I was a Baptist for over 50 years. I became a Catholic because I read the Church Fathers. For them, the Eucharist is inseparable from the Priesthood, and the Priesthood in inseparable of the Church. For the Church Fathers, the Priesthood, the Church and the Eucharist are to be manifested in the unity of the Body of Christ. The Pope is the visible sign of this unity.
Of course no one becomes Catholic by reading Scripture because Catholicism isn‘t in the Word of God and God is not the author of Catholicism. By your own testimony you confirm that you follow people who did not follow Christ and his apostles. If they would follow Christ there would not be such a difference in doctrine between Christ and the church fathers. So in reality you follow people (i.e. church fathers) who may have had some roots in apostolic churches BUT they follow perverted teachings. That‘s why no one becomes Catholic by the mere reading of the words of Christ and the words of Christ‘s apostles. Catholic dogmas were not found in them. They are only found outside the word of God. That’s why you have to read and follow them instead of reading and following Christ’s words. Just bear in mind that this is exactly what the apostle Paul said would happen: Acts 20:29-30 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 *Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.* You see? They came from the church and where disciples of an apostle and perverted their teaching and then became themselves another »version« of Christianity to follow. So the church fathers are in no case equal to Scripture! If you became Catholic by reading the so-called churchfathers remember that apostolic teaching does not match the teachings of the church fathers. Ask yourself why this is the case!!!
@@semper_reformanda This might be the most ignorant comment i have ever seen. 1. You do know that the Church Fathers are the earliest Christians right? And that many of them either knew the apostles personally or knew others closely associated with them? And that the traditions of the Apostles were passed on to these people (Including the scriptures)? And that they unanimously believed in Catholic doctrines like baptismal regeneration and the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist? Surely you know this right? 2. If anything, YOU and your sect, which arose 1500 YEARS AFTER CHRIST are the false prophets prophesied in the Acts of the Apostles. Not the Catholics, who can trace their doctrines to the Apostles.
@@matthewoburke7202 the earliest Christians were those mentioned in the New Testament. Not the ones who lived in the next 3 centuries. So this is why you have to go back to the NT in order to know that the early Christians believed. And what they believe is retained in Scripture!
It's amazing how this was the one thing that is EXPLCITLY instructed by Christ and also the one thing that united all Christians throughout the first 1500 years of Christendom, yet so many Protestants reject it and have removed the Tabernacle from the center and instead put Man at the center.
Did Christ explicitly say that the priest has the power to bring Jesus down onto the altar? Did Christ explicitly say that the priest has more than seraphim and cherubim? Or more power than the virgin Mary? Did Jesus say that he bowed or would bow his head in humble obedience to the commands of the priest? If this is really the body of Christ, why are the wafers made in a factory by nuns? What happens to the left over wafers, does the priest send Jesus back to heaven? Or does he go back on the shelf and the wine back in the bottle? Can you answer these questions for me?
@IntellectualCatholicism @Suan Sonna thanks for having @Erick Ybarra on I've learned so much from you both thanks GOD Bless you both and your families. Your brother Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
1. In support of Erick's Point #4: The deduction can be made about Melchizedek in the Letter to the Hebrews 7:3 ("Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life, thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever"), that He was a Christophany, i.e., in this case an appearance of the pre-Incarnate Christ. What person could be (A) without human ancestry, (B) without beginning or end of days and (C) resembling the Son of God, but only Christ Himself in the eternity of His pre-Incarnate existence? It would follow that the pre-Incarnate Christ, from all eternity as the Son of God, appeared in the person of Melchizedek to Abraham with bread and wine, prophetic symbols of His priesthood and sacrificial offering that were to be fulfilled in His Incarnation. 2. In support of #1 above, there is one other explicit identification by a New Testament writer of an Old Testament Christophany of the pre-Incarnate Christ, that of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:3-4 where the 'Rock' following and nourishing the Hebrews in Exodus 17-1-7 and Numbers 20:1-14 is the Christ ("All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was the Christ"). 3. In support of #s 2 & 3 above, starting with the second century St. Justin Martyr numerous Church fathers have identified Old Testament appearances of angels as implicit examples of Christophanies of the pre-Incarnate Christ. The icon The Holy Trinity/The Hospitality of Abraham by the 15th century Russian Orthodox painter St. Andrei Rublev is a visual exposition on the inter-Trinitate relations that includes the Incarnate Son of God premised upon the visit of the three mysterious personages to Abraham in Genesis 18 that he addresses as "my Lord." 4. In support of #'s 2, 3, & 4 above, the post-Resurrected Christ, when walking on the road to Emmaus with two of His disciples who were unaware of His identity, spoke for the better part of two hours enumerating everything in the Old Testament that pertained to Him: Luke 24: 27, "Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He interpreted to them what referred to Him in all the scriptures." Did Christ's Old Testament references include not only the prophecies about Him in His Incarnation but also His pre-Incarnate appearances as well, that later the Letter to the Hebrews and 1st Corinthians gave witness to?
Thank you for having Erik as your guest, always enjoy hearing him share his clarity and depth of knowledge on subjects such as this. Don't like saying it, but those who rail against Transubstantiation so stubbornly, and believe it to be only symbolic, are sadly lacking a vital part of a TRUE personal relationship with Christ, and Him with you. God Bless!
St. Thomas Aquinas S. th. III 65, 3. I answer that, Absolutely speaking, the sacrament of the Eucharist is the greatest of all the sacraments: and this may be shown in three ways. 👉First of all because it contains Christ Himself substantially:👈 whereas the other sacraments contain a certain instrumental power which is a share of Christ's power, as we have shown above (62, 4, ad 3, 5). Now that which is essentially such is always of more account than that which is such by participation. Secondly, this is made clear by considering the relation of the sacraments to one another. For all the other sacraments seem to be ordained to this one as to their end. For it is manifest that the sacrament of order is ordained to the consecration of the Eucharist: and the sacrament of Baptism to the reception of the Eucharist: while a man is perfected by Confirmation, so as not to fear to abstain from this sacrament. By Penance and Extreme Unction man is prepared to receive the Body of Christ worthily. And Matrimony at least in its signification, touches this sacrament; in so far as it signifies the union of Christ with the Church, of which union the Eucharist is a figure: hence the Apostle says (Ephesians 5:32): "This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the Church." Thirdly, this is made clear by considering the rites of the sacraments. For nearly all the sacraments terminate in the Eucharist, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): thus those who have been ordained receive Holy Communion, as also do those who have been baptized, if they be adults. Zell: Never let anyone claim that Aquinas didn't believe in the Real & Substaintial Presence in the Holy Eucharist.
The Our Father uses the word ἐπιούσιον bread (Supersubstantial/suprasubstantial ), it is a word which appears only twice in the Bible and is a made up word in Koine Greek. It doesn't mean daily bread. Remember there was a lachem haPanim - the bread of the presence in the inner sanctuary of the temple. Remember the wine which was sacrificed in the inner sanctuary was poured out on the table and it was believed that the wine would have its fuller meaning in the messianic olam haba. Blood of the Lamb saved the first born sons of Israel. Blood of Jesus the Lamb of the second Passover saves the sons/daughters of Israel.
I agree. Where is the Bread & Wine of the Face/Presence of God (showbread/shewbread) in all this? Seems like Brant Pitre is the only one who ever brings this up and points it out in Scripture and Jewish tradition.
Bold title. As a Protestant who denies transubstantiation, I'm intrigued. After listening to the argument: I think one has to accept the Catholic way of doing typology as well as the sacrificial hermeneutical framework... and a literalistic interpretation of John 6 for this argument to follow. As someone who doesn't accept all of these things, I'm left unconvinced. But it was an interesting argument, and I want to think more about what it means for Christ to be of the order of Melchizedek.
Paul was pretty adamant in his epistle’s that he wrote to the church’s he established to correct their heresies that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Gospel of John is the last gospel written and uses different language about the divinity of Christ and the Eucharist to address heresies that were going on at the time including those who didn’t believe the bread and wine were not actually the body and blood of Christ. Go ahead and keep doing your own thing though. Protestants are really really comical
@@Davidjune1970 Triumphalistic Catholics are more funny than Protestants doing their own research, hearing both sides of the argument, and going where the truth leads them. The fact that I listened to the entire argument and will probably still get the book and read it shows I'm not scared to change my mind if I need to. The Catholic paradigm unfortunately does not allow for one to follow the truth where it leads them. Your views are decided for you by a group of people on the other side of the world. If the truth is elsewhere, too bad, the Church hath spoken.
@@natebozeman4510 that’s the hilarious part is protestants without degrees disagreeing with the vast majority of Christian’s and thinking they are right The Catholic Church doesn’t have an interpretation for the majority of the bible. It does have a teaching on key theology within the bible. And that teaching is grounded on the traditions of the first Christian’s, the bible and what the Holy Spirit has revealed. The church never comes to a teaching without the magisterium considering it which is the bishops with the pope. Some of these teachings are infallible which are mandatory to follow. There are lesser teachings which are not mandatory to follow but the church suggests as good practice. Christianity was never meant to be a believe what you want to believe religion. That’s why Christ told the apostles that they were to teach. That’s why Paul and the other apostles wrote about those in the clergy who were to teach having to be touched to get the power of the Holy Spirit within them and the training needed for a new teacher. It’s why the Catholic Church has had a corporate structure that Christ put into place which mankind took almost 2000 years to figure out. You need an executive council with a head to rule it to be a global institution.
I know this video is from a while ago. But, the majority of comments are so totally deaf on the matter of true transubstantiation. Christ's presence is real in the Eucharist WHEN consecrated by a real priest ordained within apostolic succession in the order of Melchidzedec. This is most notably in the RC and EO churches. Any other denomination members who *think* they are receiving the flesh and blood of Jesus consecrated by a person missing these qualifications, are really counting on God's own mercy acting to bestow upon them the graces of a spiritual communion. We csn hope this is occurring.
We Orthodox never said it isn't the Body and Blood of Christ. We just don't articulate it to the same degree as the doctrine of "Transubstantiation" has. For us all sacrements are a Holy Mystery. It is the body and of the blood of Christ in so far as He said it is, it is a mystery to be experienced not comprehended.
NICE SUN WORSHIPPING THUMBNAIL YOU GOT THERE !! .....SUNDAY!! John 6:63 “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
Can you do a rebuttal to David Erham he has youtube channel and he has videos on refuting catholicism and i was wondering if you can do some rebuttals to his videos 😊 i am a fan of your channel. God bless
We always miss our own assumptions when making an argument, and this is no exception. One of the key linchpins in this line of reasoning is the idea that “after the order of Melchizedek” means that the bread and wine is the sacrifice and that uniquely is what makes it Melchizedekian. This assumes to two things. First is that the bread and wine brought by Melchizedek we’re actually offerings. Maybe they were and maybe they weren’t, and Ybarra at least made a case for why based on the parallel we might think so. But the second assumption, never defended, is that it is uniquely the offering of bread and wine that makes Jesus “after the order of Melchizedek.” Nothing in the text of Hebrews hints at this. Hebrews I’m fact never mentions the bringing of bread and wine and emphasizes instead the eternality implicit in the lack of genealogical information about Melchizedek. In short, the easiest Protestant response is to say that what makes Jesus a priest after the order of Melchizedek is merely the fact that he has no beginning or end of life, and the bread and wine has nothing to do with it and just forms a nice parallel. This is why we all ought to “play test” our arguments in the real world before making bold claims about how effective they are.
Melchizedek is paralleled not only by Jesus, but first by David. David was both king and priest (2 Sam. 6:12-19) of Jerusalem, like Melchizedek. He wore a priestly ephod (2 Sam. 6:14) and offered sacrifices (2 Sam. 6:17), including bread and wine (2 Sam. 6:19 KJV, 1 Chron. 16:3 KJV) And David prophesied (Psalm 110:4) about the eternal Melchizedekian priesthood that would be fulfilled by Jesus Christ, as confirmed in Hebrews. So the linkage of king/priest offering bread and wine seems at least to me to comport better with Scripture then merely a parallel based on the eternal priesthood alone.
@@ashbanker David didn’t offer bread and wine, he gifted them to everyone in Israel. And it’s not even clear that’s wine; there’s a perfectly good word used specifically for wine in Hebrew but the word used there is a broad term for anything pressed which could be rendered as a food as well as a beverage. Also the fact that he wore an ephod doesn’t mean it was a priestly ephod any more than than him offering sacrifices makes him a priest, since the person bringing it is the one offering it even though the priest carries out the actual sacrificial ritual (cf. Exodus 30:14, 20). So that’s not very much in the way of additional evidence.
Why is it that for the argument to work, it must be *uniquely* the offering of bread and wine that makes Jesus in the type of Melchizedek? Can one just say the bread and wine are an offering in the 'Melchizekian style' - then, if the singular offering of the New Covenant is actually Christ's own Body and Blood, then the Bread + Wine offering is probably not the run of the mill food offering. yada yada yada transubstantiation. Just curious!
While true that Christ's sacrifice happened only once 2000 years ago, it still is continually applied to all sinners past, present and future. The sacrifice of the Mass is not a new sacrifice every time it is celebrated, but makes us participants in that one time sacrifice, as if we are witnessing it as it happened. May seem hard at first to wrap your head around it, but I think if you ponder it further, you will understand what I mean.
I think the 1 Cor 10 objection discussed at 51:04 is a devastating argument against transubstantion. Paul’s teaching clearly shows that the locus of divine or malign influence and presence is not a substantive change in the offered matter (animal or food), but in the symbolic and representative understanding and intent of the covenantal participation of individuals and community in an ecclesiastical or temple context.
Exactly. Through that whole section all I could think was that this is an argument for the symbolic interpretation of the supper. Suan's point in 47:50 should be answered by saying that Paul DOES say that you can relate to it in a way that makes it acceptable to eat FOR YOU, but that you must also consider how it will relate in the minds of those who know that you eat of it. Paul's point seems to be exactly what Suan questions: eating the food sacrificed to idols is OK because there is NO real relationship between the food and the sacrifice, but it is only not OK because there are some "weaker" people who believe that there is a real relationship, and for their sake do not eat of it.
@@SNUGandSESOR This still doesn't follow though. Paul goes on to say, "I do not want you to be participants with demons." It's not just about the "weaker" brothers. It's not just about how you relate to it. Something is substantially and objectively happening there, no matter how the individual relates to it, no matter the intent. When he says, "What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?", the point seems to be that idols are not actually gods on par with Yahweh, but not that there is no actual participation with an entity, namely, demons - "No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God." He seems to be undercutting the power of pagan deities while at the same time warning of a very real danger, no matter what the intent is. And I think Erick is on to something. There seems to be a difference in eating what was just immolated on the altar vs. buying meat at a market without knowing where it comes from. Ignorance, intent, and faith definitely play a role in the consumption of a sacrifice, which is why an atheist could somehow get his hands on the Eucharist, consume it, and still remain cut off from God. And at the same time, something objective and substantial is taking place on the altar. Both/and, not either/or.
Thank you for the great video! I have a question: could it not be that the bread is NOT „obliterated“? Just like in the incarnation, in which there is a hypostatic union of the two natures in one divine person? So that it is also a hyperstatic union of the nature of the bread/wine and the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in the one divine person of Himself? In that case there is no obliteration of the nature of the bread/wine! Just like the bush is not destroyed by the divine flame (Moses). That would also mean that the real presence of Christ isn‘t just added to the bread (Luther) and it would also mean that the real presence of Christ isn‘t merely spiritual(Calvin), since one couldn‘t separate the real presence from the bread. I‘d appreciate an answer… Thank you for your great work!
Also: it would be fitting to John 6:51 „I am the LIVING bread…“ since after the consecration it really isn‘t bread anymore but Jesus Christ! And since Jesus is alive (living bread), there has to be a hyperstatic reality otherwise we would eat His dead body.
It is not literal, it is literature, a metaphor to take on the christ nature onto themselves as he did it. In memory of him, is to keep this in their mind in their lives.
I believe in trans-basileia (one who is transformed out of one kingdom into another). Above all else, this is the most important trans that Almighty God desires: one who turns from the dominion of Satan to God. Without it, one cannot become God's own possession
@@jzak5723 Your argument is kind of strange. May I mirror it to you in other words? 👉 *Where does Christ say that he was not married? Since Christ did not say he was not married it is right to believe that he was married.* or 👉 *Where does the Bible teach that Joseph - Jacob‘s beloved son - ever committed one sin? Since the Bible does nowhere teach Joseph sinned it is right to believe that Joseph was sinless.* My friend WE don‘t make doctrines necessary for salvation out of the things that WERE NOT said. WE induce doctrines necessary for salvation out of the things that ARE said explicitly. If we would follow your strange logic … then at the end people would be convinced of countless absurdities because of things that have not been stated explicitly. That is the most strange argument I have ever heard.
@@jzak5723 False prophets appeal to things that God DID NOT SAY to them DID NOT COMMAND them DID NOT SHOW them. If you want to be a man of God then cling to what God DID SAY to you DID COMMAND you DID SHOW you. 1.Corinthians 4:6b …that you may learn in us *not to think beyond what is written,* that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
@@semper_reformanda LOL, okay we'll do it your way then. Where in the Bible does it say explicitly that it doesn't change, since this is where all doctrines come from according to you?
Where is the Bread & Wine of the Face/Presence of God (showbread/shewbread) in all this? Seems like Brant Pitre is the only one who ever brings this up and points it out in Scripture and Jewish tradition.
@@Erick_Ybarra Happy to hear it! If I had the platform that so many other Catholic apologists have, I'd be mentioning and explaining it at every appropriate opportunity, though maybe it doesn't get us all the way to transubstantiation, at least consubstantiation. If I'm not mistaken, the Jews connected the showbread with Melchizedek's offering and the real presence of Yahweh.
@ErickYbarra2010 Paz y Bien hermano thanks for another great teaching I'm always thanking GOD for brothers like @Suan Sonna and others like your self who help us grow in our Faith. Gracias Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
Hey catholics. What is a drink? Matthew 26:27 ESV - And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, What part of "drink" and what part of "all of you" didn't you understand in the commandment from my Lord?
Are you saying blood isn't liquid or cannot be drunk? You know "drink" is being use as a verb there, right? You're gonna have to elaborate to actually get your point across (supposing there is one).... Or are you referring to the absence of the wine/blood in some liturgies?
LOL None. We understand both. Drink, all of you. For this is the blood of the New & Eternal covenant which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sin.
//"That bread, that wine, had better not be anything but the body and blood and soul and divinity of Jesus. That has to be Him because He is making it a salvation condition now, but there's no salvation apart from Christ!"// --- That argument blows up the Transubstantiation thesis, as well as Roman Catholic practice, for at least three reasons: 1) You are correct that eating and drinking are salvation issue (according to John 6). But Rome doesn't make it a salvation issue! The sacraments that actually confer salvation in your system are baptism and confession. Jesus says unless you eat and drink you have no life, but you teach baptized infants, who have never gone to Mass, have life. It seems as if it's actually your church that has decided one does not need to eat or drink to have life. Instead, you can just have baptism and confession to have life. You also do not allow people to go to Mass if they have unconfessed mortal sins. Therefore, you make salvation a prerequisite to eating and drinking even though John 6 says eating and drinking causes it. This one you can get out of by joining the us Protestants in our exegesis of John 6 which sees the eating and drinking as metaphors of coming and believing (35) rather than a didactic teaching about the Eucharist. But the next objection you cannot escape. 2) If the host must be Christ because salvation is only by Him, then shouldn't that make salvation automatic for every person who eats the host? But certainly no one thinks that. So what happens when, in your system, someone unworthy consumes the host? What if a local perish does a poor job policing the table and an atheist consumes the Eucharist? According to your logic, The Atheist now has union with Christ, but is not saved! Because salvation comes through Christ, and thanks to the Mass, the Atheist, in his present condition, has Christ. Just as Jesus said, "He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me and I in him." Thus, it is actually your system that severs salvation from Christ because unbelievers can have a non-saving, personal union with Him. This is why Beza argued it is much better to sever Christ's saving power from His sign rather than do what you do, which is sever it from His Person. 3) Lastly, if eating and drinking are salvation conditions then your church damns the laity since she does not let them drink. She has taken the blood of Christ away from them, and no excuse about how the blood is in the bread will suffice when the New Testament always separates eating and drinking and presents both of them to us.
Just briefly, on point two the efficacy of sacrament is affected by ones personal disposition. And on the third point, Catholics don't seperate the blood and body, the theology is that the cup and bread are both 100% Jesus; so consuming the host is also consuming the blood and vice versa.
This is a case of taking something so literally that you make nonsense out of reasonable nuance. Nuance that is found in the Scriptures themselves. Erick is not implying, nor would any Catholic say, that faith plays no role in the consumption of *any* sacrifice. And yet, something substantial and objective takes place on the altar. The two are not opposed to one another. There is always a balance. Scripture is fantastically well balanced on issues like this. God looks at the heart, intent matters, and at the same time, we would all agree that one cannot live like the world and claim to be a follower of Christ. Actions also matter. Your arguments are on the same level as, "If any Christian sins, it means Christianity is false". That's an absurdity based on extremes. It's not faith that makes the sacrifice of the Cross real, and yet, it is only with faith that the benefits of that sacrifice are communicated to us, via the sacraments.
Thank brothers for the presentation. Since it appear that Melchizedek is a mysterious figure is it reasonable to infer that he is an angel who foreshadowed Christ the sacrificial Eucharistic lamb of God?
Revelation 17:5 “And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” Revelation 17:9 “And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are SEVEN MOUNTAINS s, on which the woman sitteth.”....THE SEVEN HILLS OF ROME!! .
Not really a fight, but just some issues that can help you find truth. Read carefully and in patience. And “you will know truth, and truth will set you free” (John 8, 32). The Book of Concord doesn’t quibble in the part of what they call the Lord’s Supper: it is said that _“we unanimously reject and condemn (…) The papistic sacrifice of the Mass for the sins of the living and the dead”._ All Protestant denominations and non-denominationalism of every colors believe the same: the Eucharist (or whatever Protestantism thinks of the sacrament) has nothing to do with the sacrifice of reparation, the life-giving sacrifice of Christ on the cross. By only doing that Protestantism could stick to i) their very definition of “sola fide” as far as justification goes and ii) they could abolish ordained and ministerial priesthood, since it is entirely necessary for a sacrificial offering by its very ontological nature. More so, Jesus didn’t only have disciples; He had apostles AND disciples (and only the first were commissioned in the institution of the Eucharist and the forgiveness of sins, for example, which are undoubtedly tasks for a ministerial priesthood He himself commissioned, not the old Levitical one, yet clearly categorically unfitting for the “baptismal priesthood of all the faithful”). That’s just an introduction. With that in mind, here I’d like to highlight that the “sacrificial lamb” of the Lord’s Passover (Exodus 12, 1-14), the “Manna of the desert” (Ex 16, 16-34) and the “Bread of the Presence” that was served as a memorial food offering to the Lord (Leviticus 24, 8-9; 1 Samuel 21, 5-6; Hebrews 9, 2) are all figures that point to the real “bread of life” and the true and definitive presence of the Lord among His people, since, through the Mystery of Incarnation, a fully transcendent all Mighty God comes to live among us: Jesus is no less than God-with-us (“Emmanuel” - Isaiah 7, 14 and Mattew 1, 23). Is it even possible to get to what God REALLY meant by the Real Presence in the Eucharist under those non-sacrificial theological premises? The only path to answering this is to understand how the “sacrificial lamb” of the Lord’s Passover, the “Manna of the desert” and the “Bread of the Presence” were to be REALLY consumed; the body and the blood of Jesus are commanded to be really CONSUMED too, that means to be actually eaten and actually drunk. We know that the New and Eternal Covenant in Christ perfected the Ancient one, so Jesus hasn’t come to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to “fulfill” them (Mat 5, 17-18). Interestingly enough, the Communion/Peace/ Thanksgiving Sacrifice called the “Toda” (Lv 3, 17), the Sin/Reparation Sacrifices called the “Hattat” (Lv 7, 36), the Daily Sacrifice called the “Tamyid” (Ex 29, 42) and the very Passover (ritual) sacrifice of the Lamb of God called “Pessach” (Ex 12, 14), which were all liturgically conceived (that means they were put in the order of right praise), were also said to be PERPETUAL and everlasting and to be performed by ALL generations, not to last until something better happens in the mind of God. For Protestantism, on the other hand, Jesus dying on the cross for sure perfected the sacrifices of the Old Law altogether but at the same time it factually abolished them all, since it denies (unanimously for all Protestant branches, maybe apart from High Church Anglicanism, which is clearly a theological “platypus”) that the Holy Mass or Divine Liturgy IS the same once-for-all sacrifice on the Calvary only (re)presented - made present again - sacramentally, in an unbloody manner, because His body and blood are already glorified. That’s the most important thing that is essentially “counter-apostolic” in Protestantism: in a sense that it is contrary to Catholics, Assyrians of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy altogether. I hope it doesn’t sound provocative, but how would one define to have the “real” Real Presence of Jesus’ glorified body and blood IF really depriving the liturgy of the Eucharist of its inherent TRUE SACRIFICIAL nature from which the body and the blood are even understandable and discernible in the first place? Being clear that none of us could ever be able to atone - in a propitiatory manner - the infinite offense in original sin, only the sacrificial offering of the Lord himself could do it though, if he ever decided to take a bodily form, since the gravity of the offense is measured by the dignity of the offended. God did it (Incarnation). Here, the very sacrifice of Isaac, the first-born of Abraham, is nothing but a type of the later consumed sacrifice of Jesus, the only-begotten Son of God: therefore, the central mark of the Old Covenant was imprinted in the everlasting New Covenant - a real sacrifice of the son/Son. If only God himself went on repairing it for us, meaning we could never do it for ourselves, there would be salvation and redemption to the broken humanity, so Jesus gives his life bodily so as to give it spiritually to us in Holy Communion. Terminating all inefficacious sacrifices of Jewish Law, Jesus took all into his own body and made it the only perfect one (Hebrew 7, 27), abolishing the slaughter of animals and sacrificialism. He perfected those ancient sacrifices by instituting the Eucharist PRECISELY because the liturgy of the sacrament and his very sacrifice are ONE (Mark 14:22-25, Matthew 26:26-29 and Luke 22:13-20) (read Catechism nn. 1365-1372). Honestly, the liturgy of the Eucharist can never be only a “sacrifice of (community’s) praise”, if by that we repudiate the propitiatory nature of it. It is indeed THE ONE and the same sacrifice of Christ, otherwise God would be simply equivocating his promises. Yet Protestantism in general do it for two theological reasons, both with very practical undertones: first, because it conceives the sacraments as something “we do” at least partially, seeing it under their categorical concept of “works”, even high sacramental Protestants, but not as something that “God does” to us through the _Ekklesia_ (the Church), meaning the very prolonging of the mystery of Incarnation and therefore the ordinary means of God’s action in the “oikonomia”, in order to preserve intact the dogma of “sola fide” which ignited the Revolution itself; second, because to defy Church authority, the most efficient way to do that is to avoid the setting apart of ordained priesthood and make it indistinct to the “priesthood of all believers” (baptismal priesthood, as Catholics would name it), so that their sacramentology would be encapsulated and ultimately it is the fiduciary faith - not the very sacramental operation - that causes what the sacrament signifies, all again around the dogmatic “sola fide”, putting out the sacrificial nature of the liturgy. But the Catholic Church doesn’t pretend to deny that the Mass/ Liturgy is indeed a “sacrifice of praise” obviously: more educated Catholics would even say that we unite ourselves to Christ through the sacrifice of praise precisely because the sacrifice of the Holy Mass is both latreutic (by which we give God the Father what is due, through the Son, in the Spirit) and propitiatory in its very nature. _________ So what about “consubstantiation” instead of “transubstantiation”? Bizarrely enough, the Book of Concord ACTUALLY dares to explain how the Eucharist consecration happens in Catholic dogmatics, which seems utterly strange, not the Catholic Church itself. It is in this part a reaction to the fatal errors of Zwinglian theology, as literally stated in the book. Luther himself was really scandalized to learn that using the very same Bible as he used other people could simply deny the Real Presence. Still I’d say the Lutheran position is exegetically fragile and Zwingli actually saw the flaws. The very idea of the Holy Eucharist is that the species of bread and wine are changed not in the (material) form, as apprehensible to the senses, but in the substance, to be the body and the blood of Christ as He proclaimed in emphatic trueness. For me it’s clear that when the Words of Institution (or Consecration) are said by Jesus, Our Lord does not say “this bread is my body” or “this wine is my blood”. He says: “this is my body” and “this is my blood”. A dual ontological reality, therefore a reality that concerns to a concomitant arrangement of substances (“ousia”), this is precisely what is NOT found in the biblical text. We have tons of Patristic references of the changing (of substances) in reference of the Eucharist, what it is and what it is no longer, but Luther understood the Eucharist is SIMULTANEOUSLY bread/wine and body/blood and that understanding was dogmatized in the Lutheran confessions.
The Book of Concord is very explicit, with its characteristic language, in the blasphemous condemnation of the Church: _”(…) we unanimously reject and condemn (…) 1. The papistic transubstantiation, when it is taught in the Papacy that in the Holy Supper the bread and wine lose their substance and natural essence, and _*_are thus ANNIHILATED;_*_ that they are changed into the body of Christ, and the outward form alone remains”._ And that’s just abusing Catholic dogma, since the Church NEVER defined HOW the change happened (and Lutherans said it happened by annihilation). But now look at the Council of Trent and please try to find where in the Catholic dogma the substances of bread and wine are no longer present in the Eucharist because they were “annihilated”. And that’s simply a grave misrepresentation (to say the least): _”Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation”._ So it is the very Book of Concord the doctrinal “topos” that actually tries to explain HOW the Eucharist happens, meaning to condemn the Catholic Church (naming it “Rome” or the “papists” or whatever derogatory means which is fitting to their language) while saying that the changing of substance happens by “annihilating” the substances of bread and wine according to Catholics, a thing that the Church of 2000 years NEVER dared to define. Isn’t it ironic that this Lutheran confession dogmatized a “fake news”? I personally find the “consubstantiation” argument from Lutheranism and Anglicanism even less compelling - at the exegetical level at least - than the view which sees the Most Holy Sacrament as a mere symbol that is subsequent to a strictly memorialist enactment of past events. I actually think the Catholic position is so evidently correct that people will reject it by misunderstanding the deepness of the teachings or for a sort of emotional reason, like the fear of idolatry and the ideological machinery built behind it. Others (obstinate formal schismatics) will maybe reject it by the simple fact that the Catholic Church defined it. If “this” is the Lord’s sacrifice and we believe He is present in body, blood, soul and divinity, then we believe adoration to the divine is due and an imperative of justice; it’s also necessary to say, for the sake of a correct Christology concerning sacramentology, that no one should divide Jesus’ humanity and divinity. That could be one of the intellectual errors of Luther concerning the appearances. We don’t believe the accidents invariably inform the substance (=ultimate reality) of what a thing is. It works for a chair or for a book or anything that draws its meaning from the correspondence between sensorial perception and intellect; but it’s NOT like that for the Eucharist. It is not “transformed” (meaning the material forms change) and precisely because of that we may say the accidents, in unchanged material form, are the signs that can and do make a sacrament the very mysterious reality underneath the modification of the substance which makes them work in a sacramental role, purpose and order (invisible reality of God’s grace/ visible sign). Put the concomitance of substances of “bread + body” and “blood + wine” and it deconstructs, if taken to the ultimate consequences, the very idea of sacramentality in itself because 1) Jesus would be incorrect in saying that the species of bread were his body and the species of wine his blood and not “bread and his body” and “wine and his blood”, and also because 2) if there is a concomitance, meaning that they are bound to be substantially together at the same time, then it would mean the the sign and the thing signalized confounded, which is detrimental to the sacramental role. I can’t help but think that the symbolic-only view of Zwingli seems to be a response to that apparent deficiency of the “concomitance view” in the sacramentology of Luther, without admitting the going back to Catholic Church’s teachings. Definitely it is not a “transformation” or, in Greek, a “meta”(trans) + “morphosis”(formation). What we had is what we have no longer in the substance because what those are now Jesus said and proclaimed explicitly, in the authority of God Incarnate. God’s words are constitutive of reality. Look at the book of Genesis for example: “And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light” (Genesis 1, 3). Now look to Matthew or Luke’s Gospels: take the narrative part out and look for the very sacred Words of Institution themselves in the exact quotation of Our Lord’s words. We have - and only through faith in the Word made flesh - the certainty that bread and wine are not there in what they are defined into being (=ontologically), only the accidents. We don’t know HOW it happens, but we know WHAT happens, and that makes for the dogma (read the Catechism, nn. 1374-1381). God bless you, my friend!
Why would a consubstantiation view be different in principle from the Church's view of icons of our Lord? Why couldn't the bread and wine that remain point to the greater presence beyond them in the same way that icons of our Lord do?
It's a good question to ask, but the short of it is that Jesus did say that "this is my body and blood", so we just don't see it as the bread and wine pointing to Jesus, like a symbol, but it is really truly Him.
@@jzak5723 I wouldn't view it as just a symbol. I think the Lutheran view is really more like a "both-and" not an "either-or." And St. Paul sure seems to talk as if it is both in 1 Corinthians 11.
@@jzak5723 "27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." St. Paul seems to use the terms indiscriminately. Both body and blood AND bread and wine.
@@Mitenilk08 Whe he uses the words"profaning the body and blood of the Lord" it seems to indicate that Paul sees it as treating (something sacred) with irreverence or disrespect, therefore not symbolic of Jesus, but his real body and blood. This is the Catholic take on the passage.
The invention and birth of transubstantiation occurred at the moment when Roman Catholics reinterpreted the language of the early church. The confession »bread and wine _symbolize_ Christ« became »bread and wine _become_ Christ«. In other words, »the Eucharist is _symbolically_ Christ« became »the Eucharist is _really_ Christ.« When early Catholics, like Ignatius, stated that the Eucharist is the Christ they did not say that the Eucharist itself is physically Christ. They elsewhere stated that the elements reflect and symbolize Christ in the very same way Paul said that »Mount Sinai…is Hagar« (Gal 4,24). So when we read a Church Father testifying, »the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ« the question is, »In what sense is the Eucharist the flesh of Jesus Christ - symbolic or real?« Many fathers like Augustine explained that this is to be understood spiritually not fleshly. They explained that the elements were symbols for Christ‘s death on the cross of Calvary. Transsubstantiation is the result of unbelief and the consequence of it is absurdity. Those who hate God love absurd things. By loving absurd things you can measure your true relationship to the God of truth. He did not tell us things like Transsubstantiation or the bodily assumption of Mary. Men have invented these things. So please, if Transsubstantiation is scriptural bring me Scripture describing the physical and substantial change of the elements and please stop yelling »this and this father said that the eucharist is his flesh!« my dear catholic friends, I as Bible believing Christian confess that »the eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ« - a confession that is in harmony with the entire Scripture and the very words of Christ and his apostles. They are symbols reflection truths. And the truth is the death of Christ on the cross - which is the culmination of God‘s counsel from Genesis to Revelation!
@@fantasia55 actually I am reflecting the words of the early Catholic Church Fathers who many times explained their own words. So no, I am not just giving my opinions here. I ask myself what do you want to say? It appears to me that you are afraid of the naked and plain truth. But remember my friend that the Lord Jesus said »the truth will set you free« and the truth he was talking about was »my teaching« (John 8:31-32). The truth of Jesus and Catholicism are incompatible since the doctrines Jesus taught oppose the doctrines Roman-Catholicism teaches.
Transubstantiation is garbage.1John 4:2 Tells us that Jesus came in a real body. Came means in the past. And in a real body means that Jesus was a real physical human being just like us. John is telling us that Jesus was visible to our senses. John also tells us to not deviate from this teaching. John wrote this in90 a.d many years after Jesus died. John did not tell anyone that Jesus was in the local catholic church every sunday in bread and wine. Catholics have changed the word of God and added something to the bible. If Jesus were the bread and wine then John is a liar because John makes it clear that Jesus was in a physical body not bread and wine. And if John is a liar then why do catholics have a bible? Why follow the bible if the bible lies. Because John is not a liar, that means catholics are liars. 1John3:6 tells us that sinners dont know God or understand Him. So catholics cant even teach anyone about God because they don't know God.
Your guest makes a simple error in trying to justify transubstantiation. In none of his supposed examples of pagan or Jewish sacrifices, is the sacrifice ever anything but a symbol or representation. He is obviously stretching or reaching in order to substantiate the belief - unfortunately. Another thing that Paul mentions is that Hebrews 10:26 King James Version 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. So why not take another shot of blood and body which, as His very presence, should commune one again with Christ? Then there is the fact that Israel never drank the blood of any of the sacrifices - simply, they were "covered" by the sacrifice. And at the Last Supper, Christ had not been sacrificed WHEN He said, This is my body and this is my blood. Obviously, Jesus did not show transubstantiation here nor could it be as He would be offering unsacrificed elements and, thus, absolutely unholy. Anyone have something to clarify these issues?
So the sacrifices conducted at the altar of Israel were merely symbolic? Do you mean there was not an actual violent death in a real animal objectively speaking? Same for the Pagan temple cult? Christ's death is a timeless reality and this is why the mystical representation of that death can be done before and after, without multiplying his death.
@@Erick_Ybarra The violent death of an animal was symbolic - not that an animal was symbolically sacrificed. When you state "the mystical representation of that death", that is symbolic - the very definition.
@@Erick_Ybarra "Christ's death is a timeless reality and this is why the mystical representation of that death can be done before and after" - if that is so, what was the reason God commanded animal sacrifices? God simply could have instructed Israel to eat and drink the bread and wine - this would have resolved two issues: their true salvation and the teaching of the coming sacrifice that it symbolizes. The requirement of the inefficient blood of animals shows that there was no other means available "timelessly" and that there could be no transubstantiation BEFORE Christ's sacrifice nor after it as there is no substantiation for it. Simply, show the OT teaching that supports transubstantiation of anything holy. If it is a true teaching of God, it has to be in the OT somewhere. The only things that change (not exactly absolutely) is the time that the waters of the Nile turned into blood, however, that was judgment as "blood" always symbolizes. If you "partake" of the actual blood you are communing with the judgment - which is death. If it is a symbol of His sacrifice, then it is the communing with the atonement for sin. Otherwise, you also violate the law of God against the consumption of blood - Acts 15:29 ESV That you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” Genesis 9:4 ESV But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Acts 15:20 ESV But should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. Deuteronomy 12:16 ESV Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it out on the earth like water. Leviticus 3:17 ESV It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.” There are simply too many restrictions against the consumption of blood for one to accept transubstantiation as Biblical teaching with all due respect.
@@GlobalMycbhNetwork I want to make one single counter claim: The Jewish sacrifices were literal and miraculous and not merely symbolic. Evidence: I am quoting out of the Talmud, Yoma 39a and 39b, which records what was happening within the Temple. Yoma 39a shows what is the normal course of events (and they are miracles by God!) and how things started to change. "And during the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, *the fire on the arrangement of wood on the altar kept going strongly, perpetually by itself, such that the priests did not need to bring additional wood to the arrangement on a daily basis,* except for the two logs that were brought in order to fulfill the mitzva of placing wood upon the arrangement. From then onward, the fire sometimes kept going strongly and sometimes it did not, and so the priests could not avoid bringing wood to the arrangement throughout the entire day.... The Sages taught: During all forty years that Shimon HaTzaddik served as High Priest, the lot for God arose in the right hand. From then onward, sometimes it arose in the right hand and sometimes it arose in the left hand. Furthermore, during his tenure as High Priest, *the strip of crimson wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel turned white, indicating that the sins of the people had been forgiven,* as it is written: “Though your sins be as crimson, they shall be white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18). From then onward, it sometimes turned white and sometimes it did not turn white. Furthermore, *the western lamp of the candelabrum would burn continuously as a sign that God’s presence rested upon the nation. From then onward, it sometimes burned and sometimes it went out."* Yoma 39b continuation of how things changed. "The Sages taught: During the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, the lot for God always arose in the High Priest’s right hand; after his death, it occurred only occasionally; but *during the forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple,* the lot for God did not arise in the High Priest’s right hand at all. So too, *the strip of crimson wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel did not turn white, and the westernmost lamp of the candelabrum did not burn continually."* The strip of wool turning white and the continual burning of the candelabrum is interpreted by the priests as God accepting the sacrifice and forgiving sins. Curiously 40 years before the Temple destruction (~30AD!), the sacrifices stopped being accepted. This proves the Resurrection and destruction of the sacrificial system but let's focus on the point at hand here that the Jewish sacrifices were literal AND NOT MERELY SYMBOLIC.
@@alisterrebelo9013 All of your "counter claim" is indeed symbolic. I think you're conflating the sacrifice itself with things that God did in response which were for teaching purposes. Where is the fire when Jesus was offered up? What of the crimson wool? Where is the candelabrum at the crucifixion? These miraculous happenings are all symbolic of the process of redemption and they are instructive. You are naturalizing the events as if they were essential events, yet they are not featured as companion events during the sacrifice of our Lord. If they weren't symbolic then they must be essential - then where are they at Golgotha?
Accretion is what killed the Roman Catholic church, not just one issue. And now your demigod, the pope seems to have declared LGBTQ+ ok. Accretion for 1600+ years.
Ignorant Protestant may say “Pope Francis blablabla LGBTQ+ ok”. That’s nonsense. By the way, the sentence “The Pope is a demigod” must come from a Jack Chick Tract type of Protestant. Pope Francis own Apostolic Exortation “Amoris Laetitia” (2016). _”250. The Church makes her own the attitude of the Lord Jesus, who offers his bound- less love to each person without exception [275]. During the Synod, _*_we discussed the situation of families whose members include persons who experience same-sex attraction, a situation not easy either for parents or for children. We would like before all else to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided_*_ [276], particularly any form of aggression and violence. _*_Such families should be given respectful pastoral guidance, so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will_*_ in their lives [277]”_ . _”251. In discussing the dignity and mission of the family, the Synod Fathers _*_observed that, “as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are ABSOLUTELY NO GROUNDS for considering H*O*M*O*S*E*X*U*A*L_*_ UNIONS to be in _*_ANY WAY similar or EVEN REMOTELY ANALOGOUS to God’s plan for marriage and family”. It is UNACCEPTABLE “that local Churches should be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies should make financial aid to poor countries dependent on the introduction of laws to establish ‘marriage’ between persons of the same sex”_* [278]”. _______ [275] Cf. Bull Misericordiae Vultus, 12: AAS 107 (2015), 407. [276] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358; cf. Relatio Finalis 2015, 76. [277] Ibid. 190 [278] Relatio Finalis 2015, 76; cf. conGreGaTion for The doctrine of the faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between H*om*o*s*ex*u*al Persons (3 June 2003), 4.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I feel like it’s never been easier for an honest Protestant to find the truth clearly articulated. Thank you guys.
I was a Baptist for over 50 years. I became a Catholic because I read the Church Fathers. For them, the Eucharist is inseparable from the Priesthood, and the Priesthood in inseparable of the Church. For the Church Fathers, the Priesthood, the Church and the Eucharist are to be manifested in the unity of the Body of Christ. The Pope is the visible sign of this unity.
I came to the same conclusion after reading the Church Fathers as well. And I became Catholic 3 years ago.
Welcome home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church ❤❤❤
Of course no one becomes Catholic by reading Scripture because Catholicism isn‘t in the Word of God and God is not the author of Catholicism. By your own testimony you confirm that you follow people who did not follow Christ and his apostles. If they would follow Christ there would not be such a difference in doctrine between Christ and the church fathers. So in reality you follow people (i.e. church fathers) who may have had some roots in apostolic churches BUT they follow perverted teachings. That‘s why no one becomes Catholic by the mere reading of the words of Christ and the words of Christ‘s apostles. Catholic dogmas were not found in them. They are only found outside the word of God. That’s why you have to read and follow them instead of reading and following Christ’s words.
Just bear in mind that this is exactly what the apostle Paul said would happen:
Acts 20:29-30
29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.
30 *Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.*
You see? They came from the church and where disciples of an apostle and perverted their teaching and then became themselves another »version« of Christianity to follow. So the church fathers are in no case equal to Scripture! If you became Catholic by reading the so-called churchfathers remember that apostolic teaching does not match the teachings of the church fathers. Ask yourself why this is the case!!!
@@semper_reformanda This might be the most ignorant comment i have ever seen.
1. You do know that the Church Fathers are the earliest Christians right? And that many of them either knew the apostles personally or knew others closely associated with them? And that the traditions of the Apostles were passed on to these people (Including the scriptures)? And that they unanimously believed in Catholic doctrines like baptismal regeneration and the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist? Surely you know this right?
2. If anything, YOU and your sect, which arose 1500 YEARS AFTER CHRIST are the false prophets prophesied in the Acts of the Apostles. Not the Catholics, who can trace their doctrines to the Apostles.
@@matthewoburke7202 the earliest Christians were those mentioned in the New Testament. Not the ones who lived in the next 3 centuries. So this is why you have to go back to the NT in order to know that the early Christians believed. And what they believe is retained in Scripture!
ANOTHER BOOK? I haven't even finished The Papacy yet!! j/k I can't wait to read this new book. Thanks Erick and Suan.
It’s short don’t worry
It's amazing how this was the one thing that is EXPLCITLY instructed by Christ and also the one thing that united all Christians throughout the first 1500 years of Christendom, yet so many Protestants reject it and have removed the Tabernacle from the center and instead put Man at the center.
Did Christ explicitly say that the priest has the power to bring Jesus down onto the altar? Did Christ explicitly say that the priest has more than seraphim and cherubim? Or more power than the virgin Mary? Did Jesus say that he bowed or would bow his head in humble obedience to the commands of the priest? If this is really the body of Christ, why are the wafers made in a factory by nuns? What happens to the left over wafers, does the priest send Jesus back to heaven? Or does he go back on the shelf and the wine back in the bottle? Can you answer these questions for me?
Suan always has the best guests. Thanks for this great content!
His questions are always amazing as well
Dang! I got get another book! Keep ‘em coming!
Some of my fav people on TH-cam. Thanks for the content Suan & Erick! May our Lord Jesus Christ cover you and your families 💪🏽
Christ himself broke the bread, AFTER the death and resurrection, with the disciples on the road to Emmaus
And they recognized him in the breaking of the bread!! *mind blown*
@@matthewoburke7202 exactly!!
@IntellectualCatholicism @Suan Sonna thanks for having @Erick Ybarra on I've learned so much from you both thanks GOD Bless you both and your families. Your brother Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
WEPA
1. In support of Erick's Point #4:
The deduction can be made about Melchizedek in the Letter to the Hebrews 7:3 ("Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life, thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever"), that He was a Christophany, i.e., in this case an appearance of the pre-Incarnate Christ. What person could be (A) without human ancestry, (B) without beginning or end of days and (C) resembling the Son of God, but only Christ Himself in the eternity of His pre-Incarnate existence? It would follow that the pre-Incarnate Christ, from all eternity as the Son of God, appeared in the person of Melchizedek to Abraham with bread and wine, prophetic symbols of His priesthood and sacrificial offering that were to be fulfilled in His Incarnation.
2. In support of #1 above, there is one other explicit identification by a New Testament writer of an Old Testament Christophany of the pre-Incarnate Christ, that of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:3-4 where the 'Rock' following and nourishing the Hebrews in Exodus 17-1-7 and Numbers 20:1-14 is the Christ ("All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was the Christ").
3. In support of #s 2 & 3 above, starting with the second century St. Justin Martyr numerous Church fathers have identified Old Testament appearances of angels as implicit examples of Christophanies of the pre-Incarnate Christ. The icon The Holy Trinity/The Hospitality of Abraham by the 15th century Russian Orthodox painter St. Andrei Rublev is a visual exposition on the inter-Trinitate relations that includes the Incarnate Son of God premised upon the visit of the three mysterious personages to Abraham in Genesis 18 that he addresses as "my Lord."
4. In support of #'s 2, 3, & 4 above, the post-Resurrected Christ, when walking on the road to Emmaus with two of His disciples who were unaware of His identity, spoke for the better part of two hours enumerating everything in the Old Testament that pertained to Him:
Luke 24: 27, "Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He interpreted to them what referred to Him in all the scriptures."
Did Christ's Old Testament references include not only the prophecies about Him in His Incarnation but also His pre-Incarnate appearances as well, that later the Letter to the Hebrews and 1st Corinthians gave witness to?
Thank you for having Erik as your guest, always enjoy hearing him share his clarity and depth of knowledge on subjects such as this. Don't like saying it, but those who rail against Transubstantiation so stubbornly, and believe it to be only symbolic, are sadly lacking a vital part of a TRUE personal relationship with Christ, and Him with you. God Bless!
I am a Lutheran so already believed in the real presence. But this is a pretty airtight case for transubstantiation.
St. Thomas Aquinas
S. th. III 65, 3.
I answer that, Absolutely speaking, the sacrament of the Eucharist is the greatest of all the sacraments: and this may be shown in three ways. 👉First of all because it contains Christ Himself substantially:👈 whereas the other sacraments contain a certain instrumental power which is a share of Christ's power, as we have shown above (62, 4, ad 3, 5). Now that which is essentially such is always of more account than that which is such by participation.
Secondly, this is made clear by considering the relation of the sacraments to one another. For all the other sacraments seem to be ordained to this one as to their end. For it is manifest that the sacrament of order is ordained to the consecration of the Eucharist: and the sacrament of Baptism to the reception of the Eucharist: while a man is perfected by Confirmation, so as not to fear to abstain from this sacrament. By Penance and Extreme Unction man is prepared to receive the Body of Christ worthily. And Matrimony at least in its signification, touches this sacrament; in so far as it signifies the union of Christ with the Church, of which union the Eucharist is a figure: hence the Apostle says (Ephesians 5:32): "This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the Church."
Thirdly, this is made clear by considering the rites of the sacraments. For nearly all the sacraments terminate in the Eucharist, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): thus those who have been ordained receive Holy Communion, as also do those who have been baptized, if they be adults.
Zell: Never let anyone claim that Aquinas didn't believe in the Real & Substaintial Presence in the Holy Eucharist.
Thanks for your comments on the confession of Dositheos
The Our Father uses the word ἐπιούσιον bread (Supersubstantial/suprasubstantial ), it is a word which appears only twice in the Bible and is a made up word in Koine Greek. It doesn't mean daily bread.
Remember there was a lachem haPanim - the bread of the presence in the inner sanctuary of the temple. Remember the wine which was sacrificed in the inner sanctuary was poured out on the table and it was believed that the wine would have its fuller meaning in the messianic olam haba.
Blood of the Lamb saved the first born sons of Israel. Blood of Jesus the Lamb of the second Passover saves the sons/daughters of Israel.
I agree. Where is the Bread & Wine of the Face/Presence of God (showbread/shewbread) in all this? Seems like Brant Pitre is the only one who ever brings this up and points it out in Scripture and Jewish tradition.
Fantastic another book!
The way he breaks down the Eucharist reminds me of a football analyst breaking down a touchdown pass!
Bold title. As a Protestant who denies transubstantiation, I'm intrigued.
After listening to the argument: I think one has to accept the Catholic way of doing typology as well as the sacrificial hermeneutical framework... and a literalistic interpretation of John 6 for this argument to follow.
As someone who doesn't accept all of these things, I'm left unconvinced. But it was an interesting argument, and I want to think more about what it means for Christ to be of the order of Melchizedek.
Hi if you're truly searching for the truth may I recommend Dr. Scott Hahn , and Dr. Brant Pitre about the Eucharist and the Jewish roots.
Paul was pretty adamant in his epistle’s that he wrote to the church’s he established to correct their heresies that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.
Gospel of John is the last gospel written and uses different language about the divinity of Christ and the Eucharist to address heresies that were going on at the time including those who didn’t believe the bread and wine were not actually the body and blood of Christ.
Go ahead and keep doing your own thing though. Protestants are really really comical
@@robertotapia8086 I know them both and have seen their arguments.
@@Davidjune1970 Triumphalistic Catholics are more funny than Protestants doing their own research, hearing both sides of the argument, and going where the truth leads them.
The fact that I listened to the entire argument and will probably still get the book and read it shows I'm not scared to change my mind if I need to.
The Catholic paradigm unfortunately does not allow for one to follow the truth where it leads them. Your views are decided for you by a group of people on the other side of the world. If the truth is elsewhere, too bad, the Church hath spoken.
@@natebozeman4510 that’s the hilarious part is protestants without degrees disagreeing with the vast majority of Christian’s and thinking they are right
The Catholic Church doesn’t have an interpretation for the majority of the bible. It does have a teaching on key theology within the bible. And that teaching is grounded on the traditions of the first Christian’s, the bible and what the Holy Spirit has revealed.
The church never comes to a teaching without the magisterium considering it which is the bishops with the pope. Some of these teachings are infallible which are mandatory to follow.
There are lesser teachings which are not mandatory to follow but the church suggests as good practice.
Christianity was never meant to be a believe what you want to believe religion. That’s why Christ told the apostles that they were to teach. That’s why Paul and the other apostles wrote about those in the clergy who were to teach having to be touched to get the power of the Holy Spirit within them and the training needed for a new teacher.
It’s why the Catholic Church has had a corporate structure that Christ put into place which mankind took almost 2000 years to figure out. You need an executive council with a head to rule it to be a global institution.
I know this video is from a while ago. But, the majority of comments are so totally deaf on the matter of true transubstantiation. Christ's presence is real in the Eucharist WHEN consecrated by a real priest ordained within apostolic succession in the order of Melchidzedec. This is most notably in the RC and EO churches. Any other denomination members who *think* they are receiving the flesh and blood of Jesus consecrated by a person missing these qualifications, are really counting on God's own mercy acting to bestow upon them the graces of a spiritual communion. We csn hope this is occurring.
Really appreciate this video..
GREAT SHOW!
We Orthodox never said it isn't the Body and Blood of Christ. We just don't articulate it to the same degree as the doctrine of "Transubstantiation" has. For us all sacrements are a Holy Mystery. It is the body and of the blood of Christ in so far as He said it is, it is a mystery to be experienced not comprehended.
He goes over the Orthodox position, starting at 1:05:15.
listening to this at 2.0x speed
Added to my comment below, Abraham and his son was indeed the ones who set in motion the type of the Sacrifice of the Mass on the mount?
NICE SUN WORSHIPPING THUMBNAIL YOU GOT THERE !! .....SUNDAY!!
John 6:63
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
Can you do a rebuttal to David Erham he has youtube channel and he has videos on refuting catholicism and i was wondering if you can do some rebuttals to his videos 😊 i am a fan of your channel. God bless
One sacrifice. Amazing.
We always miss our own assumptions when making an argument, and this is no exception. One of the key linchpins in this line of reasoning is the idea that “after the order of Melchizedek” means that the bread and wine is the sacrifice and that uniquely is what makes it Melchizedekian. This assumes to two things. First is that the bread and wine brought by Melchizedek we’re actually offerings. Maybe they were and maybe they weren’t, and Ybarra at least made a case for why based on the parallel we might think so. But the second assumption, never defended, is that it is uniquely the offering of bread and wine that makes Jesus “after the order of Melchizedek.” Nothing in the text of Hebrews hints at this. Hebrews I’m fact never mentions the bringing of bread and wine and emphasizes instead the eternality implicit in the lack of genealogical information about Melchizedek. In short, the easiest Protestant response is to say that what makes Jesus a priest after the order of Melchizedek is merely the fact that he has no beginning or end of life, and the bread and wine has nothing to do with it and just forms a nice parallel. This is why we all ought to “play test” our arguments in the real world before making bold claims about how effective they are.
Melchizedek is paralleled not only by Jesus, but first by David. David was both king and priest (2 Sam. 6:12-19) of Jerusalem, like Melchizedek. He wore a priestly ephod (2 Sam. 6:14) and offered sacrifices (2 Sam. 6:17), including bread and wine (2 Sam. 6:19 KJV, 1 Chron. 16:3 KJV) And David prophesied (Psalm 110:4) about the eternal Melchizedekian priesthood that would be fulfilled by Jesus Christ, as confirmed in Hebrews. So the linkage of king/priest offering bread and wine seems at least to me to comport better with Scripture then merely a parallel based on the eternal priesthood alone.
@@ashbanker David didn’t offer bread and wine, he gifted them to everyone in Israel. And it’s not even clear that’s wine; there’s a perfectly good word used specifically for wine in Hebrew but the word used there is a broad term for anything pressed which could be rendered as a food as well as a beverage. Also the fact that he wore an ephod doesn’t mean it was a priestly ephod any more than than him offering sacrifices makes him a priest, since the person bringing it is the one offering it even though the priest carries out the actual sacrificial ritual (cf. Exodus 30:14, 20). So that’s not very much in the way of additional evidence.
@@joshuascott5814
Well now, that wasn't so hard to explain away, was it?
Why is it that for the argument to work, it must be *uniquely* the offering of bread and wine that makes Jesus in the type of Melchizedek? Can one just say the bread and wine are an offering in the 'Melchizekian style' - then, if the singular offering of the New Covenant is actually Christ's own Body and Blood, then the Bread + Wine offering is probably not the run of the mill food offering. yada yada yada transubstantiation. Just curious!
Yes
But how do you get around Christ' sacrifice being described as 'once and for all' in Hebrews 10? So its not continual.
While true that Christ's sacrifice happened only once 2000 years ago, it still is continually applied to all sinners past, present and future. The sacrifice of the Mass is not a new sacrifice every time it is celebrated, but makes us participants in that one time sacrifice, as if we are witnessing it as it happened. May seem hard at first to wrap your head around it, but I think if you ponder it further, you will understand what I mean.
I think the 1 Cor 10 objection discussed at 51:04 is a devastating argument against transubstantion. Paul’s teaching clearly shows that the locus of divine or malign influence and presence is not a substantive change in the offered matter (animal or food), but in the symbolic and representative understanding and intent of the covenantal participation of individuals and community in an ecclesiastical or temple context.
Exactly. Through that whole section all I could think was that this is an argument for the symbolic interpretation of the supper. Suan's point in 47:50 should be answered by saying that Paul DOES say that you can relate to it in a way that makes it acceptable to eat FOR YOU, but that you must also consider how it will relate in the minds of those who know that you eat of it. Paul's point seems to be exactly what Suan questions: eating the food sacrificed to idols is OK because there is NO real relationship between the food and the sacrifice, but it is only not OK because there are some "weaker" people who believe that there is a real relationship, and for their sake do not eat of it.
@@SNUGandSESOR This still doesn't follow though. Paul goes on to say, "I do not want you to be participants with demons." It's not just about the "weaker" brothers. It's not just about how you relate to it. Something is substantially and objectively happening there, no matter how the individual relates to it, no matter the intent. When he says, "What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?", the point seems to be that idols are not actually gods on par with Yahweh, but not that there is no actual participation with an entity, namely, demons - "No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God." He seems to be undercutting the power of pagan deities while at the same time warning of a very real danger, no matter what the intent is. And I think Erick is on to something. There seems to be a difference in eating what was just immolated on the altar vs. buying meat at a market without knowing where it comes from. Ignorance, intent, and faith definitely play a role in the consumption of a sacrifice, which is why an atheist could somehow get his hands on the Eucharist, consume it, and still remain cut off from God. And at the same time, something objective and substantial is taking place on the altar. Both/and, not either/or.
Thank you for the great video!
I have a question: could it not be that the bread is NOT „obliterated“? Just like in the incarnation, in which there is a hypostatic union of the two natures in one divine person? So that it is also a hyperstatic union of the nature of the bread/wine and the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in the one divine person of Himself? In that case there is no obliteration of the nature of the bread/wine! Just like the bush is not destroyed by the divine flame (Moses).
That would also mean that the real presence of Christ isn‘t just added to the bread (Luther) and it would also mean that the real presence of Christ isn‘t merely spiritual(Calvin), since one couldn‘t separate the real presence from the bread.
I‘d appreciate an answer…
Thank you for your great work!
Also: it would be fitting to John 6:51 „I am the LIVING bread…“ since after the consecration it really isn‘t bread anymore but Jesus Christ! And since Jesus is alive (living bread), there has to be a hyperstatic reality otherwise we would eat His dead body.
It is not literal, it is literature, a metaphor to take on the christ nature onto themselves as he did it. In memory of him, is to keep this in their mind in their lives.
I believe in trans-basileia (one who is transformed out of one kingdom into another).
Above all else, this is the most important trans that Almighty God desires: one who turns from the dominion of Satan to God. Without it, one cannot become God's own possession
So where does Christ or the apostles in the Bible itself teach that bread and wine do »change«?
Where does Christ teach that they don't change?
@@jzak5723 Your argument is kind of strange. May I mirror it to you in other words?
👉 *Where does Christ say that he was not married? Since Christ did not say he was not married it is right to believe that he was married.*
or
👉 *Where does the Bible teach that Joseph - Jacob‘s beloved son - ever committed one sin? Since the Bible does nowhere teach Joseph sinned it is right to believe that Joseph was sinless.*
My friend WE don‘t make doctrines necessary for salvation out of the things that WERE NOT said. WE induce doctrines necessary for salvation out of the things that ARE said explicitly. If we would follow your strange logic … then at the end people would be convinced of countless absurdities because of things that have not been stated explicitly. That is the most strange argument I have ever heard.
@@jzak5723 False prophets appeal to things that God
DID NOT SAY to them
DID NOT COMMAND them
DID NOT SHOW them.
If you want to be a man of God then cling to what God
DID SAY to you
DID COMMAND you
DID SHOW you.
1.Corinthians 4:6b
…that you may learn in us *not to think beyond what is written,* that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
@@semper_reformanda
LOL, okay we'll do it your way then. Where in the Bible does it say explicitly that it doesn't change, since this is where all doctrines come from according to you?
@@semper_reformanda
Once again, show where it explicitly says that it doesn't change?
Where is the Bread & Wine of the Face/Presence of God (showbread/shewbread) in all this? Seems like Brant Pitre is the only one who ever brings this up and points it out in Scripture and Jewish tradition.
It is in my book
@@Erick_Ybarra Happy to hear it! If I had the platform that so many other Catholic apologists have, I'd be mentioning and explaining it at every appropriate opportunity, though maybe it doesn't get us all the way to transubstantiation, at least consubstantiation. If I'm not mistaken, the Jews connected the showbread with Melchizedek's offering and the real presence of Yahweh.
@ErickYbarra2010 Paz y Bien hermano thanks for another great teaching I'm always thanking GOD for brothers like @Suan Sonna and others like your self who help us grow in our Faith. Gracias Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
Hey catholics.
What is a drink?
Matthew 26:27 ESV -
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you,
What part of "drink" and what part of "all of you" didn't you understand in the commandment from my Lord?
So, let me get this straight, it's the actual blood of Christ and that's why I'm not allowed to drink it, correct?
Flee this anti-church, folks.
What?
Are you saying blood isn't liquid or cannot be drunk? You know "drink" is being use as a verb there, right? You're gonna have to elaborate to actually get your point across (supposing there is one)....
Or are you referring to the absence of the wine/blood in some liturgies?
LOL
None. We understand both.
Drink, all of you. For this is the blood of the New & Eternal covenant which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sin.
@@elperinasoswa6772 Thank you for acknowledging that you don't obey simple instructions in Scripture.
//"That bread, that wine, had better not be anything but the body and blood and soul and divinity of Jesus. That has to be Him because He is making it a salvation condition now, but there's no salvation apart from Christ!"//
--- That argument blows up the Transubstantiation thesis, as well as Roman Catholic practice, for at least three reasons:
1) You are correct that eating and drinking are salvation issue (according to John 6). But Rome doesn't make it a salvation issue! The sacraments that actually confer salvation in your system are baptism and confession. Jesus says unless you eat and drink you have no life, but you teach baptized infants, who have never gone to Mass, have life. It seems as if it's actually your church that has decided one does not need to eat or drink to have life. Instead, you can just have baptism and confession to have life. You also do not allow people to go to Mass if they have unconfessed mortal sins. Therefore, you make salvation a prerequisite to eating and drinking even though John 6 says eating and drinking causes it. This one you can get out of by joining the us Protestants in our exegesis of John 6 which sees the eating and drinking as metaphors of coming and believing (35) rather than a didactic teaching about the Eucharist. But the next objection you cannot escape.
2) If the host must be Christ because salvation is only by Him, then shouldn't that make salvation automatic for every person who eats the host? But certainly no one thinks that. So what happens when, in your system, someone unworthy consumes the host? What if a local perish does a poor job policing the table and an atheist consumes the Eucharist? According to your logic, The Atheist now has union with Christ, but is not saved! Because salvation comes through Christ, and thanks to the Mass, the Atheist, in his present condition, has Christ. Just as Jesus said, "He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me and I in him." Thus, it is actually your system that severs salvation from Christ because unbelievers can have a non-saving, personal union with Him. This is why Beza argued it is much better to sever Christ's saving power from His sign rather than do what you do, which is sever it from His Person.
3) Lastly, if eating and drinking are salvation conditions then your church damns the laity since she does not let them drink. She has taken the blood of Christ away from them, and no excuse about how the blood is in the bread will suffice when the New Testament always separates eating and drinking and presents both of them to us.
Just briefly, on point two the efficacy of sacrament is affected by ones personal disposition.
And on the third point, Catholics don't seperate the blood and body, the theology is that the cup and bread are both 100% Jesus; so consuming the host is also consuming the blood and vice versa.
This is a case of taking something so literally that you make nonsense out of reasonable nuance. Nuance that is found in the Scriptures themselves. Erick is not implying, nor would any Catholic say, that faith plays no role in the consumption of *any* sacrifice. And yet, something substantial and objective takes place on the altar. The two are not opposed to one another. There is always a balance. Scripture is fantastically well balanced on issues like this. God looks at the heart, intent matters, and at the same time, we would all agree that one cannot live like the world and claim to be a follower of Christ. Actions also matter. Your arguments are on the same level as, "If any Christian sins, it means Christianity is false". That's an absurdity based on extremes. It's not faith that makes the sacrifice of the Cross real, and yet, it is only with faith that the benefits of that sacrifice are communicated to us, via the sacraments.
Tragically how many non-catholics reduce the good deposit of faith to one's own reading of Sacred Scripture.
Thank brothers for the presentation. Since it appear that Melchizedek is a mysterious figure is it reasonable to infer that he is an angel who foreshadowed Christ the sacrificial Eucharistic lamb of God?
Revelation 17:5
“And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”
Revelation 17:9
“And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are SEVEN MOUNTAINS s, on which the woman sitteth.”....THE SEVEN HILLS OF ROME!! .
"promo sm"
Consubstantiation !! Fight Me!
Not really a fight, but just some issues that can help you find truth. Read carefully and in patience. And “you will know truth, and truth will set you free” (John 8, 32).
The Book of Concord doesn’t quibble in the part of what they call the Lord’s Supper: it is said that _“we unanimously reject and condemn (…) The papistic sacrifice of the Mass for the sins of the living and the dead”._ All Protestant denominations and non-denominationalism of every colors believe the same: the Eucharist (or whatever Protestantism thinks of the sacrament) has nothing to do with the sacrifice of reparation, the life-giving sacrifice of Christ on the cross. By only doing that Protestantism could stick to i) their very definition of “sola fide” as far as justification goes and ii) they could abolish ordained and ministerial priesthood, since it is entirely necessary for a sacrificial offering by its very ontological nature. More so, Jesus didn’t only have disciples; He had apostles AND disciples (and only the first were commissioned in the institution of the Eucharist and the forgiveness of sins, for example, which are undoubtedly tasks for a ministerial priesthood He himself commissioned, not the old Levitical one, yet clearly categorically unfitting for the “baptismal priesthood of all the faithful”). That’s just an introduction.
With that in mind, here I’d like to highlight that the “sacrificial lamb” of the Lord’s Passover (Exodus 12, 1-14), the “Manna of the desert” (Ex 16, 16-34) and the “Bread of the Presence” that was served as a memorial food offering to the Lord (Leviticus 24, 8-9; 1 Samuel 21, 5-6; Hebrews 9, 2) are all figures that point to the real “bread of life” and the true and definitive presence of the Lord among His people, since, through the Mystery of Incarnation, a fully transcendent all Mighty God comes to live among us: Jesus is no less than God-with-us (“Emmanuel” - Isaiah 7, 14 and Mattew 1, 23). Is it even possible to get to what God REALLY meant by the Real Presence in the Eucharist under those non-sacrificial theological premises? The only path to answering this is to understand how the “sacrificial lamb” of the Lord’s Passover, the “Manna of the desert” and the “Bread of the Presence” were to be REALLY consumed; the body and the blood of Jesus are commanded to be really CONSUMED too, that means to be actually eaten and actually drunk.
We know that the New and Eternal Covenant in Christ perfected the Ancient one, so Jesus hasn’t come to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to “fulfill” them (Mat 5, 17-18). Interestingly enough, the Communion/Peace/ Thanksgiving Sacrifice called the “Toda” (Lv 3, 17), the Sin/Reparation Sacrifices called the “Hattat” (Lv 7, 36), the Daily Sacrifice called the “Tamyid” (Ex 29, 42) and the very Passover (ritual) sacrifice of the Lamb of God called “Pessach” (Ex 12, 14), which were all liturgically conceived (that means they were put in the order of right praise), were also said to be PERPETUAL and everlasting and to be performed by ALL generations, not to last until something better happens in the mind of God. For Protestantism, on the other hand, Jesus dying on the cross for sure perfected the sacrifices of the Old Law altogether but at the same time it factually abolished them all, since it denies (unanimously for all Protestant branches, maybe apart from High Church Anglicanism, which is clearly a theological “platypus”) that the Holy Mass or Divine Liturgy IS the same once-for-all sacrifice on the Calvary only (re)presented - made present again - sacramentally, in an unbloody manner, because His body and blood are already glorified. That’s the most important thing that is essentially “counter-apostolic” in Protestantism: in a sense that it is contrary to Catholics, Assyrians of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy altogether. I hope it doesn’t sound provocative, but how would one define to have the “real” Real Presence of Jesus’ glorified body and blood IF really depriving the liturgy of the Eucharist of its inherent TRUE SACRIFICIAL nature from which the body and the blood are even understandable and discernible in the first place?
Being clear that none of us could ever be able to atone - in a propitiatory manner - the infinite offense in original sin, only the sacrificial offering of the Lord himself could do it though, if he ever decided to take a bodily form, since the gravity of the offense is measured by the dignity of the offended. God did it (Incarnation). Here, the very sacrifice of Isaac, the first-born of Abraham, is nothing but a type of the later consumed sacrifice of Jesus, the only-begotten Son of God: therefore, the central mark of the Old Covenant was imprinted in the everlasting New Covenant - a real sacrifice of the son/Son. If only God himself went on repairing it for us, meaning we could never do it for ourselves, there would be salvation and redemption to the broken humanity, so Jesus gives his life bodily so as to give it spiritually to us in Holy Communion. Terminating all inefficacious sacrifices of Jewish Law, Jesus took all into his own body and made it the only perfect one (Hebrew 7, 27), abolishing the slaughter of animals and sacrificialism. He perfected those ancient sacrifices by instituting the Eucharist PRECISELY because the liturgy of the sacrament and his very sacrifice are ONE (Mark 14:22-25, Matthew 26:26-29 and Luke 22:13-20) (read Catechism nn. 1365-1372).
Honestly, the liturgy of the Eucharist can never be only a “sacrifice of (community’s) praise”, if by that we repudiate the propitiatory nature of it. It is indeed THE ONE and the same sacrifice of Christ, otherwise God would be simply equivocating his promises. Yet Protestantism in general do it for two theological reasons, both with very practical undertones: first, because it conceives the sacraments as something “we do” at least partially, seeing it under their categorical concept of “works”, even high sacramental Protestants, but not as something that “God does” to us through the _Ekklesia_ (the Church), meaning the very prolonging of the mystery of Incarnation and therefore the ordinary means of God’s action in the “oikonomia”, in order to preserve intact the dogma of “sola fide” which ignited the Revolution itself; second, because to defy Church authority, the most efficient way to do that is to avoid the setting apart of ordained priesthood and make it indistinct to the “priesthood of all believers” (baptismal priesthood, as Catholics would name it), so that their sacramentology would be encapsulated and ultimately it is the fiduciary faith - not the very sacramental operation - that causes what the sacrament signifies, all again around the dogmatic “sola fide”, putting out the sacrificial nature of the liturgy. But the Catholic Church doesn’t pretend to deny that the Mass/ Liturgy is indeed a “sacrifice of praise” obviously: more educated Catholics would even say that we unite ourselves to Christ through the sacrifice of praise precisely because the sacrifice of the Holy Mass is both latreutic (by which we give God the Father what is due, through the Son, in the Spirit) and propitiatory in its very nature.
_________
So what about “consubstantiation” instead of “transubstantiation”? Bizarrely enough, the Book of Concord ACTUALLY dares to explain how the Eucharist consecration happens in Catholic dogmatics, which seems utterly strange, not the Catholic Church itself. It is in this part a reaction to the fatal errors of Zwinglian theology, as literally stated in the book. Luther himself was really scandalized to learn that using the very same Bible as he used other people could simply deny the Real Presence. Still I’d say the Lutheran position is exegetically fragile and Zwingli actually saw the flaws. The very idea of the Holy Eucharist is that the species of bread and wine are changed not in the (material) form, as apprehensible to the senses, but in the substance, to be the body and the blood of Christ as He proclaimed in emphatic trueness. For me it’s clear that when the Words of Institution (or Consecration) are said by Jesus, Our Lord does not say “this bread is my body” or “this wine is my blood”. He says: “this is my body” and “this is my blood”. A dual ontological reality, therefore a reality that concerns to a concomitant arrangement of substances (“ousia”), this is precisely what is NOT found in the biblical text. We have tons of Patristic references of the changing (of substances) in reference of the Eucharist, what it is and what it is no longer, but Luther understood the Eucharist is SIMULTANEOUSLY bread/wine and body/blood and that understanding was dogmatized in the Lutheran confessions.
The Book of Concord is very explicit, with its characteristic language, in the blasphemous condemnation of the Church: _”(…) we unanimously reject and condemn (…) 1. The papistic transubstantiation, when it is taught in the Papacy that in the Holy Supper the bread and wine lose their substance and natural essence, and _*_are thus ANNIHILATED;_*_ that they are changed into the body of Christ, and the outward form alone remains”._
And that’s just abusing Catholic dogma, since the Church NEVER defined HOW the change happened (and Lutherans said it happened by annihilation). But now look at the Council of Trent and please try to find where in the Catholic dogma the substances of bread and wine are no longer present in the Eucharist because they were “annihilated”. And that’s simply a grave misrepresentation (to say the least):
_”Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation”._
So it is the very Book of Concord the doctrinal “topos” that actually tries to explain HOW the Eucharist happens, meaning to condemn the Catholic Church (naming it “Rome” or the “papists” or whatever derogatory means which is fitting to their language) while saying that the changing of substance happens by “annihilating” the substances of bread and wine according to Catholics, a thing that the Church of 2000 years NEVER dared to define. Isn’t it ironic that this Lutheran confession dogmatized a “fake news”?
I personally find the “consubstantiation” argument from Lutheranism and Anglicanism even less compelling - at the exegetical level at least - than the view which sees the Most Holy Sacrament as a mere symbol that is subsequent to a strictly memorialist enactment of past events. I actually think the Catholic position is so evidently correct that people will reject it by misunderstanding the deepness of the teachings or for a sort of emotional reason, like the fear of idolatry and the ideological machinery built behind it. Others (obstinate formal schismatics) will maybe reject it by the simple fact that the Catholic Church defined it. If “this” is the Lord’s sacrifice and we believe He is present in body, blood, soul and divinity, then we believe adoration to the divine is due and an imperative of justice; it’s also necessary to say, for the sake of a correct Christology concerning sacramentology, that no one should divide Jesus’ humanity and divinity. That could be one of the intellectual errors of Luther concerning the appearances.
We don’t believe the accidents invariably inform the substance (=ultimate reality) of what a thing is. It works for a chair or for a book or anything that draws its meaning from the correspondence between sensorial perception and intellect; but it’s NOT like that for the Eucharist. It is not “transformed” (meaning the material forms change) and precisely because of that we may say the accidents, in unchanged material form, are the signs that can and do make a sacrament the very mysterious reality underneath the modification of the substance which makes them work in a sacramental role, purpose and order (invisible reality of God’s grace/ visible sign). Put the concomitance of substances of “bread + body” and “blood + wine” and it deconstructs, if taken to the ultimate consequences, the very idea of sacramentality in itself because 1) Jesus would be incorrect in saying that the species of bread were his body and the species of wine his blood and not “bread and his body” and “wine and his blood”, and also because 2) if there is a concomitance, meaning that they are bound to be substantially together at the same time, then it would mean the the sign and the thing signalized confounded, which is detrimental to the sacramental role. I can’t help but think that the symbolic-only view of Zwingli seems to be a response to that apparent deficiency of the “concomitance view” in the sacramentology of Luther, without admitting the going back to Catholic Church’s teachings. Definitely it is not a “transformation” or, in Greek, a “meta”(trans) + “morphosis”(formation). What we had is what we have no longer in the substance because what those are now Jesus said and proclaimed explicitly, in the authority of God Incarnate. God’s words are constitutive of reality. Look at the book of Genesis for example: “And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light” (Genesis 1, 3). Now look to Matthew or Luke’s Gospels: take the narrative part out and look for the very sacred Words of Institution themselves in the exact quotation of Our Lord’s words. We have - and only through faith in the Word made flesh - the certainty that bread and wine are not there in what they are defined into being (=ontologically), only the accidents. We don’t know HOW it happens, but we know WHAT happens, and that makes for the dogma (read the Catechism, nn. 1374-1381).
God bless you, my friend!
@@masterchief8179 Uh huh.
Why would a consubstantiation view be different in principle from the Church's view of icons of our Lord? Why couldn't the bread and wine that remain point to the greater presence beyond them in the same way that icons of our Lord do?
It's a good question to ask, but the short of it is that Jesus did say that "this is my body and blood", so we just don't see it as the bread and wine pointing to Jesus, like a symbol, but it is really truly Him.
@@jzak5723 I wouldn't view it as just a symbol. I think the Lutheran view is really more like a "both-and" not an "either-or." And St. Paul sure seems to talk as if it is both in 1 Corinthians 11.
@@Mitenilk08
What verse in particular in 1 Cor. 11 would you say backs up what you are saying about it being both? God Bless!
@@jzak5723 "27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."
St. Paul seems to use the terms indiscriminately. Both body and blood AND bread and wine.
@@Mitenilk08
Whe he uses the words"profaning the body and blood of the Lord" it seems to indicate that Paul sees it as treating (something sacred) with irreverence or disrespect, therefore not symbolic of Jesus, but his real body and blood. This is the Catholic take on the passage.
The invention and birth of transubstantiation occurred at the moment when Roman Catholics reinterpreted the language of the early church. The confession »bread and wine _symbolize_ Christ« became »bread and wine _become_ Christ«. In other words, »the Eucharist is _symbolically_ Christ« became »the Eucharist is _really_ Christ.« When early Catholics, like Ignatius, stated that the Eucharist is the Christ they did not say that the Eucharist itself is physically Christ. They elsewhere stated that the elements reflect and symbolize Christ in the very same way Paul said that »Mount Sinai…is Hagar« (Gal 4,24).
So when we read a Church Father testifying, »the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ« the question is, »In what sense is the Eucharist the flesh of Jesus Christ - symbolic or real?« Many fathers like Augustine explained that this is to be understood spiritually not fleshly. They explained that the elements were symbols for Christ‘s death on the cross of Calvary. Transsubstantiation is the result of unbelief and the consequence of it is absurdity. Those who hate God love absurd things. By loving absurd things you can measure your true relationship to the God of truth. He did not tell us things like Transsubstantiation or the bodily assumption of Mary. Men have invented these things. So please, if Transsubstantiation is scriptural bring me Scripture describing the physical and substantial change of the elements and please stop yelling »this and this father said that the eucharist is his flesh!« my dear catholic friends, I as Bible believing Christian confess that »the eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ« - a confession that is in harmony with the entire Scripture and the very words of Christ and his apostles. They are symbols reflection truths. And the truth is the death of Christ on the cross - which is the culmination of God‘s counsel from Genesis to Revelation!
Belief in the Real Presence was unanimous for early Christians.
@@fantasia55 well, that is a completely different topic. The video and my comment is about Transsubstantiation.
@@semper_reformanda That is certainly your opinion.
@@fantasia55 actually I am reflecting the words of the early Catholic Church Fathers who many times explained their own words. So no, I am not just giving my opinions here. I ask myself what do you want to say? It appears to me that you are afraid of the naked and plain truth. But remember my friend that the Lord Jesus said »the truth will set you free« and the truth he was talking about was »my teaching« (John 8:31-32). The truth of Jesus and Catholicism are incompatible since the doctrines Jesus taught oppose the doctrines Roman-Catholicism teaches.
Nope
Transubstantiation is garbage.1John 4:2 Tells us that Jesus came in a real body. Came means in the past. And in a real body means that Jesus was a real physical human being just like us. John is telling us that Jesus was visible to our senses. John also tells us to not deviate from this teaching. John wrote this in90 a.d many years after Jesus died. John did not tell anyone that Jesus was in the local catholic church every sunday in bread and wine. Catholics have changed the word of God and added something to the bible. If Jesus were the bread and wine then John is a liar because John makes it clear that Jesus was in a physical body not bread and wine. And if John is a liar then why do catholics have a bible? Why follow the bible if the bible lies. Because John is not a liar, that means catholics are liars. 1John3:6 tells us that sinners dont know God or understand Him. So catholics cant even teach anyone about God because they don't know God.
Your guest makes a simple error in trying to justify transubstantiation. In none of his supposed examples of pagan or Jewish sacrifices, is the sacrifice ever anything but a symbol or representation. He is obviously stretching or reaching in order to substantiate the belief - unfortunately. Another thing that Paul mentions is that Hebrews 10:26
King James Version
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. So why not take another shot of blood and body which, as His very presence, should commune one again with Christ?
Then there is the fact that Israel never drank the blood of any of the sacrifices - simply, they were "covered" by the sacrifice.
And at the Last Supper, Christ had not been sacrificed WHEN He said, This is my body and this is my blood. Obviously, Jesus did not show transubstantiation here nor could it be as He would be offering unsacrificed elements and, thus, absolutely unholy. Anyone have something to clarify these issues?
So the sacrifices conducted at the altar of Israel were merely symbolic? Do you mean there was not an actual violent death in a real animal objectively speaking? Same for the Pagan temple cult?
Christ's death is a timeless reality and this is why the mystical representation of that death can be done before and after, without multiplying his death.
@@Erick_Ybarra The violent death of an animal was symbolic - not that an animal was symbolically sacrificed. When you state "the mystical representation of that death", that is symbolic - the very definition.
@@Erick_Ybarra "Christ's death is a timeless reality and this is why the mystical representation of that death can be done before and after" - if that is so, what was the reason God commanded animal sacrifices? God simply could have instructed Israel to eat and drink the bread and wine - this would have resolved two issues: their true salvation and the teaching of the coming sacrifice that it symbolizes. The requirement of the inefficient blood of animals shows that there was no other means available "timelessly" and that there could be no transubstantiation BEFORE Christ's sacrifice nor after it as there is no substantiation for it. Simply, show the OT teaching that supports transubstantiation of anything holy. If it is a true teaching of God, it has to be in the OT somewhere. The only things that change (not exactly absolutely) is the time that the waters of the Nile turned into blood, however, that was judgment as "blood" always symbolizes. If you "partake" of the actual blood you are communing with the judgment - which is death. If it is a symbol of His sacrifice, then it is the communing with the atonement for sin. Otherwise, you also violate the law of God against the consumption of blood -
Acts 15:29 ESV
That you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Genesis 9:4 ESV
But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Acts 15:20 ESV
But should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
Deuteronomy 12:16 ESV
Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.
Leviticus 3:17 ESV
It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”
There are simply too many restrictions against the consumption of blood for one to accept transubstantiation as Biblical teaching with all due respect.
@@GlobalMycbhNetwork I want to make one single counter claim: The Jewish sacrifices were literal and miraculous and not merely symbolic.
Evidence: I am quoting out of the Talmud, Yoma 39a and 39b, which records what was happening within the Temple.
Yoma 39a shows what is the normal course of events (and they are miracles by God!) and how things started to change.
"And during the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, *the fire on the arrangement of wood on the altar kept going strongly, perpetually by itself, such that the priests did not need to bring additional wood to the arrangement on a daily basis,* except for the two logs that were brought in order to fulfill the mitzva of placing wood upon the arrangement. From then onward, the fire sometimes kept going strongly and sometimes it did not, and so the priests could not avoid bringing wood to the arrangement throughout the entire day.... The Sages taught: During all forty years that Shimon HaTzaddik served as High Priest, the lot for God arose in the right hand. From then onward, sometimes it arose in the right hand and sometimes it arose in the left hand. Furthermore, during his tenure as High Priest, *the strip of crimson wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel turned white, indicating that the sins of the people had been forgiven,* as it is written: “Though your sins be as crimson, they shall be white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18). From then onward, it sometimes turned white and sometimes it did not turn white. Furthermore, *the western lamp of the candelabrum would burn continuously as a sign that God’s presence rested upon the nation. From then onward, it sometimes burned and sometimes it went out."*
Yoma 39b continuation of how things changed.
"The Sages taught: During the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, the lot for God always arose in the High Priest’s right hand; after his death, it occurred only occasionally; but *during the forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple,* the lot for God did not arise in the High Priest’s right hand at all. So too, *the strip of crimson wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel did not turn white, and the westernmost lamp of the candelabrum did not burn continually."*
The strip of wool turning white and the continual burning of the candelabrum is interpreted by the priests as God accepting the sacrifice and forgiving sins. Curiously 40 years before the Temple destruction (~30AD!), the sacrifices stopped being accepted. This proves the Resurrection and destruction of the sacrificial system but let's focus on the point at hand here that the Jewish sacrifices were literal AND NOT MERELY SYMBOLIC.
@@alisterrebelo9013 All of your "counter claim" is indeed symbolic. I think you're conflating the sacrifice itself with things that God did in response which were for teaching purposes. Where is the fire when Jesus was offered up? What of the crimson wool? Where is the candelabrum at the crucifixion?
These miraculous happenings are all symbolic of the process of redemption and they are instructive.
You are naturalizing the events as if they were essential events, yet they are not featured as companion events during the sacrifice of our Lord. If they weren't symbolic then they must be essential - then where are they at Golgotha?
Accretion is what killed the Roman Catholic church, not just one issue. And now your demigod, the pope seems to have declared LGBTQ+ ok. Accretion for 1600+ years.
Oh shut up!! Protestanism is the reason for all the modern heresies we're plagued with. Protestanism is the death of Christianity. Silly nonesense.
Ignorant Protestant may say “Pope Francis blablabla LGBTQ+ ok”. That’s nonsense. By the way, the sentence “The Pope is a demigod” must come from a Jack Chick Tract type of Protestant.
Pope Francis own Apostolic Exortation “Amoris Laetitia” (2016).
_”250. The Church makes her own the attitude of the Lord Jesus, who offers his bound- less love to each person without exception [275]. During the Synod, _*_we discussed the situation of families whose members include persons who experience same-sex attraction, a situation not easy either for parents or for children. We would like before all else to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided_*_ [276], particularly any form of aggression and violence. _*_Such families should be given respectful pastoral guidance, so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will_*_ in their lives [277]”_ .
_”251. In discussing the dignity and mission of the family, the Synod Fathers _*_observed that, “as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are ABSOLUTELY NO GROUNDS for considering H*O*M*O*S*E*X*U*A*L_*_ UNIONS to be in _*_ANY WAY similar or EVEN REMOTELY ANALOGOUS to God’s plan for marriage and family”. It is UNACCEPTABLE “that local Churches should be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies should make financial aid to poor countries dependent on the introduction of laws to establish ‘marriage’ between persons of the same sex”_* [278]”.
_______
[275] Cf. Bull Misericordiae Vultus, 12: AAS 107 (2015), 407.
[276] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358; cf. Relatio Finalis 2015, 76.
[277] Ibid. 190
[278] Relatio Finalis 2015, 76; cf. conGreGaTion for The doctrine of the faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between H*om*o*s*ex*u*al Persons (3 June 2003), 4.
can you please quote the exact document in which Pope Francis teaches publicly that?