Answering Taylor Marshall on the Eucharist

[@faithfulacresfarmhouse]

As a Catholic, I found this very interesting. This makes me very excited to see that more Protestants believe there is a real presence, and not just a symbol. ❤ I personally, besides Lutherans, have not yet talked to any Protestant who believes in the real presence (and I have more Protestants friends than Catholic). I believe that’s why many Catholics (including myself) always feel we have to defend it IS the body and blood of Jesus. I appreciate your research of Protestant history. Even though I don’t agree with everything, I am always open to learning and hearing you out.

[@TheSignofJonah777]

Often they don’t look into these theological points motivate them to

[@jgons]

The Protestant church believing in real presence is not the same thing as your friends not having a deep understanding of their own tradition.

[@Reeves-k7r]

Thanks once again Gavin for a studied, clear, equitable, and irenic presentation of this precious and beautiful mystery given to us by Jesus, reflecting our union with Him!

[@TruthUnites]

Many thanks, glad it was useful!

[@bjoeym]

True union with Christ can only be found in the Eucharistic offering of the Mass. As Jesus Himself tells us, unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have no life within us. God bless.

[@myfakinusername]

@@bjoeym Yeah mr. Reeves-k7r didn't think through before writing this comment

[@tategarrett3042]

@@bjoeym it's funny you insert the mass into that passage when in fact all historic branches of Protestantism affirm this teaching and live it out actively in their liturgy and practice of the Lord's Supper.

[@bjoeym]

@@tategarrett3042 The Eucharist, that is, the transubstantiated bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus, can only be found at a Catholic or Orthodox Mass. There is no other church that has the Apostolic authority or faculties to offer the Eucharist to Christians. Regardless of what Protestants may or may not be doing at their services, they do not have the Holy Eucharist.

[@ir4ge294]

I’m Protestant but plastic shot glasses of grape juice is hilarious 💀😭

[@malcolmlayton2050]

Can't the Holy Spirit transubstantiate grape juice into the blood of Christ ... interesting 😊

[@graysonguinn1943]

@@malcolmlayton2050well in theory he could do it anything does that mean we should use whatever we want

[@andrewnunez7894]

Don’t you guys use a wafer? Jesus gave his apostles actual bread.

[@jameskeys971]

Church attendance would increase with something stronger in the shot glass.

[@VVeremoose]

​​@@graysonguinn1943 change it to use whatever you can, and you're right. I know a missionary who was reduced to using grape flavored Fanta in Africa because both wine and grape juice were flatly unavailable. Local guerillas had intercepted his supply shipment from his sponsor congregation. And if you're going to sit there and tell me that those people should have been cut off from the Sacrament simply as an accident of their poverty and location, then I think you should reexamine the totality of scripture.

[@HelloFromSaints]

I don't want to make light of this sacred and important topic, but I had to smile each time you said, "let me flesh this out." I appreciate your detailed and honest approach!

[@aericabison23]

@@HelloFromSaints I hope this discussion bled to a reasonable conclusion for everyone.

[@ianmarcRoxU]

so too his description "some eucharistic practices are anemic."

[@ethanf.237]

A very charitable, accurate response to a very uncharitable, inaccurate contention. Very well done!

[@MOOREENGAGING]

Very helpful. I recently had a wonderful email exchange (almost thirty messages!) with a noted Catholic scholar on this and other issues. He used transubstantiation and real presence interchangeably. You did a terrific job of explaining how those are not synonyms.

[@TitusThundr]

Misled Catholics from their apologists do the same in any subject related to the Eucharist. When I repeat back their words from John 6 that there is always both bread and a cup seen in Scripture and for the first thousand years of church history I stand in amazement at the response. The shock has worn off because I read it almost daily. The first thing they say is a cracker or unleavened bread is "valid" focusing on the word "bread." Though a bread type is never a part of my discussion, but both kinds - bread and wine are. I'll repeat this 5 times into exhaustion only to them shouting prot heretic then they post: “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1). When I repeat that the entire church witness from Scripture to the historic church is an administration under both kinds they are so focused on "body, blood, soul and divinity" they seem literally incapable at all levels to comprehend what is being said them. I've never seen anything like it.

[@caleb.lindsay]

I have missed your more historically oriented content! grateful for you

[@wordforever117]

Historical orientation would be to accept that the Eucharist has been taught for the entire history of the Church and only in modern times has any denomination ever doubted that the bread is the flesh of Christ.

[@joshuareeves5103]

Great work Gavin! Love seeing uncharitable tweets picked apart like this. When I see things like this, it does frustrate me. So many simplistic views out there that make people feel better about their own view because they have made the other side out to be so absurd and caricatured. Appreciate your level headed approach.

[@verdecillo9940]

Hmm, whenever I watch a Gavin Ortlund video, there's such a big part of me that likes it a lot and I find myself wishing that I could shake his hand and embrace him as a brother in Christ- and if we were to ever meet, I certainly would do so. I suppose I enjoy his content because I can tell he is obviously a man who loves God, and his evident knowledge and his eloquence are inspiring. With that being said, there is also that part of me that sees through his well-delivered speech to arrive at the problematic implications of his argument. This video is no exception. We can focus on the term "transubstantiation" and when it was first used and how the deeper understanding developed over time, etc. but truly, what does that matter for the purpose of this discussion? Using arguments like "well, the Catholic Church didn't have that particular term from the beginning" and "certain Church leaders had slightly different views," etc. are poor rebuttals. This is especially ironic when compared to the absurd amount of wildly novel doctrines, inconsistency and contradictions among the thousands of denominations of non-apostolic Christians. Dr. Ortlund himself even recognizes this in the video- he says things like "Dr. Marshall unfairly attempts to lump all Protestants together, but not all Protestants believe the same," and "Historically, Baptists believe in the Real Presence also," and "Some Protestants should indeed rediscover their roots and treat the Lord's Supper more reverently," etc. THAT is exactly the problem- not only do Protestants not agree with Catholics- they can't even agree among themselves! Indeed, if we chose 2 random denominations of Protestants and compared their doctrines, one of them might actually agree more with Catholicism than it does with the other Protestant! Again, Dr. Ortlund even admits this in the video when he talks about how Lutherans hold a very high view of the Eucharist also ("consubstantiation") and how Zwingli dissented from the other reformers in this regard. As many apologists have pointed out, the differences always come back to the real issue- the idea of authority and historical continuity. The idea that a "reformer" (who came 1,500 years after Christ) should have the power to decide what's correct and incorrect just based on reading the Bible and developing his personal interpretation of it, goes completely against what Christ and His chosen apostles wanted (see 2 Peter 1:19-21). Among Protestants, since there is no visible Church and no authoritative governance, each denomination can teach whatever it wants, as long as the founders and leaders of that denomination can claim that what they believe and practice is somehow supported by the Bible and their interpretation of it. The problem with that is that their interpretation might look good on the surface and seem to make sense, but it can still be incorrect (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses claim to follow the Bible and they have convinced millions of people to follow their interpretations). So how do we know who is actually correct? Are the Eucharistic elements substantially the flesh and blood of Christ or not? Well, Protestants claim to be able to just read the Bible and interpret it for themselves in order to know, but if that were really sufficient, then all Protestants would agree with each other- but they don't! When Jesus says "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you...For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." should we interpret it as Him actually meaning what He said? Or should we interpret it as Him somehow meaning it figuratively? Well, the Bible records Jesus' own words and they seem to be quite clear, but, in the end, there is actually no verse that reads "and then Jesus explained to the crowd that when a priest consecrates bread and wine, then they become His true flesh and blood while simply appearing to remain bread and wine" or "and then Jesus told them: 'All that I have spoken to you is symbolic- I was just joking- you don't need to actually eat my flesh.' So then, how are we supposed to know? Well, Christ established His Church (see Matthew 16:18) note: it's "Church" singular- not plural "churches")) and He chose leaders and gave them His authority to make decisions and to excommunicate dissenters (see Matthew 18:15-18 and Luke 10:16). We need to have a true Christian mindset and ask ourselves: What does it mean to be a Christian? It’s to be a believer and follower of Christ, right? Well, in that case, our goal should be to follow Christ as HE intends- in other words, we should accept Christ on HIS terms, not our own terms. Christ spent significant time and effort on Earth gathering and teaching His apostles, healing people, rebuking sinners, etc. He established His Church and commissioned His leaders to pass on His teachings. Going around to different churches, finding a place where one agrees with everything, and where one is comfortable and “feels good”- all that is a very Protestant mentality. Instead, if you really want to be a follower of Christ how He wants (rather than how you want), why not just identify the Church which He Himself established and then allow His Church to teach you? -Because that was His original intention.

[@mj6493]

Before going to Rome, Marshall was an Episcopal priest ordained in the Anglo-Catholic leaning Diocese of Fort Worth. Unless his priestly formation was really bad, which I suppose is possible, he should know better.

[@julesgomes2922]

@mj6493 He is simply being disingenuous.

[@NP-vk8de]

He certainly is not a genuine Christian. 😢

[@norala-gx9ld]

Well, Anglo-Catholics tend to reject a Protestant identity along with most Protestant doctrines and practices, not least around the Eucharist.

[@HiHoSilvey]

@@NP-vk8de You may be surprised who you meet in heaven.

[@NP-vk8de]

@@HiHoSilvey Hopefully the denominational monikers will be non-existence and we can lay our sticks and stones aside and finally be civil to each other?

[@seanmalone2]

Great video, Gavin! Thank you for providing all these books, references and resources.

[@julesgomes2922]

I only wish Gavin could clone himself into at least another 12 apologists like him so we could get such top quality responses every day! 😊

[@joshuareeves5103]

Right?? Is that too much to ask!?

[@wordforever117]

His argument is that Jesus didn't mean what he said when he was talking about his own flesh and blood being true food which is required to be eaten in order to have life.

[@joshuareeves5103]

@@wordforever117 not what his argument is.

[@wordforever117]

@@joshuareeves5103 Is it not? So he accepts that Jesus was speaking literally?

[@joshuareeves5103]

@@wordforever117 His argument is that protestants generally believe in real presence. Just not transubstantiation.

[@stevereason6931]

Gavin, thank you for addressing this topic. I have some serious points to which I hope you will respond. Staying on topic in John 6 which eventually leads to verse 54 "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life." What led up to Jesus saying this was the feeding of the 5000 the previous day. The crowds followed him across the lake to which Jesus states in verse 26 "you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal." The crowd responds asking "What must we do to do the works of God?" Jesus responds "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." This is basically a repeat of John 3:16. Then there is discussion about their fathers eating the bread that came down from heaven to which Jesus responds "it wasn't Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives eternal life to the world." This conversation leads to Jesus saying in verse 35 "I am the bread of life, whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." Then Jesus eventually says in verse 40 "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." When we finally get to verse 54 we have at least four options for eternal life, i.e. believes in Jesus has eternal life, looks upon Jesus and believes in him has eternal life, eats the bread has eternal life, eats his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life. So when you put the entire conversation in context it comes down to believing in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God as stating in Matthew 16:16-17 and 1 John 5:1. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 we take the bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus and proclaim his death until he comes. Keeping John 6:22-71 in context is this - Jesus was sent from God and it is Jesus who satisfies the hunger of our souls. Another point I would like to bring out is in Acts 15 at the first Council in Jerusalem about AD 50, approximately 17 years after Pentecost when all the Apostles, including Paul, finally make the decision to tell the believing Gentiles it's not necessary to be circumcised, but to abstain from eating food sacrificed to idols, abstain from eating meat that was strangled, abstain from eating blood, and abstain from sexual immorality. You would think by 17 years after Pentecost of weekly eating bread (flesh) and drinking wine (blood) the Apostles would have put an exception to abstaining from eating blood and that is when the Gentiles take the Lord's supper then it is OK to drink the blood, BUT the Apostles did not give an exception that it is OK to drink blood when taking the Lord's supper. Another point, Jesus said he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill the law. By fulfilling the law Jesus became the unblemished Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. In Leviticus 17:11-12 "For the life of flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you to make atonement for your souls, for it s the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said the the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood." Therefore Jesus himself did not eat blood, otherwise he would have violated the law and would not have been the unblemished Lamb of God. I don't recall in scripture Jesus ever saying "Do as I say and not as I do" If Jesus did not eat blood, would Jesus tell his followers to violate the law if John 6 passage is what he really meant? The law, which Jesus did not abolish and the Apostles instructing new Gentile believers, both say not to eat blood, then is the wine during the Lord's supper really turned into Jesus' blood? Just yesterday I took the Lord's supper in remembrance as a "Protestant" not thinking I am really eating Jesus' flesh and really drinking his blood, but I was thinking about Christ's suffering on the cross and spilling his blood for all my sins and the sins of others. However I believe with all my heart Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit entered into my soul giving me the greatest joy I have every experienced 51 plus years ago and I am still worshipping God and bearing fruit of the Spirit because of Jesus' blood spilt on the cross. Some may believe I have been anathematized, but the Holy Spirit living in me and the Word of God are telling me otherwise. Perhaps when I die, God is going to say to me "son, you were really eating and drinking the flesh and blood of my only Begotten Son when you were partaking of His supper." We will all find out one day.

[@AZmom60]

Thank you. As I read through Scripture, I make these observations as well, but can’t articulate them as well. Unless Jesus was literally eating his own flesh & drinking his own blood at Passover…before his crucifixion, taking this literally seems illogical to me. The main point of John 6 seems to be that we must believe in Christ to have eternal life, which is consistent with many, many other Scriptures. One thing I find missing from much of the discussion around this topic (I am only halfway through the video, however), is that Christ is already IN believers through the Holy Spirit, before coming to the Elements. His presence is already real & present, and as Paul clearly states, we remember Christ’s life & death anew through the bread & wine. I’m still trying to understand the nuances of each position.

[@stevereason6931]

@@AZmom60 Yes, I too had the same thought when you wrote "Unless Jesus was literally eating his own flesh & drinking his own blood at Passover…before his crucifixion, taking this literally seems illogical to me." Also the point about the Holy Spirit had already indwelled many OT saints, right up to those living at the time of Jesus, i.e. Elizabeth, Zechariah and their son John, and Mary, Jesus' mother. Thank you for sharing these points as well.

[@zachbattles9762]

Gracious, deliberate responses like this are so welcome. And more productive and edifying than my initial reaction of: roll eyes, sigh, and walk away 😅

[@enzogabrielcaldas2796]

Great video, Gavin!

[@Athabrose]

Former Lutheran now Anglican. Marshall’s tweet is lost on me. I’ve believed in the real presence for years.

[@dallasbrat81]

Yes Catholics just need to accept majority of protestants believes in real presence

[@Akhgy]

Not all anglicans do lol

[@Akhgy]

@@dallasbrat81not all do lol..

[@Athabrose]

@@Akhgy most do unless they are super liberal or an evangelical transplant. It’s built into the formularies and founding documents. Not all Catholics do either.

[@matthew7491]

@@Akhgy And not all Catholics do either. Even more favorable polling shows about 70% believe in the real presence.

[@johngeverett]

As usual, thoughtful and fair. Thanks, Dr G!

[@SallyWaddell-k1n]

My first Christian experiences were Baptist,. I navigated thru Pentecostal, alliance and finally to the United Church (of (Canada). While the dreadful DRIFT of the United church in general is appalling beyond words, the Lord has led me to one that still holds to the TRUTH. My comment is that I was, and continue to be, so moved and blessed by the beautiful, respectful, loving way in which Communion is presided by our Pastor. So very different than in the other traditions. I experienced.

[@tategarrett3042]

this is so on point. Protestantism historically, at the time of the Reformation, and today has a very rich view of Communion, excepting the Memorialists, and actually had a much higher one even than Rome as you pointed out in advocating that people should partake of it in both kinds and frequently.

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

Partaking of communion in both kinds will not be an obstacle for Catholics when reuniting the Church. It's not the usual practice in my own country, Belgium, but it is in many US dioceses, if I remember correctly.

[@thatoneskinnykid]

blargus

[@tategarrett3042]

@@Continentalphilosophyrules At the time of the Reformation however it was a common abuse for Rome to withhold communion in both kinds and only do it on rare occasions.

[@tategarrett3042]

@@thatoneskinnykid 💣

[@cephandrius5281]

As a memorialist, I legitimately don't understand the criticism that our view isn't "high" or lacks "richness." I don't really know what is meant by those words. If it's to say we think the eucharist is unimportant, certainly not! It is of the utmost importance and should be taken seriously, reverently, and joyously. If it's to say we think the eucharist is spiritually inert, certainly not! There is great and legitimate spiritual power in the eucharist. This is why we warn nonbelievers to not partake. The ONLY thing we're claiming is that we are feasting on Christ metaphorically rather than literally. But the Bible is filled with metaphor! Does the Bible lack richness? I really can't understand why this view breeds such derision.

[@answeringadventism]

After studying this topic in-depth due to my own personal affinity for Eucharistic theology-I realized that Lutherans, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Reformed are fundamentally saying the same thing but are disagreeing on the mode of reception. Some saying you receive the whole Christ orally, the Reformed saying by means of the Holy Spirit to the soul. But at the end of the day the same fundamental thing is being said. Unfortunately, this realization has only led me to being more frustrated when I see some of the claims made in these back and forths and how there’s very little recognition that we’re really arguing over very granular details that 95% of Christian’s aren’t even keyed in on because they aren’t theology nerds.

[@Zeebopbudoobop]

The problem is that once Catholics or Orthodox dogmatics something, it truly is as if that view is the only legitimate and valid view where all others are heresy. When that is your presupposition, no ecumenical dialogue could ever be good faith.

[@Akhgy]

@@Zeebopbudoobop ecumenism is heretical the Body of Christ shouldn’t be divided. One mind, one heart in worship and praise.. Having different idea of Christ is not one..having different idea of God is not one Having different understanding of faith is not one.. It’s a divid, and it is prohibited in the Bible and we follow such

[@Adamcatholic]

How is that even relevant since protestants stripped themselves from valid priesthood, so can't consecrate any presence. even if you accepted Catholic view you still don't have any presence, besides that same reformers rejected it as sacrament, so equally if there's no grace in it, what is this supposed presence or what it actually does? If nothing then there's no presence

[@Zeebopbudoobop]

@@Akhgy thanks for proving my point

[@Akhgy]

@@Zeebopbudoobop yup..👍… ecumenism is condemn in the Bible

[@Sklabah]

Thanks, Gavin. I think I have a high view of Communion, but it's one of those subjects that I sort of settled long ago, and don't think about too much, having had few reasons to engage with the discussion. This breakdown and answer is eye-opening and helpful, and reminds me to more purposefully engage my own intentionality in participating in the elements.

[@ThePlagueGameing]

Jesus also says later in Scripture , John 6:53, something which SEEMS canabalist but isn't because He explains it as the words being SPIRIT. ❤

[@StandupGuy55]

Verse 63!

[@dcbmartin]

I fully agree with your explanation of Christ's real spiritual presence in communion. As a fellow Baptist, I have a related question about our sacramentology: How do we defend against the criticism that Baptist theology reduces baptism to merely a symbolic act? While we officially deny that baptism is just an empty symbol, I find it challenging to articulate what actual spiritual efficacy we attribute to it beyond symbolism...

[@DavidWoods-p5s]

This is great! thanks.

[@JenniferThorne]

Gavin I so appreciate your thorough research and presentations regarding the subjects of interest. As a Protestant for the last 34 years who's now entered into the Orthodox faith I also have never been taught in the Protestant faith through three different denominations that the Lord's supper is anything other than a symbol and not the real presence of Christ. It has only been since I've entered into orthodoxy that this team and blessing of the benefit has been made manifest to me. This exact thing is one of the reasons why I've stepped out of protestantism and into orthodoxy

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

Lutheranism over here if you want it lol

[@DavidTextle]

Yeah we Protestants have to do a better job of articulating this to our people. Though I’ve also heard of Catholics leaving Protestantism for virtually the same reason you did.

[@gregorylatta8159]

You have my condolences.

[@Wesleydale754]

Thanks for the video Gavin! This is extremely common for RC to say. I feel like I have to defend this constantly as a reformed Christian. We very much believe and clearly state that it is his body and blood.

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

If you don’t profess transubstantiation, you don’t really believe it *is* the body and blood of Christ. You may believe that in the Eucharist you spiritually *receive* the body and blood, but not that the Eucharistic is itself the body and blood of Christ. I think a question that may help clarify this concept is: when the host is consecrated, would you feel comfortable worshipping the host?

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

@@thejerichoconnection3473 Still, only good can come of them *thinking* this is their position :)

[@lyssadobbins7209]

​@@thejerichoconnection3473I am a Lutheran. We do not hold to transubstantiation and yet we fully believe the bread and the wine are physically and spiritually present. His body and blood are in, with and under the bread and wine. Just as Christ has two nature's; both God and man. The Eucharist is both bread and also Christ's body. The wine is both wine and our Lord's blood. Hope this helps and may the peace of our Lord be with you.

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

@ thanks for your explanation! So would you be comfortable worshipping the consecrated host?

[@lyssadobbins7209]

@@thejerichoconnection3473 by worshipping are you referring to adoration? From my understanding, Our Lord tells us to "take, eat. take, drink" not "take, worship". I do hold great reverence for the Eucharist as our Lord is physically present. As Lutherans we receive the Supper on our knees and bow before kneeling and when we stand to leave. We do this because we are in the presence of our Lord in the bread and wine.

[@haleylewis9587]

Great job with this! One thing I enjoyed in a Holy Spirit class I took in seminary was enjoying communion rather than view it as something to fear with reverence. Think of the Eucharist as an appetizer to eating at the Lord’s Supper with Christ in glory one day. It should be a celebration of communion with him. God bless!

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

Why not both? The Eucharist is at the same time a taste of the heavenly banquet and the real body and blood of Jesus that should be treated with utmost reverence. Don’t you think?

[@haleylewis9587]

@ I’m not saying it’s not both, I was just giving a unique emphasis on the Eucharist often not spoke to in churches.

[@mikekayanderson408]

I wouldn’t pay too much attention to to what Marshall has to say about anything! I listened to him enthuse about how much “ power” there was in a metal crucifix which had been blessed by some other person in the Roman Church. Also very enthusiastic about a miraculous medal of Mary - That tells me all I need to know about what he thinks!

[@mikekayanderson408]

I listened to him in a video he put out having a conversation with Father Calvin Robinson who is Anglo Catholic from the UK - now living in the US.

[@mrjustadude1]

@@mikekayanderson408 so you are a gnostic?

[@nellytorba8737]

Acts 19:11 - And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.

[@vinceplanetta8415]

The early Christians may not have believed in transubstantiation, but I’m convinced that they would not use grape juice in plastic cups that are thrown away after the church service.

[@yesenia3816]

The Catholic Church doesn't use anything but a wafer. Only the priests partake of the wine. Former Catholic here.

[@ParksLover]

​@@yesenia3816That's not true. I grew up Catholic, and the vast majority of my huge family is Catholic. I partook of the wine growing up, and I see people do so at Catholic weddings and funerals within my family.

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

@@yesenia3816 Not true.

[@JamioMarghera]

There would have been plenty who did the equivalent from a pure heart. Christian sacraments do not require grand cathedrals, vestments and lavish ornaments. Man looks at the outward appearance but God looks at the heart.

[@yesenia3816]

@ParksLover I, too, grew up Catholic. Most of my family is Catholic. You cannot claim I lie when I share an experience. My experience is this: we were never allowed to partake of the wine. And, we were never offered bread. It was always a wafer, even for my first communion, even for special occasions.

[@malcolmlayton2050]

Let's not forget that the Eucharist was initiated within a Jewish framework ... where the body of the sacrifice was eaten by the priests and the blood was sprinkled on the people ... the meal Jesus provided was a substitute for this as animal sacrifices would no longer be required ... Jesus was clear 'THIS is my body' offering the bread and 'THIS is my blood' offering the cup ... because there would be no more sacrifice for sin after the cross, no more bodies broken, no more blood shed ... we do need to take the Eucharist seriously as 'we do it in remembrance' ... cannot see where we need transubstantiation ... and as we are ALL priests ... cannot see why one particular denomination has the sole authority to decide who or who does not take part in sharing of the spiritual food

[@StandupGuy55]

I agree and don't really understand the need for transubstantiation or even real presence. Is there a unique "real presence" when taking communion outside of "where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am in the midst of them?" And is "real presence" different from our bodies being temples of the Holy Spirit? The OT had the law w specific commands regarding offerings and for atonement for sin. The weakness of the law was that the religious rituals didn't change the heart...it didn't change our spiritual state. But in the new covenant, the spirit is emphasized. The Lord said unless you're born of water and the Spirit, you won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. John 6:63, the Lord explained that the flesh profits or benefits nothing but the words He spoke are Spirit and they are life and Paul reminds us as many as are lead of the Spirit, they are the sons (and daughters) of God. For me, the Lord's supper is spiritual act that we do in remembrance of what the Lord did for us....regardless if you're drinking Welches grape juice and eating a Ritz cracker, the act of remembering what the Lord did for us should create a solemn atmosphere....and also have felt the Lord's presence, as well.

[@brianlarue3540]

Very well said

[@ramseyeckhardt4659]

This simply isn't right. If you look at the threefold priestly structure in the OT, you have the laypeople, the priests, and then the high priest. If you believe you participate in the priesthood of the laity, ok! If you think Christ is the high priest, right also! However, if you think there shouldn't exist the middle tier of the priesthood, you'd have to make a REALLY good case, and I haven't seen this taught in Scripture. Rather, I've seen the opposite. The very verse of Luke 22:19 stresses "do"ing a priestly function ("hagiazo" being the verb that is only used in the Greek Bible for priestly duties)

[@malcolmlayton2050]

Looked at the Greek for that verse ... no sign of 'hergiazo' unless you mean another verse ... if we look at 1 Peter 2 (4 and 9) we see 'living stones', 'built to be a holy priesthood', 'a royal priest hood' ... 'a holy nation' ... this is not describing a select few ... the following taken from Ellicott's commentary (Biblehub) : A royal priesthood, an holy nation.-These words are a direct quotation from Exodus 19:6, according to the LXX. version. The Hebrew has “a kingdom of priests,” as in Revelation 1:6 (according to the best reading); which would mean, God’s organised empire, every member of which is a priest. Coupling this with Hebrews 8:11(Jeremiah 31:34) that 'everybody will know the Lord' ... it seems the middle-man has indeed been removed ... we are all priests and there is one high-priest being Jesus ... the need for bishops, deacons leaders etc does not negate the fact that we are all priests before God

[@ramseyeckhardt4659]

@@malcolmlayton2050 sorry, sorry. I mixed up my terms, is all. I personally don’t know Greek, so I look to scholars on this. After all, I can’t read the translations of the Greek through my 21st century lens, either! “The Greek word for “offer” is also poiein, conjugated poieseis. Leviticus 9:7 and Psalm 66:15 serve as other examples where poiein is used in reference to sacrifice. Moses says to Aaron in Leviticus 9:7, “Draw near to the altar and offer [Greek, poiein] your sin offering and your burnt offering, and make atonement for yourself and for the people.” Psalm 66:15 reads, “I will offer [Greek, poiein] to thee burnt offerings of fatlings.” Because poiein is used in the Last Supper narrative in reference to the duties of the apostles, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus is commanding them to offer a sacrifice, thus making them priests.” (The Biblical Blueprint for the Priesthood, Karlo Broussard 2013)

[@krisgholson]

I am Catholic and I am very appreciative of the content that Gavin puts out here. I've also read his book - "Why We're Protestant" - thank you Gavin for being a thoughtful and charitable apologist for Protestant Christianity. While I appreciate Gavin's historical research, I do find that most of my Protestant friends (mostly from non-denominational congregations) do currently have an "anemic" view of of Holy Communion. I think Gavin used the word "anemic" to describe it himself so I don't think that should be an offensive characterization. Gavin has referred to the "Always Reforming" nature of Protestantism as the best path to catholicity; the last 500 years don't seem to prove that out BUT I believe that anything is possible for God. Probably due to my Catholic world view, I perceive that our path back to unity will come through a renewed centrality of the Eucharist or Holy Communion in our worship - how do we move more Christians from an anemic view of Holy Communion to seeing it as the sacrament that holds us all together and prevents heresies (like it did in the Early Church)?

[@alanberry5091]

Lev 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.… Lev 17:12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. Lev 17:13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. Lev 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off. New Testament: Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: … Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, …Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and FROM BLOOD, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Verse 15:22 the apostles and elders with the whole church (in Jerusalem) agreed with Paul and Barnabas, and judas and Silas, chief men among the brethern.

[@gardengirlmary]

I just listened to Matthew Esquivels guest appearance on Remnant Radio on 4 views of communion. It was excellent. Thanks for this great video too Dr Ortlund

[@stephenwright4973]

The real problem was the logical conclusion of transubstantiation: namely, that the Real Presence necessitates the veneration of the elements of the Eucharist. If the bread & wine are transubstantiated into body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ, then the elements should receive the same worship due to Christ, which Protestants saw as idolatry.

[@foodforthought8308]

How is that idolatry? Beautiful fruit of worship has come from adoration and reflection on the Incarnation and humility of God

[@stephenwright4973]

@@foodforthought8308 Agreed, but does such adoration & reflection take place in God's Incarnate Presence, or not? That's the dispute. If transubstantiation is a mistaken interpretation of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then venerating the elements would be (unintentional) idolatry, since idolatry is worshiping what is not God. Protestants of the Zwinglian persuasion often point to 2 Cor.5:16 ("though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more") to deny that Christ is physically present in the elements. That He is present in some special way in the Eucharist is undeniably the view of 100% of early Christians, and the view of most if not all Protestants.

[@mrjustadude1]

Yeah because many protestants are gnostic and don't know it.

[@danielboone8256]

What people often forget is that there is a small amount of alcohol even in grape juice, so any distinction between wine and grape juice for Eucharistic use is probably arbitrary.

[@markwebb7576]

It's interesting that the contents of the cup is never called wine in the New Testament (I know it is wine!). The only description we have of the contents is Jesus calling it "the fruit of the vine" which (I suppose) grape juice is!

[@j.sethfrazer]

Lutheran here watching this with a jumbo popcorn and a large soda 🍿😅🥤

[@j.sethfrazer]

@ , that was my smug way of insinuating that they’re BOTH wrong and I find it amusing to watch and observe as the errors just continue to pile up.

[@ora_et_labora1095]

Same 🤣

[@aericabison23]

@@j.sethfrazer I want to be Lutheran so I can celebrate Oktoberfest.

[@andrewvalantine184]

Lutheran as well. Eager to hear what they both say. I wish people would engage with the Lutheran catechism and confessions on how we view the Eucharist.

[@ChrisVink-b5b]

I am in complete misery in Las Vegas, Nevada of America. I am in complete misery because I am being psychologically destroyed. It is as if I am in a story I do not want to be in, and the author has arranged it so all conversations between my parents are meant to psychologically destroy me, or between my parents and other relatives are meant to psychologically destroy me. There is no way I can ever smile again. Can someone get me out of this situation? It is as if everything my parents, sister, and nephews, whatever they say among themselves, that some author of a story wants me mentally destroyed. I can never ever smile around them again. Can someone get me away from here? I live in a torture chamber of guilt and wrongness. My parents unceasingly express themselves as perfection. I dream of not being here for Christmas. I guess I am already psychologically destroyed. Can I get away before I am suicidal?

[@kaysandee]

Thank you, thank you for exposing Marshall's arrogant errors! Just using the word "attacking" is framing the Protestant narrative in a negative way.

[@a.ihistory5879]

"exposing" lol funny

[@jessebartunek3195]

Gavin, it is no longer the 16th century. I don't agree with Taylor on a lot of things, but his argument is far more applicable today than yours is. Most Protestants by number and by denominations believe act like he characterized.

[@mrjustadude1]

Exactly. The way people treat and prepare for the eucharist tells you what they believe. Most protestants today treat it exactly like Dr Marshall said.

[@TimRogers34]

Taylor knows better. He went to an Episcopal seminary. Feeling like he is gathering clicks.

[@Groundbreaker]

How would you know, it came out 2 minutes ago, surely you havent actually watched it

[@ryandelaune139]

Taylor is just a Protestant cosplaying as a traditional Catholic. He regularly advertises that the Pope is a heretic, which is against Catholic moral code.

[@TimRogers34]

@ I follow on Patreon. Early release for us.

[@Groundbreaker]

makes sense, I still disagree, but at least you've actually watched it

[@stephengray1344]

@@Groundbreaker Taylor Marshall's comments were public when Tim posted that comment. If you know what he said it's pretty obvious that they are a misrepresentation of what historic Protestant traditions have always taught about communion.

[@JohnMark61355]

Thank you for the video. When I was in third grade in Catholic school, my religion teacher stated that if one pokes the consecrated bread with a pin, blood would come out. Even at age eight, I was skeptical. However, there is still this belief among some current members of the Roman Catholic denomination.

[@geraldmurphy321]

That is not catholic doctrine

[@JohnMark61355]

@ Agreed, but many individual Catholics believe this. One person told me there is “scientific evidence” these occurrences are true; even a bishop made these claims.

[@geraldmurphy321]

Oh well in that case they are referring to Eucharistic Miracles which are miracles that happen after consecration where the accidents are changed into literal physical body/blood. But that is another thing.

[@clivejames5058]

I think your teacher was teasing you as someone has said, this is not Catholic doctrine. When a priest, obeying Christ's words, speaks the words of consecration, a change takes place. The substance of bread and the substance of wine are both completely changed by God’s power into the substance of Christ’s body and the substance of his blood. However, the appearances of bread and wine remain the same. This is the great mystery of which Christ spoke in John 6.

[@JohnMark61355]

@@clivejames5058 No, she was not teasing, nor are the “scientific evidence” claims and claims by a Bishop I heard recently about such occurrences. Most Catholics don’t believe these claims but many still do.

[@michellecheriekjv4115]

Excellent teaching...Thanks.

[@RealCaptainAwesome]

But John 6 isn't even discussing communion.

[@aericabison23]

Yes, Jesus is preaching the gospel there.

[@clivejames5058]

It does if you read John 6:62-63 in the larger context of the Bread of Life discourse of John 6.

[@RealCaptainAwesome]

@clivejames5058 read the rest of the chapter.

[@cerealbowl7038]

Great content as always. I'm an agnostic, but if I ever become a Christian again, I'll definitely be protestant.

[@geoffjs]

Wrong choice, believe me!

[@philblagden]

It's also worth noting and acknowledging that there WERE early fathers who taught that the bread and wine were SYMBOLIC. So you don't have to believe in Christ's real presence in the Eucharist to be in line with historic Christian teaching. “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a FIGURE, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord,” Augustine "Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by SYMBOLS, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by METAPHOR the drinkable properties of faith and the promise" (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 1:6 “For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body… to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body,” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1

[@robertdelisle7309]

‘35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”’ How is hunger and thirst satiated? Not by chewing or drinking, but by coming and believing. By this Jesus tells us he is speaking spiritually not literally in regard to him being food. Therefore, on that day if there was someone who had believed in Jesus, they would have eaten his body and drank his blood.

[@StandupGuy55]

​@robertdelisle7309 I've used a similar argument. In John 6:35 (NLT) it says, "Jesus replied, I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry again. Whoever believes in me will never be thirsty." If the Lord literally means His body and blood are true food (Jn 6:55) and the Lord says we would never hunger and thirst again, then why would someone who has taken communion still experience hunger/thirst? Because the Lord isn't talking about actual food/drink for the body (the flesh) but Spiritual nourishment - John 6:63. And that's Augustine's argument as well: "And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you: they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them...But He instructed them, and says unto them, It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth..." ~ Exposition of Psalm 99.

[@robertdelisle7309]

@ Great points. I have read Augustine commentary indicating the real presence as well. ““Christ held Himself in His hands when He gave His Body to His disciples saying: ‘This is My Body.’ No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored it. Recognise in this bread what hung on the cross, and in this chalice what flowed from His side.” St Augustine He seems to be inconsistent or had a change of mind on this.

[@geraldmurphy321]

Symbolic does not negate real presence. How would we know the real presence without some sign? Catholics have always believed they are symbols, but more than symbols - the reality as well. These are not in contradiction

[@robertdelisle7309]

@ To me a symbol and the reality it signifies are mutually exclusive things. A symbol is an object, sign, or word that represents an idea, object, or relationship. Therefore you cannot have a symbol represent something else while simultaneously claiming it is actually the true and literal thing being represented. The bread is either a symbol that represents the flesh of Christ or it actually is the flesh of Christ.

[@ora_et_labora1095]

I welcome you all to the evangelical catholic, historical Protestant and confessional Lutheran faith! God bless you Gavin.

[@lyssadobbins7209]

I was confirmed this past reformation Sunday! Was just reading the book of Concord before watching this video 😺 I love seeing Lutherans in the comments 😊

[@palabraviva5840]

Thanks for the invite but I’m good 😊

[@geraldmurphy321]

The Catholic Church doesnt allow any old "non alcholoic wine" rather it allows mustum trans "young wine". "Mustum is defined as grape juice in which fermentation has begun, but has been suspended with the result that its alcohol con- tent (usually less than 1.0%) does not reach the levels found in most table wines." So it is still wine, just v low alcohol wine.

[@geraldmurphy321]

Your personal opinion doesn't matter. Jesus the head of the Church used wine, we the Church use wine, even if it's v low alcohol content, the substance is wine.

[@hexahexametermeter]

And one cup. Where this plurality of shot glasses came from is beyond me.

[@geraldmurphy321]

​@hexahexametermeter we may use several Chalices (notice the distinction for sacred objects used in divine worship) in a mass with more people. However the plurality of cups in protestant communion may belie a individualistic mentality ,and /or the tacit belief that it is the priesthood of the believer active in the 'spiritual' consecration and not the one high priesthood of Christ through His minister.

[@tadhg841]

I think the concern is primarily that non-real presence views are so tolerated in Protestantism, and even the status quo for many (even most?) evangelicals. Would you be ok accepting non-trinitarians as Protestant in the same spirit?

[@ilovechrist914]

Best way is the orthodox meaning. That it's just a mystery not trying to describe something above our means its just is

[@dannisivoccia2712]

I always thought that the real presence of Jesus is when two or three are gathered together in His name. However, I have experienced His real presence (an overwhelming witness of His peace) when in sincere prayer, fasting, reading and absorbing His word, genuine praise and worship, declaring God's truth, sharing the Gospel to the lost, caring for the needy, and partaking of the Lord's table.

[@bigfootapologetics]

There are multiple modes of presence. Just like you can be present at a meeting in person, but also be "present" by a Zoom video, or present by phone call, Jesus is present in different ways: He's present normally to all of us because He is omnipresent, He's especially present when two or three are gathered, He's truly present in the Eucharist (bodily!), and was present in a different way before the ascension.

[@dannisivoccia2712]

@bigfootapologetics If it is Jesus, and He is present, it is always a blessing. Presence is presence, and it is always real.

[@bigfootapologetics]

@@dannisivoccia2712 Sure. But would you not acknowledge that He's present in a different way to us in our every day life than when He was walking on Earth prior to the crucifixion? That's what we mean by the "real presence" being different than the normal way He's present to us.

[@dannisivoccia2712]

@@bigfootapologetics Yes, He is called the Holy Spirit. Jesus was presented to the world differently while on earth, but still One and the same Spirit given to those who are His. His real presence dwells within them.

[@bigfootapologetics]

@@dannisivoccia2712 Sure! But He is not here bodily - except through the Eucharist, which contains His body, blood, soul, and divinity!

[@evangileenlanguesanciennes8612]

Hello Gavin, as a catholic I highly appreciate your irenic approach to ecumenical questions. Now, I just wanted to point out that in catholic teaching, the word "real" in the expression "real presence" is not opposed to "unreal", but to "spiritual". In other words, "real presence" means "physical" or "material" presence (from the Latin word "res" meaning in this context a material thing) as opposed to merely spiritual presence of Jesus in the eucharist. While watching your video - which I find interesting - I wasn't quite sure whether this definition of "real presence" is clear to you. I just wanted to tell you this, brother, in a constructive critique. Eric from Belgium.

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

Well, a fellow Belgian, hello. And a fellow Catholic. I must object to your representation of Catholic teaching, however. ''Real'' means ''actual'', i.e. the opposite of fake and imaginary. There is as such nothing wrong with using the word ''spiritual'' presence, provided it is understood as true, real and substantial, of the essence, and that there is an actual transformation.

[@toadofsteel]

I come from the PCUSA, which on that sliding scale falls into the "Spiritual Presence" camp of Calvin, but individual believers are not required to believe exactly Spiritual Presence either, as long as they believe that some efficacious change happens. A member of my church could believe in something that almost resembles Transubstantiation, although not the Catholic doctrine itself, because the PCUSA mandates that communion is open to anyone that wants to come up to receive. That's a big part of why I chose to keep my membership in the PCUSA when I married into a Catholic family. I'm more than open to the idea that a physical change happens, but I can't be Catholic because if it happens for one, it happens for all. Our interpretation of 1 Cor 11:29 is a bit different as well, because all persons are unworthy of drinking from the cup of our Lord. This means that all people in all denominations, including Catholicism, eat and drink judgment on themselves, in that they are binding themselves to the judgment from the Lord by making such a public profession of partaking of the Sacrament. No earthly body, regardless of how they derive their authority, has the right to make that decision FOR the individual.

[@kazager11]

Should practice move back to the Eucharist as a fellowship meal? It seems like everyone is doing "church" wrong to me.

[@AdithiaKusno]

As a subdeacon in Byzantine Catholic Church, I applaud Gavin Ortlund for dismissing Taylor Marshall approach. It is not a good practice to slander Protestants as a whole without distinction. Even St Paul in 1 Cor 15 used the term spiritual when referring to resurrection alluding that our resurrection will not be in this fallen flesh because no flesh can enter the Kingdom of God but rather will be restored to spiritual flesh that Adam was created originally. So the issue never on the term but the meaning is being disputed. If by spiritual meaning allegory or metaphor then no Church fathers profess that. Even St Cyril of Jerusalem who wrote explicitly that the Eucharist as Symbol understood the phrase symbol not as allusion to faith but as incarnate symbol or true symbol that is real. In regards to Transubstantiation I assume Gavin Ortlund might not be aware but in the middle ages there was debate on physical transformation of Eucharist which then condemned as heretical. Because had the Eucharist transformed physically then no one would be able to brush their teeth or go for number 2. Because one ought to dispose the most holy body and precious blood of God with reverent. If God willing after my bishop ordain me to deaconate I would be open to have a discussion with Gavin Ortlund on this topic. In the East we accepted Trent according to Eastern dogmas. Namely metaousia. At consecration the elements are elevated not destroyed. We see this in St Aquinas argument that the accident of nature remains and not destroyed. That accident is physicality. It can be tested in lab. It remains what it was before by nature but added and transformed. The bread no longer mere physical glucose but becomes the holy body of God and the wine no longer mere physical fermented grapes but becomes the precious blood of God. This is why in St Cyril of Alexandria 2nd letter to Nestorius which was accepted as dogmatic at Ephesus for Protestants to accept. He wrote the Eucharist is the unbloody sacrifice. If any Protestants accept Cyril's 2nd letter to Nestorius then one would worship the Eucharist despite of terminological disputes. Trent can't be read as the letters who blindly force people to submit but rather as boundaries to warn people that no Assyrians Church of the East, or OOs, or EOs who while may reject the term Transubstantiation would reject worshipping the Eucharist. That's the debate. For Protestants it's impossible to worship the Eucharist. The reason I'm pointing this out is to remove Taylor Marshall or Trent's terminology in this debate as those not essential. But rather the crux of debate is on whether or not one can worship the Eucharist. When I was a Dutch Calvinist I couldn't worship the Eucharist and that's what lead me to become a Byzantine Catholic. The early Church didn't debate the terminology so don't be fixated with terminology or explanation. Bypass all of that and ask yourself can you worship the Eucharist as the early Church did. If you can't then that explains why deep down Protestants do profess a belief that the early Church had lapsed into Great Apostasy by late 2nd century or early 3rd century or a variant of this belief. No Protestants could accept the Canon Laws from First Nicaea, First Constantinople, Ephesus, or Chalcedon. Those councils didn't just issue dogmatic texts but also Canon Laws. It took me 8 years to convert. Take your time and may God lead you home whether it be Polish National Church, Scranton Synod, Old Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox. Come to the Church which Christ established. Yes, we're divided that's true. There are roughly 8 to 13 denominations within the true Church but all have valid apostolic succession and holy orders. John Calvin as a priest can't ordain. John Wesley as a priest can't ordain. You need validly ordained bishop to ordain and establish Christ's true Church. I hope to have a cordial and friendly dialogue with Gavin Ortlund who I consider brother in Christ and filled with the Holy Spirit as affirmed by Second Vatican Council that the Holy Spirit can work even outside the visible boundary of the Church.

[@wonderingpilgrim]

@AdithiaKusno I'm currently still Protestant, but I really appreciate your thoughtful comment, as well as the beauty of the Byzantine Catholics. You've given me more food for thought to consider in my learning journey about Catholicism.

[@consecratedsoul]

Underrated comment. Do you worship the Eucharist like the Early Church did? Yes or no. This is the crux, Gavin focusing on terminology is irrelevant. +JMJ+

[@DanOcchiogrosso-uj4be]

Honest question here; not trying to prove a point. When is the first time in church history that you blatantly see (not just infer) worship of the Eucharist?

[@DanOcchiogrosso-uj4be]

@@consecratedsoul When protestants are anathemetized over these differences, it’s important to define the terminology. To Gavin‘s defense, he was responding to such an attack. Honest question here: I’m looking for the first place in church history where the Eucharist is blatantly worshiped. Since you mentioned it’s from early Christianity, I would appreciate any information you could send my way. Thank you!

[@TitusThundr]

@@consecratedsoul Who worshiped the Eucharist in the Early church? Do you have a citation?

[@danielboone8256]

I don’t know why people misrepresent memorialism. Memorialism teaches that Christ is really present in the BELIEVER, not the bread and cup.

[@Athanasius242]

20:25 another example would be women who are pregnant. I imagine they wouldn't be drinking alcoholic wine.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

If I got a dollar every time I saw a Catholic raising this up I'd have my student loans paid off by now

[@John-pz1zx]

And likewise if I had a dollar for every time a protestant asked why I worship Mary I'd have enough money to go to college

[@connor-do2bg]

@@John-pz1zx fair enough

[@bradleymarshall5489]

@@John-pz1zx ya that's fair. Had to tell my grandma the other day Catholics due believe Jesus is God and even some Lutherans affirm the perpetual virginity of Mary

[@echoes-of-faith89]

Thank you for this thoughtful and detailed video. I appreciate the effort to engage deeply with Eucharistic theology and the historical complexities surrounding Catholic and Protestant perspectives. The Eucharist is a profound and central mystery of Christian faith, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to reflect on some of the points raised here, particularly regarding real presence, transubstantiation, historical Protestant views, and the Church’s own reforms. You rightly point out that many early Protestant Reformers, including Luther and Calvin, did not reject the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Luther maintained a strong belief in real presence through his concept of sacramental union, while Calvin described a “spiritual presence,” where Christ is truly received through the Holy Spirit by the faithful in Communion. These views differ significantly from the purely symbolic memorialist view that has become common in modern evangelicalism. Today, many Protestant communities, influenced by Zwinglian theology, regard the Eucharist as a symbolic act of remembrance rather than a real encounter with Christ. This shift is a significant departure from both the early Church and the sacramental theology of the Reformers themselves. Taylor Marshall’s critique, while rhetorically simplified, speaks to this modern reality. His frustration seems directed less at classical Protestant theology and more at the symbolic-only view prevalent in many churches today. This loss of belief in the real presence reflects a drift away from the Eucharist’s historical centrality and has led to practices that feel “anemic” compared to the reverence seen in both early Christianity and traditional Protestantism. Regarding transubstantiation, the Catholic Church teaches that during the consecration at Mass, the bread and wine are transformed in substance into the body and blood of Christ, while their appearances (accidents) remain unchanged. This doctrine, articulated at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and affirmed at the Council of Trent, is rooted in Scripture and the belief of the early Church. While the term “transubstantiation” employs Aristotelian categories, it seeks to express the mystery of Christ’s real presence in a precise and faithful way. The belief it conveys predates medieval philosophy, as evidenced by the writings of the Church Fathers: - St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 110) affirmed the Eucharist as “the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1). - St. Justin Martyr (d. 165) described the bread and wine as becoming “the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology, 66). - St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) taught that after the consecration, the bread and wine “are no longer ordinary bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ” (Mystagogical Catecheses, 22:1). These testimonies show that the core belief in the transformation of the Eucharist is not a later innovation but an unbroken tradition rooted in apostolic faith. The video critiques transubstantiation as a “mechanism” or medieval development distinct from patristic theology. However, Catholic doctrine views it as a development in expression, not in essence. Doctrine grows in clarity over time without changing its substance, as St. Vincent of Lérins explained: “[Christian doctrine] progresses, consolidates with the years, develops with time, becomes more profound with age, but always remains uncorrupted” (Commonitorium, 23). Transubstantiation is thus a mature articulation of the Church’s ancient and enduring belief in Christ’s real presence. The Catholic understanding of John 6, where Jesus says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53), sees this teaching as foundational to the Eucharist. While the Eucharist had not yet been instituted at the time, Jesus often revealed truths that would only be fully understood after His resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit. For Catholics, John 6 points to the sacramental reality of the Eucharist and its promise of eternal life. St. Augustine beautifully connects this teaching to the Last Supper, writing, “Christ was carried in His own hands when, referring to His own body, He said, ‘This is my body’” (Exposition on the Psalms, 33:1). Eucharistic miracles also play a significant role in reaffirming the Church’s teaching on the real presence. Throughout history, miraculous events have provided tangible signs of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. For instance, the Miracle of Lanciano (8th century) involved a consecrated host visibly transforming into human flesh and blood, which modern scientific studies have confirmed as being of human origin with blood type AB. In Siena, Italy (1730), consecrated hosts stolen from a church were recovered intact and remain miraculously incorrupt to this day. These miracles serve as powerful reminders of the mystery Catholics affirm by faith, providing moments of grace that deepen reverence for the Eucharist. Regarding critiques of medieval Eucharistic practices-such as infrequent reception, communion in one kind, and superstitions-the Catholic Church has acknowledged and addressed many of these concerns. For example, the reforms of St. Pius X in the early 20th century encouraged frequent reception of the Eucharist and reduced barriers to receiving Communion, particularly for children. Vatican II further emphasized the active participation of the laity in the liturgy and encouraged Communion under both kinds where appropriate. While abuses and misunderstandings have existed, the Church continually reforms its practices to ensure that the faithful approach the Eucharist with understanding, reverence, and proper disposition. Finally, I appreciate the video’s call for a more meaningful Eucharistic practice among Protestants. However, it’s important to recognize that the Protestant rejection of transubstantiation was not merely a response to abuses but a theological departure that led to fragmentation among Protestant views of the Eucharist. While Lutherans and some Anglicans retain a robust belief in real presence, other traditions have moved toward a purely symbolic interpretation. This diversity contrasts with the Catholic Church’s unified teaching, which has been preserved across centuries and cultures. The Eucharist is, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “the source and summit of the Christian life”. Conversations like these are vital not only for understanding our differences but for encouraging all Christians-Catholics and Protestants alike-to recover the depth, reverence, and transformative power of the Eucharist. Thank you for engaging with this topic so thoughtfully. I hope discussions like these can foster deeper understanding and a shared commitment to honoring Christ’s gift of Himself in the Eucharist.

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

A couple of points of disagreement or qualification (not exhaustive): There were multiple different strains of thought among the fathers on the Eucharist. You can see Schaff on this. Some were closer to transubstantiation (e.g. Cyril of Jerusalem), whereas others were more spiritual presence-y (e.g. Augustine). There are other ways to understand things other than transubstantiation. I'm pretty sure Scotus, among others, wrote on this, though I haven't read him myself. (Which I ought to remedy.) John 6 isn't primarily about the Eucharist, although it does implicate it. The prominent cardinal Cajetan (who argued against Luther to his face, and is one of the most important and influential interpreters of Aquinas, I believe) acknowledges this. Augustine qualifies Christ carrying himself as "in a manner," which makes that quote considerably murkier. Among the things Luther was condemned for, was saying: "16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics." Anyway, you clearly put some effort into that, so thanks for elevating the discourse.

[@echoes-of-faith89]

@@BernardinusDeMoor Thank you for engaging thoughtfully and offering these important points. Let me address some of your comments and qualifications from a Catholic perspective, while also appreciating the nuances you’ve highlighted. I hope this response continues the spirit of constructive dialogue and clarity. 1. Diversity Among the Church Fathers on the Eucharist You’re absolutely correct that the Church Fathers reflected diverse emphases and language in their discussions of the Eucharist. For example: St. Cyril of Jerusalem is often seen as articulating a view close to transubstantiation, emphasizing the change in the Eucharistic elements into Christ’s body and blood (Mystagogical Catecheses 22). St. Augustine, while employing more symbolic language at times, does not deny the real presence. For Augustine, the Eucharist is both a sign and a reality, as he writes: “The bread you see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ” (Sermon 227). Augustine’s theology often emphasized the mystery of the sacrament as both symbol and substantial presence, which has led some to misinterpret his writings as merely symbolic. The diversity among the Fathers is not contradictory but reflective of the different contexts and audiences they addressed. The Catholic Church acknowledges this spectrum while affirming that the consistent thread throughout the patristic tradition is belief in the Eucharist as truly the body and blood of Christ, not merely a symbolic memorial. 2. Alternative Theological Models to Transubstantiation You’re right to point out that transubstantiation is not the only theological model explored in Catholic thought. The Church officially teaches transubstantiation as a dogma, rooted in Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents, but other theological frameworks have been proposed to articulate the same mystery. For example: Bl. John Duns Scotus did indeed propose alternative ways of understanding the Eucharistic presence, focusing on a metaphysical framework that differs slightly from Thomas Aquinas. Scotus’s thought underscores the richness of Catholic theological exploration while maintaining the Church’s core Eucharistic doctrine. The Church’s teaching on transubstantiation at the Council of Trent does not exclude other philosophical explanations, as long as they affirm the real, substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The emphasis is on the reality of Christ’s presence, rather than the mechanism of how this change occurs. Catholic theology values these nuanced explorations as long as they are faithful to the essential belief in Christ’s real presence. 3. John 6 and the Eucharist It’s true that John 6 is a rich passage with layers of meaning, and it is not exclusively about the Eucharist. As you noted, Cardinal Cajetan and others have recognized this complexity. However, the Catholic Church sees John 6 as inseparably connected to the Eucharist, particularly in Jesus’ discourse about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. The Catholic Interpretation: While John 6 also touches on broader themes of faith and spiritual nourishment, the Catholic Church holds that Jesus’ words in verses 53-58 are profoundly Eucharistic. The language of eating (Greek: trogo, meaning “to chew” or “gnaw”) and drinking His blood points to a physical and sacramental reality, not merely a metaphorical one. Patristic Support: Many Church Fathers interpreted John 6 in a Eucharistic light. St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing just decades after the Apostles, saw the Eucharist as the “medicine of immortality” (Letter to the Ephesians, 20). This interpretation aligns with Jesus’ promise of eternal life in John 6:54. While John 6 has broader implications, its Eucharistic dimension is undeniable within Catholic tradition and has been a cornerstone of Eucharistic theology for centuries. 4. St. Augustine and "Carrying Himself" You’re right to note that Augustine qualifies his statement about Christ “carrying Himself” with the phrase “in a manner.” This reflects Augustine’s use of analogical and symbolic language, which is common in his writings. However, this qualification does not negate his belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Augustine frequently emphasized the sacrament’s unity of sign and reality. For example, in Explanations of the Psalms (Psalm 33:1), he writes: “Christ was carried in His own hands...because He bore His body in His hands.” This language underscores his belief that the Eucharist is not merely a symbol but truly Christ’s body, though expressed in a mystical way. Augustine’s language may require careful reading, but his Eucharistic theology ultimately aligns with the real presence affirmed by the Catholic Church. 5. Luther and Communion Under Both Kinds Luther’s statement about the laity receiving under both kinds highlights an important point in the history of Eucharistic practice. The Catholic Church acknowledges that, historically, Communion under one kind became the norm for practical and pastoral reasons. However: The Church has always taught that Christ is fully present under each species (bread and wine). Thus, receiving under one kind does not deprive the faithful of any grace. The Second Vatican Council encouraged a return to Communion under both kinds where appropriate, as a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet. Luther’s observation reflects the diversity of historical practices but does not diminish the Church’s doctrinal integrity regarding the real presence in either species. To summarize, our points bring valuable nuance to this discussion. The Catholic Church embraces a tradition that is both unified in essential doctrine and diverse in theological expression. The Eucharist remains the “source and summit” of Christian life (Lumen Gentium, 11), and the richness of Catholic thought allows for ongoing exploration and dialogue about this profound mystery. Thank you for contributing to this discussion with care and thoughtfulness. I hope my response adds clarity and fosters further reflection on this truly important topic.

[@cassidyanderson3722]

The Orthodox believe in the real presence, but deny transubstantiation. If Protestants really believed in the real presence, it would seem their view of the Eucharist would align with the Orthodox. But, it of course doesn’t.

[@SinceAD33]

A few thoughts Dr. Ortlund. First, apologies for Dr. Marshall's comments. He should not have grouped Protestants together like that considering historic/classical Protestants have a high view of the Eucharist. While I affirm transubstantiation as the biblical and patristic teaching, it's obviously wrong to say that the Protestant views were complete novelties. Centuries before the Reformation, for example, St. Thomas Aquinas was already writing against what would be later known as the Lutheran and Reformed views. As Catholics, it's more historically realistic to frame the Protestant views as late medieval corruptions as opposed to 16th century novelties (just like I think you would describe our view... correct me if I'm wrong lol?) Second (14:57), and I don't blame you for this, but I would confidently say that feasting on Christ spiritually through faith (and charity) outside the Eucharist is originally a Catholic doctrine and not uniquely a Reformed one. Granted, the Reformed definitely stress it more, and the latest video on my channel covers the Catholic and Reformed views on this to show how much we actually agree. From St. Augustine to the scholastics to even the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Trent, the Catholic Church has always distinguished between mere sacramental eating (unbelievers and sinners in the Eucharist), only spiritual eating (believers outside of the Eucharist), and both sacramental and spiritual eating (believers in the Eucharist). Third, I must disagree with the point made on communion in one kind. This issue, I think, is one where the Protestants are most clearly in error when it comes to both Scripture and the Fathers. Two questions must be answered on this topic: whether it's valid and whether it's licit - most of the Reformers and the later Protestant scholastics affirmed the former but unanimously deny the latter; for this reason, I assume you are referring to the question of whether the practice is lawful. Regarding Matthew 26:27, none of the fathers read it in the way Jacob of Mies, Jan Hus, and the Protestants came to read it. No father advocates for communion in one kind only because no one was complaining against the already-existing practice like the Utraquists and Protestants did. The practice of communion in one kind most clearly appears as early as the early third century but there is evidence for it in the second century. The fathers, east and west, never condemn communion in one kind but rather give witness to it being practiced, though admittedly not as widespread as it becomes in the late medieval ages. Regardless, for Protestants to hold to a church guided by the Spirit but then condemn a practice that has existed for over 1400 years as sacrilegious seems odd to me. A couple of Reformers (e.g. John Calvin) allowed for what actually would be condemned by fathers as sacrilegious, namely by allowing for elements other than bread and wine to be used. However, I grant that their views would not have been unanimously accepted and maybe criticized by other Reformers. Update: just got to listen to the audio more clearly. Claiming communion in both kinds was the “universal patristic practice” is a strong claim since we have dozens of quotes from communion in one kind early on. Thanks! God bless!

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

I'd be interested in looking. Where in the early church do we see communion in one kind?

[@SinceAD33]

@@BernardinusDeMoor I have several videos on this in my channel, each with different lengths, but you have - private communion at home - communion taken to the sick (not always but sometimes it was only the bread) - Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified was in one kind and began in the 300s and was celebrated during Lent in both the East and the West. - communion to infants was sometimes in one kind (just the wine) - other individual instances where it’s recorded someone only receives the bread and not the wine Ironically, most of these go against Reformed Eucharistic theology since they involve preservation of the Eucharist after the liturgy (which implies Christ’s presence in the elements after the service and not just during), communion to the sick, and communion in one kind. God bless!

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

@@SinceAD33 Do any of those involve it being the ordinary, rather than the extraordinary, way to administer the sacrament to the laity? Only the third or fifth sound like that could be the case.

[@SeanusAurelius]

@@SinceAD33 The Council of Constance *universally dogmatised* communion in one kind. Universal dogmatisation of a practice is not as defensible as the practice itself and IS inconsistent with the Early Church.

[@Nonreligeousthiestic]

@@SinceAD33 So it is only the authority of the Roman church that demands conformity

[@alanberry5091]

Gavin Ortlund: Never listened to you before, but with interest I listened to this one. About Min. 5:31 you quote John Calvin (with view of his books from Calvin’s Institutes, not from your voice but at the bottom of the page shown, Volume 4, Chapter 17, Section 10 which I do not have. If I am right in what those numbers mean. At least that is what I think you quoted from. However, I have Volume 2, Chapter 17 titled “The Lord’s supper and Its Advantages”. (at least I think that is what I have, but at the top of my page in this chapter it says Book IV. - but I cannot find your quote anywhere in this lengthy chapter. Pgs 641 to 711) Then the chapter(XVIII) following is entitled “The Papal Mass Not Only a Sacrilegious Profanation of the Lord’s Supper, but a Total Annihilation of It.” From your quote of John Calvin you seem to put John Calvin in the category of transubstantiation. Or at least of Christ being literally in the bread and wine. He uses the word transubstantiation throughout my chapters. He totally is against it. I have used John Calvin against John Calvin in the past, where someone was quoting from the Institutes 3 and 4, and I was quoting from I and 2. I.e. John Calvin contradicts himself!! Is that the case here? Or have I misunderstood

[@davidhanson4480]

Gavin seems like a genuine and righteous man. That said, one question arises: by whose authority does he stand? Even if Cranmer were here to share his perspective in a video, by whose authority would he stand? After 40 years as a Protestant, I couldn’t reconcile the idea that obedience to authority is a mere abstract, Platonic concept of the Bride of Christ-the unembodied "catholic" church (with a lowercase "c"). No, the Holy Spirit works not only through Scripture but also through His ambassadors: the bishops and priests of The Catholic Church, established by Simon Peter, the greatest among the Apostles. Therefore, all debates on the Eucharist ultimately rest on Papal authority. Theology and authority should always be graciously challenged-but never at the expense of obedience. For obedience is the calling of all Christians, leading us to grow in holiness.

[@keepkalm777]

💯

[@sansebastiansj]

First problem. There is no such thing as papal authority. Are you saying people hearing Jesus's teachings did not understood anything, therefore Jesus's teaching were pointless up until the church came into the picture and told people how to understand his words? Where is this in the bible? That we need other's people authority to understand God's word? Woman at the well understood Jesus without anyone's help. So did the people during the seromn on the mountain.

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

By whose authority do you write that comment? I think our obedience should be to the word of God. If you write that the bishops and priests have authority, why not also Protestant ministers?

[@fredtrevino9201]

Funny….the Pharisees asked the exact same question of Jesus…….

[@bradenglass4753]

​@@fredtrevino9201sorry, but your point failed to deliver, as it's a 2 edged sword, equally working against the romanist claims that protestant elders do not have authority and were not "sent". Instead of making pseudo deep statements, I'd suggest just using rational arguments or scriptural citation

[@mrjustadude1]

How your church treats the eucharist, how it is received, what preparation goes into it, etc, says more about what your church believes than anything else. In this regard, most protestants are exactly as Dr Marshall says.

[@Son-du4pn]

Please do a video on Marian Miracles! I only ever hear Catholics talk about miracles like the Children of Fatima but have yet to hear a Protestant perspective.

[@missinglink_eth]

Orthodox does not use the word transubstantiation as the RC introduced that terminology after the great schism. So to say that term is from the beginning is incorrect.

[@easytiger35]

well, they basically DO believe that but refuse to name it anything and call it a "mystery". You may as well be using the same terminology as catholics though, because its the same exact thing but a different name. "mysteries and essence and energies". I swear orthodox terms make it sound like a new age religion more than Christianity.

[@missinglink_eth]

@ I’m Protestant so I may get this wrong, but I believe they don’t like trying to scientifically quantify everything. Yes they do see it very similarly but they’d prefer to see it as a mystery, something we will never truly understand until we are in the presence of God.

[@SeanusAurelius]

@@easytiger35 Not quite. Transubstantiation is a *very specific version* of real presence. The Lutheran view is similar to the EO view; the body and blood of Jesus are somehow really there. Period. No comment is made on the disappearance of the bread or wine, its substances, its accidents, etc. It's left to mystery. This is somehow unacceptable to Rome despite no Church Father spelling out transubstantiation and several specifying that it is a mystery how it works.

[@brianrinz5586]

@@easytiger35 "the same exact thing but a different name" and making a REALLY big deal about the alleged difference is basically Orthodoxy summarized. Very tiring.

[@easytiger35]

@@brianrinz5586 my conclusion over all the years is that any denomination that claims to be the exclusive, sole authority, or having something "extra" that others dont have (like Ortho and Catho saying everyone else isnt "fully" with Christ or whatever), is wrong. This includes orthodox, catholic, church of christ, some brands of charismatic groups (believing not every Christ has the Spirit), and other groups within the umbrella of Christianity.

[@luisr5577]

Marshall knows most of this info, he was just being dishonest.

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

He was being a troll, and not for the first time.

[@tookie36]

I think the big red flag is Taylor Marshall popping up in your algorithm 😂 that should be the sign to all believers to beware and lay off social media

[@Clifford777]

Wow this was a powerful and timely upload brother Gavin, thank you. God has put this topic heavily on me, literally from reading John 6 and struggling with the fact that it is a clear commandment not to drink blood. So wow what a deep subject this is, and like you said something mystical is going on here. I believe with all my heart that Protestants and the reformation were so clearly being led by God to stand against these clear corruptions. Church history is so rich. I will put all my trust in God’s Word, not the tradition or commandments of men. Thanks again brother Gavin, you touched on a lot of points that I needed to hear. I have one question for you or anyone reading this, I’m a Protestant searching for the rich practice that cherishes communion and does it as often as possible. I haven’t been able to find the right church near me, but finding a rich Protestant Eucharist/Communion that approaches it with Godly fear is my desire. Do you have any suggestions? I’ve always gone to baptist churches but there’s none around me that feel right. And I have been thinking about checking out Lutheran churches for a more respected Eucharist/Communion. Going to rewatch video to go over your suggestions again, but anything here would be greatly appreciated. God Bless!! Thank you for standing for God’s Truth and not men or other men’s.

[@geraldmurphy321]

God bless you, look into Catholicism more if you desire communion. Because the question to answer even from a protestant perspective is " what makes Jesus present in communion?" Ie what is different between the bread in your breadboard and what you recieve at communion? If it's your reverence and the reverence of those around you, we'll just eat your bread at home reverently! If some change has to take place how does that happen? The Catholic answer is clear, Jesus gave His apostles this power when He said "do this in memory of me" and this has been passed down, so when a successor of the apostle says " this is my body" it becomes the Body of Christ. Think about this.

[@artvanderlay1308]

Very well done Gavin, Christ be with you

[@muscularchristian2.0]

"Sola scriptura" "Sola scriptura" - John 6:53 ...let me tell you what Jesus really meant 🤦🏻‍♂️ "Sola scriptura" John 3:5 ...well let me tell you what Jesus really meant about baptism. Honestly the early church believed in the Eucharist and baptism for the forgiveness of sins, till "geniuses" in the 15th century found out the real lost christianity.

[@justfromcatholic]

Few points to raise: 1. As far as rhetorical statement, it is applicable to both (some) Catholic and (some) Protestant' s apologists. 2. The four different understanding of the presence of Christ in Eucharist cannot be ALL correct. Dr. Ortlund is entitled to choose the second and to reject the other three, without using the word anathema. Christ did not say "This is me/myself spiritually present with the bread/wine. Neither did He say "This is my Body/Blood with the bread and wine" as taught by Luther, nor "This is symbol of my Body/Blood" as taught by Zwingli. 3. All Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) rejected sacrificial nature of the Eucharist - and so does Dr. Ortlund. In 1 Cor. 10:21 Paul used the term “the table of the Lord”, not altar, in referring to partaking the Eucharist (1 Cor. 10:16). In Scripture Table of the Lord is synonymous with altar. Mal. 1:6-8 says: “O priests, who despise my name. But you say, 'How have we despised your name?' By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, 'How have we polluted you?' By saying that the LORD's table may be despised. When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil? Present that to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor? says the LORD of hosts”. 4. Different views of transubstantiation before 4th Lateran council? That is the reason why the Church decided to dogmatically the Church teaching on the Real Presence. For comparison there are different views on whether the two nature of Christ (human and divine) remain separate or merge into one. Only when one proposed an extreme view, i.e. his Human nature was absorbed into His Divine nature (something like that - I cannot remember the exact words), then The Church decided to dogmatically what they believe declare in 451 AD Chalcedon.

[@JLCProductions1976]

I’m old enough to remember when our shot glasses were actually made of glass.

[@Grzleeoso]

Is the vessel important, or what fills the vessel

[@smart_joey_4179]

Both

[@Luuuuan]

I am on a church like that, and maaaan is saaad, i really hope one day change this

[@joshuareeves5103]

same bro

[@person-gs6xr]

People who think spiritual presence isn't real presence must not realize that spirit is as real as matter.

[@Bill-f5u]

Most of my in-laws and friends are protestants they never ever talk about the eucharist, but I've heard debates from pastors that denie, the real presence are James white john mc auther and many more,

[@anthonym.7653]

Even most Catholics don't take Taylor seriously.

[@geraldmurphy321]

I read Ratramnus the other day, he articulates transubstantiation but without that language. For those of you watching Check Gavins Sources they do not always say what he says they do! And he implies an awful lot by the way he speaks and what he leaves out. Eg. Christ's bodily presence in the Eucharist is true but that doesnt mean that it is a physical piece of His flesh. Further the reference to a "mutual indwelling " of God and bread that is supposed to be more convincing that transubstantiation i find absurd. But nevertheless check his sources and then check their aources do not accept this as fact.

[@ThriftyConceit]

People tend to be fooled by Gavin’s “soft-spoken tone” which is why they immediately believe everything he says.

[@geraldmurphy321]

​@@ThriftyConceitReminds me of Sam Harris

[@mrjustadude1]

​@geraldmurphy321 very much like Sam Harris.

[@hexahexametermeter]

Anglican here. Baptists should utilize the common cup. No warrant in scripture. When did you make this up?

[@philblagden]

Jesus taught that he is the bread of life and that those who COME TO HIM (IN FAITH) will never hunger spiritually. John 6:35. So, the act of believing by itself makes one a spiritual participator in Christ's body, or in the effects of his atonement. We should also break bread often to remember and be grateful for what the once for all sacrifice of his body and blood achieved for us.

[@MrSeedi76]

John 4:34 KJV [34] Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

[@TomPlantagenet]

Brother, that is spot on. We partake of His sacrifice, eating His flesh and blood, through faith.

[@SanguiniustheGreatAngel]

That is what I’ve always believed as well.

[@rsissel1]

Marshall engaged in straw-manning rather than steel-manning. Compare and contrast the best with the best. Thank you, Gavin!

[@divinityofblackness6330]

sadly, this is not uncommon

[@wordforever117]

Steel manning would be to accept Sola Scriptura and then point out that Jesus said in scripture that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink and that unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood then you have no life in you. Scripture makes no mention of this being a symbol, so good Sola Scriptura believers should accept what their bible actually says.

[@divinityofblackness6330]

@@wordforever117 which is what Gavin, the commenter and myself believe? 🤔we're questioning the nature of such presence.

[@wordforever117]

@@divinityofblackness6330 And is the nature of this presence real or symbolic?

[@divinityofblackness6330]

​@@wordforever117 Gavin has stated beleif in real presence, I can't speak for the commenter but given the fact that he is voicing support for Gavin's video I can only guess that he too is supportive of the view, I too believe it is real as well.

[@jty1999]

Fascinating. I’ve always been curious about the Lutheran view on Real Presence.

[@andrewvalantine184]

Read the small and large catechisms of the LCMS Lutheran church

[@jty1999]

@@andrewvalantine184 Thank you for the pointer good sir

[@kylie5741]

Would recommend Dr. Jordan B. Cooper's channel, he has a lot of great videos on this and other topics as a Lutheran!

[@jty1999]

@@kylie5741 Thank you, will check him out. I've also been following Chad Bird for a bit, he's solid

[@TheOtherPhilip]

Good ole Roman Catholic word association fallacy. They just can’t separate the idea of real presence and the doctrine of transubstantiation.

[@geoffjs]

Transubstantiation changes the bread & wine into His Body & Blood while retaining the outward appearance of the substances of bread & wine. The Eucharist becomes the source & summit of Christianity

[@TheOtherPhilip]

@ So the romanist’s claim goes…

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

Came here to say this exact thing lol 🤝

[@rickdockery9620]

@@geoffjsaccidents of bread and wine. Learn ur faith

[@tcrosslinho5565]

​@@geoffjsIf this was true then why does it not taste of flesh and blood. This is why transubstantiation is nonsense. Is Jesus the door, is he the light, etc. This is symbolic language. Why is it different for the bread of life. The truth is it is exactly the same. Symbolic.

[@nigelpierre1991]

"Don't try to understand it. Feel it."

[@donhaddix3770]

a moron argument to scipture

[@ocdchristian]

Greetings Gavin! When the protestants speak of real presence is that opposed to any change in the material of the offering, as in the bread and wine? How does the protestant view compare to the Orthodox view in your understanding (we don't go all out on the transubstantiation train). I'm still studying the topic, but i have seen that the Nicene Fathers use the term μεταβολή, which would indicate a transformation of the material, not just a coexistence (I'm not sure how consubstantiation would relate... I'm not familiar with that term). As a side note, I have a video ready on icon veneration in response to you last video, that I'm waiting to publish (it got hung up on some administrative protocol for now... hopefully it'll be published soon). I'd love to hear your thoughts on it!

[@rsissel1]

"Transubstantiation" -- an over-articulation of a divine mystery.

[@dmthighway]

It's important for Romanists and others to keep in mind Jesus said he is Manna from heaven. That is, the eternal sustenance came from heaven. He was Manna before his incarnation. Until they start here they have no weight in their argument to offer from the passage.

[@philoalethia]

The requirement of belief in transubstantiation under the threat of anathema is a parallel with (and an extension of) the requirement of the belief in the hypostatic union (Chalcedon) under the threat of anathema. It is a requirement that one adopt a specific, narrow philosophical framework rather than merely acknowledge a basic principle that can be understood in differing ways. Such an approach is a mistake and a common theme in the fights among Christians and divisions in the Church. It needs to go away.

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

Amen. The Christological ''disputes'' that remain to this day are of an unbearable silliness.

[@monicatorres4965]

God bless you Gavin! This was very helpful

[@TheJoeschmoe777]

Taylor Marshall is either dishonest or just a fool. Anyone with even a basic understanding of the Reformation could tell you Luther and every other Reformer (except maybe Zwingli) affirmed real presence.

[@SirMicahBroch]

Zwingli affirmed real presence in the same manner the Calvin and following reformed did.

[@davidlarson4647]

Once again, thanks for the clarity that you provide on this concept.

[@mikekayanderson408]

It is good to haveRome’s incorrect teaching refuted.

[@misterclbg]

For me, Eucharist is the expression of the Gospel. How will someone believe the Gospel? as Regeneration precedes Faith, the Gospel precedes Eucharist. Gospel is not just for Baptism but also continuing to Eucharist. No one can grasp the truth of Eucharist without the Gospel, without Grace. History has dark side too, when it focused too much on one side that is the practice of communion. I love the fact that when one person is changed by God, "Body"and "Blood" becomes perfectly meaningful. The key is the overarching subject of the Glorious sacrifice that is done by Jesus in his one body, that is one event, and in one cross.

[@SonOfThineHandmaid]

Taylor's Marshall's criticism is valid. Obviously any criticism levelled at Protestantism can be met with the standard rebuttal of "well that doesn't apply to these particular Protestants" because Protestants are so divided in their beliefs. It seems obvious though he was criticizing the majority belief of Protestants in 21st century America because, surprise surprise, he lives in 21st century America. It makes no sense to refute this by appeal to 16th century magisterial Protestantism, because the particular Protestants he's criticizing don't in any way submit to the authority of 16th century magisterial Protestantism. You could just say "I'm not that kind of Protestant and you shouldn't be either, let's all get back to our 16th century roots" and move on. But Taylor Marshall is not caricaturing. I would know, I grew up in modern American evangelicalism, and yes, they are considered to be real "Protestants." It's a legitimate criticism and no it shouldn't be retired.

[@JB91484]

it's a strawman to rebut Taylor using the reformers position. Taylor is talking about the Evangelicals and Non -denoms who have a basket of plastic containers on a table in the back for anyone to grab on the way out. About as reverent as putting creamer in your coffee, which ironically you can do at another table in the back. I don't recall anywhere in scripture where you can have a coffee bar open during "worship".

[@SonOfThineHandmaid]

@JB91484 exactly

[@mrjustadude1]

100%

[@endlessnameless7004]

The real presence of Christ takes place anytime we're walking by the Spirit through obedience to Jesus' commandments, which should be always. These debates over the eucharist are pure sophistry. Bread and wine are just bread and wine. It's the faith we have as we take them that facilities the real presence, just like any other work of obedience.

[@kylie5741]

"Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc...But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive." "For herein you have both truths, that it is the body and blood of Christ, and that it is yours as a treasure and gift." - Martin Luther, Large Catechism

[@hexahexametermeter]

For Cranmer it would be a Real presence as well. But it is a Real presence in Heaven. It was "spiritual presence" only in that the Holy Spirit brings heaven and earth together. True presence was his term, I believe. I also like Martin Bucer on the subject.

[@Ihrtsrfing25]

Taylor Marshall is tough for me to follow on social media.. I feel Trent Horn is a much more respectful apologist.. pints with Aquinas is cool too

[@Buffenmeyer]

Marshall’s statement is kind of funny. I attended an RC church for about a year, and even sat through RCIA, but in the end, didn’t feel comfortable joining the Roman expression. During mass, when the Eucharist was being received by the faithful, a Catholic prayer was projected onto the screen for those who were unable to receive the elements. This prayer essentially encouraged the congregant to receive the Eucharist “spiritually in one’s heart” and requested that God look upon one’s “spiritual reception” with mercy based on the humility of the recipients heart. I find Catholics often have a “work around” when it comes to the rules of the bishop. 😸

[@PaterIgnotus]

The idea of a spiritual communion is centuries old, in cases where one could not receive sacramentally (for example, the sick who cannot hold down any solid food, or not fasting, or for people in isolated areas). St Alphonsus Liguori wrote a famous prayer for that which is widely used. It's not really a work-around but a very commonplace practice.

[@Buffenmeyer]

I was merely being facetious with the work-around statement, perhaps more of a comment on human nature. But spiritual communion was a consolation as I was unable to receive the elements. I found that to be a generosity on the part of the Catholics.

[@JusheisAwesome]

Thank you. I'm tired of catholics and figures like Taylor Marshall just getting it wrong and presenting their own altered biased history as fact.

[@returnofthekingpodcast]

Former Protestant here. You are incorrect and Taylor Marshall is correct.

[@catfinity8799]

The spiritual presence view is not that the body and blood are really present in the elements, but that the power or efficacy of the body and blood is present, by sacramental union, and that they are received through the elements. So they are really present to the believer because they are received, but they are not really present apart from reception. If by consubstantiation you mean the Lutheran view, Lutherans never define the presence that way. They say that the substance of body and blood are really present in a heavenly and spiritual mode (not locally, as expanded over space in a corporeal fashion).