Transubstantiation (Aquinas 101)

⭐ The new Aquinas 101 Learning Platform is LIVE! Unlock all the Aquinas 101 courses in one place and track your progression at your own pace through the wisdom of the Angelic Doctor for FREE at go.thomisticin....
“The Eucharist is the sacrament of love; it signifies love, it produces love. The Eucharist is the consummation of the whole spiritual life… It is Christ's true flesh which we take.”
-St. Thomas Aquinas
Want to learn more? This video lesson is part of the course Introduction to St. Thomas Aquinas on our FREE online learning platform. Enroll now to easily track your progress, access related lectures from our podcast, read curated selections from the Summa theologiae, and earn a certificate! go.thomisticin....
Transubstantiation (Aquinas 101) - Fr. Thomas Joseph White, O.P.
❓ Questions you want answered? Make sure to put #AskAFriar in your comment!
- WHAT'S NEW -
⭐ Join Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. and over 6,000 enrollees inside our FREE Aquinas 101 online learning platform at: go.thomisticin....
- WHAT'S NEXT -
• Subscribe to this channel: go.thomisticin...
• Subscribe to our podcast: go.thomisticin...
• Enroll in an Aquinas 101 course: go.thomisticin...
• Attend an on-campus event: go.thomisticin...
• See if your university has a TI Chapter: go.thomisticin...
• Study abroad in ROME: go.thomisticin...
- SOCIAL MEDIA -
• Instagram: / thomisticinstitute
• Facebook: / thomisticinstitute
• Twitter: / thomisticinst
• LinkedIn: / thomistic-institute
- SUPPORT -
• Keep the Aquinas 101 cameras rolling: go.thomisticin...
• The Thomistic Institute Store: go.thomisticin...
- THE THOMISTIC INSTITUTE -
• Aquinas 101: go.thomisticin...
• The Thomistic Institute: go.thomisticin...
• Dominican Friars: go.thomisticin...
- AQUINAS 101 -
Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our FREE Aquinas 101 courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians-including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph. Enroll today at go.thomisticin.... And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
#ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic #Thomism

[@FrJohnBrownSJ]

Dominicans are doing a great job with these videos.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thank you for such a great compliment!

[@TheMountAndBladerX10]

@andreasm1 it might be better translated as "unity translation" because its a tool of false ecumenism, incorporating evangelical "theologians" into the process. Personally id suggest sooner the use of the Alioli or Schöningh bible for private reading. Sarto Verlag has a lovely version with Patristic commentary. Also of course this is one more reason to attend a TLM preferably over a german Novus Ordo, as the vernacular translations that are read before a sermon are usually taken from the translation in the Schott Missal. I do still currently use the EÜ, but only because theres no pocket bible OT+NT with the complete Catholic Canon and an older translation.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

visit even a ...public library and educate yourself on..Bible, here, the hermeneutics of NT text on "Eucharistic institution"! I know that ....the sin contra H.Spirit (there is even not mentioned in the new ...Catechism; in the old ones- a total logical fallacy in explanation is unforgivable because an Expert will never acknowledge his/her own stupidity!

[@robcoviello5383]

I thought Dominicans wear white

[@tony1685]

aquinas taught contrary God's Word of Truth - John 17:17 so does catholicism, sadly - proving it's not even Christianity - 1 Tim 3:15

[@cntrolman1]

"we're saved by Grace, not by natural acquisitions of knowledge" that statement sums it up. 🙏👍

[@paules3437]

Do you see how ironically humorous your last statement is.?

[@ritajensen3955]

I am a cradle-Catholic and grew up in a devoutly Catholic home, but have learned so much from your presentations. Thank you to all the Fathers at the Thomistic Inst for helping me grow in faith both spiritually and intellectually. I know God is smiling down on you. 💖✝✝✝

[@lukeabbott3591]

I imagine St. Thomas looking exactly like this man.

[@mariobaratti2985]

lmao

[@cachorrovinagre2979]

I imagine him more italian like and without glasses. 🤔

[@suzannemcmaken4648]

@@cachorrovinagre2979 Thomas would be looking like a middle eastern Jew.

[@Ginger_Guy]

@@suzannemcmaken4648 he was born in Roccasecca Italy, and lived in Aquino Italy…

[@danielacosta2437]

I love the subtle nod that life starts at conception just thrown in

[@neliborba6141]

Jesus is present in the Eucharist. I know that Jesus is there for us to adore Him. I believe that Jesus started to call me in 2007, that was when I started more involved with prayer and started looking for a Church that was open during the day so I could go there and stay awhile in prayer in front of the Blessed Sacrament. Then I called my church, which was closed during the day, and someone told me of a church where there the Eucharist was exposed for adoration.

[@jjwwqq]

Ahhh. Idol worship.

[@jjwwqq]

@@Nunya94 no, the Christians of Acts are the first Christians. Catholicism morphed into what it is today over many centuries, and it was centuries after the events recorded in Acts that Catholicism started this drift into what it is today.

[@suzannemcmaken4648]

Jesus never mentioned a eucharist or mass. The mass and eucharist are lies out of the pit of hell

[@tomgreene2282]

Excellent presentation in such a short time.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Glad you liked it!

[@tomgreene2282]

@@ThomisticInstitute Have you come across the work of the late Ray Moloney S J on the Eucharist....a very good read .

[@madanuprabhakar2638]

St. Thomas is indeed a wonderful gift of God to the Church. Incredible is his lucid mind🙏🙏🙏

[@aldevelez2370]

This priest is now the Rector of the angelicum in Rome. Congratulations Father!

[@PInk77W1]

Oh Godhead hid Devoutly I adore thee Who truly art within the forms Before me To thee my heart I bow With bended knee As failing quite in Contemplating thee

[@PInk77W1]

Funny story. One day me and my 5yr old daughter were bored. So I taught her how to spell TRANSUBSTANTIATION. tran • sub • stan • tia • tion The very next day in kindergarten Her teacher told the class “Write down all the words u know how to spell.” So my daughter wrote it down. The teacher walked by and said “That’s not a word” And kept on walking. My daughter was so mad at me!!! LoL

[@danielvinzent2520]

Made my day :-) Thanks for sharing!

[@kdmdlo]

Please tell me that this wasn't in a Catholic school.

[@bandie9101]

the teacher must be a protestant

[@PInk77W1]

@@bandie9101 or just secular

[@PInk77W1]

@@kdmdlo no public

[@maryjohnstone4777]

Indebted to you Priests for providing us with great n informative videos,so clearly n succinctly explained.sometimes I can't absorb so much information ,however I can always repeat the video again .

[@tropifiori]

Very helpful Father White. Thanks FB

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Our pleasure!

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@timopper5488]

For further clarification to this, the host and the wine are not merely transubstantiated into the Body and Blood respectively, but both the host and the wine are transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ (the formula of expression of the Church). Just for those who are under the impression that they must consume both the host and the wine. Each is fully Jesus in His totality.

[@Jhm718]

Sort of. In his book on the Eucharist, Lawrence Feingold says (p. 283) that St. Thomas held that, if Mass had been celebrated on Holy Saturday, the bread would ONLY have become the Body and the wine ONLY the blood, because those two were separated on that day. But now that Body and Blood are reunited in the Resurrection, the Body and Blood are permanently together, meaning it is impossible to have the Body without the Blood or vice-versa. A distinction without an effect, maybe, but the consecration does only directly confect the bread into body, it is just impossible for that body to be without blood.

[@timopper5488]

@@Jhm718 Not sure how St. Thomas (Aquinus ?) could know the certainty of a hypothetical, so I won’t dispute him. All I know is the way that it did transpire, not how it could’ve.

[@CathAquintic]

Good bc I get sick everytime I drink the wine from ppls saliva

[@johnwake1001]

Great presentation, thank you!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@kristindreko3194]

Thank you Aquinas 101, may God bless you!

[@maryjohnstone4777]

A lovely video! We are indebted to all you very learned Priests ,who deliver these great videos of so much help ,in understanding n deepening our Faith and noting how deeply God loves each one of us !Thanks!

[@biancameloc]

Thank you! Greetings from Brazil

[@andromedamaxima1543]

“we are saved by Grace not by natural acquisition of knowledge”… this is powerful and very logical, isn’t the world filled with people who have a wealth of knowledge but whose souls are condemned to hell?! Let alone those who are not even wise, and have no faith nor grace… those are perpetually disgraced, as they live a life similar to a similar to a serpent in this world… Let us pray for our blessed Lord to increase the faith in the hearts of men, because from Faith, everything else is possible and derives.

[@JuanMartinez-xl2oj]

I was watching a Brian Holdsworth video about KZbinrs worth watching, I saw your face and said, "That [guy] is from that band I like! Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah!". So here I am subscribing: keep on a pickin and a grinnin!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for watching and subscribing! We're so glad to have Fr. Thomas Joseph here. May the Lord bless you!

[@Dernykammer]

Eucharistic Jesus, You are my paradise !

[@hismajesty6272]

I was raised in a non denominational church, and I’m currently considering either Catholicism or a very classical Protestant tradition. Thank you for this video.

[@loremipsum2989]

🙏 I recommend you thoroughly to read Johann Adam Möhler: "Symbolik" - in English: "Johann Adam Moehler: Symbolism - Exposition of the doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants". Johann Adam Möhler was professor of theology at the Tübingen University where both Catholics and Protestants taught and studied. In 1832 he published this work that examined the doctrines of original sin, grace and free will as held by the different Christian confessions. It's the unsurpassed standard work about this topic until today and freely available on the Web. May the Lord be with you and guide you to His whole truth and joy.

[@gretchenboyle481]

This was good

[@ChristianSaintSavior]

Very good, very good! GOD Bless you for this brief, but effective explanation! Ave Maria!

[@hugoher01]

Excellent presentation, thanks a lot

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Our pleasure! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!

[@Jojo-bm5km]

This is what the world needs!

[@johntaylor4707]

Once for all , God Bless.

[@Catmonks7]

Great video 🇻🇦👍✝️

[@frankperrella1202]

God bless you my brother's & Sisters in Christ 🗝️🗝️🛐😇🙏📖💯 Catholic

[@mjuemtakatifuyosefu9410]

Faith helps us to understand so we need to believe in order to understand

[@bloom2887]

So the natural question from here is what happens to the body and blood or Christ in the digestive system? How long does it stay his body and blood?

[@lynobird9197]

I came back to the Church in 2018 after experiencing a powerful conviction of the reality of Jesus’s sacrifice and the seriousness of my sin. I have gone to confession on a monthly basis since then, I have partaken of the Eucharist on a weekly basis, and I recently had a priest tell me I’m in danger of losing my soul. My sins have only gotten worse over time, since 2018. How can this all be the case, if a devout Catholic is expected to grow in holiness through the grace imparted by receiving the Eucharist in faith? I strongly believe that several, perhaps millions, of Catholics leave the faith for a Protestant denomination b/c what they’re being told doesn’t match up with any kind of real transformation in their lives

[@chriswilliams4103]

Are you still in need of assistance with your faith?

[@lynobird9197]

@@chriswilliams4103 yes, desperately. I’m addicted to pornography and sins of lust. I cannot stop. I’m currently trying 12 step programs. It’s not working. I don’t know what else to do

[@p.i.6373]

Well you will not have answer because there is none. How can it be? You are taking literal body of God, and you still do sin? How so day after doing Confession and taking Body of Christ is same as day before? If you look for simplest and most reasonable answer, it would be that there is no God… Sorry

[@thinkfreeordiestupid]

Or you simply lack the discipline to obey God, the sacraments are not magic, you still have to put in the work and effort.

[@p.i.6373]

@@thinkfreeordiestupid I have to dissmis your agrument that it is lack of disipline and obidence. To me it seems there is no difference. I had my ups and down in my spiritual life, like everyone. Times I did everything right like Sacraments and Masses and praying, and times I sinned and was lazy. But now when I look back, I cant see what is difference. Where did these spiritual realities reflect upon? My “worldy” life has been consistent trough this whole time, even very good I could say. And I just cant see were do these spiritual realities come in all this. That is what I am trying to convey, that one needs to believe in God without knowing Him, and one needs to work spiritual things, and have disicpline, and be faitfull, and not search for any kind of signs from God in unfaitfull way. To me that looks too human, whole religious endevour, and when you add Bible with its historical problems and contradictions, it starts to be too human expirience. If you remove God from equation, it seems that your experience remains the same. I have my physical body bc I can see it, I have psychic bc I can think and have emotions, but where is entrance in soul? Where it is in us? How to “feel” it, how to perceive its existence? I read a lot of stuff to find answer to my pondering about soul, but I haven’t found clear answer from all Catholic literature there is. I remember my Chrism, I was trying to be as perfect as I could. And after Mass when I received my Chrism, I was disappointed deep in myself. I was just baffled that receiving Holy Spirit didn’t have difference in my life. My cousins, after I went out from Church, asked me mockingly; Are you now full of Holy Spirit, are you now stronger? And I at moment just watched them as how they know what I was thinking. But I didn’t wanted to acknowledge them that, and said that I do feel like I am filled with Holy Spirit. Years after, I was numb to my religion and just doing it traditionally, probably because of that. I now, for me, it seems it is all just one human cope mechanism. God is just… too distant. If you believe, and work spiritual stuff, then He exists and is here. If you dont believe in Him, and dont work spiritual work, then He is not existent and is not here. How is that not… fairytale? Edit: Damn, sorry for this long rambling 😂

[@josephmaxwell5033]

I am with Jesus! Therefore, any opportunity to testify for Our Blessed Lord, no matter where he is; this is belief, information and who we are! No 5 or 6 Thanks be to God.

[@gualula8641]

God bless you to clear my thoughts 😅

[@MichaelSeethaler]

It seems very clear that Christ is speaking spiritually. This belief seems to be a carnal interpretation of a Spiritual truth.

[@JamesMathison98]

Did you skip John 6, the last supper, and Christ being known in the breaking of the bread?

[@tonyornelas9374]

Was it a metaphor when Jesus told the woman at the well whoever drinks the water I give will never thirst?

[@raquelcastillo4954]

I was way off in the more base mansions for a while there, Fr. but I always come back b/c you’re so good to us 🤍

[@Balstrome1]

If you believe something to be true, you can be wrong about it being true. If you know something to be true, you can not be wrong about knowing it to be true. Because if what you know to be true is shown to not be true, then automatically you can not continue to know it is true. You can still believe it to be true, but you can not claim to know it to be true. So which would you choose, Believe or Know?

[@sonu8034]

Iam clear on everything except the part where he says "the eucharistic presence of christ doesnt oblige us to enter into the friendship of god contrary to our will". Y is that? I mean if the bread nd wine physically transformed everytime into real body and blood, how is does that force us to enter into relationship wth god contrary to our will? Can some one help me on this pls.

[@p.i.6373]

You are not obliged, you have free will, but if you dont take it, you have forsaken literal body of God while knowing it and could in the end finish in Hell. Logic went out of window…

[@Benjaminy2k]

Thank you very much for this video. This subject has been a stumbling block to me for years.

[@perkinsturner]

I just want to point out with all piety that it looks like you have chad wojak Jesus on the host in the thumbnail

[@keithstump1712]

Are you saying that if we put the consecrated wine under a microscope we'd see red and white blood cells? And the host would show skin cells?

[@HillbillyBlack]

The problem is the hyper focus on the metaphysical and not remembrance through the action. The bread and wine IS Christ. Scripture just never clarifies how and in what sense directly because the point is not the substance but the action. Rome has become obsessed with the substance and has forgotten the action. And worse, this has created several generations of fallen away Catholics who focus on their faith in their faith rather than keeping their eyes directly on Jesus. You don’t do that by internalizing the idea of consuming him literally but rather by taking in the truth of his father which is his word.

[@hjsimpson]

​@@HillbillyBlackdude stop copy pasting your own conjecture. To OP yes this has happened dozens of times throughout history. Hosts have bled and the lab results consistently reveal the precense of AB blood and heart tissue under stress. Scientists have converted due to these miracles. That doesn't mean you can test any given host, only when God chooses to reveal himself in that way.

[@39knights]

I recently heard a Catholic Apologist make an interesting point. The Last Supper was not the first time Jesus changed ordinary bread and wine into His body and blood. Anytime during His natural life that He ate bread and drank wine (or any food for that matter); it would eventually become His real flesh and blood. The same way that the food we consume becomes our own flesh and blood and we grow and repair our bodies. At the Last Supper, ths change of the bread and wine into His body and blood would be the first instance He did this miraculously. And just as He gave His Apostles the Authority to repeat the other miracles He had done (ie. heal people, raise them from the dead, walk on water, etc.); so too did He give this miraculous Authority to His Apostles (ie. DO THIS in memorial of Me). Anyone can believe a piece of bread can symbolically represent Jesus. It takes biblical faith to believe Jesus has the ability to actually be that piece of bread through the actions of an Apostle. Keep the Faith.

[@rightlydividing7607]

When two priests at separate locations simultaneously claim to have Jesus Christ’s physical literal body and blood, which one truly has it?

[@edithodongo9050]

both.. cos Jesus is Omnipresent

[@rightlydividing7607]

@@edithodongo9050 There’s no division in the body 1 Corinthians 12:25 King James Version 25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

[@rustydowd879]

@@rightlydividing7607 , that passage is about schizmatic beliefs in the early Church. He is saying everyone should play the role in the Church bestowed upon them by the Holy Spirit, the way body parts naturally do their job and don't fight against the rest to be something else.

[@Saluspergratiam]

@@rightlydividing7607 You clearly just misquoted Scripture. This verse is talking about the Church, not Christ's actual body

[@Publius-24]

Saint Matthew 9:13 Then he added, “Now go and learn the meaning of this Scripture: ‘I want you to show mercy, not offer sacrifices.’ For I have come to call not those who think they are righteous, but those who know they are sinners.”

[@Jhm718]

Help me out, because I have been struggling. STIII, Q75, art. 4 states "Therefore He can work not only formal conversion, so that diverse forms succeed each other in the same subject; but also the change of all being, so that, to wit, the whole substance of one thing be changed into the whole substance of another. And this is done by Divine power in this sacrament; for the whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of Christ's body, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of Christ's blood." Aquinas' emphasize on WHOLE substance means that both form /and matter/ change. I worry that you are using the accident of quality equivocally with matter, but that does not fit with Aquinas. He is clear that nothing material persists in a change of the whole substance. What am I misreading?

[@PeterDobbing]

Does 'substance' compute in any way for someone with a post-Aristotleian mindset?

[@claymcdermott718]

Bump. @Thomistic Institute Substance for non-Aristotelians? Quiddidity? What-it-is-in-itself? What it am (as opposed to what it might appear to be as far as we can tell; or, what it might appear to be like)? I dunno. I kinda have a pre-Aristotelian bias (Platonist) so I'm probably not the best help. I would love to hear from TI on this.

[@TDL-xg5nn]

Explain this to William Lane Craig.

[@dalspartan]

Could it be similar to when we are “born again?” Physically there is no change in us, but we are a “new creation” in Christ.

[@animalcart4128]

There will be a physical change in the resurrection.

[@lettuceboy2382]

I would bet my last, dollar, that, if the trans substantiation resulted in a physical change of the host than this video would be vastly different. It would be said how God loves us so much that He created this change to strengthen our faith and to provide evidence to the world.

[@maumaukiddoDuddu]

As a matter of fact, the consacreted host has changed its physical aspect on various occasions, and one of the ways we know the miracle is real is because it's always heart tissue, and the blood type is AB+, I am not joking 😮‍💨😁

[@brendangolledge8312]

This would be more convincing if there weren't similar arguments every single other time we might have a sensory experience of God's presence. I'm finding it very difficult to believe when my understanding of the material world would be simplified by believing only in material causes and leaving everything else to "I don't know." If the bread actually became flesh, that would be terrifying, but that act alone would make a purely material world-view impossible. It seems to me that purely logical arguments (and some very basic moral premises) can be made for purely abstract moral proofs, but in order to prove that certain material facts or events are true, it seems to me that material evidence is required.

[@fojedaquintana]

Great video! How would you answer to someone telling you that the doctrine of transubstantiation wouldn't be proper of God, since it implies the annihilation of the bread and wine? Allegedly God would never annihilate any of his creatures...

[@gregoryweber5667]

Why would it be improper of God to take away being from something he created? He gave it being; he can take it away. God allows many things to be annihilated every day, including bread and wine when they are spoiled or consumed and digested; but also animals and plants that die. Over longer periods of time, even mountains are eroded; over much shorter periods, unstable subatomic particles decay. If it is not improper for God to allow these things to be annihilated, through the action of secondary causes, why would it be improper for him to annihilate something directly?

[@fojedaquintana]

@@gregoryweber5667 I appreciate the answer Gregory. I totally agree with transubstantiation doctrine, but I assume that it's not the same that a substantial change, or is it? Annihilation is used in a metaphysical way: going back to nothingness... I'd like to understand better to answer that objection. Thanks a million!

[@gregoryweber5667]

@@fojedaquintana You're welcome, but I think I misunderstood your question. If you mean "annihilation" as "going back to nothingness", as I now understand, then the bread and wine are not annihilated; they are changed into body and blood of Christ. And that _is_ substantial change, although it is not a natural kind of substantial change. Why else would it be called "transubstantiation"?

[@tomgreene2282]

Would it be more accurate to say that "Transubstantiation" more specifically refers to "Change" as opposed to presence?

[@arunholy2941]

Yes. Because the substance changes. Trans=change

[@corneliusmakin-bird7540]

Couldn’t you argue that this is used by every culture, replace the bread and wine with a statue or an icon, wouldn’t it be the same thing?

[@amol_6561]

Well, Jesus says that the bread is his body. He didn't said that a statue or an icon is his body.

[@Oculoustuos]

Would you say that the following is Catholic Truth: Transubstantiation is an apt, appropriate, expression of the Mystery of the Eucharist, but in itself can not lay claim to be an exhaustive explanation of what takes place at the time of consecration.

[@psdesign1]

father....i like the show...but difficult to understand it

[@benstevinson764]

Jesus Christ is truly Present in the Holy Eucharist Transanstubuation Changes the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of The Risen Jesus Christ ✝️🙌🕊️❤️

[@seanpermann5570]

Jesus is present at all times for born again believers. Not only during certain times.

[@evanlutz3486]

If each host is the full presence of Christ, does that mean there are several Christs? How do we sort out the ideas about place? How is God present "in" a piece of bread when God is immaterial? Someone please help!!!

[@Saluspergratiam]

This does not mean there are several Christs, but several places where Christ is fully present.

[@amol_6561]

God is immaterial? Didn't He incarnated as a material human (Jesus)? Isn't He omnipotent and omnipresent? Can't He be present in heaven and in the host at the same time, if He wishes?

[@kimaninjoroge1277]

Is Jesus present or is it a MEMORY or REMEMBRANCE as stated in the Scriptures ?

[@avemaria7698]

Dear fr. Peace be with you. I have a question. If any accident takes place to a tabernacle and the consecrated hosts are burnt due to the fire then there is no presence of Christ in those hosts which are burnt. But when a consecrated host turns into the real flesh with blood, then still is there real presence of Christ in that particular host? Thank you.

[@samuelhopely4853]

I've only been to mass a handful of times as an interdenominational protestant, but I'll never forget one visit in particular. During my confirmation around age 11, my class visited several places of worship, including a synagogue and a megachurch, in order to fully understand why different faiths and sects did what they did. When visiting our local catholic church for mass, I took the eucharist by mistake. My best friend who was with me went to as well and was stopped (gracefully of course). I was aware of transubstantiation and the gravity catholics place on the Host, but for some reason didn't know that non-catholics are barred from receiving communion. Participating in the Last Supper was a holy occasion for both of us, and it was really jarring when he was turned away. I now understand, I think, the intention to protect the Host from desecration, be it intentional or not. I do however wish that the church can someday move in a different direction. I don't believe Christ needs our protection, whether on his throne in heaven or in our bodies on earth. Moreover as sad as it must be for catholics to witness desecration, it seems sadder still to imagine one of his children turning another away from being with him in communion. He broke his body and spilled his blood for us to be free from death, and unless any of us can say they stood at the foot of the cross and witnessed his sacrifice, I'm not sure we can say we truly appreciate the holiness of his flesh more than our brother and sisters might.

[@noeltan1455]

The Catholic church does not allow non-catholics to consume the host to because she seeks to protect them. It is not because the Catholic church is trying to be exclusive or implying that 'only we get to eat this cause we are catholics'. One cannot partake of something without the fullness of belief and faith in it, most especially something as sacred as Holy Communion, where Jesus Himself is present. It is not so much as protecting Jesus in the bread, it is really more about protecting the souls of those who are receiving Him.

[@JamesMathison98]

Correct ^ also it’s a huge oxymoron to recieve communion when not in communion

[@mauijttewaal]

I agree with the Real Presence, but the Transubstantiation explanation simply does not hold, it is based on an outdated understanding of matter. In order to be convincing you would do well to radically rethink this and not hold frantically onto old formulations. God bless!

[@mauijttewaal]

BTW I have a PhD in physics

[@ante3973]

@@mauijttewaal so what about your phd? Dr. Nigel Cundy is also an excellent physicist as well as a thomist. And I realy don't see anything outdated in the *metaphysical* (not physical) theory of hylomorphism on which this explanation is based. There are even philosophers of science like dr. Yuan, dr. Koons and others who are interpreting the phenomena of modern physics through an aristotelian metaphysical framework. And btw physics is even completely irrelevant for the concepts of substance and accidents employed in the example of transubstantiation.... you either have no clue about the neo-aristotelian framework of the philosophy of science or you don't understand the basic disctinction between physics (and it's explanatory scope) and metaphysics, as it seems

[@micllsa]

I have a question. So during the transubstantiation, the form (in the context of matter and form) of the bread and wine changes to that of Christ? If not, please enlighten me...

[@jimpelaez7740]

Christ died once and for all to save us sinners, we don't need to crucify Christ over and over again for His blood and Flesh.For it is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ that we are saved and not through works of men.

[@AJWRAJWR]

No. The physical matter remains the same. The 'substance' (essence) is transformed into the Real Presence of Christ. People get confused about the material definition of substance compared to the philosophical definition.

[@micllsa]

thank you. after studying Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, now I finally understand and distinguish what is accidents and substance.@@AJWRAJWR

[@pauljordan4452]

Aquinas taught that nothing causes itself and what maintains everything in existence is Subsistent Existence. Eternal existence.

[@pauljordan4452]

Further, I am autistic and learned to take others' viewpoints verbally with the sentence I AM YOU, AT THE SAME TIME, YOU ARE ME. OR X IS Y, AT THE SAME TIME, Y IS X. This is just eternal existence. Christ is Subsistent Existence made flesh and said at the Last Supper THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU. THIS (COMMUNION WAFER) IS MY BODY. IS = ETERNAL EXISTENCE. I hope I am understood. God bless.

[@joseebellerose3775]

so me, laic, I take bread and give it to my friends saying that it is Christ? No?

[@Balstrome1]

reality noun: reality 1. the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. 2. the state or quality of having existence or substance. Neither of these bears any relation to the claim about reality at around 03:30 in the video.

[@aaronargottelopez3488]

❤

[@ilonkastille2993]

wonderful explanations. I would just be more happy if they don't speak so fast. some people might be listening but their language is not so good and need it more slowly to understand.

[@catquilt74]

You can change the speed of the video and there's a transcript of what he is saying. It *is* very dense and thought-provoking!

[@ilonkastille2993]

@@catquilt74 thank you.

[@jeremyjames1659]

Aquinas was a platonist, not a christian.

[@jvlp2046]

Christ Jesus said to His Apostles, "The WORDS I have spoken to you are SPIRITUAL, for the SPIRIT gives LIFE, while the FLESH profits/counts NOTHING." (ref. John 6:63)... Therefore, the Literal BREAD and WINE are "SPIRITUAL SYMBOLISM" of the FLESH and BLOOD of Christ Jesus that Christ Himself instructed His Apostles to "DO THIS" (Spiritual PARTAKERS) to COMMEMORATE (remembrance) Christ's Sufferings, Death on the Cross, Resurrection and Ascended back in Heaven to SIT at the Right-Hand side of His Father God's Throne...(ref. Mark 14:22-25 / Luke 22:18-20 / 1 Corin. 11:23-25). Facts and Truth of the Matters, Biblically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.

[@RdCrestdBreegull]

it’s just a ritual that symbolizes the acceptance of Christ, it is very simple

[@mrswilbert]

Witchcraft is saying words and something happens. Transubstantiation is saying words and something happens...🤔

[@mrswilbert]

@@robertwarner-ev7wp lol

[@gamers7800]

👍👍👍🙏🏻

[@coldmystery6754]

I firmly believe it is as Jesus says, he is the bread and wine are the body and blood. My issue with Transubstantion is not an "issue" with it. I think it is a fine and well reasoned possibility and I can fault nobody for thinking it to be true, but it is still a theory that relies on some well reasoned assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless. Of course no better explanation I have heard for how the bread and wine is the body and blood, this does not mean it is a fact as opposed to a possibility. I could be wrong, but dont the Catholics consider it heresy to both believe that the bread and wine is the body and blood, while also either being unsure as to how, or entirely rejecting transubstantion as how?

[@eduardotaira8773]

I am no priest, but may I recommend reading 1Cor 11:27 and paragraph #1357 of the Catechism? I hope it helps you. 🙏☦️🕊

[@kmastanz]

Jesus said ...DO THIS IN REMEBRANCE of Me, not that the ritual of that is physically changed into His real body and real blood, but figuratively and symbolically, just like all His other teachings and parables in the New Testament

[@Oculoustuos]

The Truth of the Holy Eucharist is the belief that at the Consecration, it is the Lord Who is present, living and risen, body, blood, soul and divinity. The Orthodox also believe as Catholics believe in the Real Presence but they do not use the word transubstantiation which is rooted in an Aristotelian understanding of matter.

[@Oculoustuos]

Moreover, under the appearance of bread Christ’s Body is present but not only His Body but the whole Person of Christ; likewise with the wine at consecration. So there is at once the Real Presence under both appearances and the Sign of His Death in the different elements- a sign- because as a sign the Sacrament shows forth a “separation” of Body and Blood = death, but as a Reality Christ is truly present under both forms.

[@TheTruthsOfOurFaith]

Transubstantiation is garbage.1John 4:2 Tells us that Jesus came in a real body. Came means in the past. And in a real body means that Jesus was a real physical human being just like us. John is telling us that Jesus was visible to our senses. John also tells us to not deviate from this teaching. John wrote this in90 a.d many years after Jesus died. John did not tell anyone that Jesus was in the local catholic church every sunday in bread and wine. Catholics have changed the word of God and added something to the bible. If Jesus were the bread and wine then John is a liar because John makes it clear that Jesus was in a physical body not bread and wine. And if John is a liar then why do catholics have a bible? Why follow the bible if the bible lies. Because John is not a liar, that means catholics are liars. 1John3:6 tells us that sinners dont know God or understand Him. So catholics cant even teach anyone about God because they don't know God.

[@Oculoustuos]

@@TheTruthsOfOurFaith you suffer from Catholic derangement syndrome. Your presentation is both rude and convoluted. What is it about “My flesh is food indeed and My blood is drink indeed”, that you fail to understand?

[@BabuThomas-by9ru]

Bishaporu halpar job tharamo

[@pelurusdoktrin8850]

God is a SUBSTANCE, isn't it?

[@anthonymuniz1197]

Doesn’t this make us cannibals? If not why? Secondly doesn’t us doing this make it like we are all putting him on the cross again? I NEED ANSWERS

[@sunnyjohnson992]

Jesus didn’t mean his followers were to literally eat his flesh or drink his blood. Why not? After the Flood, God gave man permission to eat the flesh of animals, but directly forbade man to consume blood. (Genesis 9:3,4) This command was repeated in the Mosaic Law, which Jesus obeyed fully. And the apostles were inspired by Holy Spirit to renew the command against consuming blood, making that law biding upon all Christians. (Acts 15:20,29) Would Jesus institute an observance that would require his followers to violate a sacred decree of Almighty God? Impossible!! The bread and wine are only symbols!

[@BneiAnusim]

4:00, You are saying that Christ is present at the consecration? Matthew 28:20 - New Catholic Bible 20 and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you ALWAYS, to the end of the world.” 😉

[@Ryan_Zell]

John 6:51. Watch an Elder of the SDA, Samuel Williams, kill his witness to Christ. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hXfUg5t-lqZmrLs He is still there trying to convince us that its okay to deny the Red Letter Words of Christ: "...., and the bread that I will give IS my flesh, for the life of the world.

[@voterthatreads158]

Please define a "unified substance" (~6:00). What would make a substance ununified? If none of the properties of the eucharistic bread change, how does the bread change into the body of Christ? How could one tell if the process failed, likely due to clergy error or insincerity? Changing bread into human flesh, even divine human flesh, would not change the quality of that bread (6:23)? Does the bread change molecularly to flesh? Does the protein content of the bread increase after transubstantiation? Could we isolate Christ's DNA from transubstantiated Eucharist since it is now his flesh? If knowledge will not save us (7:06), why spend so much time and effort explaining and presenting me with this information (i.e. knowledge) about this sacrament?

[@MichaelG485]

Because he needs to think his irrational beliefs are rational.

[@amol_6561]

God sends signs. Search for "Lanciano's host miracle". Don't be like Saint Thomas. Believe in Christ's words in John 6, 48-61. This is the belief of the firsts christians: web.ics.purdue.edu/~ctl/handout/ChurchFathers.pdf

[@voterthatreads158]

@@amol_6561 I don't understand how you answered any of my questions. Please clarify.

[@bobbyrice2858]

Additionally… Catholic apologist Tim Staples writes, “If Jesus was speaking in purely symbolic terms, his competence as a teacher would have to be called into question. No one listening to him understood him to be speaking metaphorically.”[12] In response to this objection, we need to remember that Jesus’ audience was “grumbling” even before he made the claim about eating his flesh (v.41). They were “grumbling” over the fact that he said, “I have come down out of heaven” (v.42) Moreover, when Jesus heard his disciples grumbling, he corrected their interpretation by saying, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” (v.63). The problem wasn’t with Jesus’ teaching, but rather with the fact that the audience left before he finished his teaching. Jesus uses parallelism in this discourse to equate believing with eating his flesh. Note the parallel between verse 40 and verse 54: (Jn. 6:40) “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” According to this parallel, beholding and believing (v.40) are equated with eating and drinking Christ’s flesh (v.54). This is further paralleled by verse 35: (Jn. 6:35) I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” To “hunger” and “thirst” and parallel to the one who “eats” and “drinks.” But note what Jesus says satisfies our hunger: “He who comes to Me… he who believes in Me.” Jesus isn’t speaking about his literal flesh and blood any more than he is speaking about literal bread (Jn. 6:35) or literal water (Jn. 4:10-14). Indeed, Jesus uses the term sarx for his “body,” rather than the common term sōma (which was the common term used in the Lord’s Supper). Indeed, the “term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper.”Hence, this seems “to caution against a sacramental or eucharistic understand of these verses.”This is why Augustine of Hippo wrote regarding this passage: “Believe, and you have eaten.”

[@chanceDdog2009]

From the sky Fire rains , it came from Moscow. Mother's cover their children, fathers raise their weapons. The west says words that do not become action. The world watches. The faithful pray. War marches forward, stomping on justice. We are all someone in this madness. In This painting, history will record. Pick your station for all to remember...

[@seamusmurphy5149]

All of this from Jesus saying unless you eat my body and drink my blood you will have no part in heaven. Sometimes it’s wiser to admit you don’t understand something. There is a lot that goes beyond the bible here, drawing on mans wisdom which is foolishness on to God.

[@JamesMathison98]

What is wrong? It explains the what, not how

[@friendlybanjoatheist5464]

As an outsider trying really hard to understand your worldview, (and as a longtime student at a Dominican graduate school ), I find it hard not to cringe while hearing this explanation. This explanation of the Eucharist is a fine example of the fact that any physical phenomenon can be rendered consistent with pretty much any theological system that humans wish to build and maintain in the face of apparently contrary observable phenomena. At 3:45 we see how the worry that nothing changes in the molecular structure of the host is easily dispatched simply by pointing out that an omnipotent being can change the “substance“ while leaving the “accidents“ intact. Sure, that means no logical contradiction. But so what? Metaphysical speculation will always work for enthusiasts determined enough to cling to a particularly precious viewpoint. And rather than simply saying that Jesus meant the “my flesh” stuff symbolically, or perhaps it’s a textual error and he never said anything at all of the sort, we build metaphysical systems to save the appearances. I would not find that particularly comforting even where I a Catholic. (Nor the invocation to let faith soothe my worry that contortionist metaphysics has been summoned when a simple change in viewpoint would account for the phenomenon with far greater theoretical virtues.) We’re just different that way. 😉🪕. But I do appreciate the clarity of this concise but informative video. Thank you for that.

[@thomasjorge4734]

Not Metaphysics, but History; attested to by the Church, from the beginning and maintained by all Ancient Churches, to this day.

[@zenbanjo2533]

@@thomasjorge4734 Well, the talk of substance and accidents and all that is metaphysics. And were they really saying this “from the beginning“? So, why did Aquinas need to spend so much time flushing it out in the 13th century? I do not think you have thought my point through. Sorry.

[@thomasjorge4734]

@@zenbanjo2533 Like the Trinity and the First Animals, Transubstatiation existed before being Named.

[@zenbanjo2533]

@@thomasjorge4734 So did Consubstantiation. 😉. (IOW, you’re begging the question.)

[@matthewanderson1262]

Why do you not offer the cup of blood that forgives sins to the congregation? Only the priest that thinks he controls people's forgiveness of sins. Is this a power play? Tradition changed all of this.

[@scottknapp8984]

So God is not spirit. He’s physical in a wafer made in a factory (yes, that’s what was said in this video with a lot of associated sophistry). This is what you get when an existing, and sometimes preposterous, proclamation seeks an explanation. “Can’t back out of this transubstantiation thing now, it’s out there!” The explanation then amounts to a series of thought circles and knots. I believe a physical presence is a requirement for people with weak faith. Meaning some people need their senses fed in order to know God exists. Unless they see miracles, they just can’t believe. Someone said that before, right?

[@Violivios]

Take at least 10,000 steps back and learn about what you're saying before you do this again. God is of three forms, those three forms of which are not the other. One of those forms, Christ, has a physical body. The Trinity is literally the basis of Christianity and you don't even have that understood.

[@Violivios]

@@robertwarner-ev7wp If you never believed in his presence then you never received communion. Depends on you really.

[@Violivios]

@@robertwarner-ev7wp You don't know what the phrase 'cognitive dissonance' means as much as you probably say it. All are given grace no matter the circumstances, but the ones who accept it are the ones who receive it. If I hand you a quarter and you don't pick it up then you haven't received it. If I hand you a quarter and you put it in your pocket without ever having the intention of spending it, nor do you recognize it as your property, did you receive it? Not until you recognize that A, it's yours, and B, you'll use it.

[@Violivios]

@@robertwarner-ev7wp You also don't seem to know what 'cult' means given your connotation of it. Root of the word 'culture', a gathered mass of similar things. You cast your smarmy comments out on Catholics no different than most Protestants or Atheists would. Are you really going to tell me there isn't a culture surrounding those two groups? As a protestant for 12 years, an atheist for 11 years, and a converting Catholic for the last 3 years I can guarantee you there's been a gigantic cult made of bashing Christians as a whole with a basis of nothing more than ignorance. And I can also say Catholics bear the greatest brunt of it.

[@mohamedaliouat]

So it looks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck but it's not a Duck?!

[@bobbyrice2858]

John 6 (1) GRAMMATICALLY, this cannot refer to transubstantiation. The terms “eat” and “drink” are in the aorist tense-not the ongoing tense (Jn. 6:53).[7] Of course, the Lord’s Supper is a repeated act-not a once-for-all sacrament. Thus the grammar of the passage is incompatible with the Roman Catholic practice of the Lord’s Supper. (2) HISTORICALLY, this cannot refer to transubstantiation. This teaching in John 6 occurred just before the Passover (Jn. 6:4), which was at least a full year before the Last Supper (Mt. 26:26). Thus, it is anachronistic to claim that Jesus is referring to the Lord’s Supper here. His original audience would’ve had no idea what he was talking about if this were the case. Moreover, if transubstantiation is true, then Jesus was transubstantiating the elements before his sacrifice on the Cross. Yet Jesus uses the present tense (“eats” “drinks”) throughout verses 54-57. Can we really believe that the elements were transformed over a year before he died on the Cross? (3) CONTEXTUALLY, this cannot refer to transubstantiation. Jesus was not referring to the Passover-but the manna in the wilderness. In fact, Jesus opens and closes this section by referring to the manna-not the Passover (vv.49-50, 58). While John earlier states that “the Passover… was near” (Jn. 6:4), the immediate context of this passage refers to the manna in the wilderness (Ex. 16:4ff). (4) INTELLIGIBLY, this cannot refer to transubstantiation. Such a reading would contradict Jesus’ earlier statements. Up until this point, Jesus claimed that the only qualification for salvation was faith-not works (Jn. 6:29, 35, 40, 47). If Jesus was adding the Lord’s Supper as necessary for salvation, then this would contradict everything that he said up until that point. Carson writes, “The language of vv. 53-54 is so completely unqualified that if its primary reference is to the Eucharist we must conclude that the one thing necessary to eternal life is participation at the Lord’s Table. This interpretation of course actually contradicts the earlier parts of the discourse, not least v.40.” The early church fathers had multiple interpretations of this passage. Geisler and MacKenzie write, “Even Catholic scholars admit, the Fathers were by no means unanimous in their interpretation… But some Fathers clearly opposed the idea of taking literally the phrase ‘this is my body.’ Second, many of the Fathers simply supported the idea of Jesus’ real presence in the communion, not that the elements were literally transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. So the later dogma of transubstantiation cannot be based on any early or unanimous consent of the Fathers which Catholics claim for it.”[9] For instance, regarding this passage, Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) writes, “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat my flesh and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith.” the Passover was a multifaceted celebration-not only referring to the blood sacrifice. It also included God’s rescue and salvation of his people. Borchert writes, “For Christians who do not usually live with the experience of the Passover Seder, it is crucial to recognize that the celebration of Passover focuses not merely on the lamb but on the entire exodus rescue experience. Passover epitomizes God’s claiming and releasing of his people as well as his preservation of the people by supplying them with food and rescuing them from the threatening sea. Passover is a multifaceted identifying celebration.”[11] Therefore, since the text doesn’t make the focus of the Passover about the blood, neither should the interpreter. But why did Jesus bring up blood at all? Most likely, Jesus incorporated the concept of blood to show that his “manna” would not be a painless gift (like the white wafers descending from heaven), but a bloody sacrifice that would cost him his life. By mentioning blood, Jesus is pointing forward to the Cross-not to the Lord’s Supper. Blood was an image with which this Jewish audience was familiar. The priests and worshippers would eat the sacrifice, but they would never drink the blood. Leviticus explains, “I [God] will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:10-11; c.f. Gen. 9:3-4). By drinking the blood of the sacrifice, an observant Jew would be thinking that an animal could actually atone for his sins, but God wanted to be clear that these couldn’t actually give them spiritual life (Heb. 9:22). By contrast, Jesus is saying that the blood of his Cross will actually pay for humanity’s sins (1 Pet. 1:19-20; Heb. 9:11-12; 10:1).

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

Here's the problem I have. This whole doctrine of "Transubstantiation" is derivative. In other words, it is derived from what Jesus said at that last supper (and what He said in John 6). It has been reduced to a mechanical function of the clergy, which the church of the New Testament knew nothing about. Why can't it be a function of the person receiving the bread and wine? Is there a scriptural mandate for a religious functionary (i.e. a priest)? If so, can anyone cite that requirement (giving Book / Chapter / Verse)? To be clear, this looks to me like just so much make-work for an otherwise idle priest-class. If it were today as it was in the first century, where people just ate the bread and drank the wine with the understanding that they were indeed consuming the actual body and blood of Jesus, would that violate some biblical commandment, mandate, or other requirement? If so, please cite the passage.

[@HillbillyBlack]

The problem is the hyper focus on the metaphysical and not remembrance through the action. The bread and wine IS Christ. Scripture just never clarifies how and in what sense directly because the point is not the substance but the action. Rome has become obsessed with the substance and has forgotten the action. And worse, this has created several generations of fallen away Catholics who focus on their faith in their faith rather than keeping their eyes directly on Jesus. You don’t do that by internalizing the idea of consuming him literally but rather by taking in the truth of his father which is his word. Premise the chapter with John 6:26 in mind. Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.” (Jn. 6:40) “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” According to this parallel, beholding and believing (v.40) are equated with eating and drinking Christ’s flesh (v.54). This is further paralleled by verse 35: (Jn. 6:35) I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” To “hunger” and “thirst” and parallel to the one who “eats” and “drinks.” But note what Jesus says satisfies our hunger: “He who comes to Me… he who believes in Me.” Jesus isn’t speaking about his literal flesh and blood any more than he is speaking about literal bread (Jn. 6:35) or literal water (Jn. 4:10-14). Indeed, Jesus uses the term sarx for his “body,” rather than the common term sōma (which was the common term used in the Lord’s Supper). Indeed, the “term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper.” Hence, this seems “to caution against a sacramental or eucharistic understand of these verses.”This is why Augustine of Hippo wrote regarding this passage: “Believe, and you have eaten.”

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@HillbillyBlack - I don't have any problem with the literal eating of His literal body and literally drinking His literal blood. My problem comes from having to insert a special clergyman into the mix. That was NEVER a requirement by either Christ or the apostles. When Jesus said, "My flesh is meat (food) indeed and my blood is drink indeed", we cannot ignore the obvious implication there. The Gospel of John provides "filler" information. Many of the things the other gospel writers include, John purposely excludes (like the Transfiguration, the Lord's Supper, and the baptism of Jesus). He wasn't going over all those same stories. Now, some of the things told by the other writers he did include so this is not a hard and fast rule. John 3, "Born of water and the Spirit", is an OBVIOUS reference to the ritual of baptism. John 6, "Eat my flesh and drink my blood" is an obvious reference to the Lord's Supper. Lastly, pay attention to what the bible lays down as a rule of interpretation (hermeneutics). If God says it once in His word then, whatever but if He says it twice or three times then you'd BETTER observe it, right? "By the mouth of two or three witnesses let all things be established" (or words to that effect). In God's word, it is recorded FOUR TIMES, "This is my body", and "This is my blood". "Do this in remembrance of me." A lot of people hear Him say, "This REPRESENTS my body" and "This REPRESENTS my blood" but you can look in any translation and never find the word represents. If we're not eating His flesh and drinking His blood then in what sense are we doing "this" in memory of Him? Sometimes the substance is important. Sometimes the form is important. When we give ourselves excuses for skirting the commandment, we're bringing damnation on ourselves. Paul said almost this exact same thing in First Corinthians 11. His commandments are not grievous but boy howdy, folks want to do everything in the world EXCEPT keep those commandments. It's so biblical, it's scary.

[@HillbillyBlack]

@@GizmoFromPizmo I would say the bigger problem I would have is bowing to the bread, as they do. That’s borderline second Commandment a dollar tree

[@jvlp2046]

Christ Jesus is the Spiritual BREAD (Flesh) and WINE (Blood) of the PARTAKERS (true Christians) and not the Literal/Physiological BODY and BLOOD... Amen...

[@hjsimpson]

Where do you guys come from? Did one of your prot friends share this video?

[@jvlp2046]

@@hjsimpson Christ Jesus said to His Apostles, "The WORDS I have spoken to you are SPIRITUAL, for the SPIRIT gives LIFE, while the FLESH profits/counts NOTHING." (ref. John 6:63)... Therefore, the Literal BREAD and WINE are "SPIRITUAL SYMBOLISM" of the FLESH and BLOOD of Christ Jesus that Christ Himself instructed His Apostles to "DO THIS" (Spiritual PARTAKERS) to COMMEMORATE (remembrance) Christ's Sufferings, Death on the Cross, Resurrection and Ascended back in Heaven to SIT at the Right-Hand side of His Father God's Throne...(ref. Mark 14:22-25 / Luke 22:18-20 / 1 Corin. 11:23-25). Facts and Truth of the Matters, Biblically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.

[@paules3437]

Faith in and of itself isn't to be lauded like this without some kind of explanation of what you're believing in. I might believe in Fairies; does that make them real? I know it's fruitless to argue this but honestly, look at the convolutions necessary to describe this idea that a wafer I take in church is a man's body and the wine is his blood. The very descriptions of transubstantiation are themselves symbolic, not literal. Astonishing that people believe this literal. You know, Jesus may have said, "This is my body" (and I use the word "may" on purpose; truth is we don't KNOW what he said; we only know what was REPORTED he said years after his life.), but he also said, "I am the vine." Was he a vine? And just exactly when did Aquinas visit New York?? ; )

[@HillbillyBlack]

The problem is the hyper focus on the metaphysical and not remembrance through the action. The bread and wine IS Christ. Scripture just never clarifies how and in what sense directly because the point is not the substance but the action. Rome has become obsessed with the substance and has forgotten the action. And worse, this has created several generations of fallen away Catholics who focus on their faith in their faith rather than keeping their eyes directly on Jesus. You don’t do that by internalizing the idea of consuming him literally but rather by taking in the truth of his father which is his word.

[@darkya7068]

1:38 among us

[@WellFedSheep]

How about you drop the sacraments, get born again, and then you yourself become part of God's body. Ephesians 5:30 KJV For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

[@WellFedSheep]

@@robertwarner-ev7wp Baptism is an ordinance as is communion that is not necessary for salvation or required to live righteously. It is something that is good to do according to the way and for the reasons laid out in the bible. The Catholic Church twists these biblical practices according to their own traditions (just as the Pharisees "clarified" the Levitical law with their own traditions that undermined the commandments of God) and place extreme emphasis on these practices to the point that they interfere with the actual purpose of the gospel as Paul himself pointed. 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 KJV 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

[@WellFedSheep]

@@robertwarner-ev7wp If you go to verse 36 of that same chapter (I assume you are referring to Act 2:38 KJV) you will see that Peter is addressing the house of Israel a.k.a. the Jews. When the Lord sends him to the Gentiles to preach the gospel in Acts 10:44 KJV they receive the Holy Ghost WITHOUT being baptized first and later when Paul is given further revelation from Jesus baptism is not even part of the process of salvation but is an ordinance. Romans 10:8-10 KJV 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

[@1SheepishWolf]

The apostles would have lost their minds if he actually meant it was his body and blood. They were Jewish. Peter and Jesus were Jewish!

[@jvlp2046]

TRANSUBSTANTIATION is a R.C.C. Doctrine wherein the Literal BREAD and WINE miraculously became the Literal FLESH and BLOOD of Christ Jesus during the Sacrament of the Eucharist... The Early 7 Churches of God in Asia Minor of the 1st Cent. A.D. does not have this Doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION... Christ Jesus never taught to His Apostle this doctrine, not even written in the Holy Scripture (WORD) of God... NON-BIBLICAL... (nowhere to be found)... Facts and Truth of the Matters, Biblically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.

[@ResIpsa-bj3mt]

By this logic I have a Ferrari to sell you. It just looks and feels like a Honda Civic.

[@timothydavy968]

As a vegan I refuse to take part in the eucharist

[@JamesMathison98]

This is absurd