More Bad Arguments Against Transubstantiation 

I want to thank you for your videos. I was raised a Jehovah's Witness. My husband and I left just as i turned 30. We had little children and were immediately shunned by all the people we ever knew, including family. But the more we read the Bible and ventured out of your comfort zones, the more we knew Jesus was NOT an angel. We landed in a non-denominational church where we have made beautiful friends, so kind and loving. However a year after being at the church, we hadn't stopped on our searching. I know it might be said by Protestants, at least i have heard it said, that what you really just need is a relationship with Jesus and it's simple. But I was asking, How did we get the canon? Why don't we baptize infants? What does baptism even mean? If it is just a symbol does one even have to do it? What about penal substitution? Does that divide the Trinity? Everyone keeps shying away from my questions. The more I asked, it seemed the more platitudes I was getting. I was referred to one book on the canon, The Canon Revisited by Michael Kruger, but it was wholly bad in argumentation. I pointed it out and I got more platitudes. On baptism I have been told there is no need to be picky, if you want to baotize babies fine, but probably don't. None of these answers suit me. I am in pursuit of truth and the questions need answers.... i just watched your video on Mary. Interestingly, not long ago, I sat down and asked myself, Ok, why DO Catholics esteem Mary the way they do? Like what is this Hail Mary stuff? I opened my Bible to Luke. And I read the angel's salutation of her and what Elizabeth said. And suddenly I realized that something was indeed here... I flipped to Genesis and read that first prophesy. There was the Woman. Clearly Mary. I went to Revelation and found her again. Then I realized these repeated "Mary is not central, it is not a big deal" lines were wrong. I had been hearing them and saying them my whole life. And I was wrong about her just as I was about Jesus, the Son of God and God the Son! I am still wondering what will happen with my family. Our friends are staunchly against Catholicism. It may be a hard journey. God bless you and your video work.

Love all the great quotes, especially in their context. Great job!

Very good. Always worth pointing out that you do not get the benefit of the Sacrifice unless You eat it!

⭐ CHRISTIANS! ⭐ Please consider reporting the malignant trolls who infest every Catholic video. They demean and criticize RU-vid content creators and add nothing to the conversation with their insults and accusations. Then, please pray for their troubled souls.

Wonderful

Commenting for the sake of spreading this video to more people ❤️

It's so obvious that The Holy Eucharist is The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that those who deny it have to be blinded by the demonic. Let us pray that God Reaches them because they are very dear to Our Lord 🙏 God bless you and this channel 🙏

Great video

I’d add the Levitical consumption of the sacrifices as biblical witness, too… specifically Leviticus 6:18

“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned”

Appearances? Then perhaps their belief that the Bible is the living word of God is merely symbolic since the Bible doesn’t have flesh nor a heart beat or breathes yet they still believe that the Bible is alive.

The gobbledegook is strong with this one.

The idea of substance and accidents is an Aristotelian view of reality for which there is no biblical or experimental evidence.

If you believe that the Bible is the Living Word of God then you believe the words of Jesus in St John 6 are living and even more so when he said that he is the living bread. Living in St John 6 for Protestants means symbolism but when referencing the Bible as the living word of God,living means alive.

A person's entire Christian Theology tends to be tied up in how he understands the Eucharist. Take, for example, a Protestant who believes he can be once and for all justified regardless of what he does the rest of his life just by a single "altar call" or "Sinner's Prayer". I can pretty much guarantee you he's only going to view the Supper as symbolic. Ie, The way he sees things, nothing inherent in him necessarily changes when God declares him Justified, therefore nothing changes in the bread when God's words "This is my body" are spoken

The main difficulty in using the doctrine of transubstantiation as an explanation for the real presence is that it can only be understood properly by someone who has a thorough knowledge of the Greek Scholastic Philosophy on which it is based. The Eastern Orthodox Churches believe fully in the real presence, but do not choose to apply the reasoning of Greek Scholastic Philosophy in an endeavour to find a human means of explaining what they consider to be a mystery beyond merely human explanation. Before St. Thomas Aquinas developed his explanation, the Church fully believed in the real presence. Even the Council of Trent is cautious - it does not go as far as to state that the only human explanation for the mystery of the real presence is to be found in Greek Scholastic Philosophy. It states that the theory of transubstantiation (and it is only a theory, based on human wisdom, not Divine revelation) adequately explains the real presence. Trent did not teach that there could be no other way of applying human wisdom in an attempt to explain what is, in truth, a divine mystery, without human explanation. The Catechism of the Council of Trent instructs Pastors not to become involved with discussion or debate with their flock - they are to continue to teach, as the Church has always taught, that the real presence is a mystery without human explanation. However, the theory of transubstantiation, as adopted by the Church, does negate all supposed “Eucharistic Miracles” which are based on the “accidents” changing. The doctrine of transubstantiation states that the “accidents” do not change - that is to say, human science could never discern any alteration in the physical, chemical, molecular, or sub molecular, characteristics of the bread or wine. Any suggestion that the “accidents” do change is a negation of the teaching of the Council of Trent. Are these supposed “Eucharistic Miracles” genuine? Possibly - however, if they are genuine miracles (rather than pious frauds or a deceit of the Enemy) then they might, I suppose, be God’s way of making it clear that transubstantiation is not a reliable theory. Clearly, if the theory states that the “accidents” do not change, but, contrary to the theory, they do, then the theory is not consistent or reliable. The Church managed without the theory of transubstantiation for a thousand years, relying simply on the simple teaching of the real presence found in the clear words of Our Lord himself - far more reliable than a mere human theory, based on a pagan school of philosophy.

Miracles are the norm in the Bible . Jesus said if you don't believe my words then believe for the miracles sake. Jesus didn't do stealth miracles that couldn't be clearly seen . The water became real wine, not water that was claimed to be wine if you have faith.

Midair offered the argument that the divinity of Jesus was veiled by His flesh and shows us his flesh in the sacrament (24 - 26min.) Let me comment that even though men could not recognize the divinity in Jesus, the demons did and always called Jesus "Son of God" . Virtually no one else did. So now think with me for a minute....If Jesus is fully present in the Catholic Eucharist then even if we don't perceive it, the demons surely do. So logically there should be demons manifesting at nearly every Mass. Do you follow?

How do you attain salvation?

Transubstantiation is canibalism, not what Jesus said. "Do this in my remembrance", not like a dish! The event of sharing condition, not blood or bread! It's simbolism, not real blood and bread. You went too far! Jesus is coming back in flesh to take his believers wih Him.