Wow, this is quite comprehensive. Thank you so much for putting the materials together and make such an informative video. I was Protestant of 30+ years and decided to convert to Catholicism back in Feb this year because of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. God bless you!
@@wesleysimelane3423but other so call churches of 50,000 + is a false man made churchessss, can't count them, like the pagan hindu gods uncountable. Too many churchesss and gods too. No that's too confussing to be a Faith in Almighty God creator of heaven and earth.
@@drstewart Show me in scripture the assumption of mary, celebration of feast days of dead catholic "saints", dulia, hyper-dulia and even the immaculate conception of Mary......Catholicism is not bible based.
Absolutely, Excellent 💯🎉. What is your website URL, that I could study more on my own. This is a great RUclips channel. It strengthens my faith so much!!! With Christian love to you and your family, Sister Monique 🙂🙏🌷💗
Quote from the Justin Martyr paragraph "And i will not accept the sacrifice at your hands" Is that the proof we need that the host should only be taken on the tongue!?
@@gtibruce Catholics routinely say that the all the Church Fathers agreed with the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist and transubstantiation. That’s not true. “But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act,” (Athenagoras 133-190 AD, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8). ** “For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble.” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, Letter 98:9). ** “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord,” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24). ** “And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’ - the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’ - the holy stream of gladness.’” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 2:2). ** “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 1:6). ** For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood.” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3). ** “For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body… to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body,” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1). ** “…nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator,” (Tertullian, 155-220 AD, Against Marcion, 1:14)
@@wesleysimelane3423 Copied and pasted from an anti-Catholic website. I looked up the very first quote from Athenagoras, and he is NOT talking about the Eucharist at all, so this is proof that the people you are listening to are liars. The false claim these liars make is in the first sentence: "Catholics routinely say that the all the Church Fathers agreed with the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist and transubstantiation. That’s not true." Yet none of the quotes show that the person rejects the teaching on the Eucharist. We know that St. Augustine explicitly taught that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. He is a doctor of the Church and one of the greatest theologians in history, so why are you pulling out these off-topic quotes? Read an actual book and quote teachings that address the actual topic.
Quote from the Justin Martyr paragraph "And i will not accept the sacrifice at your hands" Is that the proof we need that the host should only be taken on the tongue!?
As a Latinist and Pan-Latinist , you know I am in Love with learning more of the earliest form of Latin Mass , first established when Sanctvs Petrvs founded his seat at Roma (Essentially refounding the City of my Ancestors) .
Thanks for this explanation of the Mass, I occasionally try to defend the Church when hostile Protestant Christians make untrue comments, and your video has given me a good background to defend our Church.
You can not defend the catholic church. The bible is clear about her, "that great harlot who will seek to change the law and the times and who shall make many drunk with her wine(false doctrines)".
There is no such thing as a "Protestant Christian". The Church of Christ is the Holy Catholic Church. Christianity is Catholicism, and Catholicism is Christianity. If a person is Protestant, he or she might agree with some of the dogmas and doctrines of Catholicism/Christianity, but his/her Protestantism does not make him/her Christian. Protestantism exists only to destroy the Catholic/Christian Church, which Jesus Himself built for the salvation of souls.
Thank you for another excellent video, Mr. Suti. This may interest you and your viewers. "Many of us in this land grew up in the conviction that the early Christians had very simple beliefs, the most primitive organization, and an almost complete lack of ceremonial. A study of Eusebius's pages will satisfy us that we have been greatly deceived. Not only in his own statements but in the testimonies of the earliest authorities on which he draws, we shall find inescapable proof that the Church of the first generations of Christians was one in which an Anglican of our day would recognise most of the ideas and practices to which he is accustomed we shall find the same online drawing between clergy and laity, the same division of the clergy between clergy and lady this same division of the clergy into three orders of bishops presbyters and deacons the same practice of episcopal ordination and consecration, the same insistence on the Apostolic succession and on the establishment by Christ of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We shall find Christendom partitioned up into dioceses and archdioceses, presided over and ruled by bishops who are held in the highest esteem. Did not James, the Lord’s brother, within a few years of the Savior’s death sit on the episcopal throne of Jerusalem and officiate clad in sacerdotal vestments? Was not the beloved disciple ‘a sacrificing priest wearing a mitre’? There may have been a short period when services were held in private houses but as soon as possible churches began to rise then cathedrals and on these the builders lavished their loving artistry to the delight in sublimation of the beholder. No one can read Eusebius’s account of how the cathedral of Tyre with all its elaborate symbolism rose from the ashes without thinking of Coventry. Truly that generation and this are one. Within the house of God, then as now, was a sanctuary and within the sanctuary and altar at which the priest celebrated the Eucharist and when they had pledged themselves to keep the commandments of God and had sung hymns and antiphons to his divine son administered to the faithful the body and blood of the Lord from this Sacrament notable sinners were excluded till they had shown themselves penitent and received absolution. . . (Eusebius 9-10). " Eusebius. “The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine.” Trans. G.A. Williamson. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1965.
Thank you very much for this well done and much needed presentation. I heard a theory of what led to the complete separation of the Mass from the Synagogues. At first, the Christians were doing the Eucharistic ceremony as a separate liturgy on the Lord's Day and still going to the temple or synagogues on Sabbath. This is because the Christians were considered a sect of the Jews for quite some time. The benefit for Christians of this was that it dispensed them from having to make sacrifices to the so called Roman gods (something that only Jews were dispensed from). However, when the Jewish persecution of the Christian sect evidently proved unfruitful, the Jewish leaders officially went to the Roman leaders and anathematized the Christian sect from among them. This meant in practice that Christians would have no longer been welcome in Jewish ceremonies, and as well would have made it that Christians would then be required to make sacrifices to the gods. This led to the Christians having to combine the regular liturgical celebrations with the Eucharistic liturgy. And it is what also led to one of the first persecution of the Christians from the Romans, since they did not wish to sacrifice to the gods. I'm not sure if this theory is true or not but it seems plausible to me.
Wrong question. The question should be: How did Holy Thursday (the Last Supper), Good Friday (the Crucifixion), and Easter Sunday (the Resurection) become the Latin Rite Mass?
Go to Google translate and set it to translate English to Hebrew. Type in Chavurah in English then it will bring up the Hebrew חבורה. On the Hebrew side click the speaker icon for the Hebrew pronunciation. The ch in Chavurah is pronounced like the ch in bach (Johann Sebastian Bach), the b in Chaburah is actually pronounced as a v. And the r is pronounced more like a French r. Hope this helps.
In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (not "Spiritui Sancti" -- "spiritui" is dative, the case of indirect object, "spiritūs," usually written in Church Latin without the macron, is genitive, the case of possession).
Liturgy does not mean work of the people. At least not according to Peter Kwasniewski unless I am mistaken. What I heard was it means "binding" as in what brings us closer, binding us to God.
Brother you're still getting the sign of the cross wrong. Signum Crucis: In nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti. Gloria Patri: Gloria patri, et filio, et spiritui sancto.
Excellent video! I would warmly recommend reading the celebrated Prof. Paul F. Bradshaw, formerly Professor of Liturgy at Notre Dame on the Apostolic Tradition of Pseudo-Hippolytus. 19th century scholarship had authenticated the document, however it turns out that it was not Roman origin, not representative of the Roman Liturgy and certainly not 3rd or even 4th century.
When the bible starts to be rewritten and changes are made it is time to leave and depart from those who are doing the changing God The same yesterday today and forever Amen
The Latin lesson wasn’t completely successful. SPIRITUS is the genitive of the Spirit, not “Spiritui” as you pronounced. That latter is the dative, meaning “to the Spirit”, as we say it in the doxology… 1:34
If you're looking to save some money at a used bookstore, I know a lot of people just get a 1955 Missal. I believe the only change is the addition of the name of St. Joseph to the Roman Canon (which you can add yourself) and some technicalities about feast rankings. The missals from the 50's will likely have more reverent artwork than a missal printed in the 60s.
"Modern man" = one who doesnt believe in evil, satan, hells, and one who doesnt like to feel guilty and repent, one who likes to feel great about himself.
A Chaburah meal was a ritualized religious meal that was not tied to the solemnity of Passover - it is my understanding that the term Seder Meal specifically refers to the Passover Meal ritual.
@@historiaecclesiastica Thank you! So Chaburah is more like an ordinary weekly Sabbath meal? What is your opinion on Catholics having Seder meals to educate on the fulfillment in the Mass? I am of a Traditional Catholic perspective. I don't think we should conflate these?
Every year after teaching the Exodus story I hold a Seder with my students to give them some context to understand how the Israelites were prepared for the Eucharist for some thousand years. I haven't thought about the danger of conflating the two. I can see the danger of conflation if not enough instruction is given into the radical difference between the two liturgies and transubstantiation isn't taught sufficiently and if it isn't made extremely clear that the Seder Meal is purely symbolic while the Eucharist is truly a sacrificial partaking in the flesh of the Crucified. @@corilv13honey9
In the catacomb painting which shows the mass, couldn't you make the argument that it is the part of the liturgy when the celebrants are giving communion, meaning that they are turned to the people only then? They could pray the Eucharistic prayer facing ad orientem, then turn to the people and give away the eucharist. And if st. Paul talks about the table of devils, where food is sacrificed to pagan gods facing the idol of that god, and then comparing that to the table of the Lord, couldn't we make the argument that they celebrated the Eucharist on the table facing a painting of Christ or just simply facing east?
Quote from the Justin Martyr paragraph "And i will not accept the sacrifice at your hands" Is that the proof we need that the host should only be taken on the tongue!?
@emmap1159 of course you cannot kill Jesus, the Romans and Jews found that out, but it seems to me if you view the bread and wine as the actual blood and body of Christ, then you are offering Him again in effigy. Can you tell me what is the intent behind the sacrament?
@@Jer20.9 Eucharistia is the Greek word for thanksgiving which is what Jesus instructs us to reenact in memory of His own sacrifice as detailed in three gospels. An effigy is a rag doll mockery of an individual which does not exist in the Catholic or Orthodox liturgy. As Christ assures us that indeed bread and wine becomes His body and blood as in John 6:55, and that you have no life within you if you fail to believe this..John 6:53.
After Consecration, we are told that there is no bread and wine but only Body and Blood of Jesus.. Then , why the Priest says, " ...this living BREAD ".?
The modern Catechism writes that using the terms bread and wine to refer to the consecrated offerings is appropriate because Jesus and St Paul both used that sort of language to refer to the Eucharist. That seems to be a reasonable point. However I agree that using that sort of language is unhelpful to restore belief in the true presence to today’s Catholics.
@@historiaecclesiastica Jesus said, " I am the living bread " before the last supper , not during or after the last supper. Paul " Words of Consecration does not include , " Unto remission of sins " , so, they are invalid.. CCC , a creation of Cardinal Ratzinger and John Paul II, gives a wrong definition of Mass.
@@garyolsen3409 The Latin Church teaches that bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus ( Transubstantiation) when the Priest says the Words of Consecration. So it is illogical for the Priest to say ," When we eat this bread and drink this cup......." , Immediately after Consecration. This error is there both in the Tridentine Mass and in the Bugnini Mass. There is an option for an alternate oration in both.
@@eugenebastian8351 I'm Traditional rite, you don't need to school me. You run your thoughts together, try not to do that so everyone can understand you.
What I don’t get is why people deny the literary device called metaphor. In a metaphor, a person uses literal language to say that x is y. They don’t literally mean that x is y, but their audience usually understands what they mean. Clearly no one believed that Jesus meant it literally when he said that he is the bread that comes from heaven. No one claims that he meant that he is literally bread. But then they claim that when he said the bread is his flesh he must have meant that literally. Why do they not acknowledge the possibility of Jesus using metaphor, just like he had just done when he said he was the bread that came down from heaven?
In John 6 the Jews apparently took Jesus literally since they all left Him when He said, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you shall not have life within you.”
Show me the scripture that Jesus says it's metaphorical. He told parables which were metaphors but they were stories to illustrate a point, but He wasn't telling a story the night of the last supper. The resurrection, the multiplication of fish, the wine at Cana, walking on water, curing the blind..are they metaphorical too?
@@ruthmaryrose yes, and they were commonly comically misunderstanding Jesus. Are you saying we should follow their example? Jesus was misunderstood a lot by everyone, including his own disciples.
@@emmap1159 Do you believe Jesus is literally a gate? Do you believe he is literally a shepherd herding sheep? Why do you no take those literally when he didn’t explain, “I am speaking metaphorically here”.
@@EclectifyingJohn 6:55 " For my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink." Kind of clears up any confusion for most. John 6:66 (interesting number) are the ones who walked away. They couldn't believe either.
I don't know what your political affiliations are, but it's very bizarre to mention 2 political figures living today who have NOTHING to do with the history and development of the Catholic mass. But since you brought those people up in your conversation, you should at least have the GUTS to admit who you WOULD rather have in their stead. Who is the righteous Christian that SHOULD be President in your "opinion"?
I'm sure this gentleman knows, as most non-Modernist Catholics surely do, that there aren't any who are actually contenders presently, lol. We also know well that God has, and may, use anyone, even pagans, to accomplish His will.
Even a Christian cannot brush aside the worship of Jehovah as God. In Revelation 1:5 the Son of God called himself "Jesus Christ, 'The Faithful Witness.'" When on earth as a man he was a Jew, an Israelite, to whose nation the words of Isaiah 43:10 were written: "'You are my witnesses, ' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'even my servant whom I have chosen.'" Jesu demonstrated that he was a faithful and true witness of Jehovah God. His genuine disciples today must be the same kind of witnesses, Jehovah's.
Nah. False on its face. John 10:25-30: "Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me. But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand. That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father. I and the Father are one." Matthew 3:16-17: "And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Not just a "witness." Christ's Church was founded, and the subject of His divinity established, well before the false teachings of Charles Taze Russell.
According to whoever wrote the Gospel of John the "Last Supper" was the night before Passover. Jesus was reported to have been dead by the time the lambs were being slaughtered. The slaughtering of the lambs is on the day BEFORE Passover. The Jewish clock has days starting at Sunset - not 12 Midnight. If only you would take 15 min. a day to learn Hebrew you might toss your Latin into the dust bin.
A major theme of my video “why the Douay Rheims Bible is the greatest English translation” is that the Masoretic tradition, the only surviving Hebrew text, is a corrupted 9th century text that was intended to de-Christianize the Old Testament by Jewish rabbis.
the person who wrote the Gospel of John is......roll of drums......ST JOHN THE DISCIPLE. all the ancient Gospels of St John SAY they are the Gospel of John, from all over north Africa, the middle east, what we now call Turkey etc. if you have actual, extensive EVIDENCE which casts doubt on the authorship it would be interesting to see.
Certainly not. Christ effects the change. He transubstantiated the first Host in the Last Supper, and looking at His apostles, immediately said "Do this in memory of me." He would not command them to do something He did not grant them the power to do.
@@historiaecclesiastica . You can't be serious amere human creating the God of the universe from a wafer. There's no logic in this. Jesus at the passover transformed Himself into bread? I don't think so. Please spare me.
@@ewaldradavich7307 You are Dammed if you receive the Eucharist “Unworthily.” (I Corinthians 11:27-29) How can that be if its symbolic? (405 A.D.) Theodore: “[Christ] did NOT say, ‘This is the SYMBOL of but, this is my body.’ my blood,’ the EUCHARIST.” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1) (33 A.D.) “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have NO life in you.” (John 6:53) (Mt. 26:26-29) (Luke 22:19-20) (70 A.D.) The Didache: Sunday, “Offer the Eucharist… in every place & time… a pure sacrifice.” (14:1-3) (CCC 1322-1419) (430 B.C.) “Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering.” (Malachi 1:11) (189 A.D.) St. Irenaeus: “Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made.” (Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 2 Verse 3) (110 A.D.) St. Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2, 7:1) "Those who hold heterodox do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus are perishing.” (155 A.D.) Justin Martyr (First Apology 66): “Eucharist is the flesh and blood of that Jesus.”
Catholics routinely say that the all the Church Fathers agreed with the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist and transubstantiation. That’s not true. “But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act,” (Athenagoras 133-190 AD, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8). ** “For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble.” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, Letter 98:9). ** “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord,” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24). ** “And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’ - the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’ - the holy stream of gladness.’” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 2:2). ** “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 1:6). ** For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood.” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3). ** “For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body… to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body,” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1). ** “…nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator,” (Tertullian, 155-220 AD, Against Marcion, 1:14)
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Please note that all of these quotes demonstrate that Sacraments have a symbolic dimension, but none deny that Sacraments also have an actual Grace transmitted through that symbol. Below is a response to most of the quotes you shared. “But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act,” (Athenagoras 133-190 AD, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8). Catholics do believe that cannibalism is unlawful and detestable, which is the reason that the Lord gives us his flesh and blood under the outward accidents of bread and wine, which interact with our digestive system as bread and wine. “For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble.” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, Letter 98:9). - St. Augustine is not denying that Sacraments have an actual effective Grace, though in this quote he is drawing attention to the symbolic aspect of sacraments. Sacraments are both symbols as well as effective transmitters of grace. Augustine also said: "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ, and the chalice is the blood of Christ." The followers of Jesus thought his commands in John 6 commanded a vice, which is why they left Him. They, however, were incorrect in doing so - the Eucharist reveals how the command to eat His flesh and drink His blood, which are true food and true drink is not a sin or vice. Clement of Alexandria's quote that "elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’" highlights the symbolic aspect of the Sacrament, which is undeniable, however, it also effects an actual grace. Clement of Alexandria also said: “Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” (Paedagogus 1:6) The rest of the quotes you shared also refer to the symbolic element of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but they do not deny the substantial reality of Christ's true presence, which all of these Church Fathers accepted. Many of them spoke of the true presence in other places, though they did so incidentally rather than apologetically. Tertullian's quote is in response to gnostics who denied that Christ had a body at all, so he was arguing primarily that Jesus had a physical body, he wasn't describing the Eucharist per se - though no where in your quote provided did he deny that the symbol did not also communicate the actual presence of Christ. One gets that impression only when reading it with a post-Protestantism Eucharistic debate lens, which is out of its historical context. No legitimate Christians denied the true presence until the 16th century, so clear articulations directly addressing the Protestant heresy regarding the Eucharist don't emerge until then. God bless you.
You are Dammed if you receive the Eucharist “Unworthily.” (I Corinthians 11:27-29) How can that be if its symbolic? (405 A.D.) Theodore: “[Christ] did NOT say, ‘This is the SYMBOL of but, this is my body.’ my blood,’ the EUCHARIST.” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1) (33 A.D.) “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have NO life in you.” (John 6:53) (Mt. 26:26-29) (Luke 22:19-20) (70 A.D.) The Didache: Sunday, “Offer the Eucharist… in every place & time… a pure sacrifice.” (14:1-3) (CCC 1322-1419) (430 B.C.) “Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering.” (Malachi 1:11) (189 A.D.) St. Irenaeus: “Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made.” (Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 2 Verse 3) (110 A.D.) St. Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2, 7:1) Those who hold heterodox do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus are perishing.” (155 A.D.) Justin Martyr (First Apology 66): “Eucharist is the flesh and blood of that Jesus.” Early Christian worship is Catholic! YES! (CCC 830-854, 975) Sunday mass, confess sins in church then EUCHARIST, fast Wednesday & Friday, pray our father, “Baptize pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” (70 A.D.) “The Didache” (7:1, 4:14, 14:1) (Mathew 28:19) Infant Baptism pours thrice upon the head into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit as well (2 Corinthians 2:11-12)
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
Wow, this is quite comprehensive. Thank you so much for putting the materials together and make such an informative video. I was Protestant of 30+ years and decided to convert to Catholicism back in Feb this year because of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. God bless you!
If you were an avid bible reader you would never have become roman catholic.
@@wesleysimelane3423but other so call churches of 50,000 + is a false man made churchessss, can't count them, like the pagan hindu gods uncountable. Too many churchesss and gods too. No that's too confussing to be a Faith in Almighty God creator of heaven and earth.
@@wesleysimelane3423 If you weren't ignoring inconvenient Scripture, you would be part of the Church founded by Christ.
@@drstewart Show me in scripture the assumption of mary, celebration of feast days of dead catholic "saints", dulia, hyper-dulia and even the immaculate conception of Mary......Catholicism is not bible based.
@@wesleysimelane3423Show the scripture that says “everything must be in the Bible”.
in the rcia now and stumbled across this vid. good stuff. thank you
Absolutely, Excellent 💯🎉.
What is your website URL, that I could study more on my own.
This is a great RUclips channel. It strengthens my faith so much!!!
With Christian love to you and your family,
Sister Monique 🙂🙏🌷💗
THANK YOU !!
And may God richly bless you for this GIFT !
Deeply appreciated !
Wish to thank you for making such a wonderful video. Very interesting and it comes at a time, when asked on how the Roman Rite Mass came to be.
Quote from the Justin Martyr paragraph "And i will not accept the sacrifice at your hands" Is that the proof we need that the host should only be taken on the tongue!?
@@gtibruce Catholics routinely say that the all the Church Fathers agreed with the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist and transubstantiation. That’s not true. “But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act,” (Athenagoras 133-190 AD, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8). ** “For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble.” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, Letter 98:9). ** “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord,” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24). ** “And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’ - the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’ - the holy stream of gladness.’” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 2:2). ** “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 1:6). ** For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood.” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3). ** “For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body… to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body,” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1). ** “…nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator,” (Tertullian, 155-220 AD, Against Marcion, 1:14)
@@wesleysimelane3423 Copied and pasted from an anti-Catholic website. I looked up the very first quote from Athenagoras, and he is NOT talking about the Eucharist at all, so this is proof that the people you are listening to are liars. The false claim these liars make is in the first sentence: "Catholics routinely say that the all the Church Fathers agreed with the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist and transubstantiation. That’s not true." Yet none of the quotes show that the person rejects the teaching on the Eucharist. We know that St. Augustine explicitly taught that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. He is a doctor of the Church and one of the greatest theologians in history, so why are you pulling out these off-topic quotes? Read an actual book and quote teachings that address the actual topic.
These videos are incredible
Have you seen the Mass of the Ages? Its a documentary on the Latin Mass. It is quite good.
Awesome! Very important video as I'm sure the next one will be as well.
Well done 👍 thank you very much 🥰🙏
Excellent stuff, well done! Thanks so much brother
Quote from the Justin Martyr paragraph "And i will not accept the sacrifice at your hands" Is that the proof we need that the host should only be taken on the tongue!?
As a Latinist and Pan-Latinist , you know I am in Love with learning more of the earliest form of Latin Mass , first established when Sanctvs Petrvs founded his seat at Roma (Essentially refounding the City of my Ancestors) .
As a non-christian the history of the early chuch is interesting.
I hope that you might embrace the faith. God bless 🙏
I love the Latin mass, I prefer it.
I don’t merely prefer it; it’s objectively better.
@@jefffinkbonner9551 real
Thank you-- excellent video.
Thank you for this.
Suggested reading “The Tragedy of Calgary” 1905 - a wonderful resource on this subject-
Thanks for this explanation of the Mass, I occasionally try to defend the Church when hostile Protestant Christians make untrue comments, and your video has given me a good background to defend our Church.
You can not defend the catholic church. The bible is clear about her, "that great harlot who will seek to change the law and the times and who shall make many drunk with her wine(false doctrines)".
There is no such thing as a "Protestant Christian". The Church of Christ is the Holy Catholic Church. Christianity is Catholicism, and Catholicism is Christianity. If a person is Protestant, he or she might agree with some of the dogmas and doctrines of Catholicism/Christianity, but his/her Protestantism does not make him/her Christian. Protestantism exists only to destroy the Catholic/Christian Church, which Jesus Himself built for the salvation of souls.
@@wesleysimelane3423Where does it say the Catholic Church is the great harlot?
Very well researched material, great work !
Gbu
This is so awesome
Thank you for another excellent video, Mr. Suti. This may interest you and your viewers.
"Many of us in this land grew up in the conviction that the early Christians had very simple beliefs, the most primitive organization, and an almost complete lack of ceremonial. A study of Eusebius's pages will satisfy us that we have been greatly deceived. Not only in his own statements but in the testimonies of the earliest authorities on which he draws, we shall find inescapable proof that the Church of the first generations of Christians was one in which an Anglican of our day would recognise most of the ideas and practices to which he is accustomed we shall find the same online drawing between clergy and laity, the same division of the clergy between clergy and lady this same division of the clergy into three orders of bishops presbyters and deacons the same practice of episcopal ordination and consecration, the same insistence on the Apostolic succession and on the establishment by Christ of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We shall find Christendom partitioned up into dioceses and archdioceses, presided over and ruled by bishops who are held in the highest esteem. Did not James, the Lord’s brother, within a few years of the Savior’s death sit on the episcopal throne of Jerusalem and officiate clad in sacerdotal vestments? Was not the beloved disciple ‘a sacrificing priest wearing a mitre’? There may have been a short period when services were held in private houses but as soon as possible churches began to rise then cathedrals and on these the builders lavished their loving artistry to the delight in sublimation of the beholder. No one can read Eusebius’s account of how the cathedral of Tyre with all its elaborate symbolism rose from the ashes without thinking of Coventry. Truly that generation and this are one.
Within the house of God, then as now, was a sanctuary and within the sanctuary and altar at which the priest celebrated the Eucharist and when they had pledged themselves to keep the commandments of God and had sung hymns and antiphons to his divine son administered to the faithful the body and blood of the Lord from this Sacrament notable sinners were excluded till they had shown themselves penitent and received absolution. . . (Eusebius 9-10).
"
Eusebius. “The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine.” Trans. G.A. Williamson. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1965.
Thank you very much for this well done and much needed presentation.
I heard a theory of what led to the complete separation of the Mass from the Synagogues. At first, the Christians were doing the Eucharistic ceremony as a separate liturgy on the Lord's Day and still going to the temple or synagogues on Sabbath. This is because the Christians were considered a sect of the Jews for quite some time. The benefit for Christians of this was that it dispensed them from having to make sacrifices to the so called Roman gods (something that only Jews were dispensed from). However, when the Jewish persecution of the Christian sect evidently proved unfruitful, the Jewish leaders officially went to the Roman leaders and anathematized the Christian sect from among them. This meant in practice that Christians would have no longer been welcome in Jewish ceremonies, and as well would have made it that Christians would then be required to make sacrifices to the gods. This led to the Christians having to combine the regular liturgical celebrations with the Eucharistic liturgy. And it is what also led to one of the first persecution of the Christians from the Romans, since they did not wish to sacrifice to the gods. I'm not sure if this theory is true or not but it seems plausible to me.
Looks like this channel has lots of great content. You deserve way more subscribers! May mine bring many more!
50:01 Thank God for this.
The president is the "entity" who presides. Short for presinding entity.
Wrong question. The question should be: How did Holy Thursday (the Last Supper), Good Friday (the Crucifixion), and Easter Sunday (the Resurection) become the Latin Rite Mass?
It was great! Could you, by any chance, provide the links to the images? Especially for the last but one containing the prayers. Thank you.
Go to Google translate and set it to translate English to Hebrew. Type in Chavurah in English then it will bring up the Hebrew חבורה. On the Hebrew side click the speaker icon for the Hebrew pronunciation. The ch in Chavurah is pronounced like the ch in bach (Johann Sebastian Bach), the b in Chaburah is actually pronounced as a v. And the r is pronounced more like a French r.
Hope this helps.
Just a guess sounding it out, "kah-vuh-ra"? thanks.
Exactly, more like HHah-voo-rĀh (like a Spanish pronunciation of “Javurá”), not “ChavOOrah” like he pronounces it
In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (not "Spiritui Sancti" -- "spiritui" is dative, the case of indirect object, "spiritūs," usually written in Church Latin without the macron, is genitive, the case of possession).
Liturgy does not mean work of the people. At least not according to Peter Kwasniewski unless I am mistaken. What I heard was it means "binding" as in what brings us closer, binding us to God.
Brother you're still getting the sign of the cross wrong.
Signum Crucis: In nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti.
Gloria Patri: Gloria patri, et filio, et spiritui sancto.
Excellent video! I would warmly recommend reading the celebrated Prof. Paul F. Bradshaw, formerly Professor of Liturgy at Notre Dame on the Apostolic Tradition of Pseudo-Hippolytus.
19th century scholarship had authenticated the document, however it turns out that it was not Roman origin, not representative of the Roman Liturgy and certainly not 3rd or even 4th century.
Is there a link to the we pages you were showing?
How can the protestants do not believe in the True Prescence
They have been deceived.
Thank you!!
Excellent! Thank you.
Would love to know what material or book(s) your using.
Can you please post the text of Eucharistic prayer you read in the 1st century?
From the Didache or St Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians?
excellent video, thank you
Latin Mass is the best
When the bible starts to be rewritten and changes are made it is time to leave and depart from those who are doing the changing
God The same yesterday today and forever Amen
Do you believe that the early church used the Words of Institution in the eucharisticc prayer?
The Latin lesson wasn’t completely successful. SPIRITUS is the genitive of the Spirit, not “Spiritui” as you pronounced. That latter is the dative, meaning “to the Spirit”, as we say it in the doxology… 1:34
Does anyone know where I can get a 1962 Roman Missal.
If you're looking to save some money at a used bookstore, I know a lot of people just get a 1955 Missal. I believe the only change is the addition of the name of St. Joseph to the Roman Canon (which you can add yourself) and some technicalities about feast rankings. The missals from the 50's will likely have more reverent artwork than a missal printed in the 60s.
"Modern man" = one who doesnt believe in evil, satan, hells, and one who doesnt like to feel guilty and repent, one who likes to feel great about himself.
That’s seems quite accurate! I’d like to borrow that.
it is clear, but anyone can close their mind
What is that humming sound??? It's distracting.
What is the difference between Seder meal and Chaburah meal? Or are these just different names for the same thing?
A Chaburah meal was a ritualized religious meal that was not tied to the solemnity of Passover - it is my understanding that the term Seder Meal specifically refers to the Passover Meal ritual.
@@historiaecclesiastica Thank you! So Chaburah is more like an ordinary weekly Sabbath meal?
What is your opinion on Catholics having Seder meals to educate on the fulfillment in the Mass?
I am of a Traditional Catholic perspective. I don't think we should conflate these?
I am listening to this section on Chabura meal again. I am trying to grasp this. Thank you
Every year after teaching the Exodus story I hold a Seder with my students to give them some context to understand how the Israelites were prepared for the Eucharist for some thousand years. I haven't thought about the danger of conflating the two. I can see the danger of conflation if not enough instruction is given into the radical difference between the two liturgies and transubstantiation isn't taught sufficiently and if it isn't made extremely clear that the Seder Meal is purely symbolic while the Eucharist is truly a sacrificial partaking in the flesh of the Crucified. @@corilv13honey9
@@historiaecclesiastica Thank you, I appreciate your answer. God Bless!
The genitive (possessive) of spiritus is also spiritus, but the last u is long. In Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti
In the catacomb painting which shows the mass, couldn't you make the argument that it is the part of the liturgy when the celebrants are giving communion, meaning that they are turned to the people only then? They could pray the Eucharistic prayer facing ad orientem, then turn to the people and give away the eucharist. And if st. Paul talks about the table of devils, where food is sacrificed to pagan gods facing the idol of that god, and then comparing that to the table of the Lord, couldn't we make the argument that they celebrated the Eucharist on the table facing a painting of Christ or just simply facing east?
Quote from the Justin Martyr paragraph "And i will not accept the sacrifice at your hands" Is that the proof we need that the host should only be taken on the tongue!?
It should be but Modernists despise history.
❤
I am now watching your video. I checked your "about" and it gives no history or credentials. From where do you draw your phone expertise?
If the mass is truly Jesus's body and blood, how is it not a recurring sacrifice?
Because no one has to die to attain the blessing.
@emmap1159 of course you cannot kill Jesus, the Romans and Jews found that out, but it seems to me if you view the bread and wine as the actual blood and body of Christ, then you are offering Him again in effigy. Can you tell me what is the intent behind the sacrament?
@@Jer20.9 Eucharistia is the Greek word for thanksgiving which is what Jesus instructs us to reenact in memory of His own sacrifice as detailed in three gospels. An effigy is a rag doll mockery of an individual which does not exist in the Catholic or Orthodox liturgy. As Christ assures us that indeed bread and wine becomes His body and blood as in John 6:55, and that you have no life within you if you fail to believe this..John 6:53.
@emmap1159 as you say that I think of the millions of Christians who were killed by the Catholic church. Truly they had no life in them on this earth.
After Consecration, we are told that there is no bread and wine but only Body and Blood of Jesus.. Then , why the Priest says, " ...this living BREAD ".?
The modern Catechism writes that using the terms bread and wine to refer to the consecrated offerings is appropriate because Jesus and St Paul both used that sort of language to refer to the Eucharist. That seems to be a reasonable point. However I agree that using that sort of language is unhelpful to restore belief in the true presence to today’s Catholics.
@@historiaecclesiastica Jesus said, " I am the living bread " before the last supper , not during or after the last supper.
Paul " Words of Consecration does not include , " Unto remission of sins " , so, they are invalid..
CCC , a creation of Cardinal Ratzinger and John Paul II, gives a wrong definition of Mass.
@@eugenebastian8351 could you explain what you are saying here?
@@garyolsen3409 The Latin Church teaches that bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus ( Transubstantiation) when the Priest says the Words of Consecration. So it is illogical for the Priest to say ," When we eat this bread and drink this cup......." , Immediately after Consecration. This error is there both in the Tridentine Mass and in the Bugnini Mass. There is an option for an alternate oration in both.
@@eugenebastian8351 I'm Traditional rite, you don't need to school me. You run your thoughts together, try not to do that so everyone can understand you.
What I don’t get is why people deny the literary device called metaphor. In a metaphor, a person uses literal language to say that x is y. They don’t literally mean that x is y, but their audience usually understands what they mean. Clearly no one believed that Jesus meant it literally when he said that he is the bread that comes from heaven. No one claims that he meant that he is literally bread. But then they claim that when he said the bread is his flesh he must have meant that literally. Why do they not acknowledge the possibility of Jesus using metaphor, just like he had just done when he said he was the bread that came down from heaven?
In John 6 the Jews apparently took Jesus literally since they all left Him when He said, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you shall not have life within you.”
Show me the scripture that Jesus says it's metaphorical. He told parables which were metaphors but they were stories to illustrate a point, but He wasn't telling a story the night of the last supper. The resurrection, the multiplication of fish, the wine at Cana, walking on water, curing the blind..are they metaphorical too?
@@ruthmaryrose yes, and they were commonly comically misunderstanding Jesus. Are you saying we should follow their example? Jesus was misunderstood a lot by everyone, including his own disciples.
@@emmap1159 Do you believe Jesus is literally a gate? Do you believe he is literally a shepherd herding sheep? Why do you no take those literally when he didn’t explain, “I am speaking metaphorically here”.
@@EclectifyingJohn 6:55 " For my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink." Kind of clears up any confusion for most. John 6:66 (interesting number) are the ones who walked away. They couldn't believe either.
Excellent. It is Time.
CATHOLIC "Calling All To Holy Obedient Life In Christ"
I don't know what your political affiliations are, but it's very bizarre to mention 2 political figures living today who have NOTHING to do with the history and development of the Catholic mass.
But since you brought those people up in your conversation, you should at least have the GUTS to admit who you WOULD rather have in their stead. Who is the righteous Christian that SHOULD be President in your "opinion"?
I'm sure this gentleman knows, as most non-Modernist Catholics surely do, that there aren't any who are actually contenders presently, lol. We also know well that God has, and may, use anyone, even pagans, to accomplish His will.
Even a Christian cannot brush aside the worship of Jehovah as God. In Revelation 1:5 the Son of God called himself "Jesus Christ, 'The Faithful Witness.'" When on earth as a man he was a Jew, an Israelite, to whose nation the words of Isaiah 43:10 were written: "'You are my witnesses, ' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'even my servant whom I have chosen.'" Jesu demonstrated that he was a faithful and true witness of Jehovah God. His genuine disciples today must be the same kind of witnesses, Jehovah's.
Nah. False on its face.
John 10:25-30: "Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me. But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand. That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father. I and the Father are one."
Matthew 3:16-17: "And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Not just a "witness." Christ's Church was founded, and the subject of His divinity established, well before the false teachings of Charles Taze Russell.
According to whoever wrote the Gospel of John the "Last Supper" was the night before Passover. Jesus was reported to have been dead by the time the lambs were being slaughtered. The slaughtering of the lambs is on the day BEFORE Passover. The Jewish clock has days starting at Sunset - not 12 Midnight. If only you would take 15 min. a day to learn Hebrew you might toss your Latin into the dust bin.
A major theme of my video “why the Douay Rheims Bible is the greatest English translation” is that the Masoretic tradition, the only surviving Hebrew text, is a corrupted 9th century text that was intended to de-Christianize the Old Testament by Jewish rabbis.
the person who wrote the Gospel of John is......roll of drums......ST JOHN THE DISCIPLE. all the ancient Gospels of St John SAY they are the Gospel of John, from all over north Africa, the middle east, what we now call Turkey etc. if you have actual, extensive EVIDENCE which casts doubt on the authorship it would be interesting to see.
Are you saying that a mere mortal can take an inanimate object and turn it into the God of the universe? Then worship it? That's idolitry
Certainly not. Christ effects the change. He transubstantiated the first Host in the Last Supper, and looking at His apostles, immediately said "Do this in memory of me." He would not command them to do something He did not grant them the power to do.
@@historiaecclesiastica . You can't be serious amere human creating the God of the universe from a wafer. There's no logic in this. Jesus at the passover transformed Himself into bread? I don't think so. Please spare me.
@@historiaecclesiastica . This alone is more than sufficient for me to never ever consider Catholicism. I will definitely pass this on.
@@historiaecclesiastica . You also need to check the history of your position. Like the Lateran council of 1215 and the council of trent.
@@ewaldradavich7307
You are Dammed if you receive the Eucharist “Unworthily.” (I Corinthians 11:27-29) How can that be if its symbolic? (405 A.D.) Theodore: “[Christ] did NOT say, ‘This is the SYMBOL of but, this is my body.’ my blood,’ the EUCHARIST.” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1) (33 A.D.) “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have NO life in you.” (John 6:53) (Mt. 26:26-29) (Luke 22:19-20) (70 A.D.) The Didache: Sunday, “Offer the Eucharist… in every place & time… a pure sacrifice.” (14:1-3) (CCC 1322-1419) (430 B.C.) “Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering.” (Malachi 1:11) (189 A.D.) St. Irenaeus: “Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made.” (Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 2 Verse 3) (110 A.D.) St. Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2, 7:1)
"Those who hold heterodox do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus are perishing.”
(155 A.D.) Justin Martyr (First Apology 66): “Eucharist is the flesh and blood of that Jesus.”
Catholics routinely say that the all the Church Fathers agreed with the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist and transubstantiation. That’s not true. “But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act,” (Athenagoras 133-190 AD, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8). ** “For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble.” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, Letter 98:9). ** “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord,” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24). ** “And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’ - the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’ - the holy stream of gladness.’” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 2:2). ** “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 1:6). ** For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood.” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3). ** “For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body… to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body,” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1). ** “…nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator,” (Tertullian, 155-220 AD, Against Marcion, 1:14)
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Please note that all of these quotes demonstrate that Sacraments have a symbolic dimension, but none deny that Sacraments also have an actual Grace transmitted through that symbol. Below is a response to most of the quotes you shared.
“But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act,” (Athenagoras 133-190 AD, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8). Catholics do believe that cannibalism is unlawful and detestable, which is the reason that the Lord gives us his flesh and blood under the outward accidents of bread and wine, which interact with our digestive system as bread and wine.
“For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble.” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, Letter 98:9). - St. Augustine is not denying that Sacraments have an actual effective Grace, though in this quote he is drawing attention to the symbolic aspect of sacraments. Sacraments are both symbols as well as effective transmitters of grace. Augustine also said: "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ, and the chalice is the blood of Christ."
The followers of Jesus thought his commands in John 6 commanded a vice, which is why they left Him. They, however, were incorrect in doing so - the Eucharist reveals how the command to eat His flesh and drink His blood, which are true food and true drink is not a sin or vice.
Clement of Alexandria's quote that "elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’" highlights the symbolic aspect of the Sacrament, which is undeniable, however, it also effects an actual grace. Clement of Alexandria also said: “Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” (Paedagogus 1:6)
The rest of the quotes you shared also refer to the symbolic element of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but they do not deny the substantial reality of Christ's true presence, which all of these Church Fathers accepted. Many of them spoke of the true presence in other places, though they did so incidentally rather than apologetically. Tertullian's quote is in response to gnostics who denied that Christ had a body at all, so he was arguing primarily that Jesus had a physical body, he wasn't describing the Eucharist per se - though no where in your quote provided did he deny that the symbol did not also communicate the actual presence of Christ. One gets that impression only when reading it with a post-Protestantism Eucharistic debate lens, which is out of its historical context. No legitimate Christians denied the true presence until the 16th century, so clear articulations directly addressing the Protestant heresy regarding the Eucharist don't emerge until then.
God bless you.
@@historiaecclesiasticaThank you for your accurate, charitable and patient reply here.
You are Dammed if you receive the Eucharist “Unworthily.” (I Corinthians 11:27-29) How can that be if its symbolic?
(405 A.D.) Theodore: “[Christ] did NOT say, ‘This is the SYMBOL of but, this is my body.’ my blood,’ the EUCHARIST.” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1)
(33 A.D.) “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have NO life in you.” (John 6:53) (Mt. 26:26-29) (Luke 22:19-20)
(70 A.D.) The Didache: Sunday, “Offer the Eucharist… in every place & time… a pure sacrifice.” (14:1-3) (CCC 1322-1419) (430 B.C.) “Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering.” (Malachi 1:11)
(189 A.D.) St. Irenaeus: “Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made.” (Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 2 Verse 3) (110 A.D.) St. Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2, 7:1)
Those who hold heterodox do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus are perishing.”
(155 A.D.) Justin Martyr (First Apology 66): “Eucharist is the flesh and blood of that Jesus.”
Early Christian worship is Catholic! YES! (CCC 830-854, 975)
Sunday mass, confess sins in church then EUCHARIST, fast Wednesday & Friday, pray our father,
“Baptize pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” (70 A.D.) “The Didache” (7:1, 4:14, 14:1) (Mathew 28:19)
Infant Baptism pours thrice upon the head into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit as well (2 Corinthians 2:11-12)
DO NOT SIP YOUR COFFEE ON AIR! IT IS GROSS AND DISRESPECTFUL!
You ruin your video’s with this abhorrent behavior! Manner’s please!
Then don't watch them Karen
@@St_AngusYoung GFY!
@@buzzledoux7572 not very Christian of you Karen. Peace be with you Karen.
@@buzzledoux7572 GFY? You call that manners? Hypocrite.
@@buzzledoux7572 - saying that is gross and disrespectful!