Hi, my name is Monique, I am an elderly French lady from Australia. I found your videos few weeks ago. I was raised as Catholic and when I was a teenager, I left the church. I didn't learn much and never read the Bible at that time. Later on in life, I was in Protestant churches for 39 years. Few weeks ago, I believe that God led me to the Catholic church. I watched your videos which are very helpful. I am learning a lot from you and other channels. I attended my first Catholic church yesterday after 59 years being out of it. Thank you so much for your teachings, you are very clear and thorough. You are a good preacher. Keep courage, continue your great work. May God bless you, your family and ministry. 🤗🙏
“IF” you have not already, please consider going to Adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament (also known as “Holy Hour”). Call your local parish and find out when they offer it. Then, just go and sit in silence in Christ’s Presence. Take your bible. Read scripture, pray, contemplate. Tell the Lord of your search for truth, of your doubts, worries, even fears. Then, be as patient with Him as He has been with you. When you receive the grace to know that HE IS THERE, you will be forever changed. Miracles occur in Christ’s presence - of that I can personally attest.
I know that you are giving a truthful, faithful presentation on the real presence. These are fruitful seeds for the one who has ears to hear. In the end one must be open to the gift of faith to see the real presence . By faith we see what is not apparent to the senses. It is all gift!
Excellent comment! In our modern world we’ve become obsessed with evidence & explanation, with belief in faith & the supernatural suffering & declining.
I really appreciate your charitable and thourough answer to his question. This thoroughness and charitability of Catholic apologists was a substantial point of my conversion to catholocism as was the contrasted reaction and criticisms of my protestant leaders, friends and family.
Congratulations on taking hold of your baptisim and living your faith in the fullness of the church and coming back to those life giving means of grace found only through the apostolic succession instituted by Christ.
Before Justyn Martyr (about 150AD) you could have used the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch who in 110AD also makes it clear we believe the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Jesus. Great video and packed with info.
Not the “actual” body and blood of Christ. This would imply that the “accidents” of the bread and wine have changed, which is contrary to the proposals of Aquinas, as adopted by the Council of Trent. The bread remains, to all human science, “actual” bread and the wine “actual” wine. Aquinas proposed that the underlying reality behind the actual bread and wine changes - not the actual bread and wine. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says that, because only those thoroughly trained in the principles of Greek Scholastic Theology could ever properly understand what is meant by the concept of “transubstantiation” as proposed by Aquinas, Pastors should not attempt to explain the mystery of the Eucharist, limiting what they say to the teaching that Jesus is truly present, under the appearance of bread and wine. Or, in other words, “truly” present, even though not “actually” present.
@@Mark3ABE It is a mystery of the faith. All I can say is that in the approved eucharistic miracles the 'accidents' or the veil is lifted and what can be seen by modern medicine and equipment is live heart tissue.
@@39knights If the Church was to expect the occurrence of such “Eucharistic Miracles” then, surely, Our Lord would have provided us with some insight into this? At the Last Supper, the time when such a “miracle” might have been expected to occur, there is no indication that it did. Then, we have the clear teaching of Our Lord himself, when he says, firstly, that “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink” but then concludes by saying “it is the Spirit which gives live, the flesh is unavailing” (John 6:63). So, the reality is a spiritual reality. As Christians, we believe that the spiritual is true, even when the worldly indications are otherwise. So, even though the host remains no more than pure, unleavened, wheaten bread and the wine remains no more than the fermented juice of the red grape, we believe that in receiving the Eucharist there is a “real” sharing in the body and blood of Christ. Clearly, this real sharing is of a spiritual, rather than a fleshly, nature. Given all of this, that the Eucharist is a mystery, to be receive by faith, the miraculous conversion of the bread into human flesh or the wine into human blood cannot have any place - in fact, such a conversion would be to deny both the teaching of Our Lord himself (that the reality is a spiritual, rather than a fleshly one) and the teaching of the Council of Trent, which teaches that the accidents do not change following consecration.
In the Introduction, I mention that I was going to cover some of the background to the Council of Trent, beginning with the first real Eucharistic controversy that erupted in the 9th century between Radbertus and Ratramnus, and then again with Berengarius in the 11th century. Upon further review, in an effort to keep these videos as brief as possible, I decided to save that portion for another video.
I was recently a guest at an Evangelical Lutheran baby baptism. The pastor explained to the baptism party that this is a "high service" with the Last Supper. For me as a Catholic, the celebration was filled with many of the same songs, an almost similar procedure(but not really) to the Novo Ordo Holy Mass, but I missed the adoration of the Lord. The procedure of the Holy Supper did indeed seem like an invitation to "coffee and cake" (only with bread and juice). Even though the pastor repeated Jesus' words about bread and wine, this "ceremony" seemed like an afterthought. During the sermon, the pastor talked about his visit to a Catholic Holy Mass (he said service) for the Corpus Christi procession. He also mentioned that he does not understand the veneration of the host and the ordained priesthood.* * the sermon was about being invited, as a guest or part of the family and feeling at home.
This is sooooo good your format. I am Catholic and learning more and more about the history of my faith from your channel. Thank you for doing such an in depth and approachable job.
(Cyril of Jerusalem AD 386) “The teaching of the blessed Paul is of itself sufficient to give you full assurance about the divine mysteries by admission to which you have become one body and blood with Christ… . When the Master himself has explicitly said of the bread, “This is my body,” will anyone still dare to doubt? When he is himself our warranty saying, “This is my blood,” who will ever waver and say it is not his blood? … With perfect confidence, then, we partake as of the body and blood of Christ.”
Indeed - and this is centuries before Greek Scholastic Philosophy was rediscovered in the Western Church and Aquinas formulated his theory of “transubstantiation” based on that school of philosophy in an effort to explain, by human reasoning, the mystery of the Eucharist. The formulation of the theory of transubstantiation by Aquinas cannot be considered to be essential, since, if it was, then the early Church, up to the date when Aquinas formulated his theory, would not have been able to properly understand the mystery of the Eucharist and it is a nonsense to suggest that this was the case. The Council of Trent is careful to make it clear that the theory proposed by Aquinas is only an “adequate” explanation. It does not state that the Church was in a state of complete ignorance as to the nature of the Eucharist until Aquinas put forward this theory.
Even though the eastern orthodox don't use the term transubstantiation, they certainly believe in the concept. It don't matter, Christ said "the spirit quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing." Even though it's bread and wine, the holy spirit which is consubstantial with the son provides the presence, and it's His body and blood. It's scripture, there's nothing to debate. If you want to argue, argue with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
You have just rendered null and void Christ's death on the cross. Are you a Satanist? If so, I completely understand your Satanlogy. however, could not disagree more.
I fully agree. Our Lord himself made this clear, in concluding his long discourse on the Eucharist in John 6 with “It is the Spirit which gives life, the flesh is unavailing.” (John 6:63).As to whether a Christian must believe in the theory put forwards by Aquinas, based on the principles of Greek Scholastic Philosophy (which had only just been rediscovered in the Western Church) that is to say, his theory of “transubstantiation” based on that school of philosophy, clearly, this cannot be the case, since this would mean that the Christian Church, up to the date when Aquinas formulated his theory, was not able to properly understand the mystery of the Eucharist. The Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist is fully “orthodox and catholic” and their Eucharist is considered valid by the Western Church, so that it is not possible to say that only a proper understanding of the theory formulated by Aquinas, in an effort to try to understand the mystery of the Eucharist by human reasoning, is necessary to fully participate in the Eucharist.
@@Mark3ABE Here is what John 6:63 actually means: "Ver. 63. If then you shall see, &c. Christ, by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; at the same time, correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be, as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth. (Challoner) - The sense of these words, according to the common exposition, is this: you murmur at my words, as hard and harsh, and you refuse now to believe them: when I shall ascend into heaven, from whence I came into the world, and when my ascension, and the doctrine that I have taught you, shall be confirmed by a multitude of miracles, then shall you and many others believe. (Witham)" If you differ with this, someone has taught you error. Good to ponder.
@@Mark3ABE Jn 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. Jesus refers to THE flesh, not HIS flesh. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25. Research Eucharistic miracles which science can’t explain with same AB blood type & living heart tissue
Jesus clearly taught the bread and wine become his body and blood. That’s Jesus talking and Biblical no matter why some don’t believe it. It’s their loss. Also it really doesn’t matter that Trent settled on transubstantiation to define it every Christian for 2,000 years knows what Christ meant in direct and simpler terms.
Exactly - Jesus finished his long discourse on the Eucharist in John 6 by concluding, at John 6:63 “It is the Spirit which gives life, the flesh is unavailing.” The “real presence” of Our Lord in the Eucharist is of a spiritual nature and only someone born again of the Spirit can fully understand it. Even the Council of Trent does not state that the theory of “transubstantiation” as formulated by Aquinas is the only possible way of understanding the mystery of the Eucharist. It simply says that it is an “adequate” explanation. Clearly, it cannot be the only definitive explanation, since, otherwise, until Aquinas formulated his theory, Christians would not have been able to properly understand the mystery of the Eucharist, whereas, in truth, Christians already had everything which they needed in the words of Our Lord himself, as found in Sacred Scripture.
@@Mark3ABEJn 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. Jesus refers to THE flesh, not HIS flesh. If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25. Research Eucharistic miracles which science can’t explain with same AB blood type & living heart tissue
"This is my body." I am a Protestant, though "raised Catholic" which was essentially a meaningless experience with almost no religion/faith/church, etc. I am an Episcopalian/Lutheran hybrid creature and fulsomely endorse transubstantiation. The Man said "This is my body." The bread is God.
Return to your true home, all others are pretenders with elements of the Truth. Without a validly ordained priesthood in the unbroken line of apostolic succession, other than Catholic & Orthodox priests, no transubstantiation is possible, hence the reference to symbolism!
St Basil "Aquinas, where do You come up with Transubstantiation?" St. Thomas Aquinas "I learned it from watching Your Transelementation!" P.S. if You get my meme You are officially middle age. Sincerely in Xto (Christo) Mike B. B. From Philly, P.A. U.S.A.
8:50 _Then, when the mixed cup and baked bread recieves the Word of God..._ The Word of the Lord is saying *_This is my body , this is my blood_* these are words of life.
Trying to chew on everything I've been learning, I came up with this summary. What do you think? Salvation of a spirit soul and body of a human is not achieved based on a belief of some set of dogmas that are agreed to in a mind. To make a fallen person, dead in sin, alive again in an eternal sense, one has to die to sin and be raised anew and become a part of the body of Christ and get the body and blood of Christ into one's being. Because Christ is the bread of life, which is eternal, and he left his body for us to be a part of, which is eternal.
The starting point for salvation is faith & baptism Jn 3:5 1 Peter 3:21. I have difficulty understanding how many Protestants can claim that baptism is optional & likewise how His Real True Presence Jn 6:51 is symbolic
Ok. I just had an epiphany moment with what Theodore of Mopsuestia said concerning water and blood. 1 St John 5:6-12 This is the one who came through water and blood,* Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth.e 7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.f 9 If we accept human testimony, the testimony of God is surely greater. Now the testimony of God is this, that he has testified on behalf of his Son.g 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has this testimony within himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar by not believing the testimony God has given about his Son.h 11 And this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.i 12 Whoever possesses the Son has life; whoever does not possess the Son of God does not have life. When did God testify on behalf of his Son? St John 6:27-63 St John 6:27-63 is all about believing in Jesus’ words for us to have eternal life and share in the resurrection. But verse 11 confirms that ST John is telling us how God gave us eternal life and this life is in his Son. The reason why Jesus kept reiterating that he is the bread that comes from God that gives life and whoever eats of this bread shall have eternal life in St John 6. Gods testimony about his Son is St John 6 IAM the bread of Life testimony. The reason why he said in St John 6:63 is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh* is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. The Liturgy of the Eucharist or the prayers prayed over the bread and wine allow the Holy Spirit to come from heaven and inhabit the bread and wine thus giving the bread and wine life. Spirit and Life!
While the Eucharist is a mystery, it is always best summed up, as Jesus did, at the end of his discourse in John 6 by “It is the spirit which gives life, the flesh is unavailing.”
0:38 1 Timothy chapter 3 v 16. Great is the mystery of godliness he was revealed in human flesh. God was in Christ .he is in us jesus said " the kingdom is within you" by faith and grace.
The doctrine of “transubstantiation” is founded on the principles of Greek Scholastic Philosophy. This school of philosophy proposes that what we can see, taste, touch and feel is not the ultimate reality of being. These (referred to as the “accidents”) are held in being by an underlying creative force which brought them into being. St. Thomas Aquinas applied the principles of this school of thought to the Eucharist. He applied the concept of the “accidents” to the bread and wine. Then, he applied the concept of the underlying creative force which holds the accidents in being (the “substance”) to Almighty God. He explained the mystery of the Eucharist by saying that the “accidents” of the bread and wine continue to remain, but without the underlying substance of bread and wine. The substance becomes the body and blood of Christ. Other Christians do believe in the “real presence”. For example, Article 28 of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England states that the Eucharist is a real sharing in the body and blood of Christ and condemns the teachings of the non conformists who state that it is only a “love feast” and a “remembrance” of the Last Supper. The doctrine of transubstantiation is not accepted, not because it is “wrong” but because it does not appear in the Sacred Scriptures, nor, indeed, in the Tradition of the Church before Aquinas. Even the Council of Trent does not teach that the doctrine of transubstantiation is part of divine revelation - it teaches that the principles of Greek Scholastic Philosophy, applied in this way, do adequately explain the mystery of the Eucharist. The Eastern Orthodox Churches do not apply the doctrine of transubstantiation to the Eucharist. Not because they consider it “wrong” but for the same reason as the Church of England - it does not appear in the Sacred Scriptures, nor in the Tradition of the Church before Aquinas. In some ways, the doctrine of transubstantiation is rather limiting. If we accept the doctrine of transubstantiation as the only explanation for the mystery of the Eucharist, then we must, of necessity, deny the authenticity of what are claimed to be Eucharistic Miracles, because these assert that, contrary to the teaching of Aquinas, the accidents have changed. Therefore, these supposed miracles must be either pious frauds or a deceit of the Enemy. If they are divine miracles, then the Almighty is setting aside the teaching of Aquinas and causing the accidents to change. So, in conclusion, the doctrine of “transubstantiation” is only a theory, based on human wisdom. I am inclined to think that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are right - the Eucharist is a mystery which cannot be explained by human reason alone. The principles of Greek Scholastic Theology are only human wisdom, not divine revelation. The explanation offered by Aquinas is not inconsistent with divine revelation, nor with the Tradition of the Church, but it is, still, as the Council of Trent admits, no more than an “adequate” attempt, by human reasoning, to explain an inexplicable mystery.
Yeah… doesn’t matter what vessel is used to transmit information.. Homoousios is derived from Aristotlian philosophy meaning primary substance. In fact the word Homoousius was a sebbelian watch word which was first used by Basilisidis a gnostic.. in fact Arius objected to the word because it was not found in scripture. But Athanesius used it cos the one thing the Arians hated more then the trinatarian party was the Modalists.. So was hypostasis. It was the capdocian fathers who used the word hypostasis as person.. accepted by the Arians but not by the Modalist party.. The three hypostasis is Neoplatonic in origin.. Both ratified in an ecumenical council.. So what’s the point.. well the truth is by basic biblical epistemology truth can only be made manifest in the visible body of Christ.. The reason the Eastern Orthodox leave it as a mystery is cos they don’t have an ecumenical council to declare dogma.. But if you ask them is Christ truely present in the Eucharist along with any other apostolic ancient church( Oriental/Assaryain church of the east) the resounding answer is a yes. God bless
Also important to keep in mind: Just because some anti-Catholics believe that Christ is present in His Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in their Protestant services ... does not make it so. Their mere faith (however strong) does not facilitate the Miracle of Transubstantiation
John 8:12 KJV "Then spoke JESUS again unto them, saying, I am the LIGHT of the World John 10:9 KJV "I am the DOOR: by ME if any man enter in, he shall be saved..... John 10:11 KJV "I am the GOOD SHEPHERD: the Good Shepherd gives his life for the sheep." John 15:1 KJV "I am the True VINE, and my FATHER is the husbandman." Was CHRIST a physical Light, Door, Good Shepherd, a Vine like you make the bread and the wine to become??? No, HE was spiritually those things as CHRIST concluded in John 6:63 KJV "It is the SPIRIT that quickens (gives eternal life); the flesh profits nothing (flesh means physical works of any sort in a physical world): the WORDS that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE." (CHRIST says HIS WORDS have spiritual meanings NOT physical meanings and are spiritually discerned and give SPIRITUAL LIFE which is FOREVER. If you cannot see Him in a wafer, or taste Him, or swallow Him then you have no faith in Him. If you cannot see a physical palace in Rome, stained glass windows, images, relics, works, and so forth then you have no faith in CHRIST. Note: Even the RCC did not accept this doctrine until 1215 A.D and only because pope innocent III himself added it to the 4th Lateran Council.
Reading your doctrine into into the Father's. The bread stops being common bread and becomes the Eucharist does not mean Transubstantiation. A conversion taking place does not mean Transubstantiation it means what Christ said but you don't automatically get Transubstantiation.
I'm no more "reading transubstantiation into the Fathers" than I would be "reading homoousion" into any Father who lived before Nicea but nevertheless believed that Jesus the Son was equal in nature to God the Father.
@@NuLeifI still don't get Transubstantiation from Cyril. I get a very high view of the Eucharist and it's importance for what it represents the life giving body as described in John 6. Any transformation is the effectiveness of them in what they represent which he describes as a mystery.
@@midairfortress-revert The difference in your argument of before Nicea is scripture clearly teaches what Nicea taught so I would expect a Father to teach the same. This is not the case with Transubstantiation which you are reading into the Father's through looking back from a view of your present doctrinal position.
@@jotink1 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. - Luke 22:20 “It was suitable for him to be in us divinely by the Holy Spirit. It was also suitable for him to be mingled with our bodies by his holy flesh and precious blood, which we possess as a lifegiving Eucharist, in the form of bread and wine. God feared that seeing actual flesh and blood placed on the holy tables of our churches would terrify us. Humbling himself to our infirmities, God infuses into the things set before us the power of life. He transforms them into the effectiveness of his flesh, that we may have them for a lifegiving participation, that the body of life thus might be found in us as a lifeproducing seed. Do not doubt that this is true. Christ plainly says, “This is my body. This is my blood.” In faith, receive the Savior’s word. Since he is the truth, he cannot lie. You will honor him. The wise John says, “He that receives his witness has set his seal that God is true. For he whom God sent speaks the words of God.” The words of God, of course, are true. In no way whatsoever can they be false. Although we cannot understand how God does that, yet he himself knows the way of his works.” - Cyril of Alexandria Commentary on Luke, Homily (AD 444)
@@jotink1Did you watch the entire video? Gregory of Nysa “the bread again is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the body of Christ”
Transubstantiation is the Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine at Eucharist (or Holy Communion) miraculously becomes Jesus body and blood and is just one of the many "refuge of lies" that Christendom teaches.(Isa 28:17) Because of the failure to ACCURATELY translate the Greek word estin in certain Scriptures (and found 897 times in the Bible), that can be translated as "is, means", as at Luke 22:19, 20, the reading in the Catholic Douay Version (as well as the KJV) is inaccurate (or wrong): "And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is ("is", Greek estin) my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you." Did Jesus say, "This IS my body" and say the same for his blood ? No. Why ? Because Jesus and his eleven faithful apostles were eating literal unleavened bread, just as the Jews had been doing since the institution of the Festival of Unleavened Bread in 1513 B.C.E. (Ex 23:15), for Jesus was still there in front of them, with his body untouched, and to literally eat another person would be cannibalism, which could also be said of his blood, for under the Mosaic Law, the eating of blood meant the death penalty.(Lev 17:10-16) However, at Matthew 9:13, both the Catholic Douay Version and King James Bible accurately renders estin as "meaneth", saying: "Go then and learn what this meaneth ("meaneth", Greek estin), I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners."(Catholic Douay Version) So, Luke 22:19, 20 reads accurately as: "Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means (or represents) my body, which is to be given in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” Also, he did the same with the cup after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means (or represents) the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf."(2013 New World Translation) The apostle Paul refers to the Memorial of Jesus death at 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, saying: "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night on which he was going to be betrayed took a loaf, and after giving thanks, he broke it and said: “This means (or represents) my body, which is in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” He did the same with the cup also, after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means (or represents) the new covenant by virtue of my blood." "Keep doing this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this loaf (of unleavened bread) and drink this cup (of wine), you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes."(2013 New World Translation) Note: at John 6:53, Jesus says symbolically that "most truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves", to which the Jews said that this "speech is shocking", for they knew that cannibalism and eating blood was wrong, John 6:60)
Nobody in Catholicism cares about an English translation, as the understanding of the Eucharist in Catholicism predates English. Not just the English translation, but predates the English language. Your entire argument is absolutely absurd and completely irrelevant and pointless. The Catholic Church doesn’t depend on the English translation of scripture to create doctrine and dogmas, that’s a Protestant error, 🤣
Typical Protestant denial of the Truth doesn’t change it! Read the early fathers & the Didache, you can’t rely on a modern language! The words daily bread in the Lords Prayer, in their original language mean supernatural bread ie Eucharist which is why the CC daily Holy Mass reflects Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice in all places at all times
@@geoffjs A person seeking "the truth" reads an ACCURATE Bible, as Jesus told Satan: "It is written (at Deut 8:3): "Man must live, not on bread (Greek artos) alone, but on every word that comes from Jehovah's mouth" (Matt 4:4) and NOT "the early fathers & the Didache", in which the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers were very ones who hid "the truth", making up falsehoods, who are some of the "weeds" ("tares", King James Bible, "cockles", Catholic Douay Version), counterfeit Christians that Jesus illustrated at Matthew 13:24-30. These are to be gathered up during "the harvest" (or "harvest" of "the remaining ones of the (symbolic) woman's offspring", Gen 3:15; Rev 12:17, for God's heavenly Kingdom, that began in 1914 and ends with "the great tribulation", Matt 24:21) and "burned up" when the political "ten horns" (Rev 17:12), the member nations of the "scarlet-colored wild beast", the United Nations, makes them, as part of the world wide empire of Babylon the Great, the religions of the world, "devastated and naked", so that they cease to exist forever.(Rev 17:16, 17; 19:1-3) And the words "daily bread" at Matthew 6:11, reading in the Catholic Douay Version as "supersubstantial bread", whereby "supersubstantial" means "being above material substance: of a transcending substance" implies that the bread Jesus was "out of the ordinary", and an ADDED word that is NOT in the Bible. This is NOT the case, for Jesus was speaking of just obtaining the necessities of life, being content with them, so that he accurately said at Matthew 6:11: "Give us today our bread for the day". There is NO "supersubstantial" bread", for Jesus used the Greek artos, that just means "bread", ordinary bread or a loaf of bread. The same meaning is seen at Matthew 7:7-9, in which Jesus explains the importance of never giving up in gaining ACCURATE knowledge, in understanding what God is teaching humble ones, saying to "keep on asking.....keep on seeking......keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you, for everyone asking (in harmony with God's will, see John 14:13; 1 John 3:22) receives.......Indeed, which one of you, if his son asks for bread ("bread", Greek artos), will hand him a stone ?" At Matthew 15:26, Jesus told the Phoenician woman, whose daughter was "cruelly demon possessed" and she desperately wanted Jesus help in expelling the demon: "saying: “Lord, help me !”........“It is not right to take the bread ("bread", Greek artos) of the children and throw it to the little dogs.” And at Matthew 26:26, on the night of the Passover, and when Jesus instituted the memorial of his death, the account says: "As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf ("loaf ", Greek artos, of unleavened bread), and after saying a blessing, he broke it, and giving it to the disciples, he said: “Take, eat. This means my body." So, the "bread" at Matthew 6:11 was just leavened bread that was commonly eaten (see Ex 12:19, 20), and the "bread" at Matthew 26:26, was just unleavened bread that REPRESENTED Jesus body.(see Ex 12:18; 23:15; Lev 23;6) Thus, there was NO "supersubstantial bread", an added word that is NOT there.(see 1 Pet 2:2 about "forming a longing for the unadulterated milk of the word") And at Malachi 1:11, after condemning the nation of Israel for despising Jehovah (verse 6) and whereby Jehovah told them that "I find no delight in you......I take no pleasure in any gift offering from your hand" (Mal 1:10), verse 11 says: "For from the rising of the sun to its setting, my name will be great among the nations. In every place (spiritual) sacrifices will be made to smoke, and offerings will be made to my name, as a pure gift (in which these sacrifices involved DOING Jehovah's will, such as making disciples, Matt 28:19, 20, preaching "the good news of the Kingdom", Matt 24:14, of being "NO PART of the world", John 15:19, with its divisive politics, being morally clean, 1 Cor 6:9-11; showing agape love, John 13:34, 35) because my name will be great among the nations,” says Jehovah of armies." And then at Malachi 3:16 - 4:3, these are the people who will bring acceptable sacrifices to Jehovah: "At that time those who fear Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance was written before him for those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name." "And they will be mine,” says Jehovah of armies, “in the day when I produce a special property. I will show them compassion, just as a man shows compassion to his son who serves him. And you will again see the distinction between a righteous person and a wicked person, between one serving God and one not serving him." "For look ! the day is coming, burning like a furnace, when all the presumptuous ones and all those practicing wickedness will become like stubble. The coming day will certainly devour them,” says Jehovah of armies, “and it will leave them neither root nor branch." "But on you who honor my name, the sun of righteousness will shine, with healing in its rays; and you will skip about like fattened calves. And you will tread the wicked underfoot, for they will be like dust under the soles of your feet on the day when I take action,” says Jehovah of armies."
Hi, my name is Monique, I am an elderly French lady from Australia. I found your videos few weeks ago. I was raised as Catholic and when I was a teenager, I left the church. I didn't learn much and never read the Bible at that time. Later on in life, I was in Protestant churches for 39 years. Few weeks ago, I believe that God led me to the Catholic church. I watched your videos which are very helpful. I am learning a lot from you and other channels. I attended my first Catholic church yesterday after 59 years being out of it. Thank you so much for your teachings, you are very clear and thorough. You are a good preacher. Keep courage, continue your great work. May God bless you, your family and ministry. 🤗🙏
How exciting! Welcome home. ❤️
“IF” you have not already, please consider going to Adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament (also known as “Holy Hour”). Call your local parish and find out when they offer it. Then, just go and sit in silence in Christ’s Presence. Take your bible. Read scripture, pray, contemplate. Tell the Lord of your search for truth, of your doubts, worries, even fears. Then, be as patient with Him as He has been with you. When you receive the grace to know that HE IS THERE, you will be forever changed. Miracles occur in Christ’s presence - of that I can personally attest.
Welcome back, Sweet Home, Rome
Welcome home!
Yeah, many leave only to return. God bless you and welcome back.
I know that you are giving a truthful, faithful presentation on the real presence. These are fruitful seeds for the one who has ears to hear. In the end one must be open to the gift of faith to see the real presence . By faith we see what is not apparent to the senses. It is all gift!
Bingo! It’s all about believing taking his word for it.
“Praestat fides supplementum, sensuum defectui” I quote from memory. “Faith for all defects supplying, where the feeble senses fail.”
Excellent comment! In our modern world we’ve become obsessed with evidence & explanation, with belief in faith & the supernatural suffering & declining.
I really appreciate your charitable and thourough answer to his question. This thoroughness and charitability of Catholic apologists was a substantial point of my conversion to catholocism as was the contrasted reaction and criticisms of my protestant leaders, friends and family.
I experienced the same thing. Welcome home. ❤
Catholic apologists are calm and cordial because the facts are on our side.
@@fantasia55 The peace which surpasses all understanding.
Congratulations on taking hold of your baptisim and living your faith in the fullness of the church and coming back to those life giving means of grace found only through the apostolic succession instituted by Christ.
Before Justyn Martyr (about 150AD) you could have used the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch who in 110AD also makes it clear we believe the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Jesus. Great video and packed with info.
Not the “actual” body and blood of Christ. This would imply that the “accidents” of the bread and wine have changed, which is contrary to the proposals of Aquinas, as adopted by the Council of Trent. The bread remains, to all human science, “actual” bread and the wine “actual” wine. Aquinas proposed that the underlying reality behind the actual bread and wine changes - not the actual bread and wine. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says that, because only those thoroughly trained in the principles of Greek Scholastic Theology could ever properly understand what is meant by the concept of “transubstantiation” as proposed by Aquinas, Pastors should not attempt to explain the mystery of the Eucharist, limiting what they say to the teaching that Jesus is truly present, under the appearance of bread and wine. Or, in other words, “truly” present, even though not “actually” present.
@@Mark3ABE It is a mystery of the faith. All I can say is that in the approved eucharistic miracles the 'accidents' or the veil is lifted and what can be seen by modern medicine and equipment is live heart tissue.
@@39knights If the Church was to expect the occurrence of such “Eucharistic Miracles” then, surely, Our Lord would have provided us with some insight into this? At the Last Supper, the time when such a “miracle” might have been expected to occur, there is no indication that it did. Then, we have the clear teaching of Our Lord himself, when he says, firstly, that “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink” but then concludes by saying “it is the Spirit which gives live, the flesh is unavailing” (John 6:63). So, the reality is a spiritual reality. As Christians, we believe that the spiritual is true, even when the worldly indications are otherwise. So, even though the host remains no more than pure, unleavened, wheaten bread and the wine remains no more than the fermented juice of the red grape, we believe that in receiving the Eucharist there is a “real” sharing in the body and blood of Christ. Clearly, this real sharing is of a spiritual, rather than a fleshly, nature. Given all of this, that the Eucharist is a mystery, to be receive by faith, the miraculous conversion of the bread into human flesh or the wine into human blood cannot have any place - in fact, such a conversion would be to deny both the teaching of Our Lord himself (that the reality is a spiritual, rather than a fleshly one) and the teaching of the Council of Trent, which teaches that the accidents do not change following consecration.
@@39knightsSo then what flesh does science show when it's a boy molester giving the sacrament?
Catholic and Orthodox, since 33 AD, have looked upon what was bread and see Christ. Those with little or no faith look upon Christ and see only bread.
In the Introduction, I mention that I was going to cover some of the background to the Council of Trent, beginning with the first real Eucharistic controversy that erupted in the 9th century between Radbertus and Ratramnus, and then again with Berengarius in the 11th century. Upon further review, in an effort to keep these videos as brief as possible, I decided to save that portion for another video.
I was recently a guest at an Evangelical Lutheran baby baptism.
The pastor explained to the baptism party that this is a "high service" with the Last Supper.
For me as a Catholic, the celebration was filled with many of the same songs, an almost similar procedure(but not really) to the Novo Ordo Holy Mass, but I missed the adoration of the Lord. The procedure of the Holy Supper did indeed seem like an invitation to "coffee and cake" (only with bread and juice). Even though the pastor repeated Jesus' words about bread and wine, this "ceremony" seemed like an afterthought.
During the sermon, the pastor talked about his visit to a Catholic Holy Mass (he said service) for the Corpus Christi procession. He also mentioned that he does not understand the veneration of the host and the ordained priesthood.*
* the sermon was about being invited, as a guest or part of the family and feeling at home.
This is sooooo good your format. I am Catholic and learning more and more about the history of my faith from your channel. Thank you for doing such an in depth and approachable job.
That set of books is indispensable. I buy multiples at time, of the 1st book and hand them out to protestant separated brothers.
GREAT IDEA!!!!
Excellent content
More great content!
We thank you, the Holy Catholic Church is lucky to have her son return to defend her in this age of Internet apologetics!
(Cyril of Jerusalem AD 386)
“The teaching of the blessed Paul is of itself sufficient to give you full assurance about the divine mysteries by admission to which you have become one body and blood with Christ… . When the Master himself has explicitly said of the bread, “This is my body,” will anyone still dare to doubt? When he is himself our warranty saying, “This is my blood,” who will ever waver and say it is not his blood? … With perfect confidence, then, we partake as of the body and blood of Christ.”
Indeed - and this is centuries before Greek Scholastic Philosophy was rediscovered in the Western Church and Aquinas formulated his theory of “transubstantiation” based on that school of philosophy in an effort to explain, by human reasoning, the mystery of the Eucharist. The formulation of the theory of transubstantiation by Aquinas cannot be considered to be essential, since, if it was, then the early Church, up to the date when Aquinas formulated his theory, would not have been able to properly understand the mystery of the Eucharist and it is a nonsense to suggest that this was the case. The Council of Trent is careful to make it clear that the theory proposed by Aquinas is only an “adequate” explanation. It does not state that the Church was in a state of complete ignorance as to the nature of the Eucharist until Aquinas put forward this theory.
Even though the eastern orthodox don't use the term transubstantiation, they certainly believe in the concept.
It don't matter, Christ said "the spirit quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing." Even though it's bread and wine, the holy spirit which is consubstantial with the son provides the presence, and it's His body and blood.
It's scripture, there's nothing to debate. If you want to argue, argue with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Catholics respect the validity of Orthodox Eucharist.
You have just rendered null and void Christ's death on the cross. Are you a Satanist? If so, I completely understand your Satanlogy. however, could not disagree more.
I fully agree. Our Lord himself made this clear, in concluding his long discourse on the Eucharist in John 6 with “It is the Spirit which gives life, the flesh is unavailing.” (John 6:63).As to whether a Christian must believe in the theory put forwards by Aquinas, based on the principles of Greek Scholastic Philosophy (which had only just been rediscovered in the Western Church) that is to say, his theory of “transubstantiation” based on that school of philosophy, clearly, this cannot be the case, since this would mean that the Christian Church, up to the date when Aquinas formulated his theory, was not able to properly understand the mystery of the Eucharist. The Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist is fully “orthodox and catholic” and their Eucharist is considered valid by the Western Church, so that it is not possible to say that only a proper understanding of the theory formulated by Aquinas, in an effort to try to understand the mystery of the Eucharist by human reasoning, is necessary to fully participate in the Eucharist.
@@Mark3ABE Here is what John 6:63 actually means: "Ver. 63. If then you shall see, &c. Christ, by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; at the same time, correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be, as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth. (Challoner) - The sense of these words, according to the common exposition, is this: you murmur at my words, as hard and harsh, and you refuse now to believe them: when I shall ascend into heaven, from whence I came into the world, and when my ascension, and the doctrine that I have taught you, shall be confirmed by a multitude of miracles, then shall you and many others believe. (Witham)"
If you differ with this, someone has taught you error. Good to ponder.
@@Mark3ABE Jn 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. Jesus refers to THE flesh, not HIS flesh.
If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25. Research Eucharistic miracles which science can’t explain with same AB blood type & living heart tissue
We can let the approved Eucharistic miracles speak for themselves. Unless someone wants to assert that they were fabricated.
For Catholics, as believers, no explanation is necessary, for heretical Protestants no explanation is possible!
Jesus clearly taught the bread and wine become his body and blood. That’s Jesus talking and Biblical no matter why some don’t believe it. It’s their loss. Also it really doesn’t matter that Trent settled on transubstantiation to define it every Christian for 2,000 years knows what Christ meant in direct and simpler terms.
Exactly - Jesus finished his long discourse on the Eucharist in John 6 by concluding, at John 6:63 “It is the Spirit which gives life, the flesh is unavailing.” The “real presence” of Our Lord in the Eucharist is of a spiritual nature and only someone born again of the Spirit can fully understand it. Even the Council of Trent does not state that the theory of “transubstantiation” as formulated by Aquinas is the only possible way of understanding the mystery of the Eucharist. It simply says that it is an “adequate” explanation. Clearly, it cannot be the only definitive explanation, since, otherwise, until Aquinas formulated his theory, Christians would not have been able to properly understand the mystery of the Eucharist, whereas, in truth, Christians already had everything which they needed in the words of Our Lord himself, as found in Sacred Scripture.
@@Mark3ABEJn 6:63. The “flesh” Jesus notes refers to our inclination to think only with our natural human reason instead of the enlightenment that comes with the grace of God. Jesus refers to THE flesh, not HIS flesh.
If you don’t believe in the literal True Presence in John 6, read 1 Cor 10 16 & 1 Cor 11 23-25. Research Eucharistic miracles which science can’t explain with same AB blood type & living heart tissue
"This is my body." I am a Protestant, though "raised Catholic" which was essentially a meaningless experience with almost no religion/faith/church, etc. I am an Episcopalian/Lutheran hybrid creature and fulsomely endorse transubstantiation. The Man said "This is my body." The bread is God.
Return to your true home, all others are pretenders with elements of the Truth. Without a validly ordained priesthood in the unbroken line of apostolic succession, other than Catholic & Orthodox priests, no transubstantiation is possible, hence the reference to symbolism!
St Basil "Aquinas, where do You come up with Transubstantiation?"
St. Thomas Aquinas "I learned it from watching Your Transelementation!"
P.S. if You get my meme You are officially middle age.
Sincerely in Xto (Christo)
Mike B. B. From Philly, P.A. U.S.A.
8:50 _Then, when the mixed cup and baked bread recieves the Word of God..._
The Word of the Lord is saying *_This is my body , this is my blood_* these are words of life.
Many thanks
Trying to chew on everything I've been learning, I came up with this summary. What do you think?
Salvation of a spirit soul and body of a human is not achieved based on a belief of some set of dogmas that are agreed to in a mind.
To make a fallen person, dead in sin, alive again in an eternal sense, one has to die to sin and be raised anew and become a part of the body of Christ and get the body and blood of Christ into one's being.
Because Christ is the bread of life, which is eternal, and he left his body for us to be a part of, which is eternal.
The starting point for salvation is faith & baptism Jn 3:5 1 Peter 3:21. I have difficulty understanding how many Protestants can claim that baptism is optional & likewise how His Real True Presence Jn 6:51 is symbolic
@geoffjs Faith - I believe! And Faithfulness - remaining loyaly devoted! That's would certainly lead a sinner to Christlikeness.
Anima Christi a doxology that is millena old clearly states the real prescence
Ok. I just had an epiphany moment with what Theodore of Mopsuestia said concerning water and blood.
1 St John 5:6-12
This is the one who came through water and blood,* Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth.e
7
So there are three that testify,
8
the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.f
9
If we accept human testimony, the testimony of God is surely greater. Now the testimony of God is this, that he has testified on behalf of his Son.g
10
Whoever believes in the Son of God has this testimony within himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar by not believing the testimony God has given about his Son.h
11
And this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.i
12
Whoever possesses the Son has life; whoever does not possess the Son of God does not have life.
When did God testify on behalf of his Son? St John 6:27-63
St John 6:27-63 is all about believing in Jesus’ words for us to have eternal life and share in the resurrection.
But verse 11 confirms that ST John is telling us how God gave us eternal life and this life is in his Son. The reason why Jesus kept reiterating that he is the bread that comes from God that gives life and whoever eats of this bread shall have eternal life in St John 6.
Gods testimony about his Son is St John 6 IAM the bread of Life testimony.
The reason why he said in St John 6:63
is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh* is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
The Liturgy of the Eucharist or the prayers prayed over the bread and wine allow the Holy Spirit to come from heaven and inhabit the bread and wine thus giving the bread and wine life.
Spirit and Life!
While the Eucharist is a mystery, it is always best summed up, as Jesus did, at the end of his discourse in John 6 by “It is the spirit which gives life, the flesh is unavailing.”
Very well stated!
0:38 1 Timothy chapter 3 v 16. Great is the mystery of godliness he was revealed in human flesh. God was in Christ .he is in us jesus said " the kingdom is within you" by faith and grace.
The doctrine of “transubstantiation” is founded on the principles of Greek Scholastic Philosophy. This school of philosophy proposes that what we can see, taste, touch and feel is not the ultimate reality of being. These (referred to as the “accidents”) are held in being by an underlying creative force which brought them into being. St. Thomas Aquinas applied the principles of this school of thought to the Eucharist. He applied the concept of the “accidents” to the bread and wine. Then, he applied the concept of the underlying creative force which holds the accidents in being (the “substance”) to Almighty God. He explained the mystery of the Eucharist by saying that the “accidents” of the bread and wine continue to remain, but without the underlying substance of bread and wine. The substance becomes the body and blood of Christ. Other Christians do believe in the “real presence”. For example, Article 28 of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England states that the Eucharist is a real sharing in the body and blood of Christ and condemns the teachings of the non conformists who state that it is only a “love feast” and a “remembrance” of the Last Supper. The doctrine of transubstantiation is not accepted, not because it is “wrong” but because it does not appear in the Sacred Scriptures, nor, indeed, in the Tradition of the Church before Aquinas. Even the Council of Trent does not teach that the doctrine of transubstantiation is part of divine revelation - it teaches that the principles of Greek Scholastic Philosophy, applied in this way, do adequately explain the mystery of the Eucharist. The Eastern Orthodox Churches do not apply the doctrine of transubstantiation to the Eucharist. Not because they consider it “wrong” but for the same reason as the Church of England - it does not appear in the Sacred Scriptures, nor in the Tradition of the Church before Aquinas. In some ways, the doctrine of transubstantiation is rather limiting. If we accept the doctrine of transubstantiation as the only explanation for the mystery of the Eucharist, then we must, of necessity, deny the authenticity of what are claimed to be Eucharistic Miracles, because these assert that, contrary to the teaching of Aquinas, the accidents have changed. Therefore, these supposed miracles must be either pious frauds or a deceit of the Enemy. If they are divine miracles, then the Almighty is setting aside the teaching of Aquinas and causing the accidents to change. So, in conclusion, the doctrine of “transubstantiation” is only a theory, based on human wisdom. I am inclined to think that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are right - the Eucharist is a mystery which cannot be explained by human reason alone. The principles of Greek Scholastic Theology are only human wisdom, not divine revelation. The explanation offered by Aquinas is not inconsistent with divine revelation, nor with the Tradition of the Church, but it is, still, as the Council of Trent admits, no more than an “adequate” attempt, by human reasoning, to explain an inexplicable mystery.
Yeah… doesn’t matter what vessel is used to transmit information.. Homoousios is derived from Aristotlian philosophy meaning primary substance. In fact the word Homoousius was a sebbelian watch word which was first used by Basilisidis a gnostic.. in fact Arius objected to the word because it was not found in scripture. But Athanesius used it cos the one thing the Arians hated more then the trinatarian party was the Modalists..
So was hypostasis. It was the capdocian fathers who used the word hypostasis as person.. accepted by the Arians but not by the Modalist party.. The three hypostasis is Neoplatonic in origin..
Both ratified in an ecumenical council..
So what’s the point.. well the truth is by basic biblical epistemology truth can only be made manifest in the visible body of Christ..
The reason the Eastern Orthodox leave it as a mystery is cos they don’t have an ecumenical council to declare dogma..
But if you ask them is Christ truely present in the Eucharist along with any other apostolic ancient church( Oriental/Assaryain church of the east) the resounding answer is a yes.
God bless
Also important to keep in mind:
Just because some anti-Catholics believe that Christ is present in His Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in their Protestant services ... does not make it so. Their mere faith (however strong) does not facilitate the Miracle of Transubstantiation
@@rmp7400 only a priest can concacrate the bread.. Thank God.. their disbelief doesn’t profane the sacrifice
@@roshankurien203yes, only a validly ordained priest in the unbroken line of apostolic succession can confect the Eucharist
👍👍
John 8:12 KJV "Then spoke JESUS again unto them, saying, I am the LIGHT of the World
John 10:9 KJV "I am the DOOR: by ME if any man enter in, he shall be saved.....
John 10:11 KJV "I am the GOOD SHEPHERD: the Good Shepherd gives his life for the sheep."
John 15:1 KJV "I am the True VINE, and my FATHER is the husbandman."
Was CHRIST a physical Light, Door, Good Shepherd, a Vine like you make the bread and the wine to become???
No, HE was spiritually those things as CHRIST concluded in John 6:63 KJV "It is the SPIRIT that quickens (gives eternal life); the flesh profits nothing (flesh means physical works of any sort in a physical world): the WORDS that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE." (CHRIST says HIS WORDS have spiritual meanings NOT physical meanings and are spiritually discerned and give SPIRITUAL LIFE which is FOREVER.
If you cannot see Him in a wafer, or taste Him, or swallow Him then you have no faith in Him. If you cannot see a physical palace in Rome, stained glass windows, images, relics, works, and so forth then you have no faith in CHRIST.
Note: Even the RCC did not accept this doctrine until 1215 A.D and only because pope innocent III himself added it to the 4th Lateran Council.
Reading your doctrine into into the Father's. The bread stops being common bread and becomes the Eucharist does not mean Transubstantiation. A conversion taking place does not mean Transubstantiation it means what Christ said but you don't automatically get Transubstantiation.
I'm no more "reading transubstantiation into the Fathers" than I would be "reading homoousion" into any Father who lived before Nicea but nevertheless believed that Jesus the Son was equal in nature to God the Father.
@@NuLeifI still don't get Transubstantiation from Cyril. I get a very high view of the Eucharist and it's importance for what it represents the life giving body as described in John 6. Any transformation is the effectiveness of them in what they represent which he describes as a mystery.
@@midairfortress-revert The difference in your argument of before Nicea is scripture clearly teaches what Nicea taught so I would expect a Father to teach the same. This is not the case with Transubstantiation which you are reading into the Father's through looking back from a view of your present doctrinal position.
@@jotink1 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. - Luke 22:20
“It was suitable for him to be in us divinely by the Holy Spirit. It was also suitable for him to be mingled with our bodies by his holy flesh and precious blood, which we possess as a lifegiving Eucharist, in the form of bread and wine. God feared that seeing actual flesh and blood placed on the holy tables of our churches would terrify us. Humbling himself to our infirmities, God infuses into the things set before us the power of life. He transforms them into the effectiveness of his flesh, that we may have them for a lifegiving participation, that the body of life thus might be found in us as a lifeproducing seed. Do not doubt that this is true. Christ plainly says, “This is my body. This is my blood.” In faith, receive the Savior’s word. Since he is the truth, he cannot lie. You will honor him. The wise John says, “He that receives his witness has set his seal that God is true. For he whom God sent speaks the words of God.” The words of God, of course, are true. In no way whatsoever can they be false. Although we cannot understand how God does that, yet he himself knows the way of his works.”
- Cyril of Alexandria
Commentary on Luke, Homily (AD 444)
@@jotink1Did you watch the entire video? Gregory of Nysa “the bread again is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the body of Christ”
God can convert a human being by regeneration but he can convert bread and wine to himself?
Doesn’t make sense.
With God, all things are possible!
Transubstantiation is the Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine at Eucharist (or Holy Communion) miraculously becomes Jesus body and blood and is just one of the many "refuge of lies" that Christendom teaches.(Isa 28:17)
Because of the failure to ACCURATELY translate the Greek word estin in certain Scriptures (and found 897 times in the Bible), that can be translated as "is, means", as at Luke 22:19, 20, the reading in the Catholic Douay Version (as well as the KJV) is inaccurate (or wrong):
"And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is ("is", Greek estin) my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you."
Did Jesus say, "This IS my body" and say the same for his blood ? No. Why ? Because Jesus and his eleven faithful apostles were eating literal unleavened bread, just as the Jews had been doing since the institution of the Festival of Unleavened Bread in 1513 B.C.E. (Ex 23:15), for Jesus was still there in front of them, with his body untouched, and to literally eat another person would be cannibalism, which could also be said of his blood, for under the Mosaic Law, the eating of blood meant the death penalty.(Lev 17:10-16)
However, at Matthew 9:13, both the Catholic Douay Version and King James Bible accurately renders estin as "meaneth", saying: "Go then and learn what this meaneth ("meaneth", Greek estin), I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners."(Catholic Douay Version)
So, Luke 22:19, 20 reads accurately as: "Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means (or represents) my body, which is to be given in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” Also, he did the same with the cup after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means (or represents) the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf."(2013 New World Translation)
The apostle Paul refers to the Memorial of Jesus death at 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, saying: "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night on which he was going to be betrayed took a loaf, and after giving thanks, he broke it and said:
“This means (or represents) my body, which is in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” He did the same with the cup also, after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means (or represents) the new covenant by virtue of my blood."
"Keep doing this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this loaf (of unleavened bread) and drink this cup (of wine), you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes."(2013 New World Translation)
Note: at John 6:53, Jesus says symbolically that "most truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves", to which the Jews said that this "speech is shocking", for they knew that cannibalism and eating blood was wrong, John 6:60)
Nobody in Catholicism cares about an English translation, as the understanding of the Eucharist in Catholicism predates English. Not just the English translation, but predates the English language.
Your entire argument is absolutely absurd and completely irrelevant and pointless.
The Catholic Church doesn’t depend on the English translation of scripture to create doctrine and dogmas, that’s a Protestant error, 🤣
Typical Protestant denial of the Truth doesn’t change it! Read the early fathers & the Didache, you can’t rely on a modern language! The words daily bread in the Lords Prayer, in their original language mean supernatural bread ie Eucharist which is why the CC daily Holy Mass reflects Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice in all places at all times
@@geoffjs
A person seeking "the truth" reads an ACCURATE Bible, as Jesus told Satan: "It is written (at Deut 8:3): "Man must live, not on bread (Greek artos) alone, but on every word that comes from Jehovah's mouth" (Matt 4:4) and NOT "the early fathers & the Didache", in which the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers were very ones who hid "the truth", making up falsehoods, who are some of the "weeds" ("tares", King James Bible, "cockles", Catholic Douay Version), counterfeit Christians that Jesus illustrated at Matthew 13:24-30.
These are to be gathered up during "the harvest" (or "harvest" of "the remaining ones of the (symbolic) woman's offspring", Gen 3:15; Rev 12:17, for God's heavenly Kingdom, that began in 1914 and ends with "the great tribulation", Matt 24:21) and "burned up" when the political "ten horns" (Rev 17:12), the member nations of the "scarlet-colored wild beast", the United Nations, makes them, as part of the world wide empire of Babylon the Great, the religions of the world, "devastated and naked", so that they cease to exist forever.(Rev 17:16, 17; 19:1-3)
And the words "daily bread" at Matthew 6:11, reading in the Catholic Douay Version as "supersubstantial bread", whereby "supersubstantial" means "being above material substance: of a transcending substance" implies that the bread Jesus was "out of the ordinary", and an ADDED word that is NOT in the Bible.
This is NOT the case, for Jesus was speaking of just obtaining the necessities of life, being content with them, so that he accurately said at Matthew 6:11: "Give us today our bread for the day". There is NO "supersubstantial" bread", for Jesus used the Greek artos, that just means "bread", ordinary bread or a loaf of bread.
The same meaning is seen at Matthew 7:7-9, in which Jesus explains the importance of never giving up in gaining ACCURATE knowledge, in understanding what God is teaching humble ones, saying to "keep on asking.....keep on seeking......keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you, for everyone asking (in harmony with God's will, see John 14:13; 1 John 3:22) receives.......Indeed, which one of you, if his son asks for bread ("bread", Greek artos), will hand him a stone ?"
At Matthew 15:26, Jesus told the Phoenician woman, whose daughter was "cruelly demon possessed" and she desperately wanted Jesus help in expelling the demon: "saying: “Lord, help me !”........“It is not right to take the bread ("bread", Greek artos) of the children and throw it to the little dogs.”
And at Matthew 26:26, on the night of the Passover, and when Jesus instituted the memorial of his death, the account says: "As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf ("loaf ", Greek artos, of unleavened bread), and after saying a blessing, he broke it, and giving it to the disciples, he said: “Take, eat. This means my body."
So, the "bread" at Matthew 6:11 was just leavened bread that was commonly eaten (see Ex 12:19, 20), and the "bread" at Matthew 26:26, was just unleavened bread that REPRESENTED Jesus body.(see Ex 12:18; 23:15; Lev 23;6) Thus, there was NO "supersubstantial bread", an added word that is NOT there.(see 1 Pet 2:2 about "forming a longing for the unadulterated milk of the word")
And at Malachi 1:11, after condemning the nation of Israel for despising Jehovah (verse 6) and whereby Jehovah told them that "I find no delight in you......I take no pleasure in any gift offering from your hand" (Mal 1:10), verse 11 says:
"For from the rising of the sun to its setting, my name will be great among the nations. In every place (spiritual) sacrifices will be made to smoke, and offerings will be made to my name, as a pure gift (in which these sacrifices involved DOING Jehovah's will, such as making disciples, Matt 28:19, 20, preaching "the good news of the Kingdom", Matt 24:14, of being "NO PART of the world", John 15:19, with its divisive politics, being morally clean, 1 Cor 6:9-11; showing agape love, John 13:34, 35) because my name will be great among the nations,” says Jehovah of armies."
And then at Malachi 3:16 - 4:3, these are the people who will bring acceptable sacrifices to Jehovah: "At that time those who fear Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance was written before him for those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name."
"And they will be mine,” says Jehovah of armies, “in the day when I produce a special property. I will show them compassion, just as a man shows compassion to his son who serves him. And you will again see the distinction between a righteous person and a wicked person, between one serving God and one not serving him."
"For look ! the day is coming, burning like a furnace, when all the presumptuous ones and all those practicing wickedness will become like stubble. The coming day will certainly devour them,” says Jehovah of armies, “and it will leave them neither root nor branch."
"But on you who honor my name, the sun of righteousness will shine, with healing in its rays; and you will skip about like fattened calves. And you will tread the wicked underfoot, for they will be like dust under the soles of your feet on the day when I take action,” says Jehovah of armies."