A Baptist Case for Real Presence in the Eucharist 

That’s so funny! In the serious side: what do think it will take for American Baptistic churches to reclaim wine instead of grape juice? Prohibition was a long time ago!

Now that’s funny.

😂😂

Baptist Pastors have not received the Sacrament of Holy Orders from a Bishop of Apostolic Succession - Catholic and Orthodox Pastors only. Therefore Baptist Pastors do not have the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Well, most Baptists who embrace historical Christianity and Protestantism, then become Presbyterians. That's why there aren't that many reformed Baptists.

Eh. My grandparents and my father are Baptists. My grandmother hated Catholics thought they were devil worshippers lol, kinda funny to think about. We Went to their Baptist churches as a kid once in a while. To be honest when they did what they call communion they used grape juice and there was a lack of reverence. The used it to remind themselves of Jesus the symbology of it while totally missing (which I didn’t know then) the literal part of Jesus instituted at the Last Supper. I remember seeing it was like this is a bit weird. I didn’t grow up religious my grandparents were, my brothers and I were not. So is this now changing in the Baptist Church or is it just you hold a more traditional view of the Eucharist now personally?

@@catholicguy1073 Among Baptists, Gavin's view is rare. I would say that only 1% of Baptists hold this view. Most Baptists hold the "memorial view" which became rather a light view of the sacrament/ordinance. It's the result of American Christianity. The freedom of religion as a law is a double-edged sword. While it can promote more tolerance, it can also breed heresies. The largest heretical cults all originated in the US.

@@catholicguy1073 I think the point Gavin is trying to make in his video is that the memorialist view of Holy Communion (which you and I both have experienced sadly) is not necessarily the traditional Baptist view though it has become more common today. I hope that Baptists return to embracing the Reformed Spiritual Presence view. For one, as you alluded to, memorialism is just a sad & less powerful experience imo. And secondly, I do not think it is able to be defended historically.

@@my.apologies Maybe you should check out Gavin's church service and see how he does it..

If our one authority for Christian teaching is scripture, then by default we have unity. Don't mistake fallible creatures getting things wrong here and there as being some kind of opposite of unity. I have unity with my wife, and we also disagree and various things. The groups that bring DISunity are precisely those groups that elevate their convictions to equality with the gospel and scripture itself. To the point of them anathemetizing everyone else out or excomunicating them out. What you are alluding to is not called unity, it's called conformity. Everybody must be made to bow to one single interpretation or understanding of every possible last little point where there may be a different among us. But this is not unity, this is a fairy tale. Those that know this is a fairy tale will offer yet another solution, they offer up a wishful thinking idea that "wouldn't it be nice if we just had ONE authority to declare every truth and they couldn't be wrong about anything?" But unfortunately that has a lot of issues, none the least is that all humans are fallible and make errors. And secondly, you end up with many many groups all claiming this position of absolute power on earth to declare every truth. In any case, in the real world, the fallen world such as it is, we have our one authority the holy scriptures, and our job is to seek unity DESPITE various tradition differences. Unity does not mean conformity.

And so my response to someone’s comment that “it’s too Catholic” is “and that’s bad?”. Good for you that you are thinking thru this!

I might be an exception but I’m a baptist pastor with this real/spiritual presence view of the Lord’s Supper. There’s at least a handful of us!

@@Apriluser I’ve been heavily researching Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and in think that’s just the right answer.

@@legacy242-47 my problem is that I also hold this position, and I’m not sure I think there’s a great way out of James with the Protestant view on justification. It doesn’t leave me with many options

Surely you don't live in Europe, if that was what you saw around you. A purely memorialist view is the exception among all Protestants here; at least, all affirm there is a power and sonething trancendental in this Act.

Yay! Fellow Anglican who used to be baptist!

Dude, most Baptist have a very low view of church regardless.

I’m recently attending an Anglican Church after discovering in scripture that the lords supper was far more important then what I was initially led to believe in my Pentecostal church growing up. The verse that made me question the view I was raised with was 1 Corinthians 11:27. I was raised with the view that it’s only done in memorial.

Another Anglican here who grew up Pentecostal along with my husband, and now we are Anglican and he is our priest. Love taking the Eucharist!

@@joechillstudios its remembrance but also a very serious action of the regenerate. Didache 9.1 - (AD 100) Now, concerning the Eucharist, practice it as follows. " First, concerning the cup: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your son, which you made known to us through Jesus your son, glory to you forever a Next, concerning the broken bread: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your son, glory to you forever b4 Just as this broken bread was being scattered over the mountains and being brought together it became one; likewise bring together your church from the ends of the earth into your kingdom, so that yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever cs But none shall eat or shall drink from your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; for also concerning this the Lord has said, "Do give not what is holy to the dogs." The Didache (AD 100): “On the Lord’s day assemble and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. If any have a dispute with his fellow, let him not come to the assembly till they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not polluted. For this is the sacrifice spoken of by the Lord; ‘In every place and at every time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, said the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles; (Mal. i. 11, 14).” This doesn’t refer to Jesus’ sacrifice, but to “your sacrifice.” The same Greek word for “sacrifice” (thusia) is used of Jesus’ sacrifice (Heb. 5:1), but it is also used of doing good deeds, praise, and financial giving (Heb. 13:15-16; Phil. 4:18). The same book also refers to the supper as the “cup” and the “bread,” and a means of remembering Jesus’ sacrifice in thanksgiving (Didache, 9).

Baptist Pastors have not received the Sacrament of Holy Orders from a Bishop of Apostolic Succession - Catholic and Orthodox Pastors only. Therefore Baptist Pastors do not have the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Check out Bishop Barron's homily on "The Real Presence". He has a couple of videos on this specific topic alone.

I absolutely recommend diving into the reasons and arguments for real presence. It opens up a beautiful new avenue through which Christ loves us and draws us closer to himself

It won't work if you don't have ministerial priests to transform bread and wine into the Eucharist.

@@Lerian_V says who?

@@not_milk The Bible, Tradition, and the Church. Asking why a normal person can't consecrate the Eucharist is like asking why a normal person can't pass spending for an expansion to the town park. Genesis 2:18 tells us that we are not meant to be alone, meaning that we are meant to form society. Within society there must be specialization; bakers will bake, teachers will teach. It is the job of a mayor to pass spending, it is the job of the priest to consecrate the Eucharist. The central job of a priest is to offer sacrifices to God on behalf of the faithful. In the Old Covenant, this took the form of animal sacrifice, and for the New Covenant this takes the form of the Son to His Father in mediation as our eternal High Priest. So really, the question is for you to answer since the original or default mode of sacrifice was done by specialists: Who says that the rule changed and now just anyone can perform the job of the priest? This is all not to mention that if just anyone were able to consecrate the host there would be an uncountable amount of offenses committed against the flesh and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:20-30 records an account of some faithful at the church in Corinth who were abusing the consecrated host and then promptly becoming sick and dying. Seeing as this is how much the Father values His Son in the Eucharist, how could he possibly allow every Christian, no matter how sinful, improperly educated, heretical, or even mentally unbalanced to consecrate the host?

@@not_milk Even an angel cannot consecrate a communion host..

@@not_milk --- Jesus for one.

great to hear that!

Same here!

What would you do if you truly believe that Jesus is present in the eucharist?, would you not bow and prostrate yourself before Christ, would that not be so awesome, Christ really present in the church.. Would that not be the central worship for all churches, to break bread with Christ. Didache (90AD) "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles" - the earliest written catechism. The Lords instruction on how to worship Him: "On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure - - -"

@@jotunman627 Well there are parts of what you said that I very much affirm - we should give thanks to God with marvelous awe at his mercy and love for us to give us the Lord's Supper as a way of drawing closer to him, but no I would not bow in reverence to the bread and wine because I do not think that is the proper response laid out in scripture, or in the passages that you quoted. I very much agree with that last one that you quoted though, and it was my pleasure to participate in that very thing earlier today, giving thanks to him after confessing my sins, with many other believers, and then participating in the Lord's Supper together.

@@tategarrett3042 Catholics treat the consecrated communion host as the most sacred thing in the world. For Catholics “going to Adoration,” is referring to Eucharistic Adoration. Which is the worship of the Eucharist outside of the Mass. The Eucharistic Host is displayed in a monstrance on the altar so that all can see and pray in the presence of Christ. - To be actually with Christ, in prayer. In Garabandal, a question was asked on where the angels got the communion host that was given to the children, Mary answered it was taken from the tabernacle of the nearby church. Even an angel cannot consecrate a host. Satanist steal consecrated communion host to use in their black mass to mock and dishonor Christ. Their entire service is a mockery of the Catholic Mass. Most Satanists and real Witches can discern a Consecrated Host among thousands of unconsecrated hosts. - They are able to know - “Because of the burning hate I would feel toward that host, apart from all the others.” - a quote from a real Satanist

@@jotunman627 I think that does a good job of showing what Protestant concerns are about turning the Lord's Supper into a source of idolatry in a sense in which the bread and wine become objects of adoration and even talismans to be venerated. This seems to be a clear abuse of the Lord's Supper which is meant to be consumed frequently and in both kinds by all those who profess Christ and follow him wholeheartedly. It is interesting that Satanists have at times done such things to and with the bread but I would be cautious in drawing conclusions based on that since they are, well, demon-worshipers.

Good for you that you are exploring. Blessings on your inquiries!

@@Apriluser Thanks so much! Blessings to you as well!

Check out Brant Pitre's book, "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" and "The Lamb's Supper" by Scott Hahn. Bishop Barron has a couple of videos on the Real Presence on his RU-vid channel.

Yes would love to see @Dr Gavin Ortlund opinion on Dr. Ricardo Castañón Gómez, one of the principal investigators for many Eucharist miracles.

Yes, that would be very interesting to see Gavin respond to those researched and documented medical studies, which include the World Health Organization reports on the phenomenon of Eucharistic Miracles! I don’t think he wants to engage that research. Ask yourself this question, if God can create something out of nothing, through His Word (Jesus), when he said: “Let there be Light, and there was Light” ( Gen. 1:3), then why is it so difficult for Baptist to believe that God can transform something that already exists: bread, into something that is supernatural, and miraculous: Eucharist! The Baptist, and most Protestants, are Gnostic in their thinking: it’s the spirit alone that sets you free, the body (flesh) is dead. If that were true, the Incarnation would make no sense at all!

He won't do it. He is a wolf in sheep clothing

Transsubstantiation is not the same as real presence. Real presence does not specify the ontological change in Aristotelian terms.

you should be ashamed for saying this. @@justthink8952

Do you have valid ministerial priests?

thanks a lot! One possibility might be simply sending them a video like this one, and asking if they are open to further discussion. I think it is important to be respectful of the leadership so I am so glad you are thinking about that. God bless you!

It’s a great book. ☺️

The Jews were about to celebrate the Passover at Jerusalem, in commemoration of the night of Israel's deliverance, when the destroying angel smote the homes of Egypt. In the paschal lamb God desired them to behold the Lamb of God, and *through the symbol receive Him* who gave Himself for the life of the world. But the Jews had come to make the symbol all-important, while its significance was unnoticed. They discerned not the Lord's body. The same truth that was symbolized in the paschal service was taught in the words of Christ. But it was still undiscerned. Now the rabbis exclaimed angrily, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” They affected to understand His words *in the same literal sense* as did Nicodemus when he asked, “How can a man be born when he is old?” (John 3:4). To some extent they comprehended the meaning of Jesus, but they were not willing to acknowledge it. By *misconstruing* His words, they hoped to prejudice the people against Him. Christ *did not soften down* His symbolical representation. He reiterated the truth in yet stronger language: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him.” To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ is to receive Him as a personal Saviour, believing that He forgives our sins, and that we are complete in Him. It is by beholding His love, by dwelling upon it, by drinking it in, that we are to become partakers of His nature. What food is to the body, Christ must be to the soul. Food cannot benefit us unless we eat it, unless it becomes a part of our being. So Christ is of no value to us if we do not know Him as a personal Saviour. A theoretical knowledge will do us no good. We must feed upon Him, receive Him into the heart, so that His life becomes our life. His love, His grace, must be assimilated.

You're sure?

When Jews did the Passover meal they were "reliving" their exile from Egypt. When Jesus does the "Do this in remembrance of me" he is exclaiming what they did with their Passover meal. Then obviously right after he says, "This is my body." John 6 before the last supper he is telling the crowd that his flesh becomes real food, and they denied him 5 times and he corrected them 5 times and they still left.

"Mouses can't have faith* *master Splinter and Stuart Little enter the chat*

But Jesus never said this is me present with bread and wine. He said this is my body and this is my blood. He said eat my flesh and drink my blood. Why must we doubt the words of Christ. Why can’t we see with eyes of faith? How does it make sense Protestants lost this belief and are now trying to regain it? Would Christ really allow his bride to teach falsehoods on something so important as this?

@johnbrion4565 Jesus also said he's a vine--that doesn't mean he's literally a vine (to beat a centuries old horse to death). John 6:35-37 -- Jesus identifies eating and drinking with faith, and in 1 Corinthians Paul calls the consecrated bread "bread". We'd say that Jesus can call the bread his body by metonymy--because his body and blood are sacramentally united and given to the recipient

@@anglicanaesthetics Jesus also in John 6 has a chance to clarify and instead doubles down and says unless you “gnaw on” (trogein in the original greek) the flesh of the son of man there is no life in you.” And the disciples left. He risked his whole ministry on this teaching. Sure he spoke metaphorically but not on this. Jesus was instituting a new Passover. He was the new Moses the Jews were waiting for. The last supper was the new Passover. For the Passover to be complete the lamb had to be eaten. Jesus is the new manna from heaven. The manna was a miraculous bread from heaven which was stored in the ark of the covenant. Jesus is the new manna which must be greater than the old. If the old manna was kept in the holiest place in Judaism how much greater is the new manna of the Logos made flesh? Even Catholics refer to the Eucharist as bread. They doesn’t mean we are saying it’s only bread. When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death oh Lord until you come again. Paul said those who eat and drink unworthily must answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

@@anglicanaesthetics you should check out a book called Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre which explains all of this.

Yeah sounds like playing around with semantics in my honest opinion

​@@johna6828it's actually this verse: John 6: 63 that we as Protestants recognize and what Gavin is talking about!

That doesn't clear things up. Besides words are just as intangible as spiritual things so that follows. What doesn't naturally follow is the connection between physical elements and the spiritual reality which can only be by faith ie the faith is what matters not the elementz

@@davidjanbaz7728 Jesus is referring to the source of knowledge, as he says earlier in the passage that none can come to Jesus unless the father draws him. Certainly we can’t say Jesus actually meant that HIS flesh is of no avail, given that it is his flesh being pierced on the cross that leads to our salvation. In any event, that seems to me to be a concession that the reformed view, or at least your view, is not actually a “real presence” view. If I’m wrong do correct me, I’d hate to misunderstand you.

@@sneakysnake2330 Jesus could have meant that his literal flesh is of no avail, but it is the spirit which gives life. For some very odd reason, you think eating his literal flesh, and drinking his literal blood is the all important point, but yet the spiritual reality, the way it rejuvenates our spirit is not the main point. That does not add to me. I know Catholics always insist that Jesus stated it literally, and ignore when he clarified, "the flesh profits nothing, but its' the spirit that gives life". Did Jesus mean it literally when he said if your eye offends you, cut it off. If your hand offends you cut it off. I'm sure your eye has offended you quite a number of times, so are you missing at least an eye? Pretty sure no, and for good reason.

Of all critiques one could level against the Orthodox… the idea that they don’t have a consistent position on the Eucharist has to be the most ridiculous one. I mean, the whole reason why the EO haven’t “hashed out” all the nitty gritty details about how it “works” (aside from such pseudo-scientific effort being pretty unnecessary in the first place) is that it’s the one doctrine that’s always been so fundamental so as to have never been in contention or warranting such examination throughout the 2000-year history of the church.

@@nuzzi6620 Thats a solid point, and definitely a better articulation of what I was trying to say. Wasn't throwing a critique at the EO position, I have just heard several people in and out of the tradition articulate their beliefs in different ways that leaned toward other views. Luther thought his view was closer to the EO view than the Catholic view, but you are going to find others who put it a different way. I am in the camp that we shouldn't try and "hash out" all the details of how it "works" and that is one primary reason why transubstantiation fails. Hope I made my previous comment clearer!

I think the closest we can come is this passage: 1Co 10:16-17 "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." But I don't find it altogether convincing. The Roman Catholics, on the other hand, place huge stock in John 6:53 (ignoring verse 63, as well as failing to recognize that the overall context of the entire conversation Jesus had with those Jews was about their need to believe in Him).

You might take a look at Dr. Ortlund's YT video, "Why Believe in Real Presence in the Eucharist?".

I'd also be interested in an answer to this since our church only holds the Lord's Supper when the pastor "feels" led too which was last on Christmas so nearly a year ago(and I have reason to believe it had been even longer since the time before that). I'd like to hold it weekly in my home.

I believe it's "A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Savior Christ"

Those are valid questions. Many protestant churches do not value it enough. The Catholic view of it being the literal body and blood and stressing it so much frankly icks me out. They've brought it to cannabilism. I've had the occasional honest Catholic even share they share the same view. Yet, the constant belief that it is literally his body has kept the Catholics and Orthodox to reverence it more. I can reverence it just as much w/ a deeper understanding of it. It is so much more than Jesus' flesh. It is the meeting of the old and new covenant. It is what God instructed the Jews to do w/ their atonement sacrifices, that they also ate for thousands of years. it is the whole congregation doing it in unision, showing Christ in us and we in him. Protestant communion shows this ritual better in that last respect, because they do partake of most Holy Communion in unision, unlike the Catholic assembly line method. Plus, we have never lost the ritual of taking both kinds, as Catholics have. I've always found that odd. They reverence the Eucharist so much, and consider their method so superior, yet they don't take both kinds, and their form of ritual has vastly changed from the biblical model, which is clearly laid out.

Until the Liturgical Renewal Movement of the '60s and '70s, many Anglicans (Episcopalians then) didn't celebrate Holy Communion weekly either. Morning Prayer was a common service on Sunday morning. When they did have communion, they would have "Morning Prayer with Holy Communion". It took a while, and the new BCP 1979, for Holy Communion to be restored as the principal service on Sunday morning. It seems normal now, but it took almost a generation for the change to take hold. See, so there's hope for the Baptists after all!

Maybe you should check out Gavin's church website and see how he does his church service..

Anglican here, too.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 You said: "The Catholic view of it being the literal body and blood and stressing it so much frankly icks me out." Catholics treat the consecrated communion host as the most sacred thing in the world. Eucharistic Adoration is where in the Eucharistic Host is displayed in a monstrance on the altar so that all can see and pray in the presence of Christ. - To be actually with Christ, in prayer. In Garabandal, a question was asked on where the angels got the communion host that was given to the children. Mary answered it was taken from the tabernacle of the nearby church. Even an angel cannot consecrate a host. Satanist steal consecrated communion host to use in their black mass to mock and dishonor Christ. Their entire service is a mockery of the Catholic Mass. Most Satanists and real Witches can discern a Consecrated Host among thousands of unconsecrated hosts. - They are able to know - “Because of the burning hate I would feel toward that host, apart from all the others.” - a quote from a real Satanist.

Salvation isn’t a one time event. We are to finish the race to receive the crown. The Eucharist builds our faith and nourishes us to do so.

@@axderka that’s what I’m wondering. The language seems to imply that it’s not just a memorial and it’s not just flesh and blood but life giving in some mystical sense

Yes, I believe so. BF&M 2000 does not articulate what the Lord's Supper is not, but only what it is. The wording intentionally doesn't specify that a symbol is all that it is, but rather just specified a bare minimum belief. There is no prohibition against beliefs that go further than that, ie that in addition to being a symbol & memorial, that the Lord's Supper is something else.

That's an interesting question. Does authorial intent matter with regards to confessions? It is possible to interpret symbolic as not being opposed to real spiritual presence, but what if the authors intended it to be so (i.e., out of the 4 choices, we explicitly affirm 1 and not 2-4) Strictly speaking, everyone affirms that it is *at least* a symbol, so either the statement of the confession is absolutely non-committal and thereby rather superfluous, or it's really picking out a place on the map and saying "*this* is where we stand." On the other hand, supposing we throw out authorial intent, practically speaking, a confession is supposed to be a common statement of faith. Or more precisely, a statement of a common faith. Presumably we want to be able to affirm the same substantial faith as everyone else and not just the same words for it to mean anything. If 99% of adherents mean something different when they affirm a confession than what I mean, what's the use of affirming a common verbal confession? Now there can be other practical reasons to do so: namely, in your scenario, you can't serve at the church without signing the document. In that case you should probably talk to the leadership and come to an understanding that you can only sign in good conscience with some sort of provisos, and see what they say. I would recommend being honest about your misgivings, and it's in their hands at that point how they handle your particular case.

Wine and grape juice start their lives as the same substance, and differ only in the treatment applied to them (fermentation vs pasteurization) changing their eventual composition. Modern pasteurized grape juice was actually invented to provide a non-alcoholic communion drink to Methodist churches (Thomas Welch, founder of Welch’s grape juice, was a Methodist minister), the urban legend I heard growing up Methodist was that they did this for the benefit of alcoholics in the congregation, so they wouldn’t be tempted to relapse. The reality possibly has more to do with a general opposition to alcohol, but there’s also probably a grain of truth in the legend.

I have a video on the doctrine of no salvation outside the church which might be of value. May the Lord guide you and give you peace. Remember to place your trust in Christ and Christ alone for salvation

It is the devil throwing darts. Claiming God only honours one particular church is pretty grotesque and prideful. People want to think they are on the winning team. Turning Christianity and the body of Christ into team sports, where one wins and conquers over the other is not even close to what Christ had in mind. Please read the latter part of 1 Cor. 12, about the body of Christ. There are essential teachings there that will put your doubts in the background and give you crucial and loving comfort and perspective. Catholics and Orthodox remind me of James and John vying for the coveted spot to sit on Jesus' right hand. I see it crop up in comments constantly, w/ both of them claiming to be God's one and only true church.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 Thank you for your encouragement :) I just don't understand how God could look at people who love the Lord like Gavin, or me, or anyone who genuinely love and serve Him, and send them to hell because they don't use icons or pray the rosary, confess to a priest, etc. I can't see any of it in the scriptures.

@@TruthUnites Thank you, I will try looking for it

@@pappywinky4749I’ve heard many catholic clerics and theologians say that there is salvation outside the church even though the Catholic Church is the one true church. As a catholic myself, I believe non-Catholics can be and are saved

You wrote: "Transubstantiation is not about physical transformation. In fact it's impossible..." I agree that it's impossible, however the Roman Catholic Church teaches very clearly that transubstantiation *necessarily includes* physical transformation. Roman Catholic clergy under Queen Mary's reign burned alive at least 288 English reformers in 4 years, from 1555 to 1558, and one of the main reasons why they were condemned as heretics was because they would not recant their belief that Christ is present in the Eucharist in a spiritual manner only, and not corporally present. (Source: "Five English Reformers," by J.C. Ryle) The RCC was deadly serious about it!

@@rexlion4510 Gavin Ortlund gives his personal recommendation on the works of Brett Salkeld. As a former Dutch Calvinist who converted to Byzantine Catholic I entirely second Gavin Ortlund endorsement. Brett entirely and meticulously refuted the false history that the Catholic Church profess carnal and physical transformation. Not only impossible but also prohibited by God's immutable law since the beginning of creation against cannibalism. Brett clarified in his interview with Gavin that had the transformation were carnal and physical then after consuming one can't be discarded in toilet. Brett pointed out historically when this was debated and condemned. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church profess the Eucharistic adoration of the unbloody sacrifice which as Martin Luther stated witnessed unanimously by the entire Church without disagreement. Spiritual presence is Nestorian. Because Calvin denied communication of attributes between the two natures to one another. You can read Martin Luther condemnation of John Calvin extracalvinisticum belief. Calvin argued the humanity of Christ remain united to the Logos but physically localized in heaven. Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans opposed this novelty. Because at Ephesus St Cyril's second letter accepted as dogmatic. In it Cyril wrote that the flesh present in the chalice and transcend physical limitations because that flesh is God's flesh and entirely deified. Theosis communicate divine attributes into the deified flesh. This is what St Peter wrote regarding theosis namely participation with the uncreated divinity. Unless the humanity of Christ is in the chalice then what you have in the chalice would be a Nestorian Christ. This is why Martin Luther explicitly and categorically condemned John Calvin extracalvinisticum because the humanity has transcended created limitations and receives attributes fitting for divinity due to communicatio idiommata between the two natures. Calvin and Nestorius accepted communication of attributes not between the two natures but to the person. This is why John Owen explicitly taught that during earthly ministry Christ entirely emptied Himself kenotically and His miracles entirely from Holy Spirit aiding and empowering the humanity. This view is Nestorian. That's why Martin Luther accused John Calvin to be a Nestorian. In regards to torture and death penalty, the Catholic Church has formally and categorically condemn it similar to how John Calvin involved in permitting the burning of Michael Servetus despite of having power to prevent it or with the infamous burning of St Joan of Arc.

@@AdithiaKusno I do not see how anyone (Salkeld or otherwise) can contradict the clear statement by the Council of Trent on the subject. One of the Canons of Trent (which has never been retracted) states, "If any one denieth, that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained really, truly, *and substantially,* the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, *and consequently the whole Christ;* ...let him be anathema." This Canon is saying that the consecrated elements become "the whole" Jesus Christ. The very body and blood are "substantially" (i.e., in substance) present. The substance of a body is its physicality. The substance of blood is physical in nature along with all of its inherent properties. In other words, the physical substance of His body and blood must be believed by a person to be present in the host and cup, or that person is "anathema" to the RCC, the church which claimed itself to be the sole mediator of salvation when it taught for centuries that "outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation." I was baptized, catechized, and confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church. God called me out of the RCC when I was 18, but due to that church's brainwashing (they taught me that I'd be damned to hell if I left and died outside of the RC faith) I resisted the Holy Spirit for 8 more years. Now I am in my 60s. I possess photocopied pages from one of the books they used to teach us the Catechism. It says, "After the substance of the bread and wine had been changed, only the _appearances_ of bread and wine remained...the _appearances_ of bread and wine _without_ their _substance_ ." (italics copied from the original text). The book I am quoting from had the official "imprimatur" and "Nihil Obstat" of the RCC and was fully approved as being correct in doctrine. If Salkeld says differently than the Catechism book I was taught from and differently than Trent, I'd say he is a modern revisionist of actual history.

@@AdithiaKusno I will say that your reasoning tends to show why a "spiritual presence" concept is not proper. Although I am now an Anglican Christian (emphasis on "Christian", for it is Christ crucified and risen who defines my identity) I am more persuaded than ever than a memorialist/symbolic view is best, so long as due reverence is included.

@@rexlion4510 Trent dogmatized that the Eucharist is entirely Christ substantially but nowhere Trent interpret this to imply physical transformation. And this is true to this day. You can't find any Church fathers disagree not even St Theodoret that Gavin Ortlund quoted. Because the word physis used by St Theodoret refers to physicality of bread and wine which remain after transelementation. This is what St Aquinas refer to as accidental nature. St Damascene apply this accidental nature to the humanity of Christ after incarnation because the human subsistence is anhypostasis it has no existence by itself other than exist assumed by the Logos. Accident doesn't mean it's illusory or has no physical reality. Brett Salkeld is defending how Tridentine fathers understood itself. I highly recommend you to read his book or his interview with Gavin Ortlund. One easy example to affirm that Trent deny physical transformation is that after communion if it's physical then no one could discarded it in toilet. It was debated before Trent whether after consumed it stays as Holy Eucharist or cease and can be discarded in toilet. This is why Tridentine fathers avoided the use of physical transformation. Transubstantiation is metaphysical transformation not physical. You can verify in the lab the physical properties stay as St Theodoret stated. It's the metaphysical transformation that transformed the bread and the wine into Christ. You may argue that this is historical revisionism but this is not. You can ask any Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox if after consumption it stays as Eucharist in the digestive system? They will confirm to you it is not. Therefore bread and wine can be discarded in toilet because the transformation is never physical. This is what Trent dogmatized and always everywhere professed by the Church everywhere and at all time since the beginning. Ask any Assyrians, or Coptics, or Greeks. No one will say otherwise.