Answering Taylor Marshall on the Eucharist

[@kruton9000]

Protestants who were in the GULAG for their faith in God in the Soviet Union took communion with black prison bread and water in aluminum prison mugs. Don't get too carried away with the "correctness" of your Eucharist but remember the suffering of Christ at that moment. We must strive for perfection but not forget about Grace.

[@jdub3999]

Just say you think it’s a symbol. In context, the Christians in the gulag were Eastern Orthodox, did they think it was just a symbol.

[@Jb11245]

Read "He leadeth me" by Fr. Walter Ciszek, S.J, if you want a catholic perspective on being a prisoner in the Gulag camps. It's the best book on spirituality I've read. He also talks quite a bit about his fellow protestant/orthodox prisoners and their faith.

[@authorityfigure1630]

Yeah bro.. that wasn’t the Eucharist. That was black prison bread and water.

[@the.rogue.roman.77]

I guarantee you the Orthodox and Catholics in the gulags were NOT doing that. There is nothing particularly heroic about a bad understanding of the Eucharist.

[@raskolnikov6443]

@@the.rogue.roman.77they missed out

[@Reeves-k7r]

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

[@TruthUnites]

Many thanks, glad it was useful!

[@bjoeym]

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

[@myfakinusername]

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

[@tategarrett3042]

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

[@bjoeym]

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

[@ts-js353]

Thanks for your openness and desire to engage on those hurtful divisions. As we start advent and towards Christmas, we will share at least one of the divine mystery, the incarnation. I hope we can with good will appreciate the other great Mysteries of our Faith.

[@ATLucy]

Highly recommend the book Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist by Dr Brant Pitri

[@ethanf.237]

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

[@HelloFromSaints]

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

[@aericabison23]

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

[@ianmarcRoxU]

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

[@zacdredge3859]

I'm sure someone will come along to wine about your reaction though.

[@aericabison23]

@@zacdredge3859 I don’t think I’ll be able to take the wheat.

[@faithfulacresfarmhouse]

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

[@TheSignofJonah777]

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

[@jgons]

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

[@KYWingfold]

The Anglican Communion is the third largest group of Christians after Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, and we also believe in real presence, as it’s in our articles of faith. Also, surveys of RCs show that the majority of them don’t understand transubstantiation at all, and many hold to a symbolic view of the Eucharist. Bottom line is we try not to judge other expressions by a random lay person, but by their stated beliefs.

[@Robert-r4s4c]

@@KYWingfold You do not have "real presence " because your ministers are not authorised to consecrate the bread and wine.

[@happy777abc]

I grew up Catholic. They never stressed the real presence when I was a child but I was confirmed etc in the church. I was given an award at age 11 for being spiritually gifted ( in the Catholic Church). Ok. So fast forward I. Went to a Bible church age 20 because I was very lonely and friends invited me to Bible study which I loved, at their church. Nothing was said bad about the Catholic church I just needed friendship. My parents divorced and I was alone the only girl in my family w three brothers. We were all broken. So, as I grew in the Word I was being healed. I took communion often at Bible church and at home to feel close to Jesus who I love very much. I have to say in a number of occasions I was healed and set free in different ways while taking communion and while not taking communion though I never focused on the real presence. I focused on repentance my live for the Lord my growth in sacrifice to help others and my reading of the Word and prayer. I guess my point is, it didn't affect my healing and deliverance that I didn't focus on the real presence. I want others to know what Christ has done for me he'll do for anyone as they seek Him and draw closer to Him and follow Him. Leave the world behind. Amen. Viva Cristo Rey

[@bradleymarshall5489]

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

[@John-pz1zx]

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

[@connor-do2bg]

@@John-pz1zx fair enough

[@bradleymarshall5489]

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

[@SeanusAurelius]

@@John-pz1zx if I had a dollar for every EO catechumen who declares Orthodoxy is the One True Faith with no rationale at all, I could both shout you your college and pay off the other guys loans.

[@stephenwright4973]

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

[@foodforthought8308]

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

[@stephenwright4973]

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

[@mrjustadude1]

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

[@rexlion4510]

Catholics don't merely venerate the Eucharist, they adore and worship the Eucharist. They render worship toward a visible, touchable, man-made object which is (at the least) the image of bread and the image of wine, if not the very bread and wine themselves. This is in direct contradiction to their First Commandment: Exo 20:4,5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." Lev 26:1 "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God." The Israelites created a calf of gold, declared it to be Almighty God, and worshiped it. As punishment, Moses had the calf ground up and made the people ingest the gold. The Roman Catholics create wafers of bread, declare them to be Almighty God, raise them up in monstrances and worship them. Then they ingest them.

[@dankmartin6510]

Jesus said it was his body and blood - so to somehow divine idolatry from that seems to imply that protestants had no idea what they were talking about.

[@stevereason6931]

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

[@AZmom60]

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

[@stevereason6931]

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

[@Mercyme57]

Thanks for the effort you put into this comment…God bless you. 🙏

[@rexlion4510]

Good job, Steve. I just want to share a great quote from St. Augustine which supports this Biblically solid position. Augustine wrote "On Christian Doctrine” (Book 3), where we can read this: *"Chap. 16.-Rule for interpreting commands and prohibitions* "24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; *it is therefore a figure,* enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." Augustine clearly stated that Jesus' words in John 6:53 were meant to be taken _figuratively,_ not carnally (literally). The Roman church ignores the parts of Tradition it doesn't like, such as this quote, because it doesn't help solidify the church's power position and income stream. Interpreting Jesus' words literally has the effect of making the Roman clergy a necessary dispenser of "Jesus" to the common folk.

[@stevereason6931]

@@rexlion4510 Thank you Rex. I have read some of St. Augustine's writings, but had not read "On Christian Doctrine" and was not familiar with his quote you shared. Thank you for this insight, in addition to your own insight. Blessings brother!

[@seanmalone2]

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

[@adamcbeck]

But many modern evangelicals DO reject Real Presence! Every evangelical church I’ve been to in the past forty years teaches John 6 as metaphoric and communion as symbolic.

[@mj6493]

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

[@julesgomes2922]

@mj6493 He is simply being disingenuous.

[@NP-vk8de]

He certainly is not a genuine Christian. 😢

[@norala-gx9ld]

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

[@HiHoSilvey]

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

[@NP-vk8de]

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

[@BritCol72]

Thanks!

[@ir4ge294]

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

[@malcolmlayton2050]

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

[@graysonguinn1943]

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

[@andrewnunez7894]

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

[@jameskeys971]

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

[@VVeremoose]

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

[@julesgomes2922]

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

[@joshuareeves5103]

Right?? Is that too much to ask!?

[@FiatVoluntasTuaAmen]

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

[@joshuareeves5103]

@@FiatVoluntasTuaAmen not what his argument is.

[@FiatVoluntasTuaAmen]

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

[@joshuareeves5103]

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

[@philblagden]

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

[@MrSeedi76]

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

[@TomPlantagenet]

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

[@SanguiniustheGreatAngel]

That is what I’ve always believed as well.

[@malcolmlayton2050]

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

[@StandupGuy55]

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

[@brianlarue3540]

Very well said

[@ramseyeckhardt4659]

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

[@malcolmlayton2050]

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

[@ramseyeckhardt4659]

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

[@caleb.lindsay]

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

[@FiatVoluntasTuaAmen]

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

[@philblagden]

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

[@robertdelisle7309]

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

[@StandupGuy55]

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

[@robertdelisle7309]

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

[@geraldmurphy321]

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

[@robertdelisle7309]

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

[@alanberry5091]

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

[@answeringadventism]

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

[@Zeebopbudoobop]

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

[@Akhgy]

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

[@Adamcatholic]

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

[@Zeebopbudoobop]

@@Akhgy thanks for proving my point

[@Akhgy]

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

[@MOOREENGAGING]

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

[@TitusThundr]

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

[@Tiredhike]

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

[@dallasbrat81]

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

[@Akhgy]

Not all anglicans do lol

[@Akhgy]

@@dallasbrat81not all do lol..

[@Tiredhike]

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

[@matthew7491]

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

[@johngeverett]

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

[@palabraviva5840]

I am a missionary in Mexico , mostly work in the mountains with indigenous people groups, and the priest goes out to the villages and performs mass with the people and they take the Eucharist but continually live in sin. The priest says nothing to them about taking it in a unworthy manner. This doesn’t get talked about enough(my opinion) in both circles. Could be even a more serious issue.

[@jdub3999]

I don’t want to attack you but maybe that’s an oversimplification of why this is happening.

[@PadraigTomas]

Certainly, the Catholic Church looks to _1 Corinthians 11:23-29_ in its understanding of how one should receive communion.

[@ThePlagueGameing]

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

[@StandupGuy55]

Verse 63!

[@vinceplanetta8415]

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

[@yesenia3816]

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

[@ParksLover]

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

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

@@yesenia3816 Not true.

[@JamioMarghera]

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

[@yesenia3816]

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

[@j.sethfrazer]

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

[@j.sethfrazer]

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

[@ora_et_labora1095]

Same 🤣

[@aericabison23]

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

[@andrewvalantine184]

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

[@ChrisVink-b5b]

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

[@mj_byrd]

This video was so timely and exactly what I needed to see. I recently decided NOT to convert to Catholicism after four years so going back and forth. I made a list of things I learned from Catholicism and that I’d like to take with me. The first on the list was extreme reverence for the Presence in the Eucharist.

[@TimRogers34]

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

[@Groundbreaker]

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

[@ryandelaune139]

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

[@TimRogers34]

@ I follow on Patreon. Early release for us.

[@Groundbreaker]

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

[@stephengray1344]

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

[@zachbattles9762]

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

[@geraldmurphy321]

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

[@geraldmurphy321]

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

[@hexahexametermeter]

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

[@geraldmurphy321]

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

[@rickdockery9620]

@@hexahexametermeterthere are many cups at mass, not just one.

[@geraldmurphy321]

One chalice is needed and many people can drink from it. It is a chalice because it is holy (set apart) for sacred worship unlike cups which could be used for many things. More chalices can be used but multiple people will drink from one chalice. I think this exemplifies that we are not only communing with God but our fellow believers. Single serve cups signify individuality which is a predominant philosophical ideology in the US non denom churches.

[@tategarrett3042]

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

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

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

[@thatoneskinnykid]

blargus

[@tategarrett3042]

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

[@tategarrett3042]

@@thatoneskinnykid 💣

[@cephandrius5281]

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

[@DavidWoods-p5s]

This is great! thanks.

[@ilovechrist914]

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

[@missinglink_eth]

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

[@easytiger35]

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

[@missinglink_eth]

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

[@SeanusAurelius]

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

[@brianrinz5586]

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

[@easytiger35]

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

[@mrjustadude1]

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

[@Sklabah]

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

[@TheOtherPhilip]

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

[@geoffjs]

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

[@TheOtherPhilip]

@ So the romanist’s claim goes…

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

Came here to say this exact thing lol 🤝

[@rickdockery9620]

@@geoffjsaccidents of bread and wine. Learn ur faith

[@tcrosslinho5565]

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

[@johnsteichen5239]

In my drift from classic 1950 catholic traditions to community church Protestant practices I have adopted a personal belief that communion for me is whatever Christ intended. Despite the plastic cup grape juice and cracker elements , I resign myself the spiritual intent of Christ, and allow myself to join to Him as he intended. That simple, and that complicated in the name of the Lord Jesus.

[@geoffjs]

Typical Protestant response, you make no sense! Jesus intent in Jn 6 as is 1 Cor 11:23-27 is clear

[@michellecheriekjv4115]

Excellent teaching...Thanks.

[@SinceAD33]

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

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

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

[@SinceAD33]

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

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

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

[@SeanusAurelius]

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

[@Nonreligeousthiestic]

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

[@enzogabrielcaldas2796]

Great video, Gavin!

[@luisr5577]

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

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

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

[@ora_et_labora1095]

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

[@lyssadobbins7209]

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

[@palabraviva5840]

Thanks for the invite but I’m good 😊

[@Brigitte619]

I always wonder why the Reformed insist on being Reformed when they could be Lutheran.

[@JenniferThorne]

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

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

Lutheranism over here if you want it lol

[@DavidTextle]

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

[@gregorylatta8159]

You have my condolences.

[@JusheisAwesome]

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

[@returnofthekingpodcast]

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

[@kaysandee]

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

[@a.ihistory5879]

"exposing" lol funny

[@absolutepixels3812]

​@@a.ihistory5879Yeah right, it doesn't need exposition. It's clear as crystal he is arrogant and uncharitable.

[@jessebartunek3195]

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

[@mrjustadude1]

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

[@JP-rf8rr]

I mean, by that logic we'd have to conclude that at least a thid of catholics are just as bad holding to a symbolic view. I think it's more fruitful to compare confessions/official doctrines.

[@mrjustadude1]

@JP-rf8rr 1/3 of catholics are just as bad for holding that view. No serious Catholic would disagree, a large number of Catholics are heritics by their own church's standard.

[@jessebartunek3195]

@JP-rf8rr true assessment. I don't think comparing the Confessions/etc really helps though. I think the issue comes down to Americanism. A staunch Catholic and a staunch confessional Protestant will both act with reverence toward Christ and His mandates no matter their precise interpretation. Americanism focuses more on the individual and their feelings and interpretations and has led to our ever expanding list of accepted interpretations of scripture and practical applications in service or even outright abandonment of orthodox Christian belief and practice. I would recommend Bryan Wolfmueller, Has American Christianity Failed?

[@mrjustadude1]

@jessebartunek3195 American protestants don't treat the eucharist with the same level of reverence, that's the issue.

[@cerealbowl7038]

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

[@geoffjs]

Wrong choice, believe me!

[@rexlion4510]

When you see a house, does it testify to the existence of a house builder? When you see a fine painting or a piece of handmade pottery, does it testify to the existence of a painter or a potter who created it? When you see the grandeur of this earth with its variety of plants and animals, many of which exist in symbiotic relationships (where one cannot live without the other), and when you see the intricacy of living organisms with their unique DNA patterns and specialized structures, don't these things testify to the existence of a creator? Or can you believe that all things came into being by the power of coincidence and happenstance? Can _nothing_ create something so intricate, detailed, and finely balanced as this vast universe and all that is within it?

[@cerealbowl7038]

@@rexlion4510 DNA and symbiotic relationships are well explained by evolution.

[@rexlion4510]

@@cerealbowl7038 And they are contradicted by the scientific principle of entropy. All things devolve from a relatively high state of order to a lower state of order over time.

[@marvinnorstrom2636]

Thank you brother.

[@Son-du4pn]

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

[@TheresaCronin-kc6wz]

Listening to you I thank God we have the Magisterium on . Protestants continue to protest and miss out on Christ truly present in the Consecrated Host while Catholics and Orthodox receive Jesus who wants us to be physically united to Him. Keep on protesting. Concentrated Host , Concentration is what Protestants do not have therefore no Eucharist Miracles.

[@AdithiaKusno]

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

[@wonderingpilgrim]

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

[@consecratedsoul]

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

[@DanOcchiogrosso-uj4be]

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

[@DanOcchiogrosso-uj4be]

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

[@TitusThundr]

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

[@bluetapp77]

I’m so happy to see this topic being discussed. I have always been so disappointed in the lackadaisical attitude of many Protestants toward Communion… the infrequency of it, the “plastic shot glasses” and stale crackers… those little “lunchables” version with the teeny wafer taped inside the top of the plastic cup are the worst. It feels so terribly irreverent to be almost insulting. I think some Protestants try too hard to be nothing like Catholics that they overemphasize that this is ONLY a symbol! Don’t you dare think it’s anything meaningful! I grew up Southern Baptist and then nondenominational and I have always been bothered by this. I’ve always thought that Communion SHOULD be so much more. It SHOULD be considered Holy. I sought the LORD about it for many years and have arrived at a consubstantiation view currently. For me it is deeply spiritual and personal. 💙

[@waywayway1459]

As a former Evangelical Protestant that was against the Catholic Church, I believe God showed me the Catholic Church is really the Church that Our Lord and Savior Jesus-Christ created. God bless you all.

[@randallkehbon9030]

Amen

[@seanoconnor5311]

@@waywayway1459 Had you believed the gospel at the time?

[@person-gs6xr]

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

[@kwb284]

. . . And people who think God’s spiritual presence in all created things at all times is no different than God’s presence in the Incarnate person of Jesus Christ on a cross outside Jerusalem must not realize how far one could wander from the Christian faith by being careless with distinctions.

[@Wesleydale754]

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

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

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

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

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

[@lyssadobbins7209]

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

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

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

[@lyssadobbins7209]

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

[@gymnopedie4445]

The most foundational way in which Protestants deviate from historic Christianity wrt Eucharistic theology is their rejection of the re-presentation of Christ's offering in an unbloody manner and the necessity of a priesthood ordained through valid apostolic succession to provide this offering before the Lord. It's what makes Protestantism, truthfully, an entirely different religion from Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

[@geoffjs]

Without altars & no liturgical sacrificial worship, not “church”, rather more like synagogue with prayer & teaching!

[@JohnMark61355]

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

[@geraldmurphy321]

That is not catholic doctrine

[@JohnMark61355]

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

[@geraldmurphy321]

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

[@clivejames5058]

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

[@JohnMark61355]

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

[@lemmingkingyt5618]

Insisting on both kinds for the sake of fittingness is not condemned. Rather, it is insisting on *both kinds* as if *one kind* were sacrilegious - this is what is condemned.

[@haleylewis9587]

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

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

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

[@haleylewis9587]

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

[@mrjustadude1]

One time at litergy, a parishioner bumped the challace, and a few drops hit the floor. Everything stopped. The priest got on his hand and knees and sucked up as much of it as he could. The deacon brought him some alcohol and they doused the location with it and set it on fire. He did this 3 times. They then whipped up the residue with one of the litergical napkins. They placed a small rug over the spot and everyone shifted over and no one stepped on the location for the remainder of the litergy. It added 10 min to the litergy and yet of course no one complained. While the specifics might vary, if your church wouldn't have some sort of similar protocol or if you think this is weird or excessive, I'm sorry, but we don't agree about what the true presence is.

[@geoffjs]

Actions speak louder than words!

[@kevinmac8629]

Baptist Church would just dump the leftovers in the trash. Speaks volumes.

[@vinceplanetta8415]

"But let each of the faithful be zealous, before he eats anything else, to receive the eucharist ... let each one take care that no unbeliever taste the eucharist, nor a mouse nor any other animal, and that nothing of it fall or be lost; for the body of Christ is to be eaten by believers and must not be despised. The cup, when thou hast given thanks in the name of the Lord, thou hast accepted as the image of the blood of Christ. Therefore let none of it be spilled, so that no strange spirit may lick it up, as if thou didst despise it; thou shalt be guilty of the blood, as if thou didst scorn the price with which thou hast been bought." St.Hippolytus

[@mycattitude]

@@vinceplanetta8415 That quote is extra biblical. and that's ok. What I think of when I see the OP recounting that event is: yes, it's lovely that you have that kind of reverence for Holy Communion. I do too, but I express it in different ways. When I think of the biblical example of Jesus when he actually instituted the practice of the Communion to his disciples, it was actually very casual. His words and commands to do it often and to show his death until his coming were weighty, but what he actually did was nothing like the Catholic and Orthodox ritual. it wasn't like the protestant ritual either, we all have different customs. They were having the Passover Meal, and he revealed that they had been doing this for millenia as a type and celebration and foreshadowing of his death. He broke bread and passed his chalice of wine around to them all. If you've ever broke your bread before buttering, you know that crumbs fly. That's what Jesus did, so I'm sure that's what the early disciples did as well, until later customs evolved. There's a wonderful scripture which I believe encapsulates how we need to show grace to one another for different customs: "Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself in the thing which he allows". There is another scripture which also springs to mind: "If any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom. Neither the churches of God".

[@duriuswulkins4324]

Soooo it’s physically Christ’s blood, let’s set it on fire????

[@mikekayanderson408]

It is good to haveRome’s incorrect teaching refuted.

[@hismajesty6272]

* and Luther, and Calvin, and Anglicanism, and Methodism…

[@gardengirlmary]

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

[@rsissel1]

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

[@divinityofblackness6330]

sadly, this is not uncommon

[@FiatVoluntasTuaAmen]

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

[@divinityofblackness6330]

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

[@FiatVoluntasTuaAmen]

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

[@divinityofblackness6330]

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

[@josehuerta4398]

Thanks for sharing

[@geraldmurphy321]

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

[@ThriftyConceit]

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

[@geraldmurphy321]

​@@ThriftyConceitReminds me of Sam Harris

[@mrjustadude1]

​@geraldmurphy321 very much like Sam Harris.

[@beaulin5628]

It is not possible that Christ is being sacrificed over again in every Catholic Mass. The scriptures specifically say that Jesus was sacrificed ONCE and that sacrifice was sufficient to atone for ALL sins for those who believe in him. Christ also declared his work was "finished" on the cross. Hebrews 10:12 "But this man, after he had offered ONE sacrifice for sins FOR EVER, sat down on the right hand of God;" "For by ONE offering he hath perfected FOR EVER them that are sanctified."-Hebrews 10:14

[@geoffjs]

If you want credibility, pls display some intellectual honesty! Yes, Jesus died once for all, however, He commanded an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary Jn 6 51-58 with the priest in persona Christi acting as Jesus the high priest offering Him as victim to His Father. When the priest says, MY body MY blood, it is not that of the priest but that of Jesus. Yes, Christ died once for all our sins, but He commanded perpetual propitiatory sacrifice for our sins which the early church commenced doing. Jesus has forgiven our sins, however, reparation still needs to be made via the Holy Mass Read Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice at all times in all places with the CC doing exactly that daily in most parishes around the world. The words daily bread, in their original language, refer to supernatural bread or Eucharist! If you don’t believe in His Real Presence, investigate Eucharistic miracles, msgs from God which science can’t explain with the same AB blood type & living heart tissue. Visit Carlos Acutis

[@dmthighway]

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

[@scottmcdonald6201]

I always understood the "substance/accident" view of things as a way of using Aristotelian concepts to further elucidate the doctrine

[@geoffjs]

You’re correct! Protestantism doesn’t like Aristotelian thought because it is too logical for them. To support personal interpretation, there is conflict if you try to embrace the logic of Aristotle. The Western world has lost much because of Protestantism starting with its many “truths” ie modern day scourge of relativism!

[@joshuareeves5103]

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

[@duriuswulkins4324]

On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God's right. So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?" My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: "You are the body of Christ, member for member." Augustine sermon 272 on the Eucharist Seems a lot like the Spiritual Presence view.

[@Grzleeoso]

Is the vessel important, or what fills the vessel

[@smart_joey_4179]

Both

[@krisgholson]

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

[@SeanusAurelius]

May I suggest: You don't centre it like in your last sentence, for a start. Without real faith it doesn't benefit and even the suggestion alienates us further. I say you get familiar with the Lutheran view (amply and systematically explained in the Augsburg Apology and Formula of Concord) and learn to really think like a Protestant who loves communion and has a high view of it. The enthusiasm of the Lutherans on KZbin for communion and how it relates to the forgiveness of sin is enormous, if you like to see how to talk about it. You're then equipped for apologetics with low view Protestants on that topic. And you in your turn may hopefully pick something up yourself. May God bless you and your family.

[@Chris-fv3um]

@@SeanusAurelius Top marks to a Protestant who loves communion. Jesus Christ did sell the Eucharist perfectly in Scripture after all - easy to remind oneself or teach others of the compelling reasons to partake in the Eucharist by reading John 4:7-14 & 31-36 and John 6:25-58 then Mark 14:22-24 and Luke 24:39. Nevertheless, the Protestant fails when it comes to partaking in the Eucharist. Why do Protestant Christians not partake of the Eucharist and the Catholic and Orthodox Church Christians do partake of the Eucharist. This is because the Protestant leaders in the 1500's decided they did not want to follow Jesus Christ's instructions in order for Christians to be able to partake of the Eucharist. Protestant leaders in the 1500's claimed the Orthodox and Catholic Church could not possibly have been following the Eucharist instructions Jesus Christ gave the Apostles. The Orthodox and Catholic Church claim they have never stopped following the Eucharist instructions Jesus Christ gave the Apostles. God bless you

[@HillbillyBlack]

"Do this in REMEMBERANCE of me" is the key. the act of participating isn't symbolic. "This is by Body, This is my Blood" has to be taken at face value. here's the kicker though. Jesus NEVER clarifies if its LITTERALLY him. Jesus was a heavy hyperbolic guy who used hyperbole on many occasions. This could be figurative and it could be literal. But here's the thing. The action is about the memorializing of this coming actions on the cross. Not memorial of the action. The action is literal, its Jesus. How and where its irrelevant. A case for either direction is the distraction. The point is what it is in remembrance of. Not that he's actually there. The argument shifting to literally or figurative, carnal or spiritual isn't the message. the message is the Cross.

[@philo-aletheia]

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

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

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

[@quarantinegames5502]

Young Protestant seminarian here with a challenging issue on my heart! How can I reconcile early church history with protestant theology? like could any of them be a pastor at my church? it seems that those who learn from the apostles in the early church have different views than the apostles themselves at least according to scripture? I could be wrong though? for example how can I remain Protestant whenever so many Church fathers have a view of the Eucharist that is so different. or they believe that salvation can be lost and that baptism is required for salvation? I understand but you have to acknowledge at least that the early church fathers align so much closer with Orthodox and Roman Catholic views and belief then many Protestant views and beliefs. like how am I supposed to reconcile with this? for example I don't believe that you can lose your salvation based on the testimony of scripture but I can't think of a single Church Father especially not one that is super close to when the apostles were alive and even the ones that learned from them that would affirm this. however Roman Catholic and orthodox certainly believe that you can lose your salvation and they would even cite church history as a fact that is supported by so many generations of Christians. how am I supposed to reconcile this and I understand that scripture needs to come first but is it not evident whenever all of church history pretty much disagrees with your view? I don't want to be naive and foolish about what I affirm as a Doctrine if everyone for the last 2,000 years has basically disagreed with it Also please don't just say "submit to Rome" or something like that. I have great respect for other Christian traditions that exhalt Christ and his grace in truth, but being told I am outside the one true church and will be damned because of it has made me a hurt person. God bless, and glory to God

[@seanoconnor5311]

@@quarantinegames5502 Be a Lutheran or Anglican? Early church history is on the Protestant side re: the papacy and Marianism.

[@JonathanDavidDummar]

Keep asking the right questions and go where the Spirit leads you. Jesus will guide you, seek Him in prayer.

[@averh6347]

Since Vatican II, the church has more fully developed the view that Protestants are Christians in that they have some of the qualities of the true church. Because one is outside Christ's Church does not mean one is damned, God can save anyone he wants to, only God knows who is damned. Not belonging to one of the true Apostolic Churches is kind of like climbing Mt. Everest without a guide, it can be done but wouldn't it be nice to have guide,.

[@seanoconnor5311]

@averh6347 Which is great, but totally inconsistent with the Catholic teaching of "outside the church there is no salvation" and the infallibly taught anathemas of the canons of Trent. (Yes, anathemas were always understood to be automatic and applied to non Catholics. Read any Catholic source from Bellarmine to the Catholic Encyclopedia, or for that matter, how the word is used in the NT or the LXX)

[@averh6347]

@@seanoconnor5311 I gave you current teaching as stated in Vatican II, look up Lumen Gentium. So why do you want to go back to 1500's? It's difficult to go back that far and understand circumstances.

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

To anathema those who don't believe in transubstantiation is to condone those who practice cannibalism as was assumed by the audience of Jesus in John 6, when in John 6:63, Jesus Himself clarifies that His words in this context are of a spiritual, or parabolic nature

[@MrSeedi76]

John 4:34 KJV [34] Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. It's wild to use John as some kind of argument for real presence considering the spiritual nature of the gospel of John and the simple fact that the eucharistic element of the last supper is completely missing in John.

[@geoffjs]

Jn 6:63 refers to THE flesh, not MY flesh referring to the difficulty humans have with understanding spiritual matters. Jn 6:66, the first Protestants walked away in protest & Jesus didn’t call them back to explain.

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

@@geoffjs you have a funny way of putting words in John 6:66 that are not there. Instead of putting "Protestants" in that scripture, you could easily put "blind Catholics". Lol. Actually, in John 6:26, Jesus identifies who the audience who walked away from Jesus really are

[@myfakinusername]

@@fernandoformeloza4107 Why would Jesus use the verb ''trogo'', to gnaw or to chew, then

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

@@myfakinusername "trogo". So it seems you're going in the Greek of the passage, right? First, refer the specific scripture in question. Then, based on John 6:63, it would be good to understand this in a spiritual, or parabolic nature. How does a cow chew, or gnaw, at its food? The same we should do in contemplating the words of Jesus; to gnaw and chew His words

[@SallyWaddell-k1n]

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

[@rsissel1]

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

[@kazager11]

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

[@monicatorres4965]

God bless you Gavin! This was very helpful

[@misterclbg]

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

[@cephasmwila7537]

Oh I get it transubstantiation is a mideval accretion. The church fathers did not appeal to it. What else did the Church father not appeal to any doctrine and it is a mideval accretions.. oh yes.. sola scriptura and sola fide... Why your argument feels like a double standard?

[@geoffjs]

Excellent point! Protestantism is not known for logic!

[@garymckenzie7196]

Jesus use scriptures not the synagogue traditions when tempted by the serpent. Hence, it is supreme over all other things hence sola/prima scriptura simple as that

[@geoffjs]

@@garymckenzie7196 You obviously don’t know what SS means & can’t prove it from scripture!

[@cephasmwila7537]

@@garymckenzie7196 Gavin later admit in his video that sola scriptura is nowhere to be found in scripture. He uses some kind of philosophical argument to prove his point but to him, when we use that kind of reasoning to prove a point he says that it is not in found in the church fathers or the scriptures doesn't teach it.. it sounds like a double standard to me.. it is a dishonest way of engaging apologists

[@Adamcatholic]

​@@garymckenzie7196very conveniently you skipped through the fact that new testament wasn't compiled until 5th century, and besides that 99% of people were illiterate until another couple centuries later. There's literally zero logical arguments to support sola scriptura

[@chrisxprem]

@Gavin Ortlund - - Do you believe the Eucharistic event at Lanciano in 750AD, ( which predates the the 4th Lateran Council by 400 years and the Council of Trent by 750 years) , is a "worthy of belief" or "valid" example of a "real presence manifested in physical terms" ?

[@geoffjs]

I doubt whether Gavin has heard of the miracle at Lanciano & if he has, inevitably will disbelieve it!

[@danielboone8256]

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

[@jdub3999]

Where did that belief emerge from? Please tell me why and where you trace that belief. Is baptism just a symbol?

[@danielboone8256]

@ Depends what you mean by “emerge.” I think the Biblical account is closest to memorialism where Christ is present spiritually within the believers and/or among them. That being said, it sounds like you’re setting me up for an argument where you’re going to say that memorialism wasn’t openly espoused until centuries later and my belief entails a massive gap in between the Bible and when this belief was “rediscovered.” Then, you’re probably going to cite a bunch of Early Church Fathers who disagree with memorialism. So, to cut to the chase, I’m not yet convinced of the value of the ECFs-doctrinal errors, schisms, and the like often occur very soon after a religion or idea spreads, and they even occurred during the times of the Apostles. That being said I’m going to be rereading the Apostolic Fathers tomorrow, if I can, so maybe you can incorporate that in your response somehow. Maybe also the Jewish relation to the Eucharist if I can find the source I’m vaguely remembering.

[@danielboone8256]

@@jdub3999 for some reason the @ broke because YT is terrible. Refer to my previous reply. Hopefully this one should ping you (and not get deleted)

[@danielboone8256]

@@jdub3999 let me know if you see my previous comment because my KZbin is glitching out

[@Yasmirr]

There is another view of the real presence that’s it is a mystery and does not need to be explained any more than that.

[@JB91484]

Catholics call it the mystery of faith. Transubstantiation is the way that describes that mystery in terms our human intellect can understand.

[@seanoconnor5311]

​@@JB91484Why not stick with the mystery, as Lutherans and EO's do?

[@JB91484]

@ I'll stick with Jesus and what he says in John 6.

[@seanoconnor5311]

@@JB91484 You mean those who come to him will never thirst, and those who believe will never hunger? Or do you nullify that bit? FWIW, Catholicism taught the mystical union for 1000 years. Transubstantiation only gets going around 1000. The Lutherans and EO have the apostolic practice, not Rome.

[@JB91484]

​@@seanoconnor5311 Transubstantiation is a definition which says that the bread and wine become the body and blood. Jesus said you must eat his flesh and drink his blood for eternal life. Then at the last supper he said "This is my body, This is my blood" Are you nullifying what Jesus said? Why do you think he did the miracles at the wedding at Cana? Transforming water into wine? What about the loaves and fish? Multiplying them? Walking on water? These were all symbolic of: Jesus being God and having the ability to change substances, multiply substances and showing the laws of nature do not apply to him. It's a mystery. RCC defines the mystery as begin transubstantiation, the bread and wine become Jesus. EO say he's present. It's like arguing which side of a flame causes the smell from a candle. The Bread of Life discourse in John 6 can be seen as a rich metaphor with both literal and figurative meanings. Literally, Jesus speaks of bread in the context of physical sustenance, recalling the manna given to the Israelites in the desert. Figuratively, he extends this to mean that he himself is the true bread from heaven, offering spiritual nourishment and eternal life. This metaphor invites multiple interpretations: it can be understood as Jesus offering himself through the Eucharist (a more literal application Christian tradition), or more broadly as Jesus being the source of spiritual life and sustenance for all believers. The discourse, therefore, layers meanings, speaking to both the physical act of eating and the spiritual act of faith, belief, and communion with Christ, allowing for diverse theological understandings. Thus, the literal practice of the Eucharist and the symbolic understanding of Jesus as the sustainer of spiritual life coexist, enriching the theological discourse without one negating the other.

[@david_porthouse]

When the Son of God said "This is my body", what He meant was "This is my body". Transubstantiation clarifies this in terms of Aristotelean metaphysics.

[@arthurattila7835]

If one is going to be that literal would it have meant that bread in that place at that time? Thereafter, "in remembrance of me." ? I'm asking a question, not throwing a stone.

[@david_porthouse]

@@arthurattila7835 The Church has delegated authority to decide if the Sacrifice of the Mass is an actual re-enactment or merely a memorial. She has gone for re-enactment.

[@rexlion4510]

See Luke's gospel account for amplification. Luke recorded, "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body _which is given for you:_ this do in remembrance of me." Paul wrote, "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, _which is broken for you:_ this do in remembrance of me." Here's my point: _Jesus had not yet given His body; Jesus' body had not yet been broken for them._ That would occur *on the next day, when He suffered on the cross and died* to propitiate for our sins. Therefore, Jesus wasn't identifying the bread as His literal flesh (which He was still inhabiting). The Passover bread and wine were a remembrance of the salvation of God in which the death angel passed over the Israelites' homes when he saw the blood of the lamb on their doorposts. Because this was a "type" of the coming Messiah, in the Last Supper Jesus was showing them that the bread and wine signified Him, the Messiah. He re-purposed the Passover bread and wine by telling them that, from now on, instead of remembering the earlier Passover, from now on they were to remember Him whenever they took the bread and the cup; for when God sees the shed blood of Christ on the "doorposts" of our hearts, which He applies in response to faith, His wrath passes over us. Through faith in Christ's propitiation on the cross (and apart from works, Rom. 4), God extends His mercy and grace to us; He grants us the gifts of a regenerated spirit and His righteousness, and He comes to indwell us by His Spirit. Just as the Israelites who were yet sinners demonstrated their faith by applying the blood to the doorposts and lintels of their homes, and were spared, likewise we who trust with all our hearts in Christ Jesus have had that blood (which He shed) applied by God to ourselves. God no longer looks at our past iniquities; they are removed from us through faith in the One who fully paid the penalty for them. Taking Communion is our physical touchstone and reminder of the great, wonderful thing Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the cross 2,000 years ago. It should tell us that we who today identify with Christ through faith in His self-sacrifice are made partakers of the _efficacy_ of that long-ago sacrifice. Christ's redemption is fully efficacious today for those who trust in Him. But when He took the bread and the cup, He had not yet accomplished it. That is why He said that the bread and wine were His mortal body which He would surrender on the following day for them. You see, even if the elements were transformed that very night into the actual, physical body of Jesus, they were only eating _His mortal flesh (which was about to die)_ and drinking His mortal blood... how could the eating of _a body which would soon stop functioning_ be salvific? The Roman church conflates the body Jesus gave up on the cross for us, with the resurrected body Jesus now wears.

[@clayw70]

I'm tired of the memorial/remembrance view getting caricatured. The remembrance interpretation doesn’t mean that we have a low view of the Lord’s Table. Personally, I wish churches would share a communal meal together after the service, followed by the Lord’s Table. This was the 1st century practice as described in 1 Cor 11: 17-33. 1 Corinthians 8:8 ESV [8] Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 ESV [23] For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, [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.” Romans 14:17 ESV [17] For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

[@jeremybullen655]

7:08 it is even an overstatement to say that the zwinglians rejected real presence. The consensus of Zurich came just 20 years after the marburg colloquy.

[@joshuareeves5103]

Yeah Zwingli went back on it but the Zwinglians (the anabaptists) did reject it. Zwingli turned on the Zwinglians which was pretty crappy (though the anabaptists had their issues). Minno Simons came and took over after Zwingli.

[@SirMicahBroch]

​@@joshuareeves5103 what? No. Zwingli never rejected real presence, the anabaptists turned on Zwingli NOT the other way around because theg thought he was not going far enough. Menno did not take over after Zwingli. I have no idea where you get this from.

[@joshuareeves5103]

@@SirMicahBroch I generalized a bit. Menno does come into the picture with the anabaptists, there is just a bit of a time gap. This is why the Mennonites consider themselves anabaptists. And maybe my info is wrong on Zwingli but I had been taught that he did reject real presence in his debate with Luther but later came Calvin with a more nuanced view of the Spiritual presence. And the term "turned" definitely seems fairly assigned to Zwingli and not the anabaptists. I'm not an anabaptist apologist by any means, but Zwingli had a large impact on the thinking of the anabaptists and Zwingli later had them killed so I'd say its fair to say Zwingli turned on them. Anabaptists had problematic teaching, but killing them was not right.

[@SirMicahBroch]

@@joshuareeves5103 it is a fairly common misconception that Zwingli denied real presence in the Marburg debate, but this, however, is due to Lutheran slander of Zwingli. "I believe Christ's natural body is fed on in the supper... but we do not feed on this elements in a gross and carnal manner, but in a spiritual manner done by the believing and pious of heart." Zwingli did not kill the Anabaptists and had no part in their death, the City Council did. Zwingli had no authority of that kind in Zürich, none of the reformers did. Walter's history of the Church says Zwingli vigorously opposed these sentences, Phillip Schaff's church history says that he publicly said nothing about them. Regardless, it is more accurate to say that the anabaptists turned on Zwingli because they were all his friends and then because they felt he was not taking things far enough, started attacking and slandering him.

[@joshuareeves5103]

@@SirMicahBroch hmmm. I'll have some homework to do. Thanks for responding brother.

[@jonwestmusic88]

Instead of using the terms accidents and substance, just substitute 'reality' for substance, and 'appearances' for accidents. The bread and wine appear the same, their appearances did not change, but the reality is the reality of the bread and wine become changed to become the Body and Blood of Christ, and as the Lord is not separated, he is whole, one can say the Lord really is present Body Blood Soul and Divinity, and remains so in any and all of the remaining sacrament. All Churches reserve the sacrament. When we enter a Catholic or Orthodox Church, we bow, we genuflect, we bless ourselves with the sign of the cross, before we sit or stand on either side. We do this because The Lord is truly present in the tabernacle in the front and center of the church. During Lent during the week in the Orthodox Church Holy Communion is given from the PreSanctified Reserved Sacrament. Consecrated hosts from the Altar in a Catholic Church can be taken by Eucharistic Ministers, or Deacons, or Priests, to the infirm who cannot attend the Holy Mass.

[@SonOfThineHandmaid]

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

[@JB91484]

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

[@SonOfThineHandmaid]

@JB91484 exactly

[@mrjustadude1]

100%

[@flavadave3943]

I went to a Methodist church once, and had the grape juice in plastic shot glasses for the first time. And it didn’t take away from the ceremony at all. Christ said do this in memory of me. And that’s what they were doing and why they were doing it. I think the Catholic Church centering their entire religion around this practice, is not only never called for, but in some ways, or at some point, blasphemous.

[@verdecillo9940]

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

[@seanoconnor5311]

@@verdecillo9940 The distinction between Real Presence and transubstantiation matters because Rome has 'infallibly' taught that any view except transubstantiation cuts you off from the body of Christ, and salvation. If the distinction enough for eternal grief, then it's fair game for criticism.

[@ogmakefirefiregood]

And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." (John 6:65, ESV)

[@ToeTag1968]

Question for my Catholic friends: I've noted on a Pints of Aquinas podcast that Matt mentioned there are low gluten wafers to opt for. You probably see where this question is going. If the wafers get transubstantiated to the real flesh of Christ, why is a gluten-free, or low gluten option needed? Flesh is naturally gluten-free. Thanks for your time and answers.

[@aericabison23]

@@ToeTag1968 bc Jesus used to eat chocolate chip cookies in His spare time. He wanted Catholics to feel full every time they ate Him, but then He also put it in the heart of the one true holy, apostolic, Catholic Church to let them make Him gluten free for believers who couldn’t handle His supernatural gluten-rich body. It’s a divine mystery, don’t think about it too much. Chocolate chip cookies ftw 🙌🏻

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

That is NOT what transubstantiation means. In friendship, I will assume you do not know this and the question is in good faith. Please look it up.

[@ToeTag1968]

@@Continentalphilosophyrules I'm 100% sure that the Catholic church teaches that, though the outward appearance is that of a wafer and wine, the elements are physically, not spiritually, transformed into the flesh and blood of Jesus. Hence, my question.

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

@@ToeTag1968 And you are 100% wrong. I do not think you looked it up. Did you? I'll do the work for you. If the Reformed position was ''the bread and wine are spiritually (spiritual being the true and the real and the substantial) transformed, while retaining all the physical characteristics of bread and wine'', that would be acceptable for the Catholic Church. That, however, is NOT the position of the Reformed.

[@ToeTag1968]

@@Continentalphilosophyrules I was wondering the same of you. YT doesn't allow web addresses to be used so I hope you can understand where I found this information. I found it at the main catholic answers website. Here's a snippet from a much larger article that goes more in depth into the historicity... --- The three controversies just mentioned helped considerably to formulate the dogma of transubstantiation. The term itself, transubstantiation, seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours about 1079. Other theologians, such as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (d. 1188), and Peter of Blois (d. 1200), also used it. Lateran IV in 1215 and the Council of Lyons in 1274 adopted the same expression, the latter being in the Profession Faith proposed to the Greek Emperor, Michael Palaeologus. Trent was, of course, the council which was summoned specially to refute the errors of the Reformation. After affirming the Real Presence of Christ, the reason for it, and the preeminence of the Eucharist over other sacraments, the council defined the following on October 11, 1551: “Because Christ our Redeemer said it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church, and this holy council now declares that, by the consecration of the bread and wine a change takes place in which the whole substance of bread is changed into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the Holy Catholic Church fittingly and properly names transubstantiation.” The following canon also was promulgated by the Council: “If anyone says that the substance of bread and wine remain in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and extraordinary change of the whole substance of the bread into Christ’s body and the whole substance of the wine into his blood while only the species of bread and wine remain, a change which the Catholic Church has most fittingly called transubstantiation, let him be anathema.” Let us try to analyze this idea. We speak of the conversion of bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood. What do we mean by conversion? We mean the transition of one thing into another in some.aspect of being. It is more than mere change. In mere change one of the two extremes may be expressed negatively, as for example the change of day and night. Night is simply the absence of the light of day. The starting point is positive, while the target, so to speak, is negative. It can be the other way about when we talk of the change of night into day. ---- It is very clear that there is a transformation that takes place. And, this from a nwcatholic website... --- With the Eucharist, it’s just the opposite. While the accidents of the bread and wine (taste, texture, appearance) do not change, the substance (the essential “bread-ness” and “wine-ness”) does change. It still looks, feels and tastes like bread and wine, but it has truly become Jesus. This is what the Catholic Church means by transubstantiation. ---- How else am I supposed to take that information?

[@roman727]

Eh, with confirmation bias you can take 80% agreement of an argument then change similar words and convince people "see Protestants are right" Apostolic succession is required for the words of institution, I can't just flip any bread and wine whenever I'm doing a cheese board into Christ I need to be ordained. The Eucarist is a guardrail to maintain salvation. If I maintain or re-establish a state of grace I can obtain the bread of life, if I stack days being worthy of the bread of life then I will look back on a life lead and approach the throne trembling with fear but have given myself the best odds of salvation as a gift of grace from the Lord.

[@mikekayanderson408]

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

[@mikekayanderson408]

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

[@mrjustadude1]

@@mikekayanderson408 so you are a gnostic?

[@nellytorba8737]

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

[@mikekayanderson408]

@@mrjustadude1 no I am a Christian and love the Lord Jesus Christ! I just do not believe the ,it’s of Rome! There is no power in a metal crucifix, or a medal of Mary, and the bread and wine do not change into flesh and blood! Saints and Mary do not appear to anyone - something else at work there All superstitious nonsense. !

[@mikekayanderson408]

@@nellytorba8737 i believe what the Bible says and Paul was mightily used by God in spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles. While Jesus was on earth He also performed great miracles and John says it was because these were signs that the promised Messiah had come and it was to prove who He was! Many things happened when the Gospel was being introduced and the Church being formed - but they were then and for a purpose! But they did not continue! Also think of all the false signs and wonders that took place when Moses went against Egypt to ask him to let God’s people leave - the local magicians could mimic some go God’ signs and wonders! Also do remember the warnings given in Scripture about false signs and wonders that will happen to lead people away from God and turn to Satan. He is said to be able to masquerade as an angel of light! Paul was also an Apostle - there are no Apostles today! So be careful what you believe!

[@davidvanriper60]

Very interesting video. However the "elephant" in the room is this.... The RCC teaches JN. 6 and the Last Supper instructions to the Lord's disciples in a way that provides salvific value when receiving the Eucharist. It is a similar error to baptismal regeneration. Neither ordinance imputes saving grace.