone who had animal DNA added without his normal awake consent (in sleep, under hypnosis etc)?

Veruka psalm40verse2

I personally think all humanity is corrupted in their DNA, because of toxins we take in from our polluted environment, GMO foods, vaccines, x-ray damage, etc. I believe God can heal all this when a person gives their heart and life to Jesus Christ. Re: animal DNA being added: I don't know if there is a "saturation point", so to speak, where the DNA becomes so corrupted that the person isn't considered Human any more, EXCEPT for the Mark of the Beast itself (which will may contain Satanic DNA). You take that Mark and you are no longer eligible for salvation, PERIOD. But you ask a very interesting question. You should ask this of Doug Hamp or Jacob Prasch - I'd be interested in their answer!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You have closer contact to them than I have.

As for DNA becoming simply dysfunctional by toxins and so, that is not "corrupted" seed in the relevant sense, since it was perhaps even God's own method for shortening lifespans between Flood and Babel and beyond : at least higher radioactivity (explaining the C14 rise in atmosphere, since on my tables it needs a faster C14 production than the one we have today) would have shortened telomeres and hastened the moment at which two many cells have too many mutations on chromosomes lacking their telomeres. It would also have involved a certain amount of mutations happening. Perhaps blonde and blue eyes is from then, while white skin could be that but also could be Neanderthal heritage: if one of the daughters in law of Noah had part Neanderthal heritage (but not on a complete maternal line, her mitochondrial DNA would be as Sethite as the one we have today).

Saturation point is a good point ... though as a Catholic I object to the wording "considered" as in "that the person isn't considered Human any more" - because as with sin and justice, our state is not just how we are "considered" but actual facts in us. Also, it would rather be a case of losing use of freewill than of not being a human person - losing freewill would imply no longer functioning as an adult human person, but you would still be a human person.

Veruka psalm40verse2

Interesting points, and absolutely fascinating things to consider. Thank you for sharing this. :)

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Seeing that Neanderthals are a pre-Flood race, see Pääbo, who stated the Y-chromosome and mitochindrial DNA don't exist any more (even if other Neanderthal identic genes discern some people from others, red head, perhaps white skin, diabetes (type II?), bipolar ...) do you think Neanderthals were image of the beast, or do you think they were just any other pre-Flood race?

Neanderthals have been found with signs of cannibalism and not always just as victims, Neanderthals in Belgium ate woolly rhino - and men, according to DNA from their tooth enamel. B u t those in Spain - there have been found traces of cannibalism, but tooth enamel says vegetarian (like pre-Flood men were supposed to be). Pine nuts, among other things. Other article.

Oh, by the way, they certainly were human rather than straight off animal, since they do have the human version of FOXP2 gene, vital to human speech (a family with even one mutation on it could not speak). CMI has one article with this info and obviously gives a reference ...

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_2/j22_2_13-14.pdf

I found a few references, and think this one is the relevant one:

Enard W., Przeworski, M., Fisher, S.E., Lai, C.S., Wiebe, V., Kitano, T., Monaco, A.P. and Pääbo, S., Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language, Nature 418:869–872, 2002.

Veruka psalm40verse2

I've seen researchers point out that "Neanderthals" weren't pre-human in any way, but were actually REALLY OLD HUMANS who were pre-flood. They grew gigantic brow ridges because they were so old and because the brow ridge never stops growing, apparently. Also these people had incredibly strong skeletons. They were superior to us. Sounds like pre-flood humanity to me, back when the entire ecosystem was different and people could live to be a thousand years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

First of all, we have Cro-Magnon (Sethites, or genetically very close) who lived in their time, as per identical carbon dates (which are inflated but give probably a relative sequence), second, we have them also documented as parents or ancestors of an offspring which is genetically half Neanderthal and half Cro-Magnon, that is half Sethite.

And, third, not least, Pääbo has analysed their DNA. Some of it is no longer there and some of it is in some men but not others.

The gigantic eyes would have looked like certain Sumerians, and it seems the contemporary Cro-Magnon did not have as thick bones. I think we might deal either with a genetic deviation or with a process of "adding brawn and subtracting brain" like Soviet and later Russian élite sportsmen, as well as East German ones.

Such a process could be pushed so far that one lost the adult use of freewill.

Veruka psalm40verse2

I have encountered believers who are adamant that once a person takes the Mark, they actually LOSE their free will and become enslaved to the demonic Hive mind. I tend to agree with this perspective.

Most certainly, Satan has messed with human DNA in the past (Genesis 6) and he appears to be doing so again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I have encountered believers who are adamant that once a person takes the Mark, they actually LOSE their free will and become enslaved to the demonic Hive mind."

I could envisage losing use of free will.

That would certainly be one way in which the mark would finally damn one, and much closer to Classical Thomism than ceasing to be a human person.

Rosemary Kennedy did not become sth other than a human person, just a very stunted one, by lobotomy.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18:38 You realise you do have God's seed in you if you receive a valid communion?

Veruka psalm40verse2

Yes, a true believing Christian has God's seed in them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Meaning, as in valid communion, not just any believer in a broad sense, but where the priest has correctly consecrated bread and wine to the flesh and blood of the "seed of the woman".

Veruka psalm40verse2

Thank you for your comments Hans-Georg. :) With respect sir...Jesus does not appear in bread and wine. Jesus has been resurrected and gone to the Father; He does not come back until that Day when He returns to earth in bodily form. You will not find a Biblical teaching that tells you that the bread and wine we celebrate actually turns into Jesus' physical blood and flesh. The Apostles outlawed the consumption of blood in Acts 15:20. Throughout the Old Testament as well, believers are commanded to abstain from drinking blood. God cannot go against His Word. He would not command one thing and then do the opposite or expect us to go against His commandment. True salvation, and communion with Him, comes from belief in Jesus: "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." (Romans 10:9-10)
And;
" 23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." (John 14:23)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You will not find a Biblical teaching that tells you that the bread and wine we celebrate actually turns into Jesus' physical blood and flesh."

John 6.

"The Apostles outlawed the consumption of blood in Acts __15:20__."

When Christ confirms His teaching by the special miracle of visibly turning the wine to His blood, drinking is indeed forbidden.

"Jesus has been resurrected and gone to the Father; He does not come back until that Day when He returns to earth in bodily form."

Nevertheless, His body has a hologrammatic presence, if you like to put it that way, in each validly consecrated host and chalice.

He also promised "I am with you every day" Matthew 28:20.

“If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." (John __14:23__)

One of the words were "do this in remembrance of me" and "he that eateth not my flesh has no life".

Veruka psalm40verse2

The following excerpt from a Got Questions article explains this better than I can...please allow me to share it. And forgive me for the length! But I hope you read it, sir.

[excerpt:]

"The Roman Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus. They attempt to support their system of thought with passages such as John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25.

In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, "By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II). By sharing in the Eucharistic meal, the Church teaches that Catholics are fulfilling John 6:53: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that "it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63-64). So, if "the flesh is of no avail," why would we have to eat Jesus' flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are "spirit." Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: "Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1).

In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High's covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus' real point.

In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51) and the entire Mosaic system of Law. The passage from Sirach states that those who eat of the Law will "hunger still" and "thirst for more"; this language is mirrored by Jesus when He says, "He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself ("The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent," John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.

Second, there is a very clear analogy in John 6 to the days of Moses and the eating of manna. In the days of Moses, manna was God’s provision for food for the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. In John 6, however, Jesus claimed to be the true manna, the bread of heaven. With this statement Jesus claimed to be God’s full provision for salvation. Manna was God’s provision of deliverance from starvation. Jesus is God’s provision of deliverance from damnation. Just as the manna had to be consumed to preserve the lives of the Israelites, so Jesus has to be consumed (fully received by faith) for salvation to be received.

It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged His followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord's Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted. As suggested above, it is best to understand this passage in light of coming to Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.”

Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a "re-sacrifice" of Christ, or a "re-offering" of Christ's sacrifice, or a “re-presentation” of Christ’s sacrifice, the concept is unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered or re-presented. Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself." Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, "For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God..." Christ's once-for-all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ's sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith."

from

https://www.gotquestions.org/Holy-Eucharist.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As you excused yourself for length, allow me to answer with some brevity, at least to the first and most important point.

The history of 1551 and Council of Trent is true, and we take it as we take the Council of Jerusalem, where it was decided Gentiles need not follow all 613 laws of the Torah. But moe important, Got Answers misconstrues one single verse in John 6 and uses it as a refutation of the rest:

"What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that "it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63-64). So, if "the flesh is of no avail," why would we have to eat Jesus' flesh in order to have eternal life?"

Because He said so, and because His own flesh and blood was not what he meant.

As a Church Father stated, if His flesh was of no avail, why the Incarnation and the Crucifixion.

Here is Haydock comment to verse 64:

Ver. 64. The flesh profiteth nothing. Dead flesh, separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man's flesh, that is to say, man's natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. — Are spirit and life. By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace and life in its very fountain. Ch. — It is the spirit that quickeneth, or giveth life. These words sufficiently correct the gross and carnal imagination of these Capharnaites, that he meant to give them his body and blood to eat in a visible and bloody manner, as flesh, says S. Aug. is sold in the market, and in the shambles;[3] but they do not imply a figurative or metaphorical presence only. The manner of Christ's presence is spiritual and under the outward appearances of bread and wine; but yet he is there truly and really present, by a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood, which truly and really become our spiritual food, and are truly and really received in the holy sacrament. — The flesh[4] of itself profiteth nothing, not even the flesh of our Saviour Christ, were it not united to the divine person of Christ. But we must take care how we understand these words spoken by our Saviour: for it is certain, says S. Aug. that the word made flesh, is the cause of all our happiness. Wi. — When I promise you life if you eat my flesh, I do not wish you to understand this of that gross and carnal manner, of cutting my members in pieces: such ideas are far from my mind: the flesh profiteth nothing. In the Scriptures, the word flesh is often put for the carnal manner of understanding any thing. If you wish to enter into the spirit of my words, raise your hearts to a more elevated and spiritual way of understanding them. Calmet. — The reader may consult Des Mahis, p. 165, a convert from Protestantism, and who has proved the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist in the most satisfactory manner, from the written word. Where he shows that Jesus Christ, speaking of his own body, never says the flesh, but my flesh: the former mode of expression is used to signify, as we have observed above, a carnal manner of understanding any thing.

Forgot to give source, here it is:

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment79.shtml

All of Haydock comment accessible from index on this link: http://ppt.li/3xt

Oh, one more:

Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a "re-sacrifice" of Christ, or a "re-offering" of Christ's sacrifice, or a “re-presentation” of Christ’s sacrifice, the concept is unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered or re-presented. Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself."

Another verse Protestants misconstruct, also with a condemnation from Trent.

• 1) We know from the verse, there is only one sacrifice;
• 2) We know from Malachi and Daniel the New Covenant has a daily sacrifice, we also know this refers to the Eucharist, since Christ is eternally priest according to the order of Melchisedec, see Psalms and Hebrews;
• 3) We must conclude the Eucharistic sacrifice cannot be another but must be the same sacrifice as on Calvary.

Veruka psalm40verse2

Hans-Georg, I appreciate you taking the time to share these excerpts with me. I read them but I cannot agree with them. Jesus' sacrifice was only once, on the cross. He does not die again and again in the sacraments. There is no Bible scripture that teaches that the bread and wine of communion turns into Jesus' actual body and blood. When He was on the cross He said, :"It is finished." (John 19:30) When He instituted the Lord's Supper He said "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19). Eating His flesh and drinking His blood is eating His Word, taking His Word into you and living it...believing His Word, letting it become part of you. Following Jesus allows His life to shine through you because you become part of His body. It's obvious that you believe in Jesus and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me. :) I simply cannot agree with you on this point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Jesus' sacrifice was only once, on the cross."

In its physical shape.

"He does not die again and again in the sacraments."

We do not say he does, you deliberately misconstrue what we say so it should fit what St Paul condemns.

"There is no Bible scripture that teaches that the bread and wine of communion turns into Jesus' actual body and blood."

Synoptics on last supper, St Paul in more than one verse and John 6 in more than one verse says they are so, therefore they must have turned into them.

"When He was on the cross He said, :"It is finished." (John 19:30)"

His redemptive effort was.

"When He instituted the Lord's Supper He said "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19)."

Yes, namely He told the twelve (or eleven if Judas the traitor was gone) to do what He had done, meaning He had done sth, turned bread and wine into His Flesh and Blood.

"Eating His flesh and drinking His blood is eating His Word, taking His Word into you and living it...believing His Word, letting it become part of you."

And never eating and drinking a judgement over yourself? See what St Paul says, some do receive the Eucharist without taking His words into them and living these words.

Now, what exactly did Trent teach in 1551?

Here is a key point:

First of all, the holy council teaches and openly and plainly professes that after the consecration of bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, really and substantially contained in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist under the appearance of those sensible things. For there is no repugnance in this that our Savior sits always at the right hand of the Father in heaven[3] according to the natural mode of existing, and yet is in many other places sacramentally present to us in His own substance by a manner of existence which, though we can scarcely express in words, yet with our understanding illumined by faith, we can conceive and ought most firmly to believe is possible to God.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT13.HTM#1

This means,

His presence is the presence not of His agony on Calvary, but of Him risen and seated at the Father's Right Hand.

However, if you look at the Bible, Christ in Heaven is present there "as one sacrificed"

Apocalypse 5 : [6] And I saw: and behold in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the ancients, a Lamb standing as it were slain, having seven horns and seven eyes: which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth. [7] And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat on the throne.

If in Heaven He is "standing as it were slain", why not His presence by spiritual bilocation on Earth?

Glad you are not totally anti-catholic.

Veruka psalm40verse2

Hans, I am on my way out the door so I will give a full reply to your last comment when I get home. However, I must take a few seconds to stress in the strongest way that although I am not against Catholics, I am as anti-Catholicism as can be. I will never support the Catholic church in any way because it teaches much error.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You just crossed one line, considering me as a believer in Jesus when I gave Catholic theology.

There is a difference between being anti-Catholic and anti-what-you-think-is-Catholic.

Veruka psalm40verse2

"they do not imply a figurative or metaphorical presence only. The manner of Christ's presence is spiritual and under the outward appearances of bread and wine; but yet he is there truly and really present, by a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood, which truly and really become our spiritual food, and are truly and really received in the holy sacrament."

***Respectfully, this teaching just violated the Law of Non-Contradiction. It is saying that the Sacrament ISN'T the physical body and blood of Christ while at the same time saying that it IS.

I am FOR Biblical truth and AGAINST the teaching of error in so far as it relates to the Bible, to Jesus, and all Biblical truth. The Catholic church teaches MANY errors, things that are in direct contradiction to the clear teaching of the Bible. I believe there are many Catholics who have put their faith in Jesus as the Son of God, but unfortunately they are still following the doctrines of men and not of God (Matthew 15:9). I am not deliberately misconstruing anything; by saying this you are attributing evil motives to me, which is completely untrue. I judge only by the Bible. If a teaching lines up with the Bible, so far so good; if it does not, then it is clearly an error. In so far as transubstantiation goes, God cannot contradict Himself. He teaches in His Word, over and over again, that we are NOT to eat blood. In addition, the Bible uses symbology to convey a spiritual meaning. Therefore, when Jesus told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood, He was not offering us His physical flesh and blood to physically put in our mouths and eat it. This is a spiritual thing. Here are examples of verses that show just how much God detests the consumption of blood:

Genesis 9:4
"Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Leviticus 3:17
'It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat any fat or any blood.'"

Leviticus 17:10-12
'And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.

Leviticus 17:14
"For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.'

Leviticus 19:26
'You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor practice divination or soothsaying.

Deuteronomy 12:16
"Only you shall not eat the blood; you are to pour it out on the ground like water.

Deuteronomy 12:23
"Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.

Deuteronomy 12:25
"You shall not eat it, so that it may be well with you and your sons after you, for you will be doing what is right in the sight of the LORD.

Deuteronomy 15:23
"Only you shall not eat its blood; you are to pour it out on the ground like water.

Acts 15:20
but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

Acts 15:29
that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."

Acts 21:25
"But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication."

Ezekiel 33:25
"Therefore say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "You eat meat with the blood in it, lift up your eyes to your idols as you shed blood Should you then possess the land?

Zechariah 9:7
And I will remove their blood from their mouth And their detestable things from between their teeth.

*************Finally, in Jeremiah 15:16 we read, 16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O Lord God of hosts." Does this mean that Jeremiah physically took God's Word and chewed it up and ate it? No. This is figurative.

Please understand that I am not trying to offend you. It is time for all believers to look at what the clear text of the Bible says.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The verses you quote are accounted for by St Augustine.

As said, on rare occasions, Christ made the transsubstantiation a visible miracle instead of just a sacramental and understood one, and in those cases, drinking the blood visibly blood is prohibited for this very reason, the blood is then kept as relics (those with the face of Christ on one table cloth, and liquid blood in one chalice).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I am not deliberately misconstruing anything; by saying this you are attributing evil motives to me, which is completely untrue."

Refers, no doubt, to this:

"Another verse Protestants misconstruct"

right? Well, I did not say each Protestant was individually doing so by deliberate meanness. Collectively, your theological traditions misconstruct them. Individually, many of you are dupes of those traditions.

You were, deliberately or not, saying I was attributing evil motives to you personally, but I did not say "you deliberately misconstruct it". I also did not say you miscontruct it on your own.

Veruka psalm40verse2

Hans-Georg, every person will be believing something in error if they don't line their beliefs up with the Bible. The Bible is meant to be taken as a whole. It is not mean to be "built upon" by man, that is, by human men and women adding to its teachings. Many churches have done this, both Catholic AND Protestant. You can find a whole playlist on my channel denouncing the Protestant churches that have a)twisted Bible Scripture and b)added their own teachings to Bible Scripture. The playlist is here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLy9biS9rAYMRW_BUcUrGzyu2niz0FiUe8

It's incumbent upon each individual believer in Christ to read His Word, to know His Word, and to go no further than His Word. Subsequently, you may be interested in this video: "Questions for Catholics": https://youtu.be/zwLy283To7Y

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The Bible is meant to be taken as a whole. It is not mean to be "built upon" by man, that is, by human men and women adding to its teachings."

We Catholics basically agree on that. Bible and Apostolic Tradition must be taken as a whole and no substantial addition can be made to its teachings. Since the Bible is not sufficiently clear to you that Christ is really present, Apostolic Tradition is. You don't find early Church Fathers denying the Real Presence. You do find early Church Fathers not mentioning it, directly - but leaning only on those is cherrypicking.

Some Protestant Theologians will make collections of Early Church Fathers that sidestep the very clear teaching of St Ignatius of Antioch.

The bishops of Antioch start out as:

• 1) St Peter, the chief of the Apostles, after he left Jerusalem and before he came to Rome;
• 2) St Evodius
• 3) St Ignatius.

If you claim tradition had been corrupted in Antioch by the time of St Ignatius, what do you do with Matthew 28:20?

"It's incumbent upon each individual believer in Christ to read His Word, to know His Word, and to go no further than His Word."

Where exactly do you find that "in His Word"?

I will probably look at Prasch's questions too, right now I am answering you.

Veruka psalm40verse2

With respect, you continually point to writings OUTSIDE the Bible to make your point. We are taught in 1 Corinthians 4:6 "Do not go beyond what is written". 2 Timothy 3:15 teaches us that the Holy Scriptures make us wise unto salvation. Notice that it does not say "The Holy Scriptures + The Church Fathers + Apostolic Tradition + The Council of Trent etc. will make you wise unto salvation". Please quote me a Bible verse that points us towards any "Church Fathers", or indeed, any Scripture that tells us to look for knowledge outside of the COMPLETE Word of God. You won't find any. Furthermore, Apostolic tradition is the New Testament. Anything outside the Bible is adding to the Bible. If it goes against the clear teaching of Scripture then it is to be thrown out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"We are taught in 1 Corinthians 4:6 "Do not go beyond what is written"."

Not Sola Scriptura.

Here is context: [5] Therefore judge not before the time; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise from God. [6] But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written. [7] For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

He is speaking of ambition, not doctrine. As to "ambition" in the sense of clergy, we do not go beyond what is written, since the concept of a Christian clergy is clearly in the Gospels.

"2 Timothy 3:15 teaches us that the Holy Scriptures make us wise unto salvation."

Here is the verse : [15] And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Yes, a very good familiarity with Scripture can make someone instructed for salvation. Mine involves Matthew 28:20 for perpetuity of visible Church and a few verses before for this hinging on clergy.

"Notice that it does not say "The Holy Scriptures + The Church Fathers + Apostolic Tradition + The Council of Trent etc. will make you wise unto salvation"."

Notice that Jewish Tradition outside Torah was accepted by St Paul in same chapter, since he cited Jannes and Mambres. Notice also that people who are not yet and not from childhood familiar with OT Scripture in the way St Timothy was may well need someone like him to expose them. Even St Timothy on his part needed St Paul - already a clergyman - telling him about Christ. So, II Tim 3:15 is a very bad claim about Sola Scriptura.

"Please quote me a Bible verse that points us towards any "Church Fathers", or indeed, any Scripture that tells us to look for knowledge outside of the COMPLETE Word of God."

The complete word of God does involve Apostolic Tradition, just as in OT it involved Tradition from Moses on Mt Sinai or other "extrascriptural" parts (the Shema is for instance including words that are not written in Moses).

Also, any verse where St Paul tells St Timothy to instruct is a verse where St Paul tells some others to take his instruction. Meaning, he was making St Timothy what would now be termed a bishop, the most basic type of Church Father.

"Furthermore, Apostolic tradition is the New Testament."

It is of the New Covenant, but not limited to the text of NT. If you claim it is, you need, on your own rules, to back that up from NT. You can't. Indeed, several passages in letters to Timothy and Titus contradict that.

If you mean that now NT text is all that is left, that cannot be backed up by NT or OT texts, and is a statement about Church History which contradicts, once again, Matthew 28:20.

I missed out on Jeremiah, but here is the point : one of the prophets, I think Isaiah but could be wrong, was given a scroll to eat and it was sweet as honey.

He did physically eat it and Jeremiah could very well be referring to that.

Prophetically, this was foreboding, the Word was going to assume flesh and also going to give us His flesh to eat.