What is the Real Presence? (Transubstantiation)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- One of the most central beliefs of the Catholic Church, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, is something that most cannot explain well. What does it mean to say that Christ is truly present?
SOCIAL MEDIA:
Blog: goo.gl/QuB4ra
Facebook: goo.gl/UoeKWy
Twitter: goo.gl/oQs6ck
Instagram: goo.gl/ShMbhH
Podcast: goo.gl/xqkssG
INTERESTED IN BECOMING A FRIAR?
Holy Name Province: goo.gl/MXKb2R
Find your Vocation Director: goo.gl/2Jc52z
SUPPORT THE MISSION
Order my book: goo.gl/dwT8Pq
Donate Monthly: goo.gl/UrrwNC
One-time gifts: goo.gl/eKnFJN
Transubstantiation was a real obstacle for me as a protestant. Making the distinction between substantial and material body/blood has clarified this issue greatly and I find myself drawn more to Catholicism. Please don't apologize for getting philosophical. Philosophy matters more than most realize and it's why I watch these.
The Old Testament predicted that Christ would offer a true sacrifice to God using the elements of bread and wine. In Genesis 14:18, Melchizedek, the king of Salem (that is, Jerusalem) and a priest, offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine. Psalm 110 predicted Christ would be a priest “after the order of Melchizedek,” that is, offering a sacrifice in bread and wine. We must look for some sacrifice other than Calvary, since it was not under the form of bread and wine. The Mass meets that need.
Furthermore, “according to the order of Melchizedek” means “in the manner of Melchizedek.” (“Order” does not refer to a religious order, as there was no such thing in Old Testament days.) The only “manner” shown by Melchizedek was the use of bread and wine.
The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist Jesus is literally and wholly present-body and blood, soul and divinity-under the appearances of bread and wine. The Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16-17, 11:23-29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32-71).
“At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us” -Vatican II (Sacrosanctum Concilium
47).
St. Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
St. Justin Martyr
“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
St. Irenaeus
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life-flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
Tertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Origen
“Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
St. Ambrose of Milan
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
St. Theodore of Mopsuestia
“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Simplest way to understand it is it’s the REAL presence of Christ. Don’t have to get any deeper than that as to what’s occurring within.
@@orangemanbad the reason that didn't work for me was because it's materially testable and every test has shown that it's composition is grain and grape juice. All that being said, I have since converted to Catholicism.
@@joesouthwell4080 yes but as Catholics we do not believe it could ever test as flesh and blood or dna. That’s not what transubstantiation means. What it means is through the mass it turns from wine and unleavened bread (never grape juice) in SUBSTANCE not in accidents. Meaning we believe the real presence of Christ comes into it in substance in a real way as a mystery. We do not believe we are chewing on flesh and blood.
Can't we believe this with conversion to catholicism? There are many other doctrines of the RCC that go against the scriptures ...I'm studying to understand this but I know protestants who believe this as true without conversion
I'm 73 yrs of age and of Polish decent. From birth-kinder I attended mass each Sunday. I attended Catholic schools so we started every day with mass...Mon-Fri. Saturday was Polish school that also started with mass. Sunday through High school was mass with the family...I went to Catholic university....went to mass daily...graduated with a masters in nursing....worked at a Catholic hospital my entire career (I had several aunties in the order of nuns who run the hospital) and yes....mass every day. Now retired for 13yrs, I still go to mass every day. Sunday through Saturday. Weekday andSaturday at 8am and Sunday mass at 11:15am because it's said in Polish. The point where the priest consencrates the wine into blood and bread into flesh of Jesus isn't magic....it's pure FAITH! You must have faith to believe.
The Parrot Rescuer Bóg zapłać za piękne świadectwo i przykład :) Polska młodzież (to znaczy ja) serdecznie pozdrawia z Wielkopolski :)
@@Serquss I think he was saying we believe not by proof but by faith. Not that the consecration takes place for us if we believe and if we don't believe it does not become consecrated. The Graces, on the other hand, are beneficial to you only if you believe but it is consecrated no matter what you believe. If you don't believe it is still truly consecrated but you receive no benefit or little benefit of grace from it.
Greetings from Poland 😚😚😚
I Believe that He is truly present in the Holy Eucharist.
YOUR BELIEF DOES NOT CHANGE BREAD INTO FLESH & WINE TO BLOOD THAT'S CANNIBAL See when you lie about giving five proofs of divinity blood flesh etc then people leave religion as fake theology . The promise here of PROOFS is so false . When you base your so called PROOFS on foundations of unproved stories then you are guilty of lies . First prove God exists maybe ? 1ST foundation . Assuming mere words are all true is not PROOF !
@@EGMAG God is and the Host is consecrated no matter what you believe but faith is not something proven to you by any measurable or physical means. You either believe or you don't, No proof, you just do or you don't. If you don't it is your choice to open up to possibilities or not.
@@EGMAG So why watch this channel when clearly you have problems with understanding what the Catholic church teaches? Jesus is the second person of the Trinity & therefore divine. If he chooses to come to us in bread & wine he can & does, after all he is God. Thank you Jesus for doing so. Faith is a gift
@@EGMAG this is called the TRANSUBSTANTIATION. It changes the SUBSTANCE of the bread & wine to the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. While the substance changes, the physical properties or the "accidents" doesn't change. In order for you to show adoration and reverence to the holy Eucharist. Read the Eucharistic Miracles by Joan Carroll Cruz, which throughout history of the Catholic Church, God has provided visible proofs of the invisible reality of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Like the miracle in Lanciano, Italy; when the Italian priest doubted the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then suddenly, the Host and Wine became literal visible flesh and blood, it was proven authentic by witnesses, researchers, scientists with the help of the United Nations. God bless you!
ME as well
"....... if you are able to accept the mystery & contradiction of the Incarnation, what's so different about the REAL PRESENCE" ? - powerful stuff!!!!!!
Eucharist is the most intimate closeness to the the Lord .
I believe it in my mind heart and soul.
It all comes down to faith. ❤️
Jesus says it to be true in John 6.. When He says to his disciples..
Does this shock you?
and then turned to His Apostles and said Will you leave me too?
Jesus, no, I will never abandon you.. like you will never abandon me! I trust what you say is truth!
Pray for our Priests do that we always are able to receive His beautiful gift!
Jesus, I trust in you!
Jesus is Truly Present. "Faith for all defects supplying, Where the feeble senses fail." Tantum Ergo
I'm proud i am an altar server.
DG Theater Thank you for being an altar server! A Saint in the making! Please remember me and all our Priests at your next Mass and I will be praying for you too!
me too
Being a humble servant is good. Exalting over others because of that role would be a problem.
Same
Me too
Oh. I think it makes a little bit more sense to me now. As someone coming from a background of "In Rememberance of The Thy Son", I wondered if it could be more than that to others. Not that remembering Christ and renewing covenants isn't important it's just that I guess I envy it being more. Thank you Bro Casey for teaching in a way that works for a non-Catholic too.
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” Mark 9:24
Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists and Lutherans all agree on the what... we only disagree on the how. I think that we should set aside our quarrels on the Eucharist, seeing as the What is INFINITELY more important than the How. (We also all agree on the Faith element)
Great video! Although I am not Catholic (I'm a Free Methodist minister), I too believe in a real presence. As Wesleyans, we offer the Lord's Supper to all Christians and also to sincere and honest seekers. As such, I have seen people converted - come to faith in Christ - during Holy Communion. We are talking about a very real encounter with our Lord Jesus Christ. Although symbols are indeed real and powerful, I believe that Scripture is clear that there is much more than symbolism at work here.
Bless you for sharing this. I am pentecostal and Jesus has been revealing himself to me through his word even the more and I'm studying this topic intentionally...I could never be catholic and I wondered if other no catholic Christians also believe this truth. What a blessing it has always been to receive the body and blood of our Savior and even more so now. I remember my growing up in church and how sacred communion was...may the Lord continue to awaken his church.
Thank you for your spirit-guided teaching Br Casey.
Excellent explanation, Brother! Thank you for all the good work.
That’s about as good and straightforward explanation as I’ve heard. For example, John 6:55 (“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”) and Matthew 26:26, 28 (“Take ye and eat. This is my body” ... “this is my blood of the New Testament) are quite clear that Jesus instituted the Eucharist in the species of His Body and His Blood. If we accept that the infinite and divine can become incarnate as man, that by His death he redeemed us, and that by His resurrection He gave us the promise of life everlasting, then I don’t see why His institution of the Eucharist as body and blood is such a stretch.
When you said "This isn't any crazier than anything else we believe," it brought to mind something I had recently read. I was looking for historical information about a church in Sarnia, Ontario, and found an old newspaper article about some recruiters for the KKK who came up from Indiana and went to Sarnia. One day while the priest was at a base ball game, a neighbor witnessed the KKK men park outside the church and go inside. The neighbor notified the priest, who rushed back to find the men gone, along with a number of consecrated Hosts in reserve, and "a pyx on the altar." The police were called, the men arrested, and charges laid. At the trial, a number of Sarnia's citizens backed the KKK members. They outnumbered the Catholics of the city. The jury took less than an hour to give a verdict of "Not guilty." This despite the repeated insistence of the KKK members that they had the "right" to enter a Catholic church at any time in order to retrieve "evidence" of the "bizarre practices" of Roman Catholics. (Never mind Eastern Catholics and Orthodox, though -- it's all about Rome). May God have mercy on the souls of those men and their supporters.
It is not well known that the KKK was just as anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish as it was anti-black. The KKK burned down a Catholic church in my home town in 1928.
Happy feast of St Thomas Aquinas! Was that the reason you chose to post the video today?
A holy coincidence!
One way it was explained to me is look at it like a man becoming a father. He's still a man, the same man he's always been, but he's changed. He's not the same *person* he was. Becoming a parent changes him. He's a father now, even though he still looks like the same man.
I have heard that too and think it can be a helpful analogy.
I've just recently discovered your videos and I have to say I find them thoroughly educational and clear. Thank you so much.
My brother told me that as a seminarian he'd been told there are two acts of faith...first, that this bread was be turned into the body of Christ and second...that this wafer was actually bread. That's just a little humour and I hope it's received that way. 😊
"If the Eucharist isn't the Real Presence of Jesus, then to Hell with it"
Flannery O'Connor
While I get the sentiment, we must remember that the Eucharist is multi-layered. Beyond being the real presence, it is also a meal of remembrance, a symbol of unity, an act of worship, and means of teaching. All of those things are critically important to the life of the Church even if it weren't the real presence. My point in saying this is to make sure we don't diminish the importance of the sacrament to just one thing. It is a complex experience with many wonderful aspects.
@@BreakingInTheHabit I completely agree with the Eucharist holding so much more meaning than just it being the Real Presence. I often uncontrollably tear up whenever I process to reverence and receive the Eucharist during Mass, even when I cannot receive Him because of mortal sin. In fact it makes me so sad when I cannot receive Him because of the mortal sins I frequently commit, even the same day after Confession! Please pray for me Father Casey, that I may be chaste and pure of heart to receive Our Lord in the Eucharist.
Fr Casey - It's a good thing you're a young man, because from the level of understanding I see in most of these comments, your work is cut out for you.
O Sacrament most hoky
O Sacrament divine
All praise all thanksgiving
Be every moment thine.
God has not left us entirely beferet in this either, this is why we have so many Eucharistic miracles of recent times. God knows and He loves us and thus He calls us even here in our modern closed-minded means of knowing.
I am Anglican and this is my faith.
I have no problem with the real presence. I sincerely and honestly believe ...
A. Why not?
B. Since God created the universe - this is pretty easy for Him.
C. God is present to us each and every second - we live and move and have our being because of Him
D. We are the chosen people ... God chose us and became incarnate and let His Son die on the cross. The miracle is not that He rose from the dead [He is God after all]...its that He proved His love be His Son dying. Wow. THE HOUND OF HEAVEN
E. God loves us and makes Himself personally passionately present " For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting." John 3:16 Douay Rheims
Christ is received whole and entire under either kind alone.
After all is said, it boils down to faith. I believe what Jesus said, "this is my body" and "this is my blood". And so by faith we believe in the real presence of Christ's body and blood, in, with, and under the bread and wine. We truly partake of Christ's body and blood, his real presence, in the bread and wine. We accept this by faith. And after all have received him, then his body and blood is present in those who received him. And then are ready to be sent out to be Christ's body and blood in the community. God's Work, Our Hands.
Beautiful and great explanation!
This video means a lot to me. Thanks! The best explanation I ever had. Wish it was in Spanish but I understood so far...
I’m not catholic but I get this explanation~ thanks!
Thank you for making that last point!
If you believe the Eucharist is real, then it is. And that is very exciting to be a part of.
That 'if' at the beginning could be understood to mean that It would't be real if one doesn't believe that It is. But the Eucharist is real even if one doesn't believe. How awesome is that!? Lord I believe; help my unbelief.
@@bajone02 how do you know that?
jesus says "This is my body" "This is my blood".so it becomes a matter of having faith in the words that he spoke.
AMEN.
I love that you used dogs as an example to explain a DOGma 😆
As Episcopalians we (largely) have the same understanding of the Eucharist but just haven’t established the theory in any Dogma or Doctrine.
The Sanctifying Grace which is Christ fills the host which is the bread and wine during the transubstantiation becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. A unification of the supernatural with the natural the spiritual with the physical matter.
This is true with all the Sacraments in which Sanctifying Grace the supernatural breaks through to the natural physical world.
That is an excellent explanation, very clear!
Please do a video on the Eucharistic Miracles!
hey casey, can we expect any more "A friar life" videos? those were really great!
Funny you should ask...
@@BreakingInTheHabit awesome dude! i really look forward to that. I love seeing the different ways franciscan life is lived out...truly awesome brothers
@@BreakingInTheHabit 😄
Superlative. Thank you.
THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO 🙏💯✅
Whow the best video on this topic: thanks, my Catholic friends need to know
The finite is not capable of the infinite.
Thank you brother.../ I believe in prospective of Christe Institution of Eucharistic ..as he took breed and wine respectively and said this is my body and blood ..do this in memory of me.....that's it..he said at first hand ..it wasn't his actual body or blood either.....but we have believe in his words and do the same in memory of him alone ....and it's pure and perfect in the same form without any further explanation or proof .. that's part of having real FAITH ...amen
Lutherans agree with Fr. Casey Cole, OFM although define Real Presence as a sacramental union. The Eucharist is the center of our faith. We join the Church in Heaven in adoring Christ, our Savior.
Hello Casy my name is jonathan I wonder about the issue of status and image in the Catholic Church I was a little convinced by the video of Father Herve Marie on the issue. (UA-cam video)
Here is the last argument read that upsets me.
Tertullian explains how the bronze snake and the decoration of the ark of the covenant do not violate the Second Commandment. It is interesting to note what he does not say. He does not say that the Second Commandment is no longer obligatory. He does not say that he forbade only pagan icons. In fact, he explains that the Jews did not use their images in an idolatrous manner. Tertullian writes:
Likewise, by forbidding the similarity of all things in the heavens, on the earth, and in the seas, He also declared the reasons, as forbidding any material demonstration of a latent idolatry. For He adds, "Thou shalt not bow down before them, nor serve them. However, the form of the brazen serpent that the Lord then commanded Moses to make, offered no pretense for idolatry, but was meant to heal those who were tormented by fiery serpents. I do not stop here on what the remedy appeared. Thus the cherubim and seraphim of gold were also a pure ornament in the figurative manner of the ark; adapted to ornamentation for reasons totally remote from any idolatrous condition, because of which the making of an icon is forbidden; and they are obviously not in contradiction with this law of prohibition, because they are not in this form of representation, with reference to which the prohibition is given.
It worries me I am sensitive to the spirit I am stigmatizing my discernment but knowing that we can not understand everything. I open myself to the Catholic Church and I have this immense fear of being trapped spiritually. I feel these spirits around the statutes and that emanates from the statutes, which it releases without understanding too much what hides spiritually behind or which actually creates this feeling.
Due Protestant backgrounds that can be heard more .... it's scary.
Are you aware or sensitive to this feeling? How can i explain that. The Spirit i feel make me go away im trying to feel and discern and make me feel crepy like if they are disguise Spirit.
Have you also made videos that explains the status images places in the church?
Thank you
As a deist with young Catholic friends, you ask them why they dont believe in the real presence in the Eucharist and they will tell you this: They feel superstitious and stupid believing in transubstantiation. It's just not believable. It's like asking someone to believe a horse can be transubstantiated into a car, but still appear as a horse.
I love your videos! Can you make one on how to prepare for being a Godparent. I’m gonna be baptizing my newborn cousin next month and I’m kind nervous how can I prepare for it and make sure that I be a good Godmother. Also I’m curious to know if friars can be Godparents I just don’t know if I’ve ever met one that was but if so are you one?
Please correct me if any of this is wrong, because I have no desire to commit any heresies (though they may be impossible to completely avoid, given the insufficiency of human language to describe the infinite), but I personally see several layers of metaphysical symmetry at play in the Eucharist which I hope might be edifying to the faithful. Also, I'm certain someone has said this before, since, as they say, "nothing is new under the sun." If you've heard this before, please let me know the source!
1. The Eucharist is a reenactment of the Last Supper, and also a reenactment of the Old Testament bread/grain sacrifices of the temple. In this way, it is a sacrificial act on the part of god and on the part of us humans. This is foundational to my following observations.
2. The Bible refers to us faithful as a nation of priests, and I understand this to mean both the laity and the ordained clergy (in different defined roles of course). Christ is likewise referred to as the High Priest. So at the Eucharist, we, the earthly priesthood, make a sacrifice of the High Priest TO the High Priest (and the other two personages of the Godhead.)
3. We, referred to as the body of Christ by scripture, sacrifice the Body of Christ, up to Him, who is alive, Body and Spirit in Heaven and on Earth. Furthermore, We, the body, take Him and His Body, into our own individual bodies.
4. We who are to give ourselves "...as living sacrifices..." make a sacrifice of of He who was The Living Sacrifice.
In these ways, and probably so many more my brain is too limited to comprehend, the Eucharist reaffirms and makes very, VERY, real the unity of us to each other and to God, and strengthens our covenant with him. So in closing, I reiterate that if I've messed up somehow, please reply with an explanation of how I've done so, or if any of these thoughts speak to you, feel free to add your own! Bless you! And sorry for the essay!
Edit: Capitalized "Eucharist"
Consecration when the priest prays in silence asking The Holy Spirit to come down and bless the offerings
St. Francis sure won't be happy about brother dog being used and painted like a tiger.
Good video
"Yes Priest Transubstantiation is true when God says it is real no lies at all it is the body and blood of Jesus Christ the fact and the blessings behind it between bread and blood turning to it then as his',. and by doing this so is for his memory and that will live with all of us believer's to our lives and to whom who are still standing on this earth rightnow thus we can all obtain graces and mercy through out life as we walk with him day by day amen".🙏✝🌌🌏💎💎💎💎💎🌏🌌✝🙏
For those who say this can be proven by miraculous signs, Jesus says this; "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. "Jesus then left them and went away. Matthew 16:4 and 12:39-40 (The sign of Jonah, was that like Jonah, who spent 3 days in the belly of a huge fish, so too Jesus spent 3 days and nights in the heart of the earth and then resurrected.) I know this is not directly related to this subject, yet what Christ said applies in general. For people who are not satisfied with just what the Word of God says, they are wicked in wanting more proof, which means they basically do not believe what God has said in His Word, and that is adulterous. Christianity was not meant to be a circus, but some of what is going on, and has been going on since the beginning, makes it look like one. Satan is very capable of performing miracles and does so to insert error into the faith. Sometimes he does it to give credence to religious inventions thought up by church men, who then make it the dogma of the church. Maybe this is done with good intention and warmly embraced by the congregations, yet it is still wrong and leads people astray. Keep your eyes open, if it cannot be proved by the scriptures, with proper exegesis, then vigorously question it. See Jeremiah 17:9, for we all fall into this category, both the laity and priests. Jesus said his Word was Truth. God is true, but every man a liar.
It's very simple. When you are looking at a live video presentation of the Eucharist which has been sanctified in the ceremony of Consecration, you are looking at the actual, living ,spiritual presentation in the form of Holy Bread of the Body, Blood, Divine Spirit of Jesus Christ who is one of the Three Divine Beings (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit) of the One and Only God. You are even more blessed and fortunate when Jesus enters your mouth and being through Communion.
Think of this fact (or meditate about it ) and you will feel the peace, love and gentle ecstasy of God in the actual presence of Jesus Christ. Share it with other people my sisters and brothers!
I think the simplest explanation to Eucharist, is to compare it with Iconography.. Icon also is not just a painting of divine reality but the divine reality itself visible / become matter / flesh to human sense and understanding, thus bread and wine in Eucharist also become the divine presence visible / become bread and wine to us..
I think you might find yourself with a few theological issues with that analogy, especially as "iconoclasm" and idolatry were major issues in the first millennia of the Church because of people suggesting the same thing. Paintings can offer a prayerful experience, but in themselves, they do not contain any more of the divine identity than any other matter.
Best way to understand this: it’s the TRUE PRESENCE of Christ. How exactly we do not know.
Transubstantiation is garbage.1John 4:2 Tells us that Jesus came in a real body. Came means in the past. And in a real body means that Jesus was a real physical human being just like us. John is telling us that Jesus was visible to our senses. John also tells us to not deviate from this teaching. John wrote this in90 a.d many years after Jesus died. John did not tell anyone that Jesus was in the local catholic church every sunday in bread and wine. Catholics have changed the word of God and added something to the bible. If Jesus were the bread and wine then John is a liar because John makes it clear that Jesus was in a physical body not bread and wine. And if John is a liar then why do catholics have a bible? Why follow the bible if the bible lies. Because John is not a liar, that means catholics are liars. 1John3:6 tells us that sinners dont know God or understand Him. So catholics cant even teach anyone about God because they don't know God.
@@TheTruthsOfOurFaith lol. You don’t know much about church history I see. Every single apostle and early church father disagrees with you. How does it feel to start your own religion? The only apostle who rejected this teaching was Judas. Not good company you’re in.
Also, check out Carlo Acutis's Euacharist Miracles exhibition. It is very eye opening. Perhaps we can't see it, but God works miracles to atest to it in my opinion.
I’m confused. How is this different from the Calvinist belief that Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist?
This is one very helpful explanation, particularly the dog pictures' excercise. However, I have one question. Does this mean that any food item can be transsubstantiated by the priest? Fruits, cereals, chips?
To continue with the philosophical language, the proper "matter" and "form" is necessary. In this case, the proper matter is bread made from wheat and wine from grapes, and the form is the recitation of the prayers as recorded in the Missal. Using anything other than these elements, or making up one's own prayer, would not make it a valid mass.
It's a lot like the 2 natures thing for me. I have no idea how it works, I don't think I'll ever fully understand it, but it's God that says it. God has made himself known in other ways and if he says it's body and blood then it's body and blood. He made the bread and the grapes he wrote the laws of fermentation to make the wine he created and defined body and blood in their fullness and in my own life along with countless others he has shown himself not to be taken lightly. If he commands something it is because he is. If we don't understand now there is faith and if we have faith we will understand some day in the life to come.
My understanding and reality of Christ’s Real Presence falls on top of my own sense of entirety of the lives of the Jews and the covenant of god with the nation of Israel. God the father and humans in the form of Hebrew children lived together for 3000 years. It’s a fusion of reality that god immersed himself into a fabric of human life in the incarnation and than death. How not is the Eucharist anything but very real the Body and Blood. It’s a gift of love of Himself to live among human creatures He created...this is very difficult to explain.
Thank you Fr.
Funny you should mention that we would not expect to find flesh if we tested the host in a lab .... aren’t there Eucharistic miracles that showed the Host upon testing having tissue belonging to the heart muscle, and having a blood type, and showing traces of a heart that had gone through trauma? I think St.Carlo Acoutis documented these prior to his death.
Those miracles happened when Body and Blood actually became visible.
This topic makes me turn purple. The church needs to get aggressive in telling Catholics if you don’t get it, don’t buy it, can’t swallow it, don’t believe it, don’t value it then get out of the church.
lol chill
Some don't believe because they have never been taught. Be careful not to go to extremes.
Orthodox also ought to believe in the real presence. But we have different church charter. For example the preparation in Russian orthodox church is served twice and it's longer . We have two Liturgies the first for those who take Catechesis and the second as it called in Russian orthodox church for the faithful one. I don't compare the the number of psalms , but the liturgy of the Russian church i s more similar to ancient Greek .
Can you make a video on Why just the body of Christ is given to the congregation (the bread) but not wine? Also why does the catholic church and some protestant church use unleavened bread unlike the eastern orthodox who use leavened bread?
Looking forward. Thanks :)
did Jesus say somewhere “also, when you get together every Sunday I’ll turn bread into me and you should eat it”?
No.
You mean apart from when he said, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" (Jn 6:53-54); or, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." (Lk 22: 19); or, "whenever two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am there among you" (Mt 18:20)?
Great video Brother Casey! I was wondering what you think about the nominalist view of William of Ockham OFM, in relation to the Aristotelian views of Thomas Aquinas, and how perhaps this might change this view of the Eucharist? God give you peace!
To be honest, I haven't studied Ockham that much, so I can't comment. (Also, while he was a Franciscan, it's not entirely true to put "OFM" after his name, as he lived and died before there was a split in the Order, and before those abbreviations came into play).
Breaking In The Habit Thanks for the response! His basic contention (as far as I understand from my very basic knowledge of him) was that forms don't exist. Ockham would have said, per your video, that the idea of "dogness" contained in the mind is merely a mental concept, not ontological proof of an essential form, or "universal". Super interesting though! God bless!
2:47 but isnt a fox part of the dog family
On the opposite, take a 2 year old toddler and the same 80 years later: the appearance (accident) has changed a lot, but the substance has not: he’s the same person.
Good talk on the Eucharist, but I wouldn't say the Church's explanation of It is flawed. It would be better to say that the human mind cannot fully understand the mystery of the Holy Eucharist.
O Sacrament most holy, o Sacrament divine, all praise and all thanksgiving, be every moment Thine.
Have you done a video on Eucharistic miracles?
According to the Eastern Orthodox theology the real presence is the presence of Holy Trinity's energy which a man can receive through the mystery, though he can not approach the essence of God.
Yes, and there is something nice about the eloquence to that, right? Certainly saves a lot of words!
@@BreakingInTheHabit I think that the early Church Fathers speak about transformation of bread and wine. But I may be wrong.
You have a good philosophical education. Congratulations.
@@rev.fr.spyridonchiones3963 Yes, there were some preliminary explanations, but nothing compared to what came about in the middle ages. For the first millennia, the focus was much more on how the Eucharist changed the people into the Body of Christ, rather than how the "people" changed the bread and wine into the Body of Christ.
It is actually much simpler than this.
Jesus Christ is God.
Jesus told us about the Eucharist.
The Eucharist, therefore, is real.
Done.
Considering you have Chick tract and a few other p[rotestant apologetic completely denying transubstantiation with "explaination", every little bit like this is needed.
@@georgeghleung Fair enough.
but i feel uncomfortable to eat it as more as i see it as Jesus
Can a Christian simply believe that he's eating the flesh of the Son of man and drinking His blood when he eats unleavened bread (that he gets from the grocery store) and drinks some red wine (from the store) OR does he need a miracle worker in order to pull that off?
Aristotle saw reality ten ways or “Categories”. Everything that is “something” has properties. So everything that is a “something” real has properties or accidents, that is properties that do not define it. The shape of my nose is a property (curved). But a human being is not a shape, but only one aspect, property or accident we recognize about it. If you’ve read Kant these aspects were a priori or how the mind organizes experience but they are subjective or not really in the thing. But for Aristotle they were real aspects of real things. Science? No. Philosophy? Yes.
We may never have a satisfactory description of the real presence. What’s helpful for me is our common, ordinary experience of a person. A person is not the aggregate or sum total of all the properties and behaviors. But when we encounter a certain collection of properties we recognize a person that holds them all together.
Protestants: "This is a hard teaching who can accept it?"
How to received the eucharist correctly.....not so close to the priest....bowing and genuflex....receving on the tongue....or the hand....
oh the luxury of religion to just make any old impossible, unfalsifiable and unsubstantiated claim- then declare it a mystery and demand that people believe it without any further argument
Hey Brother Casey love the explanation just one big suggestion please use background music in the video coz it makes a great difference n Captivate the audience.
🙏🏽🙏🏽
Let me do a correction, you say: "mystery and contradiction of the encarnation". Contradiction ≠ Paradox.
God bless
I must have missed something in my Protestant Sunday school and confirmation classes since this is very similar if not the same as to what I believe. Based on how I’ve heard it described by Catholics and how I take things very literally I was thinking that Catholics believe the bread and wine to literally taste like flesh and blood even if they didn’t look like that once blessed. So if I am getting this right by all our senses would make it seem like it is just bread and wine but there is a change that we cannot detect with our senses that is it now being the body and blood of Christ?
We know very well it tastes like bread and wine but we still believe that is Christ.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
If I’m protestent, and don’t receive the Catholic Eucharist each week, can I still have life from your pov? I’m honestly asking
I’ve been wrestling w this idea for a long time, but it can still be overwhelming.
The Catholic Church recognizes the authenticity of Protestant baptism and considers you one in Christ with us, albeit with some divisions still. We do not declare that one must be a Catholic to have life to receive salvation. This is a gift from God that we do not control.
Breaking In The Habit Hm ok. It’s tough bc différent Catholics say different things, yet the main thing which draws me to Catholicism is the unity. But thank you for your insight, I trust it as knowledgeable
@@Hope-fj4ep Honestly many Catholics do not know enough about our faith. Really you need to get the official Church view from someone like Br. Casey or a priest or Bishop etc.
Something I find extremely helpful is showing how what we know to be the body of something like a car or an object or a person refers to the fleshly core of the spiritual nature. And so if Christ's spirit dwell in the bread, it literally is the body of Christ. And as for the wine. In Judaism, blood is the life source of a person. And so in a similar way the notion of blood being the liquid housing of the soul in a similar sense of the body but perhaps in a more mystical way, the wine can be the literal blood of Christ as the spirit of Christ dwells within. So it's kind of a more analogous and extended set of examples to help bridge the gap between modernist mentality and the substance accidents mentality.
Thank you for this video. I am confused about one thing. The Lutherans also describe the Real Presence a term, until now, that I thought was only their province. Are they using this term to describe something different?
As a Lutheran, we sometimes use 'real presence' to distinguish our teaching from the philosophical explanations of 'transubstaniation' and 'consubstaniation'.
I too haven't heard others use the term, but basically Lutherans trust Jesus' Word, 'this is my body ...' and also recognise that the apostles consistanly also called it bread 'breaking of the bread'. So it's bread and body, wine and blood, but we don't attempt to explain the mystery at all beyond that. But we don't teach that God anhiliates His good creation, (the bread or wine).
I think Lutherans teach the same as the Eastern Orthodox, if I understand both well?
@@j.g.4942 Catholics don't believe in change by anhiliation.
@@tomgreene2282 Good! And here is Australia I know that, our Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue has concluded that, although perhaps valid at the time, the condemnations/anathemas of 500yrs ago regarding the Eucharist are not valid today (practically that our teaching on the Eucharist is the same today just expressed differently).
However, some explanations of Transubstantiation do sound like annihilation and replacement; just like some people still think Lutherans believe the bread just 'contains' Christ's Body because of the non-technical language of 'in, with, and under'.
@@j.g.4942 Luther himself believed in real presence as far as I know. Much good work has been done in inter church dialogue. Common expositions of belief can be misleading. Do Lutherans believe in a reserved presence?
@@tomgreene2282 Lutherans take it on Jesus' word, 'take and eat'. So best practice in my tradition is that all of Christ's Body and Blood at the table is consumed, sometimes at the altar itself, sometimes the vestry after the dismissal, and sometimes the elements are taken to shut ins as an extension of the Divine Service to those who couldn't come.
That being said, I know some other practises exist, reserving the consecrated host separately to the non-consecrated to be used first next time, pouring Christ's blood on the ground (a set aside area), and even pouring His Blood down the sink (not something my synod has ever condoned, but rather condemned).
Simply, Jesus commanded that we 'take and eat' and nothing else regarding His Body and Blood, yet we still fail.
Father Casey I have seen a lot of videos about how communion on the hand is a sacrilege. Is this true?
It is
Did Jesus give communion to the Apostles on the tounge or hand?
No. Communion in the hand is not a sacrilege.
❤️
Wrong: I saw six dogs and one Brian Griffin
Br. Casey, you said at the beginning of the video that the Real Presence is a doctrine, I'm confused because I thought since it being so central to our faith that it would be a dogma by now. Why is it to a dogma yet?
The word "doctrine" can either be a general term referring to the teaching of the Church, or a specific level of authority, as related to dogma and discipline. In this case, I was not trying to categorize it but rather using the first form of the word, simply saying that it is a teaching of the Church.
Thank you for explaining that. I see I was overthinking it,
@@angelasimpson5581 The way I understand it all dogma is doctrine but not the other way around. I think the Council of Trent had some specific defintions as to the Holy Eucharist, so I think we can call it dogma, but as I understand it dogma is merely doctrine that has been defined.
...how about the many instances when at the consecration, the host actually turned into flesh??..we must remember that if God wills it, it will happen.....
breakinginthehabit.org/2019/01/28/what-is-the-real-presence/
@@BreakingInTheHabit ?
Christ Jesus truly said at His Last Supper, "Do this ALL of you in REMEMBRANCE of ME." (ref. Mark 14:22 / Luke 2:18-20 / 1 Corin. 11:23-25)...
Logically speaking, it was just a METAPHOR or SYMBOLISM which means to "BELIEVE" and to have "FAITH" in HIM (Christ Jesus) through God's GRACE when Christ said, "Whoever EATS MY Flesh and DRINKS MY Blood has Eternal Life." (ref. John 6:54)...
If that was a literal FLESH and literal BLOOD of Christ Jesus through the R.C.C. Doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION, then, Christ Jesus himself had VIOLATED the Scripture, the Prohibition from Drinking Literal BLOOD of Animals and Humans including Eating Literal Human Flesh. (ref. Leviticus 17:13-15).
Christ clearly said, "I did not come to abolish/destroy the LAW but to Fulfill." (ref. Matt. 5:17)... Will Christ teach that LITERALLY?... NOPE.
Aside from that, if TRANSUBSTANTIATIONP is TRUE, why does during the R.C.C. Mass, the Priest/Bishop/Pope was the only one drinking from the Cup of Wine that was Miraculously turned into Literal Blood of Christ?... it should be for all the R.C.C. Congregation/Parishioners to drink from One Cup...
Christ clearly said, "Drink from "MY CUP" (singular), logically from ONE CUP only... (ref. Matt.20:23)...
Will the Miraculous Blood of Christ be contaminated by the SALIVAS of the Parishioners drinking from ONE CUP?... Obviously, God will not allow it to happen even to contaminate the CUP (Container/holder/vessel) that holds the Literal BLOOD of Christ Jesus if the Transubstantiation is TRUE...
However, when the Pandemic arises, it proves, that TRANSUBSTANTIATION is not TRUE... Even if you ask just 100 priests to line up and drink from ONE CUP, the last half of the priests will voluntarily sure not drink from ONE CUP...
Facts and Truth of the Matters, Biblically and Logically speaking Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen...
So, in order for me to be in communion with the One True Church and to exist in a state of grace, I am required to accept and embrace that a virgin man, dressed like a 14th century chess piece, has the power to turn a cracker and wine into the physical body of a deity from the Classical Era by saying some incantations over them. I am further required to believe that it is the actual, physical body and blood or this man-god because that's what someone in the 1st century said. I am further commanded to eat and drink this literal flesh and blood and, at the same time, not to believe that what I am doing is an act of cannibalism, that it's not weird or creepy, and that it is a prerequisite for my salvation. Oh, and if I don't participate, a loving god whom I am commanded to both love and fear at the same time will set me on fire forever.
What's not to love about this religion?
I think the Natural Man has it right and so did the disciples who left. I reject transubstantiation in it's entirety.
It seems to me that you haven't really grasped transubstantiation at all and are rejecting a straw man misunderstanding. It also seems from your tone that you're not really interesting in try to understand either. Sorry to hear that.
@@BreakingInTheHabit I understand it all to well which is exactly why I reject it in its entirety. It really doesn't matter how much faux sophistication, contrived nuance, or age-old tradition you throw at it. It's still a big game of pretend.
It is hard to be Catholic when I get criticised for being imperfect.
Who said Catholics are supposed to be perfect??? We are all imperfect people working hard against our weaknesses.
If anyone besides God calls you imperfect remember that they are imperfect too. Try to learn not to worry about what anybody thinks of you. May God bless you.
I thought early church fathers thought of the real presence?
The term was never used in the early Church because it was never challenged. Everyone in the early Church (really, up until about the year 1000) accepted it as truth, and so there was no interest in trying to explain it.
I don’t understand, can we transubstantiate anything? And why do we have to eat Jesus’s body?I know that there a whole story behind it but why don’t we just stop eating him? Also does it count as cannibalism if the bread is Jesus?
We have to because He commands it in John 6, and also says, during the Last Supper, as often as we do it.
It goes back to the Hebrew practice of Passover. They would kill a lamb, and eat it. Christ is our Passover lamb, who sacrificed Himself. To continue the ritual, we dine upon Him. That's where the saying "Lamb of God" comes from.
This is called the TRANSUBSTANTIATION. It changes the SUBSTANCE of the bread & wine to the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. While the substance changes, the physical properties or the "accidents" doesn't change. In order for you to show adoration and reverence to the holy Eucharist. Read the Eucharistic Miracles by Joan Carroll Cruz, which throughout history of the Catholic Church, God has provided visible proofs of the invisible reality of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Like the miracle in Lanciano, Italy; when the Italian priest doubted the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then suddenly, the Host and Wine became literal visible flesh and blood, it was proven authentic by witnesses, researchers, scientists with the help of the United Nations. God bless you!
Hello I have a few questions if someone have time to answer me please
What are your questions?