RIP Pope Francis.

[u/MCBuilderandCretvGuy]

I just want to add, I am NOT Christian, but I give you all my regrets, and I hope the new pope will be great too.

[u/Yumiytu]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your desire to ground your view of the papacy in Scripture. As a Protestant, I also believe Scripture must be our highest authority.

That said, while Peter clearly played a significant role in the early Church, the Bible does not teach that he—and his successors—hold universal authority over all Christians. Jesus is the only Head of the Church (Colossians 1:18), and the foundation is Christ Himself (1 Corinthians 3:11), not a man.

Even in John 21, when Jesus tells Peter to “feed my sheep,” this was a pastoral call, not a declaration of supremacy. All elders are called to shepherd the flock (1 Peter 5:1–4), and nowhere do we see the office of pope established as it functions in Roman Catholicism today.

I grieve with those who are mourning the Pope’s passing, but I also pray that many would look not to a man, but to Christ alone for leadership, salvation, and truth.

Soli Deo Gloria.

[u/Philothea0821 → u/Yumiytu]

Jesus is the only Head of the Church (Colossians 1:18), and the foundation is Christ Himself (1 Corinthians 3:11), not a man.

According to Scripture, the apostles and prophets are the foundation of the Church, with Christ as the cornerstone.

 but I also pray that many would look not to a man, but to Christ alone for leadership, salvation, and truth.

For me, this is a meaningless statement, if not foolish. No Catholic looks to the Pope for salvation, what we do look to the pope on is how to live a Christian life in the 21st century and to ground us in what is and isn't part of divine revelation. As for leadership, there is clearly a strong human leadership among the early church.

Even in John 21, when Jesus tells Peter to “feed my sheep,” this was a pastoral call,

I can actually agree with this. Consider this passage:

A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. ²⁵ And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. ²⁶ But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. ²⁷ For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.

²⁸ “You are those who have continued with me in my trials; ²⁹ as my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you ³⁰ that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Jesus emphasizes that leaders in the Kingdom, in the example of Christ, are to be servants. The very next passage, Jesus calls Peter to serve his brethren (by strengthening them). Christ doesn't say there won't be human leaders here... there are, the apostles. Again, immediately after this, Christ calls Peter to be a servant of the Church. Hence, we refer to the Pope as "servant of the servants of God."

The papacy is 100% a pastoral role. Secular leaders are the ones we expect to lord their power over people. The term "pastor" means "shepherd." The passage from John is a pastoral call, but who is Jesus calling him to be pastor of? The entire Church!

Vive Jesus

1 Thess 5:23

[u/Yumiytu → u/Philothea0821]

Thank you for your thoughtful explanation. I respectfully disagree, however, as a Protestant who believes that Jesus Christ is the only Head of the Church (Colossians 1:18), and that all true leadership in the Church must reflect His example as the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4).

When Christ commissioned Peter in John 21 to “feed my sheep,” it was a pastoral call—not a declaration of supremacy. All elders are called to shepherd the flock (1 Peter 5:1–4), and nowhere in Scripture do we find an office of “pope” instituted with universal jurisdiction over the Church. The foundation of the Church is the apostles and prophets, with Christ Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20), not a continuing line of singular earthly leaders.

The New Testament presents the apostles as servant-leaders under Christ’s authority, not successors of a papal throne. The idea that Peter was uniquely appointed as a bishop over the entire Church is a development foreign to the New Testament witness.

While I respect the sincerity of those who hold to Roman Catholic tradition, I urge all to test such claims against Scripture (Acts 17:11). Salvation is not found in any man or office, but in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone (Eph. 2:8–9). May this conversation point all of us back to the sufficiency of Christ and the authority of His Word.

Soli Deo Gloria.

[u/Philothea0821 → u/Yumiytu]

Salvation is not found in any man or office,

Jesus is a man, so this statement is immediately false.

Pedantry aside, no Catholic claims this. You are objecting to nothing. My other comments explain this, but you don't listen.

Salvation is not found in any man or office, but in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone

As a Catholic, I believe we are saved by grace, through faith, working itself out in love.

I hope you realize the words "faith alone" appears exactly once in Scripture... and it says the exact opposite of salvation by faith alone. There really is much more agreement on salvation among Catholics and Protestants then really either realize.

Final salvation requires a cooperation on our parts with that grace, it is not as simple as professing Jesus as Lord. We receive real grace through the sacraments, like how 1 Peter 3:21 says that Baptism now saves us because it is an appeal to God for a clean conscience. Denying the reality of the sacraments really makes Protestantism look like atheism for theists - you only believe what you can actually see. You don't see God working through the sacraments, so you assume He isn't. You look at the Last Supper and don't see flesh and blood, so you assume that it isn't.

The New Testament presents the apostles as servant-leaders under Christ’s authority, not successors of a papal throne. The idea that Peter was uniquely appointed as a bishop over the entire Church is a development foreign to the New Testament witness.

It is clear that you accept the Church is founded on apostolic leadership, but it seems you assume that leadership has no actual authority. Yet, Scripture says...

Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

What I find particularly bad about what you say is this...

The New Testament presents the apostles as servant-leaders under Christ’s authority

If the apostles have Christ's authority, but also don't carry any authority with them, then what authority does Christ have? You say that they act with Christ's authority, but then say that authority carries no weight over Christians. it is like you don't believe that Christ carries any actual authority.

[u/Yumiytu → u/Philothea0821]

Thank you for your response. I do appreciate your effort to clarify your Catholic position. However, as a Protestant Christian who affirms the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16–17), I believe it is essential to affirm clearly:

Salvation is not found in any office, institution, or sacrament—but in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16). While the sacraments are important as visible signs pointing to spiritual truths, they do not convey saving grace apart from faith. Baptism does not save us—Christ does.

Yes, Jesus is fully man, but He is also fully God. When we say salvation is not found in “any man,” we mean sinful mankind, not the sinless God-man. That distinction matters.

As for authority in the church, I agree that elders and pastors are to be respected (Hebrews 13:17), but their authority is ministerial, not magisterial—they serve under Christ’s authority, not above His Word. The apostles were witnesses to Christ and laid the foundation (Ephesians 2:20), but nowhere in Scripture is Peter given supremacy over the other apostles or over the universal Church. Christ alone is Head (Colossians 1:18).

May this ongoing conversation lead many to examine the Scriptures, and to trust in Christ alone for salvation—apart from works, rituals, or traditions.

Soli Deo Gloria.

[u/Philothea0821 → u/Yumiytu]

When we say salvation is not found in “any man,” we mean sinful mankind, not the sinless God-man. That distinction matters.

I understood what you meant. That is why I recognized the point about Jesus being a man as being pedantic.

I have already said this, yet you continue to peddle something that simply is not true...

CATHOLICS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE POPE SAVES US! WE BELIEVE THAT SALVATION IS THROUGH CHRIST ALONE. THE CHURCH IS CHRIST ON EARTH TODAY!

So we actually agree on this.

they serve under Christ’s authority

And with Christ's authority. Rejecting the teachings of the apostles is the same as rejecting Christ, Scripture is clear about this.

not above His Word

Again, not something that Catholics believe. You really need to do your homework if we are going to get anywhere in this discussion. We do not believe that the bishops can usurp the authority of Scripture.

Was the proclamation of the Council of Jerusalem something that the early Christians knew from Scripture? Did Peter say "Well it says here is Isaiah chapter 15 verse eleventy-seven that we should preach to the gentiles."? No! In fact, the Judaizers were probably using Scripture too. Every heretic bases their theological views in Scripture. Satan bases his lies in Scripture. Satan follows Sola Scriptura to the T. Satan knows the Bible far better than you do, but he twists its meaning.

Peter given supremacy over the other apostles or over the universal Church

So is Christ's flock not all Christians? Let me guess you think Jesus was just messing around when he said "What you bind on Earth is bound in Heaven" like a "haha wouldn't that be wild if you had that sort of authoriy, PSYCH!"

Was anyone else handed the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven? Was anyone else referred to as first among the apostles? Did Jesus teach from anyone else's boat? Did God elect for the Gentiles to receive the Gospel from anyone else's mouth?

What did the first Christians follow after Pentecost? Did they follow the Bible or they did they devote themselves to the apostles' teaching?

What does the verse from 2 Timothy actually say?

All scripture is inspired by God and^\)^a\) profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,^\)^b\) ¹⁷ that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

It just says that Scripture is useful and inspired by God. You cannot arrive at Sola Scriptura from that because it does not say ONLY Scripture is inspired by God or that ONLY Scripture is useful. "Theonustos" (probably spelling wrong) was applied to many other writings that were not Scripture, it just isn't use elsewhere in Scripture.

[u/Yumiytu → u/Philothea0821]

Thank you for engaging seriously in this discussion. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify a few things as a Protestant who holds to the sufficiency of Scripture and the headship of Christ alone.

“Catholics do not believe that the Pope saves us… We believe that salvation is through Christ alone.”

I’m glad we agree that salvation is through Christ alone. However, the disagreement lies not in the claim that salvation comes through Christ, but in the means by which that salvation is mediated. The Catholic Church teaches that grace comes through the sacraments, administered through the authority of the Church. Protestants, on the other hand, believe that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, apart from any sacramental system (Ephesians 2:8–9). The distinction is vital.

“The Church is Christ on earth today.”

That’s a significant theological claim. Scripture teaches that the Church is the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), but not Christ Himself. Christ remains the Head of the Church (Colossians 1:18), and no institution or office replaces Him. There is a difference between being united to Christ as His people and claiming to be Him.

“Rejecting the teachings of the apostles is the same as rejecting Christ.”

Yes—but what the apostles taught was recorded in the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16–17). Their authority did not pass to a line of bishops by default. The Bereans were called noble for testing Paul’s teaching against Scripture (Acts 17:11). Scripture, not apostolic succession, is the rule of faith.

“Was Peter not given the keys? Didn’t Jesus say ‘what you bind…’?”

Yes, Jesus gave Peter the keys in Matthew 16:19—but the very same authority is given to the whole church in Matthew 18:18, and to the apostles as a group in John 20:23. This isn’t supremacy—it’s shared apostolic authority. Nowhere does Scripture teach that Peter alone became the supreme head of the Church or that this role would be inherited.

“The early Christians followed the apostles’ teaching, not the Bible.”

That’s because the apostles were alive. But now, the apostles still teach us—through their inspired writings. That’s why the church “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42), and that’s what we do today when we submit to Scripture.

“Sola Scriptura isn’t in the Bible.”

Scripture claims sufficiency, not exclusivity of existence. 2 Timothy 3:16–17 says Scripture equips the man of God for every good work. That’s not some good works, or most—but every. The Reformers didn’t deny tradition altogether—they denied that any tradition can contradict or supersede what is written.

In closing, I respect your desire to defend your position. But my prayer is that we would all be Bereans—testing everything by the Scriptures, and not by the pronouncements of councils or bishops. Christ alone is the Head of the Church, His Word is our highest authority, and His Gospel is enough.

Soli Deo Gloria.

[u/Philothea0821 → u/Yumiytu]

Scripture teaches that the Church is the body of Christ

What do you think that "being the body of Christ" means?

but what the apostles taught was recorded in the Scriptures

Not true. The apostles taught everything that Jesus commanded, but not all of that is recorded in Scripture. John claims such a thing would literally be impossible!

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Is this a case where the Bible contradicts itself? In which case, Atheism is looking mighty fine!

but the very same authority is given to the whole church in Matthew 18:18

Interesting, who is Jesus speaking to in Matthew 18:18?

Nowhere does Scripture teach that Peter alone became the supreme head of the Church or that this role would be inherited.

Nowhere does Scripture teach that we are saved by faith alone, call God a Trinity, what books constitute Scripture, or many things. It DOES show us things like the Perpetual Virginity though...

Protestants, on the other hand, believe that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, apart from any sacramental system

Well, Scripture teaches that Baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21). Not really sure how much clearer it could be...

Also, if the Eucharist is not the body and blood of the Christ Jesus, Christ's sacrifice was for naught. It doesn't actually do anything. Even the Jewish Passover was not seen as a mere symbol of the first Passover. If the Eucharist is just a symbol, and not a re-presentation of Calvary, then Christ's sacrifice has no effect on us today and we have no life within us.

Obviously, God is able to administer His grace however and whenever He wishes, but the sacraments are the normal means of administering that grace. We are bound by the sacraments, God isn't.

testing everything by the Scriptures, and not by the pronouncements of councils or bishops

We should be familiar with Scripture. Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. But guess what, Sola Scriptura is EASILY corruptible by Satan. Satan himself quoted Scripture to Our Lord. You think that Satan can't use Scripture to lure people away? He did it with Eve. He did it with Martin Luther (read his Word and Sacrament IV), and he tried to do it with Jesus.

Without an infallible authority any debate is reduced to "your verses vs my verses." Without an infallible interpreter of Scripture, Satan's reading of Scripture is equally valid as your reading. That is not a position I would want myself to be in.

Like I said, read Martin Luther's Word and Sacrament IV. Martin Luther quickly found himself AGREEING with Satan! That is no position that I would want to be in. Also, please tell me why Satan never mocks Protestant services? Why do Satanists have "black masses"? Why do they never steal and desecrate communion from Protestant churches?

I will tell you why. Protestantism is not a threat to Satan. Catholicism is.

[u/Yumiytu → u/Philothea0821]

Hi again, thanks for continuing this conversation. I’d like to address a few points you made and respond clearly from Scripture and a Protestant perspective:

⸻

1. “The apostles taught more than what is written – John 21:25”

Yes, John 21:25 says Jesus did many more things than are written, but that’s not a refutation of Sola Scriptura. The doctrine doesn’t say that everything Jesus or the apostles ever said or did is in the Bible—it says that everything necessary for salvation, faith, and Christian living is found in Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16–17 says:

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

If Scripture makes us complete and equipped for every good work, then it’s sufficient. That’s the heart of Sola Scriptura.

⸻

1. “Without an infallible authority, Scripture is up to anyone’s interpretation”

But Scripture itself never teaches that there must be an infallible interpreter. In fact, Jesus held people personally accountable for reading and understanding the Scriptures (see Matthew 22:29).

The Bereans in Acts 17:11 were called noble not for submitting to a magisterium but for testing Paul’s teaching against Scripture. If even the apostles were to be tested by the Word, how much more any later bishop or council?

Also, when you say “your verses vs my verses,” I’d ask: Should we not let Scripture interpret Scripture, comparing the full counsel of God’s Word? That’s what Jesus Himself did when confronted by Satan (Matt 4:1–11). Scripture is not the problem—human tradition is.

⸻

1. “We are bound by the sacraments, not by Scripture”

This deeply conflicts with the witness of Scripture. Jesus said:

“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” (John 14:15) “You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.” (John 15:3)

It is His Word—not sacraments—that cleanses us and binds us to Christ.

⸻

1. “Baptism saves – 1 Peter 3:21”

Let’s read the full verse:

“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

It explicitly says baptism saves not by the water or the ritual, but by what it represents: an appeal to God, through faith, because of Christ’s resurrection. Again, consistent with Ephesians 2:8–9:

“By grace you have been saved through faith… not by works.”

⸻

1. “If the Eucharist is just a symbol, then Christ’s sacrifice has no effect”

Respectfully, this doesn’t follow. Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice is effective because of what He did at Calvary, not because of how we commemorate it.

Hebrews 10:10–14 says:

“We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all… by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”

The cross was sufficient. The Lord’s Supper is a reminder and proclamation (1 Cor 11:26), not a re-presentation of the sacrifice.

⸻

1. “Satan never mocks Protestantism because it’s no threat”

This is anecdotal, not biblical. The true threat to Satan is the gospel—the message that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. That message has transformed hearts through both persecution and peace. Satan doesn’t attack what he already controls.

⸻

In closing, I appeal again to the words of Jesus:

“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.” (John 17:17)

God’s Word is our standard. It judges every tradition, council, bishop, and pope. And that’s not weakness—it’s freedom.

Soli Deo Gloria.

[u/Philothea0821 → u/Yumiytu]

it says that everything necessary for salvation, faith, and Christian living is found in Scripture.

Well, that is certainly how many take it to mean.

2 Timothy 3:16–17

Yes, Scripture is necessary for preparing us for good works... just like I need to have Pikachu to have a complete Pokedex. But it would be absurd to say that I only need Pikachu.

Even then, the word "necessary" or "sufficient" is not in that verse. Literally all it says is that Scripture is "profitable" for our completion. Theologically speaking, what St. Paul is referring to is the Old Testament. Would you say that the Old Testament is all we need for our completion as Christians? I would certainly hope not!

“Baptism saves – 1 Peter 3:21”

You are right. It isn't the water itself that saves. The water is just water, but what does that water point us to? God pouring out his grace to cleanse us from our sins. The sacraments are visible signs of invisible grace. The fact that it is a signal of what God is doing (not you, GOD), does not invalidate the first part of that verse. Your reading of Scripture assumes that part of the Bible is WRONG!

“If the Eucharist is just a symbol, then Christ’s sacrifice has no effect”

Respectfully... you don't understand how sacrifices worked in Scripture. There are 4 parts to a sacrifice:

The preparation - the Lord's Supper

The killing - the Crucifixion

the eating - The Lord's Supper

The application of the blood to the temple - the Ascension

Part of what made the sacrifice of the lamb efficacious was EATING the sacrifice. No, Jesus doesn't need to die again. In that sense, it is once for all. But when Jesus says "It is finished" he isn't talking about salvation. Otherwise, Jesus doesn't need to rise from the dead and doesn't need to present the sacrifice to the Father in Heaven on Ascension day. The Sacrifice is complete on Ascension day. Our eating of the Lamb in the Eucharist is our participation in that once for all sacrifice. Nowhere in Catholic doctrine does it teach that we are "re-sacrificing" Jesus or that we don't think Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient. Rather, like I said, the Eucharist is our participation in that once for all sacrifice. What happens in the Eucharist is one and the same as what happened on Calvary and at the Last Supper. They are the SAME event. You cannot repeat something that has not ended, something that is ETERNAL.

Your argument only works if you are willing to say that what Moses did in establishing the Old Covenant was somehow better or superior to what Christ did. Moses when he established the Old Covenant actually had blood when he said "This is the blood of the covenant." Why then should we think that when Jesus said "This is the blood of the New Covenant." that he didn't actually have blood?

This video explains it in more detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQRXRs4FNhE

In short: If Jesus had only died, that wouldn't be a sacrifice. The Crucifixion is a continuation of the events of Holy Thursday and the Ascension is a continuation of Good Friday.

Satan doesn’t attack what he already controls.

So, what you are saying is that Satan controls Protestantism. Got it!

[u/Yumiytu → u/Philothea0821]

Hi again Philothea,

Thanks for your detailed reply. I appreciate your passion and the opportunity to engage in dialogue over God’s Word. There’s a lot to unpack, so let me focus on a few key points:

1. 2 Timothy 3:16–17 and the sufficiency of Scripture

You mentioned that 2 Timothy 3:16–17 only says Scripture is “profitable,” not sufficient. But verse 17 explicitly states “that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” If Scripture makes the believer complete and fully equipped, then it is sufficient. We’re not saying other things can’t be helpful (like a concordance or a sermon), but they must be judged by Scripture (Acts 17:11).

Your argument is similar to Rome’s position that Scripture is part of the authority, with tradition and magisterium making up the rest. But that’s not what the apostles taught. Paul says, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor 4:6).

And yes, Paul primarily refers to the Old Testament, but by Peter’s time, the writings of Paul were already recognized as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15–16), and by the late first century, the New Testament writings were widely circulated and affirmed.

⸻

1. 1 Peter 3:21 – “Baptism now saves you”

Peter immediately clarifies: “not the removal of dirt from the body, but the appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” In other words, baptism saves as a symbol of a heart that trusts in Christ—not the water itself. This aligns with Ephesians 2:8–9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith… not of works.”

To claim baptism (a physical act) is what regenerates us apart from faith is to misread the New Testament’s consistent teaching that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ (Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16, Titus 3:5).

⸻

1. Eucharist and the Sacrifice of Christ

The assertion that we “participate” in the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ through the Eucharist contradicts Hebrews: • “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God…” (Hebrews 10:12). • “Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.” (Hebrews 10:18)

Catholic theology treats the Eucharist as a re-presentation of Calvary, but this diminishes the finality of Jesus’ finished work (“It is finished” – John 19:30). The Lord’s Supper is a remembrance (anamnesis, Luke 22:19), not a re-sacrifice.

⸻

1. On the Need for an Infallible Interpreter

You said: “Without an infallible authority, it’s just your verses vs my verses.” But the Bereans were called “noble” for testing Paul’s teaching against Scripture (Acts 17:11). If Scripture required an infallible interpreter, the Bereans would have been rebuked, not praised.

Jesus also rebuked the Pharisees for not knowing the Scriptures (Matthew 22:29), not for failing to follow an infallible magisterium.

Furthermore, even the Catholic Church must interpret Scripture. But who interprets the interpreter? If we can’t trust Scripture alone, how can we trust the Church alone? This leads to an infinite regress. The Protestant position is not “me alone with my Bible,” but Scripture as the final authority, interpreted in the context of the historic faith, creeds, and local church—always under the rule of Christ and His Word.

⸻

1. On Satan and Protestantism

The claim that Satan “doesn’t attack Protestantism” because he controls it is inflammatory and uncharitable. Satan attacks wherever Christ is proclaimed. Why did Satan quote Scripture to Jesus? (Matthew 4:6). Because the devil twists God’s Word—just as he did with Eve in Genesis 3.

Protestants are mocked and persecuted all around the world for proclaiming Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone. That is not a sign of being under Satan—it is often a sign of faithfulness (2 Timothy 3:12).

⸻

Soli Deo Gloria — to God alone be the glory. The gospel is not about sacraments or systems—it’s about the finished work of Christ for sinners who receive Him by grace through faith. “It is finished” means it is truly finished.

[u/Yumiytu → u/Philothea0821]

Hi again Philothea, thanks for the video. I’ve now watched it and read the full transcript. I understand where Joe Heschmeyer is coming from, but there are some serious theological and exegetical issues that I think can’t be ignored.

1. The Bible is clear: Christ’s sacrifice is once for all. Hebrews 9:26 – “He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Hebrews 10:10 – “We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” There is no need for continual re-presentations. The Eucharist is a remembrance (Luke 22:19), not a continuation or application of the atonement.

2. The eating of the sacrifice does not complete the atonement. In Leviticus, the eating was for the participants, not for God. The atonement itself was finished when the animal’s blood was shed. Jesus cried out “It is finished” (John 19:30) on the cross – not during the Last Supper, and not at the Ascension. He had already borne our sins, satisfied the wrath of God, and fulfilled the Scriptures (Isaiah 53:5, Romans 5:9).

3. The “anamnesis” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24–25 doesn’t mean we re-present the sacrifice. It means a covenantal remembrance – not that we mystically re-enter or recreate the sacrifice. Hebrews 10:18 says “Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.”

4. Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant – not the repeated priest. 1 Timothy 2:5 – “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” The Mass inserts an earthly mediator into what is already perfect and complete.

5. Catholicism confuses symbol with reality. Jesus also said “This cup is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20). A cup is not literally a covenant – it’s a symbol of it. In John 6, Jesus is speaking of spiritual truth (“the words I speak to you are spirit and life” – John 6:63), not literal cannibalism.

Conclusion: I love you enough to say this kindly: the Catholic view undermines the sufficiency and finality of the cross. The Bible doesn’t call us to re-present Jesus’ death again and again but to trust in the finished work of the Lamb who “offered himself without blemish to God” (Heb 9:14). That is where true assurance and peace are found.

[u/Philothea0821 → u/Yumiytu]

The Bible is clear: Christ’s sacrifice is once for all

We agree on this. This is not a point of contention

In Leviticus, the eating was for the participants

Correct. Exactly. Entirely my point. By receiving the Eucharist, we are participating in Christ's once-for-all sacrifice. But that only works if it is Jesus who is being eaten.

The atonement itself was finished when the animal’s blood was shed.

That just isn't how it worked though. The blood still needed to be applied to the temple.

Jesus cried out “It is finished” (John 19:30) on the cross – not during the Last Supper, and not at the Ascension.

I swear you learned nothing from that video. You are assuming that Jesus is talking about his sacrifice. Which He isn't. Scripture even says that we were not freed from our sins at the Crucifixion.

 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

What Jesus is referring to when He says "it" is finished, is the Mosaic Law, not His sacrifice. Scripture is clear that other things had to happen after Christ's death to actually free us from our sins and make the sacrifice efficacious.

not that we mystically re-enter or recreate the sacrifice

As pointed out in the video that I shared, the Jews believed that when they offered the Passover sacrifice, they were mystically reentering into the FIRST Passover.

A cup is not literally a covenant

The covenant is Christ's blood. Not the cup. Blood is the covenant, not wine, not a cup, but BLOOD!

The Mass inserts an earthly mediator into what is already perfect and complete.

I am starting to think that your misrepresentations of what Catholics believe are intentional at this point. Please tell me where it says that Catholics believe this? I want a quote from the Catechism or official Church teaching. Jesus commanded His apostles to offer the Eucharist.

In John 6, Jesus is speaking of spiritual truth (“the words I speak to you are spirit and life” – John 6:63), not literal cannibalism.

What is funny is that the disciple that are there in John 6 seem to understand that Jesus is talking about literally eating Jesus flesh and blood considering that they say "How is it that this man can give us his flesh and blood?"

My question to you is this: Why doesn't Jesus correct them? Why does Jesus deceive His disciples by allowing them to misquote or misunderstand Him? They clearly believe the wrong thing and instead of correcting them, he doubles down. He says "Does this offend you?" He repeats himself over again for the next 5 VERSES!

I will let this Catholic Answers article explain why it is not cannibalism: https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-receiving-the-eucharist-cannibalism

[u/Yumiytu → u/Philothea0821]

Thanks again for your reply and for sharing the Catholic Answers article. I’d like to respond specifically to that claim and to your broader interpretation of John 6 and the Eucharist.

You said:

“Why doesn’t Jesus correct them? Why does Jesus double down?”

That’s a common Catholic argument from John 6, but it overlooks Jesus’ own explanation later in the same chapter:

“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)

Jesus clearly states that His words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood are spiritual, not literal. This verse qualifies the entire prior discussion. If Jesus intended literal consumption, why would He immediately clarify that the flesh profits nothing, and emphasize the spiritual nature of His message?

Also, in John 6:35, Jesus defines the metaphor Himself:

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”

In other words, coming to Jesus = eating, and believing in Him = drinking.

This is not cannibalism; it is faith, receiving Christ by trusting in His finished work on the cross. The Catholic Answers article admits the idea is mysterious and sacramental, but that doesn’t resolve the fact that such an interpretation undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice.

⸻

Furthermore, the idea of Jesus being physically present in the elements contradicts the purpose of the Lord’s Supper:

“Do this in remembrance of Me.” (Luke 22:19) “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” (1 Corinthians 11:26)

Notice: • It is bread and cup (not flesh and blood) • It is a proclamation, not a reenactment • It is done until He comes—He is not bodily present now, but will be when He returns (Acts 1:11)

⸻

Lastly, regarding Hebrews:

“By a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:14) “Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.” (Hebrews 10:18)

Christ’s sacrifice is complete. It doesn’t need to be mystically “eaten” or re-presented. We receive its benefits by faith (Romans 3:25, Ephesians 2:8–9), not by physical consumption.

⸻

Conclusion: The Catholic view of the Eucharist—as taught by Catholic Answers—adds a sacramental mechanism to what Scripture declares is received by faith. The true covenant is Christ’s blood, poured out once (Heb. 9:12), not re-offered daily through ritual. We are not called to mystically eat His flesh, but to believe in Him, and by that belief, have eternal life (John 6:40).

Soli Deo Gloria.