Just finishing Brant Pitre’s book the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. What an amazing book learning about the manna, the true bread from heaven, the bread of the presence, the fourth cup and more. Can’t wait to listen to this and learn more about the Eucharist.
Brant Pitre is awesome! Christian Wagner has some good videos on the Eucharist as well that you might find interesting, if you haven't already seen them.
I've been looking for a solid rebuttal of consubstantiation in video format for quite a while, and then I found this video. This was great! Subscribed.
The Confession of Dositheus of the Holy Orthodoxy Church: (Decree 17) We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is present in this sacred service not symbolically, not figuratively ( τυπικός , εἰκονικός ), not by an excess of grace, as in other sacraments, not by one influx, as some Fathers spoke of baptism, and not through the penetration of bread ( κατ ´ Ἐναρτισμόν - per impanationem ), so that the Divinity of the Word enters into the bread offered for the Eucharist, essentially ( ὑποστατικός), as the followers of Luther rather unskillfully and unworthily explain; but truly and truly, so that after the consecration of bread and wine, the bread is changed, transubstantiated, transformed, transformed into the very true body of the Lord, which was born in Bethlehem from the Ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, ascended, sits at the right hand of God the Father, has to appear on the clouds of heaven; and the wine is transformed and transubstantiated into the very true blood of the Lord, which, during His suffering on the Cross, was shed for the life of the world. We also believe that after the consecration of bread and wine, it is no longer the bread and wine itself that remains, but the very body and blood of the Lord under the form and image of bread and wine.
It's all nonsense. There is no god. Prove there is one. And don't say it's faith. That's nonsense, too. You can't prove that a god exists. You exploit people, abuse children, extract money, and will believe anything. You are evil. Become an atheist.
Great finding! And if someone goes on looking for the “Longer Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow” (1830) to search for the position of Russian Orthodoxy, it is possible to even find EXACTLY the same Catholic dogma exposed there (albeit possibly assuming - wrongly - that Latins may try to explain “HOW” the changing goes, which is inaccurate, since “transubstantiation” only means “WHAT” happens): *_“340. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation?_* _In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; _*_but only thus much is signified, that the bread TRULY, REALLY, and SUBSTANTIALLY becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord._*_ In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes thus: “It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, _*_but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God._*_ But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable.” (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.)_ The very formula of the Divine Liturgy of St Basil uses the word “change" (μεταβολή) (metavolí) to describe the modification of the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus, knowing for a fact that those are not changed in the perceptible/ material form - in a possible Neoplatonic sense, more fitting to the Cappadocian Fathers. It’s changed in the substance. The Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem (1672) uses the EXACT same explanation, even the synonymous Greek word “Metousiosis” (μετουσίωσις), which is found in the Chapter VI of Acts and Decrees. Literally, it is the very Greek word for “transubstantiation”: “meta” (trans) + “ousia” (substance). In synthesis: apparently 100% of Orthobros dissent on their own Catechism (if they are Russian Orthodox) and even a Pan-Orthodox Council.
@@mrgeorge1888 Patriarchs Jeremias III of Constantinople, Samuel of Alexandria and Chrysantus of Jerusalem's Answers to the Non-Juror Anglicans, April 12th, 1718: "For, to be against worshipping the Bread, which is consecrated and changed into the Body of Christ, is to be against worshipping our Lord Jesus Christ himself our Maker and Saviour. For, what else is the sacrificial Bread, after it is consecrated and TRANSUBSTANTIATED by the access of the Holy Spirit? Truly, nothing less than the real Body of our Lord. [...] And why do you [Anglicans] teach what our Lord did not say, as if you would correct His words? For you say, there is in the Bread something Divine, which God forbid: OUR LORD DID NOT SAY: 'MY BODY IS IN, OR UNDER, OR WITH THIS'; but, 'This is My Body;' shewing them the bread which lay in His hand. Let us not distort and misinterpret the Lord s words; but as Himself understood them, so let us receive them. And, since the Shew-bread of the Altar of the new Dispensation is changed into the Body of Christ, by the Invocation and access of the Holy Spirit, and by the Prayer and blessing of the Priest in secret, THE ACCIDENTS ONLY REMAINING IMMUTABLE, which yet partake of the consecration; and THE BREAD AFTER IT IS CHANGED INTO, and made one with the Body of Christ in Heaven, NO LONGER SUBSISTING UNDER THOSE ACCIDENTS, THAT BEING THE PROPERTY OF OUR LORD'S REAL BODY; (notwithstanding which, there are not two or more Sacrifices, tho many unbloody Oblations are made in different Churches, but one and one only after a supernatural manner,) therefore, when we draw near the Bread that is changed into the Body of Christ, and IS SO CALLED UPON THE ACCOUNT OF THE VISIBLE ACCIDENTS, we should say with Peter, I believe, Lord, and confess that thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God. I believe also that this is Thy immaculate Body, having our eyes upon the holy bread, and that this is Thy precious Blood, looking upon the holy cup, that we may enjoy the same Blessing that he had. Read the Holy Fathers that lived before us and you, and shone with splendor from the Apostolical age to the present times, and you will find in all of them, that the Shew-bread is changed, transformed, converted and TRANSUBSTANTIATED into the very precious and unspotted Body of our Lord, and that IT NO LONGER CONTINUES BREAD, FOR IT IS CHANGED INTO THAT WHICH IT WAS NOT BEFORE CONSECRATION, as Cyril of Jerusalem says, Catech. i and 5, and elsewhere." (Found in George Williams, The Orthodox Church of the East in the eighteenth century, p. 57)
I think you touched on this at the end. If a hypostatic union of Christ and bread nature were occurring then would that suggest all bread everywhere becomes Christ? You could never let any bread mold or fall to the floor.
Couldn't you argue that there is transubstantiation in the sacrament of marriage? What was 2 becomes 1? Or at least in the conception of a new person? The Eucharist has been compared to the one-flesh union of bride and bridegroom.
Not really, though. Marriage ends at death and there are still two persons distinct enough even in life for one to be headed to heaven and another to hell. You don't cease to be you upon marriage; neither does your spouse. You are still each the unique instance of human nature God made when he created you, as you shall be forever. And yet the two, in marriage, are sacramentally united, yes! But the Eucharist is UNIQUE even among the sacraments: It literally becomes Christ while the bread and wine cease absolutely to exist! Our Lord in his mercy, allows us the appearance of bread and wine, yet the bread and wine do not exist anymore! No other sacrament is literally-no ifs, no buts- Jesus Christ himself. This is why the Eucharist is called the source of the other sacraments and also the source and summit of our faith.
Hi Eric, I'm not Lutheran, but did do studies in this context. You are right, consubstantiation are not the correct idea or term. It suggests that the substance of Christ's body and blood coexists alongside the substance of the bread and wine. The term implies a sort of parallel existence of two substances in the same space. However, many theologians argue that this term inaccurately represents Lutheran teaching, as it suggests a physical or spatial coexistence, which is not the Lutheran view. The Lutheran concept is sacramental union. This union is a mystery and is not to be understood as a physical change in the substance of the bread and wine, but rather a sacramental one. Sacramental Union emphasizes a mysterious and sacramental presence that does not change the substance of the bread and wine, while consubstantiation suggests a more physical coexistence of two substances.
@@matthewp3499 Not at all. Sacramental union is a mystery. If that is the case, then how did the Holy Spirit come down like a dove? The Holy Spirit is not a dove. But John saw a dove. This is Luther's principle. I like the Lutheran view, because it has the strongest biblical case, which transubstantiation doesn't. For example: 1 Corinthians 11:27-28: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup." Paul still calls it bread and a cup while it is inferred that the consecration has already taken place. It has to be, because you can't have abuse with just bread and wine. Abuse happens when the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, and its done in an unworthy manner. Yet he still calls it bread and a cup. Irenaeus said it consists of two realities, earthly and heavenly. Just to point out, I don't have a problem with Transubstantiation. It's just harder to defend from scripture than Sacramental Union is. In fact, the Bible doesn't support Transubstantiation. You need the church fathers and the Magisterium for that. This is also why you won't find Eucharistic adoration in the early church. Eucharistic adoration is a development.
@@ntlearning Dude we literally addressed all of your objections in the video. Did you watch? And Augustine explicitly calls Eucharistic Adoration necessary for receiving the Eucharist. We also go into why Transubstantiation is the only possible explanation of Christ being the propitiatory Victim on Christian altars. Watch the whole video.
22:59 I'm rather unfamiliar with these debates, but I understand consubstantiation to say that there are two substances under the accidents of bread or wine, the substance of bread or wine and the substance of Christ. Since the object of worship is determined by the will's selecting intentionally an object of worship, one can will to worship the substance of Christ in the Eucharist but not the substance of bread or wine.
Not if said object is somehow two substances. If the Eucharist is both bread and Jesus, then worshiping the Eucharist would logically mean worshiping bread.
@@shlamallama6433so it is 50% Jesus and 50% bread? Or is the flesh of Christ bread? Consubstantiation sounds pretty weird and awkward, why believe it?
Of course they say it is false, just as they say the Church is false, Baptism is false, the Mass is false. They will never understand the Eucharist under the umbrella of Protestantism.
