Thank you for your helpful and thorough presentation, Sean Luke. As a Lutheran, I’d like to offer a bit of pushback in terms of what you said regarding our position. Multiple times you noted that Lutherans believe in the “physical” presence of Christ in the Supper (beginning at 6:35 and following throughout the video). I’m curious, why did you use the term “physical?” Historically, within Lutheran circles at least, that language implies a local or circumscribed presence (at least, in connection with discussions on the Supper). While Lutherans acknowledge that the bread and wine are physically present we have not described the presence of our Lord using that term in our confessions. Rather we speak of a true and substantial presence: “In the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, X). In fact, while our theologians insist that the presence of Christ is true and substantial they nevertheless insist it is not local or circumscribed. Pieper offers the following helpful summary: “The discussion of the twofold material and the unio sacramentalis gives rise to the question how to define more definitely the manner (modus) of the taking of body and blood. We say: (1) Because the twofold material is combined into a sacramental unity, that is, since Christ gives His body with the bread and His blood with the wine, we receive with the mouth (manducatio oralis) not merely the bread and wine, but also the body and blood of Christ. (2) Since, however, the union of the materia coelestis with the materia terrena is not a natural or local, but a supernatural union (no localis inclusio, impanatio, consubstantiatio), we receive the body and blood of Christ with the mouth not in a natural, but in a supernatural manner” (Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, III:362). You mentioned you were summarizing Chemnitz and Gerhard (at 29:15). May I ask where either theologian ever says that Christ’s presence is “physical” in the Lord’s Supper? I ask because the Reformed constantly accuse us of believing that Jesus is physically present, by which they seem to mean that Christ is chewed in the same way as the bread and wine (which sounded like what you suggested about the Lutheran view as “physically chomping on the body of Christ” in contrast with Calvin’s view at 6:35 though you seem to recognize that this isn’t the case at 29:15). We have always and everywhere denied this. As our confessions say, “Under these circumstances, such a command cannot be understood in any other way but as eating and drinking orally, though certainly not in a crude, fleshly, Capernaitic manner, but supernaturally and incomprehensibly” (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, VII, 64). I guess what I’m suggesting is to describe the Lutheran view using Lutheran language. Christ is truly and substantially present and is received orally yet supernaturally. To advance discussion and foster understanding perhaps it’s best to leave the oft misunderstood and misapplied language of physicality out of the discussion.
Thank you. I've been trying to make this case not only to Calvinists but to fellow Lutherans for several years now. The real issue with we have with the Reformed view is not the mode of presence, (although we do mean something different by _spiritual presence_ than the Reformed), but rather our concern is more so the universal offering... even to the unworthy. As far as the mode of presence is concerned, I think there's actually *potential for ecumenical consensus between Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and those who follow Calvin himself more closely -- that is, assuming we all mean to affirm the same thing by confessing that Christ is _substantially_ but not locally present in the eucharist (which Calvin, at least did).
@@vngelicath1580 Calvin didn't believe that Christ is substantially present in the Ecuharist itself, that is, in the bread and wine. In other words, he took the words of institution to mean "sacramentally represents" rather than "is." This is a big difference.
In the 1500’s Martin Luther claimed Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for His flesh and blood to be put “in, with and under” the bread and wine. For 1500yrs it had been Christian consensus and Christian tradition that Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for the bread and wine to become His flesh and blood. Jesus Christ said “this is my body” and “this is my blood” - nothing whatsoever about His flesh and blood being “in, with and under” the bread and wine like some sort of bread and wine sandwiches. The idea that Martin Luther got it right with his totally unique theory and the Catholics/Orthodox had got it wrong for 1500yrs is utterly preposterous.
I think my best explanation of the supper is still this... "iT's A mYsTeRy BrO." I think any answer is ultimately going to limit it and describe it as something it is not. We cannot fully flesh out that which is divine. Imagine trying to fully flesh out the begetting of the son. Anything we'd come up with is wrong! How do you use the material world to show how a person coming forth from another yet having a will in union with another will makes any sense? No such thing exists. We're not told to understand...but receive with faith.
I studied in depth on Roman Catholicism since 2012 Catholic Answers. As I studied church history, theology and reformation (even taking church history under Dr. Mayhew) the more I was convinced Protestantism Is the right place. I did explore Roman Catholicism and felt a slight draw at times. I was never convinced intellectually or from Scripture...fast forward years later and I am married to a Vietnamese Catholic woman. It's very cultural oriented like Irish or Italian Catholics. You might find my story or perspective unique or valuable. I would be willing to discuss if you find something like that fitting for your channel. God bless
The three Anglican heresies on the Lord's Supper : symbolic only, pneumatic/Spiritual presence only in the bread and wine and consubstantiation/comingling - Jesus Christs flesh and blood and bread and wine are present. Please read the only paragraph in the Catholic Catechism that uses the word transubstantiation. 1413 “By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.” The word transubstantiation is simply a term that means to change one form or substance into another. The bread and wine become/change into the body and blood of Jesus Christ (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) even though they appear to the senses as still being bread and wine = Transubstantiation. At Catholic Mass the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. At Anglican Churches the bread and wine reamain bread and wine - no Apostolic succession and Lord's Supper heresy is taught and practiced. God bless you
@@Franjipane-lh8niyou realize Catholic churches don't give the wine anymore and erroneously claim Christ is fully present in both species of the host, right?
@@a.ihistory5879 The Catholic Church does give the Sacrament of Holy Communion under both species at Holy Mass, not all Priests do this though. You are right in the sense that the Catholic Church did for a while forbid the chalice to any but celebrating Priests. Nevertheless, no more or less of God’s Grace is imparted whether the recipient receives Christ’s body, blood, Soul and Divinity under the species of bread or wine or both. In a similar way no more or less of God’s Grace is imparted whether the recipient receives one Host or one hundred Hosts. Christ’s flesh, blood Soul and Divinity being present under both species has to do with hypostatic union (Christ is fully Human and fully Divine) and concomitance (Christ is indivisible, so that his flesh cannot be separated from his blood, Soul and divinity). The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states “Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly." This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.” (CCC 1390) Please read “The Catholic Encyclopedia: Communion under Both Kinds” by New Advent on internet. This goes in-depth into the history of this matter and demonstrates that the early Catholic Church did teach and practice that Christ is equally Sacramentally present under either species. Protestant church’s don’t have a Eucharist, bread and wine instead, because they follow the 1500’s reformationists who rejected what the Eucharist is and rejected the Sacred Power essential for a Priest to confect the Eucharist in the first place. God bless you
@@Franjipane-lh8ni Sorry, but last time I went to a Catholic church like a month ago, they did not give both hosts. You quote from the catechism as if I'm someone who cares about what the false church of Rome has to say. They put their tradition above scriptures, Anglicans keep both at the same standard. You should Watch Sean Luke's video on his channel regarding the eucharist, and you'll see how saints considered it an abomination to not be given both. If I followed yours, or the RCC's logic, then I can say "the catholic priest gives carrots because god is capable of being present in the carrots, because he is God" lol. It's an asinine argument that fails. there should never be any excuse to not give both.
I will be attending a Episcopal Church that is in between moderate and conservative. I absolutely feel like I'm at home I'm glad I did not become Roman Catholic or eastern Catholic.➕✝️🕯️🕯️
I am new to the channel. I am glad to find it! Glad you are interviewing converts from Rome to Protestant! We need more of this in the apologetic online space for Protestant side.
I studied in depth on Roman Catholicism since 2012 Catholic Answers. As I studied church history, theology and reformation (even taking church history under Dr. Mayhew) the more I was convinced Protestantism Is the right place. I did explore Roman Catholicism and felt a slight draw at times. I was never convinced intellectually or from Scripture...fast forward years later and I am married to a Vietnamese Catholic woman. It's very cultural oriented like Irish or Italian Catholics. You might find my story or perspective unique or valuable. I would be willing to discuss if you find something like that fitting for your channel. God bless.
@@Adam-ue2ig The three Anglican heresies on the Lord's Supper : symbolic only, pneumatic/Spiritual presence only in the bread and wine and consubstantiation/comingling - Jesus Christs flesh and blood and bread and wine are present. Please read the only paragraph in the Catholic Catechism that uses the word transubstantiation. 1413 “By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.” The word transubstantiation is simply a term that means to change one form or substance into another. The bread and wine become/change into the body and blood of Jesus Christ (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) even though they appear to the senses as still being bread and wine = Transubstantiation. At Catholic Mass the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. At Anglican Churches the bread and wine reamain bread and wine - no Apostolic succession and Lord's Supper heresy is taught and practiced. God bless you
Here is a quote from Cranmer on the eucharist. This is my perspective of sorta what happens through consecration. "Therefore as in these alterations of natures the *substances nevertheless remained the same* that they were before the alterations; even so doth the *substance of bread and wine remain in the Lord’s Supper*, and be naturally received and digested into the body, notwithstanding the *sacramental mutation of the same into the body and blood of Christ*. Which sacramental mutation declareth the *supernatural, spiritual, and inexplicable* eating and drinking, feeding and digesting, of the same body and blood of Christ, in all them that godly and according to their duty, do receive the said sacramental bread and wine." -Thomas Cranmer.
Please read some of the teachings of the early Catholic/Orthodox Church fathers on the Eucharist ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH “the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." ("Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.) "I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed." ("Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.) "Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons." (Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.) ST. JUSTIN MARTYR "This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." ("First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155) ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA "The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. 'Eat My Flesh,' He says, 'and drink My Blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!" ("The Instructor of the Children" [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D) ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?” ("Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 1] c. 350 A.D) ST. HILARY OF POITERS "When we speak of the reality of Christ's nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously - had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: 'My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him.' As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly the Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God." ("The Trinity" [8,14] inter 356-359 A.D.) ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA "The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ."("Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.) ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO "You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ." ("Sermons", [227, 21] ca. 400A.D.) MARCARIUS THE MAGNESIAN "[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: 'This is My Body and this is My Blood.' Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth." ("Apocriticus" [3,23] ca. 400 A.D.) ST. LEO I, THE GREAT "When the Lord says: 'Unless you shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and shall have drunk His blood, you shall not have life in you,' you ought to so communicate at the Sacred Table that you have no doubt whatever of the truth of the Body and the Blood of Christ. ("Sermons" [91,3] ante 461 A.D.) “Blessed rather are they who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Jesus Christ (Luke 11:28))
The three Anglican heresies on the Lord's Supper : symbolic only, pneumatic/Spiritual presence only in the bread and wine and consubstantiation/comingling - Jesus Christs flesh and blood and bread and wine are present. Please read the only paragraph in the Catholic Catechism that uses the word transubstantiation. 1413 “By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.” The word transubstantiation is simply a term that means to change one form or substance into another. The bread and wine become/change into the body and blood of Jesus Christ (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) even though they appear to the senses as still being bread and wine = Transubstantiation. At Catholic Mass the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. At Anglican Churches the bread and wine reamain bread and wine - no Apostolic succession and Lord's Supper heresy is taught and practiced. God bless you
Anglicans and other protestants mistakenly believe they celebrate the Lord’s Supper as God intended. No they don’t! Catholic and Orthodox only celebrate the Lord’s Supper as God intended. In John 6 Jesus Christ asked us to eat His flesh and drink His blood for compelling reasons. Later, at the Lord’s Supper, Jesus Christ showed us how to obey His request to eat and drink of Him via blessed bread and wine that has miraculously become His flesh and His blood. The 39 articles of the Church of England calls this “wicked” and “repugnant”. Please read the core relevant passages on the Lord's Supper John 6:51-56 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” John 6:60-68 excerpts 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? …64 But among you there are some who do not believe.”… 64 For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe…. 66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. 67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Note: The disbelieving Jews clearly understood that Jesus was speaking plainly by the plainly speaking reply of “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” These disbelieving Jews refused to accept that Jesus Christ could give us His flesh and blood to eat and drink and they turned their backs on Him. Mark 14:22-24 The Institution of the Lord’s Supper 22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 1 Corinthians 10:15-16 - St Paul 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 1 Corinthians 11:19 -20 & 29 - St Paul 19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. 20 When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper… 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. Catholic and Orthodox Pastors only have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders from a Bishop of Apostolic Succession. Therefore protestant Pastors do not have the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Jesus Christ so they remain bread and wine. Our one true God is most gracious and wise and one should lovingly accept His divine gift because “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jesus Christ). If you want to obey God and partake of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ then be Catholic or Orthodox. God bless you
The three Anglican heresies on the Lord's Supper : symbolic only, pneumatic/Spiritual presence only in the bread and wine and consubstantiation/comingling - Jesus Christs flesh and blood and bread and wine are present. Please read the only paragraph in the Catholic Catechism that uses the word transubstantiation. 1413 “By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.” The word transubstantiation is simply a term that means to change one form or substance into another. The bread and wine become/change into the body and blood of Jesus Christ (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) even though they appear to the senses as still being bread and wine = Transubstantiation. At Catholic Mass the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. At Anglican Churches the bread and wine reamain bread and wine - no Apostolic succession and Lord's Supper heresy is taught and practiced. God bless you
Thank you for your helpful and thorough presentation, Sean Luke.
As a Lutheran, I’d like to offer a bit of pushback in terms of what you said regarding our position. Multiple times you noted that Lutherans believe in the “physical” presence of Christ in the Supper (beginning at 6:35 and following throughout the video). I’m curious, why did you use the term “physical?” Historically, within Lutheran circles at least, that language implies a local or circumscribed presence (at least, in connection with discussions on the Supper). While Lutherans acknowledge that the bread and wine are physically present we have not described the presence of our Lord using that term in our confessions. Rather we speak of a true and substantial presence: “In the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, X).
In fact, while our theologians insist that the presence of Christ is true and substantial they nevertheless insist it is not local or circumscribed. Pieper offers the following helpful summary: “The discussion of the twofold material and the unio sacramentalis gives rise to the question how to define more definitely the manner (modus) of the taking of body and blood. We say: (1) Because the twofold material is combined into a sacramental unity, that is, since Christ gives His body with the bread and His blood with the wine, we receive with the mouth (manducatio oralis) not merely the bread and wine, but also the body and blood of Christ. (2) Since, however, the union of the materia coelestis with the materia terrena is not a natural or local, but a supernatural union (no localis inclusio, impanatio, consubstantiatio), we receive the body and blood of Christ with the mouth not in a natural, but in a supernatural manner” (Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, III:362).
You mentioned you were summarizing Chemnitz and Gerhard (at 29:15). May I ask where either theologian ever says that Christ’s presence is “physical” in the Lord’s Supper? I ask because the Reformed constantly accuse us of believing that Jesus is physically present, by which they seem to mean that Christ is chewed in the same way as the bread and wine (which sounded like what you suggested about the Lutheran view as “physically chomping on the body of Christ” in contrast with Calvin’s view at 6:35 though you seem to recognize that this isn’t the case at 29:15). We have always and everywhere denied this. As our confessions say, “Under these circumstances, such a command cannot be understood in any other way but as eating and drinking orally, though certainly not in a crude, fleshly, Capernaitic manner, but supernaturally and incomprehensibly” (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, VII, 64).
I guess what I’m suggesting is to describe the Lutheran view using Lutheran language. Christ is truly and substantially present and is received orally yet supernaturally. To advance discussion and foster understanding perhaps it’s best to leave the oft misunderstood and misapplied language of physicality out of the discussion.
Thank you. I've been trying to make this case not only to Calvinists but to fellow Lutherans for several years now.
The real issue with we have with the Reformed view is not the mode of presence, (although we do mean something different by _spiritual presence_ than the Reformed), but rather our concern is more so the universal offering... even to the unworthy.
As far as the mode of presence is concerned, I think there's actually *potential for ecumenical consensus between Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and those who follow Calvin himself more closely -- that is, assuming we all mean to affirm the same thing by confessing that Christ is _substantially_ but not locally present in the eucharist (which Calvin, at least did).
@@vngelicath1580 Calvin didn't believe that Christ is substantially present in the Ecuharist itself, that is, in the bread and wine. In other words, he took the words of institution to mean "sacramentally represents" rather than "is." This is a big difference.
In the 1500’s Martin Luther claimed Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for His flesh and blood to be put “in, with and under” the bread and wine. For 1500yrs it had been Christian consensus and Christian tradition that Jesus Christ intended at the Lord’s Supper for the bread and wine to become His flesh and blood. Jesus Christ said “this is my body” and “this is my blood” - nothing whatsoever about His flesh and blood being “in, with and under” the bread and wine like some sort of bread and wine sandwiches. The idea that Martin Luther got it right with his totally unique theory and the Catholics/Orthodox had got it wrong for 1500yrs is utterly preposterous.
I think my best explanation of the supper is still this...
"iT's A mYsTeRy BrO."
I think any answer is ultimately going to limit it and describe it as something it is not. We cannot fully flesh out that which is divine.
Imagine trying to fully flesh out the begetting of the son. Anything we'd come up with is wrong! How do you use the material world to show how a person coming forth from another yet having a will in union with another will makes any sense? No such thing exists.
We're not told to understand...but receive with faith.
Woo! Sean Luke is great, excited to watch this.
This is a GREAT video! 10/10 would reccomend
Amen. Have Sean Luke on again to discuss baptism. He’s awesome.
Let's goooooooooo
I studied in depth on Roman Catholicism since 2012 Catholic Answers. As I studied church history, theology and reformation (even taking church history under Dr. Mayhew) the more I was convinced Protestantism Is the right place. I did explore Roman Catholicism and felt a slight draw at times. I was never convinced intellectually or from Scripture...fast forward years later and I am married to a Vietnamese Catholic woman. It's very cultural oriented like Irish or Italian Catholics. You might find my story or perspective unique or valuable. I would be willing to discuss if you find something like that fitting for your channel. God bless
Thank you for sharing that! Definitely please DM me on Twitter or Instagram, and we can talk more 😁
The three Anglican heresies on the Lord's Supper : symbolic only, pneumatic/Spiritual presence only in the bread and wine and consubstantiation/comingling - Jesus Christs flesh and blood and bread and wine are present. Please read the only paragraph in the Catholic Catechism that uses the word transubstantiation.
1413 “By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.”
The word transubstantiation is simply a term that means to change one form or substance into another. The bread and wine become/change into the body and blood of Jesus Christ (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) even though they appear to the senses as still being bread and wine = Transubstantiation.
At Catholic Mass the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. At Anglican Churches the bread and wine reamain bread and wine - no Apostolic succession and Lord's Supper heresy is taught and practiced.
God bless you
@@Franjipane-lh8niyou realize Catholic churches don't give the wine anymore and erroneously claim Christ is fully present in both species of the host, right?
@@a.ihistory5879 The Catholic Church does give the Sacrament of Holy Communion under both species at Holy Mass, not all Priests do this though. You are right in the sense that the Catholic Church did for a while forbid the chalice to any but celebrating Priests. Nevertheless, no more or less of God’s Grace is imparted whether the recipient receives Christ’s body, blood, Soul and Divinity under the species of bread or wine or both. In a similar way no more or less of God’s Grace is imparted whether the recipient receives one Host or one hundred Hosts. Christ’s flesh, blood Soul and Divinity being present under both species has to do with hypostatic union (Christ is fully Human and fully Divine) and concomitance (Christ is indivisible, so that his flesh cannot be separated from his blood, Soul and divinity). The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states
“Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly." This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.” (CCC 1390)
Please read “The Catholic Encyclopedia: Communion under Both Kinds” by New Advent on internet. This goes in-depth into the history of this matter and demonstrates that the early Catholic Church did teach and practice that Christ is equally Sacramentally present under either species.
Protestant church’s don’t have a Eucharist, bread and wine instead, because they follow the 1500’s reformationists who rejected what the Eucharist is and rejected the Sacred Power essential for a Priest to confect the Eucharist in the first place.
God bless you
@@Franjipane-lh8ni Sorry, but last time I went to a Catholic church like a month ago, they did not give both hosts. You quote from the catechism as if I'm someone who cares about what the false church of Rome has to say. They put their tradition above scriptures, Anglicans keep both at the same standard. You should Watch Sean Luke's video on his channel regarding the eucharist, and you'll see how saints considered it an abomination to not be given both. If I followed yours, or the RCC's logic, then I can say "the catholic priest gives carrots because god is capable of being present in the carrots, because he is God" lol. It's an asinine argument that fails. there should never be any excuse to not give both.
I will be attending a Episcopal Church that is in between moderate and conservative. I absolutely feel like I'm at home I'm glad I did not become Roman Catholic or eastern Catholic.➕✝️🕯️🕯️
Eastern Orthodox?
I am new to the channel. I am glad to find it! Glad you are interviewing converts from Rome to Protestant! We need more of this in the apologetic online space for Protestant side.
I studied in depth on Roman Catholicism since 2012 Catholic Answers. As I studied church history, theology and reformation (even taking church history under Dr. Mayhew) the more I was convinced Protestantism Is the right place. I did explore Roman Catholicism and felt a slight draw at times. I was never convinced intellectually or from Scripture...fast forward years later and I am married to a Vietnamese Catholic woman. It's very cultural oriented like Irish or Italian Catholics. You might find my story or perspective unique or valuable. I would be willing to discuss if you find something like that fitting for your channel. God bless.
@@Adam-ue2ig The three Anglican heresies on the Lord's Supper : symbolic only, pneumatic/Spiritual presence only in the bread and wine and consubstantiation/comingling - Jesus Christs flesh and blood and bread and wine are present. Please read the only paragraph in the Catholic Catechism that uses the word transubstantiation.
1413 “By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.”
The word transubstantiation is simply a term that means to change one form or substance into another. The bread and wine become/change into the body and blood of Jesus Christ (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) even though they appear to the senses as still being bread and wine = Transubstantiation.
At Catholic Mass the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. At Anglican Churches the bread and wine reamain bread and wine - no Apostolic succession and Lord's Supper heresy is taught and practiced.
God bless you
Here is a quote from Cranmer on the eucharist. This is my perspective of sorta what happens through consecration.
"Therefore as in these alterations of natures the *substances nevertheless remained the same* that they were before the alterations; even so doth the *substance of bread and wine remain in the Lord’s Supper*, and be naturally received and digested into the body, notwithstanding the *sacramental mutation of the same into the body and blood of Christ*. Which sacramental mutation declareth the *supernatural, spiritual, and inexplicable* eating and drinking, feeding and digesting, of the same body and blood of Christ, in all them that godly and according to their duty, do receive the said sacramental bread and wine."
-Thomas Cranmer.
Please read some of the teachings of the early Catholic/Orthodox Church fathers on the Eucharist
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
“the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." ("Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.)
"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed." ("Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.)
"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons." (Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.)
ST. JUSTIN MARTYR
"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." ("First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155)
ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
"The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. 'Eat My Flesh,' He says, 'and drink My Blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!" ("The Instructor of the Children" [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D)
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?” ("Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 1] c. 350 A.D)
ST. HILARY OF POITERS
"When we speak of the reality of Christ's nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously - had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: 'My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him.' As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly the Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God." ("The Trinity" [8,14] inter 356-359 A.D.)
ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA
"The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ."("Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.) ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO "You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ." ("Sermons", [227, 21] ca. 400A.D.)
MARCARIUS THE MAGNESIAN
"[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: 'This is My Body and this is My Blood.' Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth." ("Apocriticus" [3,23] ca. 400 A.D.)
ST. LEO I, THE GREAT
"When the Lord says: 'Unless you shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and shall have drunk His blood, you shall not have life in you,' you ought to so communicate at the Sacred Table that you have no doubt whatever of the truth of the Body and the Blood of Christ. ("Sermons" [91,3] ante 461 A.D.)
“Blessed rather are they who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Jesus Christ (Luke 11:28))
The three Anglican heresies on the Lord's Supper : symbolic only, pneumatic/Spiritual presence only in the bread and wine and consubstantiation/comingling - Jesus Christs flesh and blood and bread and wine are present. Please read the only paragraph in the Catholic Catechism that uses the word transubstantiation.
1413 “By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.”
The word transubstantiation is simply a term that means to change one form or substance into another. The bread and wine become/change into the body and blood of Jesus Christ (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) even though they appear to the senses as still being bread and wine = Transubstantiation.
At Catholic Mass the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. At Anglican Churches the bread and wine reamain bread and wine - no Apostolic succession and Lord's Supper heresy is taught and practiced.
God bless you
@@Chris-wf6km How are you' 😊 🏆✨
@@christianorthodoxy4769 Good thanks - you?
@@Chris-wf6km great just looking at the comments and the Protestant's heresies' that's all. 😊 😁
I’ve noticed there’s been a lot of new Anglican converts.
19:02 - on the so-called consensus of the fathers (Peter Vermigli's Oxford disputation is helpful)
4th Lateran council as source of dogmatization
24:20 - Letter 96 or 98
Sean mentions Retramnus' treaty on the Supper [note for self]
Iraneeus - Theodoret - Pope Gelasius against the Eutychians (there can be two realities, over and against Rome's transubstantiation and one reality)
Anglicans and other protestants mistakenly believe they celebrate the Lord’s Supper as God intended. No they don’t! Catholic and Orthodox only celebrate the Lord’s Supper as God intended. In John 6 Jesus Christ asked us to eat His flesh and drink His blood for compelling reasons. Later, at the Lord’s Supper, Jesus Christ showed us how to obey His request to eat and drink of Him via blessed bread and wine that has miraculously become His flesh and His blood. The 39 articles of the Church of England calls this “wicked” and “repugnant”. Please read the core relevant passages on the Lord's Supper
John 6:51-56
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.”
John 6:60-68 excerpts
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? …64 But among you there are some who do not believe.”… 64 For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe…. 66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. 67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”
Note: The disbelieving Jews clearly understood that Jesus was speaking plainly by the plainly speaking reply of “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” These disbelieving Jews refused to accept that Jesus Christ could give us His flesh and blood to eat and drink and they turned their backs on Him.
Mark 14:22-24 The Institution of the Lord’s Supper
22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.”
23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
1 Corinthians 10:15-16 - St Paul
15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 11:19 -20 & 29 - St Paul
19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. 20 When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper… 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.
Catholic and Orthodox Pastors only have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders from a Bishop of Apostolic Succession. Therefore protestant Pastors do not have the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Jesus Christ so they remain bread and wine. Our one true God is most gracious and wise and one should lovingly accept His divine gift because “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jesus Christ).
If you want to obey God and partake of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ then be Catholic or Orthodox.
God bless you
The three Anglican heresies on the Lord's Supper : symbolic only, pneumatic/Spiritual presence only in the bread and wine and consubstantiation/comingling - Jesus Christs flesh and blood and bread and wine are present. Please read the only paragraph in the Catholic Catechism that uses the word transubstantiation.
1413 “By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.”
The word transubstantiation is simply a term that means to change one form or substance into another. The bread and wine become/change into the body and blood of Jesus Christ (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) even though they appear to the senses as still being bread and wine = Transubstantiation.
At Catholic Mass the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. At Anglican Churches the bread and wine reamain bread and wine - no Apostolic succession and Lord's Supper heresy is taught and practiced.
God bless you