What Early Christians Believed About The Eucharist

See Script with references here: / 38832807
What the Scripture says about the Eucharist: www.scripturec...
See MORE quotes from the early Christians on the Eucharist: www.catholic.c... and www.churchfath...
Please support Pints With Aquinas on Patreon: / mattfradd

[@PintsWithAquinas]

This more scripted vid is quite different to my other off the cuff one's. Let me know if it was the most boring thing you’ve ever watched. PLEASE SHARE if you think it's worth it.

[@nicksterwixter]

Nah I've watched paint dry before so definitely not THE most boring thing ever ;) Jkjk I loved this! And I would love to see more! Straightforward answers to Catholic theological questions like this are absolutely invaluable.

[@Seethi_C]

Great video, but I think you should branch out to other topics (Baptism, Priesthood etc). If you made a video like this one for all the topics where the Early Church is nearly unanimous, it could make a really cool series.

[@thethreefriends3002]

Matt I'd say you absolutely hit the nail right on the head with this one!

[@thethreefriends3002]

@@Seethi_C I'd love to see a series on this!

[@michaylaacker3456]

Well done video, I really enjoyed it! I would feel comfortable sharing this with my protestant friends who I'm in dialogue with

[@roseblack9655]

I am a recovering addict and if it wasn’t for the Eucharist I never would’ve made it out of addiction. When I was in jail I had my first confession in 20 years than I received the Eucharist. My life changed so drastically, a deliverance from meth!!! I do not crave drugs!!! I’ve been clean for 18 months!! Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. Thank you God for leaving the 99 for me! Grateful for the Catholic Church and Her Sacraments 🙏🕊🔥

[@jennifermanzano2400]

Hi Rose, I am praying for you and hope you are still doing well. Your story and your faith is beautiful 🙏🏼!

[@roseblack9655]

@@jennifermanzano2400 thank you Jennifer! God bless you. I am still doing great. I hit my two years clean December 13 2021. I hope to have many more to celebrate. I appreciate the prayers and I will pray for you too. God is sooo good ❤️

[@walterismydog7284]

Pray the Rosary! God bless you for your re-conversion back!

[@roseblack9655]

@@walterismydog7284 Yes! I do pray the rosary daily! I know Mother Mary has been my biggest advocate even before my recovery. In fact my sober date is the day after the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe in December. There’s so many signal graces I’ve received to confirm that. Blessed to be one of her spiritual children ❤️🤍💙

[@walterismydog7284]

@@roseblack9655 That is amazing!

[@robstvn]

Such a GREAT video Matt. Though I'm Catholic, this helped me further understand the true divinity in the Eucharist.

[@adelbertleblanc1846]

The Holy Church gives us EVERYTHING we need for our Salvation: the sacraments, the teachings, the communion and prayers of the Saints, the Bible and above all a full knowledge of the person of Christ made freely accessible to all. So, we are not alone on our path to salvation. Please, let us pray for the Church and for our priests and bishops.

[@MartinViju]

I must thank you for taking initiative to bring out the truth of the Eucharist.

[@jeremysmith1879]

Very good. Thanks for sharing.

[@nickchasse1281]

Matt, Have you ever invited Mike Winger from "The Bible Thinker" for a debate?

[@discipleofchrist7119]

Well, I must say, as a Pentecostal, I have debated against the Catholic view of the Eucharist, but this is a pretty strong argument. I'm definitely gonna have to do more research.

[@billyg898]

The passage immediately preceding John 6:53, the question that Jesus is specifically responding to, seems to be a question many protestants today ask.

[@morganmeadows2370]

Hey friend, I also grew up Pentecostal. It was the undeniable truth of the Real Presence in the Eucharist that caused me to convert. :) keep searching and asking honest questions...

[@jamiejaegel7962]

Eucharistic miracles kzbin.info/www/bejne/fqPUoHZ6r5yIjdE

[@larryluch8178]

Check the Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires. Miraculous, science and recent all combined to astound.

[@georgeibrahim7945]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/hmWYc3t6h6Zqprc

[@TheJewishCatholic]

I’m a Jewish believer in Yeshua (Jesus). It is the Eucharist that is making me want to become Catholic. EDIT: I'm officially Catholic!

[@michellea9857]

You might find these stories of Jewish believers discovering the Church of Yeshua helpful: : chnetwork.org/converts/jewish/

[@aaronbenjaminjacobs3231]

Messianic Me TV Become Catholic! I am a Hebrew Catholic discerning the priesthood, it’s the church of the Jews!!! Join now! We need you brother! Shalom Aleichem

[@jjbauer15]

Great! Do you have questions or need help? I’d be glad to email you!

[@StNicolausVI]

Check out a Fraternity of saint Peter parish, and start reading works by early Catholic Saints. God bless you.

[@stutterstudios4731]

God Bless you! May you make it to Heaven and be granted eternal life! 🙏🏼💙🤠

[@sleppynoggin8808]

I left the Catholic church a few months ago becoming protestant, anti-Catholic, i got to recieve the Holy Eucharist as a Catholic again today, i went to Holy Eucharistic addoration i was deeply convicted by Jesus that the Eucharist is truly him, i went to confession yesterday and got to recieve Jesus at mass today :) im happy to be home family

[@MelaniesManicures]

Welcome home! Divine Mercy!

[@walterismydog7284]

Pray the Rosary, Mary will guide you to her Son more perfectly than one can alone.

[@maryann6376]

Welcome Home!!

[@johnyang1420]

Welcome back home! Glad you are back!!! Any tips for helping antiCatholics?

[@eiontactics9056]

@@walterismydog7284 Mary can not and does not do anything of the sort! Stop embracing idolatry! Only Christ can help us!!

[@ZenvY1224]

As a Lutheran theology student I fully support and agree with this! It was never a questioned for the Apostolic Fathers or the Early Church, if Christ was present or not in the Eucharist. Thank you for the video, Matt! I really enjoy all of your work. Bless you and your family!

[@PintsWithAquinas]

Thanks Nicolai. I tried hard not to straw man the "protestant view." .... mainly because there isn't just one view. Appreciate your comment.

[@speranzahope2018]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqLXe6V-aZilndE

[@pierreschiffer3180]

Nicolai, as a follower of Luther do you also subscribe to the Eucharist being a sacrifice? You may agree with some Catholic teaching - somewhat more as most Protestants do -, but you being separate from the Church makes you a schismatic not any less. Teaching another doctrine makes you a heretic not any less either, no matter how close it might be to the Gospel. This is exactly what the fathers taught: there is no salvation for those who are not part of His people, that is, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. I do not understand why Matt Frad does not communicate this to you. Nobody will be saved by a gospel message of his own making: there is only one Lord and one Gospel and all other is man-made.

[@Solideogloria00]

@@pierreschiffer3180 I would have to disagree. Lutherans aren’t separated from the church. That statement assumes that the Roman church is the church. The Roman church separated from the real Catholic Church, “The Orthodox Church” . Lutherans try to be more consistent with the Bible and church history, that’s why both groups (Orthodox and Lutherans), deny man-made doctrines as the papacy, Mary’s immaculate conception, the ascension of Mary, Purgatory and list goes on. Matt doesn’t communicate “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus “as you wrongly understand it, because he’s more familiar with church history. Ask your pope and he will probably exhort you to stop making false statements. The Roman Church consideres all Protestants as separated brethren. When saint Cyprian of Carthage said , “there’s no salvation outside the catholic Church”(lower case), the Roman Catholic Church didn’t exist yet. So, it doesn’t mean what you think. May God guide you to analyze your own beliefs and biases, and discard what is not biblical or historical. God bless you

[@pierreschiffer3180]

@@Solideogloria00 Thank you, Joel. Wrong on all accounts, however. Lutherans are separated from the Church, that is: they are separated from the Catholic Church. That is an objective fact. Ask Martin Luther himself: he separated from the Catholic Church and raised his own church where he taught his own understanding of the Bible. Objective fact. What you make of the Roman Catholic Church does not make sense either: the Catholic Church consists of various churches, the Roman church being one of them. The Catholic Church exists from the beginning, while the Lutheran Church broke away much later: that is history. Luther for example decided that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice and justification is by faith only. Two man-made doctrines contrary to the Gospel of all ages and the list is endless. Yet you seem to be fine with that. Luther taught all kind of his own opinions and interpretations of Scripture contrary to what has always been taught and yet he is still part of the Catholic Church?! Absolute nonsense. Followers of Luther follow a man in his own ideas and understanding of Scripture: accept at least this little. What gospel you follow I do not know, for you seem to defend Lutheranism and EO, yet these groups go by two different gospels: how then would not at least one be false?! You make things very confusing, my friend. What you teach is false. Cyprian said there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church: what on earth means that for you?! Who are these folks outside the Catholic Church: what heretics and schismatics?! What on earth means the Gospel for you when you defend two different versions of it?! Defending two different gospels implies defending separation and heresy by definition... May God guide you to analyse your own beliefs and biases and discard what is not biblical or historical. One Lord and one Gospel, my friend. Read the early Church! God bless you, my friend.

[@lourdesrudinas3018]

I believe in Transubstantiation...i am aware of many Eucharistic miracles that happened in the past...I also experienced Jesus during Consecration and Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. If I may share, I had a vision of the Suffering Christ image in 2012 during Consecration at the Holy Mass in time of our Catholic Community Covenanting. Jesus said to me in an indiscribable voice, "Unite your sufferings with Me and these will be light", and i said my yes and thanked Him. My tears fell like rain but it was because of joy...and it was a warning of an upcoming big problem that came 2 weeks after. In another event, one Saturday afternoon in 2016, I was adoring the Blessed Sacrament exposed at the altar of our Parish Church when i felt my head opened and heard the same voice i heard in a vision in 2012. He said to me, "Tell my people to love Me. My command for them is to love Me, not only to believe in Me. I am the fount of all holiness. If they would love, they will stop sinning and if the would not love Me, they will keep on sinning. Focus on the LOVE that is in the light... upon arriving home that afternoon, the message was confirmed when I turned on the TV at EWTN Channel. The same message was onthe TV screen.... 😊Oh i love You, Jesus, in the Blessed Sacrament! You are my goal, my all, my love.❤

[@katrina200577]

❤

[@bradleyhoyt3188]

I'm born and raised Presbyterian... I've always struggled with the Calvinistic and Zwinglian understanding of Holy Communion... I've even argued in my youth with some of my Sunday school teachers that if we were serious about Sola scriptura then we would indeed teach this he is truly present.

[@topcatcoolio8807]

Agree

[@windyday8598]

jesus cannot be more present than "christ in you" 24/7. the promise of the Spirit.

[@quidam3810]

For those who want a detailed yet accessible biblical study of the Eucharist, I suggest reading "Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist " by Brant Pitre: all the context is there, IMO. Great video, otherwise !!!!!

[@speranzahope2018]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqLXe6V-aZilndE early church fathers testimonies of eucharist

[@englishrose6627]

Yes, I have the book and I'm about to read it.

[@chaplainhyena1523]

A fantastic book indeed. Give a ton of context. Amazing how "Jewish-Old Testament" it all is

[@Reid-yy5nw]

At best, lightweight Pitre doesn't have a clue on what the Last Supper was all about!

[@quidam3810]

@@Reid-yy5nw Could you elaborate ?? What fault do you find in his book on the topic ?

[@alexandervaltsev6937]

When I was a Baptist I always wondered what the point of Holy Communion was. It seemed redundant, and nobody really expanded on that. We had it like once a month at best. When I started researching Catholicism this was the key topic I studied, probably most of the time. Eucharist is the number one reason for conversion

[@Antislm]

I think this debate boils down to the question if the tradition should inform the scriptures or if the scriptures should inform the tradition. Overwhelmingly, the scripture itself is a witness to itself claiming that scriptures are sufficient for correction, rebuke, training teaching etc., Now if we assume tradition to inform us as a method of validation, then we ought to assume any and everything that every church father or any TOM, DICK and HARRY did in the name of Jesus Christ to be true and worthy to be the true tradition, and if they don't contradict scriptures, then they can be accepted as true traditions. We run into many problems with this kind of logic. Your argument seems like making sense since who else do we turn to but the early church. But here are flaws in the argument specially because we are separated by 2000 years and we cannot go back and check every tradition. Christ is sacrificed “once for all” on the cross of Calvary and never again in any other form or on any other occasion (1 Pet. 3:18; Heb. 10). The author of Hebrews writes, “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God…for by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:11-12). The Eucharist is neither a sacrifice nor a salvific ordinance. People are saved by believing in Christ as set forth in the gospel (Rom. 10:8-17). The sacraments do not convey saving faith but rather sanctifying grace to those who are already saved.

[@KSTrekker]

Same here, why even go through the motions with grape juice and crackers if you don’t believe in it.

[@mitchellosmer1293]

Catholics say the bread and wine changes into the body and blood of Jesus by the words of the priest. Let me ask these question and make these statements. --The bread---- changes into the body of Jesus.--Really? Smell it. What does it smell like??? Human flesh??? --Look at it. Does it look like human flesh? Taste it. Does it taste like human flesh???--- --The wine---- Look at it. Does it look like human blood? Thick? ---Smell it. Smell like human blood? It should have a distintive smell. Does it? (Metallic: Similar to a copper coin, a metallic smell is typically caused by the presence of iron in your blood. ) Now, taste it. Does it taste like human blood?? ( What is the taste of blood to human? The taste of blood is salty.)--- Or does it taste like wine???? Why??? When the priest has just changed it into blood of Jesus!!!---- Did it all change back into it's original forms just for you??? If it did, then it IS NOT the body and blood of Jesus!!! Why do you all REFUSE to think about those questions logically??? Since Catholics insist on having Mass every day--or only on Sunday, Why??? What day of the week was the "Last Supper"??? A THURSDAY NIGHT!!!! The night BEFORE the Jewish Preparation Day.--- Remember the old saying: if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck, then it MUST be a duck.

[@florida8953]

The point is to do it in remembrance of Christ. It’s the Passover meal for Christians. It’s not a re-presentation of a propitiatory sacrifice. It’s not his literal flesh and blood. John 6 isn’t even the Passover meal. That’s 7 chapters later. John 6 is about belief in Christ. That’s the work of God, that’s the food that never perishes. Eating and drinking the blood is believing in Christ. He is a once for all sacrifice. No need to re-present.

[@crusaderACR]

​@@florida8953 Watch the video

[@juanisidro4849]

Shoutout Catholic answers . They helped me come to the reality of the Eucharist .

[@speranzahope2018]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqLXe6V-aZilndE

[@Musulll]

This video will change lives.

[@speranzahope2018]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqLXe6V-aZilndE

[@videogamesambience7377]

Can confirm. It is changing mine

[@rosiegirl2485]

I have a friend who is a protestant, and she is pretty up on bible verses. Recently I mentioned the 7 books taken out by Martin Luther...for one, she didn't know who M.L. was, and she was shocked to know there were 7 books she didn't know about! Î can't wait to share this video with her! We sometimes assume that all protestants know their theology. What we need to do, is to have more conversations with each other! God bless! 💠

[@megarnold2622]

This video came at a perfect time! I'm about to have a friendly discussion with my best friend about why the Eucharist makes me want to join the Catholic church 😁 Thank you!

[@agapeway1245]

If I may suggest a "Must See" video to watch for all christians on the subject of the Eucharist: It is ------- "Dr. Brant Pitre, Jesus & the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" The running time of the video is rather long (1:12:09), but Worth Every Minute... * If you choose to watch the video and want to skip the opening prayers ------- Start at: (2 minuted 30 seconds) --- Hope you check it out... God Bless --- ...

[@briann6205]

@@agapeway1245 link to that video kzbin.info/www/bejne/hmWYc3t6h6Zqprc

[@speranzahope2018]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqLXe6V-aZilndE

[@UnOrthodox_Christian]

I keep trying to explain this to my Protestant and non-Denominational Christian friends and using this argument, but they just keep saying that Catholics focus on Mary and the Saints too much and they keep saying that Catholics pray to them, when it’s only for God.

[@dolphinman9253]

@@UnOrthodox_Christian they aren't open minded and unreasonable

[@concretesandals4501]

Former Baptist here. It was reading John chapter 6 and the reality of the Real Presence in the Eucharist that brought me back to Christ's only Church, His Catholic Church

[@doloresblackburn4786]

You are graced and blessed! I am so happy for you! That you received God’s Truth and His Most Precious Gift - His Only-Begotten Son in the Holy Eucharist! You did not close your eyes or your ears ... or your heart to the Truth. My eyes are overflowing with tears of joy as I write this ... I kid you not. Would that everyone would do as you have done, and return to the One, True Church ... especially my two sons. Blessings to you!

[@bradleykimmons]

Christ’s “only” church. Oof. Cringe, brother. This very arrogant language might be the last thing keeping me from “going Catholic.”

[@kingoflebanon1986]

Lol dude so orthodox christians that believe the same thing are fake?

[@ignatiusjackson235]

​@@bradleykimmons If the semantics of the faithful are the only thing keeping you out, dear brother, I implore that you should reevaluate your priorities.

[@bradleykimmons]

@@ignatiusjackson235 People who claim to be the “only” true church might want to reevaluate their posture is they actually want people to join. “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”

[@Bingchirringg]

I am going through RCIA currently, and honestly I am already so excited to receive The Eucharist for the first time. There's such a sense of reverence and peace knowing Jesus did this for us over 2,000 years ago and yet he still joins us for it to this day.

[@MelaniesManicures]

Im in RCIA as well and it is the real presence of Jesus that is driving me to become Catholic and I cannot wait for the moment I can be United with Christ’s body blood soul and divinity. Congratulations to you!!

[@elungkiebezeliang2106]

I wished I were convinced by your enthusiastic presentation but I am not. I am a Baptist and I totally disagree with your position. The RCC's doctrine of transubstantiation has many problems. Consider the followings: 1. Jesus used many metaphors/symbolic languages: shepherd, bread, light, way, water, etc. We understand and interprete them symbolically. So are the words "flesh/body" and "blood" in this case. 2. When Jesus blessed the bread and gave it to his disciples, they received the bread and not the flesh of Jesus. Not literal! The same thing with the wine. Certainly, the disciples understood his words as symbolic languages. 3. Jesus did not say that the elements would turn into his real body/flesh & blood when the priest pray over them. This claim and belief are beyond the Bible. 4. Jesus died once for all. The teaching of repeated sacrifice of Jesus is unbiblical. 5. If every RCC mass is a real sacrifice of Jesus, how many Jesuses are sacrificed in the world daily? Are priests who pray over the elements acting like the Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus? 6. If every mass is Jesus real sacrifice/death, when is the resurrection? 7. Jesus told his disciples to do it (mass/eucharist/HC/LS) in remembrance of him but he did not say, "sacrifice/kill me again, eat my flesh and drink my flesh." Long held belief of the church is not necessarily right always. Has not the Western Church tried, punished and even killed early modern thinkers/astronomers like Copericus, Galileo, et al.? Today the world including the Christians believe that the earth is round and it revolves around the Sun and not the reverse. Christians disagree on this doctrine because each church tend to emphasis on one text than the other. I appreciate and respect your enthusiasm but it is a topic in which Christians cannot agree. Anyway, what matters is that we are saved by our faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.

[@johnyang1420]

Take RCIA

[@josephjackson1956]

Not only the Church Fathers believed the Eucharist to be the Real Presence, but the Apostles as well.

[@briann6205]

I think that's implied. He is describing that there was no deviation from the early church regarding the Eucharistic.

[@kimberlytancrede5468]

@James DeLap Not true, we do know, in fact, many of the books of the Bible tell us who wrote it.

[@HyruleDude]

Bingo!

[@chadsmith5551]

There is no evidence of that by the Apostles. It is a spriritual and physical ordinace and it is symbolic, not literal.

[@josephjackson1956]

@@chadsmith5551 perhaps read on different early Church Fathers and see what they say about the Eucharist.

[@amclaudet]

I didn’t even know this about how all the early Christians believed it was His true presence. And I’m a cradle catholic. This is really important info!

[@jcsmith3806]

Early Christian's also believed people were witches to. Doesn't really mean much.

[@windyday8598]

no, they realized christ's true presence at pentecost, and there after. "christ in you"

[@nathanoppy]

Baptism this weekend and confirmation! Ready to have the Eucharist in my life

[@windyday8598]

so---you gotta work/earn your way to the presence of jesus? jesus will baptize you in the holy spirit just for the asking, believing the promise. christ's presence 24/7---it's called "christ in you". duh

[@alainbercier4556]

My favourite quote from the Church Fathers on the Eucharist comes from Justin Martyr in his First Apology: “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” It’s such a perfect quote because he appeals to the incarnation in his explanation which leaves no room for saying that he was speaking metaphorically.

[@divoryy]

Justin Martyr (110-165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood"(Dialogue with Trypho, 70). Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57). Cyprian (200-258), who sometimes described the eucharist using very literal language, spoke against any who might use mere water for their celebration of the Lord’s Table. In condemning such practices, he explained that the cup of the Lord is a representation of the blood of Christ: “I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ” (Epistle 63.7). For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, "put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him." . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, "Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me." And, "His teeth are white as milk," show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. 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. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76-80). “Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Tertullian: Against Marcion, 4.40).

[@windyday8598]

God is spirit. jesus left his blood at the cross.

[@andrewscotteames4718]

The Eucharist moved me from being an evangelical to being a Lutheran. After reading what the Bible actually says and what the earliest Christian’s believed, it is undeniable that the real presence of the Eucharist is the correct doctrine. As time went on, I kept moving closer and closer to the catholic position on other doctrines. Today, I am essentially catholic in nearly all doctrines. I am looking for reasons to not be catholic, and when I am satisfied there are no good objections, I plan on entering RCIA.

[@chadely2497]

If you’re still looking for a reason…how about all of the sexual abuse and misconduct that’s been covered up at every level? Or about the fact that Bible clearly points the office of the papacy being the anti christ? What about the priests having people call them “father” which is quite clearly against Gods will Or the false deification of Mary to become our intercessor instead of Jesus Christ who died for our sins?

[@lindaakguest4ever50]

God bless you! Come on home!

[@deborahmoore7657]

I as well. Eastern orthodox or Catholic. I need to go to the Holy Table. Goin asap

[@windyday8598]

the real presence of Christ comes in the gift of the holy spirit, christ in you, 24/7

[@jennyanydots6959]

Matt, I am a Protestant who converted easter before last because the biblical proof of the Eucharist was undeniable to me. In all my years of attending church and bible study I had never encountered that text. It’s just glossed over by most churches because it so contrary to Protestant teachings. I loved this talk because it shows the Bible text and belief in the context of history. Now, if I could only get everyone I love to listen with an open heart and believe. I want to suggest a follow up, How typology proves the Eucharist has to present to satisfy our salvation.

[@joan8862]

Do most Protestants not read the bible on their own? Do they only have bible study and read what they are told to read? I mean no offense, but it just sounds like it is more like Protestants who have some of Scripture kept from them, when we have always heard that it was the Catholic Church that kept the Bible from believers and discouraged reading scripture (which of course is false).

[@pboyle3723]

@@joan8862 I think Joan, to be fair, the Protestants do study the bible very intensely... but they study the words as written, and not with the "Apostolic Tradition" passed on form Jesus and the Apostles. The way the New Testament in the bible is written, it is not an instruct ion manual... but a collection of writing assuming the Gospel will be passed by word of mouth and referencing the OT - as expressly mentionec many times in the NT. We then have translation of spoken word in Aramaic into Hebrew to Greek then to English. So each translation brings its own idioms and word structures without exact translation. Hence, Protestants and Catholics can read the exact same passage from the bible that may or not be use the same words and get different meanings. The classic example is Calvinism - which appears very methodical and structured in its approach and examines themes in the bible with many quotes and passages to back their beliefs which are not agreed by many Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) .... but Real Presence in the Eucharist, limited Atonement, Once Saved Always Saved, Predestination (unconditional election)/Double Predestination, God decrees & soverignly guides all things to happen by his providence etc etc.... these are not beliefs written within the first few hundreds of years of the Church from the writings of the Early Church Fathers.... never mind the vast majority of Christians nowadays.

[@iforbach4003]

Studying the doctrines of the early church and of the early church fathers is one of the most important factors in my conversion to Catholicism.

[@joan8862]

@@pboyle3723 I based my question on what the op wrote saying that she had never come across John chapter 6. This has nothing to do with translations or interpretations.

[@jennyanydots6959]

joanp62 I read the Bible very often. It is very possible I read it on my own but dismissed it’s literal nature because it went against what I was taught. I just think it’s interesting that is was never addressed in a sermon n or bible study.

[@MalarkusD]

I'm an associate pastor in a Baptist Church, but I was baptized Anglican as a teenager, and my sensibilities are far more sacramental than most Baptists. Increasingly so! I also love history broadly and the Church tradition (though I admit I'm not well-read in it). I admit that I am in an uncomfortable position.

[@joan8862]

Praying for you. Keep studying the history of the Church, and good Catholic resources. Also the writings of the saints like St. Augustine, Alphonsus Ligouri, Francis de Sales, to name a few.

[@larryluch8178]

Check the Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires for the miraculous and science combined. Also a fairly recent occurrence. Looking forward to your arrival at the table of the Lamb for real food and real drink.

[@laurenentwistle1207]

Hi there - my husband and I just entered the Catholic church a few weeks ago from originally Baptist and then Anglican backgrounds. I just want to encourage you to keep clinging to the Cross, continually praying and searching for the truth. Keep reading - I'm going to pray that God brings resources to your attention that will be life giving to you. My husband had to resign from his job as Anglican clergy in this pursuit, and I personally know two other men who have had to give up their careers as well. It's a challenging road but to be perfectly honest it's been really amazing and joyful. God bless you!

[@DarkAngel-cj6sx]

To expand on your knowledge, check videos from dr Pitre brant. May God continues to guide you as you search for truth

[@mitchellosmer1293]

@@joan8862 CLAIMS of the RCC 1. Catholics claim CHURCH refers to Roman Catholic Church. BIBLE says CHURCH refers to all churches. Acts 5:11, Acts 8:1, Mat 16:18. HISTORY tells us Roman Church was just one local Church a member of the Pentarchy. 2. Catholics claim Roman Church was the CHURCH CHRIST founded (First Church) or one true church. BIBLE says First Local Church was Jerusalem Church. Acts 2. Not Roman Catholic Church. 3. Catholics claim there is only One Church. BIBLE mentions both CHURCH and Churches. “CHURCH” refers to the Body of Christ Eph 5:30, Col 1:18 consisting of all churches. Acts 5:11, Acts 8:1 Mat 16:18. “Churches” refers to local churches Acts 9:31, Acts 15:41 and believers Romans 16:5, 1 Cor 16:19, 4. Catholics claim to be the first believers. BIBLE says first believers were Jewish Christians. Acts 2, Acts 11:26, NOT roman catholics. 5. Catholics claim Pope is the head of the CHURCH. BIBLE says JESUS is the HEAD OF THE CHURCH. Eph 1:22, Eph 5:23, Col 1:18. 6. Catholics claim outside Roman Church there is NO SALVATION. BIBLE says : The mouth of the Lord has spoken.”apart from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11. 7. Catholicss claim the first day of the week is a Holy day, made by God. . The Holy Bible says: Isaiah 58:13-14 13 “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on MY HOLY DAY, And call the Sabbath a delight, The holy day of the Lord honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words, 14 Then you shall delight yourself in the Lord; And I will cause you to tride on the high hills of the earth, And feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father. The mouth of the Lord has spoken.”part from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11. 8. Catholics claim devote to Mary to be saved. BIBLE says “apart from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11. . BIBLE says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16. 10. Catholics claim Roman Church inherited infallible authority from Peter. BIBLE does not say that in Mat 16 or John 20 or John 21. 11. Catholics claim Roman pontiff inherited infallible authority from Peter. BIBLE does not say that in Mat 16. 12. Catholics claim bishop of ROME = the pope. BIBLE does not say that. 13. Catholics claim there is an office of bishop of bishops/universal bishop/pope. BIBLE does not speak of such an office. History tells us the first bishop of bishops came in AD590-600s. 14. Roman Church has all the false unbiblical clergies - Roman priests, roman cardinals, roman pontiff, monks, nuns, friars, … BIBLE mentions only pastors, teachers, evangelists, prophets, apostles, deacons, bishop, elders. Titus 1:5, Eph 4:11, 1 Tim 3. 15. Roman Church claim its doctrines come from traditions of Apostles. BUT 95% of roman doctrines are Not from traditions of Jesus or Apostles or Scriptures; neither practised by the Church of the Bible.

[@davidthegood]

The historic case for the real Presence brought me into the Catholic Church after 44 years as a Protestant. Deo gratias.

[@lindap.5194]

As a Catholic revert I have been reading the early church fathers and the Saints, Sister Marie of St Peter in 1844 said oh if you only knew what great Merit you acquire by saying even once "admirable is the name of God" I decided to say this throughout the Catholic mass every time I was at church looking at the Tabernacle and talkin to God and thanking him I also said the Golden Arrow prayer, I would also say it at home visualizing the tabernacle, this has made such a difference I am 100% sure that Jesus is present there at every Mass because of the grace he is poured into my heart, the love he has poured into my heart is immeasurable!!!!! I wish I had been praising him all my life as I should have been and I write this hoping that everybody will love the Lord in the Eucharist because he is in the Eucharist that is his heart in the tabernacle. The Lord should be loved, adored, thanked daily. God bless everyone

[@AwaitHasten]

I'm a fan of this format!

[@MUSIC-MARY]

ST. IGNATIUS (107 A.D.): Eucharist practice by early church! "The Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sin." (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6) GO CATHOLIC!!!

[@martilomas5330]

Viva Cristo Rey ! Viva María Santísima ! Hi, from Aguascalientes, México.

[@dylmck28]

Wow, what a video! I have been studying about the Eucharist these past few days, so I had to watch this! Thank you Matt, beautifully explained!

[@jamiejaegel7962]

Scientific Eucharistic miracles kzbin.info/www/bejne/fqPUoHZ6r5yIjdE

[@andrewbeaudry6046]

Awesome video on our blessed sacrament, Matt!! Like stated by Scott Hahn on the Holy Eucharist, “If the Eucharist that Jesus institutes as the Passover of the new covenant is only a meal, not only is it not a Passover (which has to be a sacrifice), than Golgotha, Good Friday, and Calvary is only a Roman Execution. BUT IF - and only if- the Eucharist that is instituted in the Upper room on Holy Thursday is in fact the Passover of the new covenant, than suddenly we find the light that illuminates in the darkness of Good Friday transforming what happened to Jesus on the cross from being an execution into the climax of the sacrifice! On Good Friday, Jesus is not a victim of Roman violence and injustice as much as he’s a victim of Divine Love and Mercy! And that he wasn’t losing his life on Friday if in fact he was laying it down as a gift of love on Holy Thursday when he was celebrating Passover, instituting the Eucharist precisely as the Passover of the new covenant!” In other words, the Eucharist is the new covenant Passover. Jesus instituted the New Testament( the Eucharist ) for all is his followers to celebrate Passover of the new covenant every Sunday, or whenever attending mass. Jesus created a sacrifice that is eternal, and the meal is never ending. We don’t resacrifice Jesus at mass, we essentially bring the meal from the last supper into mass every time the bread is consecrated. On earth as it is in heaven. Like stated in exodus - In the Old Testament, the Passover ritual is not completed by the death of the sacrificial lamb. It is completed when the Israelites eat the “flesh” of the lamb that is slain so that they might be delivered from bondage in Egypt and, ultimately, from death (Ex 12:8). That is why Paul, himself an expert in Jewish Scripture, can write, “Our paschal lamb [Greek pascha, meaning Passover] Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast” (1 Cor 5:7-8). If the Eucharist is the new exodus of the new Passover, you have to eat the lamb! You can’t just eat the symbol of the lamb. You can’t just remember the lamb. You have to eat the flesh of the lamb in order for the new Passover to be complete because Passover isn’t completed by the death of he lamb. It’s completed when the ppl, for whom the lamb died, receive its flesh that was offered on their behalf. “So Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you.’” (John 6:53)

[@danicajvv]

YES!!! thank you for such a solid defense! The Eucharist is truly the Sacred, bleeding Heart of God.

[@celsopdacunha000]

Well, if it wasn't symbolic, then the bread should taste as flesh and the wine as blood.

[@mercywalschek2695]

Finally! Someone who not only explains the belief of the early church fathers concerning the Eucharistic. But, also gives more than one scripture to back it up. I am a protestant. I've always been taught and believed that the Eucharist was merely symbolic. A few months ago I started questioning that teaching. I haven't delved deeply. I have other studies that I've focused on. But, I have done some searching. Your video is the ONLY video (and I have watched many and read many Catholic articles on this subject) that has convinced me that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharistic. THANK YOU!❤

[@lastsaiyanleft]

could you give an update are you still protestant?

[@windyday8598]

search the scriptures. exegesis. "Rise Peter, kill and eat!" go figure

[@jkellyid]

I love the attention you pay to this subject. I'm confirmed but I never really knew what I was supposed to believe. I'm still learning, trying to internalize the logic of what I'm committing to believe so I'm not just saying the right thing but actually grasp it in some sense. I think transsubstantiation is where people like myself are confused. I see lots of contradictory definitions out there. Clearly defining what it means and what it doesn't mean and committing that both to memory and to my heart is where I'm at currently. It's so confounding that most Catholics don't believe in arguably the greatest of sacraments in our church. I hope as I grow in my understanding of it I can help teach other layity in my personal circle. God bless your ministry Matt! Your show/podcast lead me back to Catholicism from my stint in protestantism.

[@PintsWithAquinas]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

[@brunot2481]

If I may, my friend, the concept is not confounding. There is a change in the ESSENCE (substance), not in the APPEARENCE (form). So the consacretion doens NOT TRANSFORM, because there is not a change in FORMS. Instead it TRANSSUBSTANTIATE, because the substance of bread and wine is no longer there, but the accidental elements are exactly the same. That's what the word means.

[@jamiejaegel7962]

Scientific Eucharistic miracles kzbin.info/www/bejne/fqPUoHZ6r5yIjdE

[@bt-lt4os]

@@PintsWithAquinas if you read the story in 2 Samuel 23 15-17 "nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD. 17 And he said, Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives?" This is speaking of David pouring some water on the ground. Did the water turn to blood? why did David say "is not this the blood of the men?" when speaking of the water?

[@charlesadams8279]

please seek Jesus Christ about this and spend a lot of time reading The Bible. You will see all the things that the catholic church does that God explicitly speaks against. Prayers with vain repetition, calling pastors “father”, idolatry, etc. To say you must confess to a priest to be forgiven is blasphemy and to say you need to pray to mary or any other saints is undermining God and Jesus’s sacrifice- He created intercession for the saints. He is the ONLY mediator between man and God. The pope is no where in The Bible and people take one verse out of The Bible to say that the catholic church is “the one true church” - Peter did not create the catholic church. He created the church- the family of those who follow Jesus Christ. That is what the church is called in The Bible and Jesus Christ is the head- not a pope. It should be suspicious to anyone why there are so many secrets in the vatican and why popes in the past have been so evil and why the current one supports homosexuality- and why catholicism did things like saying you could buy your way to Heaven and do so many other evil things. Any catholic cannot deny that and can’t deny that the pope because he is the head of the catholic church- that is why it is not from God. Popes in the past have even said their church will outlast the Christian faith. There are even ancient roman idols under the vatican and even a painting of satan. This is not from God. Follow Jesus Christ and Him alone link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rHjQiGpnqLyYqqs

[@KSTrekker]

As a former Baptist for 40 years of my life, once I saw the reality that Christ is present body, blood, and divinity in the Eucharist, any other form of worship seemed cheap, tawdry, and an imitation of the real Mass administered by Priests ordained through apostolic succession. I had no defense other than to convert to the Catholic Church.

[@davidthegood]

Welcome!

[@edisonprithiviraj2928]

I am a protestant.. after watching this vedio and studying with brother Sam Shamoun now i completely and without any doubt i believe Eucharis that we receive is Our LORD'S BODY AND BLOOD That HE shed on the cross..

[@ericcarlson9885]

@Edison prithiviraj. What kind of Protestant are you? As Matt even acknowledges in this video, Lutherans and most Anglicans believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. (So do a whole lot of Presbyterians, something Matt got wrong.) Catholics, quite honestly, are no more corporeal in their understanding than these Protestants (except as regards Eucharistic miracles, some of which are crassly physical, something which Catholics deny in the Sacrifice of the Mass). Furthermore, the Catholic Eucharist, as THEY explain it, is clearly spiritually mediated, something they deride Protestants for.

[@johnyang1420]

Take RCIA and check it out

[@tess3390]

I was raised evangelical Protestant (memorialist view of communion) and I had no idea that the early church considered the Eucharist to be the literal flesh and blood of Jesus until recently (I read JND Kelly's book after learning of it). I also was completely unfamiliar with the John 6 passage. I've noticed that some Protestant apologists will point to places where the church fathers seem to use "symbolic" or "spiritual" language and argue this means the Fathers didn't teach Real Presence. However, JND Kelly explains in his book that ancients didn't have the same conception of symbolism that modern people do. In ancient times, a "symbol" was seen as a reflection of the real thing that it represents. So they would have considered the Eucharist to be symbols *and* the real thing.

[@tomgreene6579]

Very well said.

[@speranzahope2018]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqLXe6V-aZilndE

[@pierreschiffer3180]

What you write is exactly correct, Tess. What amazes me is how come someone like Kelly does not enter the Church when he is so honest and his insight and study is right on target. What more does he need to realize that whatever he believes is man-made?

[@justaguy653]

Jesus spoke in parables. We are not actually wheat or chaff, we are not actually seeds growing on good soil, thorns, rocks etc; nor is faith actually a mustard seed. This is ALL symbolism. Symbolism is all throughout the Bible..... I just..... I don’t understand Catholics. And I’ve gotta say I really really want to understand them I’m just at a loss. I need to pray more so that God can open my eyes to understand Catholics point of view on things such as praying to Mary and the saints, rosaries, confessionals to priests, the literal interpretation of the Eucharist etc. None of this is Biblical but are such important beliefs to Catholics; Lord help me understand.

[@pierreschiffer3180]

@@justaguy653 What you do is you follow yourself rather than Jesus, my friend. You decide for yourself what is to be understood literal and what is to be understood symbolical in Scripture: who are you to decide upon this? Are you the infallible Church, possibly? Other Protestants do the exact same as you do and come to completely different conclusions: they all compose their truth and gospel message and they all come up with other versions and variants on the Gospel. They follow their own interpretations and opinions: they all follow themselves... not Jesus... This is now what we call man-made gospels, or as Paul calls it: other gospels. What we call heresy Paul calls false teaching. In case you want to understand Mary and the Eucharist and all: keep on reading Scripture, my friend! It is all there and for you to find and become Christian. Read with an open heart: not with a predefined set of man-made doctrines, however...! If you truly want to find, ask God and He will give you. Know well what you ask for, however...! ;)

[@bradleykimmons]

Matt Fradd might want to read this: Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2). Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57). Cyprian (200-258), who sometimes described the eucharist using very literal language, spoke against any who might use mere water for their celebration of the Lord’s Table. In condemning such practices, he explained that the cup of the Lord is a representation of the blood of Christ: “I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ” (Epistle 63.7). Eusebius of Caesarea (263-340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel. From what then can we draw a clear and justified doctrine of transubstantiation?

[@toxicharm7239]

I know this is an old video, but thank you Matt for explaining this so well.

[@ellen823ful]

It all boils down to the strength of one’s faith in Christ. “In the beginning God created heaven and earth 🌍 “. John vs 1: “in the beginning was The Word and The Word was with God and The Word was God”. Here’s my opinion: it is hard to wrap our head around this. God took on human flesh (Jesus). Why? Out of His Love ❤️ for us humans. Now God/Jesus and Holy Spirit are one ☝️. Jesus said “I am the bread 🍞 of life “. He said “This IS my body given for you”. He didn’t say “ it’s just a metaphor…”. Was healing ❤️‍🩹 the sick a metaphor? Was giving sight to a man who was blind from birth a metaphor? Was Jesus’s life and death and resurrection a metaphor? Think 🧐 about it. It goes back to The Word that was God and that is God forever. ❤ 🤔

[@kerri7145]

Wow, that is eye opening! To know the disciples, disciples spoke of the real presence of Christ! That completely changes my mind! Thank you for sharing.

[@Galostica]

As an Australian protestant pastor (Pentecostal) who's very interested in the Patristic era and found Ignatius' writings quite challenging on this topic, I have to say that this is a very straightforward and reasonable presentation. I'm still unsure how the consecration "works" and whether Catholicism holds a better conception than the Orthodox on what "happens" to the bread and wine, both upon consecration and reception (I lean towards the Orthodox)… but I can't deny these simple facts. Somehow, the Pentecostal churches who are theoretically very open to the supernatural have adopted an anti-supernatural view of the eucharist from the Baptists and even laughed at the "superstitious" idea that Christ's body and blood really are there at the table. How wrong we have been.

[@windyday8598]

those men at their so called alter, are playing tricks on you, like The Emperor's New Clothes. no wonder, they dress like wizards and warlocks. still unsure how the consecration works?

[@dominicpereira6006]

After receiving the Eucharist, miracles have happened in my life.

[@kevintoukam7466]

Really ? Tell me more about it my brother. What kind of miracles ??

[@walterlahaye2128]

Miracles ceased after the end of the first century! Eucharist is an Adverb, Not a Noun! Eucharist strictly means: “Give thanks.”

[@walterlahaye2128]

@@beorbeorian150 , When the priests and elders saw Jesus’ boldness and recognized that HIS teaching threatened their power and position, they resolved to kill HIM. They bribed Judas, one of Jesus’ own apostles, to help them arrest Jesus in secret (MATTHEW 26:3-5, 14-16). Jesus spent HIS last night observing the Jewish feast of Passover with HIS twelve apostles. As part of the Passover meal, HE took a loaf of bread, gave thanks to GOD, and broke it, inviting HIS disciples to eat from the loaf. As they ate, HE said, “This is MY BODY,” which would soon be broken in death. Then sharing a cup of wine with HIS disciples, “This is MY BLOOD,” which HE would shed in death, sealing a new covenant between GOD and HIS people, and cleansing them from their sins (MATTHEW 26:17-29). This “Last Supper” which JESUS shared with HIS disciples is the model for the LORD’s SUPPER, which JESUS’ followers kept after HIS death and resurrection. This meal was the Christian Passover, in which the new covenant sealed by JESUS’ death and resurrection was remembered and renewed. Because the Greek word for “give thanks” is eucharistein, many Christians since the second century have calked the LORD’s SUPPER the “Eucharist.”

[@TrentonTrent]

Remember that Satan can perform miracles to deceive people into believing things that are not real. 😉 We should all observe the passover as Jesus Christ instructed, this is not a weekly event, it is yearly. The catholic church is just plain crazy and Godless.

[@walterlahaye2128]

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. ACTS 20:7 The early church is neither Protestant, Catholic, nor Jew. (MATTHEW 16:18; ROMANS 16:16)

[@JBMORETTI5]

I'm a Protestant and this is the best video I've found on this subject. The Protestant videos that talk about this subject never quote the Church fathers.

[@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960]

Because the church fathers teachings are absolutely crippling to the idea of sola scriptura. They have to cast the opinions of the martyr saints aside to preserve their doctrine

[@KingScipio]

One of the best videos ever. Appreciate you Matt !!!

[@lorimckenzie5553]

Beautifully and clearly articulated, Matt! Thank you for this humble, but passionate presentation!! Strengthening my faith! 🙏

[@TheLjdevlin86]

Powerful. Thanks for helping me understand this confusing issue during lent 2023! Be blessed.

[@eyeguyeyeguy1]

This and Fr. Fr. Mike Scmidtz video, “the Hour that will change your life” on youtube are the two best explanations I have ever heard. I am a cradle Catholic, but many of our own DO NOT believe in the Real Presence. The Church as a whole before 1500, the Eucharistic Miracles, The writings of the Catholic Church, The Saints testimony, Inedia Miracles, all prove it is Really Jesus.

[@hannadavelucy]

Great clarity, Matt Fradd. You quoted from some of my faves - I'm doing my PhD on two of those fathers right now!

[@DrChaunceyBlevins]

Calvin was right: Christ is not present in *his* Eucharist. The sacrament is invalid outside the Church.

[@annarodriguez9868]

Thank you for this presentation on the Eucharist. I teach Catechism to 5th and 6th graders who are preparing to receive First Holy Communion in May. The book we use doesn't go quite deep enough and everything else seems too deep for them and I want to give them a better understanding of why we believe in the true Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. This is a great help to me since I don't have the time or books to read about the first doctors of the Church and then break it down for them. Thank you and God bless you!

[@Apriluser]

Anglican here. Thank you for laying out the truth of the Eucharist. Blessings.

[@mrstrongable]

In my experience when I started believing in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, my life was changed. Man is one of biggest stumbling blocks to himself.

[@davidC757]

This is the reason I left the Baptist church and became Catholic

[@Catholic_D.O.G]

Quote of the Day "Be a Catholic: When you kneel before an altar, do it in such a way that others may be able to recognize that you know before whom you kneel." -St. Maximilian Kolbe

[@Ditchdiggerpewsitter]

So why don't RC's receive the wine but only the bread. The scriptures seem clear about participation in both elements.?

[@JB-qe5eb]

Some parishes do allow both.

[@kevinsweeney1986]

Thank you so much for making a shorter video on the Eucharist! Its a lot easier to get a friend to watch this than a hour long lecture.

[@ArchetypeGotoh]

Very well done; i think you could have included more quotes with the time you have, maybe saints from each century until 500 or something, but the ones you picked are excellent and the additional resources are very helpful

[@crushtheserpent]

I played this video to my 88 year old Protestant father and he found it "very interesting" and I saw a light in his eyes I hadn't seen before. If anyone reading this could whisper a small prayer for him as I continue to evangelise him, I would greatly appreciate it! (his name is Ross). My dream is that he comes into the Church before he dies. Thanks in advance 🙏

[@rmbaron610]

The thing that concerns me is that the very earliest Christians were almost all Jews who presumably would be appalled by the idea of drinking blood, since it’s absolutely forbidden in the Torah (law), under any circumstances. It’s hard to imagine Jesus requiring breaking the law in any way.

[@whaaat3632]

@@rmbaron610 Jesus touched lepers, spoke to women of dubious character, and healed on the Sabbath. All of these things are "forbidden". He came to show a new way.

[@lweiss1074]

Totally true. This is another proof that Jesus meant it literally and not as a metaphor: read john 6, especially after verse 51. See verse 60 also. If it was just a symbol, Jesus would have called these Jewish disciples back to him, reassuring that it was not to be taken literally. Rather he meant it word for word!! 🙏🙏

[@englishrose6627]

It was reading the Bible when I saw Jesus words at Last Supper was the reason I became.a Catholuc.

[@1776iscool]

Matt! I love your videos! I am a protestant investigating Catholicism, and I want to be willing to humble myself and convert if it is true. Could you please do a series on Catholic apologetics for protestants? I have a lot of questions! P.S. I'm still mot close to being converted.

[@mirnacudiczgela1963]

I am a Roman Catholic and therefore I am overjoyed each time I partake of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. However, as I came to understand, the Real Presence is valid only if there is Apostolic Succession, and so it only concerns Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Is that true? So if our Protestant brothers in Christ want to experience it it is dependent upon the Apostolic Succession.

[@hexahexametermeter]

Good old Catholic Augustine on the meaning of John 6: "But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament: he that eats within, not without: who eats in his heart, not who presses with his teeth." (Tractate 26) "He said not, This is your work, but, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him: in order that he that glories might glory in the Lord. To eat then that meat which endures to everlasting life, is to believe in Him. Why do you makeready your tooth and your belly? Only believe, and you have eaten already." (Sermon 81) "What means are spirit and life? They are to be understood spiritually. Have you understood spiritually? They are spirit and life. Have you understood carnally? So also are they spirit and life, but are not so to you." (Tractate 27)

[@kirkw6027]

This quote sounds like belief is eating, eating within (our heart) is the true goal. It is the spiritual truth that is life. How does this support the idea of real blood and body?

[@hexahexametermeter]

@@kirkw6027 That is right. Tho the benefits are from His real body and blood. They are communicated by the Holy Spirit. Calvin was aquainted with Augustine: "I have no intention, however, to detract, in any respect, from the communication of the body of Christ, which I have acknowledged. I only meant to expose the foolish perverseness with which they carry on a war of words. The bread I understand, on the authority of Luke and Paul, to be the body of Christ, because it is a covenant in the body. ... It is proper to attend to the force of what is meant by a testament in the body and blood of Christ. The covenant, ratified by the sacrifice of death, would not avail us without the additionof that secret communication, by which we are made one with Christ." - John Calvin, Institutes, bkIV:ch17:20

[@Anna-rn1gb]

Really liked this video! Thank you, as a cradle catholic I just recently have begun to really desire to believe the real presence in the eucharist.

[@healhands5760]

[Acts 2:42] it is the DOCTRINE of the Apostles. breaking bread every session. [Luke 22:19] Jesus literally said to REMEMBER the eucharist in remembrance of Him. .

[@Bquiz77]

Lutheran here, I really appreciate that you don’t stereotype or straw man any denomination and that you’ve done your research very well.

[@Cooxoxo]

The early fathers were closer to the Apostles and Jesus in the timeline,HOW CAN WE BELIEVE SOME DUDE PREACHING IN A BASEMENT, AND NOT THE EARLY FATHERS?!?! This baffles me 😢 I pray everyone comes to see the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

[@MichaelSeethaler]

This is interesting to consider. Ultimatly, this is an appeal to tradition, something that Catholics esteem higher than reformers. Looking unto Scripture would be the best way for us to proceed. When Christ says, "Do this in rememberence of me" that seems like a clear definition that this is a rememberence, and not magic. That this, along with other symbols like baptism, are outward reflections of inward grace, and spiritual realities. It's interesting that you contrast literal (what I would call carnal) truth, to spiritual truth, as if the carnal surpases spiritual in weightiness and significance. But I'm still understanding the sides of the debate, as there is clearly a lot of history to this discussion. I am praying for understanding of this delicate issue. (Edit): Also, looking at Scripture, in 1 Cor. 11, Paul takes Christs statement of the bread and equates it with the phrase, "in the same way" to Christ's statement about the cup. The second statement must be taken sybolically, as the new covenent is not literally just a cup, but a whole sacriment to proclaim the reality of Christ's final fufillment of the passover, and our new access and presence to Mt. Zion (Hebrews 11). Therefore, it follows that the bread is the body of Christ in the sense that it represents Christ spiritually, but there is no magic in the bread (as there is no magic in the water of baptism). We should not take a great spirital truth and mistake it carnally. (Matt. 16.6) 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” (NASB) To anyone who actually read to the end, i commend you. Really just working out my thoughts.

[@Catholicity-uw2yb]

ST. AUGUSTINE (354-430): If you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to what the apostle Paul says to the faithful: “You are Christ’s own body, his members”; thus, it is your own mystery which is placed on the Lord’s table. It is your own mystery that you receive. At communion, the priest says: “The body of Christ,” and you reply “Amen.” When you say “Amen,” you are saying yes to what you are.

[@beautifularmenia3431]

First of all, you're really awesome... SO thoughtful and generous with your kind remarks toward Protestants. Well done. I just don't think it is so historically cut and dry. Here are just some examples that seem to push back a little at what you're saying. Tertullian wrote: “Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40). The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9). The long passage detailing the Lord's Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever. Justin Martyr (110-165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood"(Dialogue with Trypho, 70). Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2). Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57). Cyprian (200-258), who sometimes described the eucharist using very literal language, spoke against any who might use mere water for their celebration of the Lord’s Table. In condemning such practices, he explained that the cup of the Lord is a representation of the blood of Christ: “I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ” (Epistle 63.7). Eusebius of Caesarea (263-340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel: For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, "put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him." . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, "Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me." And, "His teeth are white as milk," show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. 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. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76-80). Athanasius (296-373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19) Augustine (354-430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I 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. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8). He also explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1). And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘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 [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).

[@amo6396]

Transubstantiation wasn't affirmed until 1215 at the Fourth Council of Lateran.

[@darioveneziano3995]

Superb! Thanks Matt, excellent video!

[@AL_YZ]

We know the expressions, "Flesh of my flesh. Blood of my blood" and "We become what we eat." In the Jewish Passover, the Paschal lamb is sacrificed at the Temple and then brought home and eaten by the family that brought it. "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" "Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed for us." " For My flesh is REAL food, and My blood is real drink. " "I have come that you may have life and have it more abundantly. " "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will LIVE forever. And this bread, which I will give for the life of the world, is MY FLESH." "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is REAL food, and My blood is real drink.... ...Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood REMAINS in Me, and I in him." "REMAIN in Me, and I will remain in you. Just as no branch can bear fruit by itself unless it remains in the vine, neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in Me.." "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." "I and the Father are one." "Because I live, you also will LIVE. On that day you will know that I am in My Father, and YOU ARE IN ME, and I AM IN YOU." Just as with a man and wife become one so do we become one with Christ in as REAL a way as can be, "...and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh." When you see the Eucharist as the true body and blood of our Lord, then the adoption becomes crystal clear. We are children of God in a real sense - spiritually and literally. "And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, you are also an heir through God." "And if we are children, then we are heirs: heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ" So when we pray the "Our Father", it is as real as it can be - bodily and spiritually. Nothing "symbolic" about it. "“For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers.” The word “brothers” is the word used for blood relatives. In the same way, we as members of the Body of Christ are one in a literal sense through Christ - "Because there is one LOAF, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one LOAF." 1 Cor 10:17 "...so in Christ we who are many are one body, and each member belongs to one another." "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!" "...he nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church. For we are members of His body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” In the Eucharist, JESUS CHRIST IS Flesh of my flesh; Blood of my blood.

[@mikepennn]

Notice he said, Ignatius, likely heard John and the other Apostles speak. Key word is Likely. Thats why I read Paul's letters myself, not what people that likely heard Paul speak. Knowing human nature and how man loves to be in control of others, I have learned to trust trust no one. Paul made it very clear, that Christ and him crucified is your righteousness. He wanted to know nothing from the believers at that time but Christ Crucified. I don't go any further than that.

[@darlameeks]

I believe in the Eucharist as central to our Christian worship. I was baptized by immersion in the Baptist tradition. I was taught that Catholics were in idolatry in their belief in the Eucharist. I attended the Eucharistic service in the Episcopal Church in the 1980's. I took the elements believing that Eucharist was only a symbol, a remembrance of Christ's sacrifice. I tell you, that I took the wine and tasted not wine, but SALTY BLOOD. This was a personal miracle to someone who was baptized in the Baptist tradition, that only sees the communion as symbolic. I was then believing in the grace of Christ, but thinking that Catholics were in error about Holy Communion. Even idolatry, I had been taught. I learned that day that Eucharist is not just a symbol, but the true Body and Blood of Jesus. God gave me a miracle. There was not one ounce of wine in that element; it was completely Jesus' blood. I am forever devoted in worship to Holy Eucharist as His Body & Blood.

[@jamiejaegel7962]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fqPUoHZ6r5yIjdE Amen!

[@charlesadams8279]

please seek Jesus Christ about this and spend a lot of time reading The Bible. You will see all the things that the catholic church does that God explicitly speaks against. Prayers with vain repetition, calling pastors “father”, idolatry, etc. To say you must confess to a priest to be forgiven is blasphemy and to say you need to pray to mary or any other saints is undermining God and Jesus’s sacrifice- He created intercession for the saints. He is the ONLY mediator between man and God. The pope is no where in The Bible and people take one verse out of The Bible to say that the catholic church is “the one true church” - Peter did not create the catholic church. He created the church- the family of those who follow Jesus Christ. That is what the church is called in The Bible and Jesus Christ is the head- not a pope. It should be suspicious to anyone why there are so many secrets in the vatican and why popes in the past have been so evil and why the current one supports homosexuality- and why catholicism did things like saying you could buy your way to Heaven and do so many other evil things. Any catholic cannot deny that and can’t deny that the pope because he is the head of the catholic church- that is why it is not from God. Popes in the past have even said their church will outlast the Christian faith. There are even ancient roman idols under the vatican and even a painting of satan. This is not from God. Follow Jesus Christ and Him alone link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rHjQiGpnqLyYqqs the eucharist is good but this doesn’t justify the rest of the evil. This “church” is not from God

[@darlameeks]

@@charlesadams8279 Brother, I have been seeking Jesus Christ for almost 49 years, and it is He who has led me to the Catholic Church after wandering in Protestantism for so long. I've been studying Holy Scripture since I learned to read, even before I became a believer at age 11. I'm educated in Protestant theology...I attended a Protestant Christian college. I've read the anti-Catholic literature, and used to be a fiery anti-Catholic like you, making all the same arguments. Members of my family who raised me were anti-Catholic. I was especially opposed to the Eucharist, but many other Catholic teachings, as well. I know all the arguments against Catholicism by heart. They have now been resolved for me because I decided to find out what Catholics believe *from Catholics* instead of anti-Catholics (who say things about Catholicism that just aren't true, or have been misconstrued, as you have just done...for instance, Peter didn't create the Catholic Church...Jesus did by calling Peter the "rock upon which I will build my Church" and gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom. Most Protestants have no idea what they protesting, or that Martin Luther, *on his own*, decided to throw out much of the Bible that had been agreed upon by previous Christian Councils to be Canon. Who gave Luther such authority? Even the books agreed upon by Protestants as Canon were established by the Catholic Church! There are thousands of Protestant sects who all disagree with each other, all because they gave in to this "personal theology" without any authority whatsoever. I have seen one Protestant church after another fall prey to the "cult of personality", almost making gods out of their pastors because their teachings make them feel good somehow. By contrast, Catholic priests tend to disappear into Christ, as they are meant to do, even if they are highly regarded. As for "Sola Scriptura"...the belief that the Bible is the only authority for Christian life and belief...it isn't Biblical! There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture that makes it the sole arbiter of what is Christian. Scripture itself is Tradition that has been passed down from the Prophets and Apostles. Read "The Didache", which is full of Apostolic teaching from the 1st century. Read the early Church Fathers who received the traditions passed down from the Apostles. Read your own Bible! You'll see that questions of doctrine have always been resolved by the consensus of Councils of the learned, starting with the Council of Jerusalem as recounted in Acts 15. As for whether we should call anyone on earth "father", I recommend these short videos: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJaVhoWmmbB5gck kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZXGoJiohtuee8U

[@eastcoast4233]

None of the quotes changes anything. Fallen into a semantic trap. He starts recognising that we might not be interpreting the text the same way. But he then quotes early Christians selectively, who wrote in a very different language which has been translated with all the assumptions and bias that involves, and still it says ‘body and blood’ but not whether it was meant literally, spiritually or metaphorically. Thus the quotes achieve nothing.

[@GMAAndy333]

John 6. The last supper: the New Covenant. Where in the Bible does it say this is a symbol of my body? Only Faith can change your mind.

[@eastcoast4233]

@@GMAAndy333 where does it say he was being literal, the text is full of metaphors.

[@Penfam801]

Love this! Very well done and it was the history of the Church that led my husband to it! Do you have a video on Eucharistic Miracles?

[@sebastianfischer498]

The argument is so strong that, it is a big challenge for evangelical theology. But when we accept the teaching of real presence in the eucharist, the following question is how to get validly ordained priests with apostolic succession. So all we can do is to convert to a church where they have it. Or is there another solution?

[@alhilford2345]

Only Catholic priests are validly ordained.

[@rubenmartinez4346]

So why do Protestants remain Protestants? That’s the question to ask. Great video!

[@Iffmeister]

Well because not all Protestants deny the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Anglicans and Lutherans, for instance). Orthodox Christians don't believe in transubstantiation, but they believe Christ's body and blood is present in the Eucharist. There's also way more topics that divide. I, as a protestant, have absolutely no problem believing in the real presence. I have a problem with believing the Pope is the supreme authority, that Mary is a CO Redemptrix. On the idea that the sacraments of baptism and communion communicate grace, I have no problem with this whatsoever, since the Bible affirms these views.

[@AveChristusRex]

@@Iffmeister I can see how as an outsider looking in, the doctrine of Mary as 'Co-Redemptrix' would certainly be scandalous. Hell, it's even scandalous to me, left undefined. However, it is really just the doctrine that Mary is the new Eve, and nothing more. Or rather, it's not Catholic doctrine that Mary is Co-Redemptrix, it's a new way of speaking about Mary's role. The doctrine that Mary is the new Eve is as old as Christianity itself. It's in all the Fathers. It's essence is this: Mary is to Christ in the Redemption what Eve is to Adam in the Fall. Eve isn't given blame for the Fall in the same way Adam is, but did 'get the Fall going' in a certain way; similarly, Mary can't be credited with the Redemption, but 'got it going' in a similar way (except by obedience to God's will rather than disobedience). However, as the new Eve, being preserved free from all stain of sin "by a unique grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ," the Saviour of the human race," she did play a unique and unrepeatable role in Redemption, thus, in a very real sense, playing a part in Redemption. As for the doctrine that the pope is the ultimate authority among bishops (not in the Church - that's God), this is simply the faith once delivered to the saints. All the Fathers who spoke of Peter or the See of Rome said it was the hub and center of orthodoxy, and schism results in breaking communal ties therewith. Foreign Councils sought help from Rome when something needed resolved. Writers questioned the prudence of Victor I, for example, when he was going to excommunicate an entire Eastern region of the Church for not celebrating Easter on the same date - they didn't question whether he had the authority to do so. Christ clearly called Peter Rock (Kepha) and said He would build His Church on this Rock. He's referring to the Rock Kingdom of Daniel 2 which will never end, "against which the gates of hell shall not prevail." Observe the authority-granting, king asking the question only God can reveal the answer to, etc. typology in Daniel 2 and Mt 16. It's not about 'despotism.' Unity is a sign of a good kingdom, especially in government. Even humans figured that out by having kingdoms. Just as in the family there can't be two ultimate authorities, there can't be in the Church leadership. The Davidic Kingdom had a queen mother, the mother of the King. This is Mary. The Davidic Kingdom had a prime minister which held the keys of the Kingdom, and represented the full authority of the King in his absence. This is what Christ made Peter. The Catholic faith is so thoroughly Jewish when you look deep into it because it literally came from the Apostles, who were all Jews, and Christ came to fulfill the Jewish faith, not start a new faith. He didn't come to abolish the priesthood, for example, but make it based on grace rather than lineage (Aaronic). The proof if nothing else is that St. Paul calls the place of offering the Eucharist "the table of the Lord." This was what God called the altar in the Old Testament - specifically where He prophesied a "pure sacrifice" offered by the Gentiles "from the rising of the sun even to its setting." He also said of the Gentiles, "I will take from among them men to be priests" (keep in mind restriction of the priesthood to Aaron was a punishment, and Christ's priesthood Melchizedekian anyway, meaning on another line entirely, and involving bread and wine sacrifice). You can't have a real presence Eucharist without a priest ipso facto.

[@royalsoldierofdrangleic4577]

@@AveChristusRex I have seen you are really knowledgeable about this. Your explanation of the "Mary coredemptrix" doctrine was really concise and useful, because i saw many critizing it based on just these 2 words it but i did not have the time or i forgot to check it. Hope you continue in your study of the Catholic Faith and Church, God bless.

[@riley.b.o]

Thank you for this explanation! I'm currently in a pentacostal congregation and I'm questioning what the true church is

[@johnyang1420]

@@riley.b.oThe one true church of Jesus is the Catholic church. Check out RCIA.

[@hubitopy5687]

Regarding the final question. For me is simple. Luther's, Calvin's, Z's, and the pastor across the street's thoughts and writings could ever weight more then those of the early Christians. Especially of those mentioned here.

[@elainemartin5522]

This was extremely helpful. Thank you for all the resources.

[@AndrewKendall71]

Growing up Baptist, I cannot say whether the ministers would say one thing or another about communion. But they certainly were very strong about 'fencing the table.' Meaning, they saw something more to it than just symbol. It's also interesting that a lot of the widening gap between Protestants and Catholics (which started among Germans) developed in English. Is it not something that should give pause to both sides that there's barely a noticeable difference between 'representation' and 're-presentation'? You see, the earliest church DIDN'T say 'body, blood, soul, and divinity.' They said what Jesus said, 'body' and 'blood'. That instinct to divide, to pull farther away from one another and then to work plausibly to justify it-I truly believe-is behind the accretions among Protestants to say it's ONLY symbolic, and among Catholics to add add add explanation and terminology in order to distinguish themselves from those otherwise called 'brethren' in Catholic thinking. It's like a Seventh-Day Adventist's denial of the faith of a Methodist for their preference of worshiping on the Lord's day. Oh, what would happen if theologians the ecclesiastical leaders actually understood both the doctrines and the Savior's call to a ministry of reconciliation? The division has only grown greater in my brief lifetime. That's not a Christ-following effect. Here's what the Bible says that Jesus declares: "this is my body" and "this is my blood." There-you'll notice that's the dominant perspective of [almost?] every individual quoted in this video. As a Protestant with interest in the profound life and depth of the Catholic church, it's important for me to work through the early church (which the earliest church, and therefore closest to the high calling according to Catholic methodology on ancientness being a validating characteristic for Christian belief) had to be immediately and frequently corrected by the apostles for their beliefs. And those who were writing pertaining orthodoxy from that time through, say, the 5th or 6th century were further from the apostles and communicated according to their times. What is the communication of the times today? Is it like St. Cyril simply to declare the body and blood present? Is it like the current Catholic church to add to the declaration 'soul and divinity'? And why the disagreement among Catholics? Some priests and bishops (and they're not even in Germany) say that the real presence upon the invocation exists because the elements are surely going to be taken in by the redeemed, whose body is Christ. Therefore, the elements are surely of the body because they will literally be of the body of Christ, for we are His literal body and blood on earth. But to some Catholics, this is novel and wrong and... why? If you can form new descriptions that are helpful to the church in one way, why not another? There must be limits. What are those limits? Even the magisterium works to conform to doctrines understood as scriptural. And so I say again, "this is my body" and "this is my blood" is mysterious and powerful and peculiarizing of the Christian from the world. It is sufficient to say. It is sufficient to receive in this way. Everything else is working division *between* believers (like the actually absurd distinctions being made of trans- vs. con-substantiation vs. ... like we can describe in human language the nature of the action any more than we could the Trinity) rather than division of believers from the world. Both the dogmatic symbolism Protestants, and the parent/mother church are to blame for this division instead of willing reconciliation. St. Augustine's clarity makes exactly my points. And I'm with Chan, I believe in the real presence of Christ in the taking of the Eucharist, and this does not put me at odds with my denomination's principal beliefs, only with my fellow churchmen who misunderstand. See the opportunity to unite? I do.

[@christinebeaudoin8703]

Very informative and educational. I enjoyed the format. This is a teaching all Catholics would benefit by viewing. Peace.

[@mitchellosmer1293]

CLAIMS of the RCC 1. Catholics claim CHURCH refers to Roman Catholic Church. BIBLE says CHURCH refers to all churches. Acts 5:11, Acts 8:1, Mat 16:18. HISTORY tells us Roman Church was just one local Church a member of the Pentarchy. 2. Catholics claim Roman Church was the CHURCH CHRIST founded (First Church) or one true church. BIBLE says First Local Church was Jerusalem Church. Acts 2. Not Roman Catholic Church. 3. Catholics claim there is only One Church. BIBLE mentions both CHURCH and Churches. “CHURCH” refers to the Body of Christ Eph 5:30, Col 1:18 consisting of all churches. Acts 5:11, Acts 8:1 Mat 16:18. “Churches” refers to local churches Acts 9:31, Acts 15:41 and believers Romans 16:5, 1 Cor 16:19, 4. Catholics claim to be the first believers. BIBLE says first believers were Jewish Christians. Acts 2, Acts 11:26, NOT roman catholics. 5. Catholics claim Pope is the head of the CHURCH. BIBLE says JESUS is the HEAD OF THE CHURCH. Eph 1:22, Eph 5:23, Col 1:18. 6. Catholics claim outside Roman Church there is NO SALVATION. BIBLE says : The mouth of the Lord has spoken.”apart from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11. 7. Catholicss claim the first day of the week is a Holy day, made by God. . The Holy Bible says: Isaiah 58:13-14 13 “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on MY HOLY DAY, And call the Sabbath a delight, The holy day of the Lord honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words, 14 Then you shall delight yourself in the Lord; And I will cause you to tride on the high hills of the earth, And feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father. The mouth of the Lord has spoken.”part from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11. 8. Catholics claim devote to Mary to be saved. BIBLE says “apart from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11. . BIBLE says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16. 10. Catholics claim Roman Church inherited infallible authority from Peter. BIBLE does not say that in Mat 16 or John 20 or John 21. 11. Catholics claim Roman pontiff inherited infallible authority from Peter. BIBLE does not say that in Mat 16. 12. Catholics claim bishop of ROME = the pope. BIBLE does not say that. 13. Catholics claim there is an office of bishop of bishops/universal bishop/pope. BIBLE does not speak of such an office. History tells us the first bishop of bishops came in AD590-600s. 14. Roman Church has all the false unbiblical clergies - Roman priests, roman cardinals, roman pontiff, monks, nuns, friars, … BIBLE mentions only pastors, teachers, evangelists, prophets, apostles, deacons, bishop, elders. Titus 1:5, Eph 4:11, 1 Tim 3. 15. Roman Church claim its doctrines come from traditions of Apostles. BUT 95% of roman doctrines are Not from traditions of Jesus or Apostles or Scriptures; neither practised by the Church of the Bible.

[@Jo3K1ng3]

⁠@@mitchellosmer1293keep making arguments about the Catholic Church. Shows your fighting it in your mind and the truth will bring you home. God bless. The Catholic Church is submitted to Christ. Authority figures were and always have been relevant. Moses elected overseers in exodus, priesthood has always been relevant in the Old Testament and New Testament. Jesus is the only way to God and his bride is the Catholic Church. God bless. Peter’s name (Rock) directly after Jesus changes his name to Peter (Rock) he says “and on this Rock, I will build my church” Peter is buried underneath the Vatican. Christ says he wants unity in his church. That doesn’t mean unity, with other denominations. Because we don’t agree with other denominations on salvation issues like needing the Eucharist to be saved, needing to be baptized to be saved, you can’t go to heaven with mortal sin on your soul, etc. these are all essential issues that all Catholics agree on. And though us as Catholics may disagree about non essential issues like political affiliation (as long as it doesn’t go against what Christ taught; clearly homosexuality and abortion are mortal sins), different orders (Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.), we agree on everything essential. Thats true unity. Doesn’t mean there won’t be corruption but Jesus says the gates of hell won’t prevail. I think 2000 years and still standing speaks for itself. You’re never going to understand the truth of Catholicism until you soften your heart enough for Jesus to reveal the truth to you and control your flesh when it wants to attack what it doesn’t understand. I’m not here to argue, this is the 1 comment I’m leaving. Check out “mass of the ages “ trilogy on KZbin. It’s free. If you’re still resilient to the faith after watching that, that’s your choice but atleast you’ll understand us more and have better arguments against us.

[@violoncello4439]

4:45 'Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which is 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.' Immediately we can see that this does not apply to Protestants who deny physical presence, because Ignatius says that the heretics 'abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer'. Protestants do not abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, so they are not among those heretics. But more importantly, the use of this quote to support physical presence ignores the context of Ignatius' letter, which is his response to Gnostics and docetists. Of course they did not take part in the Eucharist; the (metaphorical) flesh of Christ, because they deny that Christ was incarnate in any way, so commemorating his flesh and atonement would be mistaken. 9:08 'You cannot find a single early Christian challenging the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.' (Note: Reformed theology accepts the real presence (spiritual), but denies transubstantiation/physical presence. Zwingli and Baptists deny real presence.) Three early Christians challenging the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist; Clement of Alexandria: 'Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;” John 6:34 _describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith_ and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both - of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. [...] Thus in many ways _the Word is figuratively described_ , as meat, _and flesh,_ and food, and bread, _and blood,_ and milk.' (The Instructor, book I, chapter 6) Tertullian: 'He says, it is true, that “the flesh profits nothing;” John 6:63 but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, _supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh_ , He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickens;” and then added, “The flesh profits nothing,”- meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what _He would have us to understand by spirit_ : “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”' (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, chapter 37) Irenaeus: 'For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and _imagining that it was actually flesh and blood_ , gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: “How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]?”' (fragment 13) I can grant that physical presence began to develop only after Nicaea. Thus the views of Cyril, Ambrose and Augustine are expected. Prior to that however, Christians recognised that the Eucharist is a spiritual act of thanksgiving for the incarnate Christ (even Clement and Tertullian agree on something…).

[@barelyprotestant5365]

Love this video. It is interesting that you claimed that if the interpretation of Real Presence were a later Medieval invention and not Patristic, you would lean more towards the Patristics. How do you square that with things like the Immaculate Conception and even Transubstantiation, neither of which are Patristic? I ask as an Anglo-Catholic who has a high Marian devotion and holds to the real, physical, objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

[@VACatholic]

It's very, very important to remember that the Catholic Church doesn't define things except in response to heresy. So just because Transubstantiation (which is an explanation of the Real Presence), and the Immaculate Conception (in particular) were defined late in Medieval times, does not mean there is no support among the early Church fathers. In fact, the entire point tends to be that the doctrine defined can be found to have been taught by the early fathers, if not in exactly that verbiage (due to the fact that the fathers were speaking not against the error in particular, but of the doctrine, and thus the exact counter to the heresy might not be visible except by extrapolation, which is usually why the error exists in the first place), in spirit. Does that make sense and/or answer your question?

[@sethgarries3219]

Transubstantiation came later purely because the writings of Aristotle (specifically his writings on metaphysics) weren't discovered in the West until around ~1000AD. They had been preserved by Islamic scholars in the East, and trickled over to Europe later. Once they became more widespread, the Church adapted the terminology and defined "transubstantiation" because people were beginning to use Aristotle's terminology of accidents and substances incorrectly. The first person that claimed some start of consubstantiation, and later served as an inspiration for Martin Luther's eucharistic theology, was Berengarius of Tours, a Catholic scholar and quite a "rationalist." He rejected (at least initially, he retracted his view years later) the traditional view that the Eucharist *is* the body of Christ, and is no longer simple bread. He could not get over the fact that the Eucharistic elements still looked, tasted, and smelt like bread and wine, and as a result used Aristotle's fresh terminology to state that the Eucharistic elements are BOTH bread/wine AND body/blood. The Church analyzed this view, and Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours, first used the term "transubstantiation" in the later half of the 11th century. It was more formally defined and written about by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, and declared dogmatic at Trent. Regarding the marian dogmas, I'm not as familiar with the patristic writings on Mary as I am with the eucharistic ones. I'll be looking into that for sure!

[@royalsoldierofdrangleic4577]

I think it was more like Aristotles having a philosophical word that fits perfectly the description of the Eucarist.

[@HoosierHound]

What is there to square? The quote Matt gave from Cyril of Jerusalem matches the doctrine of transubstantiation exactly.

[@Iffmeister]

@Jesse Oliver EXACTLY. The Lutheran view and the Orthodox view are closer to Cyril's than the Roman Catholic

[@Andante931]

I am reformed. This very informative video revealed to me that as I look to the early church fathers, I find my more modern form of worship lacking. Though I would not like to enter into any tradition made by men in my worship to God, the sacrements are not invented by man and have a holy and profound effect upon our worship and are spiritual in nature, but physical in practice so we should not deminish the spiritual nature and keep the physical. To do so when seem to partake in what I am seeing in Christendom, a lack of holy worship, holy living, and deep meaningful exercise of our sanctified walk with Christ.

[@davideickbusch1348]

Matt my father in law is very baptist and we have discussed this many times. He says the writings of the church fathers are not important because the church in the book of acts does not put the Eucharist at the center of the church. He also claims the church in the book of acts does not look catholic to him. He does not see the bishops and popes etc. How can I respond to such a claim?

[@royalsoldierofdrangleic4577]

Have you him about the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and other preCostantine fathers? They are totally Catholic. A lot of Protestants put the blame on Costantine for Catholicism, so this will cause them problem. If he says that after the Apostles all went bad then you should ask him if you trust more the interpretations of their followers and direct successors or the ones of a 17th century man? If he tries to tie his Denomination with the Apostles (like 7th day Adventists do) ask him if he has some pre 17th century document to show that the Baptist Church is the true Church.

[@HoosierHound]

Acts 2:42 lists the four things the first Christians devoted themselves to, "the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers." He may object and say that this "breaking of the bread" simply refers to eating bread together. But why would they be devoted to breaking and eating bread? Surely everyone, Christian or Jew or Gentile, ate bread, right? And why use the term "breaking" instead of "eating"? Who is it today, the Catholics or the Baptists that are devoted to the "breaking of the bread"? Acts 20:7-12 begins, "On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread..." and in verse 11 "then he returned upstairs, broke the bread, and ate." Again, why mention that they ate bread, and why mention that they broke it? Why on the first day of the week? There is an epistle where Paul does explain what he means by "breaking the bread". 1Cor 10:16 Paul writes, "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" He then explains in more detail in 1Cor 11:23-32. Unfortunately, some do not understand, because as Paul also writes in 1Cor 10:15 "I am speaking as to sensible people."

[@jamiejaegel7962]

Would he watch a scientific Eucharistic miracle? kzbin.info/www/bejne/fqPUoHZ6r5yIjdE

[@AveChristusRex]

@@HoosierHound You can add to that the fact that St. Paul calls the place of celebration of the Eucharistic the altar when he says, "you cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and the table of demons." "The table of the Lord" appears only one other place in the Bible, and is the name God gives His altar. Guess where? Only where we find a prophecy from God about the "pure sacrifice" that the Gentiles offer from the rising of the sun to its setting (Malachi 1) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@johncraft6603]

It was when I came to understand that the actual presence of Christ was in the Eucharist was when I started the process to become confirmed in the Church. (Easter 2013 was when it happened).

[@thedudeabides3930]

Dear Protestant Friends, it's all real.

[@dalepress1581]

Studying the history of Christianity is how I became to be Catholic. It was clear to me that those who lived in the time of Christ knew the Eucharist was the real presence of God. It is clear from scripture and it is clear from practice. If you understand the Jewish roots of the Eucharist, as Christ was speaking to Jewish Christians, it leaves no doubt...none.

[@benbriones4502]

That was great Matt. Keep up the good work. Any new sibling horror coming out? 😊 God bless

[@obcane3072]

The Greek Orthodox Church does not teach transubstabtiation. It holds to a different understanding of the Eucharist, known as the doctrine of the "real presence" or "mystical presence." According to this belief, the bread and wine in the Eucharist are transformed in a spiritual and mysterious manner, but they are not understood to undergo a change in substance as in transubstantiation. The Eucharist is a visible sign of unity of the orthodox church.

[@bejankins]

This was a blessing. Please make more of these on more topics.

[@StNicolausVI]

What of the Eucharistic miracles? Not only Corpus Christ, but Poland 2014AD and Buenos Aires 1996AD? It's indisputable- the hosts turned into flesh of a distressed heart and bled, there is no parental DNA present, the fibers are interwoven with the bread, and blood excreted matches the Shroud of Turin, on all three accounts. How can you forget St Thomas Aquinas? (Summa III q76 a1 ad1) "For since the Godhead never set aside the assumed body, wherever the body of Christ is, there, of necessity, must the Godhead be; and therefore it is necessary for the Godhead to be in this sacrament concomitantly with his body. Hence we read in the profession of faith at Ephesus: 'We are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, not as partaking common flesh, nor as of a holy man united to the Word in dignity, but the truly life-giving flesh of the Word Himself". The Council of Trent affirms also the hypostatical union.

[@amygarrison3542]

This is wonderful! I am a cradle Catholic absolutely in love with my faith and our Lord in the Eucharist. What a beautiful way of pointing out the true teaching on the Eucharist, that Jesus is truly present - body, blood, soul, and divinity! 😊🙏

[@mitchellosmer1293]

CLAIMS of the RCC 1. Catholics claim CHURCH refers to Roman Catholic Church. BIBLE says CHURCH refers to all churches. Acts 5:11, Acts 8:1, Mat 16:18. HISTORY tells us Roman Church was just one local Church a member of the Pentarchy. 2. Catholics claim Roman Church was the CHURCH CHRIST founded (First Church) or one true church. BIBLE says First Local Church was Jerusalem Church. Acts 2. Not Roman Catholic Church. 3. Catholics claim there is only One Church. BIBLE mentions both CHURCH and Churches. “CHURCH” refers to the Body of Christ Eph 5:30, Col 1:18 consisting of all churches. Acts 5:11, Acts 8:1 Mat 16:18. “Churches” refers to local churches Acts 9:31, Acts 15:41 and believers Romans 16:5, 1 Cor 16:19, 4. Catholics claim to be the first believers. BIBLE says first believers were Jewish Christians. Acts 2, Acts 11:26, NOT roman catholics. 5. Catholics claim Pope is the head of the CHURCH. BIBLE says JESUS is the HEAD OF THE CHURCH. Eph 1:22, Eph 5:23, Col 1:18. 6. Catholics claim outside Roman Church there is NO SALVATION. BIBLE says : The mouth of the Lord has spoken.”apart from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11. 7. Catholicss claim the first day of the week is a Holy day, made by God. . The Holy Bible says: Isaiah 58:13-14 13 “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on MY HOLY DAY, And call the Sabbath a delight, The holy day of the Lord honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words, 14 Then you shall delight yourself in the Lord; And I will cause you to tride on the high hills of the earth, And feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father. The mouth of the Lord has spoken.”part from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11. 8. Catholics claim devote to Mary to be saved. BIBLE says “apart from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11. . BIBLE says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16. 10. Catholics claim Roman Church inherited infallible authority from Peter. BIBLE does not say that in Mat 16 or John 20 or John 21. 11. Catholics claim Roman pontiff inherited infallible authority from Peter. BIBLE does not say that in Mat 16. 12. Catholics claim bishop of ROME = the pope. BIBLE does not say that. 13. Catholics claim there is an office of bishop of bishops/universal bishop/pope. BIBLE does not speak of such an office. History tells us the first bishop of bishops came in AD590-600s. 14. Roman Church has all the false unbiblical clergies - Roman priests, roman cardinals, roman pontiff, monks, nuns, friars, … BIBLE mentions only pastors, teachers, evangelists, prophets, apostles, deacons, bishop, elders. Titus 1:5, Eph 4:11, 1 Tim 3. 15. Roman Church claim its doctrines come from traditions of Apostles. BUT 95% of roman doctrines are Not from traditions of Jesus or Apostles or Scriptures; neither practised by the Church of the Bible.